Advaita Vedanta

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

 

Here is an interesting article on Advaita Vedanta. As we know, Shri Mataji

talked on the subject of Advaita, so this will not be altogether new. She also

talked about Sankara quite a bit, and some others also. She said we could read

further for ourselves - that it is 'all written there'.

 

So enjoy some of that which is 'all written there'!

 

love from violet

 

 

 

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

Advaita Vedanta

 

Advaita Vedanta is one version of Vedanta. Vedanta is nominally a school of

Indian philosophy, although in reality it is a label for any hermeneutics that

attempts to provide a consistent interpretation of the philosophy of the

Upanisads or, more formally, the canonical summary of the Upanisads,

Badarayana's Brahma Sutra. Advaita is often translated as " non-dualism " though

it literally means " non-secondness. " Although Sankara is regarded as the

promoter of Advaita Vedanta as a distinct school of Indian philosophy, the

origins of this school predate Sankara. The existence of an Advaita tradition is

acknowledged by Sankara in his commentaries. The names of Upanisadic teachers

such as Yajñavalkya, Uddalaka, and Badarayana, the author of the Brahma Sutra,

could be considered as representing the thoughts of early Advaita. The essential

philosophy of Advaita is an idealist monism, and is considered to be presented

first in the Upanisads and consolidated in the Brahma Sutra by this tradition.

According to Advaita metaphysics, Brahman—the ultimate, transcendent and

imminent God of the latter Vedas—appears as the world because of its creative

energy (maya). The world has no separate existence apart from Brahman. The

experiencing self (jiva) and the transcendental self of the Universe (atman) are

in reality identical (both are Brahman), though the individual self seems

different as space within a container seems different from space as such. These

cardinal doctrines are represented in the anonymous verse " brahma satyam jagan

mithya; jivo brahmaiva na aparah " (Brahman is alone True, and this world of

plurality is an error; the individual self is not different from Brahman).

Plurality is experienced because of error in judgments (mithya) and ignorance

(avidya). Knowledge of Brahman removes these errors and causes liberation from

the cycle of transmigration and worldly bondage.

 

 

 

1. History of Advaita Vedanta

 

It is possible that an Advaita tradition existed in the early part of the first

millennium C.E., as indicated by Sankara himself with his reference to tradition

(sampradaya). But the only two names that could have some historical certainty

are Gaudapada and Govinda Bhagavadpada, mentioned as Sankara's teacher's teacher

and the latter Sankara's teacher. The first complete Advaitic work is considered

to be the Mandukya Karika, a commentary on the Mandukya Upanisad, authored by

Gaudapada. Sankara, as many scholars believe, lived in the eight century. His

life, travel, and works, as we understand from the digvijaya texts are almost of

a superhuman quality. Though he lived only for 32 years, Sankara's

accomplishments included traveling from the south to the north of India, writing

commentaries for the ten Upanisads, the cryptic Brahma Sutra, the Bhagavad Gita,

and authoring many other texts (though his authorship of only some is

established), and founding four pitas, or centers of (Advaitic) excellence, with

his pupils in charge.

 

Sankara is supposed to have had four (prominent) pupils: Padmapada, Suresvara,

Hastamalaka and Totaka. Padmapada is said to be his earliest student.

Panchapadika, by Padmapada, is a lucid commentary on Sankara's commentary on the

first verses of the Brahma Sutra. Suresvara is supposed to have written

Naiskarmya Siddhi, an independent treatise on Advaita.

 

Mandana Misra (eight century), an earlier adherent of the rival school of Bhatta

Mimamsa, is responsible for a version of Advaita which focuses on the doctrine

of sphota, a semantic theory held by the Indian philosopher of language

Bhartrhari. He also accepts to a greater extent the joint importance of

knowledge and works as a means to liberation, when for Sankara knowledge is the

one and only means. Mandana Misra's Brahmasiddhi is a significant work, which

also marks a distinct form of Advaita.

 

Two major sub-schools of Advaita Vedanta arose after Sankara: Bhamati and

Vivarana. The Bhamati School owes its name to Vacaspati Misra's (ninth century)

commentary on Sankara's Brahma Sutra Bhasya, while the Vivarana School is named

after Prakashatman's (tenth century) commentary on Padmapada's Pancapadika,

which itself is a commentary on Sankara's commentary on the Brahma Sutra.

 

The prominent names in the later Advaita tradition are Prakasatman (tenth

century), Vimuktatman (tenth century), Sarvajñatman (tenth century), Sri Harsa

(twelfth century), Citsukha (twelfth century), anandagiri (thirteenth century),

Amalananda (thirteenth century), Vidyaranya (fourteenth century), Sankarananda

(fourteenth century), Sadananda; (fifteenth century), Prakasananda (sixteenth

century), Nrsimhasrama (sixteenth century), Madhusudhana Sarasvati (seventeenth

century), Dharmaraja Advarindra (seventeenth century), Appaya Diksita

(seventeenth century), Sadasiva Brahmendra (eighteenth century), Candrasekhara

Bharati (twentieth century), and Sacchidanandendra Saraswati (twentieth

century). Vivarana, which is a commentary on Padmapada's Panchapadika, written

by Vacaspati Mshra is a landmark work in the tradition. The Khandanakhandakhadya

of Sri Harsa, Tattvapradipika of Citsukha, Pañcadasi of Vidyaranya, Vedantasara

of Sadananda, Advaitasiddhi of Madhusadana Sarasvati, and Vedantaparibhasa of

Dharmaraja Advarindra are some of the landmark works representing later Advaita

tradition.

 

Throughout the eighteenth century and until the twenty-first century, there are

many saints and philosophers whose tradition is rooted primarily or largely in

Advaita philosophy. Prominent among the saints are Bhagavan Ramana Maharsi,

Swami Vivekananda, Swami Tapovanam, Swami Chinmayananda, and Swami Bodhananda.

Among the philosophers, KC Bhattacharya and TMP Mahadevan have contributed a

great deal to the tradition.

 

 

 

2. Advaita Vedanta – Metaphysics and Philosophy

 

The classical Advaita philosophy of Sankara recognizes a unity in multiplicity,

identity between individual and pure consciousness, and the experienced world as

having no existence apart from Brahman. The major metaphysical concepts in

Advaita Vedanta tradition, such as maya, mithya (error in judgment), vivarta

(illusion/whirlpool), have been subjected to a variety of interpretations. On

some interpretations, Advaita Vedanta appears as a nihilistic philosophy that

denounces the matters of the lived-world.

 

 

 

a. Brahman, Jiva, isvara, and Maya

 

For classical Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is the fundamental reality underlying all

objects and experiences. Brahman is explained as pure existence, pure

consciousness and pure bliss. All forms of existence presuppose a knowing self.

Brahman or pure consciousness underlies the knowing self. Consciousness

according to the Advaita School, unlike the positions held by other Vedanta

schools, is not a property of Brahman but its very nature. Brahman is also one

without a second, all-pervading and the immediate awareness. This absolute

Brahman is known as nirguna Brahman, or Brahman " without qualities, " but is

usually simply called " Brahman. " This Brahman is ever known to Itself and

constitutes the reality in all individuals selves, while the appearance of our

empirical individuality is credited to avidya (ignorance) and maya (illusion).

Brahman thus cannot be known as an individual object distinct from the

individual self. However, it can be experienced indirectly in the natural world

of experience as a personal God, known as saguna Brahman, or Brahman with

qualities. It is usually referred to as isvara (the Lord).

 

The appearance of plurality arises from a natural state of confusion or

ignorance (avidya), inherent in most biological entities. Given this natural

state of ignorance, Advaita provisionally accepts the empirical reality of

individual selves, mental ideas and physical objects as a cognitive construction

of this natural state of ignorance. But from the absolute standpoint, none of

these have independent existence but are founded on Brahman. From the standpoint

of this fundamental reality, individual minds as well as physical objects are

appearances and do not have abiding reality.

 

Brahman appears as the manifold objects of experience because of its creative

power, maya. Maya is that which appears to be real at the time of experience but

which does not have ultimate existence. It is dependent on pure consciousness.

Brahman appears as the manifold world without undergoing an intrinsic change or

modification. At no point of time does Brahman change into the world. The world

is but a vivarta, a superimposition on Brahman. The world is neither totally

real nor totally unreal. It is not totally unreal since it is experienced. It is

not totally real since it is sublated by knowledge of Brahman. There are many

examples given to illustrate the relation between the existence of the world and

Brahman. The two famous examples are that of the space in a pot versus the space

in the whole cosmos (undifferentiated in reality, though arbitrarily separated

by the contingencies of the pot just as the world is in relation to Brahman),

and the self versus the reflection of the self (the reflection having no

substantial existence apart from the self just as the objects of the world rely

upon Brahman for substantiality).

 

The existence of an individuated jiva and the world are without a beginning. We

cannot say when they began, or what the first cause is. But both are with an

end, which is knowledge of Brahman. According to classical Advaita Vedanta, the

existence of the empirical world cannot be conceived without a creator who is

all-knowing and all-powerful. The creation, sustenance, and dissolution of the

world are overseen by isvara. isvara is the purest manifestation of Brahman.

Brahman with the creative power of maya is isvara. Maya has both individual

(vyasti) and cosmic (samasti) aspects. The cosmic aspect belongs to one isvara,

and the individual aspect, avidya, belongs to many jivas. But the difference is

that isvara is not controlled by maya, whereas the jiva is overpowered by

avidya. Maya is responsible for the creation of the world. Avidya is responsible

for confounding the distinct existence between self and the not-self. With this

confounding, avidya conceals Brahman and constructs the world. As a result the

jiva functions as a doer (karta) and enjoyer (bhokta) of a limited world.

 

The classical picture may be contrasted with two sub-schools of Advaita Vedanta

that arose after Sankara: Bhamati and Vivarana. The primary difference between

these two sub-schools is based on the different interpretations for avidya and

maya. Sankara described avidya as beginningless. He considered that to search

the origin of avidya itself is a process founded on avidya and hence will be

fruitless. But Sankara's disciples gave greater attention to this concept, and

thus originated the two sub-schools. The Bhamati School owes its name to

Vacaspati Misra's (ninth century) commentary on Sankara's Brahma Sutra Bhasya,

while the Vivarana School is named after Prakasatman's (tenth century)

commentary on Padmapada's Pañcapadika, which itself is a commentary on Sankara's

Brahma Sutra Bhasya.

 

The major issue that distinguishes Bhamati and Vivarana schools is their

position on the nature and locus of avidya.

 

According to the Bhamati School, the jiva is the locus and object of avidya.

According to the Vivarana School, Brahman is the locus of avidya. The Bhamati

School holds that Brahman can never be the locus of avidya but is the controller

of it as isvara. Belonging to jiva, tula-avidya, or individual ignorance

performs two functions – veils Brahman, and projects (viksepa) a separate world.

Mula-avidya ( " root ignorance " ) is the universal ignorance that is equivalent to

Maya, and is controlled by isvara.

 

The Vivarana School holds that since Brahman alone exists, Brahman is

the locus and object of avidya. With the help of epistemological

discussions, the non-reality of the duality between Brahman and world

is established. The Vivarana School responds to the question regarding

Brahman's existence as both " pure consciousness " and " universal

ignorance " by claiming that valid cognition (prama) presumes avidya,

in the everyday world, whereas pure consciousness is the essential

nature of Brahman.

 

 

 

b. Three Planes of Existence

 

There are three planes of existence according to classical Advaita Vedanta: the

plane of absolute existence (paramarthika satta), the plane of worldly existence

(vyavaharika satta) which includes this world and the heavenly world, and the

plane of illusory existence (pratibhasika existence). The two latter planes of

existence are a function of maya and are thus illusory to some extent. A

pratibhasika existence, such as objects presented in a mirage, is less real than

a worldly existence. Its corresponding unreality is, however, different from

that which characterizes the absolutely nonexistent or the impossible, such as a

sky-lotus (a lotus that grows in the sky) or the son of a barren woman. The

independent existence of a mirage and the world, both of which are due to a

certain causal condition, ceases once the causal condition change. The causal

condition is avidya, or ignorance. The independent existence and experience of

the world ceases to be with the gain of knowledge of Brahman. The nature of

knowledge of Brahman is that " I am pure consciousness. " The self-ignorance of

the jiva (individuated self) that " I am limited " is replaced by the

Brahman-knowledge that " I am everything, " accompanied by a re-identification of

the self with the transcendental Brahman.

 

The knower of Brahman sees the one non-plural reality in everything. He or she

no longer gives an absolute reality to independent and limited existence of the

world, but experiences the world as a creative expression of pure consciousness.

The states of waking (jagrat), dreaming (svapna) and deep sleep (susupti) all

point to the fourth nameless state turiya, pure consciousness, which is to be

realized as the true self. Pure consciousness is not only pure existence but

also the ultimate bliss which is experienced partially during deep sleep. Hence

we wake up refreshed.

 

 

 

3. Epistemology

 

The Advaita tradition puts forward three lesser tests of truth: correspondence,

coherence, and practical efficacy. These are followed by a fourth test of truth:

epistemic-nonsublatability (abadhyatvam or badharahityam). According to the

Vedanta Paribhasa (a classical text of Advaita Vedanta) " that knowledge is valid

which has for its object something that is nonsublated. " Nonsublatablity is

considered as the ultimate criterion for valid knowledge. The master test of

epistemic-nonsublatability inspires a further constraint: foundationality

(anadhigatatvam, lit. " of not known earlier " ). This last criterion of truth is

the highest standard that virtually all knowledge claims fail, and thus it is

the standard for absolute, or unqualified, knowledge, while the former criteria

are amenable to mundane, worldly knowledge claims.

 

According to Advaita Vedanta, a judgment is true if it remains unsublated [i.e.

it is unable to be resolved into a higher unity]. The commonly used example that

illustrates epistemic-nonsublatabilty is the rope that appears as a snake from a

distance (a stock example in Indian philosophy). The belief that one sees a

snake in this circumstance is erroneous according to Advaita Vedanta because the

snake belief (and the visual presentation of a snake) is sublated into the

judgment that what one is really seeing is a rope. Only wrong cognitions can be

sublated.

 

The condition of foundationality disqualifies memory as a means of knowledge.

Memory is the recollection of something already known and is thus derivable and

not foundational. Only genuine knowledge of the Self, according to Advaita

Vedanta, passes the test of foundationality: it is born of immediate knowledge

(aparoksa jñana) and not memory (smrti). Six natural ways of knowing are

accepted as valid means of knowledge (pramana) by Advaita Vedanta: perception

(pratyaksha), inference (anumana), verbal testimony (sabda), comparison

(upamana), postulation (arthapatti) and non-apprehension (anupalabdhi). The

pramanas do not contradict each other and each of them presents a distinct kind

of knowledge. Nonfoundational knowledge of Brahman cannot be had by any means

but through Sruti, which is the supernaturally revealed text in the form of the

Vedas (of which the Upanisads form the most philosophical portion). Inference

and the other means of knowledge cannot determinately reveal the truth of

Brahman on their own. However, Advaitins recognize that in addition to Sruti,

one requires yukti (reason) and anubhava (personal experience) to actualize

knowledge of Brahman. Moksha (liberation), which consists in the cessation of

the cycle of life and death, governed by the karma of the individual self, is

the result of knowledge of Brahman. As Brahman is identical with the universal

Self, and this Self is always self-conscious, it would seem that knowledge of

Brahman is Self-knowledge, and that this Self-knowledge is ever present. If so,

it seems that ignorance is impossible. Moreover, in the adhyasa bhasya (his

preamble to the commentary on the Brahma Sutra) Sankara says that the pure

subjectivity—the Self or Brahman—can never become the object of knowledge, just

as the object can never be the subject. This would suggest that Self-knowledge

that one gains in order to achieve liberation is impossible. Sankara's response

to this problem is to regard knowledge of Brahman that is necessary for

liberation, derived from scripture, to be distinct from the Self-consciousness

of Brahman, and rather a practical knowledge that removes ignorance, which is an

obstacle to the luminance of the ever-present self-consciousness of Brahman that

does pass the test of foundationality. Ignorance, in turn, is not a feature of

the ultimate Self on his account, but a feature of the individual self that is

ultimately unreal.

 

Four factors are involved in an external perception: the physical object, the

sense organ, the mind (antahkarana) and the cognizing self (pramata). The

cognizing self alone is self-luminous and the rest of the three factors are not

self-luminous being devoid of consciousness. It is the mind and the sense organ

which relates the cognizing self to the object. The self alone is the knower and

the rest are knowable as objects of knowledge. At the same time the existence of

mind is indubitable. It is the mind that helps to distinguish between various

perceptions.

 

It is because of the self-luminous (svata-prakasa) nature of pure consciousness

that the subject knows and the object is known. In his commentary to Taittiriya

Upanisad, Sankara says that " consciousness is the very nature of the Self and

inseparable from It. " The cognizing self, the known object, the

object-knowledge, and the valid means of knowledge (pramana) are essentially the

manifestations of one pure consciousness.

 

 

 

a. Error, True Knowledge and Practical Teachings

 

Sankara uses adhyasa to indicate illusion – illusory objects of perception as

well as illusory perception. Two other words which are used to denote the same

are adhyaropa (superimposition) and avabhasa (appearance). According to Sankara

the case of illusion involves both superimposition and appearance. Adhyasa, as

he says in his preamble to the Brahma Sutra, is the apprehension of something as

something else with two kinds of confounding such as the object and its

properties.

 

The concept of illusion, in Advaita Vedanta, is significant because it leads to

the theory of a " real substratum. " The illusory object, like the real object,

has a definite locus. According to Sankara, adhyasa is not possible without a

substratum. Padmapada says in Pañcapadika that adhyasa without a substratum has

never been experienced and is inconceivable. Vacaspati affirms that there cannot

be a case of illusion where the substratum is fully apprehended or not

apprehended at all.

 

The Advaita theory of error (known as anirvacaniya khyati, or the apprehension

of the indefinable) holds that the perception of the illusory object is a

product of the ignorance about the substratum. Sankara characterizes illusion in

two ways in his commentary on the Brahma Sutra. The first is an appearance of

something previously experienced—like memory—in something else (smrtirupah

paratra purva drstah avabhasah). The second is a minimalist characterization—the

appearance of one thing with the properties of another (anyasya anyadharma

avabhasatam).

 

Sankara devotes his introduction to his commentary on the Brahma Sutra, to the

idea of adhyasa to account for illusory perception relating to both everyday

experience and also transcendent entities. This introduction, called the adhyasa

bhasya (commentary on illusion) presents a realistic position and a seemingly

dualistic metaphysics: " Since it is an established fact that the object and

subject which are presented as yusmad - 'you'/the other, and asmad - 'me' are by

very nature contradictory, and their qualities also contradictory, as light and

darkness they cannot be identical. " Plurality and illusion, on this account, are

constructed out of the cognitive superimposition of the category of objects on

pure subjectivity.

 

While two conceptual categories are superimposed to create objects of illusion,

the Advaita Vedanta view is that the only possible way of metaphysically

describing the object of illusion is with the help of a characteristic, other

than those of non-existence and existence, which is termed as the

" indeterminate " (anirvacaniya) which also somehow connects the two usual

possibilities of existence and non-existence. The object of illusion cannot be

logically defined as real or unreal. Error is the apprehension of the

indefinable. It is due to the " illegitimate transference " of the qualities of

one order to another.

 

Perceptual illusion forms the bridge between Advaita's soteriology [doctrine of

salvation; Gr. soteria = salvation, soter = a saviour], on the one hand, and its

theory of experience, on the other. The relationship between the experience of

liberation in this life (mukti) and everyday experience is viewed as analogous

to the relation between veridical [what is truthful] and delusive sense

perception. Sankara formulates a theory of knowledge in accordance with his

soteriological views. Sankara's interest is thus not to build a theory of error

and leave it by itself but to connect it to his theory of the ultimate reality

of Self-Consciousness which is the only state which can be true according to his

twin criteria for truth (non-sublatability and foundationality). The

characteristic of indeterminacy that qualifies objects of illusion is that which

is truly neither real nor unreal but appears as a real locus [location]. It

serves as a stark contrast to the soteriological goal of the Self, which is

truly real and determinate.

 

On the basis of his theory of knowledge, Sankara elucidates the fourfold (mental

and physical) practices or qualifications - sadana catustaya - to aid in the

achievement of liberation: (i) the discrimination (viveka) between the permanent

(nitya) and the impermanent (anitya) objects of experience; (ii) dispassion

towards the enjoyment of fruits of action here and in heaven; (iii)

accomplishment of means of discipline such as calmness, mental control etc.;

(iv) a longing for liberation. In his commentary to the Brahma Sutra, Sankara

says that the inquiry into Brahman could start only after acquiring these

fourfold qualifications.

 

The concept of liberation (moksa) in Advaita is cashed out in terms of Brahman.

The pathways to liberations are defined by the removal of self-ignorance that is

brought about by the removal of mithya jñana (erroneous knowledge claims). This

is captured in the formula of one Advaitin: " [He] is never born again who knows

that he is the only one in all beings like the ether and that all beings are in

him " (Upadesa Sahasri XVII.69).

 

Many thinkers in the history of Indian philosophy have held that there is an

important connection between action and liberation. In contrast, Sankara rejects

the theory of jñana-karma-samuccaya, the combination of karma (Vedic duties)

with knowledge of Brahman leading to liberation. Knowledge of Brahman alone is

the route to liberation for Sankara. The role of action (karma) is to purify the

mind (antahkaranasuddhi) and make it free from likes and dislikes (raga dvesa

vimuktah). Such a mind will be instrumental to knowledge of Brahman.

 

 

 

4. References and Further Reading

 

 

 

a. Primary Sources

 

Alladi Mahadeva Sastri (Trans.). The Bhagavad Gita with the commentary of Sri

Sankara. Madras: Samata Books, 1981.

 

Madhusudana, Saraswati. Gudartha Dipika. Trans. Sisirkumar Gupta. Delhi: Motilal

Banarsidass Pubs., 1977.

 

Brahma Sutra Sankara Bhasya: 3.3.54. Found in, V.H. Date, Vedanta Explained:

Sankara's Commentary on the Brahma-Sutra, vols. 1 and 2 (Bombay: Book Seller's

Publishing Com., 1954).

 

Date, V. H. Vedanta Explained: Sankara's commentary on the Brahma Sutra. Vol. I.

Bombay: Book Seller's Publishing Company, 1954.

 

Taittiriya Upanisad Sankara Bhasya: 2.10. Found in Karl H. Potter, Gen. Ed.

Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, Vol. III. 1st Ind. ed. Delhi: Motilal

Banarsidass Publishers, 1981.

 

Upadesa Sahasri of Sankaracharya, Trans. Swami Jagadananda. Mylapore: Sri

Ramkrishna Math, 1941.

 

Drg-drsya Viveka of Sankara. Trans. Swami Nikhilananda. 6th ed. Mysore: Sri

Ramakrishna Ashrama, 1976.

 

 

 

b. Secondary Sources

 

Potter, Karl H. Advaita Vedanta up to Sankara and his Pupils. Vol. III of

Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1981.

 

Mahadevan, T M P. Sankara. New Delhi: National Book Trust, 1968.

 

Mahadevan, T M P. Superimposition in Advaita Vedanta. New Delhi: Sterling

Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 1985.

 

Satprakashananda, Swami. Methods of Knowledge According to Advaita Vedanta.

Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1974.

 

Dasgupta, Surendranath. A History of Indian Philosophy. Vol. I. Delhi:

Motilal Banarsidass, 1975.

 

Radhakrishnan, S. Indian Philosophy. Vol. II. Delhi: Oxford University Press,

1940.

 

Rangacarya, M. (Trans.). The Sarva Siddhanta-Sangraha of Sankara. New Delhi:

Ajay Book Service, 1983.

 

Author Information:

Sangeetha Menon

Email: prajnana

National Institute of Advanced Studies

Indian Institute of Science Campus

Bangalore, India

 

© 2007

 

http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/adv-veda.htm