Advaita Vedanta is a non-dualistic concept that posits a relationship between Brahman(the impersonal absolute) and the atman (individual self). The idea of advaita refers to the idea that the soul or atman is equal to the highest metaphysical reality known as Brahman. The followers of Advaita Vedanta seek to gain spiritual liberation through acquiring the purest form of knowledge of one’s true identity, this is known as atman. The schools of Vedanta universally agree that Brahman is the ultimate principle that underlines the physical world and the souls which come from the teachings of the Upanishads. Material objects and individual souls cannot be explained without suggesting that Brahman is the essential basis. The key difference between the schools of Vedanta is the way in which souls have been connected to the Brahman. The idea of Advaita Vedanta is unusual in the respect that it argues it is possible to reach moksha(liberation) in this life rather than at death. The first position of this idealistic view of Advaita is found in the Gaudapada-karika which stems from one of the Upanishads, namely the Mandukya Upanishad. However it is argued that the most prolific founder of Advaita Vedanta is Sankara, he is said to be the founder of this school. Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism are similar in the sense that they both share the same terminology and doctrines. These similarities have attracted much attention from both Eastern and Western scholars. Sankara is said to be responsible for the demise of Buddhism in India, he is said to be a symbolic representation of Hinduism against Buddhism and it is largely his responsibility that Buddhism was driven out of India.
Tha Mandukya Upanishad gives a focus on the exposition of the philosophical position of Vedanta in the first prakarana of the Gaudapada-karika. The Mandukya Upanishad opens with an enticing claim. “This syllable Om is all this is” ( Mandukya Upanishad). An important question arises in this, how can a single world be both the past, the present and the future. The Upanishad sets out the various states of Brahman. It states that there are four realms of experience. The waking state, the dream state, it is said when one is in a deep sleep pure bliss is encountered. The Mandukya Upanishad verse 6 is unusual and interesting for numerous reasons. “the introduction of theistic and cosmogenic concepts into a discussion of psychological states of experience is an example of the Upanishadic acceptance of wide-ranging correspondences(bandhu) between the microcosmic and macrocosmic realms” (King, 1995, p. 67). Thomas Wood has suggested the interpretation of MU 6 is mistaken and has been taken out of context. He draws his attention to the teachings of the Chandogya Upanishad and the deep sleep state. He argues that “the changyopanishad shows very clearly that the Vedantists were no more inclined than we are to associate the concept of isvara with the state of deep sleep” (King, 1995, p. 67). In Wood’s opinion 6 and 7 should be interlinked and made to be a description of the fourth state. Wood supports this interpretation with the first prakarana in the Gaudapada –karika which he deems to be a separate work.
Gaudapada laid out four key teachings which were used to explain Advaita Vedanta. The theory of no birth which was known as ajativada. He stated that all change is an illusion (maya). It is certain that nothing has ever come into existence, only that which is can really be. His key claim was that Brahman is the unchanging yet ultimate reality, the only thing in the world that is real is Brahman, the world is entirely an illusion, and only appears to us to be real this in itself is an illusion as nothing exists except for Brahman. Asparsha yoga was his second key teaching out of four. This is difficult to achieve. This is arguably the least important of the four teachings as it is never mentioned again in later Vedanta and sankara argued that yoga practice can be held clear in the mind but is never able to aid to the path of liberation. Here it is necessary to then study the Vedic texts in order to gain an understanding of the true meaning. The third theory that Gaudapada puts forward is the theory of how Advaita does not conflict avirodha with any other view. The final most important in ones opinion of his teachings states that the world is an illusion (maya). Maya is used as a central thesis to establish that Brahman is the only reality, and that these multiple names are simply only appearances not individual forms. Maya stems from ‘ma’ meaning to measure. Sankara uses maya to measure the world, as he believes that the world is a substance that is measurable. Vedantins uses maya as a concept to explain the appearance and materialistic concept of the world. It is translated as illusion. This however does not capture the true meaning of maya. The creative power that is Brahman creates the illusion that the phenomenal world is a separate and REAL entity. Maya is also used to explain ignorance between reality and appearance. Maya disappears however when Brahman knowledge becomes involved. Ignorance to maya distorts pure consciousness and dissolves those empirical distinctions. Maya, from a psychological perspective is our tendency to regard the appearance as a real one. The empirical world is not real; however we have the reasons to believe that it is. Sankara is unusual in his work and does not make distinctions other scholars may make when it comes to the concepts of maya and avidya as he uses these words interchangeably, there are simply one and the same.
The Advaita school accepts five pramanas also referred to as sources of knowledge. pratyaksa (perception), anumana (inference), upamana (comparison) arthapatti (presumption) with the central point to all vedantic schools beginning at sabda (testimony). The Advaita school posits that sabda is sruti and aunmana cannot contradict this. Verbal testimony for Advaitins “is a means of valid knowledge in which the relation among the meanings of the words that is the object of its intention is not contradicted by any other means of valid knowledge” (Gupta, p, 247) Valid knowledge gained by pratyaksa cannot be contradicted by sruti. The only thing in the universe is Brahman(the impersonal absolute) “Brahman is outside of language and it is beyond duality” (Sarma, p. 208) Brahman forms of three entities being, consciousness and bliss. The difference is a result of superimposition. But Brahman is incorrectly superimposed often. This means it appears that there is multiple atman (individual selves). People make the mistake that Brahman is different from atman. Sankara explains that this is a result of maya(illusion) and avidya(ignorance) he uses these interchangeably. There is an example used by sankara that illustrate superimposition. A snake is incorrectly superimposed onto a rope at dusk. This is known as a false cognition of something that is previously known. There is a superimposition that is incorrectly imposed onto Brahman that leads to a false belief there is difference when in fact it is non duality. Brahman is the highest transcendental truth. “It is the state of being where all subject/object distinction is obliterated. It is pure consciousness that is timeless, unconditioned, undifferentiated, without beginning and without end.” (Gupta, p. 225). The only thing that is real truth is Brahman. When it is argued that Brahman is pure consciousness, it does not simply mean that consciousness is a quality of Brahman as that results in an internal distinction, the distinction between a substance and its qualities.
Moksha (liberation is the ultimate goal of the Advaita school, realisation that atman has a non-dual relationship with Brahman. In order to obtain liberation or moksha the result of incorrect superimposition of the jiva must be understood in order to reach it. Just as one sees the rope as a snake one sees the jiva as the body. Advaita Vedanta as previously mentioned permits for moksha to be achievable for those who are living. It is possible to achieve liberation and live a liberated life as long as one has prarabdha (latent) karma. That is the karma that has been collected until it was exhausted. “Moksa is only nominally attained” (Sarma, p. 209). No ontological change in the aspirant since there is a loss of ignorance. “Such knowledge of non-difference dispels ignorance and ‘brings about’ moksa or freedom” (Gupta,2012, p. 237)Sankara argues moksa is . revealed through jnana-yoga the path of knowledge. without the Upanishads and vedic texts it would not be possible to see that jnana yoga leads to self-realisation. The primary concern of Advaita Vedanta is with jnana kanda the part concerned with knowledge. it is not necessary according to sankara to go through the Vedic practices in order to qualify to know the Brahman. Through the identity of Brahman and Atman, from Sankara’s viewpoint it is possible to decipher pure knowledge. It is said “Karma (action) and bhakti (devotion), at most can ‘bring about’ the purification of the mind, but cannot ‘bring about’ final liberating knowledge” (Gupta, 2012, p. 237). Leading an ethical life and devoting oneself to God is not enough to lead to the realisation of Brahman the ultimate goal of human endeavours. The study of vedantic texts to Sankara is essential to destroy ignorance. Moksha is not something that one looks forward to after death it is achievable in this life.
Gaudapada, although the first advaitin is not said to be the founder of the school, this is said to be Samkara. He is one of the greatest philosophers in the East and West. Sankara was criticised by Vedantins as he was said to be a crypto-Buddhist. However before the time of Sankara a Buddhist philosopher known as Bhavaviveka countered the claim that Mahayana Buddhism is really a form of crypto-Vedanta. Accusations of crypto Buddhism or crypto Vedantism fails to consider the whereabouts of where people from Indian philosophical and religious movements lived in a context of continual and largely unspoken interaction with one another, sometimes no doubt on a day- to- day basis.The most prevalent features of the Gaudapada-karika relevant to this essay question is the Buddhist terminology used by the Advaita Vedantins. The doctrinal emphasis upon the assertion of the equality of the waking and dream states. It has been posited that Gaudapada is a crypto-Buddhist. The idea that the Guadapada-karika has been influenced by Buddhist ideas is unquestionable. However, this does depend on how an individual will define Buddhism and the view that Gaudapada holds on Buddhism and its relationship to its traditions. As previously mentioned Sankara and Buddhism is subjected to much debate. He has been said to be responsible for the eradication of Buddhism in India. Although some have described him as a Buddhist in disguise due to his approach on Advaita Vedanta and how he has adopted particular views that are said to be Buddhist and adapted them into another, separate entity. Sankara unsurprisingly criticises Buddhist doctrines. Although many of his works criticise Buddhism the most impacted work would be his sutra bhashya.
The school of Advaita Vedanta teaches that the nature of the atman is as follows. Atman is pure consciousness. Atman is the light that illuminates everything, atman is not an object it is not a phenomenon. Atman is not an object of any significant negation. In Advaita Vedanta “atman is not” is a meaningless phrase and a potential self-contradiction. “atman is” is a tautology as it testifies to the existence os atman. Descartes deduces the argument to doubt the Advaitin argument is “the act of negating consciousness is an act of consciousness, and so is incoherent” the self is eternal, and consciousness in Advaita is self-luminous, eternal and beginningless, It appears that atman is divided into many instances of finite consciousness. This appearance is due to many psycho-physical complexes. The goal of Advaita Vedanta is not to understand the atman but to realise it. Questions arise as a result of this position. How does atman relate to the pscyho-physical organism, I? So the question who am I points to an incompleteness and a desire to know more. The jiva argues that it is comprised of two principles. Atman mind-body organisms. An individual self is not pure spirit or pure matter but is both spirit and matter. The relationship between knowledge and ignorance in Advaita Vedanta, are opposed to one another. Sankara follows the Upanishads and states that the two are opposed to one another as light is opposed to darkness. With knowledge ignorance can be removed. Knowledge is desirable but it is in fact ignorance and its consequences is what we desire not the knowledge itself although we can desire it. The relationship between knowledge and ignorance is a well-established one through Vedanta philosophy and Buddhism, the Upanishads brings these debated concepts together and counter this opposition.
Vedanta and Buddhism are key points of Indian philosophical thought. They share many basic ideas with one another. They believe in causality which links the action to karma. Vedanta and Buddhism have lived in conjunction with one another for so long that there is undoubtedly some Buddhist influences on Vedanta. This position has led people to believe that Mahayana Buddhism, conceives that samsara and nirvana are two aspects but come form the same entity. The younger Upanishads were written at the time of when Buddhism already existed. There are two main truths in Advaita Vedanta that feature throughout this essay. The first being that Brahman is the only reality and the second being that our world only obtains relative reality. This gives us an outlook on life that is relative to science and logic but at the same time provides one with spiritual comfort. There are many interpretations of Advaita. Although the teaching of the Advaita is coherent it is necessary to bring about change in order to bring Advaita Vedanta in line with modernity.