Vedanta (/vˈdɑːntə/; Sanskrit: वेदान्त, IAST: Vedānta), also known as Uttara Mīmāṃsā, is one of the six orthodox (āstika) traditions of textual exegesis and Hindu philosophy. The word "Vedanta" means "conclusion of the Vedas", and encompasses the ideas that emerged from, or aligned and reinterpreted, the speculations and enumerations contained in the Upanishads, focusing on either devotion or knowledge and liberation. Vedanta developed into many traditions, all of which give their specific interpretations of a common group of texts called the Prasthānatrayī, translated as "the three sources": the Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita.[1]

All Vedanta traditions are exegetical in nature, but also contain extensive discussions on ontology, soteriology, and epistemology, even as there is much disagreement among the various traditions.[2] Independently considered, they may seem completely disparate due to the pronounced differences in thoughts and reasoning.[3]

The main traditions of Vedanta are: Bhedabheda (difference and non-difference); Advaita (non-dualism); and the Vaishnavite traditions of Dvaitadvaita (dualistic non-dualism), Vishishtadvaita (qualified non-dualism), Tattvavada (Dvaita) (dualism), Suddhadvaita (pure non-dualism), and Achintya-Bheda-Abheda (inconceivable difference and non-difference).[4] Modern developments in Vedanta include Neo-Vedanta,[5][6][7] and the philosophy of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya.[8]

Most major Vedanta schools, except Advaita Vedanta and Neo-Vedanta, are related to Vaishnavism and emphasize devotion (Bhakti) to God, understood as Vishnu or a related manifestation.[9][10] Advaita Vedanta, on the other hand, emphasizes Jñana (knowledge) and Jñana Yoga over theistic devotion. While the monism of Advaita has attracted considerable attention in the West due to the influence of the 14th century Advaitin Vidyaranya and modern Hindus like Swami Vivekananda and Ramana Maharshi, most Vedanta traditions focus on Vaishnava theology.[11]

Etymology and nomenclature edit

The word Vedanta is made of two words :

  • Veda (वेद) — refers to the four sacred vedic texts.
  • Anta (अंत) — this word means "End".

The word Vedanta literally means the end of the Vedas and originally referred to the Upanishads.[12][13] Vedanta is concerned with the jñānakāṇḍa or knowledge section of the vedas which is called the Upanishads.[14][15] The meaning of Vedanta expanded later to encompass the different philosophical traditions that interpret and explain the Prasthanatrayi in the light of their respective views on the relation between humans and the Divine or Absolute reality.[12][16]

The Upanishads may be regarded as the end of Vedas in different senses:[17]

  1. They were the last literary products of the Vedic period.
  2. They represent the pinnacle of Vedic philosophy.
  3. They were taught and debated last, in the Brahmacharya (student) stage.[12][18]

Vedanta is one of the six orthodox (āstika) traditions of textual exegesis and Indian philosophy.[13] It is also called Uttara Mīmāṃsā, which means 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 ritualistic section (the Samhita and Brahmanas) in the Vedas while Uttara Mīmāṃsā concerns itself with the deeper questions of the relation between humans and Divine or Absolute reality.[19][20][a]

Vedanta philosophy edit

Common features edit

Despite their differences, all traditionss of Vedanta share some common features:

Scripture edit

The main Upanishads, the Bhagavadgītā and the Brahma Sūtras are the foundational scriptures in Vedanta. All traditions of Vedanta give a specific exegesis of these texts, collectively called the Prasthānatrayī, literally, three sources.[14][26]

  1. The Upanishads,[b] or Śruti prasthāna; considered the Sruti, the "heard" (and repeated) foundation of Vedanta.
  2. The Brahma Sūtras, or Nyaya prasthana / Yukti prasthana; considered the reason-based foundation of Vedanta.
  3. The Bhagavadgītā, or Smriti prasthāna; considered the Smriti (remembered tradition) foundation of Vedanta.

All prominent Vedantic teachers, including Shankara, Bhaskara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Nimbarka, and Vallabha wrote commentaries on these three sources. The Brahma Sūtras of Badarayana serve as a bhedabheda-based synthesis of the teachings found in the diverse Upanishads, and while there may have been other similar syntheses in the past, only the Brahma Sūtras have survived to the present day.[14] The Bhagavadgītā, with its syncretism of Samkhya, Yoga, and Upanishadic thought, has also been a significant influence on Vedantic thought.[28]

All Vedāntins agree that scripture (śruti) is the only means of knowing (pramāṇa) regarding spiritual matters (which are beyond perception and inference).[29] This is explained by Rāmānuja as follows:

A theory that rests exclusively on human concepts may at some other time or place be refuted by arguments devised by cleverer people.... The conclusion is that with regard to supernatural matters, Scripture alone is the epistemic authority and that reasoning is to be used only in support of Scripture’ [Śrī Bhāṣya 2.1.12].[29]

For specific sub-traditions of Vedanta, other texts may be equally important. For example, for Advaita Vedanta, the works of Adi Shankara are nominally central, though other teachers were equally, or even more, influential. For the theistic Vaishnava schools of Vedanta, the Bhāgavata Purāṇa is particularly important. The Bhāgavata Purāṇa is one of the most widely commented upon works in Vedanta.[30] This text is so central to the Krishna-centered Vedanta schools that the Vedantin theologian Vallabha added the Bhāgavata Purāṇa as a fourth text to the Prasthānatrayī (three classic scriptures of Vedanta).[31]

Metaphysics edit

Vedanta philosophies discuss three fundamental metaphysical categories and the relations between the three.[14][32]

  1. Brahman or Īśvara: the ultimate reality[33]
  2. Ātman or Jivātman: the individual soul, self[34]
  3. Prakriti or Jagat: the empirical world, ever-changing physical universe, body and matter[35]

Brahman / Īśvara – Conceptions of the Supreme Reality edit

Shankara, in formulating Advaita, 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:[36]

  • Parā or Higher Brahman: The undifferentiated, absolute, infinite, transcendental, supra-relational Brahman beyond all thought and speech is defined as parā Brahman, nirviśeṣa Brahman, or nirguṇa Brahman and is the Absolute of metaphysics.
  • Aparā or Lower Brahman: The Brahman with qualities defined as aparā Brahman or saguṇa Brahman. The saguṇa Brahman is endowed with attributes and represents the personal God of religion.

Ramanuja, in formulating Vishishtadvaita Vedanta, rejects Nirguṇa – that the undifferentiated Absolute is inconceivable – and adopts a theistic interpretation of the Upanishads, accepting Brahman as Īśvara, the personal God who is the seat of all auspicious attributes, as the One reality. The God of Vishishtadvaita is accessible to the devotee, yet remains the Absolute, with differentiated attributes.[37]

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.[38][39] Nimbarka, in his Dvaitadvata philosophy, accepted the Brahman both as nirguṇa and as saguṇa. Vallabha, in his Shuddhadvaita philosophy, not only accepts the triple ontological essence of the Brahman, but also His manifestation as personal God (Īśvara), as matter, and as individual souls.[40]

Relation between Brahman and Jīva / Atman edit

The schools of Vedanta differ in their conception of the relation they see between Ātman / Jīvātman and Brahman / Īśvara:[41]

  • According to Advaita Vedanta (non-dualism), Ātman is identical with Brahman and there is no difference.[42]
  • According to Viśiṣṭādvaita (qualified non-dualism), Jīvātman is different from Īśvara, though eternally connected with Him as His mode.[43] The oneness of the Supreme Reality is understood in the sense of an organic unity (vishistaikya). Brahman/Īśvara alone, as organically related to all Jīvātman and the material universe is the one Ultimate Reality.[44]
  • According to Dvaita (dualism), the Jīvātman is totally and always different from Brahman / Īśvara.[45]
  • According to Shuddhadvaita (pure non-dualism), the Jīvātman and Brahman are identical; both, along with the changing empirically observed universe being Krishna.[46]
Epistemology in Dvaita and Vishishtadvaita Vedanta. Advaita and some other Vedanta schools recognize six epistemic means.

Epistemology edit

Pramana edit

Pramāṇa (Sanskrit: प्रमाण) literally means "proof", "that which is the means of valid knowledge".[47] It refers to epistemology in Indian philosophies, and encompasses the study of reliable and valid means by which human beings gain accurate, true knowledge.[48] The focus of Pramana is the manner in which correct knowledge can be acquired, how one knows or does not know, and to what extent knowledge pertinent about someone or something can be acquired.[49] Ancient and medieval Indian texts identify six[c] pramanas as correct means of accurate knowledge and truths:[50]

  1. Pratyakṣa (perception)
  2. Anumāṇa (inference)
  3. Upamāṇa (comparison and analogy)
  4. Arthāpatti (postulation, derivation from circumstances)
  5. Anupalabdi (non-perception, negative/cognitive proof)
  6. Śabda (scriptural testimony/ verbal testimony of past or present reliable experts).

The different schools of Vedanta have historically disagreed as to which of the six are epistemologically valid. For example, while Advaita Vedanta accepts all six pramanas,[51] Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita accept only three pramanas (perception, inference and testimony).[52]

Advaita considers Pratyakṣa (perception) as the most reliable source of knowledge, and Śabda, the scriptural evidence, is considered secondary except for matters related to Brahman, where it is the only evidence.[53][d] In Viśiṣṭādvaita and Dvaita, Śabda, the scriptural testimony, is considered the most authentic means of knowledge instead.[54]

Theories of cause and effect edit

All schools of Vedanta subscribe to the theory of Satkāryavāda,[55] 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, as well as Samkhya, support Parinamavada, the idea that the world is a real transformation (parinama) of Brahman.[56] According to Nicholson (2010, p. 27), "the Brahma Sutras espouse the realist Parinamavada position, which appears to have been the view most common among early Vedantins". In contrast to Badarayana, post-Shankara Advaita Vedantists hold a different view, Vivartavada, which says that the effect, the world, is merely an unreal (vivarta) transformation of its cause, Brahman.[e]

Overview of the main schools of Vedanta edit

The Upanishads present an associative philosophical inquiry in the form of identifying various doctrines and then presenting arguments for or against them. They form the basic texts and Vedanta interprets them through rigorous philosophical exegesis to defend the point of view of their specific sampradaya.[57][58] Varying interpretations of the Upanishads and their synthesis, the Brahma Sutras, led to the development of different schools of Vedanta over time.

Vinayak Sakaram Ghate of Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute conducted a comprehensive comparative analysis of the Brahma Sutra commentaries by Nimbarka, Ramanuja, Vallabha, Shankara and Madhva. In his conclusion, Ghate determined that Nimbarka's and Ramanuja's commentaries provide the most accurate interpretation of the Brahma Sutras, considering both the passages that emphasize unity and those that emphasize diversity.[59] Gavin Flood suggests that although Advaita Vedanta is the most well-known school of Vedanta and is sometimes wrongly perceived as the sole representation of Vedantic thought,[1] with Shankara being a follower of Saivism,[60] the true essence of Vedanta lies within the Vaisnava tradition and can be considered a discourse within the broad framework of Vaisnavism.[60] Four Vaishnava sampradays are considered to be of special significance based on the teachings of Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallabha, and Nimbarka.[3]

The number of prominent Vedanta schools varies among scholars, with some classifying them as three to six.[12][41][61][4][f][g]

  1. Bhedabheda, as early as the 7th century CE,[55] or even the 4th century CE.[63]
  2. Advaita (monistic), many scholars of which most prominent are Gaudapada (~500 CE)[66] and Adi Shankaracharya (8th century CE)[67]
  3. Vishishtadvaita (Vaishnava), prominent scholars are Nathamuni, Yāmuna and Ramanuja (1017–1137 CE)
  4. Tattvavada (Dvaita) (Vaishnava), founded by Madhvacharya (1199–1278 CE). The prominent scholars are Jayatirtha (1345-1388 CE), and Vyasatirtha (1460–1539 CE)
  5. Suddhadvaita (Vaishnava), founded by Vallabha (1479–1531 CE)
  6. Achintya Bheda Abheda (Vaishnava), founded by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (1486–1534 CE),[72] propagated by Gaudiya Vaishnava

Bhedabheda Vedanta (difference and non-difference) edit

Bhedābheda means "difference and non-difference" and is more a tradition than a school of Vedanta. The schools of this tradition emphasize that the individual self (Jīvatman) is both different and not different from Brahman.[55] Notable figures in this school are Bhartriprapancha, Nimbārka (7th century)[64][65] who founded the Dvaitadvaita school, Bhāskara (8th–9th century), Ramanuja's teacher Yādavaprakāśa,[73] Chaitanya (1486–1534) who founded the Achintya Bheda Abheda school, and Vijñānabhikṣu (16th century).[74][i]

Dvaitādvaita edit

Nimbarkacharya's icon at Ukhra, West Bengal

Nimbārka (7th century)[64][65] sometimes identified with Bhāskara,[75] propounded Dvaitādvaita.[76] Brahman (God), souls (chit) and matter or the universe (achit) are considered as three equally real and co-eternal realities. Brahman is the controller (niyanta), the soul is the enjoyer (bhokta), and the material universe is the object enjoyed (bhogya). The Brahman is Krishna, the ultimate cause who is omniscient, omnipotent, all-pervading Being. 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 individual souls can reap the consequences of their karma. God is considered to be 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. He can be realized only through a constant effort to merge oneself with His nature through meditation and devotion. [76]

Advaita Vedanta edit


Advaita Vedanta (IAST Advaita Vedānta; Sanskrit: अद्वैत वेदान्त), propounded by Gaudapada (7th century) and Adi Shankara (9th century), but popularized by Vidyaranya (14th century) and 19th-20th century neo-Vedantins, espouses non-dualism and monism. Brahman is held to be the sole unchanging metaphysical reality and identical to the individual Atman.[39] The physical world, on the other hand, is always-changing empirical Maya.[77][j] The absolute and infinite Atman-Brahman is realized by a process of negating everything relative, finite, empirical and changing.[78]

The school accepts no duality, no limited individual souls (Atman / Jīvatman), and no separate unlimited cosmic soul. All souls and their existence across space and time are considered to be the same oneness. [79] Spiritual liberation in Advaita is the full comprehension and realization of oneness, that one's unchanging Atman (soul) is the same as the Atman in everyone else, as well as being identical to Brahman.[80]

Vishishtadvaita Vedanta edit

Vishishtadvaita, propounded by Ramanuja (11–12th century), asserts that Jīvatman (human souls) and Brahman (as Vishnu) are different, a difference that is never transcended.[81][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 is a qualified non-dualistic school of Vedanta and like Advaita, begins by assuming 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] Ramanuja states that God, like man, has both soul and body, and 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 the personal god (bhakti of saguna Brahman).[87]

Akshar-Purushottam Darshan edit


The Swaminarayan Darshana, also called Akshar-Purushottam Darshan by the BAPS, was propounded by Swaminarayan (1781-1830 CE) and is rooted in Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita.[h] It asserts that Parabrahman (Purushottam, Narayana) and Aksharbrahman are two distinct eternal realities. Adherents believe that they can achieve moksha (liberation) by becoming aksharrup (or brahmarup), that is, by attaining qualities similar to Akshar (or Aksharbrahman) and worshipping Purushottam (or Parabrahman; the supreme living entity; God).[88][89]

Dvaita edit

Tattvavada, propounded by Madhvacharya (13th century), is based on the premise of realism or realistic point of view. The term Dvaita, which means dualism, was later applied to Madhvacharya's philosophy. Atman (soul) and Brahman (as Vishnu) are understood as two completely different entities.[90] 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] [k] In Dvaita Vedanta, an individual soul must feel attraction, love, attachment and complete devotional surrender to Vishnu for salvation, and it is only His grace that leads to redemption and salvation.[94] Madhva believed that some souls are eternally doomed and damned, a view not found in Advaita and Vishishtadvaita Vedanta.[95] While the Vishishtadvaita Vedanta asserted "qualitative monism and quantitative pluralism of souls", Madhva asserted both "qualitative and quantitative pluralism of souls".[96]

Shuddhādvaita edit


Shuddhadvaita (pure non-dualism), propounded by Vallabhacharya (1479–1531 CE), states that the entire universe is real and is subtly Brahman only in the form of Krishna.[46] Vallabhacharya agreed with Advaita Vedanta's ontology, but emphasized that prakriti (empirical world, body) is not separate from the Brahman, but just another manifestation of the latter.[46] Everything, everyone, everywhere – soul and body, living and non-living, jīva and matter – is the eternal Krishna.[46] The way to Krishna, in this school, is bhakti. Vallabha opposed renunciation of monistic sannyasa as ineffective and advocates the path of devotion (bhakti) rather than knowledge (jnana). The goal of bhakti is to turn away from ego, self-centered-ness and deception, and to turn towards the eternal Krishna in everything continually offering freedom from samsara.[46]

Achintya-Bheda-Abheda edit

Chaitanya Mahaprabhu

Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (1486 – 1533) was the prime exponent of Achintya-Bheda-Abheda.[97] In Sanskrit achintya means 'inconceivable'.[98] Achintya-Bheda-Abheda represents the philosophy of "inconceivable difference in non-difference",[99] in relation to the non-dual reality of Brahman-Atman which it calls (Krishna), svayam bhagavan.[100] The notion of "inconceivability" (acintyatva) is used to reconcile apparently contradictory notions in Upanishadic teachings. This school asserts that Krishna is Bhagavan of the bhakti yogins, the Brahman of the jnana yogins, and has a divine potency that is inconceivable. He is all-pervading and thus in all parts of the universe (non-difference), yet he is inconceivably more (difference). This school is at the foundation of the Gaudiya Vaishnava religious tradition.[99] The ISKCON or the Hare Krishnas also affiliate to this school of Vedanta Philosophy.

History edit

The history of Vedanta can be divided into two periods: one prior to the composition of the Brahma Sutras and the other encompassing the schools that developed after the Brahma Sutras were written. Until the 11th century, Vedanta was a peripheral school of thought.[101]

Before the Brahma Sutras (before the 5th century) edit

Little is known[102] of schools of Vedanta existing before the composition of the Brahma Sutras (first composition c. 2nd cent. BCE, final redaction 400–450 CE).[103][63][l] It is clear that Badarayana, the writer of Brahma Sutras, was not the first person to systematize the teachings of the Upanishads, as he quotes six Vedantic teachers before him – Ashmarathya, Badari, Audulomi, Kashakrtsna, Karsnajini and Atreya.[105][106] References to other early Vedanta teachers – Brahmadatta, Sundara, Pandaya, Tanka and Dravidacharya – are found in secondary literature of later periods.[107] The works of these ancient teachers have not survived, but based on the quotes attributed to them in later literature, Sharma postulates that Ashmarathya and Audulomi were Bhedabheda scholars, Kashakrtsna and Brahmadatta were Advaita scholars, while Tanka and Dravidacharya were either Advaita or Viśiṣṭādvaita scholars.[106]

Brahma Sutras (completed in the 5th century) edit

Badarayana summarized and interpreted teachings of the Upanishads in the Brahma Sutras, also called the Vedanta Sutra,[108][m] possibly "written from a Bhedābheda Vedāntic viewpoint."[55] Badarayana summarized the teachings of the classical Upanishads[109][110][n] and refuted the rival philosophical schools in ancient India like the sāṃkhya system.[63] The Brahma Sutras laid the basis for the development of Vedanta philosophy.[111]

Though attributed to Badarayana, the Brahma Sutras were likely composed by multiple authors over the course of hundreds of years.[63] The estimates on when the Brahma Sutras were complete vary,[112][113] with Nakamura in 1989 and Nicholson in his 2013 review stating, that they were most likely compiled in the present form around 400–450 CE.[103][o] Isaeva suggests they were complete and in current form by 200 CE,[114] while Nakamura states that "the great part of the Sutra must have been in existence much earlier than that" (800 - 500 BCE).[113]

The book is composed of four chapters, each divided into four-quarters or sections.[14] These sutras attempt to synthesize the diverse teachings of the Upanishads. However, the cryptic nature of aphorisms of the Brahma Sutras have required exegetical commentaries.[115] These commentaries have resulted in the formation of numerous Vedanta schools, each interpreting the texts in its own way and producing its own commentary.[116]

Between the Brahma Sutras and Adi Shankara (5th–8th centuries) edit

Little with specificity is known of the period between the Brahma Sutras (5th century CE) and Adi Shankara (8th century CE).[102][67] Only two writings of this period have survived: the Vākyapadīya, written by Bhartṛhari (second half 5th century,[117]) and the Kārikā written by Gaudapada (early 6th[67] or 7th century[102] CE).

Shankara mentions 99 different predecessors of his school in his commentaries.[118] 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.[102] At least fourteen thinkers are known to have existed between the composition of the Brahma Sutras and Shankara's lifetime.[p]

A noted scholar of this period was Bhartriprapancha. Bhartriprapancha maintained that the Brahman is one and there is unity, but that this unity has varieties. Scholars see Bhartriprapancha as an early philosopher in the line who teach the tenet of Bhedabheda.[14] Bhedābheda means "difference and non-difference" and is more a tradition than a school of Vedanta. The schools of this tradition emphasize that the individual self (Jīvatman) is both different and not different from Brahman.[119] Notable figures in this tradition are Nimbārka (7th century)[64][65] who founded the Dvaitadvaita school, Bhāskara (8th–9th century), Ramanuja's teacher Yādavaprakāśa,[73] Chaitanya (1486–1534) who founded the Achintya Bheda Abheda school, and Vijñānabhikṣu (16th century).[120][q]

Gaudapada, Adi Shankara (Advaita Vedanta) (6th–9th centuries) edit

Influenced by Buddhism, Advaita vedanta departs from the bhedabheda-philosophy, instead postulating the identity of Atman with the Whole (Brahman),

Gaudapada edit

Gaudapada (c. 6th century CE),[121] was the teacher or a more distant predecessor of Govindapada,[122] the teacher of Adi Shankara. Shankara is widely considered as the apostle of Advaita Vedanta.[41] Gaudapada's treatise, the Kārikā – also known as the Māṇḍukya Kārikā or the Āgama Śāstra[123] – is the earliest surviving complete text on Advaita Vedanta.[r]

Gaudapada's Kārikā relied on the Mandukya, Brihadaranyaka and Chhandogya Upanishads.[127] In the Kārikā, Advaita (non-dualism) is established on rational grounds (upapatti) independent of scriptural revelation; its arguments are devoid of all religious, mystical or scholastic elements. Scholars are divided on a possible influence of Buddhism on Gaudapada's philosophy.[s] 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.[128]

Adi Shankara edit

Adi Shankara (c.800-c.850), 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".[128] It was Shankara who integrated Gaudapada work with the ancient Brahma Sutras, "and give it a locus classicus" alongside the realistic strain of the Brahma Sutras.[129][t]

A noted contemporary of Shankara was Maṇḍana Miśra, who regarded Mimamsa and Vedanta as forming a single system and advocated their combination known as Karma-jnana-samuchchaya-vada.[130][u] The treatise on the differences between the Vedanta school and the Mimamsa school was a contribution of Adi Shankara. Advaita Vedanta rejects rituals in favor of renunciation, for example.[131]

Early Vaishnavism Vedanta (7th–9th centuries) edit

Early Vaishnava Vedanta retains the tradition of bhedabheda, equating Brahman with Vishnu or Krishna.

Nimbārka and Dvaitādvaita edit

Nimbārka (7th century)[64][65] sometimes identified with Bhāskara,[75] propounded Dvaitādvaita or Bhedābheda.[76]

Bhāskara and Upadhika edit

Bhāskara (8th–9th century) also taught Bhedabheda. In postulating Upadhika, he considers both identity and difference to be equally real. As the causal principle, Brahman is considered non-dual and formless pure being and intelligence.[132] The same Brahman, manifest as events, becomes the world of plurality. Jīva is Brahman limited by the mind. Matter and its limitations are considered real, not a manifestation of ignorance. Bhaskara advocated bhakti as dhyana (meditation) directed toward the transcendental Brahman. He refuted the idea of Maya and denied the possibility of liberation in bodily existence.[133]

Vaishnavism Bhakti Vedanta (11th–16th centuries) edit

The Bhakti movement of late medieval Hinduism started in the 7th century, but rapidly expanded after the 12th century.[134] It was supported by the Puranic literature such as the Bhagavata Purana, poetic works, as well as many scholarly bhasyas and samhitas.[135][136][137]

This period saw the growth of Vashnavism Sampradayas (denominations or communities) under the influence of scholars such as Ramanujacharya, Vedanta Desika, Madhvacharya and Vallabhacharya.[138] Bhakti poets or teachers such as Manavala Mamunigal, Namdev, Ramananda, Surdas, Tulsidas, Eknath, Tyagaraja, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and many others influenced the expansion of Vaishnavism.[139] These Vaishnavism sampradaya founders challenged the then dominant Shankara's doctrines of Advaita Vedanta, particularly Ramanuja in the 12th century, Vedanta Desika and Madhva in the 13th, building their theology on the devotional tradition of the Alvars (Shri Vaishnavas),[140] and Vallabhacharya in the 16th century.

In North and Eastern India, Vaishnavism gave rise to various late Medieval movements: Ramananda in the 14th century, Sankaradeva in the 15th and Vallabha and Chaitanya in the 16th century.

Ramanuja (Vishishtadvaita Vedanta) (11th–12th centuries) edit

Rāmānuja (1017–1137 CE) was the most influential philosopher in the Viśiṣṭādvaita tradition. As the philosophical architect of Vishishtadvaita, he taught qualified non-dualism.[141] Ramanuja's teacher, Yadava Prakasha, followed the Advaita monastic tradition. Tradition has it that Ramanuja disagreed with Yadava and Advaita Vedanta, and instead followed Nathamuni and Yāmuna. Ramanuja reconciled the Prasthanatrayi with the theism and philosophy of the Vaishnava Alvars poet-saints.[142] Ramanuja wrote a number of influential texts, such as a bhasya on the Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita, all in Sanskrit.[143]

Ramanuja presented the epistemological 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.[83] Vishishtadvaiata provides the philosophical basis of Sri Vaishnavism.[144]

Ramanuja was influential in integrating Bhakti, the devotional worship, into Vedanta premises.[145]

Madhva (Tattvavada or Dvaita Vedanta)(13th–14th centuries) edit

Tattvavada[v] or Dvaita Vedanta was propounded by Madhvacharya (1238–1317 CE).[w] He presented the opposite interpretation of Shankara in his Dvaita, or dualistic system.[148] In contrast to Shankara's non-dualism and Ramanuja's qualified non-dualism, he championed unqualified dualism. Madhva wrote commentaries on the chief Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita and the Brahma Sutra.[149]

Madhva started his Vedic studies at age seven, joined an Advaita Vedanta monastery in Dwarka (Gujarat),[150] studied under guru Achyutrapreksha,[151] frequently disagreed with him, left the Advaita monastery, and founded Dvaita.[152] Madhva and his followers Jayatirtha and Vyasatirtha, were critical of all competing Hindu philosophies, Jainism and Buddhism,[153] but particularly intense in their criticism of Advaita Vedanta and Adi Shankara.[154]

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 pluralistic.[155] 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 things and souls; (3) between material things and God; (4) between souls; and (5) between souls and God.[156] He also advocated for a difference in degrees in the possession of knowledge. He also advocated for differences in the enjoyment of bliss even in the case of liberated souls, a doctrine found in no other system of Indian philosophy.[155]

Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (Achintya Bheda Abheda) (16th century) edit

Achintya Bheda Abheda (Vaishnava), founded by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (1486–1534 CE),[72] was propagated by Gaudiya Vaishnava. Historically, it was Chaitanya Mahaprabhu who founded congregational chanting of holy names of Krishna in the early 16th century after becoming a sannyasi.[157]

Modern times (19th century – present) edit

Swaminarayan and Akshar-Purushottam Darshan (19th century) edit

The Swaminarayan Darshana, which is rooted in Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita,[158][71][159][h] was founded in 1801 by Swaminarayan (1781-1830 CE), and is contemporarily most notably propagated by BAPS.[160] Due to the commentarial work of Bhadreshdas Swami, the Akshar-Purushottam teachings were recognized as a distinct school of Vedanta by the Shri Kashi Vidvat Parishad in 2017[68][69] and by members of the 17th World Sanskrit Conference in 2018.[68][x][70] Swami Paramtattvadas describes the Akshar-Purushottam teachings as "a distinct school of thought within the larger expanse of classical Vedanta,"[161] presenting the Akshar-Purushottam teachings as a seventh school of Vedanta.[162]

Neo-Vedanta (19th century) edit

Neo-Vedanta, variously called as "Hindu modernism", "neo-Hinduism", and "neo-Advaita", is a term that denotes some novel interpretations of Hinduism that developed in the 19th century,[163] presumably as a reaction to the colonial British rule.[164] King (2002, pp. 129–135) writes that these notions accorded the Hindu nationalists an opportunity to attempt the construction of a nationalist ideology to help unite the Hindus to fight colonial oppression. 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.[165] This was contra-factual as, historically, Hinduism and Vedanta had always accepted a diversity of traditions. King (1999, pp. 133–136) asserts that the neo-Vedantic theory of "overarching tolerance and acceptance" was used by the Hindu reformers, together with the ideas of Universalism and Perennialism, to challenge the polemic dogmatism of Judaeo-Christian-Islamic missionaries against the Hindus.

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.[166] Halbfass (2007, p. 307) sees these interpretations as incorporating western ideas[167] into traditional systems, especially Advaita Vedanta.[168] 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[y] 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.[170] According to Gier (2000, p. 140), 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.

A major proponent in the popularization of this Universalist and Perennialist interpretation of Advaita Vedanta was Vivekananda,[171] who played a major role in the revival of Hinduism.[172] He was also instrumental in the spread of Advaita Vedanta to the West via the Vedanta Society, the international arm of the Ramakrishna Order.[173][page needed]

Criticism of Neo-Vedanta label edit

Nicholson (2010, p. 2) writes that the attempts at integration which came to be known as neo-Vedanta were evident as early as 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.[z]

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 edit

According to Nakamura (2004, 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. ... 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 ... [102]

Frithjof Schuon summarizes the influence of Vedanta on Hinduism as follows:

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]

Gavin Flood 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".[13]

Hindu traditions edit

Vedanta, adopting ideas from other orthodox (āstika) schools, became the most prominent school of Hinduism.[14][179] Vedanta traditions led to the development of many traditions in Hinduism.[13][180] Sri Vaishnavism of south and southeastern India is based on Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita Vedanta.[181] Ramananda led to the Vaishnav Bhakti Movement in north, east, central and west India. This movement draws its 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.[55] Advaita Vedanta influenced Krishna Vaishnavism in the northeastern state of Assam.[182] The Madhva school of Vaishnavism found in coastal Karnataka is based on Dvaita Vedanta.[154]

Āgamas, the classical literature of Shaivism, though independent in origin, show Vedanta association and premises.[183] Of the 92 Āgamas, ten are (dvaita) texts, eighteen (bhedabheda), and sixty-four (advaita) texts.[184] While the Bhairava Shastras are monistic, Shiva Shastras are dualistic.[185] Isaeva (1995, pp. 134–135) finds the link between Gaudapada's Advaita Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism evident and natural. Tirumular, the Tamil Shaiva Siddhanta scholar, credited with creating "Vedanta–Siddhanta" (Advaita Vedanta and Shaiva Siddhanta synthesis), stated, "becoming Shiva is the goal of Vedanta and Siddhanta; all other goals are secondary to it and are vain."[186]

Shaktism, or traditions 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).[187]

Influence on Western thinkers edit

An exchange of ideas has been taking place between the western world and Asia since the late 18th century as a result of colonization of parts of Asia by Western powers. This also influenced western religiosity. The first translation of Upanishads, published in two parts in 1801 and 1802, significantly influenced Arthur Schopenhauer, who called them the consolation of his life.[188] He drew explicit parallels between his philosophy, as set out in The World as Will and Representation,[189] and that of the Vedanta philosophy as described in the work of Sir William Jones.[190] Early translations also appeared in other European languages.[191] Influenced by Śaṅkara's concepts of Brahman (God) and māyā (illusion), Lucian Blaga often used the concepts marele anonim (the Great Anonymous) and cenzura transcendentă (the transcendental censorship) in his philosophy.[192]

Similarities with Spinoza's philosophy edit

German Sanskritist Theodore Goldstücker was among the early scholars to notice 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.[193]

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

The Brahman, as conceived in the Upanishads and defined by Sankara, is clearly the same as Spinoza's 'Substantia'."[194]

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.[195]

See also edit

Notes edit

  1. ^ 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 Brahma is the cause (Brahma-karana-vada).[21]
  2. ^ 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).[27] All major commentators have considered twelve to thirteen oldest of these texts as the Principal Upanishads and as the foundation of Vedanta.
  3. ^ A few Indian scholars such as Vedvyasa discuss ten; Krtakoti discusses eight; six is most widely accepted: see Nicholson (2010, pp. 149–150)
  4. ^ Anantanand Rambachan (1991, pp. xii–xiii) 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." Sengaku Mayeda (2006, pp. 46–47) 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.
  5. ^ Nicholson (2010, p. 27) writes of Advaita Vedantin position of cause and effect - Although 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.
  6. ^ Sivananda also mentions Meykandar and the Shaiva Siddhanta philosophy.[62]
  7. ^ 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.
  8. ^ a b c Vishishtadvaita roots:
    * Supreme Court of India, 1966 AIR 1119, 1966 SCR (3) 242: "Philosophically, Swaminarayan was a follower of Ramanuja"[159]
    * Hanna H. Kim: "The philosophical foundation for Swaminarayan devotionalism is the viśiṣṭādvaita, or qualified non-dualism, of Rāmānuja (1017–1137 ce)."[158]
  9. ^ According to Nakamura and Dasgupta, the Brahmasutras reflect a Bhedabheda point of view,[63] the most influential tradition 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 Shankara.[63]
  10. ^ O'Flaherty (1986, 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. Maya not only deceives people about the things they think they know; more basically, it limits their knowledge."
  11. ^ The concept of Brahman in Dvaita 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 early Christians who migrated to India, [92] but later scholarship has rejected this theory.[93]
  12. ^ Nicholson (2010, p. 26) considers the Brahma Sutras as a group of sutras composed by multiple authors over the course of hundreds of years. The precise date is disputed.[104] Nicholson (2010, p. 26) estimates that the book was composed in its current form between 400 and 450 CE. The reference shows BCE, but it's a typo in Nicholson's book
  13. ^ The Vedanta–sūtra are known by a variety of names, including (1) Brahma–sūtra, (2) Śārīraka–sutra, (3) Bādarāyaṇa–sūtra and (4) Uttara–mīmāṁsā.
  14. ^ Estimates of the date of Bādarāyana's lifetime differ. Pandey 2000, p. 4
  15. ^ Nicholson 2013, p. 26 Quote: "From a historical perspective, the Brahmasutras are best understood as a group of sutras composed by multiple authors over the course of hundreds of years, most likely composed in its current form between 400 and 450 BCE." This dating has a typo in Nicholson's book, it should be read "between 400 and 450 CE"
  16. ^ 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)[102]
  17. ^ According to Nakamura and Dasgupta, the Brahmasutras reflect a Bhedabheda point of view,[63] the most influential tradition 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 Shankara.[63]
  18. ^ There is ample evidence, however, to suggest that Advaita was a thriving tradition by the start of the common era or even before that. Shankara mentions 99 different predecessors of his Sampradaya.[118] Scholarship since 1950 suggests that almost all Sannyasa Upanishads have a strong Advaita Vedanta outlook.[124] Six 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; the Asrama Upanishad is dated to the 3rd Century.[125] 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.[126]
  19. ^ Scholars like Raju (1992, p. 177), following the lead of earlier scholars like Sengupta,[128] believe that Gaudapada co-opted the Buddhist doctrine that ultimate reality is pure consciousness (vijñapti-mātra). Raju (1992, pp. 177–178) states, "Gaudapada wove [both doctrines] into a philosophy of the Mandukaya Upanisad, which was further developed by Shankara." Nikhilananda (2008, pp. 203–206) states that the whole purpose of Gaudapada was to present and demonstrate the ultimate reality of Atman, an idea denied by Buddhism. According to Murti (1955, pp. 114–115), Gaudapada's doctrines are unlike Buddhism. Gaudapada's influential text consists of four chapters: Chapters One, Two, and Three are entirely Vedantin and founded on the Upanishads, with little Buddhist flavor. Chapter Four uses Buddhist terminology and incorporates Buddhist doctrines but Vedanta scholars who followed Gaudapada through the 17th century, state that both Murti and Richard King never referenced nor used Chapter Four, they only quote from the first three.[66] While there is shared terminology, the doctrines of Gaudapada and Buddhism are fundamentally different, states Murti (1955, pp. 114–115)
  20. ^ 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."
  21. ^ According to Mishra, the sutras, beginning with the first sutra of Jaimini and ending with the last sutra of Badarayana, form one compact shastra.[130]
  22. ^ Madhvacharya gave his philosophy the name Tattvavada (realistic point of view or realism), but later after few centuries it was popularised as Dvaita Vedanta (dualism).
  23. ^ Many sources date him to 1238–1317 period,[146] but some place him over 1199–1278 CE.[147]
  24. ^ "Professor Ashok Aklujkar said [...] Just as the Kashi Vidvat Parishad acknowledged Swaminarayan Bhagwan's Akshar-Purushottam Darshan as a distinct darshan in the Vedanta tradition, we are honored to do the same from the platform of the World Sanskrit Conference [...] Professor George Cardona [said] "This is a very important classical Sanskrit commentary that very clearly and effectively explains that Akshar is distinct from Purushottam."[68]
  25. ^ 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".[169]
  26. ^ The tendency of "a blurring of philosophical distinctions" has also been noted by Mikel Burley.[174] Lorenzen locates the origins of a distinct Hindu identity in the interaction between Muslims and Hindus,[175] and a process of "mutual self-definition with a contrasting Muslim other",[176] which started well before 1800.[177]

References edit

  1. ^ a b Flood 1996, p. 239.
  2. ^ Flood 1996, pp. 133, 239.
  3. ^ a b Flood 1996, p. 133.
  4. ^ a b Dandekar 1987.
  5. ^ King 1999, p. 135.
  6. ^ Flood 1996, p. 258.
  7. ^ King 2002, p. 93.
  8. ^ Williams 2018, pp. 82–91.
  9. ^ Sharma 2008, p. 2–10.
  10. ^ Cornille 2019.
  11. ^ Flood 1996, pp. 238, 246.
  12. ^ a b c d Chatterjee & Dutta 2007, pp. 317–318.
  13. ^ a b c d Flood 1996, pp. 231–232, 238.
  14. ^ a b c d e f g Hiriyanna 2008, pp. 19, 21–25, 150–152.
  15. ^ Koller 2013, pp. 100–106; Sharma 1994, p. 211
  16. ^ Raju 1992, pp. 176–177; Isaeva 1992, p. 35 with footnote 30
  17. ^ Raju 1992, pp. 176–177.
  18. ^ Scharfe 2002, pp. 58–59, 115–120, 282–283.
  19. ^ Clooney 2000, pp. 147–158.
  20. ^ Jaimini 1999, p. 16, Sutra 30.
  21. ^ King 1995, p. 268 with note 2.
  22. ^ Fowler 2002, pp. 34, 66; Flood 1996, pp. 238–239
  23. ^ a b Fowler 2002, pp. 34, 66.
  24. ^ Das 1952; Doniger & Stefon 2015; Lochtefeld 2000, p. 122; Sheridan 1991, p. 136
  25. ^ a b c Doniger & Stefon 2015.
  26. ^ Ranganathan; Grimes 1990, pp. 6–7
  27. ^ Dasgupta 2012, pp. 28.
  28. ^ Pasricha 2008, p. 95.
  29. ^ a b Bartley, Christopher (2015). An Introduction to Indian Philosophy Hindu and Buddhist Ideas from Original Sources, p. 176. Bloomsbury Academic.
  30. ^ Bryant, Edwin Francis (2007). Krishna: A Sourcebook. Oxford University Press US, p. 112. ISBN 978-0-19-514891-6.
  31. ^ Bryant, Edwin. Krishna the Beautiful Legend of God (Srimad Bhagavata Purana Book X) (Penguin Classics), Introduction (pp. ix - lxxix).
  32. ^ Raju 1992, pp. 176–177, 505–506; Fowler 2002, pp. 49–59, 254, 269, 294–295, 345
  33. ^ Das 1952; Puligandla 1997, p. 222
  34. ^ Jones & Ryan 2006, p. 51; Johnson 2009, p. 'see entry for Atman(self)'
  35. ^ Lipner 1986, pp. 40–41, 51–56, 144; Hiriyanna 2008, pp. 23, 78, 158–162
  36. ^ Chari 1988, pp. 2, 383.
  37. ^ Fowler 2002, p. 317; Chari 1988, pp. 2, 383
  38. ^ "Dvaita". Britannica. Retrieved 2016-08-31.
  39. ^ a b Stoker 2011.
  40. ^ Vitsaxis 2009, pp. 100–101.
  41. ^ a b c Raju 1992, p. 177.
  42. ^ Raju 1992, p. 177; Stoker 2011
  43. ^ Ādidevānanda 2014, pp. 9–10.
  44. ^ Betty 2010, pp. 215–224; Stoker 2011; Chari 1988, pp. 2, 383
  45. ^ Craig 2000, pp. 517–18; Stoker 2011; Bryant 2007, pp. 361–363
  46. ^ a b c d e Bryant 2007, pp. 479–481.
  47. ^ Lochtefeld 2000, pp. 520–521; Chari 1988, pp. 73–76
  48. ^ Lochtefeld 2000, pp. 520–521.
  49. ^ Potter 2002, pp. 25–26; Bhawuk 2011, p. 172
  50. ^ Bhawuk 2011, p. 172; Chari 1988, pp. 73–76; Flood 1996, pp. 225
  51. ^ Grimes 2006, p. 238; Puligandla 1997, p. 228; Clayton 2006, pp. 53–54
  52. ^ Grimes 2006, p. 238.
  53. ^ Indich 1995, pp. 65; Gupta 1995, pp. 137–166
  54. ^ Fowler 2002, p. 304; Puligandla 1997, pp. 208–211, 237–239; Sharma 2000, pp. 147–151
  55. ^ a b c d e Nicholson.
  56. ^ Nicholson 2010, p. 27.
  57. ^ Balasubramanian 2000, pp. xxx–xxxiiii.
  58. ^ Deutsch & Dalvi 2004, pp. 95–96.
  59. ^ [1] Comparative analysis of Brahma Sutra commentaries
  60. ^ a b Flood 1996, p. 246.
  61. ^ Sivananda 1993, p. 216.
  62. ^ Sivananda 1993, p. 217.
  63. ^ a b c d e f g h Nicholson 2010, p. 26.
  64. ^ a b c d e Malkovsky 2001, p. 118.
  65. ^ a b c d e Ramnarace 2014, p. 180.
  66. ^ a b Jagannathan 2011.
  67. ^ a b c Comans 2000, p. 163.
  68. ^ a b c d "HH Mahant Swami Maharaj Inaugurates the Svāminārāyaṇasiddhāntasudhā and Announces Parabrahman Svāminārāyaṇa's Darśana as the Akṣara-Puruṣottama Darśana". BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha. 17 September 2017.
  69. ^ a b "Acclamation by th Sri Kasi Vidvat Parisad". BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha. 31 July 2017.
  70. ^ a b Paramtattvadas 2019, p. 40.
  71. ^ a b Williams 2018, p. 38.
  72. ^ a b Sivananda 1993, p. 248.
  73. ^ a b Nicholson 2013, p. 34.
  74. ^ Nicholson; Sivananda 1993, p. 247
  75. ^ a b "Nimbarka". Encyclopedia Britannica.
  76. ^ a b c Sharma 1994, p. 376.
  77. ^ Das 1952; Hiriyanna 2008, pp. 160–161; O'Flaherty 1986, p. 119
  78. ^ Das 1952.
  79. ^ Sharma 2007, pp. 19–40, 53–58, 79–86.
  80. ^ Indich 1995, pp. 1–2, 97–102; Etter 2006, pp. 57–60, 63–65; Perrett 2013, pp. 247–248
  81. ^ "Similarity to Brahman". The Hindu. 6 January 2020. Retrieved 2020-01-11 – via
  82. ^ Betty 2010, pp. 215–224; Craig 2000, pp. 517–518
  83. ^ a b Bartley 2013, pp. 1–2, 9–10, 76–79, 87–98; Sullivan 2001, p. 239; Doyle 2006, pp. 59–62
  84. ^ Etter 2006, pp. 57–60, 63–65; van Buitenin 2010
  85. ^ Schultz 1981, pp. 81–84.
  86. ^ van Buitenin 2010.
  87. ^ Schultz 1981, pp. 81–84; van Buitenin 2010; Sydnor 2012, pp. 84–87
  88. ^ Bhadreshdas, Sadhu; Aksharananddas, Sadhu (1 April 2016), "Swaminarayan's Brahmajnana as Aksarabrahma-Parabrahma-Darsanam", Swaminarayan Hinduism, Oxford University Press, pp. 172–190, doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199463749.003.0011, ISBN 978-0-19-946374-9, retrieved 2021-10-26
  89. ^ Padoux, André (1 April 2002). "Raymond Brady Williams, An Introduction to Swaminarayan Hinduism". Archives de sciences sociales des religions (118): 87–151. doi:10.4000/assr.1703. ISSN 0335-5985.
  90. ^ Stoker 2011; von Dehsen 1999, p. 118
  91. ^ Sharma 1962, pp. 353–354.
  92. ^ Kulandran & Hendrik 2004, pp. 177–179.
  93. ^ Jones & Ryan 2006, p. 266; Sarma 2000, pp. 19–21
  94. ^ Jones & Ryan 2006, p. 266; Sharma 1962, pp. 417–424; Sharma 1994, p. 373
  95. ^ Sharma 1994, pp. 374–375; Bryant 2007, pp. 361–362
  96. ^ Sharma 1994, p. 374.
  97. ^ Sivananda 1993, p. 247.
  98. ^ Bryant 2007, p. 407; Gupta 2007, pp. 47–52
  99. ^ a b Bryant 2007, pp. 378–380.
  100. ^ Gupta 2016, pp. 44–45.
  101. ^ Nicholson 2010, p. 157; 229 note 57.
  102. ^ a b c d e f Nakamura 2004, p. 3.
  103. ^ a b Nakamura 1989, p. 436. "... we can take it that 400-450 is the period during which the Brahma-sūtra was compiled in its extant form."
  104. ^ Lochtefeld 2000, p. 746; Nakamura 1949, p. 436
  105. ^ Balasubramanian 2000, p. xxxiii.
  106. ^ a b Sharma 1996, pp. 124–125.
  107. ^ Nakamura 2004, p. 3; Sharma 1996, pp. 124–125
  108. ^ Hiriyanna 2008, pp. 19, 21–25, 151–152; Sharma 1994, pp. 239–241; Nicholson 2010, p. 26
  109. ^ Chatterjee & Dutta 2007, p. 317.
  110. ^ Sharma 2009, pp. 239–241.
  111. ^ "Historical Development of Indian Philosophy". Britannica.
  112. ^ Lochtefeld 2000, p. 746.
  113. ^ a b Nakamura 1949, p. 436.
  114. ^ Isaeva 1992, p. 36.
  115. ^ Hiriyanna 2008, pp. 151–152.
  116. ^ Nicholson 2010, pp. 26–27; Mohanty & Wharton 2011
  117. ^ Nakamura 2004, p. 426.
  118. ^ a b Roodurmum 2002, p. [page needed].
  119. ^ "Bhedabheda Vedanta | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy". Retrieved 2023-08-08.
  120. ^ Nicholson; Sivananda 1993, p. 247
  121. ^ Comans 2000, p. 163; Jagannathan 2011
  122. ^ Comans 2000, pp. 2, 163.
  123. ^ Sharma 1994, p. 239.
  124. ^ Olivelle 1992, pp. 17–18; Rigopoulos 1998, pp. 62–63; Phillips 1995, p. 332 with note 68
  125. ^ Olivelle 1992, pp. x–xi, 8–18; Sprockhoff 1976, pp. 277–294, 319–377
  126. ^ Olivelle 1992, pp. 17–18.
  127. ^ Sharma 1994, p. 239; Nikhilananda 2008, pp. 203–206; Nakamura 2004, p. 308; Sharma 1994, p. 239
  128. ^ a b c Nikhilananda 2008, pp. 203–206.
  129. ^ Sharma 2000, p. 64.
  130. ^ a b Sharma 1994, pp. 239–241, 372–375.
  131. ^ Raju 1992, p. 175-176.
  132. ^ Sharma 1994, p. 340.
  133. ^ Mohanty & Wharton 2011.
  134. ^ Smith 1976, pp. 143–156.
  135. ^ Schomer & McLeod 1987, pp. 1–5.
  136. ^ Gupta & Valpey 2013, pp. 2–10.
  137. ^ Bartley 2013, pp. 1–4, 52–53, 79.
  138. ^ Beck 2012, p. 6.
  139. ^ Jackson 1992; Jackson 1991; Hawley 2015, pp. 304–310.
  140. ^ Bartley 2013, p. 1-4.
  141. ^ Sullivan 2001, p. 239; Schultz 1981, pp. 81–84; Bartley 2013, pp. 1–2; Carman 1974, p. 24
  142. ^ Olivelle 1992, pp. 10–11, 17–18; Bartley 2013, pp. 1–4, 52–53, 79
  143. ^ Carman 1994, pp. 82–87 with footnotes.
  144. ^ Bernard 1947, pp. 9–12; Sydnor 2012, pp. 0–11, 20–22
  145. ^ Fowler 2002, p. 288.
  146. ^ Bryant 2007, pp. 12–13, 359–361; Sharma 2000, pp. 77–78
  147. ^ Jones & Ryan 2006, p. 266.
  148. ^ Bernard 1947, pp. 9–12.
  149. ^ Hiriyanna 2008, p. 187.
  150. ^ Sheridan 1991, p. 117.
  151. ^ von Dehsen 1999, p. 118.
  152. ^ Sharma 2000, pp. 79–80.
  153. ^ Sharma 1962, pp. 128–129, 180–181; Sharma 1994, pp. 150–151, 372, 433–434; Sharma 2000, pp. 80–81
  154. ^ a b Sharma 1994, pp. 372–375.
  155. ^ a b Hiriyanna 2008, pp. 188–189.
  156. ^ Lochtefeld 2000, p. 396; Stoker 2011
  157. ^ Delmonico, Neal (4 April 2004). "Caitanya Vais.n. avism and the Holy Names" (PDF). Bhajan Kutir. Retrieved 2017-05-29.
  158. ^ a b Kim 2005.
  159. ^ a b Gajendragadkar 1966.
  160. ^ Aksharananddas & Bhadreshdas 2016, p. [page needed].
  161. ^ Paramtattvadas 2017, p. 3.
  162. ^ Swaminarayan's teachings, p. 40. [full citation needed]
  163. ^ King 1999, p. 135; Flood 1996, p. 258; King 2002, p. 93
  164. ^ King 1999, pp. 187, 135–142.
  165. ^ King 2002, p. 118.
  166. ^ King 1999, p. 137.
  167. ^ Halbfass 2007, p. 307.
  168. ^ King 2002, p. 135.
  169. ^ King 1999, p. 138.
  170. ^ King 1999, pp. 133–136.
  171. ^ King 2002, pp. 135–142.
  172. ^ von Dense 1999, p. 191.
  173. ^ Mukerji 1983.
  174. ^ Burley 2007, p. 34.
  175. ^ Lorenzen 2006, p. 24–33.
  176. ^ Lorenzen 2006, p. 27.
  177. ^ Lorenzen 2006, p. 26–27.
  178. ^ Witz 1998, p. 11; Schuon 1975, p. 91
  179. ^ Clooney 2000, pp. 96–107.
  180. ^ Brooks 1990, pp. 20–22, 77–79; Nakamura 2004, p. 3
  181. ^ Carman & Narayanan 1989, pp. 3–4.
  182. ^ Neog 1980, pp. 243–244.
  183. ^ Smith 2003, pp. 126–128; Klostermaier 1984, pp. 177–178
  184. ^ Davis 2014, p. 167 note 21; Dyczkowski 1989, pp. 43–44
  185. ^ Vasugupta 2012, pp. 252, 259; Flood 1996, pp. 162–167
  186. ^ Manninezhath 1993, pp. xv, 31.
  187. ^ McDaniel 2004, pp. 89–91; Brooks 1990, pp. 35–39; Mahony 1997, p. 274 with note 73
  188. ^ Renard 2010, pp. 177–178.
  189. ^ Schopenhauer 1966, p. [page needed].
  190. ^ Jones 1801, p. 164.
  191. ^ Renard 2010, p. 183-184.
  192. ^ Iţu 2007.
  193. ^ Goldstucker 1879, p. 32.
  194. ^ Muller 2003, p. 123.
  195. ^ Blavatsky 1982, pp. 308–310.

Sources edit

Printed sources edit

Web sources edit

Further reading edit

External links edit

  •   Quotations related to Vedanta at Wikiquote
  •   Media related to Vedanta at Wikimedia Commons