Advaita Vedanta

Advaita Vedanta (IAST Advaita Vedānta; Sanskrit अद्वैत वेदान्त; IPA: [əd̪vait̪ə veːd̪ɑːnt̪ə]) is a sub-school of the Vedānta (literally, end or the goal of the Vedas, Sanskrit) school of Hindu philosophy. Other major sub-schools of Vedānta are Dvaita and Viśishṭādvaita. Advaita (literally, non-duality) is a monistic system of thought. "Advaita" refers to the identity of the Self (Atman) and the Whole (Brahman).

The key source texts for all schools of Vedānta are the Prasthanatrayi—the canonical texts consisting of the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita and the Brahma Sutras. The first person to explicitly consolidate the principles of Advaita Vedanta was Adi Shankara, while the first historical proponent was Gaudapada, the guru of Shankara's guru Govinda Bhagavatpada.

Adi Shankara

Further information: Adi Shankara

Adi Shankara consolidated the Advaita Vedanta, an interpretation of the Vedic scriptures that was approved and accepted by Gaudapada and Govinda Bhagavatpada siddhānta (system). Continuing the line of thought of some of the Upanishadic teachers, and also that of his own teacher's teacher Gaudapada, (Ajativada), Adi Shankara expounded the doctrine of Advaita — a nondualistic reality.

He wrote commentaries on the Prasthana Trayi. A famous quote from Vivekacūḍāmaṇi, one of his Prakaraṇa graṃthas (philosophical treatises) that succinctly summarises his philosophy is:

Brahma satyaṃ jagat mithyā, jīvo brahmaiva nāparah — Brahman is the only truth, the world is illusion, and there is ultimately no difference between Brahman and individual self

This widely quoted sentence of his is also widely misunderstood. In his metaphysics, there are three tiers of reality with each one sublating the previous. The category illusion in this system is unreal only from the viewpoint of the absolutely real and is different from the category of the Absolutely unreal. His system of vedanta introduced the method of scholarly exegesis on the accepted metaphysics of the Upanishads, and this style was adopted by all the later vedanta schools. Another distinctive feature of his work is his refusal to be literal about scriptural statements and adoption of symbolic interpretation where he considered it appropriate. In a famous passage in his commentary on the Brahmasutra's of Badarayana, he says "For each means of knowledge{PramaNam} has a valid domain. The domain of the scriptures {Shabda PramaNam} is the knowledge of the Self. If the scriptures say something about another domain - like the world around us - which contradicts what perception {Pratyaksha PramaNam} and inference{Anumana PramaNam} (the appropriate methods of knowledge for this domain) tells us, then, the scriptural statements have to be symbolically interpreted..."

Adi Shankara's contributions to Advaita are crucial. His main works are the commentaries on the Prasthanatrayi (Brahma Sūtras, Bhagavad Gītā and the Upanişads) and the Gaudapadiya Karikas. He also wrote a major independent treatise, called Upadeśa Sāhasrī, expounding his philosophy.

Prerequisites

The necessity of a Guru

Advaita vedānta requires anyone seeking to study advaita vedānta to do so from a Guru (teacher). The Guru must have the following qualities (see Mundaka Upanishad 1.2.12):

1. Śrotriya — must be learned in the Vedic scriptures and sampradaya
2. Brahmaniṣṭha — literally meaning established in Brahman; must have realised the oneness of Brahman in everything and in himself

The seeker must serve the Guru and submit questions with all humility in order to remove all doubts (see Bhagavad Gita 4.34). By doing so, advaita says, the seeker will attain moksha (liberation from the cycle of births and deaths).

See also: Guru-shishya tradition

Sādhana Chatuṣṭaya

Any mumukṣu (one seeking moksha) has to have the following four sampattis (qualifications), collectively called Sādhana Chatuṣṭaya Sampatti (the fourfold qualifications):

1. Nityānitya vastu viveka — The ability (viveka) to correctly discriminate between the eternal (nitya) substance (Brahman) and the substance that is transitory existence (anitya).
2. Ihāmutrārtha phala bhoga virāga — The renunciation (virāga) of enjoyments of objects (artha phala bhoga) in this world (iha) and the other worlds (amutra) like heaven etc.
3. Śamādi ṣatka sampatti — the sixfold qualities of śama (control of the antahkaraṇa), dama (the control of external sense organs), uparati (the refraining from actions; instead concentrating on meditation), titikṣa (the tolerating of tāpatraya), śraddha (the faith in Guru and Vedas), samādhāna (the concentrating of the mind on God and Guru).
4. Mumukṣutva — The firm conviction that the nature of the world is misery and the intense longing for moksha (release from the cycle of births and deaths).

Advaita vedānta categorically states that moksha, or liberation, is available only to those possessing the above-mentioned fourfold qualifications. Thus any seeker wishing to study advaita vedānta from a teacher must possess these.

Alternative View

Others have argued that there is in fact no need for Gurus nor for the possessing of certain legalistic qualifications in order to study Advaita Vedanta. Advaita Vedanta teaches that the Self is quite capable of knowing itself without these legalistic burdens. Realizing the monistic view of Self or Atman as it relates to Brahman is a matter of simply knowing that you know and can be obtained in an instant without outside direction. The very essential core belief of Advaita Vedanta is that you, physical manifestations, the universe and beyond are who you are, you are that, and thus you are your own Guru. You are the source of all knowledge, because you are knowledge itself. Realizing these basic facts, that the Self/Atman/You are Brahman, both immanent and transcendant can be attained in many ways. Teachers or Gurus are therefore helpful but not necessary. The only actual prerequisites are for one to be pure and true as stated in the Prashna Upanishad, "The bright world of Brahman can be attained only by those that are pure and true.

Epistemology

Pramāṇas

Pramā, in Sanskrit, refers to the correct knowledge, arrived at by thorough reasoning, of any object. Pramāṇa (sources of knowledge, Sanskrit) forms one part of a tripuṭi (trio), namely,

1. Pramātṛ, the subject; the knower of the knowledge
2. Pramāṇa, the cause or the means of the knowledge
3. Prameya, the object of knowledge

In Advaita Vedānta, the following pramāṇas are accepted:

• Pratyakṣa — the knowledge gained by means of the senses
• Anumāna — the knowledge gained by means of inference
• Upamāna — the knowledge gained by means of analogy
• Arthāpatti — the knowledge gained by superimposing the known knowledge on an appearing knowledge that does not concur with the known knowledge
• Āgama — the knowledge gained by means of texts such as Vedas (also known as Āptavākya, Śabda pramāṇa)

Ontology

Kārya and kāraṇa

The kārya (effect) and kāraṇa (cause) form an important area for investigation in all the systems of Vedanta. Two kāraṇatvas (ways of being the cause) are recognised:

1. Nimitta kāraṇatva — Being the instrumental cause. For example, a potter is assigned Nimitta kāraṇatva as he acts as the maker of the pot and thus becomes the pot's instrumental cause.
2. Upādāna kāraṇatva — Being the material cause. For example, the mud is assigned Upādāna kāraṇatva as it acts as the material of the effect (the pot) and thus becomes the pot's material cause.

Advaita assigns Nimitta kāraṇatva to Brahman vide the statements from the Vedas (only two are given below):

Sarvāṇi rūpāṇi vicitya dhīraḥ. Nāmāni kṛtvābhivadan yadāste — That Lord has created all the forms and is calling them by their names (Taitiiriya Aranyaka 3.12.7)

Sa īkṣata lokānnu sṛjā iti — He thought, “Let Me create the worlds” (Aitareya Upanishad 1.1.1)

Advaita also assigns Upādāna kāraṇatva to Brahman vide the statements from the Vedas (only two are given below):

Yathā somyaikena mṛtpinḍena sarvaṃ mṛnmayaṃ vijñātaṃ syādvācāraṃbhaṇaṃ vikāro nāmadheyaṃ mṛttiketyeva satyaṃ — Dear boy, just as through a single clod of clay all that is made of clay would become known, for all modifications is but name based upon words and the clay alone is real (Chandogya Upanishad 6.1.4)

Sokāmayata bahu syāṃ prajāyeti — (He thought) Let me be many, let me be born (Taittiriya Upanishad 2.6.4)

The Chandogya Upanishad 6.2.1 states

Ekamevādvitīyaṃ — It is One without a second

Thus, based on these and other statements found in the Vedas, Advaita concludes that Brahman is both the instrumental cause and the material cause.

Kārya-kāraṇa ananyatva

Advaita states that kārya (effect) is non-different from kāraṇa (cause). However kāraṇa is different from kārya. This principle is called Kārya-kāraṇa ananyatva (the non-difference of the effect from the cause). To elaborate,

• If the cause is destroyed, the effect will no longer exist. For example, if from the effect, cotton cloth, the cause, threads, are removed, there will be no cloth, i.e., the cloth is destroyed. Similarly if in the effect, thread, the cause, cotton, is removed, there will be no thread, i.e., the thread is destroyed. This is brought out by Adi Shankara in the Brahmasūtra Bhāṣya , commentary on the Brahma sutra, 2.1.9, as:

  Ananyatve'pi kāryakāraṇayoḥ kāryasya kāraṇātmatvaṃ na tu kāraṇasya kāryātmatvaṃ — Despite the non-difference of cause and effect, the effect has its self in the cause but not the cause in the effect. The effect is of the nature of the cause and not the cause the nature of the effect. Therefore the qualities of the effect cannot touch the cause.

• During the time of its existence, one can easily grasp that the effect is not different from the cause. However that the cause is different from the effect is not readily understood. As to this, it is not really possible to separate cause from effect. But this is possible by imagining so. For example, the reflection of the gold ornament seen in the mirror is only the form of the ornament but is not the ornament itself as it (the reflection) has no gold in it at all. Adi Shankara says in the Chāṃdogya Upaniṣad Bhāṣya, commentary on the Chandogya Upanishad, 6.3.2:

  Sarvaṃ ca nāmarūpādi sadātmanaiva satyaṃ vikārajātaṃ svatastu anṛtameva — All names and forms are real when seen with the Sat (Brahman) but are false when seen independent of Brahman.

This way Advaita establishes the non-difference of effect from cause. To put it in a nutshell,

Kārya is not different from kāraṇa; however kāraṇa is different from kārya

In the context of Advaita Vedanta,

Jagat (the world) is not different from Brahman; however Brahman is different from Jagat

Salient features of Advaita Vedanta

Three levels of truth

• The transcendental or the Pāramārthika level in which Brahman is the only reality and nothing else;
• The pragmatic or the Vyāvahārika level in which both Jiva (living creatures or individual souls) and Ishvara are true; here, the material world is completely true, and,
• The apparent or the Prāthibhāsika level in which even material world reality is actually false, like illusion of a snake over a rope or a dream.

Brahman

According to Adi Shankara, God, the Supreme Cosmic Spirit or Brahman (pronounced as /brəh mən/; nominative singular Brahma, pronounced as /brəh mə/) is the One, the whole and the only reality. Other than Brahman, everything else, including the universe, material objects and individuals, are false. Brahman is at best described as that infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, incorporeal, impersonal, transcendent reality that is the divine ground of all Being. Brahman is often described as neti neti meaning "not this, not this" because it cannot be correctly described as this or that. It is the origin of this and that, the origin of forces, substances, all of existence, the undefined, the basis of all, unborn, the essential truth, unchanging, eternal, the absolute. How can it be properly described as something in the material world when itself is the basis of reality? Brahman is also beyond the senses, it would be akin a blind man trying to correctly describe color. It (grammatically neutral, but exceptionally treated as masculine), though not a substance, is the basis of the material world, which in turn is its illusionary transformation. Brahman is not the effect of the world. Brahman is said to be the purest knowledge itself, and is illuminant like a source of infinite light.

Due to ignorance (avidyā), the Brahman is visible as the material world and its objects. The actual Brahman is attributeless and formless (see Nirguna Brahman). It is the Self-existent, the Absolute and the Imperishable (not generally the object of worship but rather of meditation). Brahman is actually indescribable. It is at best "Satchidananda" (merging "Sat" + "Chit" + "Ananda", ie, Infinite Truth, Infinite Consciousness and Infinite Bliss). Also, Brahman is free from any kind of differences. It does not have any sajātīya (homogeneous) differences because there is no second Brahman. It does not have any vijātīya (heterogeneous) differences because there is nobody in reality existing other than Brahman. It has neither svagata (internal) differences, because Brahman is itself homogeneous.

Though Brahman is self-proved, Adi Shankara also proposed some logical proofs:

• Shruti — the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita and the Brahma Sutras describe Brahman in almost exact manner as Adi Shankara. This is the testimonial proof of Brahman.
• Psychological — every person experiences his soul, or atman. According to Adi Shankara, Atman = Brahman. This argument also proves the omniscience of the Brahman.
• Teleological — the world appears very well ordered; the reason for this cannot be an unconscious principle. The reason must be due to the Brahman.
• Essential — Brahman is the basis of this created world.
• Perceptible feeling — many people, when they achieve the turīya state, claim that their soul has become one with everything else.

Georg Feuerstein summarizes the advaita realization as follows: "The manifold universe is, in truth, a Single Reality. There is only one Great Being, which the sages call Brahman, in which all the countless forms of existence reside. That Great Being is utter Consciousness, and It is the very Essence, or Self (Atman) of all beings."

Māyā

Māyā (/mɑːjɑː/) According to Adi Shankara, Māyā is the complex illusionary power of Brahman which causes the Brahman to be seen as the material world of separate forms. It has two main functions — one is to "hide" Brahman from ordinary human perception, and the other is to present the material world in its stead. Māyā is also said to be indescribable, though it may be said that all sense data entering ones awareness via the five senses are Māyā, since the fundamental reality underlying sensory perception is completely hidden. It is also said that Māyā neither completely real nor completely unreal, hence indescribable. Its shelter is Brahman, but Brahman itself is untouched by the illusion of Māyā, just like a magician is not tricked by his own magic. Māyā is temporary and is transcended with "true knowledge," or perception of the more fundamental reality which straddles Māyā.

Since according to the Upanishads only Brahman is real, but we see the material world to be real, Adi Shankara explained the anomaly by the concept of this illusionary power Māyā.

Status of the world

Adi Shankara says that the world is not real(true), it is an illusion, but this is because of some logical reasons. Let us first analyse Adi Shankara's definition of Truth, and hence why the world is not considered real(true).

• Adi Shankara says that whatever thing remains eternal is true, and whatever is non-eternal is untrue. Since the world is created and destroyed, it is not real(true).
• Truth is the thing which is unchanging. Since the world is changing, it is not real(true).
• Whatever is independent of space and time is real(true), and whatever has space and time in itself is real(true).
• Just as one sees dreams in sleep, he sees a kind of super-dream when he is waking. The world is compared to this conscious dream.
• The world is believed to be a superimposition of the Brahman. Superimposition cannot be real(true).

On the other hand, Adi Shankara claims that the world is not absolutely unreal(false). It appears unreal(false) only when compared to Brahman. In the pragmatic state, the world is completely real—which occurs as long as we are under the influence of Maya. The world cannot be both true and false at the same time; hence Adi Shankara has classified the world as indescribable. The following points suggest that according to Adi Shankara, the world is not false (Adi Shankara himself gave most of the arguments, Sinha, 1993):

• If the world were unreal(false), then with the liberation of the first human being, the world would have been annihilated. However, the world continues to exist even if a human attains liberation.
• Adi Shankara believes in Karma, or good actions. This is a feature of this world. So the world cannot be unreal(false).
• The Supreme Reality Brahman is the basis of this world. The world is like its reflection. Hence the world cannot be totally unreal(false).
• False is something which is ascribed to nonexistent things, like Sky-lotus. The world is a logical thing which is perceived by our senses.

Consider the following logical argument. A pen is placed in front of a mirror. One can see its reflection. To one's eyes, the image of the pen is perceived. Now, what should the image be called? It cannot be true, because it is an image. The truth is the pen. It cannot be false, because it is seen by our eyes.

Īshvara

Īshvara (pronounced as /iːʃvərə/, literally, the Supreme Lord) — According to Advaita Vedanta, when man tries to know the attributeless Brahman with his mind, under the influence of Maya, Brahman becomes the Lord. Ishvara is Brahman with Maya — the manifested form of Brahman. Adi Shankara uses a metaphor that when the "reflection" of the Cosmic Spirit falls upon the mirror of Maya, it appears as the Supreme Lord. The Supreme Lord is true only in the pragmatic level — his actual form in the transcendental level is the Cosmic Spirit.

Ishvara is Saguna Brahman or Brahman with innumerable auspicious qualities. He is all-perfect, omniscient, omnipresent, incorporeal, independent, Creator of the world, its ruler and also destroyer. He is causeless, eternal and unchangeable — and is yet the material and the instrumental cause of the world. He is both immanent (like whiteness in milk) and transcendent (like a watch-maker independent of a watch). He may be even regarded to have a personality. He is the subject of worship. He is the basis of morality and giver of the fruits of one's Karma. However, He himself is beyond sin and merit. He rules the world with his Maya — His divine power. This association with a "false" knowledge does not affect the perfection of Ishvara, in the same way as a magician is himself not tricked by his magic. However, while Ishvara is the Lord of Maya and she (ie, Maya) is always under his control, the living beings (jīva, in the sense of humans) are the servants of Maya (in the form of ignorance). This ignorance is the cause of the unhappiness and sin in the mortal world. While Ishvara is Infinite Bliss, humans are miserable. Ishvara always knows the unity of the Brahman substance, and the Mayic nature of the world. There is no place for a Satan in Hinduism, unlike Abrahamic religions. Advaitins explain the misery because of ignorance. Ishvara can also be visualized and worshipped in anthropomorphic form as deities such as Shiva, Vishnu or Devi.

Now the question arises as to why the Supreme Lord created the world. If one assumes that Ishvara creates the world for any incentive, this slanders the wholeness and perfection of Ishvara. For example, if one assumes that Ishvara creates the world for gaining something, it would be against His perfection. If we assume that He creates for compassion, it would be illogical, because the emotion of compassion cannot arise in a blank and void world in the beginning (when only Ishvara existed). So Adi Shankara assumes that Creation is a sport of Ishvara. It is His nature, just as it is man's nature to breathe.

The sole proof for Ishvara that Adi Shankara gives is Shruti's mentions of Ishvara, as Ishvara is beyond logic and thinking. This is similar to Kant 's philosophy about Ishvara in which he says that "faith" is the basis of theism. However, Adi Shankara has also given few other logical proofs for Ishvara, but warning us not to completely rely on them:

• The world is a work, an effect, and so must have real cause. This cause must be Ishvara.
• The world has a wonderful unity, coordination and order, so its creator must have been an intelligent being.
• People do good and sinful work and get its fruits, either in this life or after. People themselves cannot be the giver of their fruits, as no one would give himself the fruit of his sin. Also, this giver cannot be an unconscious object. So the giver of the fruits of Karma is Ishvara. See, Karma in Hinduism for more information.

Status of God

To think that there is no place for a personal God (Ishvara) in Advaita Vedanta is a misunderstanding of the philosophy. Ishvara is, in an ultimate sense, described as "false" because Brahman appears as Ishvara only due to the curtain of Maya. However, as described earlier, just as the world is true in the pragmatic level, similarly, Ishvara is also pragmatically true. Just as the world is not absolutely false, Ishvara is also not absolutely false. He is the distributor of the fruits of one's Karma. See, Karma in Hinduism for more information. In order to make the pragmatic life successful, it is very important to believe in God and worship him. In the pragmatic level, whenever we talk about Brahman, we are in fact talking about God. God is the highest knowledge theoretically possible in that level. Devotion (Bhakti) will cancel the effects of bad Karma and will make a person closer to the true knowledge by purifying his mind. Slowly, the difference between the worshipper and the worshipped decreases and upon true knowledge, liberation occurs.

Ātman

The swan is an important motif in Advaita. It symbolises two things: first, the swan is called hamsah in Sanskrit (which becomes hamso if the first letter in the next word is /h/). Upon repeating this hamso indefinitely, it becomes so-aham, meaning, "I am That". Second, just as a swan lives in water but its feathers are not soiled by water, similarly a liberated Advaitin lives in this world full of maya but is untouched by its illusion.

The soul or the self (Atman) is identical with Brahman. It is not a part of Brahman that ultimately dissolves into Brahman, but the whole Brahman itself. Now the arguers ask how the individual soul, which is limited and one in each body, can be the same as Brahman? Adi Shankara explains that the Self is not an individual concept. Atman is only one and unique. Indeed Atman alone is {Ekaatma Vaadam}. It is a false concept that there are several Atmans {Anekaatma Vaadam}. Adi Shankara says that just as the same moon appears as several moons on its reflections on the surface of water covered with bubbles, the one Atman appears as multiple atmans in our bodies because of Maya. Atman is self-proven, however, some proofs are discussed—eg., a person says "I am blind", "I am happy", "I am fat" etc. The common and constant factor, which permeates all these statements is the "I" which is but the Immutable Consciousness. When the blindness, happiness, fatness are inquired and negated, "I" the common factor which, indeed, alone exists in all three states of consciousness and in all three periods of time, shines forth. This proves the existence of Atman, and that Consciousness, Reality and Bliss are its characteristics. Atman, being the silent witness of all the modifications, is free and beyond sin and merit. It does not experience happiness or pain because it is beyond the triad of Experiencer, Experienced and Experiencing. It does not do any Karma because it is Aaptakaama. It is incorporeal and independent.

When the reflection of atman falls on Avidya (ignorance), atman becomes jīva — a living being with a body and senses. Each jiva feels as if he has his own, unique and distinct Atman, called jivatman. The concept of jiva is true only in the pragmatic level. In the transcendental level, only the one Atman, equal to Brahman, is true.

Adi Shankara exposed the relative and thus unreal nature of the objective world and propounded the truth of the Advaita {One without a second} by analysing the three states of experience of the atman — waking (vaishvanara), dreaming (taijasa), and deep sleep (prajna).

Salvation

Liberation or Moksha (akin to Nirvana of the Buddhists) — Advaitins also believe in the theory of reincarnation of souls (Atman) into plants, animals and humans according to their karma. They believe that suffering is due to Maya, and only knowledge (called Jnana) of Brahman can destroy Maya. When Maya is removed, there exists ultimately no difference between the Jiva-Atman and the Brahman. Such a state of bliss when achieved while living is called Jivan mukti. While one is in the pragmatic level, one can worship God in any way and in any form, like Krishna or Ayyappa as he wishes, Adi Shankara himself was a proponent of devotional worship or Bhakti. But Adi Shankara believes that while Vedic sacrifices, puja and devotional worship can lead one in the direction of jnana, true knowledge, they cannot lead one directly to Moksha.

Theory of creation

In the relative level, Adi Shankara believes in the Creation of the world through Satkaryavada. It is like the philosophy of Samkhya, which says that the cause is always hidden into its effect—and the effect is just a transformation of the cause. However, Samkhya believes in a sub-form of Satkaryavada called Parinamavada (evolution) — whereby the cause really becomes an effect. Instead, Adi Shankara believes in a sub-form called Vivartavada. According to this, the effect is merely an apparent transformation of its cause — like illusion. eg., In darkness, a man often confuses a rope to be a snake. But this does not mean that the rope has actually transformed into a snake.

At the pragmatic level, the universe is believed to be the creation of the Supreme Lord Ishvara. Maya is the divine magic of Ishvara, with the help of which Ishvara creates the world. The serial of Creation is taken from the Upanishads. First of all, the five subtle elements (ether, air, fire, water and earth) are created from Ishvara. Ether is created by Maya. From ether, air is born. From air, fire is born. From fire, water is born. From water, earth is born. From a proportional combination of all five subtle elements, the five gross elements are created, like the gross sky, the gross fire, etc. From these gross elements, the universe and life are created. This series is exactly the opposite during destruction.

Some people have criticized that these principles are against Satkaryavada. According to Satkaryavada, the cause is hidden inside the effect. How can Ishvara, whose form is spiritual, be the effect of this material world? Adi Shankara says that just as from a conscious living human, inanimate objects like hair and nails are formed, similarly, the inanimate world is formed from the spiritual Ishvara.

Status of ethics

Some claim that there is no place for ethics in Advaita, because everything is ultimately illusionary. But on analysis, ethics also has a firm place in this philosophy—the same place as the world and God. Ethics, which implies doing good Karma, indirectly helps in attaining true knowledge. The traditional ethical system put forth by Advaitins is that the basis of merit and sin is the Shruti (the Vedas and the Upanishads). Truth, non-violence, service of others, pity, etc are Dharma, and lies, violence, cheating, selfishness, greed, etc are adharma (sin). However, no authoritative definition of Dharma was ever formulated by any of the major exponents of Advaita Vedanta. Unlike ontological and epistemological claims, there is room for significant disagreement between Advaitins on ethical issues.

The impact of Advaita

Advaita rejuvenated much of Hindu thought and also spurred debate with the two main theistic schools of Vedanta philosophy that were formalized later: Vishishtadvaita (qualified nondualism), and Dvaita (dualism). Advaita further helped to merge the old Vedic religion with popular south-Asian cults/deities, thus making a bridge between higher types of practice (such as jnana yoga) and devotional religion of simple householders.

The blunders of Advaita

The logic shows four types of authorities to decide any point. The first is perception (Pratyaksham), in which anything is directly experienced through senses in this world. The second is inference (Anumanam), in which anything is inferred based on a characteristic sign. For example, smoke is coming from a mountain and fire is inferred. In this authority also the perception is the basis because the relationship between fire and smoke is already perceived in the kitchen. The third authority is simile (Upamanam), in which an unseen animal is explained to us by comparing it with a known animal. Even here, the person who is explaining has seen both the animals and thus perception is the basis. The fourth is the statement of a well-wisher (Shabdam), by which we believe the existence of an unseen item explained by our well-wisher.

Here also perception is the basis because the well-wisher has seen that place. Therefore there is no authority, which is not based on perception. The scripture (Sruti), supporting scripture (Smruti), logic (Yukti) and finally the direct experience (Anubhava) are considered as the four stages of any authorized validity of a concept. The final stage of experience (Anubhava) is very important and forms the basis because it is again related to perception only. Therefore you cannot say anything which is beyond experience and perception. Even the unimaginable God (Parabrahman) is experienced through human form. In this case the experience may not be direct but the experience is through a medium (Human body).

The experience is same whether it is direct or indirect. The heat from the fire is experienced directly and the same heat is experienced indirectly from a hot iron rod. This experience does not reveal the nature of Parabrahman because the experience is based on a characteristic sign of the medium only which is specific to the existence of the unimaginable God. Such characteristic sign is the specific special knowledge called as Prajnanam. The knowledge is the property of a specific quality (Sattvam), which is an associated property of awareness. Thus it is not the property of God and thus God is untouched by anyone. Due to His presence, this knowledge becomes special and wonderful by which we can infer the existence of God. The unimaginable knowledge indicates the unimaginable God.

Thus we have the perception of human incarnation in this world and thus God is perceived by us (Yat sakshat.., pratyagatmanamaikshat -Veda). Therefore science which is based on the perception is the basis of the spiritual knowledge. The human incarnation showing specialties is satisfying the basic perception. The unimaginable talents of the human incarnation indicating the unimaginable God are clearly perceived. Therefore the unimaginable God is perceived but the unimaginability is not violated. To deny the unimaginable God is unscientific and shows only foolish rigidity.

Veda says that this entire world is a homogeneous entity called as Brahman (Sarvam khalu idam Brahma). Veda also says that all the forms existing in this world are generated from, maintained by and dissolved into Brahman. On scientific analysis it is clearly proved that the inert energy can be the Brahman that is mentioned by Veda. Matter, awareness, light, heat, sound, electricity, work etc. are the various modifications of the inert energy. The inter-conversion of inert energy and all these forms is very clearly proved. The awareness in a human being disappears when the food is not supplied. The food (Annam) and the oxygen (Prana) combine to produce the inert energy. The food is oxidized and energy is released. A part of this energy is converted into awareness in the brain and nervous system. The reverse of this is invalid because awareness is not producing energy or any form of the energy. When the food is not supplied, the awareness is unable to produce the heat energy, which can maintain the activities of the body. The awareness is also unable to produce even a single atom of matter. Therefore awareness cannot generate any item of the world.

Moreover awareness is discontinuous and therefore you cannot consider that this world is made of awareness. The awareness itself is the inert energy in its essential form and thus constitutes the various items of this world or a dream. You can realize any item of this world as inert energy by scientific analysis. To realize this world as modification of awareness is only an imagination. Thus the basic validity of the authority, which is perception and direct experience is absent in the argument of Advaita philosophers.

The Advaita philosopher is trying to become the standstill awareness without any attribute (Nirguna chit). The attributes of the awareness form the state of mind (Manomaya Kosa). When the attributes (Gunas) or feelings are absent, there is no existence of the faculty of mind. This is referred as the dissolution of mind (Manolaya Yoga). Such a person remains as the body of food and respiration only without mind. Such a state is the state of plants and trees. Plants and trees are made of food and carry on the respiration. The mind is very negligible and can be considered as absent. The Advaita philosopher has kept this state as his final goal, which is the state of a tree. It is said that one becomes whatever he desires (Yat bhavam tat bhavati). If this philosopher dies in this state only as the final goal, he achieves the same state by taking birth as a tree. The state of Avadhuta is a severe state of Advaita philosopher, where the person is almost in the state of deep sleep.

In deep sleep the awareness attains the eternal basic form, which is the inert energy. Such a person ending in this state shall be born as an inert stone which is the inert energy present in the form of matter. It is not a curse but it is the desired state and is the fixed final goal of the aspirant only. The aspirant aspired for such state and lived in such a state for a long time and wishes to remain in that state continuously. Therefore one need not be angry with Me in this point.

Both the above states (Sanyasa and Avadhuta) are the fruits of achievement of self-realization in practice which is appreciated as self-attainment (Atma Yoga). The self attainment should not be the end of your spiritual effort and is not the final goal. If the self attainment is the final goal of this precious human life, the future birth as a tree or a stone is inevitable because of the strong desire about it. But if this self-attainment happens to be the middle stage of your journey, such attainment is appreciable. By such self-attainment you are undisturbed like a stone. You are firm in your determination like a rock. All this state is only a training given to you to make you fit for the service of God. If you end with this training, there is no difference between yourself and a stone. To become a stone is not the final goal. To stand firm like a stone in doing service to God is the final goal. Therefore after attaining the self, we have to search for the super self, which is available in the human form in your present generation. Then you have to serve Him in His mission like a rock. For such dedication, you have to withdraw yourself from all the worldly bonds and become like the firm mountain. If you withdraw from all the worldly bonds and remain idle without doing the service to God, then you are just a stone with awareness.

What is the use of such withdrawal (Pratyahara)? You are given training to become a soldier. If you do not become a soldier and fight in the war, what is the use of your training? You should not end with the training. The training must have its application. The self-attainment is training. Its application is in the service to God.

The all pervading homogenous single phase of finest form of inert energy is space. The space has no awareness as per the scientific analysis and as per the practical experience. Then how can we say that awareness is all-pervading? How can we say that this entire world is awareness? The awareness is an available item in the creation. Veda says that no item of creation is God (Neti Neti). The awareness is a special form of energy propagating in the nerves. It is in the form of waves, which requires space. It is a definable item of space having the three geometrical co-ordinates. The awareness exists in the awakening-state and disappears in the state of deep sleep. Thus it is bound by time. God is beyond the four dimensional space-time model, which is the inherent essence of the creation. Of course, it is very difficult to understand or imagine awareness (Sukshmaya sukshmadarsibhih -Veda).

But it is not completely unimaginable. It may be unimaginable for an ordinary man. But for scholars and scientists it is perceivable and imaginable. Gita says that scholars or scientists can see it (Pasyanti Jnanachakshushah). But regarding God, Veda and Gita say that God is completely unimaginable (Yasyaamatam –Veda, Mamtuveda na -Gita). For any statement the direct sense (Abhidha) must be preferred. The indirect sense (Vrutti) should be taken only in the case of impossible situation. For example, if you say that a village exists in Ganges, you have to take the indirect sense because it is impossible. Therefore, it means that the village is very near and is just on the banks of Ganges. Such approach is called as ‘Lakshana’. The village and Ganges are visual items. The impossibility rises here in visual items. But in the case of God, God is not a visual item and thus there is no basis for you to think about any impossibility in an invisible and unimaginable item.

If your decision is that everything is understandable to your mind, then such indirect sense can be taken. Then you can say that the unimaginable God means the God who is imagined with lot of difficulty. In that case you are contradicting Veda and Gita due to egoism. Even Lord Yama says that he could not understand God (Kathametat Vijaniyam –Veda); the Advaita scholar who shivers even seeing the messengers of Lord Yama is boasting that he can understand God. Even though the best scholar and the best devotee who is going to become Brahma (Hanuman) is not stating that he is God, our Advaita philosopher who is ‘greater than Hanuman’ is stating that he is God! If every soul is God, Hanuman being God should not have waited to meet Rama, the human incarnation, on the instruction of his mother. If every soul is God, Hanuman can find any person as God and need not wait to meet a specific human being, who is Rama, the human incarnation.

This world is essentially a homogeneous phase of inert energy, which is space as the finest form of energy. The creation comes from space or finest energy. The space has come from God. This is explained by Veda (Atmana Akasah). The space or the finest energy is called as Mahat, which is infinite. From the space all the world gradually comes out by the will of God. Even the space came out from God by His will only. If you do not recognize God, the energy being inert cannot plan the creation. The link between God and this space (Mahat) is unimaginable and is stated as Avyaktam. Veda mentions this unimaginability (Avyaktam) as the intermediate item between God and Mahat (Mahatah Paramavyaktam…). You should not fix this Avyaktam to a particular item only. It is simply a word which means unimaginable and can be used in any context to mean any item by anybody.

Suppose a student is unable to understand the higher concept. For him such concept is unimaginable. Therefore the word unimaginable (Avyaktam) has a general sense and can be used in any context. This word is also used to the subtle and invisible state of the world in the energy as a micro impression also after the final dissolution of the world. Similarly the word Brahman can be used to any greatest item depending on the context. It can indicate anybody starting from God to the head of a village. Veda says that God is beyond this link (Avyaktat Purushah Parah). Space is imaginable but God is unimaginable. Therefore the link between unimaginable God and imaginable Mahat also becomes unimaginable. Only the link between two imaginable items is imaginable and can be understood. The unimaginability is experienced and the unimaginable God identified with the perceivable human incarnation is experienced. Therefore the concept of unimaginability is proved by the basic validity of authority through experience and perception. Veda says that you can see God (Pratyagatmanamaikshat). If Lord Krishna or Jesus is not seen and if they do not establish the concept of unimaginability through their actions, the existence of unimaginable God can be ruled out.

Since there is only one Krishna or only one Jesus, you cannot say that every living being or human being is that unimaginable God. Such dilution is only the effect of egoistic demonism.

The first form of creation is energy. All the other items are the modifications of that energy only. All the modifications may perish but energy remains eternal due to the will of God. It is like the reel of the film containing the whole picture after the dissolution of the world. No fool will destroy the reel at the end of the show. Therefore the reel is eternal. But its eternality is based on the will of God. If God wishes, even the energy disappears. The reel is not destroyed but can be destroyed. Such eternal finest form of energy is called as Mahat by Veda and is called as Mahat-Brahma by Gita (Mamayonih Mahat-Brahma). The Shastras say that Mahat itself means Brahman (Mahat Brahma iti proktam). When the will of God is withdrawn, this entire world along with the souls and their corresponding attributes become a static impression on the inert energy and is retained in the state of Avyaktam.

In this state both good and bad attributes or feelings are static and inert and therefore become equal. A good deed painted as a picture on a paper is equal to a bad deed painted on a paper. There is no difference between good and bad in this state. This is the equilibrium state of the good (Sattvam) and bad (Rajas and Tamas) qualities before and after the creation. This is the meaning of the equilibrium state of the three qualities as mentioned in the Sankhya philosophy. If the qualities are associated with awareness, certainly a bad feeling or a bad action cannot be equal to a good feeling or a good action. The equilibrium state certainly means the state of the good and bad qualities as inert impressions in the basic phase of inert energy. Such a state results in the deep sleep. This finest primary energy is called as Mula Maya or Mahat-Brahma or Karya-Brahma or Hiranya-Garbha.

Since it is the first greatest item of creation and since it is infinite, it is called as Mahat-Brahma. Since it is the generated product or effect, it is called as Karya-Brahma. Since God is hidden as root cause in this energy, it is called as Hiranya-Garbha. The word Hiranya indicates the most precious God and the word Garbha indicates the unimaginability of God. It is called as Mula Maya because it is the root cause of this universe up to which only one can analyze. God is called as Mula Mulam which means the root of the root. The word Maya means the wonderful capability or potentiality of this energy by the will of God. This energy again stands as the medium for the will of God. The wonderful design of the world created by this energy indicates the wonderful will of God. No soul can cross this Mula Maya because the soul can be transformed into this basic inert energy at the maximum.

It cannot be beyond itself. Only God who is the generator of this energy can be the original creator. The modifications of this energy like matter, awareness, light etc. constitute the second plane called as Maha Maya. A soul can cross this Maha Maya at the maximum. He can create matter from the existing inert energy. He can create awareness (life) from the existing inert energy. He can create light, heat etc. from this inert energy. These are the super natural powers which are responsible for miracles (Ashta siddhis). He cannot create the primary energy and thus cannot be the original creator. He is the creator at the secondary level and therefore can be called as secondary creator. In the third level, the feelings are generated from the awareness. The forms are generated from the matter. These forms and feelings constitute the third level called as Maya. Any soul has the power to cross this Maya. Anybody can produce any form from the matter. Anybody can produce any feeling from his awareness. When a devotee blessed by God with super powers has created a golden pot, it indicates his level beyond the third and second planes. The gold is produced from the existing energy and this shows that he controlled the Maha Maya. When that pot is produced from that Gold that shows that he controlled Maya. But he cannot create the primary energy from which the gold and pot are produced.

At this point you cannot differentiate the human incarnation from a devotee. If the human incarnation has to produce this primary energy, first He must dissolve all the existing primary energy. After such dissolution, the soul disappears. You cannot exist to see the creation of that primary energy. Even after the creation of primary energy, you are existing as an inert impression in the inert energy and thus cannot understand anything. Only when this primary energy is transformed into awareness, you are able to understand anything. Therefore the transformation of inert energy into awareness cannot be also understood by you in the process of creation. You can only understand this transformation by observing the dissolution of awareness on stopping the supply of inert energy in the form of food. Therefore any devotee can be blessed to cross Maya and Maha Maya at the most but can never cross Mula Maya because in such state the souls disappear along with the entire universe. When Lord Krishna was taking the parched rice form Sudama, Rukmini restricted the Lord while taking the rice for the third time.

If Lord takes the rice for the third time also Sudama will cross the Mula Maya and will become the original creator, manager and destroyer of the primary energy. A soul being the primary energy in its essential form cannot go beyond the very inert energy. Therefore it is impossible for any soul to create, manage and destroy the Mula Maya. Sudama was blessed to cross the two levels of Maya and Maha Maya. When he crossed the first level, he crossed the illusion of forms and qualities while living with them. When he crossed the second level, he attained all the superpowers. The Lord was ready to give up the original creatorship also, but since the soul cannot perform that activity, it was restricted. When the Lord is prepared to become your servant through your practical devotion, what is the necessity of becoming the Lord? When the doctor is becoming your servant to perform the operation, why should you wish to become the doctor? When you can attain the higher fruit than Advaita, what is the necessity of aiming at Advaita, in which state you have to perform the tremendous duties of creation, management and dissolution of the universe? Such duties are impossible to any soul and are also unnecessary headache, when there is a possibility of becoming the master of God through the real, practical devotion. God becomes servant of His servants.

A human being is exactly regenerated by science, today, in the form of a robot. Several microprocessors simultaneously function and identify the object in a single instance like the human brain. The chip of information present in the robot is the subtle body of the human being. According to science, which does not believe in previous birth, the information in the chip is gathered by the brain in course of time as the child grows by observing the world. In a dead body since this chip of information (Subtle Body) escapes as Jiva, it is very difficult to exactly reproduce the same chip and introduce into the dead body. Therefore, it is very difficult to make the dead body alive to behave exactly as the previous person.

The Jiva contains the information collected in the previous millions of births. Therefore, the regeneration of the chip is impossible which means to bring back the same dead person is impossible. This point indicates only the difficulty in the process and thus is not related to the concept of God. It is only an impossibility within the limits of Science. Christianity and Islam which do not believe the previous birth or future rebirth are in agreement with science in this aspect because the escaped chip will never come back to the earth. Science says that the chip disappears along with the life. But there are several practical examples in the world in which souls have remembered the past births and narrated the past events correctly.

Thus the rebirth is proved based on the perception. Whatever may be the case, the human being is exactly reproduced in toto by the scientists in the form of a robot, whether the brain-chip has received information from the previous birth or from external world in this birth. All the potentiality of awareness is exhibited in toto by the robot. This has clearly proved that any human being is a created item only and not the creator. This rejects the view of Advaita philosopher who says that every living being is Brahman or God, the creator. However science is good as far as this achievement is considered but some scientists who are atheists say that no human being is God because God does not exist. Science is good and most of the scientists are also good because even the top scientists like Einstein believed in God. The scientist who is not the perfect scholar in science talks like an atheist.

The superman like Krishna or Jesus is a perceived example in this world. Even though the scientist is able to produce robot, who represents any ordinary human being, why is science unable to produce the robot resembling Krishna or Jesus? Jesus gave the eyesight to blind. But the robot cannot do that. The super powers are impossible for a robot. Therefore science is used to reject the philosophy of Advaita scholar but the same science is to be condemned in the case of superman. The logic of science is used to refuse the logical items like human beings to be called as God. But the same science is to be condemned if it says that there is no God or human incarnation (superman). The logic is used to reject the items of creation to be called as God. But the same logic is to be rejected to analyze God, who is beyond logic. The superman is exhibiting the superpowers before our eyes.

If science rejects the perception of superman, then the perception of the entire world should also be rejected. Thus science is utilized in one context and is criticized in another context. Ghatotkacha was a demon having both good and bad qualities. He was utilized by the Lord to kill Alambusa who was a demon with all bad qualities only. But Ghatotkacha cannot be excused for his partial bad qualities. Therefore the Lord planned in such a way that Karna kills Ghatotkacha. Karna is having all good qualities except a very few bad qualities. Therefore even Karna cannot be excused and was killed by Arjuna according to the instruction of the Lord. Therefore science is used to analyze any item of the creation. Science is perfectly useful in rejecting the items of creation, which are not God. But the same science is to be rejected when the concept of creator is approached, because the logic fails in God. In fact, science is only a subject which is limited to the analysis of the creation. It keeps silent about God because it cannot analyze God. Therefore there is nothing wrong with science.

Some scientists oppose God and this does not mean that science opposes God. Buddha kept silent about God because God is unimaginable. He preached about the spiritual efforts of the human being because the human beings and their efforts are imaginable entities. The silence of Buddha was misinterpreted by the followers and Buddhists say that Buddha did not accept God. The same situation is true in the case of science also. Therefore there is nothing wrong with science because only some scientists are wrong. If science is absent, we cannot analyze the awareness so clearly and we might have been misled by the followers of Advaita and we might have thought that awareness is God. You must maintain the power of logic always as far as the items of the world including human beings are concerned.

You have to leave logic only in the case of God. Science helps you to identify what is not God and this itself is a great advantage. Otherwise you will be fooled by others since you can easily be trapped by others so that you can easily believe any item of the creation as God. Today there are several spiritual preachers who do not know the fundamentals of science. They believe certain items of the creation as God because their analytical faculty is weak due to lack of scientific knowledge. They are blind and mislead the people, who are also blind due to lack of scientific knowledge. The philosophers are good scholars of logic but the ancient logic contains several wrong conclusions due to absence of experimental verification. For example, the ancient Indian logic says that sound is the characteristic property of space. But sound cannot travel in vacuum. It requires particles to vibrate mechanically for the propagation. Thus mere theoretical logic called as dry logic also goes wrong in several places.

Science is never wrong as far as the analysis of the creation is considered. In the case of God it is incapable to touch God. Incapability is not wrong. Science accepts its incapability by not speaking about God like Buddha. In fact this is the correct way of explanation about the unimaginable God. Shankara says that silence is the best explanation for the unimaginable God called as Para Brahman (Maunavyakhya Prakatita Parabrahma Tattvam). At least science does not pose to give wrong conclusions in the case where it fails because it understands its limits. The Advaita philosopher is just opposite to science. He is also incapable of understanding the unimaginable God like science. But he does not accept his incapability and poses that he has understood God and presents every living being as God. Silence is far better than the misled and misleading Advaita Philosopher. Buddha is far better than the present Advaita philosopher.

Buddha kept silent about God and such silence is the correct interpretation in the case of unimaginable God. Veda says that every word fails in the case of God which means that one has to keep silent about the explanation of God. In Veda it is mentioned that a son of a sage came to his home after studying the spiritual knowledge. When his father asked about God, the son kept silent and the sage certified that his son has completed the spiritual knowledge. God is unimaginable only to those people who like to approach God directly. But the devotees experience God through a specified human form. The devotees may not know the real nature of God but they have experienced God. The Advaita scholar opposes this concept and tries to experience God within himself or within every human being. He does not experience God because he poses that he knows the real nature of God as awareness.

The devotees accept the unimaginable nature but experience God. A blind man enjoys the taste of a sweet kept on his tongue even though he does not see it or realize its appearance. This is the case of a devotee who believes the human form of God. A person is not blind but he is eating some mud claiming it as the sweet. He has seen the mud and can explain the nature of it. But what is the use? His conclusion is wrong and therefore he lost the experience of sweet. Egoism is responsible for such loss. A devotee who does not believe the human incarnation but believes in other forms like statues, which are not God is also a blind person who eats mud thinking it as a sweet. A person who has not tasted sweets pleads or believes that the mud is the only sweet. He is not prepared to taste the real sweet. Therefore he is not capable of differentiating the mud from sweet. Therefore mere devotion is not sufficient. The devotion must be associated with knowledge or logical analysis to reject the items of the creation as non-God entities.

The case of the atheist is worst because he does not accept the sweet even in theory. He eats mud accepting it as mud. For him there is no sweet. Only mud is the ultimate reality. The Advaita scholar and the blind devotee eating mud as sweet are better than the atheist because they have at least accepted the concept of sweet in theory. They are eating the mud as a representative of the sweet. But the Advaita philosopher does not accept that the mud represents the sweet. He says that the mud is the sweet. The atheist says that the mud is the mud and there is no sweet. Now what is the difference between the Advaita philosopher and the atheist? The Advaita philosopher calls the mud as sweet. The atheist calls the mud as mud. Except this theoretical difference, both are practically eating mud only. At least the blind devotee who is eating the mud as representative of the sweet is better than these two because he recognizes the sweet separately from the mud.

Since he is unable to get the sweet, he is eating the mud assuming it as sweet. Therefore in the representative worship (Pratika –Upasanam) the knowledge of the separate existence of the represented item and the representing item exists. Veda says that the inert sun in the sky can be worshipped as God (Adityam Brahma Iti Upasita). Veda says that you can worship the sun assuming the sun as God. This does not mean that sun is really the God. The same point is further clarified by Veda (Nedam tat yadida mupasate). The second statement clearly means that sun is not God because sun is worshipped as the representative of God. Such representative worship is the beginning stage of the correct path. Therefore if you worship a photo or a statue representing God, It shows only the beginning stage of the right path and it is not the wrong path at all. But if you believe the statue as the God directly, you have fallen even from the beginning of the right path and you have entered the wrong path. A photo or statue of Rama can represent the actual Rama but cannot be Rama directly. The photo or statue is good because it inspires you and develops your devotion.

But remember, that your inspiration or developed devotion is only theoretical and there is no trace of practical devotion in it. It is only the beginning stage of devotion. A better stage will be to practically worship any human being representing Rama. The photo has developed your theoretical devotion but if you worship the photo practically, it is foolishness. If you apply scent to the photo, it is waste, because the photo can not enjoy the applied scent. Instead of that, you select a devotee of Rama as the representative of Rama and apply scent to him. Even though he is not Rama, he is enjoying the scent.

Thus your practical devotion is at least fruitful and meaningful. Instead of rubbing the sweet on the mouth of the statue of Rama, give the sweet to a devotee of Rama and be satisfied that Rama has enjoyed the sweet through that devotee. In fact, God lives in the heart of the devotee and really receives your practical worship. Even if the human being is not a real devotee, at least the human being can be assumed as a representative of Rama. Thus service to human beings can be assumed as service to God. The humanity can be assumed as a representative item for God. But serving the devotees is far better than the social service. At least while serving the humanity, you should do the service in the name of God so that the society of human beings can be treated as a representative of God. Try to develop the devotion in the human beings while serving them. However, such a service cannot touch God directly or indirectly. It only develops the devotion in you. Therefore Sankara condemned the school of social service without relating it to God (Loka sevaka mata khandanam).

Sankara did not oppose the social service in the name of God. This school considers the society as God directly and pleads that service to society is the direct service to God. This point was refuted by Sankara. Therefore mere social service done by atheists is of no use. Such social service gives only heaven from which one has to return to Earth after enjoying the fruit of the service for a short time (Kshine punye –Gita). Thus serving any human being in the name of God or keeping him as a representative of God is better than serving the humanity without any mention of God. The direct worship to God is possible only if you can catch the present human incarnation. The God who lived in the body of Rama is present in the human body of the present human incarnation. Only blessed and liberated souls can get such rare divine fortune.

The human incarnation is the best and real address of God. The next best address is a devotee. When you eat the sweet, you are directly happy. When you hear that your son was given that sweet, then also you will feel happy because you have eaten the sweet indirectly through your son. In these two cases only, God is fully pleased. Since it is very rare to recognize and approach the human incarnation, the best convenient way for all is to worship the devotee. Devotees are available in plenty. Among the devotees, select the best one by doing analysis. Leaving the atheist, who prepares the sweet and eats himself saying that there is no God, all the other devotees are good, but their levels are different. If you are a beginner, you are not criticized. An LKG student should not be condemned. Only a boy who does not come to the school at all (Atheist) is condemned. But you will be also criticized if you sit in LKG class throughout your life. You should not be beginner only till your death. You know life is very rare.

Christianity and Islam say that there is no re-human birth. Even Hinduism says that human birth is very rare, which means almost impossible. In such a case, should you sit in the LKG class only throughout your life? You can worship the statues and improve your inspiration, which is the theoretical devotion only. The devotion should become practical. There is no fruit for the theoretical devotion. It becomes fruitful only when it is expressed as practical devotion, which is service or worship. You have to leave the statue when you start the practical devotion. If a devotee is not available, serve any human being and try to convert him as a devotee so that your worship can be continued with that person. If a human being, who has become a devotee already, is available, your effort becomes easy. When you are worshipping the devotees, in course of time, God in human form will approach you. You are almost an atheist if you try to use God for solving your personal problems.

All your love is only on the solution of your problem and not on the instrumental God. When your son gets fever, you are taking him to doctor. You are showing all the respect to the doctor. Your respect is not real because the reason for that is only your love to your son. You are serving your son without aspiring anything in return. Such love to God is the goal which you have to achieve. Arjuna is using Lord Krishna as his driver in the war meant for solving his personal problem. This state is the ground state on which almost all the human beings stand. Arjuna sitting on the ground at the feet of the Lord represents this state. Hanuman is on the flag which is on the top of the chariot, representing the goal. Hanuman served the Lord for the personal problem of Lord, which is not even related to the upliftment of humanity. Rama told Ravana on the first day of the war that if Ravana returns back Sita, He will go back. This means Rama is interested in getting back Sita only and not to kill Ravana for protecting the World. Service to society is not greater than the personal service to God because God is far above the society. Hanuman did not aspire for anything in return. When a garland of pearls was given to him, he rejected it. The whole Gita aims in the transformation of yourself who is present on the ground like Arjuna to the state of Hanuman who is flying on the flag. Your present state is represented by Mahabharata. Your goal is represented by Ramayana. Bhagavatam is an unimaginable state of devotion, which cannot be achieved by effort. Radha and Gopikas became mad about Krishna. Madness cannot be achieved by any effort. Especially madness of God is impossible. Only one in millions and that too in some birth out of millions of births, becomes mad about God. Madness is the ninth state and the final tenth state is only death (Unmado maranam tatah).

Only God is beautiful and anything related to God is beautiful. Thus among the human beings, the most beautiful is His devotee. Devotion is the beauty since it is related to God. Valmiki said that Hanuman is most beautiful. He named the part of Ramayana relating to Hanuman as Sundarakanda. Hanuman is a monkey. Normally a monkey stands for the climax of ugliness. We mock a person with ugly face calling him as a monkey. Therefore the beauty is not related to the external gross body. The beauty is also not related to the internal subtle body which is made of qualities. The king Bali was famous for his generosity, which is a good quality. He never broke his word given and this is also a very good quality. But Bali was pushed down to the lowermost world by the Lord. Therefore the good qualities like truth; generosity etc. also have no value when they are not associated with devotion. Anything which is not related to God is ugly. Anything which is related to God is only beautiful. Thus mere social service which exposes the good qualities is of no use without God. It is said in Gita that even a person with bad qualities is great and good if he is a devotee (Apichetsa duracharah). The hunter of animals, supposed to be the highest sinner, was blessed by Lord Shiva for his devotion and he reached the eternal abode of Lord Shiva.

Dharmaraja was the embodiment of all good qualities. The Lord asked him to tell a lie in the war. But he refused to tell the lie. He gave importance to the good qualities than the Lord. At the end Dharmaraja went to heaven only. He enjoyed the fruits of his good deeds for sometime. He did not go to the abode of God. Mahabharata says that he went up to heaven only (Swargarohana parvam). The angel cupid (Manmatha) was having very handsome external gross body but he went against God and all his gross body was turned to formless ash. Hanuman, having ugly face is praised as the most beautiful person in the creation by the sage Valmiki because He was dedicating all His life to the service of God. His God was a human being who did not exhibit any miracle. The required service for Rama was purely personal family work. Hanuman is having several supernatural powers. In these circumstances, even recognizing Rama as God is impossible. But Hanuman recognized with infinite faith and served practically. Therefore Hanuman is the most beautiful person. Lord Shiva is a very powerful energetic form with the third eye. Still the cupid could not recognize Lord Shiva and tried to disturb Him with egoism. The result is that the cupid is not having even a basic form. This concept of beauty should be understood by the present youth. A boy loves a girl or vice-versa based on the form of the external gross body. That love is disappearing when the girl or boy becomes old or deformed by some disease or accident in the life. Some youngsters are giving importance to the good qualities under the name of internal beauty.

The qualities are certainly more valuable than the form of gross body because the quality is more subtle than the form of gross body. The gross body is made of matter whereas quality is made of awareness. Awareness is more subtle than matter. But the good qualities are not having any relation to God. Of course the good qualities should be appreciated than the bad qualities in the context of keeping the balance of society. But by good qualities and good deeds, one can only get the temporary heaven and not the permanent place of God. The gross body and qualities are in the same phase of creation without any reference to God. Suppose in a dream you are presented with a gross object and somebody is presented with a subtle and more valuable object. Since both are unreal, there is no greatness in the subtle body. Similarly, when the forms of matter and qualities are not having any reference to God, there is no basic reality in them. Only God is the ultimate basic reality. That which is not based on God is unreal and it is meaningless to make any difference between two unreal items. If these are based on God, they become real. The quality of devotion can be more valid than the external appearance of a devotee. Here, both the quality and form are real since they are related to God. Therefore the most beautiful and valuable item is the quality of devotion.

You must search for a devotee in selecting your life partner because the sole aim of the human life is only to please the God. The life partner is expected to co-operate with you in your spiritual effort. The selection of life partner should be based on the devotion, which can alone help you in achieving the grace of the Lord in this human life which is the main goal.

Mahavakya

Mahavakya, or "the great sentences", state the unity of Brahman and Atman. There are many such sentences in the vedas, but one sentence from each veda is usually chosen. They are shown below

Sr. No.	Vakya	Meaning	Upanishad	Veda
1	प्रज्नानम ब्रह्म (Prajñānam brahma)	Consciousness is Brahman	aitareya	Rig Veda
2.	अहम ब्रह्मास्मि (Aham brahmāsmi)	I am Brahman	brihadāranyaka	Yajur Veda
3.	तत्त्त्वमसि (Tattvamasi)	That thou art	chhandogya	Sama Veda
4.	अयमात्मा ब्रह्म (Ayamātmā brahmā)	This Atman is Brahman	mandukya	Atharva Veda

List of texts

See also: Works of Adi Shankara

Prasthānatrayī

Advaita Vedānta, like other Vedanta schools of Hindu philosophy, recognises the following three texts (known collectively as the Prasthānatrayī) of the Hindu tradition: Vedas- especially the Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita and Brahma Sutras. Many advaitin authors, including Adi Shankara, have written Bhashyas (commentaries) on these texts. These texts are thus considered to be the basic texts of the advaita tradition.

Other texts

Other texts include, Advaita Siddhi, written by Madhusudana Saraswati, Shankara Digvijaya — historical record of Adi Shankara's life accepted by scholars worldwide, Avadhuta Gita and Ashtavakra Gita. Among modern texts, Jnana yoga by Swami Vivekananda, and the Collected Works of Sri Aurobindo, with The Life Divine being the most prominent, deal with Advaita Vedanta.

Adi Shankara wrote Bhāṣya (commentaries) on

• Brahmasūtra
• Aitareya Upaniṣad (Rigveda)
• Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (Śukla Yajurveda)
• Īśa Upaniṣad (Śukla Yajurveda)
• Taittirīya Upaniṣad (Kṛṣṇa Yajurveda)
• Kaṭha Upaniṣad (Kṛṣṇa Yajurveda)
• Chāndogya Upaniṣad (Samaveda)
• Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad (Atharvaveda) and Gauḍapāda Kārika
• Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad (Atharvaveda)
• Praśna Upaniṣad (Atharvaveda)
• Bhagavadgīta (Mahabhārata)
• Vishnu Sahasranama (Mahabhārata)
• Gāyatri Maṃtra

Adi Shankara wrote the following treatises

• Vivekacūḍāmaṇi (Crest-Jewel of Discrimination)
• Upadeśasāhasri (A thousand teachings)
• Śataśloki
• Daśaśloki
• Ekaśloki
• Pañcīkaraṇa
• Ātma bodha
• Aparokṣānubhūti
• Sādhana Pañcakaṃ
• Nirvāṇa Śatakaṃ
• Manīśa Pañcakaṃ
• Yati Pañcakaṃ
• Vākyasudha
• Tattva bodha
• Vākya vṛtti
• Siddhānta Tattva Vindu
• Nirguṇa Mānasa Pūja

In fact, the consensus now among scholars is that only Upadeśasāhasri can be securely attributed to Shri Shankara himself.

Adi Shankara composed many hymns on Shiva, Vishnu, Devi, Ganesha and Subrahmanya[2]

• Bhaja Govindaṃ, also known as Mohamuḍgara
• Śivānandalahiri
• Saundaryalahiri
• Śrī Lakṣmīnṛsiṃha Karāvalamba Stotraṃ
• Śāradā Bhujangaṃ
• Kanakadhāra Stotraṃ
• Bhavāni Aṣṭakaṃ
• Śiva Mānasa Pūja

List of teachers

Main article: List of teachers of Advaita Vedanta

Advaita Vedanta has had many teachers over the centuries in India and other countries.

See also

• Nondualism
• Jnana yoga, the yoga of knowledge
• Satsang, a sort of spiritual meeting
• Dvaita, an opposing philosophy that accepts duality
• Vishishtadvaita, an opposing philosophy that propounds "qualified nonduality"

References

• Madhukar, The Simplest Way, Editions India, USA & India 2006, ISBN 81-89658-04-2
• Madhukar, Erwachen in Freiheit, Lüchow Verlag, German, 2.Edition, Stuttgart 2004, ISBN 3-363-03054-1
• Mishra, M., Bhāratīya Darshan (भारतीय दर्शन), Kalā Prakāshan.
• Sinha, H. P., Bharatiya Darshan ki ruparekha (Features of Indian Philosophy), 1993, Motilal Benarasidas, Delhi–Varanasi.
• Swāmi Paramānanda Bhārati, Vedānta Prabodha (in Kannada), Jnānasamvardhini Granthakusuma, 2004
• Madhava Vidyaranya, Sankara-Digvijaya, translated by Swami Tapasyananda, Sri Ramakrishna Math, 2002, ISBN 81-7120-434-1. Purchase online at www.sriramakrishnamath.org
• Karl H. Potter (ed.), Advaita Vedanta up to Sankara and his Pupils: Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, vol. 3, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1981.
• Karl H. Potter, Austin B. Creel and Edwin Gerow, Guide to Indian philosophy, G. K. Hall, Boston, 1988.
• Eliot Deutsch and J. A. B. van Buitenen, A source book of Advaita Vedanta, University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu, 1971.
• Eliot Deutsch, Advaita Vedanta: a philosophical reconstruction, East-West Center Press, Honolulu, 1969
• Raghunath D. Karmarkar, Sankara's Advaita, Karnatak University, Dharwar, 1966.
• S. G. Mudgal, Advaita of Sankara, a reappraisal: Impact of Buddhism and Samkhya on Sankara's thought, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi,
• A. Ramamurti, Advaitic mysticism of Sankara, Visvabharati, Santiniketan, 1974.
• Kapil N. Tiwari, Dimensions of renunciation in Advaita Vedanta, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1977.
• Kokileswar Sastri, An introduction to Adwaita philosophy : a critical and systematic exposition of the Sankara school of Vedanta, Bharatiya Publishing House, Varanasi, 1979.
• A. J. Alston, A Samkara source-book, Shanti Sadan, London, 1980-1989.
• Satyapal Verma, Role of Reason in Sankara Vedanta, Parimal Publication, Delhi, 1992.
• Arvind Sharma, The philosophy of religion and Advaita Vedanta : a comparative study in religion and reason, Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995.
• M. K. Venkatarama Aiyar, Advaita Vedanta, according to Sankara, Asia Publishing House, New York, 1965.
• Sangam Lal Pandey, The Advaita view of God, Darshana Peeth, Allahabad, 1989.
• Rewati Raman Pandey, Scientific temper and Advaita Vedanta, Sureshonmesh Prakashan, Varanasi, 1991.
• Adya Prasad Mishra, The development and place of bhakti in Sankaran Vedanta, University of Allahabad, 1967.
• Natalia V. Isayeva, Shankara and Indian philosophy, SUNY, New York, 1993.
• V. Panoli, Upanishads in Sankara's own words : Isa, Kena, Katha, and Mandukya with the Karika of Gaudapada : with English translation, explanatory notes and footnotes, Mathrubhumi, Calicut, 1991-1994.
• Sriraman,B., & Benesch, W., "Consciousness and Science: An Advaita-Vedantic perspective on the Theology-Science dialogue." Theology and Science, vol.3, no.1, pp. 39-54, 2005

External links

• Open Directory - Society: Religion and Spirituality: Advaita Vedanta