The History of Advaita

[shivsomashekhar]

Couple of questions: What was the approximate date of this, if that is known? Also, did this more philosophical understanding represent a significant break from older Hindu theology, wherein the members of the Trimurti each have a part to play in this process: Brahma/Creator, Vishnu/sustainer, and Shiva/destroyer?

This is not linear. Brahman comes from Vedic/Vedantic tradition while the Trimurti concept comes from the Puranas - the latter catering more to the general public, while the former was strictly confined to educated Brahmins and royal Kshatriyas. Though, there is some overlap, they are two different systems.

On dates, the Brahma sutra was originally composed during the early sutra period (~400 BC). But as with most Indian texts, it evolved over time reaching its final form during the Gupta period. The current text is aware of Buddhism, Jainism and other Darsanas. One of the sutras mentions a Smriti which is interpreted to mean the Bhagavad Gita and paradoxically, the Gita (verse 13.5) mentions the Brahma sutras. This circular reference was traditionally resolved by attributing both texts to the same author (Badarayana = Vyasa). In modern times, this indicates interpolation.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The Atman has Karma attached to it;

I usually defer to your scholarly insight, but this is not what Sankara teaches.

Karma is carried in the causal body. Karma falls away upon enlightenment. The jiva/jivatman, in the causal body, carries karma. The Atman, which is identical to Brahman, does not.

 

[Zwing]

This is not linear. Brahman comes from Vedic/Vedantic tradition while the Trimurti concept comes from the Puranas - the latter catering more to the general public, while the former was strictly confined to educated Brahmins and royal Kshatriyas. Though, there is some overlap, they are two different systems.

Ah, thank you! This helps to clarify a bit. I have the idea, then, that the several philosophical schools that developed within Hinduism (Mimamsa, Vedanta, etc.) were solely the province of the two upper castes; do I understand correctly? I think that the best thing for me to do if I want to understand the place occupied by Advaita within the Hindu cosmos, is to find myself a good overview, with brief synopses, of the texts, both shruti and smirti, that compose the corpus of Hindu literature. Do you know of anything in that vein?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Couple of questions: What was the approximate date of this, if that is known? Also, did this more philosophical understanding represent a significant break from older Hindu theology, wherein the members of the Trimurti each have a part to play in this process: Brahma/Creator, Vishnu/sustainer, and Shiva/destroyer?

Advaita has no God or Goddess. Either it has Brahman and 'little atmans' as its parts (Vishishta (qualified) Advaita) or just Brahman alone.

Edit: There was no break. All, these philosophies existed in Hinduism, right from Atheistic Nireeshwaravada of Samkhya and the polytheism of Vedas (Mimasakas) or indigenous folk. The worshipers of Gods and Goddesses (Trimurti, a late idea first exhibited in the sculptures in Elephanta caves in Mumbai, 5-900 AD) carried on their worship and Advaita philosophers continued to refine their philosophy; as they do even today.
Hinduism is like Brahman, changes every moment but does not change.

Ah, thank you! This helps to clarify a bit. I have the idea, then, that the several philosophical schools that developed within Hinduism (Mimamsa, Vedanta, etc.) were solely the province of the two upper castes; do I understand correctly? I think that the best thing for me to do if I want to understand the place occupied by Advaita within the Hindu cosmos, is to find myself a good overview, with brief synopses, of the texts, both shruti and smirti, that compose the corpus of Hindu literature. Do you know of anything in that vein?

Shivasomashekhar is not correct here. Even Vedas and Brahmasutra are supposed to have been compiled/written by VedaVyasa, a shudra. In later times, when the knowledge reached the lower castes, even they understood it. Guru Nanak was not a brahmin or a kshatriya. He was a Vaishya, but he understood the essence of Advaita (One Brahman - Ek Onkar). To me, he was a Punjabi exponent of Advaita. There were a host of others viz., Eknath, Namdev, Ravidas; and one who, perhaps was not even a Hindu* - Kabir.

* To an Advaitist; Hindu, Muslim, Christian, has no meaning, since there is just one.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Shruti is what is supposed to have been heard, i.e., the four Vedas (each with its Samhita, Aranyaka, Brahmana and Upanishads).
The exception is BhagawadGita. That is supposed to have been spoken by Krishna and heard by the charioteer of Dhritarashtra, the father of Kauravas - Sanjaya.

Śruti - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Smriti is 'that which is remembered' (of the times, books of laws - sort of 'in my time, this is the law of the society'). There are hundreds of Smritis, not just Manusmriti. Tradition accepts 18 or 20, some are lost. Even my grandfather wrote his smriti (Vishweshwara Smriti, 8,000 Sanskrit verses, 1950). I suppose that should be the latest smriti. He accepted Big Bang, evolution, continental drift, 92 elements instead of five, widow remarriage and equal treatment of castes.

Smṛti - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In addition to these are Dharmashastras, which are about rituals, collective or house-hold (Garhapatya Sutras, Aryans were supposed to worship the hearth five times a day): Dharmaśāstra - Wikipedia
Smritis and Dharm-shastras have lost much of their importance. Shruti (Samhitas and related books), by convention, cannot be touched.

 

[JustGeorge]

**Moved to Religious Q&A**​

 

[shivsomashekhar]

I usually defer to your scholarly insight, but this is not what Sankara teaches.

Karma is carried in the causal body. Karma falls away upon enlightenment. The jiva/jivatman, in the causal body, carries karma. The Atman, which is identical to Brahman, does not.

Hi Salix, Atman here is the Jivatma (the embodied soul) and all branches of Vedanta are aligned on the transmigration of the Jivatma on account of its Karma.

Atman is also used to mean Paramatma and here Advaita differs from the others. Advaita holds that the Jivatama is Paramatma and Paramatma is Jivatma. Other Vedanta schools differ from this - their view is the Jivatma is dependent on the Paramatma (sun rays are dependent on the Sun, but the Sun is independent) and is always distinct.

I do not know what causal body means in Shankara's Advaita.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Ah, thank you! This helps to clarify a bit. I have the idea, then, that the several philosophical schools that developed within Hinduism (Mimamsa, Vedanta, etc.) were solely the province of the two upper castes; do I understand correctly? I think that the best thing for me to do if I want to understand the place occupied by Advaita within the Hindu cosmos, is to find myself a good overview, with brief synopses, of the texts, both shruti and smirti, that compose the corpus of Hindu literature. Do you know of anything in that vein?

The simplest option is Wikipedia. For more depth, there are various books (Winternitz, Dasgupta, etc).

 

[ajay0]

Karma is carried in the causal body. Karma falls away upon enlightenment. The jiva/jivatman, in the causal body, carries karma. The Atman, which is identical to Brahman, does not.

This is true. The upanishadic story of the Jivatman and Atman is used to illustrate this difference.

Tree of Jiva and Atman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The first bird represents a Jiva, or individual self, or soul, while the second bird is the Paramatman, an aspect of God who accompanies every living being in the heart while she remains in the material world. The Paramatman is the same as Brahman or pure consciousness.

Adi Shankara, in the Atma Bodha had stated about the karmic impurities in the Jivatman which results in its forgetfulness of the Self or pure consciousness within, and hence the need for its cleansing.


'Constant practice of knowledge purifies the self (‘Jivatman’), stained by ignorance and then disappears itself – as the powder of the ‘Kataka-nut’ settles down after it has cleansed the muddy water. ' ~ Adi Shankara (Atma Bodha)

 

[ajay0]

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.

Yeah, imho, the void or emptiness in Buddhism stated to be the origin of everything else and the Self or Brahman in Advaita can be equated to be one and the same.

As per advaita, in the absolute reality, the unitary consciousness exists as the primary reality. This is what the enlightened sage perceives.

Prajñanam brahma - Brahman is pure consciousness (Aitareya Upanishad 3.3 of the Rig Veda)

Brahman or pure consciousness is stated to be the fundamental substratum of the multiverse and matter, energy, space, time and causation said to be its varied grosser manifestations.

It is in the relative reality, that this manifest diversity is perceived by the unenlightened dualistic mind . The sayings of the female enlightened sages Anandamayi Ma and Shivayogini Matha will help to clarify this.

“There is One unchanging indivisible Reality which, though unmanifest, reveals Itself in infinite multiplicity and diversity.” ~ Anandamayi Ma

'It is through the multiplicity of name and form that one can arrive at the One. It is from this One that this Infinite Variety has manifested. In the end all return to that effulgent One.'~ Shivayogini Matha (1923-1981)

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.

Yes, it is through experiential understanding that the Self is realized, as pure consciousness is subtler than the intellectual instrument of thought.

The value of advaitan methodology lies in realizing this limitation of the tools of intellect and thought in perception of the Self or Brahman, and abandoning them in favor of clear consciousness in this particular quest.

' Just sit and know that 'you are' the 'I am' without words, nothing else has to be done; shortly you will arrive to your natural Absolute state.'- Nisargadatta Maharaj

 

[sayak83]

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.

Thanks for starting a great thread. I will respond shortly. Bookmarking it.

 

[sayak83]

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.

Hi. Please this post. The text could be considered a comprehensive and early (900BCE appx) of Advaita position.
Post in thread 'Why Hinduism?' Why Hinduism?

 

[Zwing]

Hi. Please this post. The text could be considered a comprehensive and early (900BCE appx) of Advaita position.
Post in thread 'Why Hinduism?' Why Hinduism?

Ah, thank you! From the Brihad-Aranyaka Upanisad, you say? This was the first of the major Upanishads at ~900 BCE? That is remarkable, as it represents the early period of Hindu philosophy, which I believe originated in the Upanishadic period. Advaita thought is old in Hinduism!

I think that the six Hindu darśanas all have their origins in the Upanishads. Is that correct? So that I might further contextualize Advaita, can you tell me what place Advaita holds within the Vedanta darśana? Also, is the point of Hindu history known, when such thinking first came to be called Advaita, when Vedanta came to be known specifically as Vedanta, and when Vedanta came to be recognized formally as one of the six darśanas?

 

[sayak83]

Ah, thank you! From the Brihad-Aranyaka Upanisad, you say? This was the first of the major Upanishads at ~900 BCE? That is remarkable, as it represents the early period of Hindu philosophy, which I believe originated in the Upanishadic period. Advaita thought is old in Hinduism!

I think that the six Hindu darśanas all have their origins in the Upanishads. Is that correct? So that I might further contextualize Advaita, can you tell me what place Advaita holds within the Vedanta darśana? Also, is the point of Hindu history known, when such thinking first came to be called Advaita, when Vedanta came to be known specifically as Vedanta, and when Vedanta came to be recognized formally as one of the six darśanas?

All six Hindu Darsanas do not have origin in the Upanishads. Only the Vedanta Darsana does. Mimansa darsana, for example, uses the Brahmana portion of the Vedas as primary. Vaisesika is said to come from Kanada's (around 400 BCE) treatise which does not use any material from the Vedas in any substantive sense. The Samkhya concepts of Gunas, Purusa and Prakriti etc are widely present in many places in the Vedas and in Gita as well in Buddha's own saying showing it to be an influential way of thinking among both the Brahmins and ascetics since 1000 BCE at least (if not before...it may be older than the Vedas). And so on..

 

[sayak83]

Ah, thank you! This helps to clarify a bit. I have the idea, then, that the several philosophical schools that developed within Hinduism (Mimamsa, Vedanta, etc.) were solely the province of the two upper castes; do I understand correctly? I think that the best thing for me to do if I want to understand the place occupied by Advaita within the Hindu cosmos, is to find myself a good overview, with brief synopses, of the texts, both shruti and smirti, that compose the corpus of Hindu literature. Do you know of anything in that vein?

Yes.
Here.
The Essential Vedanta: A New Source Book of Advaita Ved…

 

[PearlSeeker]

The Samkhya concepts of Gunas, Purusa and Prakriti etc are widely present in many places in the Vedas and in Gita as well in Buddha's own saying showing it to be an influential way of thinking among both the Brahmins and ascetics since 1000 BCE at least (if not before...it may be older than the Vedas).

As I understand Purusha is the same as Atman and Brahman. Advaita says only Brahman is real. Samkhya says Prakriti is also real. Correct?

 

[sayak83]

As I understand Purusha is the same as Atman and Brahman. Advaita says only Brahman is real. Samkhya says Prakriti is also real. Correct?

Roughly correct.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Is there any practical difference between advaita and dualism? Is it relevant to dharma and moksha?

 

[sayak83]

Is there any practical difference between advaita and dualism? Is it relevant to dharma and moksha?

There are two sorts of dualism, theistic and non-theistic. The theistic version will emphasize on bhakti (devotion) to God. The non-theistic variant will focus more on removal of constraints that bind the purusha to prakriti and hence will be more focused on meditation, yoga etc. The non-theistic dualism and pure-advaita do not differ significantly on practical terms . Similarly theistic dualism and qualified non-dualism (Visishta-Advaita) are similar to each other in emphasizing bhakti as the best path.

 

[wellwisher]

I am not an expert in this subject, but listening to the comments, it is consistent with the modern observation that the human brain has two centers of consciousness; inner self and ego. The inner self is older and is shared with animal consciousness. It would be analogous to the center of any animal brain's natural operating system. In humans, our inner self defines our collective human propensities, common to all humans, independent of time and place; defines use as a unique species.

The ego is newer and appears to have evolved with the rise of civilization. The ego can detach from the inner self, since the inner self is more natural and timeless; recorded on our DNA; inner truth, while the ego is more cultural and temporal; learned from outside.

The dualism discussed appears to be about how to strike a balance or how to become an inner self without the ego. It is quite amazing how ancient people could sense such deep aspects of the brain's operating system without modern science tools and still learn to reprogram the code.

The invention of computers offers us a way to create perspective, while the temporal awareness of AI or artificial intelligence may be a timely projection of secondary consciousness to create an understanding of what has been known for a long time.

In my experience, the inner self is not directly wired to the ego; simple duality. Rather it has a juke box of firmware that mediates the inner self to the ego. This diversity of firmware was often projected as the gods of any mythology. Monotheism, was based on an awareness that all the firmware masks had a common foundation; inner self.

There is a wild card that was also sensed, long ago, connected to a manmade addendum, to the natural operating system of the brain, from which the ego would emerge. I call it the Satan subroutine. It was created by language and law. Far Eastern and Western religions often symbolize it with a dragon. It appears to block the entrance to the inner self and is often assumed to be the inner self. From what was said of Buddhism; nothingness, may be connected to getting past the subroutine's noise, to get a clear ear for the inner self; better differentiation of natural and timelessness.

The Satan subroutine appears to have evolved from law, by gaming how the natural brain writes to memory. When memory is written to the cerebral matter, an emotional tag is added to sensory content. Law altered the natural way, since law is a binary memory that implies both good and evil.

The natural brain attaches one main emotional tag per memory; this is good and that is bad. Law require two conflicting tags; fear and rest. This creates conflicting feeling which is not natural. Law is like a two sided coin. It is one thing with two sides, with only one side visible at a time. However the exposed side always implies the hidden side is opposite.Since we are taught to do good, the hidden side is usually the dark side/fear which caused a repression of the natural brain, leading to the subroutine from which the ego would also consolidate. Overcoming the ego brought one in contact with its source, which became a new battle, with quiet and rest on the other side of the subroutine. The inner self is not binary or 2-D. That is the Satan subroutine created by law. The inner self is 3-D or a trinity. Standing on the shoulders of giants.