Vedanta (वेदान्तः)

This article needs editing. Add and improvise the content from reliable sources.

Vedanta (Samskrit: वेदांतम्) or Uttara Mimamsa is one of the six Darshana shastras or schools of philosophy that have originated from the spiritual experience of the sages of ancient India. Subsequently, these philosophical concepts were elaborated into systems of thought and explained in terms of reason and logic.

Vedanta - Darsana - The Path to Transcedence and Self-realization

One of the living systems of Indian philosophy, the Vedanta, has become widely studied in recent centuries, as to some Western intellectuals it became a solace and a solution to the vexed problems of the world. They consider that it offers the central principles of the universal religion, which, swayed the thought and life of Indians through ages of time. Primarily the word Vedanta stood for Upanishads; later its scope widened to include all thoughts developed out of the Upanishads.

In this article, the term Godhead is used in the same spirit as "Bhagvaan” or "Parabrahman", intrinsic aspect of God analogous to waterness in water.

परिचयः ॥ Introduction

Philosophy is the search for an experience of Reality. The subject-matter of Indian philosophy, however, is not the entire Reality. It is more about the true nature of the Self. One of the postulates of Indian philosophy is that the Atman, loosely translated as soul in abrahmic texts, is the core of Self and its intrinsic nature full of Ananda. The realization of the true and native nature of the Self is another name for moksha. Vedanta adopted ideas from other Darshanas such as Yoga and Nyaya, and, over time, became the most prominent of the Astika Darshanas, influencing the sampradayas or diverse traditions within it. There are at least ten schools of Vedanta, of which Advaita Vedanta, Visishtadvaita, Dvaita and Bhedabheda are the best known.

The Self to be realized is usually confused with the Ahamkara or the individual ego that we are aware of. We mistake the ego for the true Self and that is the cause of our suffering. The ignorance of the true nature of the Self, which is free from all impurities, sorrows, etc., is the cause of bondage. This ignorance is called by different names. Nyaya calls it mithya jnana (illusory knowledge). Samkhya calls it lack of discernment between Purusha and Prakrti. Advaita siddhanta calls it Maya (illusion). Self-realization is achieved either through self-culture, or as in some forms of Vedanta, through divine grace.

All the Indian philosophical systems exhibit a twofold unity of outlook. There is first the “spiritual unity” in their outlook. This is brought out clearly by the common philosophical ideal of moksha, which is a spiritual experience, not an intellectual apprehension or an occult vision or a physical ecstasy. The second is the moral unity in outlook. All the systems, though they give differing accounts of moksha, are at one in holding that it cannot be attained by mere intellectual study.

As per recent Oxford University publications, there are five great unsolved questions in Philosophy which are:

1. Do we have free will (actions guided by us or are predetermined)?
2. Can we know (knowledge) anything at all (skepticism regarding epistemology)?
3. Who am “I”?(fundamental nature of human beings)
4. What is death (not physical death but as a psychological/sentient being)?
5. What would “global justice” look like?

The essential point in the above first four questions is that these questions are directly connected with consciousness.

व्युत्पत्तिः ॥ Etymology

The word Vedanta is a compound word made up of two Sanskrit words: ‘Veda’ and  ‘Anta’ meaning वेदानाम् अन्तः। or 'end of Vedas' and indeed, many of these texts are found at the end of each of the four Vedas. In Shabdakalpadhruma, Hemachandra mentions Vedanta to be Upanishads.

वेदान्तो नाम उपनिषत्-प्रमाणं तदुपकारीणि शारीरकसूत्रादीनि च । इति परमहंसपरिव्राजकाचार्य्य श्रीसदानन्द-योगीन्द्रविरचितवेदान्तसारः ॥

Vedanta signifies the Upanishads, the means of right knowledge (with respect to Self) and the Sharirika sutras and other (works) helpful in understanding them, as per Vedantasara (text) composed by Sadananda Yogindra Acharya.

At the end or culmination of the Vedas, in the sense that they embody the highest philosophical knowledge of the Vedas, Upanishads, are also called Uttara Mimamsa. Vedanta is also called Uttara Mimamsa, or the 'latter enquiry' or 'higher enquiry', and is often paired with Purva Mimamsa which deals with the previous part of the Vedas, namely the Brahmanas. Thus, both Purva and Uttara Mimamsa are directly based on the Vedas. Purva Mimasa refers to the 'former enquiry' or 'primary enquiry' in the Brahmana granthas, is also called Karma Mimamsa, or is simply called as Mimamsa. It deals with explanations of the Karma-kanda or rituals part of the Vedic mantras in Samhita and Brahmanas, while Uttara Mimamsa, also called as Vedanta or Jnana Mimamsa, deals with the philosophical knowledge of Upanishads or the Jnana-kanda of the Vedas.

Aims and Characteristics of Vedanta

The philosophy of Vedanta, like all other systems of thought, is an attempt to clearly understand and offer an explanation of all things (vastu vichara) in the world as it appears to us in our knowledge.

सर्व्वस्यापि वस्तुविचारोद्देशपूर्व्वकत्वात् प्रतिज्ञातं वेदान्तं नामतो निर्दिशति वेदान्त इति ।

It is an attempt to determine the nature of the ultimate reality and to understand how it presents before us a world of manifoldness, in order to clearly understand the place and destiny of man in the world system. Vedanta philosophy considers two very important questions: the theoretical determination of the nature of substance or reality underlying experience and of the origin of knowledge, and the ethical problem of duty and the ultimate ideal of human life. Both these questions are thoroughly discussed and solutions are offered in the system.

Nature of Texts

The Vedanta includes the class of literature under the heading Prasthana Trayi, namely the Upanishads, Brahmasutras or Sharirakasutras and Bhagavadgita. It essentially refers to the philosophy pronounced in the Upanishads, the final parts of the Vedas summarized in the Brahmasutras of Badarayana. All the diverse schools of Vedanta claim to propound the Upanishadic teaching. The Upanishads may be regarded as the end of Vedas in different senses:

1. The Samhita, Brahmana and the Upanishads collectively form the Vedas. The Upanishads discuss the philosophical aspects of the Vedas and with respect to their being at end of the Brahmana and Aranyaka texts they are termed Vedanta.
2. In respect to the their time of study, the Upanishads were studied the last, during the last two ashramas in a man's life namely the Vanaprastha and Sannyasa.
3. The Upanishads mark the culmination of Vedic thought.

Style of Composition of Vedanta Texts

A major portion of the Vedanta literature is composed in ‘Sutra’ format, or aphorisms, for example - अथातो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा। A ‘Sutra’ is a short statement/phrase/rule/letters which is capable of being remembered, in the oral tradition. The brevity of the Sutra, while making it easy to remember, provides the commentator opportunity to comment on that and draw his own interpretation. The commentaries are called as “Bhashya”, and the commentators ‘Bhashyakara’. Many a time, the commentator composed his own shlokas, for easy memorization, and provided his own commentary on what he has composed.

Goal of Life

All activity in the universe, of man and of every other living being, if analyzed, will be found to have for its object one of these three:- to be (to exist), to know, and to be happy. The goal of all thinking beings is

1. to exist always and everywhere
2. to know always and all things
3. to be happy always and under all conditions

Thus the innermost aim of man is to exist indefinitely, to have knowledge and happiness, absolutely unlimited by any restrictions of time or space. The seed to realize this aim of man is found in the instinctive abhorrence of death / suffering (opposite of existence), ignorance (opposite of knowing) and misery (the opposite of happiness). The three characteristics of existence, knowledge and happiness are thus essential to the very nature of conscious life and the attainment of a perfect state of these three characteristics is a supreme state beyond any kind of known limitation.

Person, Thing and The Supreme Entity

Sristhi or Creation is found to consist of entities which are either persons or things which have the characteristics of nama (name) and rupa (form). The words ‘organic’ and ‘inorganic’, ‘conscious’ and ‘unconscious’, ‘subject and object’, are often used instead of 'persons' and 'things'. However, here we allude to the terms person and things. Both the person and things have three inseparable characteristics:-

- A person: He is, he knows, he enjoys.

- A thing: It is, it is known, it is enjoyed.

The common characteristic therefore of a person and of a thing is that he or it is (i.e., he/it exists). The Vedanta teaches us the existence of a third entity which transcends and comprehends all creation and whose characteristics therefore are that it is, it knows and is known, enjoys and is enjoyed. Such a third entity is a Supreme Entity and has specific set of attributes, chiefly of transcendence. The highest goal of human life is the realization in actual experience of that Supreme Entity. This realization can be made possible only in successive stages of practical training. Note that the word ‘God’, in ordinary parlance, connotes a ‘personality’, ever so Supreme and Transcendent, while the word ‘Brahman’ signifies that Transcendent Supreme Being who is strictly impersonal.

Necessity for Right Understanding

Vedantic teachings, which were treasured as the highest and sublimest of truths reserved to be imparted only to the qualified and the tested, are in the recent centuries thrown broadcast so that they have become the common property of the worst sinner and the noblest saint. According to our Sastras the only standpoint from which we can really solve and realize the relationship between the subject or perceiver and the object or perceived is when we transcend both. No amount of reasoning can enable us to arrive at such a stage, for all reasoning assumes more or less the stable existence of the reasoning perceiver and of the perceived as well.

Thus, Vedanta teaches us to understand the concept of 'reality or stable existence' unravelling the relationship between the person and thing. Philosophers have either denied the existence of the person, thing or relationship between them.

- Some believe that the perceiver is a constant persistent individuality (Atman) and the universe is an everchanging restless mass of phenomena cognized by the perceiver as the objects of his perception, thus objects have no independent existence without the perceiver (Jagat-shunyavadins).

- Another set of philosophers assume the permanent existence of the perceived universe and seek to analyze the perceiver. The perceiver is not a constant individuality and has no independent existence without the perceived. Just like the water in the river is always flowing and is therefore impermanent and ever-changing, so also the Atman is only a notional entity - a mere void - an everchanging succession of perceptions of phenomena (Atma-shunyavadin).

These two sets of philosophers—the Jagatshunyavadis (Idealists) and the Atmashunyavadis (Materialists) — thus try to solve the relationship between the perceiver and the perceived by denying the existence of the one or the other.

- A third set of philosophers (Sankhyavadins) realize there is essential difference and incompatibility of the perceiver and the perceived. The perceiver is conscious, unchanging and unchangeable in essence. The perceived is unconscious and ever-changing. All sensation is the result of contact between these two. All pain and misery is the result of this contact whether it follows immediately or after a short-lived appearance of pleasure. Once we realize that the perceiver is not and cannot be in any way related to the perceived, we are free from pain and to that end must all activities be directed. This denial of relationship between the perceiver and the perceived, this insistence on their absolute distinctness, is the basis of the Samkhya school of philosophy.

Vedanta thus, studies the above aspects in detail, as different schools of thought have proposed a different interpretation of reality and creation of the universe.

Reality as Existence - Ontology in Vedanta

The quest of knowledge is the search for truth;the aim of philosophy is to discover Truth in its totality. It is well known that the six schools of Darshana shastras are the six gateways of knowledge. While pramanas like perception and inference give us relative truth, that which takes us to the absolutely real and the absolutely true is only the testimony of Shrutis. Metaphysics, it is said ,"sets itself more systematically than any other science, to ask what after all is meant by being real." It is defined as an enquiry into the meaning of reality. Aristotle calls it a science of being. So ontology, a term for the doctrine of Being, according to Vedanta may be defined in two ways.

- svarupa lakshana where one may directly state the essential characteristics or nature of an object (permanent nature)

- tatastha lakshana where one may distinguish an object from the rest by mentioning its accidental attributes (temporary nature)

For example, we can describe the essential nature of a house which is present in it so long as it lasts and distinguishes it from the rest. A house may also be demarcated from the rest by the accidental qualification of a crow perching on its roof, an attribute that marks the house only for a specific time and distinguishes it from the rest for a temporary period of time. The search for reality in the Upanishads and other texts, rests on the concept and characteristics of Brahman.

Right Knowledge

The nature of any system is largely determined by its methodology. Both Indian and western systems employ the objective and subjective methods in their approach to Truth. The great contribution of the Nyaya system is its elaborate and critical theories of investigation. All the problems pertaining to the theory of knowledge have been stated with remarkable clarity in an analytical fashion. The several instruments of knowledge or Pramanas, together with the possible pitfalls and fallacies have been set forth in a lucid manner. The Nyaya scheme of sixteen Padarthas or categories has supplied the Indian thinkers, through centuries, with the means of discriminating, quickly and surely the true from the false inferences making it an indispensable shastra to the study of all other systems.

Traditional Vedanta considers scriptural evidence, Vedas or Shabda pramāna, as the most authentic means of knowledge, while perception, or pratyaksa, and logical inference, or Anumana, are considered to be subordinate (but valid). Vedanta rejects ritual in favor of renunciation, which makes it irreconcilable with Mimamsa.

Schools of Vedanta

As discussed in the previous section, Badarayana's Brahmasutras attempted to set forth the unanimous teachings of the Upanishads and defend them against possible and actual objections. His sutras being brief, were open to different interpretations. Various commentaries thus came to be written to elaborate the doctrines of each Vedantic thought in their own light. Each of them tried to justify its position as the only one consistent with the revealed texts (Shrutis) and the sutras. The author of each of the chief commentaries (bhashya) became the founder of a particular school of Vedanta. We have various schools of Vedanta advocated by Sankaracharya, Ramanujacharya, Madhavacharya and later day proponents such as Vallabhacharya, Nimbarka, and Chaitanya Prabhu. The schools are named after the relation they see between Atman and Brahman and according to

1. Advaita Vedanta (Absolute Non-dualism) of Sri Adi Sankaracharya, there is no difference between jivatman and Brahman.
2. Dvaita (Absolute Dualism) of Sri Madhavacharya, the jivatman is totally different from Brahman. Even though he is similar to brahman, he is not identical.
3. Vishishtadvaita (Qualified Non-dualism) of Sri Ramanujacharya, the jivatman is a part of Brahman, and hence is similar, but not identical.
4. Shuddhadvaita (Pure Non-dualism) of Sri Vallabhacharya, the jivatman and Brahman are like sparks and fire, Jagat is real and the jivatman is clouded by nescience (avidya) due to Maya.
5. Dvaitadvaita or Bhedabheda (Non-dualism in Dualism) admitted by scholars like Bhaskara and Nimbarka, Bhartrprapancha Brahman is both different (bheda) and not different (abheda) from Jagat and the individual jivatman. Bhedabheda siddhanta upholds that the ultimate reality, as taught in the Upanishads, will be neither a bare unity not a mere plurality but a vital synthesis of both. This philosophy was upheld by scholars such as Bhaskara, Yadava, Nimbarka and Chaitanya belonging to different areas of India with slight differences in their postulates.
   1. Aupadhika Bhedabheda (Non-dualism in Dualism) of Bhaskara upholds the idea of Brahman as Absolute and the relative and distinguishes between chetana and achetana in the prapancha.
   2. Achintya-bhedabheda (Inconceivable difference and non-difference) of Sri Chaitanya Prabhu, advocates a simultaneous oneness and multiplicity of Brahman.
   3. Svabhavika-bhedabheda of Nimbarka, Yadavaprakasa and Bhartrprapancha (as per P. N. Srinivachari) there is a natural difference between Brahman and individual Atman: Brahman is the cause and is the ruler. Atman is not omnipotent it is the effect and it attains Brahman. There is the natural non-difference: Brahman pervades the universe (the effect) like clay in the jar.

Other than the Advaita school (and Vijnanabhikshu's Avibhaga-lakshanadvaita), every school of Vedanta recognizes the necessity of devotion or Bhakti in addition to knowledge as the means to the attainment of moksha or freedom from bondage.

Sivananda gives the following explanation:

Madhva said: "Man is the servant of God," and established his Dvaita philosophy. Ramanuja said: "Man is a ray or spark of God," and established his Visishtadvaita philosophy. Sankara said: "Man is identical with Brahman or the Eternal Soul," and established his Kevala Advaita philosophy.

Common Tenets of Darshanas and Vedanta

All the darshanik systems believe that the universe is a cosmos, but not a chaos. They postulate a central moral purpose as governing the universe. The universe is a moral order. There is a point in human life and purpose in the heart of the universe. The good that we do in this life is not without its reward. The evil takes its due toll from man. The universe is law abiding to the core. Moral life has its own purpose. As a corollary to this the systems postulate rebirth as well as pre-existence. They subscribe to the inevitable law of karma. Karma points out that the individual is responsible for his acts and not a mysterious fate. The conditions of life are determined but not the will of the agent. The law of Karma applies to the conditions that are being determined and not to the agent. Vedanta envisages the concept of Moksha as the possibility of liberation from bondage in Karma cycle. Each school differs in their presentation of the Supreme Entity and the cause of delusion and attachment of an individual in this world.

The chief subject matter of Vedanta in Brahma sutras involves ब्रह्मनिरूपणम् । meaning "revealing Brahman." The schools of Vedanta seek to answer questions about the relation between Atman and Brahman, and the relation between Brahman and Jagat, the world. Even though there are many sub-schools of vedantic philosophy, all these schools share common features, that can be called the vedantic core:

• Concept of Brahman - Brahman is the supreme cause of the entire universe and is all pervading and eternal, as found in the Prasthanatrayi. It involves an understanding of Reality, the ultimate Truth, knowledge of Brahman (Self), experience of consciousness, relationship and causality of man and universe, Avidya (ignorance), Maya (illusion) etc. All schools support this Supreme Entity though they differ in the way they express the qualities regarding Brahman.
• Concept of Atman - Atman is the transcendental background of both individual self and non-self, expressed as self or consciousness. The same reality is called from the subjective side as Atman and from the objective side as Brahman and both terms are used as synonyms. All systems explain Atman, Jivatman, to support plurality of beings.
• Concept of Karma - Actions or karma help prepare the mind (Chittashuddhi) for knowledge or devotion; and once this is achieved, selfish actions and their rewards are renounced. Actions, knowledge and devotion are three paths to attain knowledge of the self. Karma is intricately related to rewards of action such as Papa (demerits) and Punya (merits) which are adrstha or unseen effects.
• Concept of Dharma - Atman can be realized by one who does practice self-control, desirelessness, and concentration of mind. Moral purity is the indispensable pre-requisite of knowledge of atman. Karma is not excluded from moral life.
• Concept of Punarjanma - Bondage is subjection to Saṃsāra due to attachment to results or fruits of actions. Death and rebirth, is cyclical and results from attachment to karmaphala and Nishkama Karma leads one to escape this Punarjama cycle. Punarjanma is again a fundamental concept widely accepted and discussed in many ancient Indian texts.
• Concept of Moksha - Liberation is deliverance from the punarjanma cycle leads to Moksha. It is regarded as the highest aim of human life.

To attain the highest goal of human life, the successive stages in the realization are summarized as:

• Realization of the distinction between ‘person’ and ‘thing’.
• Realization of the identity between ‘thing' and the Supreme Entity.
• Realization of the identity between ‘person’ and the Supreme Entity.
• Realization of the absolute truth/reality of the Supreme Entity alone, and not ‘person’ or ‘thing’ as such.

All schools of Vedanta subscribe to the theory of Satkāryavāda, which means that the effect is pre-existent in the cause. But there are two different views on the status of the "effect", that is, the world. Most schools of Vedanta, as well as Samkhya, support Parinamavada, the idea that the world is a real transformation (Parinama) of Brahman. According to Nicholson, "the Brahma Sutras also espouse the realist Parinamavada position, which appears to have been the view most common among early Vedantins". In contrast to Badarayana, Adi Shankara and Advaita Vedantists hold a different view, Vivartavada, which says that the effect, the world, is merely an unreal (vivarta) transformation of its cause, Brahman.

Differences Among Vedanta Sampradayas

The concept of Brahman, its nature and its relationship with Atman and the observed universe, is a major point of difference between the various Sampradayas or sub-schools of the Vedanta Darshana. The critique of various Acharyas about Vedanta philosophy may broadly be grouped under eight headings:

1. Pramanas or means of knowledge
2. Perception and difference
3. The nature of Consciousness
4. The individual self and Absolute
5. The Nirguna Brahman (Attributeless/unqualified Absolute)
6. Jagat or Universe
7. The doctrine of Avidya
8. Sadhana and Mukti

Each sampradaya differed from others in having specific viewpoints about one or more of the above concepts.

Bhedābheda

Bhedabheda (bheda-abheda), which means "difference and non-difference" refers to a siddhanta which admits that individual self (jīvātman) is both different and not different from Brahman. This siddhanta goes back to vedic times with thinkers like Asmarathya, Audulomin and Kasakrsna offering a dualistic cum monistic interpretation of the Upanishadic passages. According to Nakamura and Dasgupta, the Brahmasutras reflect a Bhedabheda point of view, the most influential school of Vedanta before Shankara. All Bhedābheda schools share the understanding of the relation between individual self (jīvātman) and Brahman as one of part and whole; the doctrine that the phenomenal world is a real transformation of Brahman (Pariṇāmavāda); and the doctrine that liberation can only be attained by means of a combination of knowledge and ritual action (Jñānakarmasamuccayavāda), not by knowledge alone. All Bhedābhedavādins maintain the reality of the phenomenal world and the multiplicity of individual selves. Bhakti found a place in later proponents of this school such as Nimbarka and Sri Chaitanya. While Bhaskara insists on the essential unity of the jiva and Brahman and Yadavaprakasa treats Ishvara and jiva as the two essential aspects of the absolute, Nimbarka refers to the jiva as a distinct entity that derives its being from Brahman and depends on it.

Aupadhika Bhedabheda: Bhaskara, accepts the three realities: Brahman or Ishvara, jiva and jagat (world). Brahman is the cause of the world, its creator, supporter, and destroyer. Brahman is both the material and efficient cause of the world and is known only from scriptural authority. Bhaskara strongly held that the world is a transformation (parinama) of one absolute abstract unity or Brahman (Brahmaparinamavada) who is real, original and natural form into many forms by means of limiting conditions (upadhi) as the principle of self differentiation at the time of creation. Hence, the difference though real is adventitious or aupadhika as there is difference and non-difference due to limiting conditions. During liberation and dissolution the self and the world are completely identical with Brahman. He equates Brahman with Vishnu, Narayana, and Vaasudeva.

Svabhavika-bhedabheda: Nimbarka, Nimbaditya or Niyamananda a Telugu Brahmana, revived the philosophy of earlier bhedabhedavadins such as Ashmarathya, Bhartrprapancha, and Yadavaprakasa along with his amendments and modifications. Also called Sanakasampradaya of Vaishnavism, it is greatly indebted to Ramanujacharya. Notably Nimbarka refers to the Shri and Brahma sampradayas of Ramanujacharya and Madhavacharya respectively. Nimbarka does not regard Brahman as purely formless and distinction-less as Bhaskara does. Bhaskara's Brahman is nirvisesha (closer to Advaita siddhanta), a pure unity or identity, but Nimbarka's Brahman is savisesha, always having internal natural differences, hence the school is called Svabhavika-bhedabheda. Jiva-jagat are never absolutely identical with Brahman (as in Advaita vedanta) and always retain their own individuality and separateness even during liberation and dissolution. Nimbarka regarded that the grace of Krishna generates devotion. This school is also referred to as Dvaitadvaita also.

Achintya-Bheda-Abheda: Founded by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Achintya-Bheda-Abheda represents the philosophy of inconceivable one-ness and difference. The tradition of Achintya-bhedabheda is also commonly known as Gaudiya Vaishnavism, common in West Bengal elaborated by Baladeva. It is described as Achintya or inconceivable because the identity in difference is essentially indescribable and unthinkable due to the inconceivable power of Brahman or Shrikrishna. The teachings of Chaitanya are based mainly on the Bhagavata. Concept of Achintya is accepted to reconcile the apparent contradictions in the nature of Brahman. Jivas are innumerable and remain distinct even in liberation. They emanate from Brahman like rays from the sun and are absolutely dependent on Him. Bhakti is the sole means of liberation. Krishna and Radha are dual and distinct as the lover and the beloved and yet are non-dual in their essence.

Shuddhādvaita

Shuddhadvaita was propounded by Vallabhacharya, a Telugu Brahmana. This system also identifies Bhakti as the only means of liberation, 'to go to Goloka' (lit., the world of cows; the Sankrit word 'go', 'cow', also means 'star'), through "Pushtimarga." Pusti means the divine grace which dawns through devotion and is the cause of liberation.

Brahman is the independent reality and is identified with Shrikrishna. The world is said to be the sport (līlā) of Krishna, whose essence is Sat-Chit-Ananda or, "existence knowledge and bliss". According to this school Maya or the world (jagat) is not unreal (‘jagat mithya’) as in the Advaita of Shankaracharya, but the entire universe is real and is subtly Brahman only. Jiva and jagat are the real manifestations of Brahman and the relationship is that of whole and parts.

Vallabhacharya differs from Shankaracharya in that he proposes the Maya or Avidya is the power of Brahman through which he manifests the world but it is neither an illusion nor an error. It is real manifestation, Avikṛta Pariṇāmavāda, where the universe is a natural emanation from Brahman which does not involve a notion or change (parinama) and is not an unreal appearance (vivarta). The individual soul (Jiva or jivatma) and Brahman are in "essence" not different, like sparks and fire. Jiva is both a ‘doer’ and ‘enjoyer’. It is atomic in size but it pervades the whole body through its essence of intelligence (like scent of sandalwood, even if it can't be seen). Vallabhacharya says that the Jiva is not Supreme, nor it is Sat-chit-ananda; being clouded by the force of ignorance (‘avidya’) it is therefore devoid of bliss (ananda).

Advaita Vedānta

Advaita Vedanta holds that Shuddha-chaitanya or Pure Consciousness has three forms

1. as associated with (that is, manifested as) the subject or knower (or Consciousness limited by the mind), the Jiva (pramatr) - Pramatr-chaitanyam
2. as associated with the object (Vishaya) - Vishaya-chaitanyam
3. as associated with the mental state/antahkarana (pramana) - Pramana-chaitanyam

According to Advaita, all six sources of knowledge- Pratyaksha (perception), Anumana (inference), Upamana (comparison), Shabda (verbal testimony), and Anupalabdhi (non-apprehension). Perception of any external object (that is present and capable of being perceived) takes place when these three occupy the same space, by the mental state issuing through the sense organ and spreading over the object so as to assume the same form - like the water of a tank reaching a field through a channel and taking the shape of the field. Advaita Vedanta expounds the qualities or attributes of Brahman as follows.

1. Brahman is the sole unchanging ultimate reality,
2. It is pure being, non-dual, immutable, eternal and devoid of all attributes.
3. Brahman is the origin and end of all things, material and beyond.
4. Brahman is the root source of everything that exists, both material and instrumental cause of this creation.
5. It can neither be taught nor perceived (as an object of knowledge), but it can be learned and realized by all human beings.
6. The knowledge of Brahman that shruti provides cannot be obtained in any other means besides self inquiry.
7. Brahman is not outside, as a separate, dual entity, but is within each person.
8. Brahman is beyond subject-object relation, both of which are transcended in higher states of consciousness.
9. Brahman is Sat-chit-ananda (Tait. Upan. 2.1.1) or existence, knowledge and bliss. Thus, Consciousness is not a property of Brahman but its very nature.

The goal of Advaita Vedanta is to realize that one's Self (Jiva or Atman) gets obscured by ignorance and false-identification termed Avidya or Maya. When the veil of Avidya is removed, the Atman is realized as identical with Brahman. This view is stated in this school in many different forms, such as "Ekam sat" ("Truth is one"), and "sarvam khavidam brahma" all is Brahman. Summarizing the major tenets of Advaita Vedanta

1. The purpose of philosophy is to help Jiva (the human being) achieve Moksha purusartha i.e., to free himself from the bondage (Samsara) of Karma leading to the cycle of births and death.
2. The bondage, according to Advaita, is the result of ‘Avidya’, or ignorance, a universal human problem. It emphasizes that the self (atman) is never bound, and is eternally liberated.
3. Bondage is universal to all beings and continues as long as the Avidya or ignorance persists.
4. Avidya exists because it leads to a notion of apparent separation (bheda) where none exist.
5. Avidya or ignorance can only be overcome by acquiring ‘vidya’ or 'jnana', that is the knowledge. It is acquired by knowing at the deep psychological levels that individual distinctions are false, especially the distinction between the knower and the known.
6. The awareness or Sakshi is defined as the real self of the Jiva, which is the real knowledge, free from subject-object distinctions, and is pure consciousness (chit, anubhava)
7. The same real self, is not different from the ultimate universal principle, the Brahman. If the ‘Brahman’ was conceived as an object of self-awareness, then it would involve a subject-object relation, which is at the base of “avidya”, that is ignorance.
8. Truth is that knowledge which is never contradicted or set aside as false and is not affected (badha). By the above criteria, “Brahman” is the only ultimate reality, since it is not affected by ignorance, and it is one thing not sublatable, since sublation depends on consciousness.
9. Pure consciousness is experienced during deep sleep. Since we awake refreshed, it is inferred that the true consciousness is also ultimate bliss.

Vishishtadvaita

Visishtadvaita was propounded by Rāmānuja (1017–1137 CE) who says that the jīvātman is a part of Brahman, and hence is similar, but not identical. The main difference from Advaita is that in Visishtadvaita, the Brahman is determinate and asserted to have attributes (Saguna or savisesha). All knowledge involves distinctions and there is no undifferentiated pure consciousness, identity is always qualified by difference. Brahman, matter and the individual souls are distinct but mutually inseparable entities. This school propounds Bhakti or devotion to God visualized as Vishnu to be the path to liberation. Māyā is seen as the creative power of God.

According to Visishtadvaita, there are three sources of knowledge- Shabda (verbal testimony), Pratyaksha (perception) and Anumana (inference). All the three sources should have character, in order to establish a proof. Some important tenets of Visishtadvaita

1. Striking feature of this philosophy is the attempt to unite personal theism with the philosophy of the Absolute.
2. He refutes the basic tenet of Advaita, that Supreme reality is unqualified (Nirvisesha). This cannot be proved, as all proofs are based on the assumption of qualified character. Vedic and other texts do not speak about the unqualified character of the supreme reality.
3. The Advaita school holds that the unqualified nature of the absolute reality can be experienced directly. However, even in direct experience, some traits of Supreme reality have to be qualified (Savikalpa), for experiencing according to Ramanujacharya.
4. Regarding perception, it is held that any perception, if it is to manifest, has to have character (Savikalpa pratyakhya). Hence, Ramanuja holds that perception without character (nirvisesha) is not possible.
5. Inference is based on perception and hence it has also revealed a thing with certain characteristics. Hence, it cannot remain unqualified.
6. Shankara’s assertion is that perception relates to pure beings and pure beings alone. If that were to be true, then characteristic differences are necessary to distinguish one from the other, like saying, ‘this is a jug’ and ‘this is a cloth’. If all objects are perceived to be false, there can be no differences between the objects.
7. Shankara states that the world looks like a manifold entity due to ‘dosha’, or ‘Avidya’ (defect). Ramanuja states that Avidya needs support, and cannot exist by itself. It cannot exist in individual souls, as they themselves are results of ‘Avidya’.
8. Ramanujacharya holds that all knowledge is real. He gives the example of conch shell and silver. If an illusion has to appear, it has to be like another reality. A conch shell cannot appear like imaginary silver.
9. Jagat is alluded to have formed from Brahman and is described as Parinama-vada rather than Vivartavada.

Dvaita

Dvaita was propounded by Madhwāchārya (1199–1278 CE). It is also referred to as tatvavādā - The Philosophy of Reality. It identifies God with Brahman completely, and in turn with Vishnu or his various incarnations like Krishna, Narasimha, Srinivāsa etc. In that sense it is also known as sat-vaishnava philosophy to differentiate from the Vishishtadvaita school known by sri-vaishnavism. It regards Brahman, all individual souls (jīvātmans) and matter as eternal and mutually separate entities. This school also advocates Bhakti as the route to sattvic liberation whereas hatred (Dvesha)-literally 'twoness') and indifference towards the Lord will lead to eternal hell and eternal bondage respectively. Liberation is the state of attaining maximum joy or sorrow, which is awarded to individual souls (at the end of their sādhana), based on the souls' inherent and natural disposition towards good or evil. The achintya-adbhuta shakti (the immeasurable power) of Lord Vishnu is seen as the efficient cause of the universe and the primordial matter or prakrti is the material cause. Dvaita also propounds that all action is performed by the Lord energizing every soul from within, awarding the results to the soul but Himself not affected in the least by the results.

Brahman of Dvaita is a concept similar to God in major world religions. Dvaita holds that the individual soul is dependent on God, but distinct.

Dvaita propounds Tattvavada which means understanding differences between Tattvas (significant properties) of entities within the universal substrate as follows:

1. Jîva-Îshvara-bheda — difference between the soul and Vishnu
2. Jada-Îshvara-bheda — difference between the insentient and Vishnu
3. Mitha-jîva-bheda — difference between any two souls
4. Jada-jîva-bheda — difference between insentient and the soul
5. Mitha-jada-bheda — difference between any two insentients

Discussion

Brahman as a metaphysical concept

Brahman is the key metaphysical concept in various schools of Hindu philosophy. It is the theme in its diverse discussions to the two central questions of metaphysics: what is ultimately real, and are there principles applying to everything that is real?Brahman is the ultimate "eternally, constant" reality, while the observed universe is different kind of reality but one which is "temporary, changing" Māyā in various orthodox Hindu schools. Māyā pre-exists and co-exists with Brahman – the Ultimate Reality, The Highest Universal, the Cosmic Principles.

In addition to the concept of Brahman, Hindu metaphysics includes the concept of Atman – or soul, self – which is also considered ultimately real. The various schools of Hinduism, particularly the dual and non-dual schools, differ on the nature of Atman, whether it is distinct from Brahman, or same as Brahman. Those that consider Brahman and Atman as distinct are theistic, and Dvaita Vedanta and later Nyaya schools illustrate this premise. Those that consider Brahman and Atman as same are monist or pantheistic, and Advaita Vedanta, later Samkhya and Yoga schools illustrate this metaphysical premise. In schools that equate Brahman with Atman, Brahman is the sole, ultimate reality. The predominant teaching in the Upanishads is the adhyatmik identity of soul within each human being, with the soul of every other human being and living being, as well as with the supreme, ultimate reality Brahman.

In the metaphysics of the major schools of Hinduism, Maya is perceived reality, one that does not reveal the hidden principles, the true reality – the Brahman. Maya is unconscious, Brahman-Atman is conscious. Maya is the literal and the effect, Brahman is the figurative Upādāna – the principle and the cause. Maya is born, changes, evolves, dies with time, from circumstances, due to invisible principles of nature. Atman-Brahman is eternal, unchanging, invisible principle, unaffected absolute and resplendent consciousness. Maya concept, states Archibald Gough, is "the indifferent aggregate of all the possibilities of emanatory or derived existences, pre-existing with Brahman", just like the possibility of a future tree pre-exists in the seed of the tree.

While Hinduism sub-schools such as Advaita Vedanta emphasize the complete equivalence of Brahman and Atman, they also expound on Brahman as saguna Brahman – the Brahman with attributes, and nirguna Brahman – the Brahman without attributes. The nirguna Brahman is the Brahman as it really is, however, the saguna Brahman is posited as a means to realizing nirguna Brahman, but the Hinduism schools declare saguna Brahman to be ultimately illusory. The concept of the saguna Brahman, such as in the form of avatars, is considered in these schools of Hinduism to be a useful symbolism, path and tool for those who are still on their adhyatmik journey, but the concept is finally cast aside by the fully enlightened.

Brahman as an ontological concept

Brahman, along with Soul/Self (Atman) are part of the ontological premises of Bharat's philosophy. Different schools of Bharat's philosophy have held widely dissimilar ontologies. Buddhism and Carvaka school of Hinduism deny that there exists anything called "a soul, a self" (individual Atman or Brahman in the cosmic sense), while the orthodox schools of Hinduism, Jainism and Ajivikas hold that there exists "a soul, a self".

Brahman as well the Atman in every human being (and living being) is considered equivalent and the sole reality, the eternal, self-born, unlimited, innately free, blissful Absolute in schools of Hinduism such as the Advaita Vedanta and Yoga. Knowing one's own self is knowing the God inside oneself, and this is held as the path to knowing the ontological nature of Brahman (universal Self) as it is identical to the Atman (individual Self). The nature of Atman-Brahman is held in these schools, states Barbara Holdrege, to be as a pure being (sat), consciousness (cit) and full of bliss (ananda), and it is formless, distinctionless, nonchanging and unbounded.

In theistic schools, in contrast, such as Dvaita Vedanta, the nature of Brahman is held as eternal, unlimited, innately free, blissful Absolute, while each individual's soul is held as distinct and limited which can at best come close in eternal blissful love of the Brahman (therein viewed as the Godhead).

Other schools of Hinduism have their own ontological premises relating to Brahman, reality and nature of existence. Vaisheshikaschool of Hinduism, for example, holds a substantial, realist ontology. The Carvaka school denied Brahman and Atman, and held a materialist ontology.

Brahman as an axiological concept

Brahman and Atman are key concepts to Hindu theories of axiology: ethics and aesthetics. Ananda (bliss), state Michael Myers and other scholars, has axiological importance to the concept of Brahman, as the universal inner harmony. Some scholars equate Brahman with the highest value, in an axiological sense.

The axiological concepts of Brahman and Atman is central to Hindu theory of values. A statement such as ‘I am Brahman’, states Shaw, means ‘I am related to everything,’ and this is the underlying premise for compassion for others in Hinduism, for each individual's welfare, peace, or happiness depends on others, including other beings and nature at large, and vice versa.Tietge states that even in non-dual schools of Hinduism where Brahman and Atman are treated ontologically equivalent, the theory of values emphasize individual agent and ethics. In these schools of Hinduism, states Tietge, the theory of action are derived from and centered in compassion for the other, and not egotistical concern for the self.

The axiological theory of values emerges implicitly from the concepts of Brahman and Atman, states Bauer. The aesthetics of human experience and ethics are one consequence of self-knowledge in Hinduism, one resulting from the perfect, timeless unification of one's soul with the Brahman, the soul of everyone, everything and all eternity, wherein the pinnacle of human experience is not dependent on an afterlife, but pure consciousness in the present life itself. It does not assume that an individual is weak nor does it presume that he is inherently evil, but the opposite: human soul and its nature is held as fundamentally unqualified, faultless, beautiful, blissful, ethical, compassionate and good. Ignorance is to assume it evil, liberation is to know its eternal, expansive, pristine, happy and good nature. The axiological premises in the Hindu thought and Bharat's philosophies in general, states Nikam, is to elevate the individual, exalting the innate potential of man, where the reality of his being is the objective reality of the universe. The Upanishads of Hinduism, summarizes Nikam, hold that the individual has the same essence and reality as the objective universe, and this essence is the finest essence; the individual soul is the universal soul, and Atman is the same reality and the same aesthetics as the Brahman.

Brahman as a soteriological concept: Moksha

Main article: Moksha

The orthodox schools of Hinduism, particularly Vedanta, Samkhya and Yoga schools, focus on the concept of Brahman and Atman in their discussion of moksha. The Advaita Vedanta holds there is no being/non-being distinction between Atman and Brahman. The knowledge of Atman (Self-knowledge) is synonymous to the knowledge of Brahman inside the person and outside the person. Furthermore, the knowledge of Brahman leads to sense of oneness with all existence, self-realization, indescribable joy, and moksha (freedom, bliss), because Brahman-Atman is the origin and end of all things, the universal principle behind and at source of everything that exists, consciousness that pervades everything and everyone.

The theistic sub-school such as Dvaita Vedanta of Hinduism, starts with the same premises, but adds the premise that individual souls and Brahman are distinct, and thereby reaches entirely different conclusions where Brahman is conceptualized in a manner similar to God in other major world religions. The theistic schools assert that moksha is the loving, eternal union or nearness of one's soul with the distinct and separate Brahman (Vishnu, Shivaor equivalent henotheism). Brahman, in these sub-schools of Hinduism is considered the highest perfection of existence, which every soul journeys towards in its own way for moksha.