(PHI505EA) - ADVAITA VEDANTA

GAUDAPADA KARIKA

Gaudapada wrote or compiled the Māṇḍukya Kārikā, also known as the Gauḍapāda Kārikā and as the Āgama Śāstra. Some
scholars, states Karl Potter, doubt that Gaudapada Karika was written by one author.

The Māṇḍukya Kārikā is a concise explanation, in verse form, of the doctrines in Mandukya Upanishad, one of the shortest but a
profound Upanishad, consisting of just 12 sentences. Even before the time of Adi Shankara, Mandukya Upanishad was considered
to be a Śruti, but not one particularly important during his era. In later periods it acquired a higher value, and expressing the
Upanishadic essence.

The Māṇḍukya Kārikā is the earliest extant systematic treatise on Advaita Vedānta, though it is not the oldest work to present
Advaita views, nor the only pre-Sankara work with the same type of teachings. According to Hajime Nakamura, not only was the
Gaudapada Karika treasured in the Advaita tradition, the text was revered and highly respected in Vishistadvaita and Dvaita
Vedanta schools of Hinduism as well. Gaudapada's text, adds Nakamura, was treasured but not considered a Sruti by Advaita
scholars, while Ramanuja and Madhvacharya of non-Advaita schools considered its first chapter to be a Sruti.

The Gaudapadiya Karika has 215 metered verses which are divided into four chapters:

1. Chapter One (29 verses) — Agama, or Agama Prakarana (Traditional doctrine, includes 12 verses of the Mandukya Upanishad)

2. Chapter Two (38 verses) — Vaitathya Prakarana (Unreality)

3. Chapter Three (48 verses) — Adavaita Prakarana (Nonduality)

4. Chapter Four (100 verses) — Alatasanti Prakarana (The Peace of the Firebrand)

Chronologically, according to Hajime Nakamura, the Buddhist texts that quote from Gaudapada Karikas imply that the Vedantic
ideas in the first three chapters are of greater antiquity. Most of Chapter Three of the compilation of Gaudapada Karika was
complete by 400–500 CE, states Nakamura. He estimates that most of Chapter One was complete by 300–400 CE, while Chapter
Two which presupposes Chapter One can be dated to have been mostly complete after Chapter One but before Chapter Three.
Most of the Chapter Four was written sometime between 400 and 600 CE.

Chapter One: Traditional Doctrine (Agama)

The Self resides in one's body in three forms: waking state, sleeping dreamy state and in deep sleep state, according to Potter's
translation. When awake, the Self experiences the Vishva – the external objects and the visible; when dreaming, it experiences the
Taijasa – the internal mind objects and what appears in the dreams; when in deep sleep, the Self experiences Prajna – the
unpolarized, the fruits of the heart and bliss. The description of these states of self are similar, states Arvind Sharma, to those found
in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and other ancient Hindu texts.

Gaudapada presents the competing traditional theories about life in vogue, before and in his times, in Karika 6 through 9. Some
claim creation is the result of the expansion of the Self, some claim it is a mere magic show, some claim the creation is from God's
desire, some claim Kala (time) creates all beings.[21] In Karika 10, the text states there is a fourth state of the Self, called Turiya,
one of Advaita (nonduality), all pervading, unchanging and without Dukkha (sorrow). This fourth state of Self in Gaudapada Karika is
found in chapters 8.7 through 8.12 of Chandogya Upanishad, which discusses the "four states of consciousness" as awake,
dreamfilled sleep, deep sleep, and beyond deep sleep.
The Vishva and Taijasa state of Self – states Gaudapada – can be a source of cause and effect, the Prajna is only cause, while
Turiya state is neither. It is the waking state and dream state that lead to awareness, errors and unawareness. The perceived duality
of the world is Maya, when in reality there is only nonduality. Chapter One ends with the discussion of the Om and its symbolism for
Brahman, and the Atman within the heart of all living beings.

Chapter Two: Unreality (Vaitathya)

Unreal are the dream objects during sleep, states Gaudapada, because the one who dreams never actually goes to place he
dreams of, and because whatever situation he dreams about is something he leaves upon waking up. This is in the scripture
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.

In the same sense, the true reality is covered up for man even in his waking state, state Karikas 4-6 of Chapter Two, because,
translates Potter, "any object nonexistent in the beginning and in the end is also nonexistent in the middle".

When we sleep, we feel the external things we dream about are real and the internal states as unreal, but in the awakened state we
realize both are unreal. In the same way, in our waking state whatever we apprehend to be real and unreal are both unreal, covering
up the true reality, state Karikas 10-15. But this assertion leads to the obvious question, states Gaudapada, that if both internal and
external are not true reality, who is it that imagines, who apprehends them and who cognizes? Gaudapada submits his answer as
the Atman (Self, soul).

Gaudapada Karika states that while we do grasp objects, we perceive, we think, but this does not connote the nature of reality and
unreality, just like our fear of "a rope for a serpent in darkness". We construct realities, states Gaudapada, and imagine Jivatman to
be various things such as prana (brreath), loka (world), deva (gods), bhoktr (enjoyer), bhojya (enjoyables), sukshma (subtle), sthula
(gross), murta (material), amurta (nonmaterial) and so on.

We imagine things in our mind, we create things in our mind, we destroy things in our mind, says Gaudapada; yet all these things
are not different from It, the Atman (gender neutral). All such constructions create dualities in our imagination, are Maya. The true
reality, state Karikas 33-36, is nondual and it is Atman. Those who have mastered and grown past all attachments, past all fear and
past all anger, they are past all dualities, know their Self, have secured the nonduality within. According to Karika 36-38, such wise
individuals, do not care about praise from anyone, are beyond all rituals, are homeless wanderers, for they have realized the true
inside them and outside; they, translates Potter, "remain steadfastly true to nature".

Chapter Three: Nonduality (Advaita)

Gaudapada opens this chapter by criticizing devotional worship of any form, and states that this assumes that the Brahman-Atman
is born. He states that the nondual Brahman-Atman (Self) can give rise to apparent duality (Jivas, individual souls), while remaining
unaffected in the process. To this end he gives the analogy of space and jars. Self is like space and the Jivas are like space in jars.
Just as space is enclosed in a jar, so is the Self manifested as Jivas. When the jar is destroyed the space in the jar merges into
space so likewise, are the Jivas one of the Self.

Gaudapada states that the Upanishads such as the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad teach this, that one's own Atman (self) is identical to
the Atman in other beings, and all Atman are identical with the Brahman. While some Upanishads, acknowledges Gaudapada, imply
a dfiference between individual soul and the Brahman, those texts are discussing the apparent distinction (duality) when one
believes in apparent creation. In reality, states Gaudapada, there is no creation of souls from Brahman as they are identical. We
must not confuse passages meant for spiritual instruction. According to Karikas 3.17-18, Gaudapada admits that dualists disagree
with this view, but the ancient texts admit duality in the context of appearances, while "nonduality is indeed the highest reality",
translates Karmark.

According to Karl Potter's translation of Karikas 3.33-36, an awareness that is without conceptual construction is unborn, and this is
identical to the object of that awareness called Brahman. This awareness is not a metaphor, nor born, it is real. Such awareness
shines forth without fear, beyond words and thought, is calm and unwavering, equanimous, and full of light. This inner contactless
concentration (Asparsha yoga) is difficult for most including the yogis, who see fear in what is fearlessly blissful. Such is the
awareness that comes from self-reflection, understanding, giving up attachment to Dukkha (frustration) and Sukha (pleasure), where
the mind rests in indescribable calmness within.

Chapter Four: The Peace of The Firebrand (Alatasanti)

The last chapter of Gaudapada Karika has a different style than the first three, and it opens by expressing reverence for all "the
greatest of men", who are like the cosmic space through their awareness of nonduality, free from self-contradictions and confusion,
and who understand Dharma. Karikas 3–10 repeat some content from previous chapters, but with some word substitutions. Karikas
11–13 quote the key duality premise of Samkhya school of Hindu philosophy, cross examines it, then asks how and why is cause
eternal? The text states that the Samkhya premise "cause is born as its effect" leads to infinite regress, which is not persuasive.
Gaudapada Karika then acknowledges the theory of Ajativada or non-origination of the Buddhas (Buddhists). Like Samkhya
premise, the text praises and cross examines it, in three ways: first, non-origination premises makes sense when neither the point of
origin nor the end of something is known, but we know the point of origin of any example of something produced and there Ajativada
premise does not follow; secondly, the Ajativada premise commits the Sadhyasama fallacy of reasoning by offering examples of
what is yet to be proved. Thirdly, state Karikas 29–41, neither samsara nor mukti has a beginning or end, because if something is
born it must have an end, and something that is unborn has no end.

Karikas 45–52 state that only (Vijnana) consciousness is real, explaining it with an example of fire stick before and during the time it
burns, and adding we construct and deconstruct our state of awareness.[51][53] Karikas 53–56 assert that there is no causation, no
effects, and repeats that consciousness is the only one real thing.[54] Everything is impermanent, nothing is eternal and everything
is also without origination by nature, state Karikas 57–60.

Karikas 61–81 repeat text on four states from earlier chapters to re-emphasize the premises about impermanence and
nonorigination. Attachment to unreality causes desire, sorrow (Dukkha) and fear, while detachment leads to freeing from such states
and to samadhi. There are three stages of understanding state Karikas 87–89: Laukika (ordinary. which cognizes object and subject
as real), Shuddha laukika (purified ordinary, perceiving is considered real but not the objects) and Lokottara (supramundane, where
neither objects nor perceiving are cognized as real).

Karikas 90–100 presents Agrayana (vehicle) to knowing. The text states, "all dharmas are without beginning, without variety, and
are consciousness only". Duality is for the unwise, nonduality and undifferentiated Reality is for the wise and difficult to grasp. The
last Karikas of the Chapter Four add, translates Karl Potter, "this the Buddhas understand, the Buddha instructs us that
consciousness does not reach the dharmas, yet the Buddha said nothing about either consciousness or dharmas.

Doctrine of Maya (illusion)

The doctrine of Maya is used to explain the empirical reality in Advaita. Jiva, when conditioned by the human mind, is subjected to
experiences of a subjective nature, states Vedanta school, which leads it to misunderstand Maya and interpret it as the sole and
final reality. Advaitins assert that the perceived world, including people and other existence, is not what it appears to be". It is Māyā,
they assert, which manifests and perpetuates a sense of false duality or divisional plurality. The empirical manifestation is real but
changing, but it obfuscates the true nature of metaphysical Reality which is never changing. Advaita school holds that liberation is
the unfettered realization and understanding of the unchanging Reality and truths – the Self, that the Self (Soul) in oneself is same
as the Self in another and the Self in everything (Brahman).

In Advaita Vedanta philosophy, there are two realities: Vyavaharika (empirical reality) and Paramarthika (absolute, spiritual Reality).
Māyā is the empirical reality that entangles consciousness. Māyā has the power to create a bondage to the empirical world,
preventing the unveiling of the true, unitary Self—the Cosmic Spirit also known as Brahman. This theory of māyā was expounded
and explained by Adi Shankara. Competing theistic Dvaita scholars contested Shankara's theory, and stated that Shankara did not
offer a theory of the relationship between Brahman and Māyā. A later Advaita scholar Prakasatman addressed this, by explaining,
"Maya and Brahman together constitute the entire universe, just like two kinds of interwoven threads create a fabric. Maya is the
manifestation of the world, whereas Brahman, which supports Maya, is the cause of the world."

Brahman is the sole metaphysical truth in Advaita Vedanta, Māyā is true in epistemological and empirical sense; however, Māyā is
not the metaphysical and spiritual truth. The spiritual truth is the truth forever, while what is empirical truth is only true for now.
Complete knowledge of true Reality includes knowing both Vyavaharika (empirical) and Paramarthika (spiritual), the Māyā and the
Brahman. The goal of spiritual enlightenment, state Advaitins, is to realize Brahman, realize the unity and Oneness of all reality.

Avidya (ignorance)

Due to ignorance (avidyā), Brahman is perceived as the material world and its objects (nama rupa vikara). According to Shankara,
Brahman is in reality attributeless and formless. Brahman, the highest truth and all (Reality), does not really change; it is only our
ignorance that gives the appearance of change. Also due to avidyā, the true identity is forgotten, and material reality, which
manifests at various levels, is mistaken as the only and true reality.

The notion of avidyā and its relationship to Brahman creates a crucial philosophical issue within Advaita Vedanta thought: how can
avidyā appear in Brahman, since Brahman is pure consciousness?Sengaku Mayeda writes, in his commentary and translation of
Adi Shankara's Upadesasahasri:

Certainly the most crucial problem which Sankara left for his followers is that of avidyā. If the concept is logically analysed, it would
lead the Vedanta philosophy toward dualism or nihilism and uproot its fundamental position.
To Advaitins, human beings, in a state of unawareness and ignorance of this Universal Self, see their "I-ness" as different than the
being in others, then act out of impulse, fears, cravings, malice, division, confusion, anxiety, passions, and a sense of
distinctiveness.

Subsequent Advaitins gave somewhat various explanations, from which various Advaita schools arose.

Ajativada

Ajātivāda is the fundamental philosophical doctrine of the Advaita Vedanta philosopher Gaudapada. According to Gaudapada, the
Absolute is not subject to birth, change and death. The Absolute is aja, the unborn eternal. The empirical world of appearances is
considered unreal, and not absolutely existent.

Gaudapada's perspective is based on the Mandukya Upanishad, applying the philosophical concept of "ajāta" to the inquiry of
Brahman, showing that Brahman wholly transcends the conventional understanding of being and becoming. The concept is also
found in Madhyamaka Buddhism, as the theory of nonorigination.

"A" means "not", or "non" as in Ahimsa, non-harm

"Jāti" means "creation" or "origination

"Vāda" means "doctrine"

Taken together "ajātivāda" means "the Doctrine of no-origination" or non-creation.

The concept of "ajāta" was borrowed by Gaudapada from Madhyamika Buddhism, which uses the term "anutpāda"

 "An" also means "not", or "non"

 "Utpāda" means "genesis", "coming forth", "birth”

Taken together "anutpāda" means "having no origin", "not coming into existence", "not taking effect", "non-production".

Gaudapada borrowed the concept of "ajāta" from Nagajurna's Madhyamaka philosophy. The Buddhist tradition usually uses the
term "anutpāda" for the absence of an origin or śūnyatā.

But Gaudapada's perspective is quite different from Nagarjuna. Gaudapada's perspective is based on the Mandukya Upanishad. In
the Mandukya Karika, Gaudapada's commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad, Gaudapada sets forth his perspective. According to
Gaudapada, Brahman cannot undergo alteration, so the phenomenal world cannot arise independently from Brahman. If the world
cannot arise, yet is an empirical fact, than the world has to be an unreal (transitory) appearance of Brahman. And if the phenomenal
world is a transitory appearance, then there is no real origination or destruction, only apparent origination or destruction. From the
level of ultimate truth (paramārthatā) the phenomenal world is māyā, "illusion", apparently existing but ultimately not real.

In Gaudapada-Karika, chapter III, verses 46-48, he states that Brahman never arises, is never born, is never unborn, it rests in itself:

When the mind does not lie low, and is not again tossed about, then that being without movement, and not presenting any
appearance, culminates into Brahman. Resting in itself, calm, with Nirvana, indescribable, highest happiness, unborn and one with
the unborn knowable, omniscient they say. No creature whatever is born, no origination of it exists or takes place. This is that
highest truth where nothing whatever is born.

The Ajativada of Gaudapada, states Karmarkar, has nothing in common with the Sunyavada concept in Buddhism. While the
language of Gaudapada is undeniably similar to those found in Mahayana Buddhism, Coman states that their perspective is
different because unlike Buddhism, Gaudapada is relying on the premise of "Brahman, Atman or Turiya" exist and are the nature of
absolute reality.
Three levels of Reality

Śańkara, based on the criterion of sublatabiluty, distinguishes reality, appearance, and unreality. Reality is that which, in principle,
cannot be sublated by any other form of experience. Appearance, on the contrary, can be sublated by other experiences. Unreality
is that which in principle can or cannot be sublated. It must be noted that the act of sublation presupposes the dualism between
knower and the known, the subject and the object, consciousness and the contents of consciousness. Sublatability also
presupposes plurality of objects, concepts, judgments and contents of consciousness. It is necessary to have a distinction between
subject and object in sublation for it is the subject that sublates the object. Plurality of objects is also necessary for sublation in order
to juxtapose one object or experience against another incompatible object or experience for judging that the first object or
experience has lesser degree of reality or value than the second. Based on these remarks to say that the experience of reality is
unsublatable is to say that no other experience can conceivably contradict the experience of reality. The reason for this is that reality
is devoid of all distinctions and contradictions. It is not only the distinction between one object and another but also between the
subject and the object, the self and the non-self. Thus the experience of reality transcends all distinctions and is therefore the
experience of pure identity between the subject and the object, the self and the non-self. The experience of reality is something
unsublatable for there is nothing excepting this unitary experience. Brahman, the supreme Reality, is unsublatable for it is bereft of
all qualifications, distinctions, oppositions or relations.

Appearance (phenomenon) in terminology of Plato and Kant is that in principle can be sublated. In contrast to Brahman as pure
Being, appearance may be construed in the realm of existents. Śańkara, classifies existence into three levels: absolute reality
(pāramārthikasattā), empirical existents (vyāvahārikasattā) and dream reality (prātibhāsikasattā).

Brahman alone can be grouped under absolute reality for its experience can never be sublated by any other form of existence.
Empirical existents and the objects of dream can be sublated by other forms of experience. For instance, the cognition of dream
objects can be sublated by the cognition of waking experience. The objects of dream and their cognitions are true insofar as the
dream persists. Similarly, the objects of empirical existence and their cognitions can also be sublated by a higher order experience
which is bereft of subject-object distinction. However, the objects of empirical experience and their cognitions can also be sublated
by yet another set of empirical experiences and their cognitions. For instance, Śańkara uses rope-snake analogy to make this point
clear. There is possibility that a person mistakes a rope for a snake. However, his subsequent cognition sublates his earlier
cognition and confirms it to be a rope. Then the question arises: where did the illusory snake disappear? The illusory snake which is
a product of ignorance does not exist outside the rope. The illusory snake’s locus and content is empirically real rope only. In the
similar fashion, the knowledge of the objects of empirical reality is sublated by the knowledge of supreme Reality (Brahman/Ǎtman).
Therefore, the lower levels of reality, namely, empirical reality and dream reality are sublatable.

Coming to the notion of unreality, it is neither can nor cannot be sublated by other experiences. Anything that cannot become object
of our experience, actual or possible, is unreal. The reason why an unreal object cannot be experienced is that the concept of an
unreal object is self-contradictory. Round-square, barren woman’s child, sky-lotus are examples of unreal objects. For anything to
be sublatable it must in principle be an object of our experience. Since unreal objects cannot be experienced by us it would be
misleading to say that they are sublatable or not sublatable. The fundamental distinction between illusory object and unreal object is
that the former as a matter of fact does not have any objective counterpart in our experience, whereas an unreal object is one which
in principle cannot have an objective counterpart, for the unreal is non-being.

From the above account it is clear that according to Śańkara’s criterion of sublatability only Brahman/Ātman is real and here cannot
be any other reality apart from that. The empirical world is a mere appearance and the dream world exists insofar as the dream
exists, and unreality is non-being.

Theory of Causation

In order to understand Advaitic position on reality, it is necessary to understand its theory of causation. Advaita’s causal theory is
known as satkāryavāda. According to this doctrine, the material effect is identical with material cause. In other words, the effect pre-
exists in its cause. Advaitins do not differ with Sāńkhya up to this point. However, there are two versions of satkāryavāda. They are
pariņamavāda and vivartavāda.The pariņāmavādaof Sāńkhya is criticized by Śańkara. The change in form is considered to be a real
change by pariņāmavādins. Śańkara questions this view. Although the changes in form are perceived, these changes are not
considered to be real as the form does not have any reality of its own apart from its material cause. If a change in form is regarded
as a real change, then a person can have many realities as he or she keeps on changing his postures frequently. But it is not the
case. Our day-to-day experience tells us that a person is one and the same though there is change in his postures. Another
important feature that underscores the view is that if substances are different from their forms, then how can we relate qualities or
forms to the substances? Either we must admit formless substances or a third reality that can connect forms with substances. But to
connect that reality with the other two, we may require another reality. Thus it leads to infinite regress (anavasthā).

If the view that form does not have any independent existence apart from its substance is admitted, then the change in the mere
form is not real. Such a view paves the way for Śańkara’s ingenious doctrine of apparent change (vivartavāda).For example, when
one perceives a rope as a snake, it is not that rope has really transformed into a snake. Remaining as a rope, it only appears as a
snake. Likewise, we may perceive many other illusory objects which appear to be real. But their existence is only phenomenal. This
is the vital point on which Advaita notion of reality is based.

Nature of Brahman

The supreme Reality, Brahman/Ātman, alone is real. The essential nature (svarūpalakşaņa) of Brahman/Ătman is pure Being (sat),
pure Consciousness (cit), and pure Bliss (ānanda). It is free from all contradictions and is infinite and indescribable. It is
indescribable for it is bereft of all qualities (nirguņa).The terms such as ‘existence’, ‘consciousness’, and ‘bliss’are only used in
defining sense but not in the qualifying sense to distinguish Brahman/Ātman, the supreme Reality, from everything else.Inother
words, Brahman/Ātman is trans-empirical, trans-rational, and also trans-linguistic. Hence one cannot describe it positively. It is also
unknowable. If it is conceived as an object of knowledge, then it logically follows that it is related to a subject, and therefore
becomes determinate. When the Upanişadsdescribe Brahman/Ātman as indescribable and unknowable, what they mean is that
Brahman/Ǎtman cannot be described positively, but only negatively as what it is not This method is called neti neti method. This
does not mean that indeterminate Brahman/Ǎtman is empty. Śańkara observes that though it may appear to be empty for a dull-
witted (maṅda-buddhi),it is not. Brahman/Ǎtman which is the ground of everything cannot be empty or void.

However, the notion of saguņa Brahman is applied to Īśvaraor creator God. Brahman in association with māy is known as
Īśvara.The world of empirical objects is his creation. The two important powers of māyāare the power of concealment (āvaraņaśakti)
and the power of projection( vikşepaśakti). With its power of concealment, māyāconceals the real nature of Brahman and projects
Brahman as the creator God.

Brahma Sutra

The Brahma Sutras claims to be an aphoristic summary of the Upanisads. The work derives its name from the fact that it deals
chiefly with Brahman as described in the Upani.ads, in all its aspects. It is also known other names as a) The Vedantasutras b) The
sariraka Sutras c) The Uttara Mimamsa Sutras and d) The Biksu - Sutras. Tradetion accepts, BadarayaNa, is the author of this
work.

The work Brahma Sutra is divided into four adyayas. Each adhyaya is divided into four padas, the padas comprise adhikaraNas and
each adhikaraNa composed of Sutras. The total number of adhikaraNas and Sutras are 191 and 555 respectively. Each pada of the
various adhyayas, comprises several adhikaraNas. An ahikaraNa needs must have five parts and they are 1) Vi.aya or topic 2)
Vioaya or Samoaya, doubt 3) Purvapak.a or oppenent's view 4) Siddhanta or established conclusion and 5) Sangatior ir connection
between the different sections. The four adhyayas in Brahma Sutra are 1)Samanvayadhyaya 2) Avirodhadhyaya 3) Sadhanadhyaya
and 4) Phaladhyaya.

The first Adhyaya attempts to harmonise (Samanvaya) the principles dealt with in the Various Upani.ads. The second Adhyaya
applies itself to dispel any Virodha or contradiction that many confront the philosophy of Vedanta. Sadhanadhyaya discusses the
various Vidyas or meditations mentioned in the Upanishads. The fourth one, Phaladhyaya dissed the phala of the study of Vedanta.

The Brahmasutra of BadarayaNa has attracted the attention of the distinguished scholars over theyears, who have enriched the
Brahmasutra literature by their brilliant commentaries. Of the several bhasyas or commentaries available today sankaracharya's
bhasya is the earliest. Ramanuja's 'SriBhasya, Madhva's Anubhasya are also importent. Bhaskaracharya, Nimbarka, Valllabha,
Baladeva are also the commentators. Sankaracharya wrote bhasya in Adwaita point of view. Padmapada, the direct disciple of
Sankara wrote Pancapadika on Brahmasutra Sankarabha.ya. This was commented up on Prakaoatman in his
PancapadikaVivaraNa. There is a gloss on this called Tattvadipanam by AkhaNdananda Muni. All these commentaries collectively
have created the VivaraNa Prastana in Advaita Vedanta in the post-Sankara period. As opposed to this Bhamatiprastana was
developed by Vachaspatimiora by writing a commentary called Bhamati on BrahmaSutra SankaraBhasya. Amalananda's 'Kalpataru'
and Appayyadiksita's'Parimalam' are also famous commentaries in their School of thought.

Concept of Liberation

According to Advaita Vedanta, liberation is possible while one is alive (jĩvanmukti). The legitimate path for liberation is the path of
knowledge (jňānamārga). One has to realize that one’s atman is none other than Brahman. But it also prescribes some strict ethical
discipline for every spiritual aspirant. In order to gain control over one’s body and mind one has to practice the eight-fold path of
yoga of Pataňjali. Apart from that there are four important disciplines to be followed. They are: 1.discrimination between the eternal
and non-eternal,

2. Detachment from all from all selfish pursuits, both worldly and otherworldly,

3. Cultivation of all the six virtues—tranquility, restraint, renunciation, endurance, meditation, and faith.

4. desire for liberation. Śańkara did not oppose the practicing of the way of action (karmamārga)and the way of devotion
(bhaktimārga).

Since the nature of Brahman is consciousness, therefore the realization of Brahman is also through consciousness (knowledge).
The way of action can only purify our mind and make us non-egoistic. Similarly, the way of devotion also purifies out mind. If I
surrender everything to God then my ego also removed through this surrender. But the path of devotion still distinguishes the
devotee from God. The ego of devotee still persists. So long as the ego persists liberation is not possible. Once a spiritual aspirant
attains the steady of mind, he/she has to practice śravaņa, manana and nididhyāsanato realize one’s own self (aham
brahmāsmi).To realize one’s own self amounts to becoming one with the ultimate reality Brahman/Ātman.

Means of achieving liberation :

Without bothering to enquire about the nature of ignorance, the jiva should make efforts to attain liberation. In this effort Samkara
has admitted the knowledge of Brahman not as the means, but as the end in itself. It is the ultimate end. Those who point out that
there is no place for morality in Samkara’s philosophy forget that the Indian philosophers have never given an unduly high status to
morality.

Most of the Indian philosophers believed that beyond the moral level there is the religious level and beyond the religious level there
is the spiritual level. To reach this spiritual level is the ultimate, end of human beings. But spiritual aim does not deny, still less
negate, the moral aim. It takes it along and proceeds further.

Hence, up to a creatain limit, the Advaita Vedanta exhibits the importance of moral and religious means to attain the ultimate end of
life. Samkara has himself considered the fourfold means (Sadhan Catustaya) as necessary for a man to become worthy of studying
Vedanta. These fourfold means are as follows:

1. Discrimination between the eternal and the ephemeral:

The enquirer in the philosophy of Vedanta should have the capacity to distinguish between the eternal and the ephemeral objects as
a necessary pre-requisite for his study.

2. Detachment towards wordly and other-worldly enjoyments:

The second condition required for the student of Vedanta is detachment from all types of enjoyments as well as the desire for them,
both wordly as well as other-wordly.

3. Sama, Dama etc:

Along with discrimination between the eternal and the ephemeral and detachment from enjoyment, the enquirer should possess the
means of Sama, Dama, Sraddha, Samadhan, Uparati, and Titiksa. The meaning of Sama is control of the mind while Dama means
control of the senses. Sraddha means keeping faith in the scriptures. Samadhan means concentration of the mind on the attainment
of knowledge. Uparati means aversion from the disturbing actions. Titiksa means the practice in bearing heat and cold, etc.

4. Desire for liberation (Mumuksatva):

The last, though by no means the least condition for the sadhaka of Vedanta is a burning desire for liberation and a strong
determination for its attainment. For the Sadhak, after he has conquered the passions etc., by the above mentioned fourfold means,
Samkara has prescribed the necessity of hearing (Sravana), concentration (Manana) and meditation (Nidid hyasana).

Thus, the aspirant for the knowledge, of Brahman should take to hearing the teaching of the Guru. After the false impressions are
annihilated and strong faith in the reality of the Brahman is established in the aspirant, the teacher teaches him the secret of Tattva-
Masi (That Thou Art). Then the aspirant concentrates on this truth with one pointed mind and meditates upon it again and again.
By this he gradually begins to realise the truth and the real nature of the self. Such a complete realisation is the culmination of the
knowledge of Brahman. This is liberation. When this is achieved all the dualism disappears, doubts and attachments are removed
and supreme bliss is attained. The liberated man serves the society and the living beings while he is alive and does not return to
bondage after leaving the body.

Adhyasa

Adhyāsa is the Sanskrit term for the superimposition or false attribution of properties of one thing on another thing.

According to Advaita Vedanta error arises on account of the superimposition of one reality on another. Adi Shankara defines
Adhyasa as "the apparent presentation, to consciousness, by way of memory of something previously observed in some other
thing".

Adhyasa is the illusory appearance, in another place, of an object seen earlier elsewhere. It is similar in nature to recollection. For
instance on seeing a rope in dim light and not recognizing it as a rope, a person mistakes it for a snake which he has seen
elsewhere. The snake is not absolutely unreal, because it is actually experienced, and produces the same effect, such as fear and
so on, as a real snake would. At the same time, it is not real, because it is no longer seen when the rope has been recognized. It is
therefore described as Anirvachaneeya or what cannot be classified as either real or unreal.

Adi Shankara further points out in his Adhyāsabhāṣya on the Brahma Sutras that, when there is superimposition of one thing on
another, the latter (the substratum) is not affected in the least by the good or bad qualities of the former. (e.g., nacre does not
become more valuable because it is mistaken for silver, nor does a rope get the qualities of the snake which it is mistaken for). The
implication of this statement is that the self which is identical with Brahman does not undergo any of the changes, nor does it
experience any of the joys and sorrows, of the body, mind and organs which are superimposed on it. It is, however, only because of
this mutual superimposition of the self and the non-self that all action, both secular and religious, including the study of Vedanta,
becomes possible. The self, by itself, is neither a doer of actions, nor an enjoyer of the results. It becomes a doer and an enjoyer
only because of this superimposition, as a result of which, as Adi Shankara says, the real and the unreal, namely, the self and the
non-self, are blended into one, as it were.. All action, including the various rites laid down in the Vedas, thus come within the sphere
of Avidya or nescience, which is the cause of the superimposition.

Adhyasa is of two kinds. When a rope is mistaken for a snake, the snake alone is seen. The existence of the rope is not known at
all. Here the snake is said to be superimposed on the rope. This is known as Svarupa-Adhyasa. The second kind of superimposition
is when a crystal appears to be red in the proximity of a red flower. Here both the crystal and the flower are seen as existing, and
the redness of the flower is attributed to the crystal also. This is known aSs amsarga-Adhyasa. Both these kinds of Adhyasa are
present in the mutual superimposition of the self and the non-self.

Because of the superimposition of the non-self on the self, the existence of the self is not recognized at all, and the non-self, (that is,
the body, mind and organs), is alone recognized as existing. This is Svarupa-Adhyasa. In the superimposition of the self on the
nonself, only the existence and consciousness aspects of the self are attributed to the body, mind and organs. This is Samsarga-
Adhyasa. The result of this mutual superimposition is that every one identifies himself with the body. This is the root cause of all
suffering. Giving up this wrong identification with the body-mind complex and realizing that one is the self which is beyond all
suffering and all the pairs of opposites such as heat and cold, success and failure and so on, is Vidya or knowledge. It is this
knowledge that is contained in the Upanishads.

Svarupa-Adhyasa is also known as Nirupadhika-Adhyasa or superimposition without a limiting adjunct or Upadhi. The
superimposition of an illusory snake on a rope is of this type. Upadhi has been defined by Bhaskararaya in his commentary on the
name Nirupadhih (No.154) in the Lalitāsahasranāmabhāsya as Upa samipe adadhati sviyam dharmam that which imparts its own
quality to an object near it. A red flower which makes a transparent crystal near it look red is an upadhi. The superimposition of the
red colour on the crystal is a superimposition with upadhi and it is known as Sopadhika-Adhyasa, which is the same as
samsargaadhyasa.

In the superimposition of the snake on the rope, the substratum is considered to be the rope. But the snake itself is not real, and is a
superimposition on Brahman or pure Consciousness. Therefore it is said in Vedanta that the substratum is Rajju-upahita chaitanyam
or pure Consciousness apparently limited by the rope. Every object in this world should therefore be looked upon as Brahman
limited by that object or Brahman in the form of that object Sarvam khalu idam brahma. The illusory snake is described as
Pratibhasika or illusory; the rope, like everything in this world, is Vyavaharika or empirical reality. Brahman alone is Paramarthika or
absolute reality. The aim of Vedanta is to enable one to attain this realization.
 Jiva

For classical Advaita Vedānta, Brahman is the fundamental reality underlying all objects and experiences. Brahman is explained as
pure existence, pure consciousness and pure bliss. All forms of existence presuppose a knowing self. Brahman or pure
consciousness underlies the knowing self. Consciousness according to the Advaita School, unlike the positions held by other
Vedānta schools, is not a property of Brahman but its very nature. Brahman is also one without a second, all-pervading and the
immediate awareness. This absolute Brahman is known as nirguņa Brahman, or Brahman “without qualities,” but is usually simply
called “Brahman.”

This Brahman is ever known to Itself and constitutes the reality in all individuals selves, while the appearance of our empirical
individuality is credited to avidya (ignorance) and māyā (illusion). Brahman thus cannot be known as an individual object distinct
from the individual self. However, it can be experienced indirectly in the natural world of experience as a personal God, known
as saguņa Brahman, or Brahman with qualities. It is usually referred to as īśvara (the Lord). The appearance of plurality arises from
a natural state of confusion or ignorance (avidya), inherent in most biological entities.

Given this natural state of ignorance, Advaita provisionally accepts the empirical reality of individual selves, mental ideas and
physical objects as a cognitive construction of this natural state of ignorance. But from the absolute standpoint, none of these have
independent existence but are founded on Brahman. From the standpoint of this fundamental reality, individual minds as well as
physical objects are appearances and do not have abiding reality. Brahman appears as the manifold objects of experience because
of its creative power, māyā. Māyā is that which appears to be real at the time of experience but which does not have ultimate
existence. It is dependent on pure consciousness. Brahman appears as the manifold world without undergoing an intrinsic change
or modification. At no point of time does Brahman change into the world.

The world is but avivarta, a superimposition on Brahman. The world is neither totally real nor totally unreal. It is not totally unreal
since it is experienced. It is not totally real since it is sublated by knowledge of Brahman. There are many examples given to
illustrate the relation between the existence of the world and Brahman. The two famous examples are that of the space in a pot
versus the space in the whole cosmos (undifferentiated in reality, though arbitrarily separated by the contingencies of the pot just as
the world is in relation to Brahman), and the self versus the reflection of the self (the reflection having no substantial existence apart
from the self just as the objects of the world rely upon Brahman for substantiality). The existence of an individuated jīva and the
world are without a beginning. We cannot say when they began, or what the first cause is. But both are with an end, which is
knowledge of Brahman. According to classical Advaita Vedānta, the existence of the empirical world cannot be conceived without a
creator who is all-knowing and all-powerful. The creation, sustenance, and dissolution of the world are overseen by īśvara. īśvara is
the purest manifestation of Brahman. Brahman with the creative power ofmāyā is īśvara.

Māyā has both individual (vyaśti) and cosmic (samaśti) aspects. The cosmic aspect belongs to one īśvara, and the individual
aspect, avidya, belongs to many jīvas. But the difference is thatīśvara is not controlled by māyā, whereas the jīva is overpowered
by avidya. Māyā is responsible for the creation of the world. Avidya is responsible for confounding the distinct existence between
self and the not-self. With this confounding, avidya conceals Brahman and constructs the world.

As a result thejīva functions as a doer (karta) and enjoyer (bhokta) of a limited world. The classical picture may be contrasted with
two sub-schools of Advaita Vedānta that arose after Śaṅkara: Bhamati and Vivarana. The primary difference between these two
sub-schools is based on the different interpretations for avidya and māyā. Śaṅkara described avidya as beginningless. He
considered that to search the origin of avidya itself is a process founded on avidya and hence will be fruitless. But Śaṅkara’s
disciples gave greater attention to this concept, and thus originated the two sub-schools. TheBhamati School owes its name to
Vacaspati Miśra’s (ninth century) commentary on Śaṅkara's Brahma Sūtra Bhāṣya, while the Vivarana School is named after
Prakāṣātman’s (tenth century) commentary on Padmapāda’s Pañcapadika, which itself is a commentary on Śaṅkara's Brahma
Sūtra Bhāṣya. The major issue that distinguishes Bhamati and Vivarana schools is their position on the nature and locus of avidya.

According to the Bhamati School, the jīva is the locus and object of avidya. According to the VivaranaSchool, Brahman is the locus
of avidya. The Bhamati School holds that Brahman can never be the locus of avidya but is the controller of it as īśvara. Belonging
to jīva, tula-avidya, or individual ignorance performs two functions – veils Brahman, and projects (vikṣepa) a separate world. Mula-
avidya (“root ignorance”) is the universal ignorance that is equivalent to Māyā, and is controlled by īśvara.

The Vivarana School holds that since Brahman alone exists, Brahman is the locus and object of avidya. With the help of
epistemological discussions, the non-reality of the duality between Brahman and world is established. The Vivarana School
responds to the question regarding Brahman’s existence as both “pure consciousness” and “universal ignorance” by claiming that
valid cognition (prama) presumes avidya, in the everyday world, whereas pure consciousness is the essential nature of Brahman.

Relation of God to the world

In our study of the other systems of Vedic philosophy we have seen various explanations of the existence of the world. In nyaya,
God is the operative cause of the world, but atoms are the material cause. (Note: in philosophy there are four ways to explain
causation, as in this example of the causation of a house: the construction company is the "operative cause", the bricks, cement and
other building materials are the "material cause", the original type of house upon which this house is modelled is the "formal cause",
and the purpose of the house, i.e. that someone wants to live in it, is the "final cause".) In sankhya, creation is regarded as the
spontaneous result of the contact between prakrti and purusa. The sankhya philosopher says "there is no need for God" in his
system, but he fails to explain what governs the coming together of prakrti and purusa in the first place. Patanjali says God is the
Supreme Self distinguished from other selves, and He is the intelligent governor of prakrti and purusa. But Patanjali nonetheless
accepts the sankhya view that prakrti and purusa have no origin. God as creator plays no essential role in the mimamsaka system,
which believes that the world as a whole is eternal, though its gross manifestations may come and go. Discounting all these
theories, Vedanta-sutra defines God as He among all beings who alone is simultaneously the operative, material, formal and final
causes of the cosmos. As the intelligence behind creation, He is the operative cause; as the source of prakrti and purusa, He is the
material cause; as the original transcendental form of which the world is but a shadow, He is the formal cause; as the purpose
behind the world, He is the final cause.

Mayavadi philosophy avoids the issue of causation by claiming that the world, though empirically real, is ultimately a dream. But
since even dreams have a cause, the mayavadi "explanation" explains nothing. In the visistadvaita explanation, the material world is
the body of God, the Supreme Soul. But the dvaita school does not agree that matter is connected to God as body is to soul,
because God is transcendental to matter. The world of matter is full of misery, but since vedanta defines God as anandamaya, how
can nonblissful matter be said to be His body? The truth according to the dvaita school is that matter is ever separate from God but
yet is eternally dependent upon God; by God's will, says the dvaita school, matter becomes the material cause of the world. The
suddhadvaita school cannot agree with the dvaita school that matter is the material cause because matter has no independent
origin apart from God. Matter is actually not different from God in the same way an effect is not different from its cause, although
there is an appearance of difference. The dvaitadvaita school agrees that God is both the cause and effect, but is dissatisfied with
the suddhadvaita school's proposition that the difference between God and the world is only illusory. The dvaitadvaita school says
that God is neither one with nor different from the world -- He is both. A snake, the dvaitadvaita school argues, can neither be said to
have a coiled form or a straight form. It has both forms. Similarly, God's "coiled form" is His transcendental non-material aspect, and
His "straight form" is His mundane aspect. But this explanation is not without its problems. If God's personal nature is eternity,
knowledge and bliss, how can the material world, which is temporary, full of ignorance and miserable, be said to be just another
form of God?

The Caitanya school reconciles these seemingly disparate views of God's relationship to the world by arguing that the Vedic
scriptures testify to God's acintya-shakti, "inconceivable powers." God is simultaneously the cause of the world in every sense and
yet distinct from and transcendental to the world. The example given is of a spider and its web. The material of the web comes from
the spider's body, so in a sense the spider may be taken as the material cause of the web. Yet again the spider and the web are
always separate and distinct entities. While the spider never "is" the web, at the same time because the spider's body is the source
of the web, the web is not different from the spider.

In terms of vedanta, the substance of the web is God's maya-shakti (power of illusion), which is manifest from the real but is not real
itself. "Not real" simply means that the features of maya (the tri-guna, or three modes of material nature -- goodness, passion and
ignorance) are temporary. Reality is that which is eternal: God and God's svarupa-shakti (spiritual energy). The temporary features
of the material world are manifestations of the maya-shakti, not of God Himself. These features bewilder the souls of this world just
as flies are caught in the spider's web. But they cannot bewilder God.

Relation of God to the individual soul

Indian philosophy abounds with speculations about the self, or soul. The doctrine of Carvaka, an ancient thinker who opposed the
Vedic teachings, is thoroughly materialistic. He thought the body itself to be the soul and consciousness to be a product of material
combination. There is no God, and the purpose of life is to gratify the senses. Carvaka philosophy was strongly opposed by
Buddhism which is yet no less materialistic in its outlook on the soul. Buddhism says that soul does not exist. The very concept of
"selfness" is false. The body is but a wave in a stream of events. There is no purpose to existence, not even the purpose of sense
gratification. There is no God. The only truth is emptiness. These two philosophies represent the extremes of human materialistic
mentality: Carvaka is a "sankalpa doctrine" arising from the mental phase of accepting (sankalpa) the material world for enjoyment,
and Buddhism is a "vikalpa doctrine", arising from the mental phase of rejecting (vikalpa) the world in frustration. Sankalpa and
vikalpa are mere dualities of the mind which inevitably bewilder one who has no knowledge of what is beyond matter, i.e. spirit.

The six darshanas of the Vedic scriptures all confirm that the individual self is non-material and eternal. The goal of existence is
liberation, and each darshana proposes a means by which the soul may be liberated from material existence. In vedanta, there are
two basic explanations of the soul, one given by the mayavadis and the other given by the four personalist schools. Mayavadis say
that there is only one soul -- the Supreme Soul, God. The the conception of a plurality of individual souls is an illusion. Personalists
refute the mayavadi view by pointing out that if it were true that God is the only soul, then that would mean that illusion is more
powerful than God -- because the so-called One Soul fell under the spell of maya and became the unlimited living entities subject to
repeated birth and death. This is tantamount to saying that there is no Supreme Being at all. The personalists' version is that
although God and the souls share the same spiritual qualities (sat-cid-ananda vigraha, "formed of eternity, knowledge and bliss"),
still a difference remains between them. God is vibhu (all-pervading) whereas the souls are anu (infinitesimal). The exact
relationship between soul and God is described differently by each of the four personalist schools. These viewpoints are
synthesized by the Caitanya school, which gives an example of the sun and sunshine to show how God and the souls share the
same qualities in oneness and difference simultaneously. Just as the sunshine is the marginal energy of the sun, so the souls are
the marginal (tatastha) shakti of God. As sunshine is made up of unlimited photons (infinitesimal particles of light), God's tatastha-
shakti is made up of unlimited infinitesimal spiritual particles, each one an individually conscious personal being. The soul is called
ksetrajna (ksetra = field, jna = knower), because each soul is conscious of his particular field of awareness, i.e. his own body and
mind. The soul is like a candle-flame, the limit of his luminescence being the limit of his field of awareness. God is called vyasti-
kstrajna and samasti-ksetrajna. As vyasti-ksetrajna, God knows everything about each individual soul's individual existence (i.e. He
knows unlimitedly more about the soul than does the soul himself -- for instance, God knows all of the past incarnations of each
soul). And as samasti-ksetrajna, God is the knower of all souls at once in their totality. Because the soul is infinitely small, its power
of knowledge can be obscured by maya, just as a ray of the sun can be blocked by a cloud. But clouds are created and destroyed
by the influence of the sun on the earth's atmosphere. Similarly, maya is always subordinate to God. The individual souls may come
under the control of maya, but maya is always under the control of God.

The Caitanya school of vedanta teaches that the soul has an eternal function which is to serve God. This service may be rendered
directly or indirectly. In direct service, the ecstasy (bhava) of spiritual love shared by soul and God is fully manifest in a
transcendental personal relationship called rasa (sweet exchange). In indirect service, the soul serves God under the illusion of
forgetfulness. Under maya, the soul is attracted by forms of matter instead of forms of spirit. He is overwhelmed by emotions such
as lust, anger, greed, madness, illusion and envy which are nothing but perverted reflections of spiritual emotions. These emotions
impel him to try to control and exploit the material world as if it belonged to him. The result of the soul's false lordship over matter is
endless entanglement in samsara, the cycle of repeated birth and death.

The soul is meant to love God, but God grants the soul a minute independence of choice whether to love God or not. Love is
voluntary. If God forced the souls to love Him, then "love" as we understand it would have no meaning. By loving God the soul
automatically attains mukti (liberation); conversely, by not loving God the soul comes under the maya-shakti. There are two kinds of
liberation -- jivanmukti and videhamukti. Jivanmukti is attained even before the demise of the physical body. When the embodied
soul dedicates all his activities to God as an offering of love, he is freed from the bondage of karma. After death he attains
videhamukti, an eternal situation of devotional service within the realm of svarupa-shakti, the divine energy. Videhamukti is
described in Chandogya Upanisad 8.12.3: "Thus does that serene being, arising from his last body, appear his own form, having
come to the highest light by the grace of Supreme Person. The liberated soul moves about there laughing, playing and rejoicing, in
the company of women, vehicles and other liberated souls." As Baladeva Vidyabhusana explains in his Govinda-bhasya
commentary on Vedanta-sutra, the liberated souls are in threefold union with the Lord:

1) they are in the spiritual realm of God, which is not different from God Himself;

2) by their constant meditation upon Him, God is ever-within their souls, and

3) they are in union of love with the personal form of God that appears before them.

From this state, the concluding code of Vedanta-sutra declares, anavrittih sabdat, anavrittih sabdat, "There is no return (to the
material world). Verily there is no return, for the Vedas so declare."

Analysis of states of consciousness

Advaita posits three states of consciousness, namely waking (jagrat), dreaming (svapna), deep sleep (suṣupti), which are
empirically experienced by human beings, and correspond to the Three Bodies Doctrine:

1. The first state is the waking state, in which we are aware of our daily world. This is the gross body. Sthula sarira or the
gross body is the material physical mortal body that eats, breathes and moves (acts). It is composed of many diverse
components, produced by one’s karmas (actions) in past life out of the elements which have undergone panchikarana i.e.
combining of the five primordial subtle elements.

2. The second state is the dreaming mind. This is the subtle body.Suksma sarira or the subtle body is the body of the mind
and the vital energies, which keep the physical body alive. Together with the causal body it is the transmigrating soul or
jiva, separating from the gross body upon death.
 3. The third state is the state of deep sleep. This is the causal body. Karana sarira or the causal body is merely the cause or
seed of the subtle body and the gross body. It has no other function than being the seed of the subtle and the gross body.
It is nirvikalpa rupam, "undifferentiated form". It originates with avidya, "ignorance" or "nescience" of the real identity of the
atman, instead giving birth to the notion of jiva.

Advaita also posits the fourth state of Turiya, which some describe as pure consciousness, the background that underlies and
transcends these three common states of consciousness. Turiya is the state of liberation, where states Advaita school, one
experiences the infinite (ananta) and non-different (advaita/abheda), that is free from the dualistic experience, the state in which
ajativada, non-origination, is apprehended. According to Candradhara Sarma, Turiya state is where the foundational Self is realized,
it is measureless, neither cause nor effect, all prevading, without suffering, blissful, changeless, self-luminous, real, immanent in all
things and transcendent. Those who have experienced the Turiya stage of self-consciousness have reached the pure awareness of
their own non-dual Self as one with everyone and everything, for them the knowledge, the knower, the known becomes one, they
are the Jivanmukta.

Advaita traces the foundation of this ontological theory in more ancient Sanskrit texts. For example, chapters 8.7 through 8.12 of
Chandogya Upanishad discuss the "four states of consciousness" as awake, dream-filled sleep, deep sleep, and beyond deep
sleep. One of the earliest mentions of Turiya, in the Hindu scriptures, occurs in verse 5.14.3 of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. The
idea is also discussed in other early Upanishads.

Difference between Bhamati and Vivarana schools

Bhamati

1. Avidya has jiva as locus and the conditioned Brahman as content.

2. The mind is the instrument for realization.

3. The study of Vedas, yajna, etc., lead only to vividisha, the desire to know Brahman.

4. There is no injunction for Sravana.

5. The limitation theory is accepted in respect of the nature of the jiva.

6. There are many primal ignorances.

7. The object of akhanda-akaaravritti is the conditioned Brahman.

Vivarana

1.Avidya has the pure (unconditioned) Brahman as locus and content.

2. The mahavakya itself generates realization.

3. Yajna, etc lead to jnaana.

4. There is niyamavidhi for Sravana.

5. The reflection theory is propounded.

6. There is only one primal ignorance, but it has different modes.

7. The object is the unconditioned Brahman.

The difference between the aneka-jiva vaada and the eka-jiva vaada is that according to the former the objective elements, the jivas
and Isvara have empirical reality (vyaavahaarika satya), while according to the latter they have only apparent or illusory reality
(praatibhaasika satya). Thus in eka-jiva vaada there are only two levels of reality as against three in aneka-jiva vaada.
Madhusudana Sarasvati says in Siddhantabindu that the eka-jiva vaada is the main Vedanta theory. This theory is also called
‘drishtisrishtivaada’.
In this view the jiva himself is the material and efficient cause of the universe through his own nescience. All the objects perceived
are illusory (like things seen in dream). The delusion that there are many jivas is only due to there being many bodies. Liberation is
attained by the single jiva on realization of the self as a result of the perfection of hearing, reflection, etc, with the help of the Guru
and the scriptures which are all conjured up by him. The statements about Suka and others having attained liberation are only by
way of eulogy.

Pratibimbavada

Pratibimbavada or the theory of reflection, whose origin can be traced to the Brahma Sutra II.iii.50, is credited to Padmapada, the
founder of the Vivarna School of Advaita Vedanta and the author of Pancapadika which is a commentary on Sankara’s Brahma
Sutra Bhasya. According to the Vivarna School, Brahman is the locus of Avidya , and which, with regard to the relation existing
between the Jiva and Brahman, concludes that the Jiva is a mere reflection (pratibimba) of its prototype (bimba) i.e. of Brahman,
and therefore, identical with its essence, Brahman. This school holds the view that the mahavakya, tat tvam asi, is sufficient for the
attainment of enlightenment, of the realization of the identity between the self and Reality.

The followers of Avacchedavada, the theory of limitation credited to Vacaspati Misra, the founder of the Bhamati school, are of the
view that Pratibimbavada fails to explain how absolute consciousness, which has no sensible qualities, can be reflected; the
followers of Pratibimbavada are of the view that limitation, implying ignorance, actually separates the Universal Self from the
individual self which cannot be the locus of Avidya, that the modified consciousness cannot be the ground or support for the limiting
adjunct which produces it.

But, both the Avacchedavada and the Pratibimbavada do not escape the dualism incipient in them, from which drawback Sankara’s
concept of anirvacaniya maya does not suffer; anirvacaniya means – something, although positive, is neither determinable as real,
nor again as real. The former lays emphasis on the aspect of abheda ('non-difference') and the latter emphazises more on the
aspect of bheda ('difference'). Sankara sees no connection whatsoever between the Self and the mind-body complex except
through avidya that gives no real connection but only an imagined connection.

Refutation of Vijnanavada

The Vijhanavadins argue for the non-existence of external objects. In Brahsutrasankarabhasya, Sankara has presented five
arguments put forward by Vijnanvadins to prove the non-existence of external objects (1) If external objects exist, they are either
atoms or aggregates of atoms. But they can be neither and are therefore non-existent. (2) Even those who admit the existence of
external objects, admit different forms of their cognitions.

But if forms of cognitions are admitted, they suffice for the practical purpose of our life, and the existence of external objects
becomes unnecessary. (3) Objects and their cognitions are invariably perceived together. Therefore they are identical with each
other. (4) Waking cognitions apprehend themselves like dream cognitions. Both are similar to each other. Both are not produced by
external objects . (5) The variety of Pratyayavaicitra is due to the variety of vasana- vaicitra.

These arguments are refuted by Shankara.

Refutation of self-intuition.

The concept of self intuition of Buddhists is connected with the non separation of three factors that is subject, object and self
intuition. In Pramana samuccaya, Dinnaga proves that these three factors are inseparable. According to the concept of the
Vijnanavadins the Jneya is not different from jiiana.

The famous Vijnanavadi Dharmakirti says that when we see a blue lotus, the blue and cognition of blue are not different entities.
One should recognize their difference as due to the false cognition. Like the astigmatic seeing the double moon, but the moon is
single. Shankara in his commentary tries to deny the dependent object entity of Vijiianavada. He puts forward the five types of the
purvapaksins .

(1) According to Sankara the Vijiianavadins note that the object entity is composed of atoms. It is untenable. If object entities are
different from atoms, they can no longer be said to consist of atoms. He continually says that if they are identical with atoms they
cannot be aggregates. For example, about the objects like posts,there will not be the notion of atoms etc. There is no collection of
atoms such as posts, etc because of the impossibility of ascertaining the posts etc., by means of otherness or non-otherness from
atoms.
(2) The Vijhanavadins argue that the variety of cognition is explained only by the variety of sense object. Therefore, the sense object
have a formation similar to their cognitions.

(3) In Sahkara's words, the Vijhanavadins argue that the ascertainment of sense - object and perception are identical.

(4) According to Sahkara Vijnanavadins say that consciousness is to be considered as similar to a dream. The images occur in a
dream without the presence of corresponding object entities. Likewise in the waking stage also the images occur without the eternal
object entities. For example, the concepts of gandharva nagara, marumaricika, magic, etc, are only the imaginary subject and
object, there is no eternal reality.

(5) According to Sahkara, the Vijiianavadins say that the variety of concepts can be explained by the presense of vasana. These are
the five arguments put forward by Sahkara for refuting the Vijinanavadin's concept.

Refutation of Prakritikaranavada

The sankhya philosophers say, "The Upanisads directly glorify our Kapila with the words rsim prasutam kapilam, "He was the great
sage Kapila." He spoke the Sankhya-smrti as a commentary on the jnana-kanda portion of the Veda, and he firmly approved of the
agnihotra-yajnas and other rituals described in the karmakanda portion. Kapila explained that insentient prakrti is the independent
creator of the material universes, just as milk spontaneously creates cheese. If the Vedantists argue that the Supreme Personality of
Godhead is the material, operative, formal and final cause of everything, they contradict Kapila, the great Vedic sage. Therefore to
truly uphold Vedic tradition, Vedantists should interpret the Vedic texts in such a way that they do not contradict his writings.

But the explanation of prakrti as the cause of creation is not supported by the statements of great sages like Manu and Parasara
found in other smrti-sastras. They declare that the material world was manifested from Lord Vishnu. The Kapila whom the sankhya
philosophers follow is not a Vedic sage at all. The Padma Purana says, "One Kapila Muni, who was named Vasudeva, taught the
sankhya doctrine fully supported by Vedic evidence to the demigods Brahma and others and the sages Brghu, Asuri and others. But
another person named Kapila taught a form of sankhya that contradicts the Veda. He also had a disciple named Asuri, but this was
a different Asuri. This sankhya is full of false reasoning and bad arguments." The statement, rsim prasutam kapilam (from
Svetasvatara Upanisad 5.2), refers to Vasudeva Kapila who appeared as the son of Kardama Muni and Devahuti. The other Kapila,
whom the atheistic sankhya philosophers revere, is an imposter. The atheistic sankhya system is to be completely rejected as non-
Vedic, not only because of its doctrine of "prakrti as the cause," but also because it holds that 1) the individual souls are all-
pervading consciousness and no more than that; 2) the souls are bound or liberated by the arrangement of prakrti alone -- indeed,
liberation and bondage are simply features of material existence; 3) there is no being who is the Supreme Soul, the Lord of all; 4)
time is not eternal; 5) the five pranas are identical with the five senses.

The atheistic Kapila tried to prove with logic that prakrti is both the material and operative cause of creation. Yet his position is
illogical and inconsistent. If prakrti is both the material and operative cause, then nothing apart from prakrti has the power to make
prakrti act or stop it from acting because it is both the prime mover and first ingredient. But when the logic that "a cause will continue
to be seen in its effect" is rigorously pursued, this premise breaks down. If it were so that prakrti is both the material and operative
cause, then in the effect (the material creation), the same principle should be observed: that ingredients (e.g. the building materials
of a house) spontaneously assemble themselves. Belief in the spontaneous assembly of complex material structures is universally
deemed illogical. Moreover, this belief is inconsistent with other statements of the pseudo-Kapila.

Prakrti is said elsewhere in the Sankhyasmrti to only become creative when spirit comes near it. Then how is inert matter alone the
only cause? This gives rise to a new problem: at the time of devastation, spirit and matter are also near to one another. Why doesn't
creation continue at the time of devastation? The sankhya philosophers may say, "During devastation, the karma of the living
entities is not awakened," but there is no provision within their system that prevents it from awakening. Sankhya philosophers give
many examples to illustrate how prakrti alone creates, but none are valid. They say, "Just as milk spontaneously becomes yogurt,
rainwater spontaneously becomes both bitter and sweet fruits, grass spontaneously becomes milk in the belly of a cow, and a pile of
rice spontaneously gives birth to little scorpions, so inert prakrti alone generates all varieties of creation." In each of these examples,
the factors of the living force (spirit soul) and the superior direction of the Supreme Soul have been excluded. Thus the arguments of
the sankhya philosophers are unintelligent to the point of silliness.

The atheist Kapila claimed prakrti to be the final cause (the very purpose) of creation: "First, the living entity enjoys prakrti, then after
experiencing her many defects he renounces her and attains liberation." In other words, souls are conditioned only because of
experiencing the attractions of matter, and they are liberated only because of experiencing the defects of matter. Thus it would
appear that the soul is a helpless pawn in the grip of matter, subject to bondage or release at her whims. Kapila tried to depict
matter's purpose as beneficial because in the end the soul is released by her. But if both bondage and release are up to matter,
then a soul so "liberated" may be bound by matter again at any time. Sankhya theory states that prakrti is the equilibrium of the
three modes of nature.

When the modes compete for dominance over one another, the process of creation begins. But how this upset in the balance of the
modes begins is not explained. God does not set it into motion, because God plays no role in sankhya philosophy (isvarasiddheh,
"God has not been proved," said the pseudo-Kapila). Even time cannot be the reason, because Kapila said, dik-kalav akasadibhyah:
"space and time are manifested from ether", i.e. time is a much later effect of a creation already set into motion. The spirit souls also
play no part, because they are neutral and aloof from prakrti. There are many more strange contradictions in the statements of the
pseudo-Kapila.

In one place he is quoted as saying, "spirit is conscious, for it is different from matter." In another place he says, "Because it has no
qualities at all, the spirit soul must be devoid of consciousness." He asserts that the souls who understand they are different from
matter are liberated and those who do not understand this are conditioned. But elsewhere he says that material bondage occurs
whenever matter approaches the spirit soul, who then becomes pasu-vat, "just like a helpless animal."

According to Ramanuja Brahman is the creator, Sustainer and destroyer of the world. In the state of dissolution, the physical world
is destroyed and both the conscious and the material elements exist in seed form in Brahman. This has been called Brahman as
cause. After creation, Brahman is manifested in the form of bodied jivas. This is the Brahman as the effect. Thus Ramanuja like
Samkhya believes that the effect is existent before it is manifested (Satkaiyavada) But he differs in accepting Brahman as the
original cause (Brahma Parinamavafla and not Prakrti as accepted by Samkhya in their doctrine of Prakrti Parinamavada (Creation
and destraction are only relative and signify different states of the same causal substance, namely Brahman.

Ramanuja says that the souls are parts in the sense of visesanas, qualified forms or modes of Brahman. The essential nature of the
soul does not alter. The change of state it undergoes relates to the contraction and expansion of intelligence, while the changes on
which the production, e.g., of ether depend are changes of essential nature.