Vedanta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Vedanta (disambiguation).

Vedanta (IAST, Vedānta, Sanskrit: वेदांत) or Uttara Mīmāṃsā is one of the six orthodox (āstika) schools of Indian philosophy.[1] The term "Vedanta" stands not for any comprehensive doctrine but for the divergent philosophical views that developed on the basis of a common textual connection. This common texual connection is called the Prasthanatrayi - a collective term for the Principal Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita.[2]

Of more than ten schools of Vedanta which have been recognized by scholars like Raju (1972, p. 177), three schools viz. Advaita (non-dualism), Vishishtadvaita (qualified non-dualism), and Dvaita (dualism) are the best known.[3] Most other Vedantic traditions are clubbed under the umbrella term of the Bhedabheda (difference and non-difference)[4] tradition.

All Vedanta schools, in their deliberations, concern themselves with the following three categories but differ in their views regarding the conception of the categories and the relations between the same:[5]

  1. Brahman – the ultimate metaphysical reality[6]
  2. Atman / Jivatma – the individual soul or self[7]
  3. Prakriti – The empirical world, ever-changing physical universe, body and matter[8]

Over time, Vedanta adopted ideas from other orthodox (āstika) schools like Yoga and Nyaya,[9] and, through this syncretism, became the most prominent school of Hinduism. Many extant forms of Vaishnavism, Shaivism and Shaktism have been significantly shaped and influenced by the doctrines of different schools of Vedanta.[10]

Etymology and Nomenclature[edit]

The word Vedanta literally means the end of the Vedas[3] and originally referred to the Upanishads.[1] Vedanta was concerned with the jñānakāṇḍa or knowledge part of the Upanishads.[11] The denotation of Vedanta subsequently widened to include the various philosophical traditions based on to the Prasthanatrayi.[12]

The Upanishads may be regarded as the end of Vedas in different senses:[13]

  1. These were the last literary products of the Vedic period.
  2. These mark the culmination of Vedic thought.
  3. These were taught and debated the last, in the Brahmacharya (student) stage.[14]

Vedanta is also called Uttara Mīmāṃsā, the 'latter enquiry' or 'higher enquiry'; and is often contrasted with Pūrva Mīmāṃsā, the 'former enquiry' or 'primary enquiry'. Pūrva Mīmāṃsā deals with the karmakāṇḍa or rituals part (the Samhita and Brahmanas) in the Vedas.[15]

Historically, Vedanta has been called by various names. The early names were the Upanishadic ones (Aupanisada), the doctrine of the end of the Vedas (Vedanta-vada), the doctrine of Brahman (Brahma-vada), and the doctrine that Brahman is the cause (Brahma-karana-vada).[16]

Prasthanatrayi, the Three Sources[edit]

The Upanishads, The Bhagavadgita and the Vedanta Sutra constitute the basis of Vedanta. All Vedanta schools propound their philosophy by interpreting these texts, collectively called the Prasthanatrayi, literally, three sources.[17]

  1. The Upanishads,[note 1] or Śruti prasthāna; considered the Sruti (Vedic scriptures) foundation of Vedanta.
  2. The Brahma Sutras, or Nyaya prasthana / Yukti prasthana; considered the reason-based foundation of Vedanta.[citation needed]
  3. The Bhagavad Gita, or Smriti prasthāna; considered the Smriti (remembered tradition) foundation of Vedanta.

The diversity in the teaching of the Upanishads led to a necessity for systematization of these teachings. This was likely effected in many ways, but the only version to have survived is the Vedanta Sutra or Brahma Sutra of Badarayana.[19]

All major Vedantic teachers, including Shankara, Ramanuja, and Madhva, have composed extensive commentaries not only on the Upanishads and Brahma Sutras, but also on the Bhagavad Gita. With its syncretism of Samkhya, Yoga, and Upanishadic thought, the Bhagavad Gita has played a strong role in Vedantic thought.[20]

History[edit]

The Upanishads do not have rigorous philosophical inquiry. This inquiry was performed by the various Vedanta schools [21] which trace their antiquity far back into the Vedas and the early seers.[17] The Upanishads form the basic texts, of which Vedanta gives an interpretation.[22]

Vedanta before the Brahma Sutras[edit]

Of the Vedanta-school before the composition of the Brahma Sutras (400–450 BC[23][note 2]) almost nothing is known.[25] Badarayana was not the first person to systematize the teachings of the Upanishads. In the Brahma Sutras, he refers to and quotes six Vedantic teachers before him viz. Ashmarathya, Badari, Audulomi, Kashakrtsna, Karsnajini and Atreya.[26][note 3] References to early Vedanta teachers are found in ancient and medieval era secondary literature.[27] In addition to the Vedantins quoted by Badarayan, others include Brahmadatta, Sundara, Pandaya, Tanka and Dravidacharya. The works of these ancient teachers have not survived, but based on the mention they find in writing of sub-schools of Vedanta, Sharma (1996, pp. 124–125) suggests Ashmarathya and Audulomi were likely Bhedabheda scholars, Kashakrtsna and Brahmadatta probably Advaita scholars, while Tanka and Dravidacharya may have been either Advaita or Vishistadvaita scholars.

Brahma Sutras[edit]

Main article: Brahma Sutras

Badarayana was one of the three major interpreters of Vedic thought, the other two being Badari and Jaimini.[23] While the latter two interpreted mimamsa, Badarayana interpreted the Upanishads. In the Brahma Sutras, also called the Vedanta Sutra,[28][note 4] Badarayana summarized and interpreted the teachings of the classical Upanishads,[29] thus paving the way for the development of the Vedanta philosophy.[30] The book is composed of four chapters, each divided into four quarters or sections.[31] These sutras were meant to synthesize the diverse teachings of the Upanishads. However, the cryptic nature of aphorisms of the Brahma Sutras have resulted in the formation of numerous Vedanta schools, each interpreting the texts in its own way and producing its own commentary.[32]

Vedanta between the Brahma Sutras and Adi Shankara[edit]

See also: Vedas, Upanishads, and Darsanas

Little is known of the period between the Brahma Sutras(5th Century BC) and Shankara (8th century CE).[33] Shankara mentions 99 different predecessors of his school in his commentaries.[34] A number of important early Vedanta thinkers have been listed in the Siddhitraya by Yamunācārya (c. 1050), the Vedārthasamgraha by Rāmānuja (c. 1050–1157), and the Yatīndramatadīpikā by Śrīnivāsa-dāsa.[25] A noted scholar of this period was Bhartriprapancha, considered an early philosopher of the Bhedabheda tradition.[31] Another noted scholar was Mandan Mishra, who regarded Mimamsa and Vedanta as forming a single system and advocated their combination known as Karma-Jnana-samuchchaya-vada.[35] [note 5] Only two writings of this period have survived: the Vākyapadīya, written by Bhartṛhari (second half 5th century[36]), and the Kārikā written by Gaudapada (early 6th[37] or 7th century CE).[25] Nakamura (1950, p. 3) opines that at least fourteen prominent thinkers existed between the composition of the Brahma Sutras and Shankara's lifetime.[note 6]

Gaudapada, Adi Shankara and Advaita Vedanta[edit]

Main articles: Advaita Vedanta and Gaudapada

Gaudapada (c. 6th century CE),[38] was the teacher (possibly a more distant predecessor, according to Michael Comans (2000, pp. 2, 163)) of Govindapada, the teacher of Adi Shankara – widely considered to be the founder of modern Advaita Vedanta.[39][note 7] Gaudapada's treatise called the Kārikā is the earliest surviving complete text on Advaita Vedanta.[42] However, there is ample evidence suggesting that Advaita was a thriving tradition by the start of the common era or even before that.[note 8]

Gaudapada relied on the Mandukya, Brihadaranyaka and Chhandogya Upanishads,[42] to present his ideas in the Kārikā,[47] also known as the Māṇḍukya Kārikā or the Āgama Śāstra.[42] In the Kārikā, Gaudapada established Advaita or non-dualism on a philosophical basis purely on rational grounds (upapatti) - independent of scriptural revelation and devoid of any religious, mystical or scholastic elements. Scholars are divided on a possible influence of Buddhism on Gaudapada's philosophy.[note 9]. The singular theme running through the Kārikā is the reality of the non-dual and the birth-less Ātman. The fact that Shankara, in addition to the Brahma Sutras, The principal Upanishads and the Bhagvad Gita, wrote an independent commentary on the Kārikā proves its importance in Vedāntic literature.[48]

Adi Shankara (788–820), elaborated on Gaudapada's work and more ancient scholarship to write detailed commentaries on the Prasthanatrayi and the Kārikā. The Mandukya Upanishad and the Kārikā have been described by Shankara as containing "the epitome of the substance of the import of Vedanta".[48] It was Shankara who integrated Gaudapada work with the ancient Brahma Sutras, "and give it a locus classicus", against the realistic strain of the Brahma Sutras.[50][note 10] His interpretation, including works ascribed to him, has become the normative interpretation of Advaita Vedanta.[51]

Shankara was of the view that Mimamsa & Vedanta are independent of each other and possibly also inconsistent in their central theses. The separation of Vedanta as different from the other orthodox Schools was a contribution of Shankara. Adviata Vedanta rejects ritual in favor of renunciation, which makes Vedanta irreconcilable with Mimamsa.[52]

Ramanuja and Vishishtadvaita Vedanta[edit]

Ramanuja(11th - 12th centure ACE) elaborated the theoretical foundations of Vishishtadvaita Vedanta.[53] Ramanuja's teacher, Yadava Prakasha, was part of the Advaita monastic tradition. Tradition has it that Ramanuja disagreed with his guru and the non-dualistic Advaita Vedanta, and instead followed instead the the scholars Nathamuni and Yamunacharya, and the Alvars tradition.[54] Ramanuja reconciled the Prasthanatrayi with the faith and beliefs of the Vaishnava Alvars poet-saints in his doctrine. Vishishtadvaiata provides the philosophical basis of Sri Vaishnavism.[55] In order to expound his philosophy, Ramanujan wrote a number of influential texts, such as a bhasya on the Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita, all in Sanskrit.[56]

Ramanuja presented the epistemic and soteriological importance of bhakti, or the devotion to a personal God (Vishnu in Ramanuja's case) as a means to spiritual liberation. His theories assert that there exists a plurality and distinction between Atman (souls) and Brahman (metaphysical, ultimate reality), while he also affirmed that there is unity of all souls and that the individual soul has the potential to realize identity with the Brahman.[57]

Although Ramanuja’s contribution to Vedanta thought is a highly significant one, his influence on the course of Hinduism as a religion has been even greater. By allowing the urge for devotional worship (bhakti) into his doctrine of salvation, he aligned the popular religion with the pursuits of philosophy and gave bhakti an intellectual basis. Ever since, bhakti has remained the major force in the religions of Hinduism.[58]

Madhva and Dvaita[edit]

The opposite interpretation of Shankara was set forth by 13th century Madhva in his Dvaita, or dualistic system.[59] Madhva championed unqualified dualism, in contrast to Shankara's nondualism and Ramanuja's qualified nondualism. Madhva has left behind him commentaries on the chief Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita and the Brahma Sutra, besides several other works.[60]

Madhva started his Vedic studies at age seven, joined an Advaita Vedanta monastery in Dwarka (Gujarat),[61] studied under guru Achyutrapreksha,[62] frequently disagreed with him, left the Advaita monastery, and founded Dvaita.[63] Madhva and his followers Jayatirtha and Vyasatirtha, were critical of all competing Hindu philosophies, Jainism and Buddhism,[64][65][66] but particularly intense in their criticism of Advaita Vedanta and Adi Shankara.[67]

Dvaita Vedanta is theistic and it identifies Brahman with Narayana, or more specifically Vishnu, in a manner similar to Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita Vedanta. But it is more explicitly pluralisti.[68] Madhva's emphasis for difference between soul and Brahman was so pronounced that he taught there were differences (1) Between material things; (2) Between material thing and soul; (3) Between material thing and God; (4) Between souls; and (5) Between soul and God.[69] He also advocated difference in degrees in the possession of knowledge and in the enjoyment of bliss even in the case of liberated souls - a doctrine found in no other system of Indian Philosophy. [70]

Schools of Vedanta[edit]

The contents of the Upanishads are often couched in enigmatic language, which has left them open to various interpretations. Over a period of time, various schools of Vedanta, with different interpretations of the Upanishads and the Brahma Sutras arose. There are three,[71] four,[72] five[73] or six[74][note 11] which are prominent

  1. Advaita Vedanta, many scholars of which most prominent are Gaudapada (~500 CE)[38] and Shri Adi Shankara (8th century)[37]
  2. Vishishtadvaita, also a subschool of bhedabheda, founded by Shri Ramanuja (1017–1137 CE)
  3. Dvaita, founded by Shri Madhvacharya (1199–1278 CE)
  4. Bhedabheda, as early as the 7th century CE,[4] or even the 4th century.[23] Some scholars consider it apt to consider it as a "tradition" rather than a school of Vedanta.[4]

Proponents of other Vedantic schools continue to write and develop their ideas as well, although their works are not widely known outside of smaller circles of followers in India.

Advaita Vedānta[edit]

Shankaracharya
Main article: Advaita Vedanta

Advaita Vedanta (IAST Advaita Vedānta; Sanskrit: अद्वैत वेदान्त) espouses non-dualism and monism. Brahman is visualized as the sole unchanging reality and identical to Atman.[76] This absolute and infinite, Atman-Brahman is realized only by a process of negating everything relative, finite, empirical and changing. Though it uses this negative method of "not this, not this", it does not consider Brahman to be indeterminate.[77] The school accepts no duality, no limited individual souls (Atman / Jivatma) nor a separate unlimited cosmic soul. All souls, all of existence, across all space and time, is considered as one and the same oneness.[78]

Adi Shankara says that the Brahman is the never changing metaphysical Reality, while the physical world is always changing empirical Maya.[79][note 12] Spiritual liberation in Advaita is the full comprehension and realization of oneness of one's unchanging Atman (soul) as the same as Atman in everyone else as well as being identical to the nirguna Brahman.[80]

Vishishtadvaita[edit]

Main article: Vishishtadvaita
Ramanujacharya depicted with Vaishnava Tilaka and Vishnu statue.

The most influential philosopher in the Vishishtadvaita tradition was Rāmānuja (1017–1137 CE). As the philosophical architect of Vishishtadvaita, he taught qualified monism.[81] Vishishtadvaita asserts that Jivatman (human souls) and Brahman (as Vishnu) are different, a difference that is never transcended.[82] With this qualification, Ramanuja also affirmed monism by saying that there is unity of all souls and that the individual soul has the potential to realize identity with the Brahman.[83] Vishishtadvaita Vedanta, like Advaita Vedanta, is a non-dualistic schools of Vedanta school but in a qualified way, and both are premised on the assumption that all souls can hope for and achieve the state of blissful liberation.[84]

On the relation between the Brahman and the world of matter (Prakriti), Vishishtadvaita states both are two different absolutes, both metaphysically true and real, neither is false or illusive, and that saguna Brahman with attributes is also real.[85] God, like man, states Ramanuja, has both soul and body, and all of the world of matter is the glory of God's body.[86] The path to Brahman (Vishnu), according to Ramanuja, is devotion to godliness and constant remembrance of the beauty and love of personal god (bhakti of saguna Brahman), one which ultimately leads to nirguna Brahman.[87]

Dvaita[edit]

Main article: Dvaita
Madhvacharya composing a Dvaita text.

Dvaita was propounded by Madhvacharya (1238–1317 CE).[note 13] The Vedanta school he founded is based on dualism premises, which states that Atman (soul) and Brahman (as Vishnu) are two completely, eternally different things.[76][62] He called his school as Tatvavādā (the philosophy of reality). According to the Dvaita school, Brahman is the creator of the universe, perfect in knowledge, perfect in knowing, perfect in its power, and distinct from souls, distinct from matter.[91] This concept of Brahman in Dvaita sub-school of Vedanta is so similar to the monotheistic eternal God, that some early colonial-era Indologists such as George Abraham Grierson suggested Madhva was influenced by Christianity by early Christians who migrated to India,[92] but later scholarship has rejected this theory.[90][93]

In Dvaita Vedanta, for salvation an individual soul must feel attraction, love, attachment and complete devotional surrender to Vishnu, and only His grace leads to redemption and salvation.[90][94][95] Madhvacharya believed that some souls are eternally doomed and damned, a view rejected by Advaita and Vishishtadvaita Vedanta.[96][97] While the Vishishtadvaita Vedanta asserted "qualitative monism and quantitative pluralism of souls", states Sharma (1960, p. 374), Madhvacharya asserted both "qualitative and quantitative pluralism of souls".

Bhedabheda[edit]

Main article: Bhedabheda

Bhedabheda (bheda-abheda), which means "difference and non-difference",[4] existed as early as the 7th century CE,[4] but Bādarāyaṇa's Brahma Sūtra (c. 4th century CE) may also have been written from a Bhedābheda Vedāntic viewpoint.[4] According to the Bhedābheda Vedānta schools the individual self (jīvātman) is both different and not different from Brahman.[4] Bhakti found a place in later proponents of this school.[4] Major names of this school are Bhāskara (8th-9th century),[4] Rāmānuja's teacher Yādavaprakāśa,[4] Nimbārka (13th century) who founded the Dvaitadvaita school,[4] Vallabha (1479–1531) who founded Shuddhadvaita,[73] Caitanya (1486–1534) who founded the Achintya Bheda Abheda school and Vijñānabhikṣu (16th century).[98] [note 14]

Upadhika[edit]

Bhaskara(9th century ACE) was the main proponent of this school. He considers both identity and difference as equally real. As the causal principle, Brahman is non-dual and formless pure being and intelligence.[99] The same Brahman as manifested events becomes the world of plurality. A jīva is Brahman limited by the mind. Matter and its limitations are real, not due to ignorance. Bhaskara totally refuted the idea of Maya. Bhaskara advocated bhakti as dhyana (meditation) directed toward the transcendental Brahman and denied the possibility of liberation in bodily existence.[30]

Dvaitādvaita[edit]

Main article: Dvaitadvaita

Dvaitādvaita was propounded by Nimbārka (13th century), based upon Bhedābheda, which was taught by Bhāskara. According to Nimbarka, Brahman (God), souls (chit) and matter or the universe (achit) are three equally real and co-eternal realities. Brahman is the Controller (niyantr), the soul is the enjoyer (bhoktr), and the material universe iss the object enjoyed (bhogya). Brahman, ruler of the universe, is by His nature, considered free from all defects and the abode of all goodness. He is the efficient cause of the universe because, as Lord of Karma and internal ruler of souls, He brings about creation so that the souls can reap the consequences of their karma; God is considered the material cause of the universe because creation was a manifestation of His powers of soul (chit) and matter (achit); creation is a transformation (parinama) of God's powers.[100]

Shuddhādvaita[edit]

Main article: Shuddhadvaita
Vallabhacharya

Shuddhadvaita was propounded by Vallabhacharya (1479–1531 CE). On the basis of quadruple "Proof Corpus" (pramāna catuṣṭaya) comprising Srutis and Smrutis, Brahmasutra, Gita and Shrimadbhagvata, Vallabhacharya propounded the philosophy of "shuddhadvaita brahmvaad" (pure non-dualism), according to which the entire universe is real and is subtly Brahman only in the form of Krishna.[101]

Vallabhaa greed with Advaita Vedanta's ontology, but he emphasized that the prakriti (empirical world, body) is not separate from the Brahman, and it is just another manifestation of the Brahman.[101] Everything, everyone, everywhere – soul and body, living and non-living, jivas and matter – is a pure monistic one, the eternal Krishna in Suddhadvaita Vedanta.[101] The way to Krishna, in this school, is bhakti. The goal of bhakti is to turn away from ego, self-centeredness and deception, turn towards the eternal Krishna in everything continually offering freedom from samsara.[101]

Achintya-Bheda-Abheda[edit]

Main article: Achintya Bhedabheda

Founded by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu[102] (1486–1534). In Sanskrit achintya means 'inconceivable'.[103] Achintya-Bheda-Abheda represents the philosophy of "inconceivable difference in non-difference", [104] in relation to the nondual reality of Brahman-Atman which it calls as (Krishna), svayam bhagavan. [105] This school asserts that Krishna is Bhagavan of the bhakti yogins, the Brahman of the jnana yogins, who has a divine potency that is inconceivable. He is all-pervading and thus in all parts of the universe (nondifference), yet he is inconceivably more (difference).[104] This school is at the foundation of the Chaitanya's Gaudiya Vaishnava religious tradition.[104]

Vedanta philosophy[edit]

The diversity in the teachings of the Upanishads and the cryptic aphoristic nature of the Brahma Sutras led to numerous interpretations by commentators of different schools of Vedanta.[19] Sivananda gives the following explanation:

Madhva said: "Man is the servant of God," and established his Dvaita philosophy. Ramanuja said: "Man is a ray or spark of God," and established his Visishtadvaita philosophy. Sankara said: "Man is identical with Brahman or the Eternal Soul," and established his Kevala Advaita philosophy.[106]

Various approaches followed by different schools are summarized below with the mention of their most-noted proponents:

  1. To theorize that the soul (Atman / Jivatma) and the physical universe (Prakriti) are both identical with and different from Brahman, a view held by Bhartriprapancha. [19]
  2. To explain the dualistic ideas as interim and assert the non-dualistic ideas to be the main idea - an approach followed by Adi Shankara.[107]
  3. To theorize non-dualism as qualified by difference, as followed by Ramanuja. [108]
  4. To discredit and re-explain the non-dualistic ideas and emphasize dualism as was done by Madhvacharya.[109]

Common features[edit]

Despite their differences, all schools of Vedanta are found to share some common features:

  1. Belief that Brahman exists as the unchanging material as well as the instrumental cause of the world;[110]
  2. The Upanishads are a reliable source of knowledge (Sruti Śabda in Pramana);[111] Vedanta is an investigation into Brahman, Atman and the pursuit of its knowledge;[112]
  3. Belief in rebirth and the desirability of release from the cycle of rebirths (mokşa).[113]
  4. The self (Atman / Jivatma) is the agent of its own acts (karma) and the recipient of the consequences of these actions.[113]
  5. Rejection of Buddhism and Jainism.[113]

Metaphysics[edit]

Vedānta philosophies discuss the relation between three metaphysical categories: the Brahman (ultimate reality), Jiva / Atman (soul, self) and the Prakriti (physical universe).[114]

Brahman / Ishvara[edit]

Shankara, on the evidence of Prasna Upanishad, talks of two conceptions of Brahman: the higher Brahman as undifferentiated Being and a lower Brahman endowed with qualities as the creator of the universe.[115]

  1. Para or Higher Brahman - The undifferentiated, absolute, infinite, transcendental, supra-relational Brahman beyond all thought and speech is defined as para Brahman, nirviśeṣa Brahman or nirguṇa Brahman and is the Absolute of metaphysics.
  2. Apara or Lower Brahman - The Brahman with qualities is defined as apara Brahman or saguṇa Brahman. The saguṇa Brahman is endowed with attributes and represents the personal God of religion.

Shankara's Advaita accepts the undifferentiated Absolute as the Ultimate Reality. He also admits of God in his philosophy which is the saguṇa Brahman defined as Brahman as conditioned by maya.

Ramanuja, in his formulation of the Vishishtadvaita Vedanta, rejects the undifferentiated Absolute as inconceivable and, adopting a theistic interpretation of the Upanishads, accepts Ishvara, the saguṇa Brahman, as the One reality.[115] Madhva, in expounding Dvaita philosophy, maintains that Vishnu is the supreme God, thus identifying the brahman, or absolute reality, of the Upanishads with a personal god, as Ramanuja had done before him.[116]

Nimbarka, in his dvaitadvata philosophy, accepted the Brahman both as nirguna and as saguna. Vallabha, in his shuddhadvaita philosophy, not only accepts the triple ontological essence of the Brahman, but also His manifestation as (personal) god (Ishvara), as matter and as individual soluls.[117]

Relation between Brahman and Jiva / Atman[edit]

The schools of Vedanta differ in their conception of the relation they see between Atman and Brahman / Ishvara:[39]

  • According to Advaita Vedanta, both are identical and there is no difference.[118]
  • According to Vishishtadvaita, there is absolute difference the jīvātman and Brahman. However, there is the oneness of Reality understood in the sense of an organic unity (vishistaikya). Brahman alone, as organically related to all jīvātman and the universe is the one ultimate Reality.[119]
  • According to Dvaita, the jīvātman is totally and always different from Brahman.[120]
  • According to Shuddhadvaita (pure monism), the jīvātman and Brahman are identical, but both along with the changing empirically observed universe are Krishna.[101]

Epistemology[edit]

Main article: Pramana
Epistemology in Dvaita and Vishishtadvaita Vedanta.

Pramana[edit]

Pramāṇa (Sanskrit: प्रमाण) literally means "proof", "that which is the means of valid knowledge".[121] It refers to epistemology in Indian philosophies, and encompasses the study of reliable and valid means by which human beings gain accurate, true knowledge.[122] The focus of Pramana is how correct knowledge can be acquired, how one knows, how one doesn't, and to what extent knowledge pertinent about someone or something can be acquired.[123][124]

Ancient and medieval Indian texts identify six[125] pramanas as correct means of accurate knowledge and to truths: Pratyakṣa (perception), Anumāṇa (inference), Upamāṇa (comparison and analogy), Arthāpatti (postulation, derivation from circumstances), Anupalabdi (non-perception, negative/cognitive proof) and Śabda (verbal testimony of past or present reliable experts).[126][124][127] The different schools of Vedanta have historically disagreed as to which of the six are epistemically valid:

  • Advaita Vedanta developed and accepts all six pramanas.[128][129][130]
  • Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita accept only three pramanas - perception, inference and testimony.[128]

Advaita and Vishishtadvaita schools consider Pratyakṣa (perception) as the most reliable source of knowledge, while scriptural evidence is secondary.while scriptural evidence is secondary[131]>[132][note 15] In Dvaita, the Śabda (verbal) is considered the most authentic means of knowledge instead.[135][136]

Theories of Cause and Effect[edit]

All schools of Vedanta subscribe to the theory of Satkāryavāda,[137] which means that the effect is pre-existent in the cause. But there are two different views on the status of the "effect", that is, the world. Most schools of Vedanta,[138][137] as well as Samkhya,[137] support Parinamavada, the idea that the world is a real transformation (parinama) of Brahman.[138] According to Nicholson, "the Brahma Sutras also espouse the realist Parinamavada position, which appears to have been the view most common among early Vedantins".[138] In contrast to Badarayana, Adi Shankara and Advaita Vedantists hold a different view, Vivartavada, which says that the effect, the world, is merely an unreal (vivarta) transformation of its cause, Brahman:

[A]lthough Brahman seems to undergo a transformation, in fact no real change takes place. The myriad of beings are essentially unreal, as the only real being is Brahman, that ultimate reality which is unborn, unchanging, and entirely without parts.[138]

Influence[edit]

Hindu traditions[edit]

Vedanta has been at the foundation of numerous Hinduism traditions. For example, Sri Vaishnavism of south and southeastern India is based on Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita Vedanta.[139] Ramananda led to the Vaishnav Bhakti Movement in North, East, Central and West India that draws it's philosophical and theistic basis from Vishishtadvaita. A large number of devotional Vaishnavism traditions of east India, north India (particularly the Braj region), west and central India are based on various sub-schools of Bhedabheda Vedanta.[4] Advaita Vedanta influenced Krishna Vaishnavism in the northeastern state of Assam.[140] The Madhva school of Vaishnavism found in coastal Karnataka is based on Dvaita Vedanta.[141]

Shaktism, or traditions where a goddess is considered identical to Brahman, similarly has flowered from a syncretism of the monist premises of Advaita Vedanta and dualism premises of Samkhya-Yoga school of Hindu philosophy, sometimes referred to as Shaktadavaitavada (literally, the path of nondualistic Shakti).[142]

Agamas, the classical literature of Shaivism, independent in origin, show Vedanta association and premises.[143][144][145] Of the 92 Agamas, ten are dualistic (dvaita) Agama texts, eighteen qualified monism-cum-dualism (bhedabheda), and sixty four monistic (advaita) texts.[146] The Bhairava Shastras are monistic, while Shiva Shastras are dualistic.[147][148] According to Isaeva (1995, pp. 134–135), the link between Gaudapada's Advaita Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism "is certainly much more evident and natural". Tirumular, the Tamil Shaiva Siddhanta scholar, is credited with creating "Vedanta-Siddhanta" (Advaita Vedanta and Shaiva Siddhanta synthesis), and he stated, "becoming Shiva is the goal of Vedanta and Siddhanta; all other goals are secondary to it and are vain."[149]

Neo-Vedanta[edit]

The term Neo-Vedanta, variously called as "Hindu modernism," "neo-Hinduism," and "neo-Advaita," characterizes certain interpretations of Hinduism that developed in the 19th century,[150] presumably in response to the interaction with the colonial British rule.[151] Western orientalists, in their search for its "essence", attempted to formulate a notion of "Hinduism" based on a single interpretation of Vedanta as a unified body of religious praxis.[152] This was contra-factual as, historically, Hinduism and Vedanta had always accepted a diversity of traditions.[153] King (1999, pp. 134–136) asserts that this idea of a single Vedanta was used, together with the ideas of Universalism and Perennialism, by the Hindu reformers to challenge the polemic dogmatism of Judaeo-Christian-Islamic missionaries against the Hindus with neo-Vedantic theory of "overarching tolerance and acceptance". The neo-Vedantins argued that the six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy were perspectives on a single truth, all valid and complementary to each other.[154] Nicholson (2010, p. 2), however believes that these attempts at integration were already evident between the 12th and the 16th century−

... certain thinkers began to treat as a single whole the diverse philosophical teachings of the Upanishads, epics, Puranas, and the schools known retrospectively as the "six systems" (saddarsana) of mainstream Hindu philosophy.[note 16]

Halbfass (2007a, p. 307) sees these interpretations as incorporating western ideas[159] into traditional systems, especially Advaita Vedanta.[160] It is the modern form of Advaita Vedanta, states King (1999, p. 135). The neo-Vedantists subsumed the Buddhist philosophies as part of the Vedanta tradition[note 17] and then argued that all the world religions are same "non-dualistic position as the philosophia perennis", ignoring the differences within and outside of Hinduism.[153] A major proponent in the popularization of this Universalist and Perennialist interpretation of Advaita Vedanta was Vivekananda,[162] who played a major role in the revival of Hinduism,.[163] He was also instrumental in the spread of Advaita Vedanta to the west via the Vedanta Society, the international arm of the Ramakrishna Order.[164][page needed] According to Nicholas Gier, Neo-Vedanta is Advaita Vedanta which accepts universal realism:

Ramakrishna, Vivekananda and Aurobindo have been labeled neo-Vedantists (the latter called it realistic Advaita), a view of Vedanta that rejects the Advaitins' idea that the world is illusory. As Aurobindo phrased it, philosophers need to move from 'universal illusionism' to 'universal realism', in the strict philosophical sense of assuming the world to be fully real.[165]

These notions provided the Hindu nationalists with an opportunity to attempt the construction of a nationalist ideology that could unite Hindus in their struggle against colonial oppression.[166]

Criticism of Neo-Vedanta label[edit]

Matilal criticizes Neo-Hinduism as an oddity developed by West-inspired Western Indologists and attributes it to the flawed Western perception of Hinduism in modern India. In his scathing criticism of this school of reasoning, Matilal (2002, pp. 403–404) says:

The so-called 'traditional' outlook is in fact a construction. Indian history shows that the tradition itself was self-conscious and critical of itself, sometimes overtly and sometimes covertly. It was never free from internal tensions due to the inequalities that persisted in a hierarchical society, nor was it without confrontation and challenge throughout its history. Hence Gandhi, Vivekananda and Tagore were not simply 'transplants from Western culture, products arising solely from confrontation with the west.

...It is rather odd that, although the early Indologists' romantic dream of discovering a pure (and probably primitive, according to some) form of Hinduism (or Buddhism as the case may be) now stands discredited in many quarters; concepts like neo-Hinduism are still bandied about as substantial ideas or faultless explanation tools by the Western 'analytic' historians as well as the West-inspired historians of India.

Influence on Western thinkers[edit]

Due to the colonisation of Asia by the western world, since the late 18th century an exchange of ideas has been taking place between the western world and Asia, which also influenced western religiosity.[167] In 1785 appeared the first western translation of a Sanskrit-text.[168] It marked the growing interest in the Indian culture and languages.[169] The first translation of Upanishads appeared in two parts in 1801 and 1802,[169] which influenced Arthur Schopenhauer, who called them "the consolation of my life".[170][note 18] Schopenhauer drew explicit parallels between his philosophy, as set out in 'The World as Will and Representation',[171] and that of the Vedanta philosophy ascribed to Vasya in the work of Sir William Jones.[172] Early translations also appeared in other European languages.[173]

Lucian Blaga has often used the concepts Marele Anonim ('the Great Anonymous') and cenzura transcendentă ('the transcendental censorship') in his philosophy. He was influenced by Śaṅkara's concepts of Brahman ('God') and māyā ('illusion').[174] In Śaṅkarācārya, Brahman is understood as nirguna Brahman ('God without attributes'), whilst Īśvara is saguna Brahman ('God with attributes'). Louis Renou underlines that Brahman is superior to Īśvara, while Olivier Lacombe writes that Brahman is Īśvara's superlative.[175] Brahman is different than Greek Zeus, as well as than Christian or Jewish God, than Muslim Allah, because he is transpersonal.[176] Māyā is a fundamental concept in Vedanta. It has several meanings and it has often been translated as 'illusion'. According to L. Thomas O’Neil, māyā signifies 'measuring the immeasurable'.[177]

Reception[edit]

According to Nakamura (1950, p. 3), the Vedanta school has had a historic and central influence on Hinduism:

The prevalence of Vedanta thought is found not only in philosophical writings but also in various forms of (Hindu) literature, such as the epics, lyric poetry, drama and so forth. What is especially worthy of attention is that the Hindu religious sects, the common faith of the Indian populace, looked to Vedanta philosophy for the theoretical foundations for their theology. The influence of Vedanta is prominent in the sacred literatures of Hinduism, such as the various Puranas, Samhitas, Agamas and Tantras. Many commentaries on the fundamental scripture of Vedanta, the Brahmasutra, were written by the founders or leading scholars of the various sects of Hinduism, and they are transmitted to this day as documents indispensable in the respective sectarian traditions. The majority of the traditional and conservative scholars in India today, called Pandits, are students of Vedanta, and an overwhelming number belong to the lineage of Shankara – five-sixths of all Pandits, according to some authorities.[25]

Frithjof Schuon summarizes the influence of Vedanta on Hinduism as, "The Vedanta contained in the Upanishads, then formulated in the Brahma Sutra, and finally commented and explained by Shankara, is an invaluable key for discovering the deepest meaning of all the religious doctrines and for realizing that the Sanatana Dharma secretly penetrates all the forms of traditional spirituality.[178][179] Flood (1996, p. 231,232,238) states, "the most influential school of theology in India has been Vedanta, exerting enormous influence on all religious traditions and becoming the central ideology of the Hindu renaissance in the nineteenth century. It has become the philosophical paradigm of Hinduism par excellence."

Comparison to Western philosophies[edit]

Similarities between Vedanta and Western philosophical traditions have been discussed by many authorities.

Similarities with Spinoza's Philosophy[edit]

Max Müller, in his lectures, noted the striking similarities between Vedanta and the system of Spinoza, saying

[T]he Brahman, as conceived in the Upanishads and defined by Sankara, is clearly the same as Spinoza's 'Substantia'."[180]

Helena Blavatsky, a founder of the Theosophical Society, also compared Spinoza's religious thought to Vedanta, writing in an unfinished essay

As to Spinoza's Deity—natura naturans—conceived in his attributes simply and alone; and the same Deity—as natura naturata or as conceived in the endless series of modifications or correlations, the direct outflowing results from the properties of these attributes, it is the Vedantic Deity pure and simple.[181]

The 19th-century German Sanskritist Theodore Goldstücker was one of the early figures to notice the similarities between the religious conceptions of the Vedanta and those of the Dutch Jewish philosopher Baruch Spinoza, writing that Spinoza's thought was

... so exact a representation of the ideas of the Vedanta, that we might have suspected its founder to have borrowed the fundamental principles of his system from the Hindus, did his biography not satisfy us that he was wholly unacquainted with their doctrines [...] comparing the fundamental ideas of both we should have no difficulty in proving that, had Spinoza been a Hindu, his system would in all probability mark a last phase of the Vedanta philosophy.[182][183]

Comparisons in the 20th Century[edit]

In the 20th century, comparisons between Advaita, western philosophy, and science took a high flight. Brian David Josephson, Welsh physicist, and Nobel Prize laureate says:[184]

The Vedanta and the Sankhya hold the key to the laws of the mind and thought process which are co-related to the Quantum Field, i.e. the operation and distribution of particles at atomic and molecular levels.

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ The Upanishads were many in number and developed in the different schools at different times and places, some in the Vedic period and others in the medieval or modern era (the names of up to 112 Upanishads have been recorded).[18] All major commentators have considered twelve to thirteen oldest of these texts as the Principal Upanishads and as the foundation of Vedanta.
  2. ^ Nicholson (2010, p. 26) considers the Brahmasutras as a group of sutras composed by multiple authors over the course of hundreds of years. The estimates on when the Brahma Sutras were complete vary,.[24] Nicholson (2010, p. 26) estimates that the book was composed in its current form between 400 and 450 BCE.
  3. ^ Balasubramanian (2000, p. xxx–xxxiiii) opines that from the way in which Bādarāyana cites the views of others it is obvious that the teachings of the Upanishads must have been analyzed and interpreted by quite a few before him and that his systematization of them in 555 sutras arranged in four chapters must have been the last attempt, most probably the best.
  4. ^ The Vedānta-sūtra are known by a variety of names, including (1) Brahma-sūtra, (2) Śārīraka-sutra, (3) Bādarāyaṇa-sūtra and (4) Uttara-mīmāṁsā.
  5. ^ According to Mishra, the sutras, beginning with the first sutra of Jaimini and ending with the last sutra of Badarayana, form one compact shastra.[35]
  6. ^ Bhartŗhari (c. 450–500), Upavarsa (c. 450–500), Bodhāyana (c. 500), Tanka (Brahmānandin) (c. 500–550), Dravida (c. 550), Bhartŗprapañca (c. 550), Śabarasvāmin (c. 550), Bhartŗmitra (c. 550–600), Śrivatsānka (c. 600), Sundarapāndya (c. 600), Brahmadatta (c. 600–700), Gaudapada (c. 640–690), Govinda (c. 670–720), Mandanamiśra (c. 670–750).[25]
  7. ^ Shankara mentions 99 different predecessors of his Sampradaya.[34] Shankara "synthesized the Advaita-vāda which had previously existed before him",[40] and, in this synthesis, he was to become the rejuvenator and defender of an ancient learning.[41] He was an unequaled commentator,[41] due to whose efforts and contributions,[40] Advaita Vedanta assumed a dominant position within Indian philosophy.[41]
  8. ^ Scholarship since 1950 suggests that almost all Sannyasa Upanishads have a strong Advaita Vedanta outlook.[43][44] Six of the Sannyasa Upanishads – Aruni, Kundika, Kathashruti, Paramahamsa, Jabala and Brahma – were composed before the 3rd-century CE, likely in the centuries before or after the start of the common era, states Sprockhoff; the Asrama Upanishad is dated to the 3rd-century.[45] The strong Advaita Vedanta views in these ancient Sannyasa Upanishads may be, states Patrick Olivelle, because major Hindu monasteries of this period belonged to the Advaita Vedanta tradition.[46]
  9. ^ Scholars such as Raju (1972, p. 177), following the lead of earlier scholars like S. N. Sengupta,[48] state that Gaudapada took over the Buddhist doctrines that ultimate reality is pure consciousness (vijñapti-mātra). Raju (1972, pp. 177–178) states that Gaudapada "wove [both doctrines] into a philosophy of the Mandukaya Upanisad, which was further developed by Shankara". Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, in his Indian Philosophy, tries to show that Gaudapada's philosophy is different from that of Adi Shankara and Badarayan. Nikhilananda (2008, pp. 203–206) refutes the views of Sengupta and Radhakrishnan by arguing that the whole purpose of Gaudapada was to demonstrate the ultimate reality of the birth-less and non-dual Atman, a concept that is foreign to Buddhism. According to Murti, Gaudapada's doctrines are unlike Buddhism. Gaudapada's influential text consists of four chapters; Chapter One, Two and Three of which are entirely Vedantin and founded on the Upanishads, with little Buddhist flavor.[49] Chapter Four uses Buddhist terminology and incorporates Buddhist doctrines but Vedanta scholars who followed Gaudapada through the 17th century, state both Murti and Richard King, never referenced nor used Chapter Four, they only quote from the first three.[38] While there is shared terminology, the doctrines of Gaudapada and Buddhism are fundamentally different, states Murti (1955, pp. 114–115)
  10. ^ Nicholson (2010, p. 27) writes: "The Brahmasutras themselves espouse the realist Parinamavada position, which appears to have been the view most common among early Vedantins." Sharma (2000, p. 64) writes: "How difficult he himself found the task of making the Sutras yield a Monism of his conception, is proved by the artificiality and parenthetical irrelevance of his comments in many places, where he seeks to go against the spirit and letter of the Sutras and their natural drift of arguments and dialectic [...] he was fighting with all his might and ingenuity against a long line of realistic commentaries."
  11. ^ Sivananda also mentions Meykandar and the Shaiva Siddhanta philosophy.[71]
  12. ^ Doniger (1996, p. 119) says "that to say that the universe is an illusion (māyā) is not to say that it is unreal; it is to say, instead, that it is not what it seems to be, that it is something constantly being made. Māyā not only deceives people about the things they think they know; more basically, it limits their knowledge."
  13. ^ Many sources date him to 1238–1317 period,[88][89] but some place him over 1199-1278 CE.[90]
  14. ^ According to Nakamura and Dasgupta, the Brahmasutras reflect a Bhedabheda point of view,[23] the most influential school of Vedanta before Shankara. Numerous Indologists, including Surendranath Dasgupta, Paul hacker, Hajime Nakamura, and Mysore Hiriyanna, have described Bhedabheda as the most influential school of Vedanta before Sankara.[23]
  15. ^ Anantanand Rambachan states, "According to these [widely represented contemporary] studies, Shankara only accorded a provisional validity to the knowledge gained by inquiry into the words of the Śruti (Vedas) and did not see the latter as the unique source (pramana) of Brahmajnana. The affirmations of the Śruti, it is argued, need to be verified and confirmed by the knowledge gained through direct experience (anubhava) and the authority of the Śruti, therefore, is only secondary."[133] Sengaku Mayeda concurs, adding Shankara maintained the need for objectivity in the process of gaining knowledge (vastutantra), and considered subjective opinions (purushatantra) and injunctions in Śruti (codanatantra) as secondary. Mayeda cites Shankara's explicit statements emphasizing epistemology (pramana-janya) in section 1.18.133 of Upadesasahasri and section 1.1.4 of Brahmasutra-bhasya.[134]
  16. ^ The tendency of "a blurring of philosophical distinctions" has also been noted by Burley.[155] Lorenzen locates the origins of a distinct Hindu identity in the interaction between Muslims and Hindus,[156] and a process of "mutual self-definition with a contrasting Muslim other",[157] which started well before 1800.[158]
  17. ^ Vivekananda, clarifies Richard King, stated, "I am not a Buddhist, as you have heard, and yet I am"; but thereafter Vivekananda explained that "he cannot accept the Buddhist rejection of a self, but nevertheless honors the Buddha's compassion and attitude towards others".[161]
  18. ^ And called his poodle "Atman".[170]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b Flood 1996, p. 231,232,238.
  2. ^ Hiriyanna 1948, pp. 19,21–25,150–152; Ranganathan
  3. ^ a b Chatterjee & Dutta 1939, pp. 317-318.
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Nicholson 2016.
  5. ^ Raju 1972, pp. 176–177; Hiriyanna 1948, pp. 19,21–25,150–152
  6. ^ Puligandla 1997, p. 222; Das 1952
  7. ^ Jones & Ryan 2006, p. 51; Johnson 2009, p. 'see entry for Atman(self)'
  8. ^ Hiriyanna 1948, pp. 23, 78, 158–162; Lipner 1986, pp. pp. 40–41, 51–56, 144
  9. ^ Hiriyanna 1948, pp. 19,21–25,150–152; Clooney 2000, pp. 96–107
  10. ^ Flood 1996, p. 231,232,238; Nakamura 1950, p. 3; Brooks 1990, pp. 20–22,77–79
  11. ^ Koller 2013, pp. 100–106; Sharma 1960, p. 211; Hiriyanna 1948, pp. 19,21–25,150–152
  12. ^ Chatterjee & Dutta 1939, pp. 317–318; Raju 1972, pp. 176–177; Isaeva 1992, p. 35 with footnote 30
  13. ^ Raju 1972, pp. 176–177; Staal 2009, p. 139
  14. ^ Chatterjee & Dutta 1939, pp. 317–318; Scharfe 2002, pp. 58–59, 115–120, 282–283
  15. ^ Clooney & 2001 147-158; Jaimini 1925, p. 16, Sutra 30
  16. ^ King 1995, p. 268 with note 2.
  17. ^ a b Grimes 1990, pp. 6-7.
  18. ^ Dasgupta 1922, pp. 28.
  19. ^ a b c Hiriyanna 1948, pp. 19,21–25,150–152.
  20. ^ Pasricha 2008, p. 95.
  21. ^ Balasubramanian 2000, p. xxx–xxxiiii.
  22. ^ Deutsch & Dalvi 2004, p. 95-96.
  23. ^ a b c d e Nicholson 2010, p. 26.
  24. ^ Lochtefeld 2000, p. 746; Nakamura 1949, p. 436
  25. ^ a b c d e Nakamura 1950, p. 3.
  26. ^ Sharma 1996, pp. 124–125; Balasubramanian 2000, p. xxxiii
  27. ^ Nakamura 1950, p. 3; Sharma 1996, pp. 124–125
  28. ^ Hiriyanna 1948, pp. 19,21–25,150–152; Goswāmi 1976, p. 240; Balasubramanian 2000, p. xxxii
  29. ^ Chatterjee & Dutta 1939, pp. 317–318; Sharma 1960, pp. 239–241; Nicholson 2010, p. 26
  30. ^ a b Mohanty & Wharton 2011.
  31. ^ a b Hiriyanna 1948, pp. 19,21-25,150-152.
  32. ^ Hiriyanna 1948, pp. 19,21–25,150–152; Nicholson 2010, pp. 26–27
  33. ^ Nakamura 1950, p. 3; Michael Comans 2000, p. 163
  34. ^ a b Roodurmum 2002.
  35. ^ a b Sharma 1960, pp. 239-241,372–375.
  36. ^ Nakamura 1950, p. 426.
  37. ^ a b Michael Comans 2000, p. 163.
  38. ^ a b c Jagannathan.
  39. ^ a b Raju 1972, p. 177.
  40. ^ a b Nakamura 1950, p. 678.
  41. ^ a b c Nakamura 1950, p. 679.
  42. ^ a b c Sharma 1960, p. 239.
  43. ^ Olivelle 1992, pp. 17–18; Rigopoulos 1998, pp. 62–63
  44. ^ Phillips 1995, p. 332 with note 68.
  45. ^ Olivelle 1992, pp. x-xi, 8–18; Sprockhoff 1976, pp. 277–294, 319–377
  46. ^ Olivelle 1992, pp. 17-18.
  47. ^ Nikhilananda 2008, pp. 203–206; Nakamura 1950, p. 308
  48. ^ a b c Nikhilananda 2008, pp. 203-206.
  49. ^ Murti 1955, pp. 114-115.
  50. ^ Sharma 2000, p. 64.
  51. ^ Nakamura 2004; Sharma 2000, p. 64
  52. ^ Raju 1972, p. 175-176.
  53. ^ Bartley 2013, pp. 1–2; Carman 1974, p. 24
  54. ^ Olivelle 1992, pp. 10–11, 17–18; C. J. Bartley 2013, pp. 1–4, 52–53, 79
  55. ^ Bernard 1947, pp. 9–12; Sydnor 2012, pp. 0–11, 20–22
  56. ^ Carman 1994, pp. 82-87 with footnotes.
  57. ^ C. J. Bartley 2013, pp. 1–2, 9–10, 76–79, 87–98; Sullivan 2001, p. 239; Doyle 2006, pp. 59–62
  58. ^ Buitenin 2008.
  59. ^ Bernand 1947, pp. 9-12.
  60. ^ Hiriyanna 1948, p. 187.
  61. ^ Sheridan 1991, p. 117.
  62. ^ a b Dehsen 1999, p. 118.
  63. ^ Sharma 2000, pp. 79-80.
  64. ^ Sharma 1962, pp. 128-129, 180-181.
  65. ^ Sharma 1960, p. 150-151, 372, 433-434.
  66. ^ Sharma 2000, pp. 80-81.
  67. ^ Sharma 1960, p. 372–375.
  68. ^ Hiriyanna 1948, pp. 188-189.
  69. ^ Lochtefeld 2000, p. 396; Stoker 2011
  70. ^ Hiriyanna & 1948 p-188-189.
  71. ^ a b Sivananda 1993, p. 217.
  72. ^ Raju 1972, p. 175-200.
  73. ^ a b c d Prem Pahlajrai, Asian Languages and Literature, University of Washington, Vedanta: A Comparative Analysis of Diverse Schools
  74. ^ Sivananda 1993, p. 216.
  75. ^ Sivananda 1993, p. 248.
  76. ^ a b Stoker 2011.
  77. ^ Das 1952.
  78. ^ Sharma 2007, pp. 19–40, 53–58, 79–86.
  79. ^ Das 1952; Hiriyanna 1948, pp. 160-161; Doniger 1986, p. 119
  80. ^ Indich 1995, pp. 1–2, 97–102; Etter 2006, pp. 57–60, 63–65; Perret 2013, pp. 247–248
  81. ^ Sullivan 2001, p. 239; Schultz 1981, pp. 81–84
  82. ^ Betty 2010, pp. 215-224; Craig 2000, p. 517-518
  83. ^ C. J. Bartley 2013, pp. 1–2, 9–10, 76–79, 87–98; Sullivan 2001, p. 239; Doyle
  84. ^ Etter 2006, pp. 57–60, 63–65; Buitenin 2010
  85. ^ Schultz 1981, pp. 81–84.
  86. ^ Buitenin 2010.
  87. ^ Schultz 1981, pp. 81–84; Buitenin 2010; Sydnor 2012, pp. 84–87
  88. ^ Bryant 2007, pp. 12-13, 359-361.
  89. ^ Sharma 2000, pp. 77-78.
  90. ^ a b c Jones & Ryan 2006, p. 266.
  91. ^ Sharma 1962, pp. 353-354.
  92. ^ Sabapathy Kulandran and Hendrik Kraemer (2004), Grace in Christianity and Hinduism, James Clarke, ISBN 978-0227172360, pages 177-179
  93. ^ Sarma 2000, pp. 19-21.
  94. ^ Sharma 1962, pp. 417-424.
  95. ^ Sharma 1960, p. 373.
  96. ^ Sharma 1960, pp. 374-375.
  97. ^ Bryant 2007, pp. 361-362.
  98. ^ Nicholson 2016; Sivananda 1993, p. 247
  99. ^ Sharma 1960, p. 340.
  100. ^ Sharma 1960, p. 376.
  101. ^ a b c d e Bryant 2007, pp. 479-481.
  102. ^ Sivananda 1993, p. 247.
  103. ^ Bryant 2007, p. 407; Gupta 2007, p. 47-52
  104. ^ a b c Bryant 2007, pp. 378-380.
  105. ^ Gupta 2016, pp. 44-45.
  106. ^ Sivananda, p. 217.
  107. ^ Comans 1996, pp. 49–71; Mayeda 2006, pp. 46–53; Phillips 2000, pp. 224–228 with notes 8, 13 and 63
  108. ^ Sharma 1960, p. 346.
  109. ^ Sharma 1962, pp. 368–374.
  110. ^ Das 1952; Doniger & Stefon 2015; Lochtefeld 2000, p. 122; Sheridan 1991, p. 136
  111. ^ Fowler 2002, pp. 34,66.
  112. ^ Fowler 2002, pp. 34,66; Flood 1996, pp. 238–239
  113. ^ a b c Doniger & Stefon 2015.
  114. ^ Raju 1972, pp. 176–177, 505–506; Fowler 2002, pp. 49–59, 254, 269, 294–295, 345
  115. ^ a b Chari 1988, pp. 2,383.
  116. ^ Britannica 2016; Stoker 2011
  117. ^ Vassilis Vitsaxis (Author), Deborah Brown Kazazis (Translator). Thought and Faith: Comparative Philosophical and Religious Concepts in Ancient Greece, India, and Christianity: The Concept of Divinity: 2. pp. 100–101. 
  118. ^ Raju 1972, p. 177; Stoker 2011
  119. ^ Betty 2010, pp. 215-224; Stoker 2011; Chari 1988, pp. 2,383
  120. ^ Craig 200, pp. 517-18; Stoker 2011; Bryant 2007, pp. 361–363
  121. ^ Lochtefeld 2000, pp. 520–521; Chari 1988, pp. 73–76
  122. ^ Lochtefeld 2000, pp. 520-521.
  123. ^ Karl Potter (2002), Presuppositions of India's Philosophies, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 81-208-0779-0, pages 25-26
  124. ^ a b DPS Bhawuk (2011), Spirituality and Indian Psychology (Editor: Anthony Marsella), Springer, ISBN 978-1-4419-8109-7, page 172
  125. ^ A few Indian scholars such as Vedvyasa discuss ten, Krtakoti discusses eight, but six is most widely accepted; see Andrew J. Nicholson (2010), Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History, Columbia University Press, ISBN 978-0231149877, pages 149-150
  126. ^ Chari 1988, pp. 73-76.
  127. ^ Flood 1996, pp. 225.
  128. ^ a b John A. Grimes, A Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy: Sanskrit Terms Defined in English, State University of New York Press, ISBN 978-0791430675, page 238
  129. ^ Puligandla 1997, p. 228.
  130. ^ John Clayton (2006). Religions, Reasons and Gods: Essays in Cross-cultural Philosophy of Religion. Cambridge University Press. pp. 53–54. ISBN 978-1-139-45926-6. 
  131. ^ Indich 1995, pp. 65.
  132. ^ Bina Gupta (1995). Perceiving in Advaita Vedānta: Epistemological Analysis and Interpretation. Motilal Banarsidass. pp. 137–166. ISBN 978-81-208-1296-3. 
  133. ^ A Rambachan (1991), Accomplishing the Accomplished: Vedas as a Source of Valid Knowledge in Sankara, University of Hawaii Press, ISBN 978-0-8248-1358-1, pages xii–xiii
  134. ^ Mayeda 2006, pp. 46–47.
  135. ^ Puligandla 1997, pp. 208-211, 237-239.
  136. ^ B. N. Krishnamurti Sharma (2000). History of the Dvaita School of Vedānta and Its Literature: From the Earliest Beginnings to Our Own Times. Motilal Banarsidass. pp. 147–151. ISBN 978-81-208-1575-9. 
  137. ^ a b c Nicholson.
  138. ^ a b c d Nicholson 2010, p. 27.
  139. ^ John Carman & Vasudha Narayanan 1989, pp. 3-4.
  140. ^ Maheswar Neog (1980). Early History of the Vaiṣṇava Faith and Movement in Assam: Śaṅkaradeva and His Times. Motilal Banarsidass. pp. 243–244. ISBN 978-81-208-0007-6. 
  141. ^ Sharma 1960, pp. 372-375.
  142. ^ McDaniel 2004, pp. 89–91; Brooks 1990, pp. 35–39; Mahony 1997, p. 274 with note 73
  143. ^ David Smith (2003). The Dance of Siva: Religion, Art and Poetry in South India. Cambridge University Press. pp. 126–128. ISBN 978-0-521-52865-8. 
  144. ^ Richard Davis (2014), Ritual in an Oscillating Universe: Worshipping Siva in Medieval India, Princeton University Press, ISBN 978-0691603087, page 167 note 21, Quote (page 13): Some agamas argue a monist metaphysics, while others are decidedly dualist."
  145. ^ Klaus K. Klostermaier (1984). Mythologies and Philosophies of Salvation in the Theistic Traditions of India. Wilfrid Laurier University Press. pp. 177–178. ISBN 978-0-88920-158-3. 
  146. ^ Mark Dyczkowski (1989), The Canon of the Śaivāgama, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120805958, pages 43-44
  147. ^ JS Vasugupta (2012), Śiva Sūtras, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120804074, pages 252, 259
  148. ^ Flood 1996, pp. 162-167.
  149. ^ Thomas Manninezhath (1993). Harmony of Religions: Vedānta Siddhānta Samarasam of Tāyumānavar. Motilal Banarsidass. p. xv, 31. ISBN 978-81-208-1001-3. 
  150. ^ King 1999, p. 135; Flood 1996, p. 258; King 2002, p. 93
  151. ^ King 1999, pp. 187, 135—142.
  152. ^ King 2002, p. 118.
  153. ^ a b King 1999, pp. 133-136.
  154. ^ King 1999, p. 137.
  155. ^ Burley 2007, p. 34.
  156. ^ Lorenzen 2006, p. 24-33.
  157. ^ Lorenzen 2006, p. 27.
  158. ^ Lorenzen 2006, p. 26-27.
  159. ^ Halbfass 2007a, p. 307.
  160. ^ King 2002, p. 135.
  161. ^ King 1999, p. 138.
  162. ^ King 2002, pp. 135-142.
  163. ^ Dense 1999, p. 191.
  164. ^ Mukerji 1983.
  165. ^ Nicholas F. Gier (2000). Spiritual Titanism: Indian, Chinese, and Western Perspectives. State University of New York Press. p. 140. ISBN 978-0-7914-4528-0. 
  166. ^ King 2002, pp. 129—135.
  167. ^ McMahan 2008.
  168. ^ Renard 2010, p. 176.
  169. ^ a b Renard 2010, p. 177.
  170. ^ a b Renard 2010, p. 178.
  171. ^ Schopenhauer, Arthur. The World as Will and Representation. Translated from the German by EFJ Payne. Dover Publications, vol. 1, chap. 1
  172. ^ Jones, Sir William. On the Philosophy of the Asiatics. Sir William Jones. Asiatic Researches, vol. 4, p. 164
  173. ^ Renard 2010, p. 183-184.
  174. ^ Iţu, Mircia (2007), Marele Anonim şi cenzura transcendentă la Blaga. Brahman şi māyā la Śaṅkara (The Great Anonymous and the transcendental censorship in Lucian Blaga. Brahman and māyā in Adi Shankara), in Caiete critice 6–7 (236–237), Bucharest, pp. 75–83. ISSN 1220-6350.
  175. ^ Lacombe, Olivier (1979), Indianité. Études historiques et comparatives sur la pensée indienne, Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
  176. ^ Iţu, Mircia (2004), Filosofia şi religiile Indiei (Indian Philosophy and Indian Religions), Braşov: Orientul Latin, p. 69, ISBN 973-9338-70-4
  177. ^ O’Neil, Thomas L. (1980), Māyā in Śaṅkara. Measuring the Immeasurable, New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, p. 140.
  178. ^ F Schuon (1975), One of the Great Lights of the World, in Spiritual Perspectives, Essays in Mysticism and Metaphysics (Editor: TMP Mahadevan), Arnold Heineman, ISBN , page 91
  179. ^ Klaus Witz (1998), The Supreme Wisdom of the Upaniṣads: An Introduction, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120815735, page 11
  180. ^ Three Lectures on the Vedanta Philosophy. F. Max Muller. Kessinger Publishing, 2003. p123
  181. ^ H.P Blavatsky's Collected Writings, Volume 13, pages 308-310. Quest Books
  182. ^ Literary Remains of the Late Professor Theodore Goldstucker, W. H. Allen, 1879. p32.
  183. ^ The Westminster Review, Volumes 78-79, Baldwin, Cradock, and Joy, 1862. p1862
  184. ^ "Synthesis of Science and Spirituality"

Sources[edit]

Published sources[edit]

Web-sources[edit]

Further reading[edit]