Advaita (Sanskrit: Nondualism, Monism), most influential of the schools of Vedanta, an orthodox philosophy of India. While its followers find its main tenets already fully expressed in the Upanisads and systematized by the Vedanta-satras, it has its historical beginning with the 7th-century thinker Gaulapada, author of the MaziUkya-karik, a commentary in verse form on the late Mdiukya Upani,cad. Gauapada builds further on the Mahayana Buddhist philosophy of Sunyavda (Emptiness). He argues that there is no duality; the mind, awake or dreaming, moves through mdy (“illusion”); and only nonduality (advaita) is the final truth. This truth is concealed by the ignorance of illusion. There is no becoming, either of a thing by itself or out of some other thing. There is ultimately no individual self or soul (fiva), only the dtman (all-soul), in which individuals may be temporarily delineated just as the space in a jar delineates a part of main space: when the jar is broken, the individual space becomes once more part of the main space. Sa?kara, or Saflkaracarya (Master Sadkara, usually dated c. 788—820), builds further on Gau?lapada’s foundation, principally in his commentary on the Vedanta-sutras, the Sariraka-mimarnsa-bha sya (“Commentary on the Study of the Self”). Sakara in his philosophy does not start from the empirical world with logical analysis but, rather, directly from the absolute (Brahman). If interpreted correctly, he argues, the UpaniJads teach the nature of Brahman. In making this argument, he develops a complete epistemology to account for the human error in taking the phenomenal world for real. Fundamental for Sa?kara is the tenet that the Brahman is real and the world is unreal. Any duality or plurality is an illusion.

The self is nothing but Brahman. Insight into this identity results in spiritual release. Brahman is outside time, space, and causality, which are simply forms of empirical experience. No distinction in Brahman or from Brahman is possible. Anything that is stated of Brahman must be understood in absolute terms. Since all language starts from the perception of duality and ascribes qualities to substances, the common universe of discourse (vyavahara) must be transrnogrified to ultimate meaning (paramartha). Saflkara points to scriptural texts, either stating identity (“thou art that”; “I am Brahman”) or denying difference (“There is no duality here”; “no, no”), as declaring the true meaning of a Brahman without qualities (nirgua). These he calls the great statements (mahUvakya). Other texts that ascribe qualities to Brahman (saguza) are secondary and refer not to the true nature of Brahman but to its personality as God (livara). Human perception of the unitary and infinite Brahman as the plural and infinite is due to man’s innate habit of superimposition (adhyasa), by which a thou is ascribed to the 1(1 am tired; I am happy; I am perceiving). The habit stems from man’s nescience (ajflana, avidya), which can be avoided only by the realization of the identity of Brahman. Nevertheless, the empirical world is not totally unreal, for it is a misapprehension of the real Brahman. A rope is mistaken for a snake; there is only a rope and no snake, but, as long as it is thought of as a snake, it is one. Sa?kara had many followers who continued and elaborated his work, notably, Vacaspati Misra and Prulastapada (9th century). The Advaita literature is extremely extensive, and its influence is still felt in modern Hindu thought.

Back to Top
Author Resource BoxI currently manage an asian restaurant in NYC. My hobbies include cartography and graphology.Read Eida Chen Profile