• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The History of Advaita

Zwing

Active Member
Hello to all in this DIR. I am new to RF, which I joined in order to discover ideas for non-theistic religious expression. Somewhat more specifically, I would like to learn more about Advaitism, which is a term that I have begun to apply to the Advaita school of Hindu thought (the Greek-derived English suffix -ism indicates a “school of thought, doctrine, or philosophy”). I first encountered Advaita through @Aupmanyav, one of your own, and found immediately that it expressed, in refined form, some of the thoughts that I myself had conceived regarding the nature of reality. I have been reading about Advaita, and have developed several questions about different aspects of the philosophy. This thread is determined towards exposition of the historical aspect of Advaita as it exists within the history of broader Hindu thought.

In considering my postings, please be mindful that Advaita is utterly new to me, and that I do not approach it from a Hindu perspective, but rather from the perspective of someone raised Christian and now is an atheist. My posts may occasionally seem to ignore certain presumptions that a Hindu would be expected to hold as he regards Advaitist thought.

As I have read, I have continually encountered three names: Gaudapada of the 6th century CE, Mandana Misra, and the virtually omnipresent Adi Shankara, who both contributed much to Advaitist thought in the 8th century CE. I note that these three developers of Advaitist thought all lived in the 6th through 8th centuries, while Advaita philosophy is much older; I read in one essay that it may be around three thousand years old. The question occurs to me, then: what is the early history of Advaita? What happened before Gaudapada began a two century period of fruitful development of Advaitism? Are there any names from the BCE associated with Advaita; indeed, was there a founder of Advaita as Gautama was the founder of Buddhism and Mahavira was a founder of Jainism, and is this name remembered? Please, let us discuss the earlier periods of Advaitist philosophy, about which I have been wondering.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Zwing, I am neither very much interested in history or (technical details of) philosophy of Advaita ('ism' is neither applied nor appreciated). I found the philosophy close to my heart, changed it to suit my interest in science and have stayed with it. I will try to give the information that you asked for, but let me first tell you about the best exposition of Indian Philosophies. It is Dr. Surendranath Dasgupta's five volume magnum opus "A History of Indian Philosophy". I do not think there is a better book on the subject. Sankara's Advaita forms the 10th Chapter of the first book, though he has a full volume on that. But I think for the moment, the 10th chapter of some 100 pages would satisfy your quest.
See that at A History Of Indian Philosophy Vol 1 Surendra Nath Dasgupta : Surendra Nath Dasgupta : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Zwing, since there does not seem to be much information at one place on Advaita in Vedas and Upanishads, I am inviting members of the forum to add verses from Vedas and Upanishads that they think contain 'germs' of Advaita :). And if there is such information, I request members to mention it.

I will begin with Nasadiya Sukta:
"ānīdavātaṃ svadhayā tadekaṃ tasmāddhānyan na paraḥ kiṃ canāsa ll' Verse 2, second line
(That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.)
"iyaṃ visṛṣṭiryata ābabhūva yadi vā dadhe yadi vā na l" Verse 7, first line
(He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,)
 

mangalavara

नमस्कार
Premium Member
I would like to learn more about Advaitism, which is a term that I have begun to apply to the Advaita school of Hindu thought (the Greek-derived English suffix -ism indicates a “school of thought, doctrine, or philosophy”).

Namaste. I don’t at all mean to sound rude in this reply. When we talk about Advaita Vedānta, we call it Advaita Vedānta or simply Advaita. It is like how we say Sānkhya and Yoga rather than Sankhyaism or Yogaism.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Hello to all in this DIR. I am new to RF, which I joined in order to discover ideas for non-theistic religious expression. Somewhat more specifically, I would like to learn more about Advaitism, which is a term that I have begun to apply to the Advaita school of Hindu thought (the Greek-derived English suffix -ism indicates a “school of thought, doctrine, or philosophy”). I first encountered Advaita through @Aupmanyav, one of your own, and found immediately that it expressed, in refined form, some of the thoughts that I myself had conceived regarding the nature of reality. I have been reading about Advaita, and have developed several questions about different aspects of the philosophy. This thread is determined towards exposition of the historical aspect of Advaita as it exists within the history of broader Hindu thought.

In considering my postings, please be mindful that Advaita is utterly new to me, and that I do not approach it from a Hindu perspective, but rather from the perspective of someone raised Christian and now is an atheist. My posts may occasionally seem to ignore certain presumptions that a Hindu would be expected to hold as he regards Advaitist thought.

As I have read, I have continually encountered three names: Gaudapada of the 6th century CE, Mandana Misra, and the virtually omnipresent Adi Shankara, who both contributed much to Advaitist thought in the 8th century CE. I note that these three developers of Advaitist thought all lived in the 6th through 8th centuries, while Advaita philosophy is much older; I read in one essay that it may be around three thousand years old. The question occurs to me, then: what is the early history of Advaita? What happened before Gaudapada began a two century period of fruitful development of Advaitism? Are there any names from the BCE associated with Advaita; indeed, was there a founder of Advaita as Gautama was the founder of Buddhism and Mahavira was a founder of Jainism, and is this name remembered? Please, let us discuss the earlier periods of Advaitist philosophy, about which I have been wondering.
I have a rather different opinion on all this. and that is that originally, before Shankara, advaita was a philosophy that came out of mystical experience, not word study. Over time, it has become more of an intellectual wordy school, which has taken away from the original intent, which was to come to those conclusions via deep inner meditation, and mystical experience of Oneness with the divine. beyond words.

My Guru's Guru's Guru, third back in the lineage, simply named Yogaswami, took a walking trip from Rameswaram to Tiruvanamalai, and to the abode of the famous Sri Ramana Maharshi. The two sat together in silence for a few hours before Yogaswami took his leave. On the return journey, the accompanying devotee asked Swami why he didn't say anything. His answer was a simple 'Nothing to Say'. In other words, advaitha is a realisation, and not one of the intellect.

Another story of Swami is about a local Vedantin who wandered around Jaffna. Swami would sneak up behind him, and touch his shoulder, and the Vedantin would jump a bit, turn, and say 'Who's that?" Swami would then chide him, and say, 'But weren't you telling me yesterday that we are all the same, that there is only one?" to make the point that the Vedantin hadn't actually realised it.

Ramana Maharshi got to where he was via worship and meditation in the confines of a local Siva temple. It was his realisation. Any books about him were written by devotees, not him. So too with Yogaswami.

All I can say is that if you actually have the opportunity to mingle with someone who has realised Advaitic truths from within, you'll soon notice how different they are. There is truly no 'I' identity, unless there is a reason for it, and the individual 'comes out' just to have an ordinary conversation.

Not sure if this will help, or confuse. Best wishes in figuring it all out.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
By the time of Upanishads, it was all clear. Aitareya (6-500 BCE), said 'Prajnanam Brahma' (Consciousness is Brahman)*. Chhandogya (8-600 iBCE) said "Tat tvam asi" (That is what you are) and "Sarvam khalu Idam Brahma" (All these things, Brahman). Brihadaranyaka (9-600 BCE) said "Aham Brahmasmi" (I am Brahman). Mandukya (5-400 BCE), said "Ayam Atma Brahman" (This self is Brahman).

In addition to these, Chhandogya described Brahman as "Ekam eva adviteeyam" (Alone and without a second). Ishavasya (600 BCE) said "So Aham" (I too am that). Katha (500 BCE) said "Etad vai tat" (This, verily, is that).

These are known as "Mahavakyas" in Advaita Hinduism. All this information is available in the Wikipedia article on "Mahavakyas". What I have done is to search for their possible dates, since the topic is about 'history of Advaita'.
Here: Mahāvākyas - Wikipedia

Prior to the Upanishad, we need to search for Advaita in the Vedas, particularly RigVeda, the oldest of them.

* I do not accept this definition. To talk about consciousness is mysticism, and I am not impressed by mysticism.
 

ajay0

Well-Known Member
The Upanishads had recorded various statements with respect to the advaitan or nondual state of consciousness along with dvaitan or dualistic teachings.

Later on, Gautapada and Shankaracharya focussed more on the advaitan teachings and sort of codified it.

In recent times, Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, H.w.Poonja, Ramesh Balaskar, Atmananda Krishna Menon are those who had attained enlightenment or sainthood through Jnana Yoga and practice of advaitan methodology.

In the west, the likes of Dr. Jean Klein, Francis Lucille, Rupert Spira, Gilbert Schultz, Sailor Bob Adamson, Robert Adams, Gangaji, Jac O'Keffee,Adyashanti are those who are similar teachers of nonduality .
 

Zwing

Active Member
Another story of Swami is about a local Vedantin who wandered around Jaffna. Swami would sneak up behind him, and touch his shoulder, and the Vedantin would jump a bit, turn, and say 'Who's that?" Swami would then chide him, and say, 'But weren't you telling me yesterday that we are all the same, that there is only one?" to make the point that the Vedantin hadn't actually realised it.
Hahaha, a style worthy of Diogenes!
In other words, advaitha is a realisation, and not one of the intellect.
How is this realization arrived at, if perception and the intellect do not come into play?
 

SalixIncendium

अहं ब्रह्मास्मि
Staff member
Premium Member
Happy birthday to you, @SalixIncendium.
Thank you, although it was 5 days ago. Xenforo, the forum software, apparently 'thinks' birthdays are eternal.

And, how does the realization of Advaita compare with the शून्यता (sunyata) of the Buddhists?
Advaita posits that moksha (liberation) is a result of Self-realization, i.e. this Self is identical to Brahman (tat tvam asi), which is immutable, whereas Buddhism posits that nirvana (liberation) is a result of the realization of non-self. Existence/consciousness/bliss in Adviata as compared to emptiness/vacuity in Buddhism.
 

Zwing

Active Member
Advaita posits that moksha (liberation) is a result of Self-realization, i.e. this Self is identical to Brahman (tat tvam asi), which is immutable, whereas Buddhism posits that nirvana (liberation) is a result of the realization of non-self. Existence/consciousness/bliss in Adviata as compared to emptiness/vacuity in Buddhism.
Then in approaching Advaita through meditative experience, how can one be sure to arrive at self-realization rather than nirvana, since both disciplines heavily rely upon meditative practice to achieve the desired results. Is it simply a matter of the focus of the meditation and other (perhaps Yogic) practices?
 
Last edited:

SalixIncendium

अहं ब्रह्मास्मि
Staff member
Premium Member
Then in approaching Advaita through meditative experience, how can one be sure to arrive at self-realization rather than nirvana, since both disciplines heavily rely upon meditative practice to achieve the desired results. Is it simply a matter of the focus of the meditation and other (perhaps Yogic) practices?
Since both of them are the liberation from samsara, I don't draw any dichotomy between nirvana and moksha.

As I see it, it's two different philosophies using different terms for the same concept.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Happy birthday to you, @SalixIncendium.


And, how does the realization of Advaita compare with the शून्यता (sunyata) of the Buddhists?
I'm not really sure because I haven't studied Buddhist stuff, but at some time in my life I read something to the effect that for Buddhist the void is nothing, and for Hindu advaitins, the void is simultaneously the primal cause of everything. But I certainly don't know, as in my philosophy you have to experience it to know. It's not on books, although books can guide you to it. Utimately everyone has to realize the Self for themselves. In discussions with advaitins, I'm pretty much way out of my league, as I simply don't approach it intellectually.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Also, on a rare occasion, spontaneously.
I've heard of this, but am a bit suspicious, as it usually involves a declaration of that, which involves the ego 'I'. But who am I to say for sure? There is also after the fact behaviour to consider. I believe any soul who has reached that state of consciousness will indeed behave differently that the ordinary man. Things like 'never seems upset' come to mind.
 

SalixIncendium

अहं ब्रह्मास्मि
Staff member
Premium Member
I've heard of this, but am a bit suspicious, as it usually involves a declaration of that, which involves the ego 'I'. But who am I to say for sure? There is also after the fact behaviour to consider. I believe any soul who has reached that state of consciousness will indeed behave differently that the ordinary man. Things like 'never seems upset' come to mind.
A person to which this happens could continue to interact with transactional reality without a noticeable external change, but internally, their perception may be changed entirely.

The ego 'I' is still experienced, but attachment and desire fall away.

Since the ego is still there, tendencies such as 'upset' will still arise, but quickly fade when there is no attachment to them.
 

shivsomashekhar

Well-Known Member
Hello to all in this DIR. I am new to RF, which I joined in order to discover ideas for non-theistic religious expression. Somewhat more specifically, I would like to learn more about Advaitism, which is a term that I have begun to apply to the Advaita school of Hindu thought (the Greek-derived English suffix -ism indicates a “school of thought, doctrine, or philosophy”). I first encountered Advaita through @Aupmanyav, one of your own, and found immediately that it expressed, in refined form, some of the thoughts that I myself had conceived regarding the nature of reality. I have been reading about Advaita, and have developed several questions about different aspects of the philosophy. This thread is determined towards exposition of the historical aspect of Advaita as it exists within the history of broader Hindu thought.

In considering my postings, please be mindful that Advaita is utterly new to me, and that I do not approach it from a Hindu perspective, but rather from the perspective of someone raised Christian and now is an atheist. My posts may occasionally seem to ignore certain presumptions that a Hindu would be expected to hold as he regards Advaitist thought.

As I have read, I have continually encountered three names: Gaudapada of the 6th century CE, Mandana Misra, and the virtually omnipresent Adi Shankara, who both contributed much to Advaitist thought in the 8th century CE. I note that these three developers of Advaitist thought all lived in the 6th through 8th centuries, while Advaita philosophy is much older; I read in one essay that it may be around three thousand years old. The question occurs to me, then: what is the early history of Advaita? What happened before Gaudapada began a two century period of fruitful development of Advaitism? Are there any names from the BCE associated with Advaita; indeed, was there a founder of Advaita as Gautama was the founder of Buddhism and Mahavira was a founder of Jainism, and is this name remembered? Please, let us discuss the earlier periods of Advaitist philosophy, about which I have been wondering.

The founder is Shankara.

He is the founder because he is the author of the Advaita commentary on the Brahma Sutras. Shankara's earliest critics noted that Shankara deviated from the long running traditional interpretation of Vedanta by introducing Buddhist themes. Therefore, the Shankara/Gaudapada/Mandana interpretation was fairly new for its time.

There were Vedantins before Gaudapada's time going back to Badarayana and earlier (Upavarsha, Bhartrprapancha, Bodhayana, etc), but it is unlikely that any of them were Advaitins. They believed in oneness-difference - the closest contemporary doctrine being Vishishtadvaita.
 

Zwing

Active Member
I’m going to have to ask a moderator to expand the title of this thread, since we are discussing much more than the history of Advaita.
In discussions with advaitins, I'm pretty much way out of my league, as I simply don't approach it intellectually.
A couple of thoughts pertaining to this. Firstly, do you consider yourself an Advaitin? Secondly, I have approached something similar to Advaita from an intellectual standpoint, more like a “monist” worldview, particularly of substance monism.
Because of my essential atheism, I have difficulty with any aspect of spirituality which suggests the supernatural. I am no longer a ‘spiritual’ man. I think resultingly, the concept that I currently have of Advaita is quite materialistic, meaning that it pertains to the ‘stuff’ that we perceive in the universe. For me thus far, it is less a spiritual state, and more a physical reality. For instance, to me the concept of mass-energy equivalence, and that matter can be converted to energy, and more importantly, vice-versa, is at root an ‘advaitic’ concept; the expression E=mc^2 is an ‘advaitic’ statement. What it seems to say to me, is that the two basic types of stuff that we see in the universe, matter and energy, are merely manifestations of the same underlying reality, a reality which we humans cannot perceive yet have evidence of nonetheless. What do you think of this idea?
 
Last edited:

shivsomashekhar

Well-Known Member
I’m going to have to ask a moderator to expand the title of this thread, since we are discussing much more than the history of Advaita.

A couple of thoughts pertaining to this. Firstly, do you consider yourself an Advaitin? Secondly, I have approached something similar to Advaita from an intellectual standpoint, more like a “monist” worldview, particularly of substance monism.
I think resultingly, the concept that I currently have of Advaita is quite materialistic, meaning that it pertains to the ‘stuff’ that we perceive in the universe. For me thus far, it is less a spiritual state, and more a physical reality. For instance, to me the concept of mass-energy equivalence, and that matter can be converted to energy, and more importantly, vice-versa, is at root an ‘advaitic’ concept; the expression E=mc^2 is an ‘advaitic’ statement. What it seems to say to me, is that the two basic types of stuff that we see in the universe, matter and energy, are merely manifestations of the same underlying reality, a reality which we humans cannot perceive yet have evidence of nonetheless. What do you think of this idea?

It may help if you describe how your analogy applies to souls and Brahman.

Advaita denies the multiplicity of souls - which unfortunately is a logical contradiction for Vedanta asserts the reality of a soul in bondage and its eventual liberation. But in the case of Advaita, there is no distinct soul and consequently, no bondage or liberation. Very Buddhist.
 
Top