Contents • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Etymology and nomenclature [ ] The Advaita Vedanta school has been historically referred to by various names, such as Advaita-vada (speaker of Advaita), Abheda-darshana (view of non-difference), Dvaita-vada-pratisedha (denial of dual distinctions), and Kevala-dvaita (non-dualism of the isolated). According to Richard King, a professor of Buddhist and Asian studies, the term Advaita first occurs in a recognizably Vedantic context in the prose of. In contrast, according to Frits Staal, a professor of Philosophy specializing in Sanskrit and Vedic studies, the word Advaita is from the Vedic era, and the Vedic sage (8th or 7th-century BCE ) is credited to be the one who coined it. Stephen Phillips, a professor of philosophy and Asian studies, translates the Advaita containing verse excerpt in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, as follows. See also:,,, and Ātman (: ātman,: आत्मन्) is a central idea in Hindu philosophy and a foundational premise of Advaita Vedanta. It is a Sanskrit word that means 'real self' of the individual, 'essence', and.
To find more books about vastu in malayalam, you can use related keywords: Vastu Pdf, Vastu Shastra Pdf, Vastu In Marathi Pdf, Pyramid Vastu Pdf, Vastu In Urdu.
Ātman is the in Advaita Vedanta, along with its concept of Brahman, with Atman being the perceptible personal particular and Brahman the inferred unlimited universal, both synonymous and interchangeable. It is, to an Advaitin, the unchanging, enduring, eternal absolute. It is the 'true self' of an individual, a consciousness, states Sthaneshwar Timalsina, that is 'self-revealed, self-evident and self-aware ( svaprakashata)'. Atman, states Eliot Deutsch, is the 'pure, undifferentiated, supreme power of awareness', it is more than thought, it is a state of being, that which is conscious and transcends subject-object divisions and momentariness. Advaita Vedanta philosophy considers Atman as self-existent awareness, limitless and non-dual.
It asserts that there is 'spirit, soul, self' (Atman) within each living entity, which are same as each other and identical to the universal eternal. It is an experience of 'oneness' which unifies all beings, in which there is the divine in every being, in which all existence is a single Reality, and in which there is no 'divine' distinct from the individual Atman. Atman is not the constantly changing body, not the desires, not the emotions, not the ego, nor the dualistic mind in Advaita Vedanta. It is the introspective, inwardly self-conscious 'on-looker' ( saksi). To Advaitins, human beings, in a state of unawareness and ignorance, see their 'I-ness' as different than the being in others, then act out of impulse, fears, cravings, malice, division, confusion, anxiety, passions, and a sense of distinctiveness. Main articles: and According to Advaita Vedanta, is the highest, That which is and unchanging, and 'not sublatable', and cannot be superseded by a still higher reality. Other than Brahman, everything else, including the universe, material objects and individuals, are ever-changing and therefore.
Brahman is Paramarthika Satyam, 'Absolute Truth', and the true Self, pure consciousness. The only Reality ( sat), since It is untinged by difference, the mark of ignorance, and since It is the one thing that is not sublatable'. In Advaita, Brahman is the substrate and cause of all changes. Brahman is considered to be the material cause and the efficient cause of all that exists. Brahman is the 'primordial reality that creates, maintains and withdraws within it the universe.' It is the 'creative principle which lies realized in the whole world'. Advaita's Upanishadic roots state Brahman's qualities to be (being-consciousness-bliss) It means 'true being-consciousness-bliss,' or 'Eternal Bliss Consciousness'.
Adi Shankara held that satcitananda is identical with Brahman and Atman. The Advaitin scholar Madhusudana Sarasvati explained Brahman as the Reality that is simultaneously an absence of falsity (sat), absence of ignorance (cit), and absence of sorrow/self-limitation (ananda). According to, the knowledge of Brahman that provides cannot be obtained in any other means besides self inquiry.
Puruṣārtha - the four goals of human life [ ] Advaita, like other schools, accepts Puruṣārtha - the four goals of human life as natural and proper: •: the right way to life, the 'duties and obligations of the individual toward himself and the society as well as those of the society toward the individual'; •: the means to support and sustain one's life; •: pleasure and enjoyment; •: liberation, release. Of these, much of the Advaita Vedanta philosophy focuses on the last, gaining liberation in one's current life. The first three are discussed and encouraged by Advaitins, but usually in the context of knowing Brahman and Self-realization.
Moksha - liberation [ ]. — Adi Shankara, 11.7, According to Advaita Vedanta, liberation can be achieved while living, and is called. The Atman-knowledge, that is the knowledge of true Self and its relationship to Brahman is central to this liberation in Advaita thought. Atman-knowledge, to Advaitins, is that state of full awareness, liberation and freedom which overcomes dualities at all levels, realizing the divine within oneself, the divine in others and all beings, the non-dual Oneness, that Brahman is in everything, and everything is Brahman. According to Rambachan, in Advaita, this state of liberating self-knowledge includes and leads to the understanding that 'the self is the self of all, the knower of self sees the self in all beings and all beings in the self.' Jivanmukta [ ] In Advaita Vedanta, the interest is not in liberation in after life, but in one's current life.
This school holds that liberation can be achieved while living, and a person who achieves this is called a. The concept of Jivanmukti of Advaita Vedanta contrasts with Videhamukti (moksha from samsara after death) in theistic sub-schools of Vedanta. Main article: Sruti (scriptures), proper reasoning and meditation are the main sources of knowledge ( vidya) for the Advaita Vedanta tradition. It teaches that correct knowledge of Atman and Brahman is achievable by, study of the self and of the Vedic texts, and three stages of practice: sravana (perception, hearing), manana (thinking) and nididhyasana (meditation), a three-step methodology that is rooted in the teachings of chapter 4 of the. Sravana literally means hearing, and broadly refers to perception and observations typically aided by a counsellor or teacher (), wherein the Advaitin listens and discusses the ideas, concepts, questions and answers.
Manana refers to thinking on these discussions and contemplating over the various ideas based on svadhyaya and sravana. Nididhyāsana refers to meditation, realization and consequent conviction of the truths, non-duality and a state where there is a fusion of thought and action, knowing and being. Bilimoria states that these three stages of Advaita practice can be viewed as sadhana practice that unifies and ideas, and was most likely derived from these older traditions. Adi Shankara uses anubhava interchangeably with pratipatta, 'understanding'. Dalal and others state that anubhava does not center around some sort of 'mystical experience,' but around the correct knowledge of Brahman. Nikhalananda states that (knowledge of) Atman and Brahman can only be reached by, 'reason,' stating that mysticism is a kind of intuitive knowledge, while buddhi is the highest means of attaining knowledge. Mahavakya – The Great Sentences [ ].
Main article: Advaita Vedanta school has traditionally had a high reverence for Guru (teacher), and recommends that a competent Guru be sought in one's pursuit of spirituality. However, the Guru is not mandatory in Advaita school, states Clooney, but reading of Vedic literature and followed by reflection is. Adi Shankara, states Comans, regularly employed compound words 'such as Sastracaryopadesa (instruction by way of the scriptures and the teacher) and Vedantacaryopadesa (instruction by way of the Upanishads and the teacher) to emphasize the importance of Guru'.
This reflects the Advaita tradition which holds a competent teacher as important and essential to gaining correct knowledge, freeing oneself from false knowledge, and to self-realization. A guru is someone more than a teacher, traditionally a reverential figure to the student, with the guru serving as a 'counselor, who helps mold values, shares experiential knowledge as much as literal knowledge, an exemplar in life, an inspirational source and who helps in the spiritual evolution of a student. The guru, states Joel Mlecko, is more than someone who teaches specific type of knowledge, and includes in its scope someone who is also a 'counselor, a sort of parent of mind and soul, who helps mold values and experiential knowledge as much as specific knowledge, an exemplar in life, an inspirational source and who reveals the meaning of life.' Ontology - the nature of Being [ ].
See also: The classical Advaita Vedanta explains all reality and everything in the experienced world to be same as the Brahman. To Advaitins, there is a unity in multiplicity, and there is no dual hierarchy of a Creator and the created universe. All objects, all experiences, all matter, all consciousness, all awareness, in Advaita philosophy is not the property but the very nature of this one fundamental reality Brahman. With this premise, the Advaita school states that any ontological effort must presuppose a knowing self, and this effort needs to explain all empirical experiences such as the projected reality while one dreams during sleep, and the observed multiplicity of living beings. This Advaita does by positing its theory of three levels of reality, the theory of two truths, and by developing and integrating these ideas with its theory of errors ( anirvacaniya khyati). Shankara proposes three levels of reality, using sublation as the ontological criterion: • Pāramārthika ( paramartha, absolute), the Reality that is metaphysically true and ontologically accurate. It is the state of experiencing that 'which is absolutely real and into which both other reality levels can be resolved'.
This reality is the highest, it can't be sublated (assimilated) by any other. • Vyāvahārika ( vyavahara), or samvriti-saya, consisting of the empirical or pragmatical reality. It is ever changing over time, thus empirically true at a given time and context but not true.
It is 'our world of experience, the phenomenal world that we handle every day when we are awake'. It is the level in which both (living creatures or individual souls) and are true; here, the material world is also true but this is incomplete reality and is sublatable. • Prāthibhāsika ( pratibhasika, apparent reality, unreality), 'reality based on imagination alone'. It is the level of experience in which the mind constructs its own reality. Well-known examples of pratibhasika is the imaginary reality such as the 'roaring of a lion' fabricated in dreams during one's sleep, and the perception of a rope in the dark as being a snake. Advaita Vedanta acknowledges and admits that from the empirical perspective there are numerous distinctions. It states that everything and each reality has multiple perspectives, both absolute and relative.
All these are valid and true in their respective contexts, states Advaita, but only from their respective particular perspectives. This 'absolute and relative truths' explanation, Advaitins call as the 'two truths' doctrine. John Grimes, a professor of Indian Religions specializing on Vedanta, explains this Advaita doctrine with the example of light and darkness. From sun's perspective, it neither rises nor sets, there is no darkness, and 'all is light'. From the perspective of a person on earth, sun does rise and set, there is both light and darkness, not 'all is light', there are relative shades of light and darkness.
Both are valid realities and truths, given their perspectives. Yet, they are contradictory. What is true from one point of view, states Grimes, is not from another. To Advaita Vedanta, this does not mean there are two truths and two realities, but it only means that the same one Reality and one Truth is explained or experienced from two different perspectives. As they developed these theories, Advaita Vedanta scholars were influenced by some ideas from the, and schools of Hindu philosophy.
These theories have not enjoyed universal consensus among Advaitins, and various competing ontological interpretations have flowered within the Advaita tradition. Three states of consciousness and Turiya [ ]. See also: and Advaita posits three states of consciousness, namely waking (jagrat), dreaming (svapna), deep sleep (suṣupti), which are empirically experienced by human beings, and correspond to the: • The first state is the waking state, in which we are aware of our daily world. This is the gross body. • The second state is the dreaming mind. • The third state is the state of deep sleep. Advaita also posits the fourth state of, which some describe as pure consciousness, the background that underlies and transcends these three common states of consciousness.
Turiya is the state of liberation, where states Advaita school, one experiences the infinite ( ananta) and non-different ( advaita/abheda), that is free from the dualistic experience, the state in which, non-origination, is apprehended. According to Candradhara Sarma, Turiya state is where the foundational Self is realized, it is measureless, neither cause nor effect, all prevading, without suffering, blissful, changeless, self-luminous, real, immanent in all things and transcendent. Those who have experienced the Turiya stage of self-consciousness have reached the pure awareness of their own non-dual Self as one with everyone and everything, for them the knowledge, the knower, the known becomes one, they are the Jivanmukta.
Advaita traces the foundation of this ontological theory in more ancient Sanskrit texts. For example, chapters 8.7 through 8.12 of discuss the 'four states of consciousness' as awake, dream-filled sleep, deep sleep, and beyond deep sleep. One of the earliest mentions of Turiya, in the Hindu scriptures, occurs in verse 5.14.3 of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. The idea is also discussed in other early Upanishads. Identity of Atman and Brahman [ ] According to Advaita Vedanta, Atman is identical to Brahman.
This is expressed in the mahavakya ' tat tvam asi', 'thou are that.' There is 'a common ground, viz.
Consciousness, to the individual and Brahman.' Each soul, in Advaita view, is non-different from the infinite. According to Shankara, Atman and Brahman seem different at the empirical level of reality, but this difference is unreal, and at the highest level of reality they are really identical. Moksha is attained by realizing the identity of Atman and Brahman, the complete understanding of one's real nature as Brahman in this life.
This is frequently stated by Advaita scholars, such as Shankara, as. — Adi Shankara, 11.7, Empirical reality - illusion and ignorance [ ] According to Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is the sole reality. The status of the phenomenal world is an important question in Advaita Vedanta, and different solutions have been proposed. The perception of the phenomenal world as real is explained by (constantly changing reality) and avidya ('ignorance'). Other than Brahman, everything else, including the universe, material objects and individuals, are ever-changing and therefore. Brahman is Paramarthika Satyam, 'Absolute Truth', and 'the true Self, pure consciousness, the only Reality ( sat), since It is untinged by difference, the mark of ignorance, and since It is the one thing that is not sublatable'.
Causality [ ]. Main article: All schools of Vedanta subscribe to the theory of, which means that the effect is pre-existent in the cause. But there are different views on the causal relationship and the nature of the empirical world from the perspective of metaphysical Brahman. The Brahma Sutras, the ancient Vedantins, most sub-schools of Vedanta, as well as Samkhya school of Hindu philosophy, support, the idea that the world is a real transformation ( parinama) of Brahman.
Scholars disagree on the whether Adi Shankara and his Advaita system explained causality through vivarta. According to Andrew Nicholson, instead of parinama-vada, the competing causality theory is, which says 'the world, is merely an unreal manifestation ( vivarta) of Brahman. Vivartavada states that although Brahman appears to undergo a transformation, in fact no real change takes place. The myriad of beings are unreal manifestation, as the only real being is Brahman, that ultimate reality which is unborn, unchanging, and entirely without parts'. The advocates of this illusive, unreal transformation based causality theory, states Nicholson, have been the Advaitins, the followers of Shankara.
'Although the world can be described as conventionally real', adds Nicholson, 'the Advaitins claim that all of Brahman’s effects must ultimately be acknowledged as unreal before the individual self can be liberated'. However, other scholars such as Hajime Nakamura and Paul Hacker disagree. Hacker and others state that Adi Shankara did not advocate Vivartavada, and his explanations are 'remote from any connotation of illusion'.
According to these scholars, it was the 13th century scholar Prakasatman who gave a definition to Vivarta, and it is Prakasatman's theory that is sometimes misunderstood as Adi Shankara's position. Andrew Nicholson concurs with Hacker and other scholars, adding that the vivarta-vada isn't Shankara's theory, that Shankara's ideas appear closer to parinama-vada, and the vivarta explanation likely emerged gradually in Advaita subschool later. According to Eliot Deutsch, Advaita Vedanta states that from 'the standpoint of Brahman-experience and Brahman itself, there is no creation' in the absolute sense, all empirically observed creation is relative and mere transformation of one state into another, all states are provisional and a cause-effect driven modification. Māyā (illusion) [ ].
Main article: The doctrine of Maya is used to explain the empirical reality in Advaita. Jiva, when conditioned by the human mind, is subjected to experiences of a subjective nature, states Vedanta school, which leads it to misunderstand Maya and interpret it as the sole and final reality. Advaitins assert that the perceived world, including people and other existence, is not what it appears to be'. It is Māyā, they assert, which manifests and perpetuates a sense of false or divisional plurality. The empirical manifestation is real but changing, but it obfuscates the true nature of metaphysical Reality which is never changing. Advaita school holds that liberation is the unfettered realization and understanding of the unchanging Reality and truths – the Self, that the Self (Soul) in oneself is same as the Self in another and the Self in everything (Brahman). In Advaita Vedanta philosophy, there are two realities: Vyavaharika (empirical reality) and Paramarthika (absolute, spiritual Reality).
Māyā is the empirical reality that entangles consciousness. Māyā has the power to create a bondage to the empirical world, preventing the unveiling of the true, unitary Self—the Cosmic Spirit also known as. This theory of māyā was expounded and explained. Competing theistic Dvaita scholars contested Shankara's theory, and stated that Shankara did not offer a theory of the relationship between Brahman and Māyā. Prirucnik Za Polaganje Vozackog Ispita Pdf Reader. A later Advaita scholar Prakasatman addressed this, by explaining, 'Maya and Brahman together constitute the entire universe, just like two kinds of interwoven threads create a fabric. Maya is the manifestation of the world, whereas Brahman, which supports Maya, is the cause of the world.' Brahman is the sole metaphysical truth in Advaita Vedanta, Māyā is true in epistemological and empirical sense; however, Māyā is not the metaphysical and spiritual truth.
The spiritual truth is the truth forever, while what is empirical truth is only true for now. Complete knowledge of true Reality includes knowing both Vyavaharika (empirical) and Paramarthika (spiritual), the Māyā and the Brahman.
The goal of spiritual enlightenment, state Advaitins, is to realize Brahman, realize the unity and Oneness of all reality. Avidya (ignorance) [ ] Due to ignorance ( avidyā), Brahman is perceived as the material world and its objects (nama rupa vikara). According to Shankara, Brahman is in reality. Brahman, the highest truth and all (Reality), does not really change; it is only our ignorance that gives the appearance of change.
Also due to avidyā, the true identity is forgotten, and material reality, which manifests at various levels, is mistaken as the only and true reality. The notion of avidyā and its relationship to Brahman creates a crucial philosophical issue within Advaita Vedanta thought: how can avidyā appear in Brahman, since Brahman is pure consciousness? Sengaku Mayeda writes, in his commentary and translation of 's Upadesasahasri: Certainly the most crucial problem which Sankara left for his followers is that of avidyā. If the concept is logically analysed, it would lead the Vedanta philosophy toward dualism or nihilism and uproot its fundamental position. To Advaitins, human beings, in a state of unawareness and ignorance of this Universal Self, see their 'I-ness' as different than the being in others, then act out of impulse, fears, cravings, malice, division, confusion, anxiety, passions, and a sense of distinctiveness.
Subsequent Advaitins gave somewhat various explanations, from which various Advaita schools arose. Epistemology - ways of knowing [ ]. With Disciples, by (1904) Advaita Vedanta existed prior to Adi Shankara but found in him its most influential expounder. Pre-Shankara Advaita Vedanta [ ] Of the Vedanta-school before the composition of the (400–450 CE ), wrote Nakamura in 1950, almost nothing is known. The two Advaita writings of pre-Shankara period, known to scholars such as Nakamura in the first half of 20th-century, were the Vākyapadīya, written by (second half 5th century ), and the Māndūkya-kārikā written by (7th century CE). Scholarship after 1950 suggests that almost all have a strong Advaita Vedanta outlook. Six of these 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.
The strong Advaita Vedanta views in these ancient texts may be, states, because major Hindu monasteries of this period (early 1st millennium CE) belonged to the Advaita Vedanta tradition. Earliest Vedanta - Upanishads and Brahma Sutras [ ]. See also: and Shankara lived in the time of the so-called 'Late classical Hinduism', which lasted from 650 to 1100 CE. This era was one of political instability that followed and King Harsha of the 7th century CE. It was a time of social and cultural change as the ideas of Buddhism, Jainism, and various traditions within Hinduism were competing for members. Buddhism in particular influenced India's spiritual traditions in the first 700 years of the 1st millennium CE. Shankara and his contemporaries made a significant contribution in understanding Buddhism and the ancient Vedic traditions; they then transformed the extant ideas, particularly reforming the Vedanta tradition of Hinduism, making it India's most important tradition for more than a thousand years.
Writings [ ]. Main article: Prakasatman (c.
1200–1300) wrote the Pancapadika-Vivarana, a commentary on the Pancapadika. The Vivarana lends its name to the subsequent school. According to Roodurmum, '[H]is line of thought [.] became the leitmotif of all subsequent developments in the evolution of the Advaita tradition.' The Vivarana school takes an epistemological approach. Prakasatman was the first to propound the theory of mulavidya or maya as being of 'positive beginningless nature', and sees Brahman as the source of avidya. Critics object that Brahman is pure consciousness, so it cannot be the source of avidya.
Another problem is that contradictory qualities, namely knowledge and ignorance, are attributed to Brahman. Vimuktatman - Ista-Siddhi [ ] Vimuktatman (c. 1200 CE) wrote the Ista-siddhi. It is one of the four traditional siddhi, together with Mandana's Brahma-siddhi, Suresvara's Naiskarmya-siddhi, and Madusudana's Advaita-siddhi. According to Vimuktatman, absolute Reality is 'pure intuitive consciousness'. His school of thought was eventually replaced by Prakasatman's Vivarana school.
Later Advaita Vedanta tradition [ ]. (Vidyashankara temple) at, Advaita Vedanta is not just a philosophical system, but also a tradition of. Philosophy and renunciation are closely related: Most of the notable authors in the advaita tradition were members of the sannyasa tradition, and both sides of the tradition share the same values, attitudes and metaphysics. Shankara organized monks under 10 names and established mathas for them.
These mathas contributed to the influence of Shankara, which was 'due to institutional factors'. The mathas which he built exist until today, and preserve the teachings and influence of Shankara, 'while the writings of other scholars before him came to be forgotten with the passage of time'.
Shri Gaudapadacharya Math [ ]. Main article: Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita school and 's Advaita school are both nondualism Vedanta schools, both are premised on the assumption that all souls can hope for and achieve the state of blissful liberation; in contrast, Madhvacharya and his Dvaita subschool of Vedanta believed that some souls are eternally doomed and damned.
Shankara's theory posits that only Brahman and causes are metaphysical unchanging reality, while the empirical world () and observed effects are changing, illusive and of relative existence. Spiritual liberation to Shankara 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. In contrast, Ramanuja's theory posits both Brahman and the world of matter are two different absolutes, both metaphysically real, neither should be called false or illusive, and saguna Brahman with attributes is also real.
God, like man, states Ramanuja, has both soul and body, and all of the world of matter is the glory of God's body. The path to Brahman (Vishnu), asserted Ramanuja, is devotion to godliness and constant remembrance of the beauty and love of personal god ( saguna Brahman, Vishnu), one which ultimately leads one to the oneness with nirguna Brahman. Shuddhadvaita [ ]. Main article: (1479–1531 CE), the proponent of the philosophy of Brahmvad enunciates that Ishvara has created the world without connection with any external agency such as Maya (which itself is his power) and manifests Himself through the world. That is why shuddhadvaita is known as ‘Unmodified transformation’ or ‘Avikṛta Pariṇāmavāda’. Brahman or Ishvara desired to become many, and he became the multitude of individual souls and the world.
Vallabha recognises Brahman as the whole and the individual as a ‘part’ (but devoid of bliss). Main article: Madhvacharya was also a critic of Vedanta. Advaita's nondualism asserted that Atman (soul) and Brahman are identical, there is interconnected oneness of all souls and Brahman, and there are no pluralities. Madhva in contrast asserted that Atman (soul) and Brahman are different, only is the Lord (Brahman), individual souls are also different and depend on Vishnu, and there are pluralities.
Madhvacharya stated that both Advaita Vedanta and were a school of thought. Madhvacharya wrote four major texts, including Upadhikhandana and Tattvadyota, primarily dedicated to criticizing Advaita. Historical influence [ ]. Main article: The tradition of is an ancient tradition, particularly found in south and west India, that revers all Hindu divinities as a step in their spiritual pursuit. Their practice is called Panchayatana puja. The worship symbolically consists of five deities:,, or, and an or any personal god of devotee's preference. In the Smarta tradition, Advaita Vedanta ideas combined with are its foundation.
Adi Shankara is regarded as the greatest teacher and reformer of the Smarta. According to, Shankara's Advaita Vedanta and practices became the doctrinal unifier of previously conflicting practices with the smarta tradition.
Philosophically, the Smarta tradition emphasizes that all images and statues (), or just five marks or any anicons on the ground, are visibly convenient icons of spirituality saguna Brahman. The multiple icons are seen as multiple representations of the same idea, rather than as distinct beings. These serve as a step and means to realizing the abstract Ultimate Reality called nirguna Brahman. The ultimate goal in this practice is to transition past the use of icons, then follow a philosophical and meditative path to understanding the oneness of Atman (soul, self) and Brahman – as 'That art Thou'. Other Hindu traditions [ ] Within the ancient and medieval texts of Hindu traditions, such as, and, the ideas of Advaita Vedanta have had a major influence. Advaita Vedanta influenced Krishna Vaishnavism in the different parts of India.
One of its most popular text, the, adopts and integrates in Advaita Vedanta philosophy. The Bhagavata Purana is generally accepted by scholars to have been composed in the second half of 1st millennium CE. In the ancient and medieval literature of, called the, the influence of Advaita Vedanta is once again prominent. Of the 92 Āgamas, ten are texts, eighteen are, and sixty-four are texts. According to Natalia Isaeva, there is an evident and natural link between 6th-century Gaudapada's Advaita Vedanta ideas and., the Hindu tradition where a goddess is considered identical to Brahman, has similarly 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). Other influential ancient and medieval classical texts of Hinduism such as the,,, and predominantly incorporate premises and ideas of Advaita Vedanta.
Development of central position [ ]. Main article: Already in medieval times, Advaita Vedanta came to be regarded as the highest of the Indian religious philosophies, a development which was reinforced in modern times due to western interest in Advaita Vedanta, and the subsequent influence on western perceptions on Indian perceptions of Hinduism. In contrast, King states that its present position was a response of Hindu intellectuals to centuries of Christian polemic aimed at establishing 'Hindu inferiority complex' during the colonial rule of the Indian subcontinent. The 'humanistic, inclusivist' formulation, now called Neo-Vedanta, attempted to respond to this colonial stereotyping of 'Indian culture was backward, superstitious and inferior to the West', states King. Advaita Vedanta was projected as the central philosophy of Hinduism, and Neo-Vedanta subsumed and incorporated Buddhist ideas thereby making the a part of the Vedanta tradition, all in an attempt to reposition the history of Indian culture.
Thus, states King, neo-Vedanta developed as a reaction to western and. With the efforts of Vivekananda, modern formulation of Advaita Vedanta has 'become a dominant force in Indian intellectual thought', though Hindu beliefs and practices are diverse. Unifying Hinduism [ ]. Main article: Advaita Vedanta came to occupy a central position in the classification of various Hindu traditions. To some scholars, it is with the arrival of Islamic rule, first in the form of Delhi Sultanate thereafter the Mughal Empire, and the subsequent persecution of Indian religions, Hindu scholars began a self-conscious attempts to define an identity and unity.
Between the twelfth and the fourteen century, according to Andrew Nicholson, this effort emerged with a classification of astika and nastika systems of Indian philosophies. Certain thinkers, according to Nicholson thesis, began to retrospectively classify ancient thought into 'six systems' ( saddarsana) of mainstream Hindu philosophy.
Other scholars, acknowledges Nicholson, present an alternate thesis. The scriptures such as the Vedas, Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita, texts such as and, and various ideas that are considered to be paradigmatic Hinduism are traceable to being thousands of years old.
Unlike Christianity and Islam, Hinduism as a religion does not have a single founder, rather it is a fusion of diverse scholarship where a galaxy of thinkers openly challenged each other's teachings and offered their own ideas. The term 'Hindu' too, states Arvind Sharma, appears in much older texts such as those in Arabic that record the Islamic invasion or regional rule of Indian subcontinent.
Some of these texts have been dated to between the 8th and the 11th century. Within these and records, Advaita Vedanta was given the highest position, since it was regarded to be most inclusive system.
Hindu nationalism [ ]. Main article: According to King, along with the consolidation of the British imperialist rule came orientalism wherein the new rulers viewed Indians through 'colonially crafted lenses'. In response, emerged Hindu nationalism for collective action against the colonial rule, against the caricature by Christian and Muslim communities, and for socio-political independence. In this colonial era search of identity, Vedanta came to be regarded as the essence of Hinduism, and Advaita Vedanta came to be regarded as 'then paradigmatic example of the mystical nature of the Hindu religion' and umbrella of 'inclusivism'. This umbrella of Advaita Vedanta, according to King, 'provided an opportunity for the construction of a nationalist ideology that could unite Hindus in their struggle against colonial oppression'. Among the colonial era intelligentsia, according to Anshuman Mondal, a professor of Literature specializing in post-colonial studies, the monistic Advaita Vedanta has been a major ideological force for Hindu nationalism.
Professed monism of Advaita Vedanta, though at times he also spoke with terms from mind-body dualism schools of Hinduism. Other colonial era Indian thinkers, such as Vivekananda, presented Advaita Vedanta as an inclusive universal religion, a spirituality that in part helped organize a religiously infused identity, and the rise of Hindu nationalism as a counter weight to Islam-infused Muslim communitarian organizations such as the, to Christianity-infused colonial orientalism and to religious persecution of those belonging to Indian religions. Swami Vivekananda [ ]. Main articles: and A major proponent in the popularisation of this Universalist and Perennialist interpretation of Advaita Vedanta was, who played a major role in the, and the spread of Advaita Vedanta to the west via the.
His interpretation of Advaita Vedanta has been called 'Neo-Vedanta'. Vivekananda discerned a, regarding all the apparent differences between various traditions as various manifestations of one truth. He presented karma, bhakti, jnana and raja yoga as equal means to attain moksha, to present Vedanta as a liberal and universal religion, in contrast to the exclusivism of other religions. Vivekananda emphasised nirvikalpa as the spiritual goal of Vedanta, he equated it to the liberation in and encouraged Yoga practice he called Raja yoga.
This approach, however, is missing in historic Advaita texts. In 1896, Vivekananda claimed that Advaita appeals to modern scientists: I may make bold to say that the only religion which agrees with, and even goes a little further than modern researchers, both on physical and moral lines is the Advaita, and that is why it appeals to modern scientists so much. They find that the old dualistic theories are not enough for them, do not satisfy their necessities. A man must have not only faith, but intellectual faith too'. According to, Vivekananda interprets anubhava as to mean 'personal experience', akin to, whereas Shankara used the term to denote liberating understanding of the sruti. Vivekananda's claims about spirituality as 'science' and modern, according to David Miller, may be questioned by well informed scientists, but it drew attention for being very different than how Christianity and Islam were being viewed by scientists and sociologists of his era. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan [ ].
Main article: Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, first a professor at Oxford University and later a President of India, further popularized Advaita Vedanta, presenting it as the essence of Hinduism. According to Michael Hawley, a professor of Religious Studies, Radhakrishnan saw other religions, as well as 'what Radhakrishnan understands as lower forms of Hinduism,' as interpretations of Advaita Vedanta, thereby 'in a sense Hindusizing all religions'. To him, the world faces a religious problem, where there is unreflective dogmatism and exclusivism, creating a need for 'experiential religion' and 'inclusivism'.
Advaita Vedanta, claimed Radhakrishnan, best exemplifies a Hindu philosophical, theological, and literary tradition that fulfills this need. Radhakrishnan did not emphasize the differences between Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism versus Hinduism that he defined in terms of Advaita Vedanta, rather he tended to minimize their differences. This is apparent, for example, in his discussions of Buddhist 'Madhyamika and Yogacara' traditions versus the Advaita Vedanta tradition.
Radhakrishnan metaphysics was grounded in Advaita Vedanta, but he reinterpreted Advaita Vedanta for contemporary needs and context. He acknowledged the reality and diversity of the world of experience, which he saw as grounded in and supported by the transcendent metaphysical absolute concept ( nirguna Brahman). Radhakrishnan also reinterpreted Shankara's notion of. According to Radhakrishnan, maya is not a strict absolute idealism, but 'a subjective misperception of the world as ultimately real.' Mahatama Gandhi [ ] Gandhi declared his allegiance to Advaita Vedanta, and was another popularizing force for its ideas.
According to Nicholas Gier, this to Gandhi meant the unity of God and humans, that all beings have the same one soul and therefore equality, that atman exists and is same as everything in the universe, ahimsa (non-violence) is the very nature of this atman. Gandhi called himself advaitist many times, including his letters, but he believed that others have a right to a viewpoint different than his own because they come from a different background and perspective. According to Gier, Gandhi did not interpret maya as illusion, but accepted that 'personal theism' leading to 'impersonal monism' as two tiers of religiosity. New religious movements [ ] Neo-Advaita [ ]. See also: Advaita Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism share similarities and have differences, their relationship a subject of dispute among scholars. The similarities between Advaita and Buddhism have attracted Indian and Western scholars attention, and have also been criticised by concurring schools. The similarities have been interpreted as Buddhist influences on Advaita Vedanta, while others deny such influences, or see them as variant expressions.
According to, the Japanese Buddhist scholarship has argued that Adi Shankara did not understand Buddhism. Some Hindu scholars criticized Advaita for its Maya and non-theistic doctrinal similarities with Buddhism., the founder of Vishishtadvaita Vedanta, accused Adi Shankara of being a Prachanna Bauddha, that is, a 'crypto-Buddhist', and someone who was undermining theistic devotionalism. The non-Advaita scholar of the Bhedabheda Vedanta tradition, similarly around 800 CE, accused Shankara's Advaita as 'this despicable broken down Mayavada that has been chanted by the Mahayana Buddhists', and a school that is undermining the ritual duties set in Vedic orthodoxy. A few Buddhist scholars made the opposite criticism in the medieval era toward their Buddhist opponents.
In the sixth century CE, for example, the Mahayana Buddhist scholar redefined Vedantic concepts to show how they fit into Madhyamaka concepts, and 'equate[d] the Buddha's with Brahman, the ultimate reality of the Upanishads.' In his Madhyamakahṛdayakārikaḥ, Bhaviveka stages a Hinayana () interlocutor, who accuses Mahayana Buddhists of being 'crypto-Vedantins'. Medieval era Tibetan Gelugpa scholars accused the of being 'crypto-Vedantist.' Contemporary scholar called the seventh century Buddhist scholar a 'crypto-Vedantist', a view rejected by scholars of Madhayamika Buddhism. The Advaita Vedanta tradition has historically rejected accusations of crypto-Buddhism highlighting their respective views on Atman, Anatta and Brahman. Similarities with Buddhism [ ] According to scholars, the influence of on Advaita Vedanta has been significant.
Advaita Vedanta and various other schools of Hindu philosophy share numerous terminology, doctrines and dialectical techniques with Buddhism. According to a 1918 paper by the Buddhism scholar O. Rozenberg, 'a precise differentiation between Brahmanism and Buddhism is impossible to draw.' Both traditions hold that 'the, a ', and both admit. Both traditions emphasize the human need for spiritual liberation (moksha, nirvana, kaivalya), however with different assumptions.
Adi Shankara, states Natalia Isaeva, incorporated 'into his own system a Buddhist notion of which had not been minutely elaborated in the Upanishads'. Similarly, there are many points of contact between Buddhism's and Shankara's Advaita. According to Frank Whaling, the similarities between Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism are not limited to the terminology and some doctrines, but also includes practice. The monastic practices and monk tradition in Advaita are similar to those found in Buddhism. Dasgupta and Mohanta suggest that Buddhism and Shankara's Advaita Vedanta represent 'different phases of development of the same non-dualistic metaphysics from the Upanishadic period to the time of Sankara.'
The influence of on other religions and philosophies was not limited to Vedanta. Kalupahana notes that the of Theravada Buddhism tradition contains 'some metaphysical speculations, such as those of the Sarvastivadins, the Sautrantikas, and even the '. According to John Plott, We must emphasize again that generally throughout the, and even more so after its decline, there developed such a high degree of syncretism and such toleration of all points of view that Mahayana Buddhism had been Hinduized almost as much as Hinduism had been Buddhaized. Gaudapada [ ] The influence of Buddhist doctrines on Gaudapada has been a vexed question. One school of scholars, such as Bhattacharya and Raju, state that Gaudapada took over the Buddhist doctrines that and 'that the nature of the world is the four-cornered negation, which is the structure of Māyā'. Of particular interest is Chapter Four of Gaudapada's text Karika, in which according to Bhattacharya, two karikas refer to the and the term Asparsayoga is borrowed from Buddhism.
According to Murti, 'the conclusion is irresistible that Gaudapada, a Vedanta philosopher, is attempting an Advaitic interpretation of Vedanta in the light of the Madhyamika and Yogcara doctrines. He even freely quotes and appeals to them.' However, adds Murti, the doctrines are unlike Buddhism. Chapter One, Two and Three are entirely Vedantin and founded on the Upanishads, with little Buddhist flavor. Further, state both Murti and King, no Vedanta scholars who followed Gaudapada ever quoted from Chapter Four, they only quote from the first three.
According to Sarma, 'to mistake him [Gaudapada] to be a hidden or open Buddhist is absurd'. The doctrines of Gaudapada and Buddhism are totally opposed, states Murti: We have been talking of borrowing, influence and relationship in rather general terms.
It is necessary to define the possible nature of the borrowing, granting that it did take place. (.) The Vedantins stake everything on the (Brahman) and accept the authority of the Upanishads.
We have pointed out at length the standpoint of Buddhism and its total opposition to the Atman (soul, substance, the permanent and universal) in any form.
The Natyasastra discusses dance and many other performance arts. The most studied version of the text, consisting of about 6000 poetic verses, is structured into 36 chapters.
The tradition believes that the text originally had 12,000 verses. Somewhat different versions of the manuscripts exist, and these contain 37 or 38 chapters. Predominant number of its verses are in precise (4x8, or exactly 32 syllables in every shloka), some verses are in Arya meter (a morae-based Sanskrit meter), and the text has some text that is in prose particularly in chapters 6, 7 and 28. The structure of the text harmoniously compiles aspects of the theatrical arts into separate chapters. The text opens with the mythical genesis and history of drama, mentions the role of different Hindu deities in various aspects of the arts, and the recommended (consecration ceremony) of a stage for performance arts. The text, states Natalia Lidova, then describes the theory of Tāṇḍava dance (), the theory of, of bhāva, expression, gestures, acting techniques, basic steps, standing postures. Chapters 6 and 7 present the theory on aesthetics in performance arts, while chapters 8 to 13 are dedicated to the art of acting.
Stage instruments such as methods for holding accessories, weapons, relative movement of actors and actresses, scene formulation, stage zones, conventions and customs are included in chapters 10 to 13 of the Natyashastra. The chapters 14 to 20 are dedicated to plot and structure of underlying text behind the performance art. These sections include the theory of, musical meters and the language of expression.
Chapter 17 presents the attributes of poetry and figures of speech, while chapter 18 presents the art of speech and delivery in the performance arts. The text lists ten kinds of play, presents its theory of plot, costumes, and make-up. The text dedicates several chapters exclusively to women in performance arts, with chapter 24 on female theater. The training of actors is presented in chapters 26 and 35 of the text. Fire Emblem Radiant Dawn Pal Iso Download.
The theory of music, techniques for singing, and music instruments are discussed over chapters 28 to 34. The text in its final chapters describes the various types of dramatic characters, their roles and need for team work, what constitutes an ideal troupe, closing out the text with its comments of the importance of performance arts on culture. Contents [ ].
Drishtaphala [visible fruits] like banners or material rewards do not indicate success of a play production. Real success is achieved when the play is performed with skilled precision, devoted faith and pure concentration.
To succeed, the artist must immerse the spectator with pure joy of rasa experience. The spectator's concentrated absorption and appreciation is success. — Abhinavagupta on Natyasastra (Abridged) Trans: Tarla Mehta is the most studied commentary on Natyasastra, written by (950–1020 CE), who referred to Natyasastra also as the Natyaveda. Abhinavagupta's analysis of Natyasastra is notable for its extensive discussion of aesthetic and ontological questions, such as 'whether human beings comprehend performance arts as tattva (reality and truth in another plane), or is it an error, or is it a form of superimposed reality ( aropa)? Abhinavagupta asserts that Natyasastra and performance arts appeal to man because of 'the experience of wonder', wherein the observer is pulled in, immersed, engaged, absorbed, and satisfied. The performance arts in Natyasastra, states Abhinavagupta, temporarily suspends man from his ordinary world, transfers him into another parallel reality full of wonder, where he experiences and reflects on spiritual and moral concepts, and in there is the power of arts to transform the inner state of man, where the beauty of the art lifts him into the goals of (correct living, virtues, duties, right versus wrong, responsibilities, righteous).
Abhinavagupta is also known for his treatises and a commentary on the, where he touches upon the aesthetics in Natyasastra. The detailed Natyasastra review and commentary of Abhinavagupta mentions older Sanskrit commentaries on the text, suggesting the text was widely studied and had been influential. His discussion of pre-10th century scholarly views and list of references suggest that there once existed secondary literature on the Natyasastra by at least Kirtidhara, Bhaskara, Lollata, Sankuka, Nayaka, Harsa and Tauta.
However, all text manuscripts of these scholars have been lost to history or are yet to be discovered. Influence [ ].