Advaita Vedanta

This page contains Indic text. Without rendering support you may see irregular vowel positioning and a lack of conjuncts. More...

Part of the series on Hinduism
History  · Deities
Denominations  · Mythology
Beliefs & practices
Reincarnation  · Moksha
Karma  · Puja  · Maya
Nirvana  · Dharma
Yoga  · Ayurveda
Yuga  · Vegetarianism
Bhakti  · Artha
Scriptures
Upanishads  · Vedas
Brahmana  · Bhagavad Gita
Ramayana  · Mahabharata
Purana  · Aranyaka
Related topics
Hinduism by country
Leaders  · Mandir  ·
Caste system  · Mantra
Glossary  · Hindu festivals
Murti

Advaita Vedanta (IAST advaita vedānta; Devanagari अद्वैत वेदान्त; IPA [ədvaitə vé:dα:ntə]) is probably the best known of all Vedanta schools of philosophy of Hinduism, the others being Dvaita and Vishishtadvaita (total six). "Advaita" literally means "not two", and is often called a monistic or non-dualistic system which essentially refers to the indivisibility of the Self (Atman) from the Whole (Brahman). The key texts from which all Vedanta (lit., end or the goal of the Vedas) texts draw are the Upanishads (twelve or thirteen in particular), which are usually at the end of the Vedas, and the Brahma Sutras (also known as Vedanta Sutras), which in turn discuss the essence of the Upanishads.

Adi Sankara: The Pillar of Advaita

The first person to consolidate the principles of Advaita was Adi Sankara (आदि शंकर, pronounced as /α:di shənkərə, 788-820 CE, i.e., 788-820 AD). He is also known as Śankarāchārya (शंकराचार्य, pronounced as /shənkərα:chα:ryə/). Continuing the line of thought of some of the Upanishadic teachers, and also that of his own teacher's teacher Gaudapada, Sankara expounded the doctrine of Advaita — a nondualistic reality. According to Advaitins (followers of Advaita), Sankara exposed the relative nature of the world and established the supreme truth of the Advaita by analysing the three states of experience — being awake (vaishvanara), dreaming (swapna), and being in deep sleep (sushupti). The supreme truth of the Advaita is said to be the non-dual reality of Brahman, in which atman (the individual soul) and Brahman (the Supreme Consciousness) are identified absolutely. (Brahman is not to be confused with Brahma, the Creator and one-third of the Trimurti along with Shiva, the Destroyer and Vishnu, the Preserver.)

Adi Shankara, with his disciples. [1]

Psychologically, Advaita is a state in which the subject and object lose their independent identities — in which one can no longer differentiate on the basis of any material characteristics. The three states mentioned earlier are said to be mere transformations of this (fourth) state of experience of non-duality turiya.

This idea of a fourth state of consciousness is borrowed from the Taittariya Upanishad, dating back to about 1000 BCE. It may be noted that another school of non-dual (but agnostic) thought, Buddhism, also talks of such a similar transcendental state (as vinnanam anidassanam, in the Brahmanimantanika Sutta (Majjhima-Nikaya)). The idea of such a state of enlightenment has been a favorite with ancient Indian philosophers, and still continues to be.

Sankara's contributions to Advaita are crucial. His main works are the commentaries on the Prasthanatrayi and the Gaudapadiya karikas. Another treatise on Advaita, popularly attributed to him by the more enthusiastic followers of the system, is the Viveka Chudamani. Note that many other followers believe that this is not the work of Sankara, citing several differences in style and ideas. Many philosophers after Sankara have criticized him of being hypocritical or pracchanabauddha (Buddhist in disguise), mainly due to this work. This is because the Buddhist positions which Sankara refutes in the Brahma Sutra Bhashyas seem to be wholly advocated in the Viveka Chudamani.

Sankara is also well known for propounding a system of bhakti (selfless devotion) and composing several bhajans (devotional songs), which he believed brought one closer to God. Some of his well-known bhajans are Bhaja Govindam, Saundaryalahari and Śivānandalahari.

Salient Features of Advaitism

Three levels of Truth

• The transcendental or the Pāramārthika level in which Brahman is the only reality and nothing else;
• The pragmatic or the Vyāvahārika level in which both Jiva (living creatures or individual souls) and God (Ishvara) are true; here, the material world is completely true, and,
• The apparent or the Prātibhāsika level in which even material world reality is actually false, like illusion of a snake over a rope or a dream.

Brahman

According to Sankara, the the Supreme Cosmic Spirit or Brahman (pronounced as /brəh mən/; nominative singular Brahma, pronounced as /brəh mə/) is the One, the whole and the only reality in the world. Other than Brahman, everything else, including, God, universe, material objects and individuals are not true. Brahman is (at best) described as that infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, incorporeal, impersonal, transcendent and immanent reality that is the divine ground of all Being. It (gramatically neutral, but exceptionally treated as masculine), though not a substance, is the basis of the material world, which in turn is its illusionary transformation. Brahman is not the effect of the world. Brahman is said to be the purest knowledge itself, and is illuminant like a source of infinite light.

Due to ignorance (avidyā), the Brahman is visible as the material world and its objects. The actual Brahman is attributeless and formless (see Nirguna Brahman). It is the Self-existent, the Absolute and the Imperishable (not generally the object of worship but rather of meditation). Brahman is actually indescribable. But Sankara says that Brahman cannot be identified with Sunya or zeroness of Buddhism. It is at best, "Sat" + "Chit" + "Ananda", ie, Infinite Truth, Infinite Consciousness and Infinite Bliss. Also, Brahman is free from any kind of differences. It does not have any sajātīya (homogeneous) differences because there is no second Brahman. It does not have any vijātīya (heterogeneous) differences because there is nobody in reality existing other than Brahman. It has neither svagata (internal) differences, because Brahman is itself homogenous.

Though Brahman is self-proven, some logical proofs have also been proposed by Shankara:

• Shruti—the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita and the Brahma Sutras describe Brahman in almost exact manner as Shankara. This is the testimonial proof of Brahman.
• Psychological—every person experiences his soul, or atman. According to Shankara, atman = Brahman. This argument also proves Brahman.
• Teliological—the world appears very well ordered; the reason for this cannot be an unconscious principle. The reason must be Brahman.
• Essential—Brahman is the basis of this created world.
• Perceptible Feeling—Many people, when they achieve the turīya state, claim that their soul has become one with eveything else. The feeling of this transcedental perception is regarded as the best proof for Brahman.

Māyā

Māyā (/mα: yα:/) is the most important contribution of Sankara. Māyā is that complex illusionary power of Brahman which causes the Brahman to be seen as the distinct material world. It has two main functions — one is to "cover up" Brahman from the human minds, and the other is to present the material world in its stead. Māyā is also indescribable. It is neither completely real nor completely unreal—hence indescribable. Its shelter is Brahman, but Brahman itself is untouched by the profanity of Māyā, just like a magician is not tricked by his own magic. Māyā is temporary and is destroyed with "true knowledge". This Māyāvāda of Sankara was highly criticized and misunderstood. Bhaskaracharya, a Hindu mathematician, described Shankara to be indebted to the Buddhists for his concept of Māyā. But Guff, Cowell and other writers claim to find the concept of Māyā in a germinating form in the Vedas and the Upanishads. Shankara had used the terms Māyā and avidya (ignorance) in the same sense, but the later Advaitins called Māyā as the positive force of God and avidyā as a negetive knowledge.

The concept of Māyā seems to be a hypothesis. Since according to the Upanishads only Brahman is real, but we see the material world to be real, Shankara explained the anomaly by the concept of this illusionary power Māyā.

God

God or Ishvara (pronounced as /ī:sh vərə/, lit., the Supreme Lord) — when man tries to know the attributeless Brahman with his mind, under the influence of Maya, Brahman becomes God. God is Brahman with Maya — the manifested form of Brahman. Shankara uses a metaphor that when the "reflection" of the Cosmic Spirit falls upon the mirror of Maya, it appears as the Supreme Lord. The Supreme Lord is true only in the pragmatic level — his actual form in the transcendental level is the Cosmic Spirit.

God is Saguna Brahman or Brahman with innumerable auspicious qualities. He is all-perfect, omniscient, omnipresent, incorporeal, independent, Creator of the world, its ruler and also destroyer. He is causeless, eternal and unchangeable — and is yet the material and the efficient cause of the world. He is both immanent (like whiteness in milk) and transcendent (like a watch-maker independent of a watch). He may be even regarded to have a personality. He is the subject of worship. He is the basis of morality and giver of the fruits of one's Karma. However, he himself is beyond sin and merit. He rules the world with his Maya — his divine power. This association with a "false" knowledge does not affect the perfection of God, in the same way as a magician is himself not tricked by his magic. However, while God is the Lord of Maya and she (ie, Maya) is always under his control, the living beings (jīva, in the sense of humans) are the servants of Maya (in the form of ignorance). This ignorance is the cause of the unhappiness and sin in the mortal world. While God is Infinite Bliss, humans are miserable. God (Ishvara) always knows the unity of the Brahman substance, and the Mayic nature of the world. There is no place of a Satan or devil in Hinduism, unlike Abrahamic religions. Advaitins explain the misery because of ignorance. God or Ishvara can also be visualized and worshipped in anthropomorphic form like Vishnu, Krishna or Shiva.

Now the question arises that why the Supreme Lord created the world. If one assumes that Ishvara creates the world for any incentive, this slanders the wholeness and perfection of Ishvara. For example, if one assumes that Ishvara creates the world for gaining something, it would be against his perfection. If we assume that He creates for compassion, it would be illogical, because the emotion of compassion cannot arise in a blank and void world in the beginning (when only God existed). So Shankara assumes that Creation is a sport of Ishvara. It is His nature, just as it is man's nature to breathe.

The sole proof for God that Sankara gives is Shruti's mentions about God, as God is beyond logic and thinking. This is similar to Kant 's philosophy about God in which he says that "faith" is the basis of theism. However, Shankara has also given few other logical proofs for God, but warning us not to completely rely on them:

• The world is a work, an effect, and so must have real cause. This cause must be Ishvara.
• The world has a wonderful unity, coordination and order, so its creator must have been an intelligent being.
• People do good and sinful work and get its fruits, either in this life or after. People themselves cannot be the giver of their fruits, as no one would give himself the fruit of his sin. Also, this giver cannot be an unconscious object. So the giver of the fruits of Karma is God.

Atman

The swan is an important motif in Advaitism. It symbolizes two things — firstly, the swan is called hamsah in Sanskrit (which becomes hamso if the first letter in the next word is /h/). Upon repeating this hamso indefinitely, it becomes so-aham, meaning, "I am That". Secondly, just like a swan lives in water but its feathers are not soiled by water, similarly a liberated Advaitin lives in this world full of Maya but is untouched by its illusion.

The soul or the self (Atman) is exactly equal to Brahman. It is not a part of Brahman that ultimately dissolves into Brahman, but the whole Brahman itself. Now the arguers ask that how can the individual soul, which is limited and one in each body, be the same as Brahman? Shankara explains that the soul is not an individual concept. Atman is only one and unique. It is a false concept that there are several Atmans. Shankara says that just as the same moon appears as several moons on its reflections on the surface of water covered with bubbles, the one Atman appears as multiple atmans in our bodies because of Maya. Atman it self-proven, however, some proofs are discussed—eg., a person says "I am blind", "I am happy", "I am fat" etc. So what is this ego here? Only that thing is the ego which is there in all the states of that person — this proves the existence of Atman, and that consciousness is its characteristic. Reality and Bliss are also its characteristics. By nature, Atman is free and beyond sin and merit. It does not experience happiness or pain. It does not do any Karma. It is incorporeal.

When the reflection of atman falls on Avidya (ignorance), atman becomes jīva — a living being with a body and senses. Each jiva feels as if he has his own, unique and distinct Atman, called jivatman. The concept of jiva is true only in the pragmatic level. In the transcendental level, only the one Atman, equal to Brahman, is true.

Salvation

Liberation or Moksha (akin to Nirvana of the Buddhists) — Advaitins also believe in the theory of reincarnation of souls (Atman) into plants, animals and humans according to their karma. They believe that suffering is due to Maya, and only true knowledge of the Brahman can destroy Maya. When Maya is removed, there exists ultimately no difference between the Jiva-Atman and the Brahman. Such a state of bliss called Moksha can even be achieved while living (jivana mukti). While one is in the pragmatic level, one can (and MUST) worship God in any way and in any form, like Krishna as he wishes. Sankara himself was a proponent of devotional worship or Bhakti. But Sankara believes that Vedic sacrifices, puja and devotional worship can lead man to true knowledge, however, they cannot lead him directly to Moksha. Moksha is the outcome solely of true knowledge.

Other points

• The famous mantra of Sankara was "Brahma Satyam Jagat Mithyā, jīvo Brahmaiva nāparah", ie, Brahman is the only truth, the world is unreal, and there is ultimately no difference between Brahman and individual self.

• Sankara also explicitly condemned the caste or varna system of the Hindu society, calling it utterly foolish. This is in contrast to other schools like Vishishtadvata, Dvaita and Mimamsa who believe that since caste is based upon one's karmas in previous life, it should be unscrupulously followed. Sankara also condemned many other superstitions.

Are the world and God wholly false?

Status of the world

People often get confused by Advaita teachings that the universe is false. Shankara says that the world is not true, it is an illusion, but this is because of some logical reasons. Let us first analyse Shankara's definition of Truth, and hence why the world is not considered true.

• Shankara says that whatever thing remains eternal is true, and whatever is non-eternal is untrue. Since the world is created and destroyed, is is not true.
• Truth is the thing which is unchanging. Since the world is changing, it is not true.
• Whatever is independent of space and time is true, and whatever has space and time in itself is untrue.
• Just as one sees dreams in sleep, he sees a kind of super-dream when he is waking.The world is compared to this conscious dream.
• The world is believed to be a superimposition of the Brahman. Superimposition cannot be true.

On the other hand, Shankara claims that the world is not absolutely false. It appears false only when compared to Brahman. In the pragmatic state, the world is completely true—which occurs as long as we are under the influence of Maya. The world cannot be both true and false at the same time; hence Shankara has classified the world as indescribable. The following points suggest that according to Shankara, the world is not false (Shankara himself gave most of the arguments):

• If the world were false, then with the liberation of the first human being, the world would have been annihilated. However, the world continues to exist even if a human attains liberation.
• Shankara believes in Karma, or good actions. This is a feature of this world. So the world cannot be false.
• The Supreme Reality Brahman is the basis of this world. The world is like its reflection. Hence the world cannot be totally false.
• False is something which is ascribed to inexistent things, like Sky-lotus. The world is a logical thing which is perceived by our senses.

Consider a scientific logic. A pen is placed in front of a mirror. One can see its reflection. To our eyes, the image of the pen is perceived. Now, what should the image be called? It cannot be true, because it is an image. The truth is the pen. It cannot be false, because it is seen by our eyes.

Whenever we are at moderate velocities, the Newton's laws of motion are completely true. But when something travels close to or equal to the speed of light, Newton's laws become false and instead, Einstein's theory becomes valid. Similarly, the world is an indescribable thing. It is untrue only when compared to Brahman.

Status of God

Some people claim that in Shankara's philosophy, there is no place for God, because God is also described as "false". He appears so because of the curtain of Maya. However, as described earlier, just as the world is true in the pragmatic level, similarly, God is also pragmatically true. Just as the world is not absolutely false, God is also not absolutely false. He is the distributor of the fruits of one's Karma. In order to make the pragmatic life successful, it is very important to believe in God and worship him. In the pragmatic level, whenever we talk about Brahman, we are in fact talking about God. God is the highest knowledge theoretically possible in that level. Devotion (Bhakti) will cancel the effects of bad Karma and will make a person closer to the true knowledge by purifying his mind. Slowly, the difference between the worshipper and the worshipped decreases and upon true knowledge, liberation occurs.

Status of ethics

Some claim that there is no place for ethics in Advaitism, because everything is ultimately illusionary. But on analysis, ethics also has a firm place in this philosophy—the same place as the world and God. Ethics, which implies doing good Karma, indirectly helps in attaining true knowledge. The basis of merit and sin is the Shruti (the Vedas and the Upanishads). Truth, non-violence, service of others, pity, etc are Dharma, and lies, violence, cheating, selfishness, greed, etc are adharma (sin).

Shankara's theory of creation

In the pragmatic level, Shankara believes in the Creation of the world through Satkaryavada. It is like the philosophy of Samkhya, which says that the cause is always hidden into its effect—and the effect is just a transformation of the cause. However, Samkhya believes in a sub-form of Satkaryavada called Parinamvada (evolution)—whereby the cause results in an action. Instead, Shankara believes in a sub-form called Vivartavada. According to this, the effect is merely a superimposition of its cause—like its illusion. eg., In darkness, a man often confuses a rope to be a snake. But this does not mean that the rope has actually transformed into a snake.

In the pragmatic level, the universe is believed to be the creation of the Supreme Lord Ishvara. Maya is the divine magic of Ishvara, with the help of which Ishvara creates the world. The serial of Creation is taken from the Upanishads. First of all, the five subtle elements (ether, air, fire, water and earth) are created from Ishvara. Ether is created by Maya. From ether, air is born. From air, water is born. From water, earth is born. From a proportional combination of all five subtle elements, the five gross elements are created, like the gross sky, the gross fire, etc. From these gross elements, the universe and life are created. This series is exactly the opposite during destruction.

Some people have criticized that these principles are against Satkaryavada. According to Satkaryavada, the cause is hidden inside the effect. How can Ishvara, whose form is spiritual, be the effect of this material world? Shankra says that just as from a conscious living human, inanimate objects like hair and nails are formed, similarly, the inanimate world is formed from the spiritual Ishvara.

Comparison with the Buddhist school of Shunyavada

The Buddha had not answered philosophical questions like God, the world and its creation. So the later Buddhist schools developed their own theory. The Madhyamika school of Mahayana Buddhism developed a theory, called Shunyavada, which is quite similar to Advaitism.

Similarities between the two:

• The world is not believed to be eternal, nor true.
• Both have defined different levels of truth. the Madhyamikas have defined two levels of truth.
• The Madhyamikas believe that the eternal voidness (Shunyata) is the cause of this material world. This occurs because of illusion.

Differences between the two:

• The Shunyata of the Madhyamikas is neither real nor false—it cannot be described at all. In contrast, Brahman is infinite Truth, infinite Consciousness and supreme Bliss.
• The soul is believed to be false in the Madhyamika school, but true in Advaitism.
• Some people interpret the Shunya to be falsehood. So the world of these Buddhist seems to evolve from a void—from a false thing. In Advaitism, the world evolves from the true Brahman. Shankara had given only one criticism against the Madhyamikas—The Shunyavada, "being contradictory to all valid means of knowledge, we have not thought worth while to refute." [2]
• In Advaitism, God is the manifestation of the Brahman. Among the Madhyamikas, there is no place for God.

Adi Sankara's thoughts in a summary

Adi Sankara's treatises on the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita and the Brahma Sutras are his principal and almost undeniably his own works. Although he mostly adhered to traditional means of commenting on the Brahma Sutra, there are a number of original ideas and arguments. He taught that it was only through knowledge and wisdom of nonduality that one could be enlightened.

Sankara's opponents accused him of teaching Buddhism in the garb of Hinduism, because his non-dualistic ideals were a bit radical to contemporary Hindu philosophy. However, it may be noted that while the Later Buddhists arrived at a changeless, deathless, absolute truth after their insightful understanding of the unreality of samsara, historically Vedantins never liked this idea. Although Advaita also proposes the theory of Maya, explaining the universe as a "trick of a magician", Sankara and his followers see this as a consequence of their basic premise that Brahman is real. Their idea of Maya emerges from their belief in the reality of Brahman, rather than the other way around.

Sankara was a peripatetic orthodox Hindu monk who traveled the length and breadth of India. The more enthusiastic followers of the Advaita tradition claim that he was chiefly responsible for "driving the Buddhists away". Historically the decline of Buddhism in India is known to have taken place long after Sankara or even Kumarila Bhatta (who according to a legend had "driven the Buddhists away" by defeating them in debates), sometime before the Muslim invasion into Afghanistan (earlier Gandhara).

Although today's most enthusiastic followers of Advaita believe Sankara argued against Buddhists in person, a historical source, the Madhaviya Sankara Vijayam, indicates that Sankara sought debates with Mimamsa, Samkhya, Nyaya, Vaisheshika and Yoga scholars as keenly as with any Buddhists. In fact his arguments against the Buddhists are quite mild in the Upanishad Bhashyas, while they border on the acrimonious in the Brahma Sutra Bhashya.

The Vishistadvaita and Dvaita schools believed in an ultimately saguna Brahman. They differ passionately with Advaita, and believe that his nirguna Brahman is not different from the Buddhist Sunyata (wholeness or zeroness) — much to the dismay of the Advaita school. A careful study of the Buddhist Sunyata will show that it is in some ways metaphysically similar as Brahman. Whether Sankara agrees with the Buddhists is not very clear from his commentaries on the Upanishads. His arguments against Buddhism in the Brahma Sutra Bhashyas are more a representation of Vedantic traditional debate with Buddhists than a true representation of his own individual belief. (See link: Sankara's arguments against Buddhism)

The Impact of Advaita

Advaita Vedanta philosophy had a tremendous impact on the Hindu system of Tantra and also served to bolster Yogic (see Yoga) ideas of the ultimate Self, Brahman/Atman, being One. Advaita rejuvenated much of Hindu thought and also spurred on debate that led to the expounding of Vishishtadvaita (qualified nondualism) and Dvaita (dualism). Advaita served to bring to the fore the Hindu/Vedic philosophy whose seed can be seen in the Rig Vedic statement "Truth is One, though the sages see it as many." Advaitism is definitely the deepest and the most influential philosophy of India. Even today, pious Hindus regard material wealth and money as "Moha-Maya".

Advaita and Science

According to some followers of Advaita, it may very well be a place where the scientific world intersects with the spiritual world. They point to the relationships between mass, frequency, and energy that 20th century physics has established and the Advaitic 'Unity of the Universe' as the common ground. They feel that these relationships, formalized as equations by Planck and Einstein, suggest that the whole mesh of the Universe blend into a One that exhibits itself as many (namely, mass, energy, wave etc), and that this follows Advaita's view that everything is but the manifestation of an omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent "One". It must be remembered however, that none of these physicists have talked of an 'omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent "One"'.

They also connect the De Broglie waves of modern physics to Aum in Hindu philosophy. However, scientists in India and abroad clarify that the de Broglie waves (or matter waves) are neither optical nor acoustic waves, but are "just functions of a probability distribution of finding a particle, which may be represented as a Fourier sum of constituent probability waves."

However, notable scientists like Erwin Schrödinger and Robert Oppenheimer were also Vedantists. Fritjof Capra's book, The Tao of Physics, is one among several that pursue this viewpoint as it investigates the relationship between modern, particularly quantum, physics and the core philosophies of various Eastern religions, including Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism