From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Vedanta (disambiguation).

Vedanta (IAST, Vedānta, Sanskrit: वेदांत) or Uttara Mīmāṃsā is one of the six orthodox (āstika) schools of Indian philosophy.[1] The term "Vedanta" stands not for any one comprehensive doctrine but for the divergent philosophical views that developed on the basis of a common textual connection. This common texual connection is called the Prasthanatrayi - a collective term for the Principal Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita.[2]

There are more than ten schools of Vedanta, of which three viz. Advaita (non-dualism), Vishishtadvaita (qualified non-dualism), and Dvaita (dualism) are the best known.[3] Most other Vedantic traditions are clubbed under the umbrella term of the Bhedabheda (difference and non-difference)[4] tradition.

All Vedanta schools, in their deliberations, concern themselves with the following three categories but differ in their views regarding the conception of the categories and the relations between the same:[5]

  1. Brahman / Ishvara - the ultimate metaphysical reality[6]
  2. Ātman / Jivātman - the individual soul or self[7]
  3. Prakriti / Jagat[8] - The empirical world, ever–changing physical universe, body and matter[9]

Over time, Vedanta adopted ideas from other orthodox (āstika) schools like Yoga and Nyaya,[10] and, through this syncretism, became the most prominent school of Hinduism. Many extant forms of Vaishnavism, Shaivism and Shaktism have been significantly shaped and influenced by the doctrines of different schools of Vedanta.[11]

Etymology and Nomenclature[edit]

The word Vedanta literally means the end of the Vedas and originally referred to the Upanishads.[12] Vedanta was concerned with the jñānakāṇḍa or knowledge part of the Upanishads.[13] The denotation of Vedanta subsequently widened to include the various philosophical traditions based on to the Prasthanatrayi.[14]

The Upanishads may be regarded as the end of Vedas in different senses:[15]

  1. These were the last literary products of the Vedic period.
  2. These mark the culmination of Vedic thought.
  3. These were taught and debated the last, in the Brahmacharya (student) stage.[16]

Vedanta is also called Uttara Mīmāṃsā, 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 rituals part (the Samhita and Brahmanas) in the Vedas.[17][note 1]

Prasthanatrayi, the Three Sources[edit]

The Upanishads, The Bhagavadgita and the Brahma Sutras constitute the basis of Vedanta. All schools of Vedanta propound their philosophy by interpreting these texts, collectively called the Prasthanatrayi, literally, three sources.[19]

  1. The Upanishads,[note 2] or Śruti prasthāna; considered the Sruti (Vedic scriptures) foundation of Vedanta.
  2. The Brahma Sutras, or Nyaya prasthana / Yukti prasthana; considered the reason-based foundation of Vedanta.
  3. The Bhagavad Gita, or Smriti prasthāna; considered the Smriti (remembered tradition) foundation of Vedanta.

The Brahma Sutras attempted to synthesize the teachings of the Upanishads. The diversity in the teaching of the Upanishads necessitated the systematization of these teachings. This synthesis was likely effected in many ways, but the only version to have survived is the Brahma Sutras of Badarayana.[21]

All major Vedantic teachers, including Shankara, Bhaskara, Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Vallabha and Madhva, have composed commentaries not only on the Upanishads and Brahma Sutras, but also on the Bhagavad Gita. With its syncretism of Samkhya, Yoga, and Upanishadic thought, the Bhagavad Gita has played a strong role in Vedantic thought.[22]


The Upanishads and the Brahma Sutras, being aphoristic in nature, don't deal with rigorous philosophical inquiry. The Upanishads form the basic texts, of which Vedanta gives an interpretation through rigorous philosophical exegesis.[23] Varying interpretations of the Upanishads and their synthesis, the Brahma Sutras, led to the development of different schools of Vedanta over time of which three,[24] four,[25] five[8] or six[26][note 3] are prominent.[note 4]

  1. Advaita Vedanta, many scholars of which most prominent are Gaudapada (~500 CE)[27] and Shankara (8th century)[28]
  2. Vishishtadvaita, prominent scholars are Nathamuni, Yāmuna and Ramanuja (1017–1137 CE)
  3. Dvaita, founded by Madhva (1199–1278 CE)
  4. Bhedabheda, as early as the 7th century CE,[4] or even the 4th century.[29] Some scholars consider it apt to consider it as a "tradition" rather than a school of Vedanta.[4]

Chronologically, the history of Vedanta is studied as Vedanta prior to the writing of the Brahma Sutras and the schools that developed post the writing of the Brahma Sutras.

Vedanta before the Brahma Sutras[edit]

Little is known[31] of schools of Vedanta existing before the composition of the Brahma Sutras(400–450 BC).[29][note 5] 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.[33] References to other early Vedanta teachers - Brahmadatta, Sundara, Pandaya, Tanka and Dravidacharya - are found in secondary literature of later periods.[34] The works of these ancient teachers have not survived, but based on the quotes attributed to them in later literature, Sharma (1996, pp. 124–125) postulates that Ashmarathya and Audulomi were Bhedabheda scholars, Kashakrtsna and Brahmadatta Advaita scholars, while Tanka and Dravidacharya were either Advaita or Vishistadvaita scholars.

Brahma Sutras[edit]

Main article: Brahma Sutras

Badarayana summarized and interpreted teachings of the Upanishads in the Brahma Sutras, also called the Vedanta Sutra.[35][note 6] The book is composed of four chapters, each divided into four quarters or sections.[21] The sutras of Badarayana were meant to synthesize the diverse teachings of the Upanishads. However, the cryptic nature of aphorisms of the Brahma Sutras make them difficult to understand without a commentary.[36] This resulted in the formation of numerous Vedanta schools, each interpreting the Upanishads and the Brahma Sutras in its own way in producing its own commentary.[37]

Vedanta between the Brahma Sutras and Adi Shankara[edit]

See also: Vedas, Upanishads, and Darsanas

Little is known of the period between the Brahma Sutras(5th Century BC) and Shankara (8th century CE).[38] Shankara mentions 99 different predecessors of his school in his commentaries.[39] 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.[31] A noted scholar of this period was Bhartriprapancha, considered an early philosopher of the Bhedabheda tradition.[21] Only two writings of this period have survived: the Vākyapadīya, written by Bhartṛhari (second half 5th century[40]), and the Kārikā written by Gaudapada. Nakamura (1950, p. 3) opines that at least fourteen prominent thinkers existed between the composition of the Brahma Sutras and Shankara's lifetime.[note 7]

Gaudapada, Adi Shankara and Advaita Vedanta[edit]

Main articles: Advaita Vedanta and Gaudapada

Gaudapada (c. 6th century CE),[41] was the teacher [note 8] of Govindapada, the teacher of Adi Shankara - widely considered the founder of Advaita Vedanta.[42] Gaudapada's treatise - the Kārikā, also known as the Māṇḍukya Kārikā or the Āgama Śāstra[43] - is the earliest surviving complete text on Advaita Vedanta.[note 9] To present his ideas in the Kārikā, Gaudapada relied on the Mandukya, Brihadaranyaka and Chhandogya Upanishads.[47]

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.[note 10]. 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.[48]

Adi Shankara (788–820), 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".[48] It was Shankara who integrated Gaudapada work with the ancient Brahma Sutras, "and give it a locus classicus", against the realistic strain of the Brahma Sutras.[49][note 11] His interpretation, including works ascribed to him, has become the normative interpretation of Advaita Vedanta.[50][note 12]

A noted contemporary of Shankara was Mandan Mishra, who regarded Mimamsa and Vedanta as forming a single system and advocated their combination known as Karma-jnana-samuchchaya-vada.[53][note 13] Shankara was of the view that Mimamsa & Vedanta are independent of each other and possibly also inconsistent in their central theses. The separation of Vedanta as different from the other orthodox Schools was a contribution of Shankara. Adviata Vedanta rejects ritual in favor of renunciation, which makes Vedanta irreconcilable with Mimamsa.[54]

Ramanuja and Vishishtadvaita Vedanta[edit]

Rāmānuja (1017–1137 CE) was the most influential philosopher in the Vishishtadvaita tradition. As the philosophical architect of Vishishtadvaita, he taught qualified non-dualism.[55] 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 thiesm and philosophy of the Vaishnava Alvars poet-saints.[56] Ramanujan wrote a number of influential texts, such as a bhasya on the Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita, all in Sanskrit.[57]

Ramanuja presented the epistemic 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.[58] Vishishtadvaiata provides the philosophical basis of Sri Vaishnavism.[59]

Fowler (2002, p. 288) states that Ramanuja, along with Shankara, is the greatest philosopher of Vedanta. Even as Ramanuja’s contribution to Vedanta thought was highly significant, his influence on the course of Hinduism as a religion was even greater. In integrating Bhakti, the devotional worship into his doctrine of salvation, he aligned the religion of the masses with the pursuits of philosophy while giving bhakti an intellectual basis at the same time. Ever since, bhakti has remained a major force in Hinduism.[60]

Madhva and Dvaita[edit]

Dvaita was propounded by Madhva (1238–1317 CE).[note 14] He presented the opposite interpretation of Shankara in his Dvaita, or dualistic system.[63] In contrast to Shankara's non-dualism and Ramanuja's qualified non-dualism, he championed unqualified dualism. Madhva has left behind him commentaries on the chief Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita and the Brahma Sutra, besides several other works.[64]

Madhva started his Vedic studies at age seven, joined an Advaita Vedanta monastery in Dwarka (Gujarat),[65] studied under guru Achyutrapreksha,[66] frequently disagreed with him, left the Advaita monastery, and founded Dvaita.[67] Madhva and his followers Jayatirtha and Vyasatirtha, were critical of all competing Hindu philosophies, Jainism and Buddhism,[68] but particularly intense in their criticism of Advaita Vedanta and Adi Shankara.[69]

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.[70] 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 thing and soul; (3) Between material thing and God; (4) Between souls; and (5) Between soul and God.[71] He also advocated difference in degrees in the possession of knowledge and in the enjoyment of bliss even in the case of liberated souls - a doctrine found in no other system of Indian Philosophy. [70]

Schools of Vedanta - Overview[edit]

Advaita Vedanta[edit]

Main article: Advaita Vedanta

Advaita Vedanta (IAST Advaita Vedānta; Sanskrit: अद्वैत वेदान्त) espouses non-dualism and monism. Brahman is visualized as the sole unchanging metaphysical reality and identical to Atman.[72] The physical world, on the other hand, is always changing empirical Maya.[73][note 15] The absolute and infinite Atman-Brahman is realized by a process of negating everything relative, finite, empirical and changing.[74] The school accepts no duality, no limited individual souls (Atman / Jivatma) nor a separate unlimited cosmic soul. All souls and existence across space and time is considered as the same oneness.[75] Spiritual liberation in Advaita is the full comprehension and realization of oneness of one's unchanging Atman (soul) as the same as Atman in everyone else as well as being identical to the nirguna Brahman.[76]


Main article: Vishishtadvaita
Ramanujacharya depicted with Vaishnava Tilaka and Vishnu statue.

Vishishtadvaita asserts that Jivatman (human souls) and Brahman (as Vishnu) are different, a difference that is never transcended.[77] 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.[58] Vishishtadvaita Vedanta, like Advaita Vedanta, is a non-dualistic schools of Vedanta school but in a qualified way, and both are premised on the assumption that all souls can hope for and achieve the state of blissful liberation.[78] 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.[79] God, like man, states Ramanuja, has both soul and body, and all of the world of matter is the glory of God's body.[60] The path to Brahman (Vishnu), according to Ramanuja, is devotion to godliness and constant remembrance of the beauty and love of personal god (bhakti of saguna Brahman), one which ultimately leads to nirguna Brahman.[80]


Main article: Dvaita
Madhvacharya composing a Dvaita text.

This school is based on the premise of dualism. Atman (soul) and Brahman (as Vishnu) are understood as two completely different entities.[81] Brahman is the creator of the universe, perfect in knowledge, perfect in knowing, perfect in its power, and distinct from souls, distinct from matter.[82] [note 16] 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.[85] Madhv believed that some souls are eternally doomed and damned, a view not found in Advaita and Vishishtadvaita Vedanta.[86] While the Vishishtadvaita Vedanta asserted "qualitative monism and quantitative pluralism of souls", Madhva asserted both "qualitative and quantitative pluralism of souls".[87]


Main article: Bhedabheda

Bhedabheda (bheda–abheda), which means "difference and non–difference",[4] existed as early as the 7th century CE,.[4] According to the Bhedābheda Vedanta schools the individual self (jīvātman) is both different and not different from Brahman.[4] Bhakti found a place in later proponents of this school.[4] Major names of this school are Bhāskara (8th–9th century),[4] Rāmānuja's teacher Yādavaprakāśa,[4] Nimbārka (13th century) who founded the Dvaitadvaita school,[4] Vallabha (1479–1531) who founded Shuddhadvaita,[8] Caitanya (1486–1534) who founded the Achintya Bheda Abheda school and Vijñānabhikṣu (16th century).[88] [note 17]


Bhaskara(9th century CE) was the main proponent of this school. He considers both identity and difference as equally real. As the causal principle, Brahman is non-dual and formless pure being and intelligence.[89] The same Brahman as manifested events becomes the world of plurality. A jīva is Brahman limited by the mind. Matter and its limitations are real, not due to ignorance. Bhaskara totally refuted the idea of Maya. Bhaskara advocated bhakti as dhyana (meditation) directed toward the transcendental Brahman and denied the possibility of liberation in bodily existence.[90]


Main article: Dvaitadvaita

Dvaitādvaita was propounded by Nimbārka (13th century), based upon Bhedābheda, which was taught by Bhāskara. According to Nimbarka, Brahman (God), souls (chit) and matter or the universe (achit) are three equally real and co-eternal realities. Brahman is the Controller (niyantr), the soul is the enjoyer (bhoktr), and the material universe is the object enjoyed (bhogya). Brahman, ruler of the universe, is by His nature, considered free from all defects and the abode of all goodness. 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 souls can reap the consequences of their karma; God is considered 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.[91]


Main article: Shuddhadvaita

Shuddhadvaita (pure non-dualism) was propounded by Vallabha (1479–1531 CE) on the basis of the Prasthanatrayi and the Bhagavata Purana. Vallabha states that the entire universe is real and is subtly Brahman only in the form of Krishna.[92] He 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.[92] Everything, everyone, everywhere – soul and body, living and non-living, jiva and matter – is a pure monistic one, the eternal Krishna in Suddhadvaita Vedanta.[93] The way to Krishna, in this school, is bhakti. The goal of bhakti is to turn away from ego, self-centeredness and deception, turn towards the eternal Krishna in everything continually offering freedom from samsara.[92]


Main article: Achintya Bhedabheda

Founded by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu[94] (1486–1534). In Sanskrit achintya means 'inconceivable'.[95] Achintya-Bheda-Abheda represents the philosophy of "inconceivable difference in non-difference",[96] in relation to the nondual reality of Brahman-Atman which it calls as (Krishna), svayam bhagavan. [97] This school asserts that Krishna is Bhagavan of the bhakti yogins, the Brahman of the jnana yogins, who has a divine potency that is inconceivable. He is all-pervading and thus in all parts of the universe (nondifference), yet he is inconceivably more (difference).[96] This school is at the foundation of the Chaitanya's Gaudiya Vaishnava religious tradition.[96]

Vedanta philosophy[edit]

The important approaches followed by the most noted proponents of different schools of Vedanta are summarized below:

  1. To theorize that the soul (Ātman / Jivātman) and the physical universe (Prakriti) are both identical with and different from Brahman, a view held by Bhartriprapancha. [21]
  2. To explain the dualistic ideas as interim and assert the non-dualistic ideas to be the main idea - an approach followed by Shankara.[98]
  3. To theorize non-dualism as qualified by difference, the approach followed by Ramanuja. [99]
  4. To discredit and re-explain the non-dualistic ideas and emphasize dualism as was done by Madhva.[100]

Sivananda gives the following explanation:


Common features[edit]

Despite their differences, all schools of Vedanta are found to share some common features:

  1. Belief that Brahman exists as the unchanging material as well as the instrumental cause of the world.[101]
  2. The Upanishads are a reliable source of knowledge (Sruti Śabda in Pramana);[102] Vedanta is the pursuit of knowledge into the Brahman & the Ātman.[103]
  3. Belief in rebirth and the desirability of release from the cycle of rebirths (mokşa).[104]
  4. The self (Ātman / Jivātman) is the agent of its own acts (karma) and the recipient of the consequences of these actions.[104]
  5. Rejection of Buddhism and Jainism.[104]


Vedanta philosophies discuss three fundamental metaphysical categories and the relations between the three.:[105]

  1. Brahman / Ishvara - the ultimate reality
  2. Ātman / Jivātman - the individual soul, self
  3. Prakriti - The empirical world, ever–changing physical universe, body and matter

Brahman / Ishvara - 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.[106]

  1. 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.
  2. Aparā or Lower Brahman - The Brahman with qualities is 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, the undifferentiated Absolute as inconceivable and, adopting a theistic interpretation of the Upanishads, accepts Brahman as Ishvara, 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.[107]

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.[108] 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 (Ishvara), as matter and as individual souls.[109]

Relation between Brahman and Jiva / Atman[edit]

The schools of Vedanta differ in their conception of the relation they see between Ātman / Jivātman and Brahman / Ishvara:[42]

  • According to Advaita Vedanta, Ātman is identical with Brahman and there is no difference.[110]
  • According to Vishishtadvaita, Jīvātman is different from Ishvara, though eternally connected with Him as His mode.[111] The oneness of the Supreme Reality is understood in the sense of an organic unity (vishistaikya). Brahman / Ishvara alone, as organically related with all Jīvātman and the material universe is the one Ultimate Reality.[112]
  • According to Dvaita, the Jīvātman is totally and always different from Brahman / Ishvara.[113]
  • According to Shuddhadvaita (pure monism), the Jīvātman and Brahman are identical, both along with the changing empirically observed universe being Krishna.[92]


Main article: Pramana
Epistemology in Dvaita and Vishishtadvaita Vedanta.


Pramāṇa (Sanskrit: प्रमाण) literally means "proof", "that which is the means of valid knowledge".[114] It refers to epistemology in Indian philosophies, and encompasses the study of reliable and valid means by which human beings gain accurate, true knowledge.[115] The focus of Pramana is how correct knowledge can be acquired, how one knows, how one doesn't, and to what extent knowledge pertinent about someone or something can be acquired.[116] Ancient and medieval Indian texts identify six[note 18] pramanas as correct means of accurate knowledge and to truths:[117]

  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 epistemically valid. For example, while Advaita Vedanta accepts all six pramanas,[118] Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita accept only three pramanas – perception, inference and testimony.[119]

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.[120][note 19] In Vishistadvaita and Dvaita, Śabda, the scriptural testimony, is considered the most authentic means of knowledge instead.[121]

Theories of Cause and Effect[edit]

All schools of Vedanta subscribe to the theory of Satkāryavāda,[122] 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.[123] 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, Adi Shankara and Advaita Vedantists hold a different view, Vivartavada, which says that the effect, the world, is merely an unreal (vivarta) transformation of its cause, Brahman.[note 20]


Hindu traditions[edit]

Vedanta led to the development of many traditions in Hinduism. Sri Vaishnavism of south and southeastern India is based on Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita Vedanta.[124] 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.[4] Advaita Vedanta influenced Krishna Vaishnavism in the northeastern state of Assam.[125] The Madhva school of Vaishnavism found in coastal Karnataka is based on Dvaita Vedanta.[69]

Āgamas, the classical literature of Shaivism, though independent in origin, show Vedanta association and premises.[126] Of the 92 Āgamas, ten are dualistic (dvaita) texts, eighteen qualified monism-cum-dualism (bhedabheda), and sixty four monistic (advaita) texts.[127] While the Bhairava Shastras are monistic, Shiva Shastras are dualistic. [128] Isaeva (1995, pp. 134–135) finds the link between Gaudapada's Advaita Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism much 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."[129]

Shaktism, or traditions where a goddess is considered identical to Brahman, similarly has 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).[130]


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,[131] presumably as a reaction to the colonial British rule.[132] 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.[133] 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.[134] Halbfass (2007, p. 307) sees these interpretations as incorporating western ideas[135] into traditional systems, especially Advaita Vedanta.[136] 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[note 21] 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.[138] 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,[139] who played a major role in the revival of Hinduism,.[140] He was also instrumental in the spread of Advaita Vedanta to the west via the Vedanta Society, the international arm of the Ramakrishna Order.[141][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−


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 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.[146] The first western translation of a Sanskrit-text appeared in 1785,[147] marking the growing interest of western intellectuals in Indian culture and languages.[148] The first translation of Upanishads, published in two parts in 1801 and 1802,[148] significantly influenced Arthur Schopenhauer, who called them "the consolation of my life".[149] He drew explicit parallels between his philosophy, as set out in 'The World as Will and Representation',[150] and that of the Vedanta philosophy ascribed to Vasya in the work of Sir William Jones.[151] Early translations also appeared in other European languages.[152] 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.[153]


According to Nakamura (1950, 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. What is especially worthy of attention is that 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.... The majority of the traditional and conservative scholars in India today, called Pandits, are students of Vedanta, and an overwhelming number belong to the lineage of Shankara – five-sixths of all Pandits, according to some authorities.[31]

Frithjof Schuon summarizes the influence of Vedanta on Hinduism as, "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.[154][155] Flood (1996, pp. 231–232,238) 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."

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


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'."[158]



See also[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 Brahman is the cause (Brahma-karana-vada).[18]
  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).[20] All major commentators have considered twelve to thirteen oldest of these texts as the Principal Upanishads and as the foundation of Vedanta.
  3. ^ Sivananda also mentions Meykandar and the Shaiva Siddhanta philosophy.[24]
  5. ^ Nicholson (2010, p. 26) considers the Brahmasutras as a group of sutras composed by multiple authors over the course of hundreds of years. The estimates on when the Brahma Sutras were complete vary.[32] Nicholson (2010, p. 26) estimates that the book was composed in its current form between 400 and 450 BCE.
  6. ^ The Vedanta–sūtra are known by a variety of names, including (1) Brahma–sūtra, (2) Śārīraka–sutra, (3) Bādarāyaṇa–sūtra and (4) Uttara–mīmāṁsā.
  8. ^ possibly a more distant predecessor, according to Michael Comans (2000, pp. 2,163)
  9. ^ 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.[39] Scholarship since 1950 suggests that almost all Sannyasa Upanishads have a strong Advaita Vedanta outlook.[44] 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.[45] 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.[46]
  10. ^ Scholars like Raju (1972, p. 177), following the lead of earlier scholars like Sengupta,[48] believe that Gaudapada co-opted the Buddhist doctrine that ultimate reality is pure consciousness (vijñapti-mātra). Raju (1972, pp. 177–178) states, "Gaudapada wove [both doctrines] into a philosophy of the Mandukaya Upanisad, which was further developed by Shankara." Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan also opines that Gaudapada's philosophy is different from that of Adi Shankara and Badarayan. Nikhilananda (2008, pp. 203–206) refutes these views by arguing that the whole purpose of Gaudapada was to demonstrate the ultimate reality of the birth-less and non-dual Atman, a concept foreign to Buddhism. According to Murti (1955, pp. 114–115), Gaudapada's doctrines are unlike Buddhism. Gaudapada's influential text consists of four chapters; Chapter One, Two and Three of which 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 both Murti and Richard King, never referenced nor used Chapter Four, they only quote from the first three.[27] While there is shared terminology, the doctrines of Gaudapada and Buddhism are fundamentally different, states Murti (1955, pp. 114–115)
  11. ^ 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." Sharma (2000, p. 64) writes: "How difficult he himself found the task of making the Sutras yield a Monism of his conception, is proved by the artificiality and parenthetical irrelevance of his comments in many places, where he seeks to go against the spirit and letter of the Sutras and their natural drift of arguments and dialectic [...] he was fighting with all his might and ingenuity against a long line of realistic commentaries."
  12. ^ Shankara synthesized the Advaita–vāda which had previously existed before him,[51] and, in this synthesis, became the restorer & defender of an ancient learning.[52] He was an unequaled commentator,[52] due to whose efforts and contributions,[51] Advaita Vedanta assumed a dominant position within Indian philosophy.[52]
  13. ^ According to Mishra, the sutras, beginning with the first sutra of Jaimini and ending with the last sutra of Badarayana, form one compact shastra.[53]
  14. ^ Many sources date him to 1238–1317 period,[61] but some place him over 1199–1278 CE.[62]
  15. ^ Doniger (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. Māyā not only deceives people about the things they think they know; more basically, it limits their knowledge."
  16. ^ 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, [83] but later scholarship has rejected this theory.[84]
  17. ^ According to Nakamura and Dasgupta, the Brahmasutras reflect a Bhedabheda point of view,[29] the most influential school 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 Sankara.[29]
  18. ^ A few Indian scholars such as Vedvyasa discuss ten, Krtakoti discusses eight, but six is most widely accepted; see Nicholson (2010, pp. 149–150)
  19. ^ 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.
  20. ^ 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.
  21. ^ 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".[137]
  22. ^ The tendency of "a blurring of philosophical distinctions" has also been noted by Burley.[142] Lorenzen locates the origins of a distinct Hindu identity in the interaction between Muslims and Hindus,[143] and a process of "mutual self-definition with a contrasting Muslim other",[144] which started well before 1800.[145]


  1. ^ Flood 1996, p. 231,232,238.
  2. ^ Ranganathan; Hiriyanna 1948, pp. 19,21–25,150–152
  3. ^ Chatterjee & Dutta 1939, pp. 317–318; Raju 1972, p. 177
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Nicholson 2016.
  5. ^ Raju 1972, pp. 176–177; Hiriyanna 1948, pp. 19,21–25,150–152
  6. ^ Das 1952; Puligandla 1997, p. 222
  7. ^ Jones & Ryan 2006, p. 51; Johnson 2009, p. 'see entry for Atman(self)'
  8. ^ a b c d e f Prem Pahlajrai, Asian Languages and Literature, University of Washington, Vedanta: A Comparative Analysis of Diverse Schools
  9. ^ Lipner 1986, pp. 40–41,51–56,144; Hiriyanna 1948, pp. 23,78,158–162
  10. ^ Hiriyanna 1948, pp. 19,21–25,150–152; Clooney 2000, pp. 96–107
  11. ^ Brooks 1990, pp. 20–22,77–79; Flood 1996, p. 231,232,238; Nakamura 1950, p. 3
  12. ^ Chatterjee & Dutta 1939, pp. 317–318; Flood 1996, p. 231,232,238
  13. ^ Koller 2013, pp. 100–106; Sharma 1960, p. 211; Hiriyanna 1948, pp. 19,21–25,150–152
  14. ^ Chatterjee & Dutta 1939, pp. 317–318; Raju 1972, pp. 176–177; Isaeva 1992, p. 35 with footnote 30
  15. ^ Raju 1972, pp. 176–177; Staal 2009, p. 139
  16. ^ Chatterjee & Dutta 1939, pp. 317–318; Scharfe 2002, pp. 58–59,115–120,282–283
  17. ^ Clooney & 2001 147–158; Jaimini 1925, p. 16, Sutra 30
  18. ^ King 1995, p. 268 with note 2.
  19. ^ Grimes 1990, pp. 6–7.
  20. ^ Dasgupta 1922, pp. 28.
  21. ^ a b c d Hiriyanna 1948, pp. 19,21–25,150–152.
  22. ^ Pasricha 2008, p. 95.
  23. ^ Balasubramanian 2000, p. xxx–xxxiiii; Deutsch & Dalvi 2004, pp. 95–96
  24. ^ a b c Sivananda 1993, p. 217.
  25. ^ Raju 1972, p. 175–200.
  26. ^ Sivananda 1993, p. 216.
  27. ^ a b Jagannathan 2011.
  28. ^ Michael Comans 2000, p. 163.
  29. ^ a b c d Nicholson 2010, p. 26.
  30. ^ Sivananda 1993, p. 248.
  31. ^ a b c d Nakamura 1950, p. 3.
  32. ^ Lochtefeld 2000, p. 746; Nakamura 1949, p. 436
  33. ^ Balasubramanian 2000, p. xxxiii; Sharma 1996, pp. 124–125
  34. ^ Nakamura 1950, p. 3; Sharma 1996, pp. 124–125
  35. ^ Hiriyanna 1948, pp. 19,21–25,151–152; Sharma 1960, pp. 239–241; Nicholson 2010, p. 26
  36. ^ Hiriyanna 1948, pp. 151–152.
  37. ^ Nicholson 2010, pp. 26–27; Mohanty & Wharton 2011
  38. ^ Nakamura 1950, p. 3; Michael Comans 2000, p. 163
  39. ^ a b Roodurmum 2002.
  40. ^ Nakamura 1950, p. 426.
  41. ^ Michael Comans 2000, p. 163; Jagannathan 2011
  42. ^ a b Raju 1972, p. 177.
  43. ^ Sharma 1960, p. 239.
  44. ^ Olivelle 1992, pp. 17–18; Rigopoulos 1998, pp. 62–63; Phillips 1995, p. 332 with note 68
  45. ^ Olivelle 1992, pp. x–xi,8–18; Sprockhoff 1976, pp. 277–294,319–377
  46. ^ Olivelle 1992, pp. 17–18.
  47. ^ Sharma 1960, p. 239; Nikhilananda 2008, pp. 203–206; Nakamura 1950, p. 308; Sharma 1960, p. 239
  48. ^ a b c Nikhilananda 2008, pp. 203–206.
  49. ^ Sharma 2000, p. 64.
  50. ^ Nakamura 2004; Sharma 2000, p. 64
  51. ^ a b Nakamura 1950, p. 678.
  52. ^ a b c Nakamura 1950, p. 679.
  53. ^ a b Sharma 1960, pp. 239–241,372–375.
  54. ^ Raju 1972, p. 175-176.
  55. ^ Sullivan 2001, p. 239; Schultz 1981, pp. 81–84; Bartley 2013, pp. 1–2; Carman 1974, p. 24
  56. ^ Olivelle 1992, pp. 10–11,17–18; Bartley 2013, pp. 1–4,52–53,79
  57. ^ Carman 1994, pp. 82–87 with footnotes.
  58. ^ a b Bartley 2013, pp. 1–2,9–10,76–79,87–98; Sullivan 2001, p. 239; Doyle 2006, pp. 59–62
  59. ^ Bernard 1947, pp. 9–12; Sydnor 2012, pp. 0–11,20–22
  60. ^ a b Buitenin 2010.
  61. ^ Bryant 2007, pp. 12–13,359–361; Sharma 2000, pp. 77–78
  62. ^ Jones & Ryan 2006, p. 266.
  63. ^ Bernard 1947, pp. 9–12.
  64. ^ Hiriyanna 1948, p. 187.
  65. ^ Sheridan 1991, p. 117.
  66. ^ Dehsen 1999, p. 118.
  67. ^ Sharma 2000, pp. 79-80.
  68. ^ Sharma 1962, pp. 128–129,180–181; Sharma 1960, pp. 150–151,372,433–434; Sharma 2000, pp. 80–81
  69. ^ a b Sharma 1960, pp. 372–375.
  70. ^ a b Hiriyanna 1948, pp. 188–189.
  71. ^ Lochtefeld 2000, p. 396; Stoker 2011
  72. ^ Stoker 2011.
  73. ^ Das 1952; Hiriyanna 1948, pp. 160–161; Doniger 1986, p. 119
  74. ^ Das 1952.
  75. ^ Sharma 2007, pp. 19–40,53–58,79–86.
  76. ^ Indich 1995, pp. 1–2, 97–102; Etter 2006, pp. 57–60, 63–65; Perrett 2013, pp. 247–248
  77. ^ Betty 2010, pp. 215–224; Craig 2000, pp. 517–518
  78. ^ Etter 2006, pp. 57–60,63–65; Buitenin 2010
  79. ^ Schultz 1981, pp. 81–84.
  80. ^ Schultz 1981, pp. 81–84; Buitenin 2010; Sydnor 2012, pp. 84–87
  81. ^ Stoker 2011; Dehsen 1999, p. 118
  82. ^ Sharma 1962, pp. 353–354.
  83. ^ Kulandran & Hendrik 2004, pp. 177–179.
  84. ^ Jones & Ryan 2006, p. 266; Sarma 2000, pp. 19–21
  85. ^ Jones & Ryan 2006, p. 266; Sharma 1962, pp. 417–424; Sharma 1960, p. 373
  86. ^ Sharma 1960, pp. 374–375; Bryant 2007, pp. 361–362
  87. ^ Sharma 1960, p. 374.
  88. ^ Nicholson 2016; Sivananda 1993, p. 247
  89. ^ Sharma 1960, p. 340.
  90. ^ Mohanty & Wharton 2011.
  91. ^ Sharma 1960, p. 376.
  92. ^ a b c d Bryant 2007, pp. 479–481.
  93. ^ Bryant 2007, pp. 479-481.
  94. ^ Sivananda 1993, p. 247.
  95. ^ Bryant 2007, p. 407; Gupta 2007, pp. 47–52
  96. ^ a b c Bryant 2007, pp. 378–380.
  97. ^ Gupta 2016, pp. 44–45.
  98. ^ Michael Comans 1996, pp. 49–71; Mayeda 2006, pp. 46–53; Phillips 2000, pp. 224–228 with notes 8, 13 and 63
  99. ^ Sharma 1960, p. 346.
  100. ^ Sharma 1962, pp. 368–374.
  101. ^ Das 1952; Doniger & Stefon 2015; Lochtefeld 2000, p. 122; Sheridan 1991, p. 136
  102. ^ Fowler 2002, pp. 34,66.
  103. ^ Fowler 2002, pp. 34,66; Flood 1996, pp. 238–239
  104. ^ a b c Doniger & Stefon 2015.
  105. ^ Raju 1972, pp. 176–177, 505–506; Fowler 2002, pp. 49–59, 254, 269, 294–295, 345
  106. ^ Chari 1988, pp. 2,383.
  107. ^ Fowler 2002, p. 317; Chari 1988, pp. 2,383
  108. ^ Britannica 2016; Stoker 2011
  109. ^ Vitsaxis 2009, pp. 100–101.
  110. ^ Raju 1972, p. 177; Stoker 2011
  111. ^ Ādidevānanda 2014, pp. 9-10.
  112. ^ Betty 2010, pp. 215–224; Stoker 2011; Chari 1988, pp. 2,383
  113. ^ Craig 2000, pp. 517–18; Stoker 2011; Bryant 2007, pp. 361–363
  114. ^ Lochtefeld 2000, pp. 520–521; Chari 1988, pp. 73–76
  115. ^ Lochtefeld 2000, pp. 520–521.
  116. ^ Potter 2002, pp. 25–26; Bhawuk 2011, p. 172
  117. ^ Bhawuk 2011, p. 172; Chari 1988, pp. 73–76; Flood 1996, pp. 225
  118. ^ Grimes 2006, p. 238; Puligandla 1997, p. 228; Clayton 2006, pp. 53–54
  119. ^ Grimes 2006, p. 238.
  120. ^ Indich 1995, pp. 65; Gupta 1995, pp. 137–166
  121. ^ Fowler 2002, p. 304; Puligandla 1997, pp. 208–211, 237–239; Sharma 2000, pp. 147–151
  122. ^ Nicholson.
  123. ^ Nicholson 2010, p. 27.
  124. ^ Carman & Narayanan 1989, pp. 3–4.
  125. ^ Neog 1980, pp. 243–244.
  126. ^ Smith 2003, pp. 126–128; Klostermaier 1984, pp. 177–178
  127. ^ Davis 2014, p. 167 note 21; Dyczkowski 1989, pp. 43–44
  128. ^ Vasugupta 2012, pp. 252, 259; Flood 1996, pp. 162–167
  129. ^ Manninezhath 1993, pp. xv, 31.
  130. ^ McDaniel 2004, pp. 89–91; Brooks 1990, pp. 35–39; Mahony 1997, p. 274 with note 73
  131. ^ King 1999, p. 135; Flood 1996, p. 258; King 2002, p. 93
  132. ^ King 1999, pp. 187,135—142.
  133. ^ King 2002, p. 118.
  134. ^ King 1999, p. 137.
  135. ^ Halbfass 2007, p. 307.
  136. ^ King 2002, p. 135.
  137. ^ King 1999, p. 138.
  138. ^ King 1999, pp. 133–136.
  139. ^ King 2002, pp. 135–142.
  140. ^ Dense 1999, p. 191.
  141. ^ Mukerji 1983.
  142. ^ Burley 2007, p. 34.
  143. ^ Lorenzen 2006, p. 24–33.
  144. ^ Lorenzen 2006, p. 27.
  145. ^ Lorenzen 2006, p. 26–27.
  146. ^ McMahan 2008.
  147. ^ Renard 2010, p. 176.
  148. ^ a b Renard 2010, p. 177.
  149. ^ Renard 2010, p. 178.
  152. ^ Renard 2010, p. 183-184.
  153. ^ Iţu, Mircia (2007), Marele Anonim şi cenzura transcendentă la Blaga. Brahman şi māyā la Śaṅkara (The Great Anonymous and the transcendental censorship in Lucian Blaga. Brahman and māyā in Adi Shankara), in Caiete critice 6–7 (236–237), Bucharest, pp. 75–83. ISSN 1220-6350.
  154. ^ F Schuon (1975), One of the Great Lights of the World, in Spiritual Perspectives, Essays in Mysticism and Metaphysics (Editor: TMP Mahadevan), Arnold Heineman, ISBN , page 91
  155. ^ Klaus Witz (1998), The Supreme Wisdom of the Upaniṣads: An Introduction, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120815735, page 11


Published sources[edit]


Further reading[edit]