SRI ISOPANISHAD

- Sri Ishopanishad is an Upanishad.

- It is the final chapter (adhyaaya) of the Shukla Yajurveda
- It is a Mukhya (primary, principal) Upanishad.
- It is a Shruti
- It is a key scripture in Vedanta.
- It is the 40th chapter of Yajurveda.
- It’s name comes from the first shloka “eeshaa Vaasyam” meaning “Controlled by the Lord”
- It is referenced by both Dvaita (dualism) and Advaita (non-dualism) sub-schools of Vedanta
- Isha Upanishad is the only Upanishad that is attached to a Samhita. (Other Upanishads are
attached to a later layer of Vedic texts such as Brahmanas and Aranyakas.)
Indian Philosophy
- Indian philosophy refers to philosophical traditions of the Indian subcontinent.
- A traditional Hindu classification divides āstika and nāstika schools of philosophy

Āstika means one who believes in the existence of a Self or Brahman, etc. It has been defined
in one of three ways.

1. as those who accept the epistemic authority of the Vedas;

2. as those who accept the existence of ātman;
3. as those who accept the existence of Ishvara.

Nāstika in contrast, are those who deny all the respective definitions of āstika;] they do not
believe in the existence of Self.

The six most studied Āstika schools of Indian philosophies are Nyāyá, Vaiśeṣika, Sāṃkhya, Yoga,
Mīmāṃsā, and Vedānta.
The four most studied Nāstika schools of Indian philosophies, sometimes referred to as heterodox
schools, are Buddhism, Jainism, Chārvāka, Ajñana, and Ājīvika.
Many Hindu intellectual traditions were classified during the medieval period of Brahmanic-Sanskritic
scholasticism into a standard list of six orthodox (Astika) schools (darshanas), the "Six Philosophies"
(ṣaḍ-darśana), all of which accept the testimony of the Vedas.
These "Six Philosophies" (ṣaḍ-darśana) are:
1. Sāṃkhya, a philosophical tradition which regards the universe as consisting of two
independent realities: puruṣa (the perceiving consciousness) and prakṛti (perceived reality,
including mind, perception, kleshas, and matter) and which describes a soteriology based on
this duality, in which purush is discerned and disentangled from the impurities of prakriti. It
has included atheistic authors as well as some theistic thinkers, and forms the basis of much
of subsequent Indian philosophy.
2. Yoga, a school similar to Sāṃkhya (or perhaps even a branch of it) which accepts a personal
god and focuses on yogic practice.
3. Nyāya, a philosophy which focuses on logic and epistemology. It accepts six kinds of
pramanas (epistemic warrants): (1) perception, (2) inference, (3) comparison and analogy, (4)
postulation, derivation from circumstances, (5) non-perception, negative/cognitive proof and
 (6) word, testimony of past or present reliable experts. Nyāya defends a form of direct
realism and a theory of substances (dravya).
4. Vaiśeṣika, closely related to the Nyāya school, this tradition focused on the metaphysics of
substance, and on defending a theory of atoms. Unlike Nyāya, they only accept two
pramanas: perception and inference.
5. Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā, a school which focuses on exegesis of the Vedas, philology and the
interpretation of Vedic ritual.
6. Vedānta (also called Uttara Mīmāṃsā), focuses on interpreting the philosophy of the
Upanishads, particularly the soteriological and metaphysical ideas relating to Atman and
Brahman.
511002 - Letter to Mr. Bailey written from Allahabad
“Indian philosophies mean generally the Sada Darsana or the six different schools of philosophers
namely, 1. the Mimamsa, 2. Sankhya, 3. Nyaya, 4. Mayavada [Vaisesika?], 5. Patanjal [Yoga] and 6. the
Vedanta.”
“The last named Vedanta Darshan was compiled by Sri Vyasa after a thorough refutation of all other
five Darshans and therefore Vedanta is accepted by all Indian scholars and no body is recognized as
bona fide who has no interpretation of this Vedanta Darshan.”
“The Western philosophers mostly of the Sankhya school have less aquaintance with the Vedanta
Darshan and philosophers like Kant, Mill, Aristotle or Schopenhauer etc all belong to either of the
above five Darshans except Vedanta because limited human thinking power cannot go beyond that
stage. But Vedanta Darshan is far beyond the limited mental speculation of the human brain
conditioned by material nature.”
“Unfortunately Sankara who belonged to the Mayavada school made a misinterpretation of the
Vedanta for his own purpose to convert the Buddhists in India.”
“Other Acharyas such as Ramanuja, Madhva etc and lately Sri Chaitanya - all belong to the original
Vedantist school by direct disciplic succession.”
“According to these Acharyas Bhagawat Gita and Sreemad Bhagwat are, in their original stand, the
real commentaries of the Vedanta Sutras.”
“The Mayavadins who do not actually belong to the Vedanta school have overcast a cloud
unnecessarily over the Bhagwat Gita and therefore common people are misled by them. In other
words they have no entrance in the Vedanta Darshan so to say.”
“It is not at all necessary that an ailing person shall oblige all classes of physicians for the sake of
their being medical practitioners only. The patient must be treated by such physician only who is able
to cure him.”
“Philosophical ways are practical, and it is no use simply by indulging in speculation without any
practical result just like to keep a cow without any milk. We must always seek a practical value from
philosophy for the benefit of all.”
Krishna Book Audio Dictation – CH 87

Those who have tried to understand the supreme source by their mental speculation, they
are divided into different kinds of philosophers. Such philosophers are generally known as
six kinds of mental speculators. The exact word is ṣaḍa-darśana. All these philosophers are
impersonalist, generally known as Māyāvādīs. Every one of them has tried to establish his
own opinion, and later on they have made a compromise that all opinions are leading to the
same goal; therefore, every opinion is valid. But according to the prayers of the personified
Vedas, none of them are valid because their process of knowledge is created within the
temporary material world. Every one of them has missed the real point that the Supreme
Personality of Godhead, or the supreme source, the Absolute Truth, can be understood only
by devotional service.
As such, the class of philosophers known as Mīmāṁsakas, represented by sages like Jaimini,
have concluded that everyone should be engaged in pious activities or prescribed duties,
and that will lead one to the highest perfection. But this fact is contradicted in the
Bhagavad-gītā by Lord Kṛṣṇa, because in the Ninth Chapter of the Bhagavad-gītā the Lord
says that by pious activities one may be elevated to the higher planetary system as heaven,
but as soon as the resultant action of pious activities or the enjoyment of higher standard of
material prosperities in the heavenly planets, when one becomes deteriorated of the action
of pious activities, immediately they come down again on these lower planets, where
duration of life is very short and where the standard of material happiness is of lower grade.
The exact word used in this connection is kṣīṇe puṇye martya-lokaṁ viśanti (BG 9.21).
Therefore, the conclusion of the Mīmāṁsaka that pious activities only can lead one to the
Absolute Truth is not veritable.

From the Bhagavad-gītā we understand that even a person not to the standard of
pious activities but is absolutely engaged in the devotional service, such persons are
to be considered as well situated on the path of spiritual perfection. It is also said in
the Bhagavad-gītā that a person who is engaged in devotional service with love and
faith is guided by the Supreme Personality of Godhead from within, and the Lord
Himself as Paramātmā, or the spiritual master sitting within one's heart, gives the
devotee exact direction by which gradually he can go back to home, back to
Godhead. As such, the conclusion of the Mīmāṁsaka as above-mentioned is not
actually the truth which can lead one to the real understanding of the things.
Similarly, there are Sāṅkhya philosopher, or the metaphysist or the material
scientist, who study this cosmic manifestation by their invented scientific method
and thus wrongly conclude that the wonderful activities or reaction of material
elements is the original cause of creation. Such scientists or metaphysist
philosophers do not recognize the supreme authority, God, as the creator of cosmic
manifestation. The Bhagavad-gītā, however, does not accept this theory, and it is
clearly said there that behind this cosmic activities the direction is of the Supreme
Personality of Godhead. This fact is corroborated by a Vedic injunction, sad evā
saumyedam agra āsīt, (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.2.1), which means the origin of the
creation existed before the cosmic manifestation; therefore, the material elements
cannot be the cause of material creation, although they are accepted as material
cause, but the efficient cause is the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself. The
Bhagavad-gītā says, therefore, that under the direction of Kṛṣṇa the material nature
works.
The conclusion of the Sāṅkhya philosophy that the effects being temporary or
illusion, the cause is also illusion. Such philosophers are in favor of voidism, but the
actual fact is that the original cause is person, and this cosmic manifestation is
temporary manifestation of the material energy of the Supreme Personality of
Godhead. When this temporary manifestation is annihilated, the cause of the
temporary manifestation, the eternal existence of the spiritual world, continues as it
is, and therefore the spiritual world is called sanātana-dhāma, eternal abode.
Conclusion of the Sāṅkhya philosopher is not therefore truth.
Then again, there are philosophers headed by Gautama and Kaṇāda, they have very
minutely studied cause and effect of the material elements, and ultimately they have
come to the conclusion that atomic combination is the original cause of creation. At
present, materialistic scientists also follow the footsteps of Gautama-Kaṇāda, who
had propounded the theory of Paramāṇuvāda. This theory also cannot be supported
because the original cause of everything is not inert atoms. From Bhagavad-gītā and
Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, as well as from Vedas, wherein it is stated eko nārāyaṇa asit
(Nārāyaṇa Upaniṣad 4): "Only Nārāyaṇa existed before the creation," the Śrīmad-
Bhāgavatam or Vedānta-sūtra also says that the original cause is sentient and
cognizant indirectly, directly of everything of this creation. The Bhagavad-gītā says
ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavaḥ, "I am the original cause of everything." Mattaḥ sarvaṁ
pravartate (BG 10.8):
"From Me everything comes into existence." Therefore, the atoms may be the basic
combination of material existence, but the atoms are generated from the Supreme
Personality of Godhead. As such, the philosophy of Gautama and Kaṇāda cannot be
supported.
Similarly, impersonalists headed by Aṣṭāvakra and later on by Śaṅkarācārya accept
the impersonal Brahma effulgence as the cause of everything. According to their
theory, the material manifestation is temporary and unreal, whereas the impersonal
Brahma effulgence is the reality. But this theory also cannot be supported because
the Lord Himself says in the Bhagavad-gītā that this Brahma effulgence is resting on
His personality. This is confirmed in the Brahma-saṁhitā also, that the Brahma
effulgence is the personal bodily rays of Kṛṣṇa. As such, impersonal Brahma cannot
be the cause of the cosmic manifestation. The original cause is all-perfect sentient
Personality of Godhead, Govinda.
Of all the above theories, the most dangerous theory of the impersonalist is that the
incarnation of God, or when God comes as incarnation, He accepts a material body
of the three modes of material nature. This theory of the Māyāvādī has been
condemned by Lord Caitanya as the most offensive. He has said that anyone who
accepts the transcendental body of the Personality of Godhead as made of this
material nature commits the greatest offense on the lotus feet of Viṣṇu. A similar
statement is made in the Bhagavad-gītā, that only the fools and rascals deride at the
Personality of Godhead because Kṛṣṇa, Rāma or Lord Caitanya move amongst the
human society as human being.

All these speculated theories—Gautama, Kaṇāda, Pataṣjali, Kapila (within bracket)

(nirīśvara). There are two Kapilas: one is incarnation of God, son of Kardama Muni,
and later on another Kapila, who is atheist, in the modern age. The atheist Kapila is
misrepresented as the Supreme Personality of Godhead who appeared as the son of
Kardama Muni during the time of Svāyambhuva Manu. Lord Kapila incarnation of
Godhead appeared long, long ago, because the modern age is called the age of
Vaivasvata Manu, whereas He appeared during the time of Svāyambhuva Manu.
Next paragraph.
According to Māyāvādi philosophy, this manifested world, or the material world, is
māyā, or false. They speak of this material world as mithyā, or false. Their preaching
principle is brahma satyaṁ jagan mithyā. According to them, the Brahma effulgence
is only true, and this cosmic manifestation is illusion, or false. But according to
Vaiṣṇava philosophy, this cosmic manifestation is also caused by the Supreme Per-
sonality of Godhead. From the Bhagavad-gītā we can understand that the Lord says
that by one of His plenary portion He enters within this material world, and thus the
creation takes place.
From Vedas also we can understand that this asat, or temporary cosmic manifesta-
tion, is also emanation from the supreme sat, or fact. From Vedānta-sūtra it is also
understood that everything has emanated from the Brahma. As such, the Vaiṣṇavas
do not take this cosmic manifestation as false. Because the Supreme Personality of
Godhead by His plenary portion has entered within this material world and caused
this manifestation, the Vaiṣṇava philosopher sees everything in this material world in
relationship with the Supreme Lord.

Prasthanatrayi
- Nyaya-prasthana – Vedanta – Vedanta-Sutra/Brahma-Sutra
- Shruti-prasthana – Upanishads - Hearing from authorities
- Smriti-prasthana – Gita – Puranas – Mahabharat – Smriti means statements derived from
Shruti

So our scientist friend was asking that, "What is the proof of eternity?" The proof is there.
Kṛṣṇa says, na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre. That is the proof. Śruti. This is hearing, disciplic
succession hearing from the Supreme. This is one proof. One proof is by logic, nyāya-
prasthāna. You can get your knowledge by logic, argument, philosophical research. This is
all right also. But another: śruti, by hearing from the authorities. That is also knowledge.
And smṛti. Smṛti means statement derived from śruti. Just like Bhagavad-gītā is called smṛti,
thePurāṇas are called smṛti. But Upaniṣad is called śruti, and Vedānta is called nyāya. So
three ways: nyāya-prasthāna, śruti-prasthāna and smṛti-prasthāna.
So of all these, the śruti-prasthāna, or the evidence by the śruti, is very
important. Pratyakṣa, anumāna and śruti. Pratyakṣa: direct perception. Direct perception
has no value because our senses are all imperfect. So what is the value of direct perception?
Just like we are seeing every day the sun just like a disc, say, about twelve inches or eleven
inches. But it is fourteen hundred thousand times bigger than this earth. Therefore our
direct perception with the experience with these eyes has no value. 
- Pratyaksha = Direct Perception… Senses are imperfect – Prayaksha has no value
Vedanta
- Vedanta refers to the purport of the Upanishads and the Brahmana portion of the Vedas (Adi
7.106)
-
- AKA Uttara Mīmāṃsā - is a philosophical tradition that is one of the six orthodox (āstika)
schools of Indian philosophy.
- The word Vedanta means "end of the Vedas”.
- Based around the Upanishads
- Focuses on knowledge and liberation.
- Vedanta developed into many sub-traditions, all of which base their ideas on the authority of
a common group of texts called the Prasthānatrayī , translated as "the three sources": the
Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita
- All Vedanta traditions contain extensive discussions on ontology, soteriology, and
epistemology
- The sub-schools of Vedanta can vary in opinion
- The main traditions of Vedanta are: Bhedabheda (difference and non-difference), Advaita
(non-dualism), Vishishtadvaita (qualified non-dualism), Tattvavada (Dvaita) (dualism),
Suddhadvaita (pure non-dualism), and Achintya-Bheda-Abheda (inconceivable difference and
non-difference)
- Most major Vedanta schools, except Advaita Vedanta and Neo-Vedanta, are related to
Vaishnavism and emphasize devotion (Bhakti Yoga) to God, understood as being Vishnu or a
related manifestation.[9][10] Advaita Vedanta, on the other hand, emphasizes Jñana
(knowledge) and Jñana Yoga over theistic devotion. While the monism of Advaita has
attracted considerable attention in the West due to the influence of modern Hindus like
Swami Vivekananda and Ramana Maharshi, most of the other Vedanta traditions focus on
Vaishnava theology.
- Vedanta is concerned with the jñānakāṇḍa or knowledge section of the vedas which is called
the Upanishads
- The meaning of Vedanta expanded later to encompass the different philosophical traditions
that are based on the Prasthanatrayi.
- It is also called Uttara Mīmāṃsā, which means the "latter enquiry" or "higher enquiry"; and
is often contrasted with Pūrva Mīmāṃsā, the "former enquiry" or "primary enquiry". Pūrva
Mīmāṃsā deals with the karmakāṇḍa or ritualistic section (the Samhita and Brahmanas) in
the Vedas while Uttara Mīmāṃsā concerns itself with the deeper questions of existence and
meaning
- Rejection of Buddhism and Jainism and conclusions of the other Vedic schools (Nyaya,
Vaisheshika, Samkhya, Yoga, and, to some extent, the Purva Mimamsa).

- Because this human life is especially meant for understanding God. Athāto

brahma jijñāsā, the Vedānta-sūtra. You have heard the name of Vedānta.
Vedānta means . . . Veda means knowledge, and anta  means ultimate. The
ultimate knowledge. Therefore Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā, vedaiś ca
sarvair aham eva vedyam (BG 15.15): "The ultimate purpose of
reading Vedas is to know Me."
- So who can read Vedānta philosophy? Very learned scholar he must be. At
least, he must be very learned scholar in Sanskrit. He must have sufficient
brain substance to understand what are these Vedānta-sūtras. Because
everything is there in a small aphorism. Just like the first aphorism
of Vedānta-sūtra  is athāto brahma jijñāsā. In three words: atha, ataḥ,
brahma, jijñāsā. Four words. So it contains volumes of philosophy.
- Then next aphorism is janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1). Janma, ādi, asya,
yataḥ. "From whom," asya, viśvasya, "of this universe, cosmic manifestation,"
from where this cosmic manifestation has come, and where it rests, and
where it will dissolve. Janmādy asya yataḥ. In this way, Vedānta-
sūtra means . . . gives you the whole purpose of Veda, knowledge, in small
code words.
- So to understand these code words, one must have very big brain or very
highly standard educational qualification. Then . . . all the ācāryas, those who
 are controlling Vedic civilization, like Śaṅkarācārya, Madhvācārya,
Rāmānujācārya, they have all written their commentaries on the Vedānta-
sūtra. Because unless one explains Vedānta-sūtra, he'll not be accepted as an
authorized ācārya. He's not . . . not that anyone can become ācārya. He must
give explanation of the Vedānta-sūtra,  prasthāna-traya. There is system.
- So ultimately, Vedānta-sūtra, as Kṛṣṇa says, vedaiś ca sarvaiḥ. Sarvaiḥ means
including Vedānta-sūtra. Vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyam  (BG 15.15): "I
am to be understood." Why? Vedānta-kṛt vedānta-vit ca aham. Vedānta-kṛt,
"I am the compiler of Vedānta-sūtra." The Vedānta-sūtra was compiled by
Vyāsadeva. He is incarnation of Kṛṣṇa, Dvaipāyana Vyāsa.
- So therefore, it is compiled by His incarnation, so it is compiled by Him.
Because His incarnation, He is the same. So vedanta-kṛt means Veda . . .
compiler of the Vedānta, and the compiler of the compiler of
the Vedānta is vedanta-vit, one who knows Vedānta. Because I have written
some book, so I know what is the purpose of writing my book. You cannot
know. My purpose you cannot know.
- There is a small instructive story in this—not story; fact—in this connection.
In Calcutta there was a great dramatist. He was very well known, government
officer. He wrote one book, Shah Jahan. That is very famous book for
theatrical play. So in that Shah Jahan, means the king-emperor Shah Jahan,
the . . . practically, the name which is given on the book, the hero title, he's
the hero. So one of the friends of Mr. D. L. Ray, he inquired from Mr. Ray that
"In your book Shah Jahan, the actual hero is Aurangzeb. Why you have given
the title Shah Jahan?" He could not understand it.
- So I'm just trying to explain that the purpose of the book must be known to
the author, not others. So the author replied, "My dear friend, the actual hero
is Shah Jahan, not Aurangzeb." Although the Shah Jahan book is full of
activities of Aurangzeb, the fact is that Shah Jahan was the emperor. He had
many . . . four, five sons, and his wife died, Mumtaz, at an early age. You
have seen, those who have gone to India, you have seen the Taj Mahal
building. That building was constructed in the memory of that Mumtaz by
Shah Jahan. He spent all his money for constructing that building. So it is one
of the seven wonders of the world.
- So that Shah Jahan lost his wife at an early age. She (he) was very fond of
his wife. And because, affectionate father, he did not very much chastise his
sons, and he spent all his money in constructing the memory of his wife, so
when the sons grew up, the third son, Aurangzeb, came out very crooked.
And he made a plan how to usurp the empire. He killed his elder brother and
other brothers. He arrested his father, Shah Jahan.
- So this is the book subject matter, Shah Jahan. So whole activities. But the
author says that "Aurangzeb is not the hero. Hero is Shah Jahan." Then he
explained why. "Now, because Shah Jahan was living, sitting in the Agra Fort
as a prisoner, and all the reactions of Aurangzeb's activities—killing of his
other sons, usurping the empire—that was beating on his heart; therefore he
was suffering. He is the hero."
 - So this is an example. The author of a book knows very well what is the
purpose of that book. That is my statement. Similarly, this Vedānta-sūtra was
compiled by Vyāsadeva, or Kṛṣṇa's incarnation, or Kṛṣṇa Himself. So He
knows what is Vedānta-sūtra. So if you want to understand Vedānta-sūtra,
then you must understand Kṛṣṇa. Vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyam (BG
15.15). Kṛṣṇa says also that by studying all the Vedic literature, one has to
understand Kṛṣṇa. And He also confirms . . .
- And Vyāsadeva explains Vedānta-sūtra in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Because
He knew that "Vedānta-sūtra, being authoritative version of Vedic literature,
so many rascals will comment in different way. Therefore I must leave . . ."
That was also done under the instruction of Nārada. He wrote personally a
commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra. That is Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Bhāṣyāyāṁ
brahma-sūtrānāṁ vedārtha paribṛṁhitam . The Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam  is the
right commentary by the author Himself. And the vedārtha paribhṛmhitam,
the purpose of Vedas, the scheme of Vedic literature, is explained in
the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.
- So the human life . . . athāto brahma jijñāsā means, the Vedānta-sūtra  says
that, "This life, this human life, is meant for understanding God." Brahmā-
jijñāsā. At least, not understanding, at least inquiry, jijñāsā. Jijñāsā means
inquiry. So where the inquiry should be made? If I want to inquire about God,
shall I go to the store-keeper or drug shop or a motor shop? No. Tad
vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet (MU 1.2.12). If you want to know the
transcendental science, then you must find out a guru. That is injunction.

"The Lord said, "Vedanta philosophy consists of words spoken by the Su-
preme Personality of Godhead Narayana in the form of Vyasadeva.

Purport: The Vedanta-sutra, which consists of aphorisms revealing the

method of understanding Vedic knowledge, is the concise form of all Vedic
knowledge. It begins with the words athato brahma-jijnasa ("Now is the
time to inquire about the Absolute Truth"). The human form of life is es-
pecially meant for this purpose, and therefore the Vedanta-sutra very
concisely explains the human mission. This is confirmed by the words of
the Vayu and Skanda Puranas, which define a sutra as follows:
alpaksaram asandigdham
sara-vat visvato-mukham
astobham anavadyam ca
sutram sutra-vido viduh
"A sutra is an aphorism that expresses the essence of all knowledge in a
minimum of words It must be universally applicable and faultless in its
linguistic presentation." Anyone familiar with such sutras must be aware
of the Vedanta-sutra, which is well known among scholars by the follow-
ing different names: (1) Brahma-sutra, (2) Sariraka, (3) Vyasa-sutra, (4)
Badarayana-sutra, (5) Uttara-mimamsa and (6) Vedanta-darsana.
There are four chapters (adhyayas) in the Vedanta-sutra, and there are
four divisions (padas) in each chapter. Therefore the Vedanta-sutra may
be referred to as sodasa-pada, or sixteen divisions of aphorisms. The
theme of each and every division is fully described in terms of five differ -
ent subject matters (adhikaranas), which are technically called pratijna,
hetu, udaharana, upanaya and nigamana. Every theme must necessarily
be explained with reference to pratijna, or a solemn declaration of the
purpose of the treatise. The solemn declaration given in the beginning of
the Vedanta-sutra is athato brahma-jijnasa, which indicates that this book
was written with the solemn declaration to inquire about the Absolute
Truth. Similarly, reasons must be expressed (hetu), examples must be
given in terms of various facts (udaharana), the theme must gradually be
brought nearer for understanding (upanaya), and finally it must be sup-
ported by authoritative quotations from the Vedic sastras (nigamana).

According to the great dictionary compiler Hemacandra, also known as

Kosakara, Vedanta refers to the purport of the Upanisads and the Brah-
mana portion of the Vedas. Professor Apte, in his dictionary, describes the
Brahmana portion of the Vedas as that portion which states the rules for
employment of hymns at various sacrifices and gives detailed explana-
tions of their origin, sometimes with lengthy illustrations in the form of le-
gends and stories. It is distinct from the mantra portion of the Vedas.
Hemacandra said that the supplement of the Vedas is called the Vedanta-
sutra. Veda means knowledge, and anta means the end. In other words,
proper understanding of the ultimate purpose of the Vedas is called Ved-
anta knowledge. Such knowledge, as given in the aphorisms of the Ved-
anta-sutra, must be supported by the Upanisads.

According to learned scholars, there are three different sources of know-

ledge, which are called prasthana-traya. According to these scholars, Ved-
anta is one of such sources, for it presents Vedic knowledge on the basis
of logic and sound arguments. In the Bhagavad-gita (13.5) the Lord says,
brahma-sutra-padais caiva hetumadbhir viniscitaih: "Understanding of the
ultimate goal of life is ascertained in the Brahma-sutra by legitimate logic
and argument concerning cause and effect." Therefore the Vedanta-sutra
is known as nyaya-prasthana, the Upanisads are known as sruti-
prasthana, and the Gita, Mahabharata and Puranas are known as smrti-
prasthana. All scientific knowledge of transcendence must be supported
by sruti, smrti and a sound logical basis.

It is said that both the Vedic knowledge and the supplement of the Vedas
called the Satvata-pancaratra emanated from the breathing of Narayana,
the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Vedanta-sutra aphorisms were
compiled by Srila Vyasadeva, a powerful incarnation of Sri Narayana, al-
though it is sometimes said that they were compiled by a great sage
named Apantaratama. Both the Pancaratra and Vedanta-sutra, however,
express the same opinions. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu therefore confirms
that there is no difference in opinion between the two, and He declares
that because the Vedanta-sutra was compiled by Srila Vyasadeva, it may
be understood to have emanated from the breathing of Sri Narayana.
Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura comments that while Vyasadeva
was compiling the Vedanta-sutra, seven of his great saintly contemporar-
ies were also engaged in similar work. These saints were Atreya Rsi, As-
marathya, Audulomi, Karsnajini, Kasakrtsna, Jaimini and Badari. In addi-
tion, it is stated that Parasari and Karmandi-bhiksu also discussed the
Vedanta-sutra aphorisms before Vyasadeva.

The Vedanta-sutra consists of four chapters. The first two chapters dis-
cuss the relationship of the living entity with the Supreme Personality of
Godhead. This is known as sambandha-jnana, or knowledge of the rela-
tionship. The third chapter describes how one can act in his relationship
with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is called abhidheya-jnana.
The relationship of the living entity with the Supreme Lord is described by
Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu: jivera 'svarupa' haya krsnera 'nitya-dasa'. "The
living entity is an eternal servant of Krsna, the Supreme God." (Cc. Mad-
hya 20.108) Therefore, to act in that relationship one must perform
sadhana-bhakti, or the prescribed duties of service to the Supreme Per-
sonality of Godhead. This is called abhidheya-jnana. The fourth chapter
describes the result of such devotional service (prayojana-jnana). This ul-
timate goal of life is to go back home, back to Godhead. The words
anavrttih sabdat in the Vedanta-sutra indicate this ultimate goal.

Srila Vyasadeva, a powerful incarnation of Narayana, compiled the Ved-

anta-sutra, and in order to protect it from unauthorized commentaries, he
personally composed Srimad-Bhagavatam on the instruction of his spir-
itual master, Narada Muni, as the original commentary on the Vedanta-
sutra. Besides Srimad-Bhagavatam, there are commentaries on the Ved-
anta-sutra composed by all the major Vaisnava acaryas, and in each of
them devotional service to the Lord is described very explicitly. Only
those who follow Sankara's commentary have described the Vedanta-
sutra in an impersonal way, without reference to visnu-bhakti, or devo-
tional service to the Lord, Visnu. Generally people very much appreciate
this Sariraka-bhasya, or impersonal description of the Vedanta-sutra, but
all commentaries that are devoid of devotional service to Lord Visnu must
be considered to differ in purpose from the original Vedanta-sutra. In
other words, Lord Caitanya definitely confirmed that the commentaries, or
bhasyas, written by the Vaisnava acaryas on the basis of devotional ser-
vice to Lord Visnu, and not the Sariraka-bhasya of Sankaracarya, give the
actual explanation of the Vedanta-sutra.

BHAGAVAD-GITA
SRI UPADESHAMRITA
SRI BHAKTI-RASAMRITA-SINDHU

The Isha Upanishad (Devanagari: ईशोपनिषद् IAST īśopaniṣad), also known as Shri Ishopanishad,

is one of the shortest Upanishads, embedded as the final chapter (adhyāya) of the Shukla
Yajurveda. It is a Mukhya (primary, principal) Upanishad, and is known in two recensions, called
Kanva (VSK) and Madhyandina (VSM). The Upanishad is a brief poem, consisting of 17 or 18
verses, depending on the recension.

It is a key scripture of the Vedanta sub-schools, and an influential Śruti to diverse schools

of Hinduism. It is the 40th chapter of Yajurveda. The name of the text derives from its
incipit, īśā vāsyam, "enveloped by the Lord",[2] or "hidden in the Lord (Self)".[3] The text discusses
the Atman (Self) theory of Hinduism, and is referenced by both Dvaita (dualism) and Advaita
(non-dualism) sub-schools of Vedanta.[4][5]
It is classified as a "poetic Upanishad" along
with Kena, Katha, Svetasvatara and Mundaka by Paul Deussen (1908).[6]

Etymology[edit]
The root of the word Īśvara (ईश्वर, Ishvara) comes from īś- (ईश्, Ish) which means "capable of" and
"owner, ruler, chief of",[7] ultimately cognate with English own (Germanic *aigana-, PIE *aik-). The
word Īśa (ईश) literally means "ruler, master, lord".[8] The term vāsyam (वास्य) literally means "hidden
in, covered with, enveloped by".[9]

Ralph Griffith and Max Muller, each interpret the term "Isha" in the Upanishad interchangeably
as "Lord" and "Self" (one's Self).[2][3] Puqun Li translates the title of the Upanishad as "the ruler of
the Self".[10]

The Upanishad is also known as Ishavasya Upanishad and Vajasaneyi Samhita Upanishad.[3]

Chronology[edit]
The chronology of Isha Upanishad, along with other Vedic era literature, is unclear and contested
by scholars.[11] All opinions rest on scanty evidence, assumptions about likely evolution of ideas,
and on presumptions about which philosophy might have influenced which other Indian
philosophies.[11][12]

Buddhism scholars such as Richard King date Isha Upanishad's composition roughly to the
second half of the first millennium BC, chronologically placing it after the first Buddhist Pali
canons.[13]

Hinduism scholars such as Stephen Phillips[11] note the disagreement between modern scholars.
Phillips suggests that Isha Upanishad was likely one of the earliest Upanishads, composed in the
1st half of 1st millennium BCE, after Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya, but before Taittiriya,
Aitareya, Kaushitaki, Kena, Katha, Manduka, Prasna, Svetasvatara and Maitri Upanishads, as
well as before the earliest Buddhist Pali and Jaina canons.[11]

Earlier 19th- and 20th-century scholars have similarly expressed a spectrum of views. Isha
Upanishad has been chronologically listed by them as being among early Upanishads to being
one among the middle Upanishads. Deussen[14] suggested, for example, that Isha was
composed after ancient prose Upanishads – Brihadaranyaka, Chandogya, Taittiriya, Aitareya,
Kaushitaki and Kena; during a period when metrical poem-like Upanishads were being
composed. Further, he suggests that Isha was composed before other prose Upanishads such
as Prasna, Maitri, Mandukya and all post-Vedic era Upanishads.

Winternitz,[15] suggests that Isha Upanishad was probably a pre-Buddha composition along with
Katha, Svetasvatara, Mundaka and Prasna Upanishad, but after the first phase of ancient
Upanishads that were composed in prose such as Brihadaranyaka, Chandogya, Taittiriya,
Aitareya, Kaushitaki and Kena. Winternitz states that Isha was likely composed before post-
Buddhist Upanishads such as Maitri and Mandukya.

Ranade[16] posits that Isha was composed in the second group of Upanishads along with Kena
Upanishad, right after the first group of Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya, but chronologically
before Taittiriya, Aitareya, Kaushitaki, Katha, Mundaka, Svetasvatara, Prasna, Mandukya and
Maitrayani.

Structure[edit]
A manuscript page from the Isha Upanisad.

Isha Upanishad is the only Upanishad that is attached to a Samhita, the most ancient layer of
Vedic text known for their mantras and benedictions. Other Upanishads are attached to a later
layer of Vedic texts such as Brahmanas and Aranyakas. Max Muller notes that this does not
necessarily mean that Isha Upanishad is among the oldest,[17] because Shukla Yajur Veda is
acknowledged to be of a later origin than textual layers of other Vedas such as the Rig Veda.

The 8th-century Indian scholar Adi Shankara, in his Bhasya (review and commentary) noted that
the mantras and hymns of Isha Upanishad are not used in rituals, because their purpose is to
enlighten the reader as to "what is the nature of Self (Atman)?"; the Upanishad, thus, despite
Yajurveda Samhita's liturgical focus, has not historically served as a liturgical text.[17][18] Isha
Upanishad is a philosophical text.[19]

Difference between recensions[edit]

The Isha Upanishad manuscript differs in the two shakhas of the Shukla Yajurveda. These are
called the Kanva (VSK) and Madhyandina (VSM) recensions. The order of verses 1–8 is the
same in both, however, Kanva verses 9–14 correspond to Madhyandina verses 12, 13, 14, 9, 10,
11. Madhyandina verse 17 is a variation of Kanva 15, Kanva verse 16 is missing in
Madhyandina, and Kanva verses 17–18 correspond to Madhyandina 15–16.

In both recensions, the Isha Upanishad is the 40th chapter of Shukla Yajur Veda. Versions with
18 verses refer to Kanva, while those with 17 verses are referring to the Madhyandina.

Kanva 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Madhyandina
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 12 13 14 9 10 11 (17) – 15 16
40

Content[edit]
Monism versus theism[edit]
The Isha Upanishad is significant for its singular mention of the term "Isha" in the first hymn, a
term it never repeats in other hymns. The concept "Isha" exhibits monism in one interpretation,
or a form of monotheism in an alternative interpretation, referred to as "Self" or "Deity Lord"
respectively.
Enveloped by the Lord must be This All — each thing that moves on earth. With that renounced,
enjoy thyself. Covet no wealth of any man.

— Isha Upanishad, Hymn 1[20]

Ralph Griffith interprets the word "Isha" contextually, translates it as "the Lord", and clarifies that
this "the Lord" means "the Self of All, and thy inmost Self – the only Absolute Reality".[21] The
term "This All" is the empirical reality, while the term "renounced" is referring the Indian concept
of sannyasa, and "enjoy thyself" is referring to the "blissful delight of Self-realization".[21][22]

The Advaita Vedanta scholar Shankara interprets the above hymn 1 as equating "the Lord" as
the "Atman" (Self).[18] In contrast, Madhvacharya, the Dvaita Vedanta scholar interprets the
hymn as equating "the Lord" as Vishnu, or a monotheistic God in a henotheistic sense.[23] Other
interpretations have also been suggested. For example, the more recent
scholar Mahīdhara suggested that hymn 1 may be referring to Buddha, an interpretation that
Max Muller stated was inadmissible because of the fundamental difference between Hinduism
and Buddhism, with Hinduism relying on the premise "Self, Self exists" and Buddhism relying on
the premise "Soul, Self does not exist".[22][24]

Pursuit of Karma versus pursuit of Self[edit]

The Isha Upanishad, in hymns 2–6, acknowledges the contrasting tension within Hinduism,
between the empirical life of householder and action (karma) and the spiritual life of renunciation
and knowledge (jnana).[2]
Should one wish to live a hundred years on this earth, he should live doing Karma. While thus, as
man, you live, there is no way other than this by which Karma will not cling to you. Those who
partake the nature of the Asuras [evil], are enveloped in blind darkness, and that is where they
reside who ignore their Atman [Self]. For liberation, know your Atman, which is motionless yet
faster than mind, it is distant, it is near, it is within all, it is without all this. It is all pervading. And
he who beholds all beings in the Self, and the Self in all beings, he never turns away from it [the
Self].

— Isha Upanishad, Hymns 2-6[18][25]

Adi Shankara suggests that "he" in hymn 6 (last sentence in above quote) is the "seeker of
emancipation, on a journey to realize Self and Oneness in innermost self and everyone, and
includes those in sannyasa";[18] while Madhvacharya suggests "he" is "the individual Self in
loving devotion of God, seeking to get infinitely close to the God Self".[23]

Max Muller, in his review of commentaries by many ancient and medieval Indian scholars,
[22]
 states that these verses of Isha Upanishad are proclaiming the "uselessness of all rituals,
whether related to sacrifices or precepts of dharma", but simultaneously acknowledging the
"harmlessness and necessity of social activity, that may be seen as potentially intermediate
preparation to the path of Knowledge". The Isha Upanishad, is reminding the reader that neither
routine life and rituals are right nor are they wrong, states Max Muller.[22] They may be necessary
to many, nevertheless, to prepare a person for emancipation, to show the path where cravings
feel meaningless, and to produce a serene mind that longs for meaning and one that can discern
highest knowledge.[22] Ralph Griffith suggests the verses 2–6 of Isha Upanishad are condemning
those who perform Karma in order to "get future advantages in life or to gain a place in heaven",
because that is ignorance. The avoidance of "Self knowledge and its eternal, all-pervasive
nature" is akin to "killing one's Self" and living a dead life states Isha Upanishad, states Griffith.
[2]
 The pursuit of Self is the seeking of the eternal, the whole, the all-transcending, the self-
depending, the Oneness and law of all nature and existence.[26]

Vidya versus Avidya[edit]

The Isha Upanishad suggests that one root of sorrow and suffering is considering one's Self as
distinct and conflicted with the Self of others, assuming that the nature of existence is a conflicted
duality where one's happiness and suffering is viewed as different from another living being's
happiness and suffering. Such sorrow and suffering cannot exist, suggests the Upanishad, if an
individual realizes that the Self is in all things, understands the Oneness in all of existence,
focuses beyond individual egos and in the pursuit of Universal values, the Self and Real
Knowledge.[19]
When to a man who understands,
the Self has become all things,
what sorrow, what trouble can there be,
to him who beholds that unity.

— Isha Upanishad, Hymn 7[25]

The Isha Upanishad, in hymn 8 through 11, praises the study of Vidya (Real Knowledge, eternal
truths) and Avidya (not Real Knowledge, empirical truths).[22][27] It asserts that to he who knows
both Vidya and Avidya, the Avidya empowers him to overcome death (makes one alive),
while Vidya empowers him with immortality. The Real Knowledge delivers one to freedom,
liberation from all sorrows and fears, to a blissful state of life.[18][22] Mukherjee states that Isha
Upanishad in verse 11 is recommending that one must pursue material knowledge and spiritual
wisdom simultaneously, and that a fulfilling life results from the harmonious, balanced alignment
of the individual and the social interests, the personal and the organizational goals, the material
and the spiritual pursuits of life.[28]

The hymns 12 through 14 of Isha Upanishad, caution against the pursuit of only manifested
cause or only spiritual cause of anything, stating that one sided pursuits lead to darkness. To be
enlightened, seek both (उभय सह, ubhayam saha), suggests the Upanishad.[29] It asserts that he who
knows both the Real and the Perishable, both the manifested not-True cause and the hidden
True cause, is the one who is liberated unto immortality.[18][22]

Virtue versus vice[edit]

In final hymns 15 through 18, the Upanishad asserts a longing for Knowledge, asserting that it is
hidden behind the golden disc of light, but a light that one seeks. It reminds one's own mind to
remember one's deeds, and accept its consequences.[18] The Madhyandina recension and Kanva
recension vary in relative sequencing of the hymns, but both assert the introspective precept,
"O Agni (fire) and mind, lead me towards a life of virtues, guide me away from a life of vices", and
thus unto the good path and the enjoyment of wealth (of both karma's honey and Self-
realization).[19][22] The final hymns of Isha Upanishad also declare the foundational premise, "I am
He", equating one Self's oneness with cosmic Self.[18][30]
पुरुषः सोऽहमस्मि
I am He, the Purusha within thee.

— Isha Upanishad, Hymn 16 Abridged[25]

Reception[edit]
Mahatma Gandhi thought so highly of it that he remarked, "If all the Upanishads and all the
other scriptures happened all of a sudden to be reduced to ashes, and if only the first verse in the
Ishopanishad were left in the memory of the Hindus, Hinduism would live for ever."[31]

Paul Deussen states that the first verses are notable for including ethics of one who knows the
Ātman.[32]

Swami Chinmayananda in his commentary[year  needed] states "The very first stanza of this
matchless Upanishad is in itself a miniature philosophical textbook. Besides being
comprehensive in its enunciation of Truth, it provides a vivid exposition of the technique of
realising the Truth in a language unparalleled in philosophical beauty and literary perfection.
Its mantras are the briefest exposition on philosophy and each one is an exercise in
contemplation."[33] Swami Chinmayananda notes in his commentary that the 18 verses (VSK
recension) proceed over 7 "waves of thought" with the first 3 representing 3 distinct paths of life,
4–8 pointing out the Vision of Truth, 9–14 revealing the path of worship leading to purification,
15–17 revealing the call of the Rishis for man to awaken to his own Immortal state, and verse 18
the prayer to the Lord to bless all seekers with strength to live up to the teachings of the
Upanishad.[34]

Vedanta (/veɪˈdɑːntə/; Sanskrit: वेदान्त, IAST: Vedānta), also known as Uttara Mīmāṃsā, is a

Hindu philosophical tradition that is one of the six orthodox (āstika) schools of Hindu
philosophy. The word "Vedanta" means "end of the Vedas", and encompasses the ideas that
emerged from, or were aligned with, the speculations and enumerations contained in
the Upanishads, with a focus on knowledge and liberation. Vedanta developed into many sub-
traditions, all of which base their ideas on the authority of a common group of texts called
the Prasthānatrayī , translated as "the three sources": the Upanishads, the Brahma
Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita.

All Vedanta traditions contain extensive discussions on ontology, soteriology,

and epistemology, even as there is much disagreement among the various schools.
[1]
 Independently considered, they may seem completely disparate due to the pronounced
differences in thoughts and reasoning.[2]

The main traditions of Vedanta are: Bhedabheda (difference and non-difference), Advaita (non-

dualism), Vishishtadvaita (qualified non-
dualism), Tattvavada (Dvaita) (dualism), Suddhadvaita (pure non-dualism), and Achintya-
Bheda-Abheda (inconceivable difference and non-difference).[3][4] Modern developments in
Vedanta include Neo-Vedanta,[5][6][7] and the philosophy of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya.[8]

Most major Vedanta schools, except Advaita Vedanta and Neo-Vedanta, are related
to Vaishnavism and emphasize devotion (Bhakti Yoga) to God, understood as being Vishnu or
a related manifestation.[9][10] Advaita Vedanta, on the other hand,
emphasizes Jñana (knowledge) and Jñana Yoga over theistic devotion. While the monism of
Advaita has attracted considerable attention in the West due to the influence of
modern Hindus like Swami Vivekananda and Ramana Maharshi, most of the other Vedanta
traditions focus on Vaishnava theology.[11]

Etymology and nomenclature[edit]

The word Vedanta is made of two words :

 Veda (वेद) — refers to the four sacred vedic texts.

 Anta (अंत) — this word means "End".
The word Vedanta literally means the end of the Vedas and originally referred to
the Upanishads.[12][13] Vedanta is concerned with the jñānakāṇḍa or knowledge section of the
vedas which is called the Upanishads.[14][15] The meaning of Vedanta expanded later to
encompass the different philosophical traditions that are based on the Prasthanatrayi.[12][16]

The Upanishads may be regarded as the end of Vedas in different senses:[17]

1. They were the last literary products of the Vedic period.

2. They represent the pinnacle of Vedic philosophy.
 3. They were taught and debated last, in the Brahmacharya (student)
stage.[12][18]
Vedanta is one of the six orthodox (āstika) schools of Indian philosophy.[13] It is also
called Uttara Mīmāṃsā, which means the "latter enquiry" or "higher enquiry"; and is often
contrasted with Pūrva Mīmāṃsā, the "former enquiry" or "primary enquiry". Pūrva
Mīmāṃsā deals with the karmakāṇḍa or ritualistic section (the Samhita and Brahmanas) in
the Vedas while Uttara Mīmāṃsā concerns itself with the deeper questions of existence and
meaning.[19][20][a]

Vedanta philosophy[edit]
Common features[edit]
Despite their differences, all schools of Vedanta share some common features:

 Vedanta is the pursuit of knowledge into the Brahman and the Ātman.[22]

 The Upaniṣads, the Bhagavadgītā, and the Brahma Sūtras constitute the
basis of Vedanta (known as the three canonical sources).[23]
 Scripture (Sruti Śabda) is the main reliable source of knowledge (pramana).
[23]

 Brahman - Ishvara (God), exists as the unchanging material cause and

instrumental cause of the world. The exception is that Dvaita Vedanta does not hold
Brahman to be the material cause, but only the efficient cause.[24]
 The self (Ātman or Jiva) is the agent of its own acts (karma) and the
recipient of the consequences of these actions.[25]
 Belief in rebirth (samsara) and the desirability of release from the cycle of
rebirths (moksha).[25]
 Rejection of Buddhism and Jainism and conclusions of the other Vedic
schools (Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Samkhya, Yoga, and, to some extent, the Purva
Mimamsa).[25]
Scripture[edit]
The main Upanishads, the Bhagavadgītā and the Brahma Sūtras are the foundational
scriptures in Vedanta. All schools of Vedanta propound their philosophy by interpreting these
texts, collectively called the Prasthānatrayī, literally, three sources.[14][26]

1. The Upanishads,[b] or Śruti prasthāna; considered the Sruti, the "heard"

(and repeated) foundation of Vedanta.
2. The Brahma Sūtras, or Nyaya prasthana / Yukti prasthana; considered
the reason-based foundation of Vedanta.
3. The Bhagavadgītā, or Smriti prasthāna; considered
the Smriti (remembered tradition) foundation of Vedanta.
All prominent Vedantic teachers,
including Shankara, Bhaskara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Nimbarka, and Vallabha wrote
commentaries on these three sources. The Brahma Sūtras of Badarayana serve as a synthesis
of the teachings found in the diverse Upanishads, and while there may have been other similar
syntheses in the past, only the Brahma Sūtras have survived to the present day.
[14]
 The Bhagavadgītā, with its syncretism of Samkhya, Yoga, and Upanishadic thought, has also
been a significant influence on Vedantic thought.[28]
All Vedāntins agree that scripture (śruti) is the only means of knowing (pramāṇa) regarding
spiritual matters (which are beyond perception and inference).[29] This is explained
by Rāmānuja as follows:
A theory that rests exclusively on human concepts may at some other time or place be refuted by
arguments devised by cleverer people.... The conclusion is that with regard to supernatural
matters, Scripture alone is the epistemic authority and that reasoning is to be used only in
support of Scripture’ [Śrī Bhāṣya 2.1.12].[29]
For specific sub-schools of Vedanta, other texts may be equally important. For example, for
Advaita Vedanta, the works of Adi Shankara are central. For the Theistic Vaishnava schools of
Vedanta, the Bhāgavata Purāṇa is particularly important. The Bhāgavata Purāṇa is one of the
most widely commented upon works in Vedanta.[30] This text is so central to the Krishna-centered
Vedanta schools that the Vedantin theologian Vallabha added the Bhāgavata Purāṇa as a fourth
text to the praṣṭhāna traya (three classic scriptures of Vedanta).[31]

Metaphysics[edit]
Vedanta philosophies discuss three fundamental metaphysical categories and the relations
between the three.[14][32]

1. Brahman or Ishvara: the ultimate reality[33]

2. Ātman or Jivātman: the individual soul, self[34]
3. Prakriti/Jagat:[4] the empirical world, ever-changing physical universe,
body and matter[35]
Brahman / Ishvara – Conceptions of the Supreme Reality [edit]

Shankara, in formulating Advaita, talks of two conceptions of Brahman: The higher Brahman as

undifferentiated Being, and a lower Brahman endowed with qualities as the creator of the
universe:[36]

 Parā or Higher Brahman: The undifferentiated, absolute, infinite,

transcendental, supra-relational Brahman beyond all thought and speech is defined
as parā Brahman, nirviśeṣa Brahman, or nirguṇa Brahman and is the Absolute of
metaphysics.
 Aparā or Lower Brahman: The Brahman with qualities defined
as aparā Brahman or saguṇa Brahman. The saguṇa Brahman is endowed with
attributes and represents the personal God of religion.
Ramanuja, in formulating Vishishtadvaita Vedanta, rejects Nirguṇa – that the undifferentiated
Absolute is inconceivable – and adopts a theistic interpretation of the Upanishads,
accepting Brahman as Ishvara, the personal God who is the seat of all auspicious attributes, as
the One reality. The God of Vishishtadvaita is accessible to the devotee, yet remains the
Absolute, with differentiated attributes.[37]

Madhva, in expounding Dvaita philosophy, maintains that Vishnu is the supreme God, thus
identifying the Brahman, or absolute reality, of the Upanishads with a personal god, as Ramanuja
had done before him.[38][39] Nimbarka, in his dvaitadvata philosophy, accepted the Brahman both
as nirguṇa and as saguṇa. Vallabha, in his shuddhadvaita philosophy, not only accepts the triple
ontological essence of the Brahman, but also His manifestation as personal God (Ishvara), as
matter, and as individual souls.[40]

Relation between Brahman and Jiva / Atman[edit]

The schools of Vedanta differ in their conception of the relation they see
between Ātman / Jivātman and Brahman / Ishvara:[41]
  According to Advaita Vedanta, Ātman is identical with Brahman and there is
no difference.[42]
 According to Vishishtadvaita, Jīvātman is different from Ishvara, though
eternally connected with Him as His mode.[43] The oneness of the Supreme Reality is
understood in the sense of an organic unity (vishistaikya). Brahman/Ishvara alone, as
organically related to all Jīvātman and the material universe is the one Ultimate
Reality.[44]
 According to Dvaita, the Jīvātman is totally and always different
from Brahman / Ishvara.[45]
 According to Shuddhadvaita (pure monism), the Jīvātman and Brahman are
identical; both, along with the changing empirically observed universe being Krishna.
[46]

Epistemology in Dvaita and Vishishtadvaita Vedanta. Advaita and some other Vedanta schools recognize
six epistemic means.

Epistemology[edit]
Main article: Pramana

Pramana[edit]

Pramāṇa (Sanskrit: प्रमाण) literally means "proof", "that which is the means of valid knowledge".
[47]
 It refers to epistemology in Indian philosophies, and encompasses the study of reliable and
valid means by which human beings gain accurate, true knowledge.[48] The focus of Pramana is
the manner in which correct knowledge can be acquired, how one knows or does not know, and
to what extent knowledge pertinent about someone or something can be acquired.[49] Ancient and
medieval Indian texts identify six[c] pramanas as correct means of accurate knowledge and truths:
[50]

1. Pratyakṣa (perception)
2. Anumāṇa (inference)
3. Upamāṇa (comparison and analogy)
4. Arthāpatti (postulation, derivation from circumstances)
5. Anupalabdi (non-perception, negative/cognitive proof)
 6. Śabda (scriptural testimony/ verbal testimony of past or present reliable
experts).
The different schools of Vedanta have historically disagreed as to which of the six are
epistemologically valid. For example, while Advaita Vedanta accepts all six pramanas,
[51]
 Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita accept only three pramanas (perception, inference and testimony).
[52]

Advaita considers Pratyakṣa (perception) as the most reliable source of knowledge, and Śabda,

the scriptural evidence, is considered secondary except for matters related to Brahman, where it
is the only evidence.[53][d] In Vishistadvaita and Dvaita, Śabda, the scriptural testimony, is
considered the most authentic means of knowledge instead.[54]

Theories of cause and effect[edit]

All schools of Vedanta subscribe to the theory of Satkāryavāda,[55] 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.[56] According to Nicholson (2010,
p. 27), "the Brahma Sutras espouse the realist Parinamavada position, which appears to have
been the view most common among early Vedantins". In contrast to Badarayana, Adi Shankara
and Advaita Vedantists hold a different view, Vivartavada, which says that the effect, the world,
is merely an unreal (vivarta) transformation of its cause, Brahman.[e]

Overview of the main schools of Vedanta[edit]

The Upanishads present an associative philosophical inquiry in the form of identifying various
doctrines and then presenting arguments for or against them. They form the basic texts and
Vedanta interprets them through rigorous philosophical exegesis to defend the point of view of
their specific sampradaya.[57][58] Varying interpretations of the Upanishads and their synthesis,
the Brahma Sutras, led to the development of different schools of Vedanta over time.

Vinayak Sakaram Ghate of Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute conducted a

comprehensive comparative analysis of the Brahma Sutra commentaries
by Nimbarka, Ramanuja, Vallabha, Shankara and Madhva. In his conclusion, Ghate
determined that Nimbarka's and Ramanuja's commentaries provide the most accurate
interpretation of the Brahma Sutras, considering both the passages that emphasize unity and
those that emphasize diversity.[59] Gavin Flood suggests that although Advaita Vedanta is the
most well-known school of Vedanta and is sometimes wrongly perceived as the sole
representation of Vedantic thought,[60] with Shankara being a follower of Saivism,[61] the true
essence of Vedanta lies within the Vaisnava tradition and can be considered a discourse within
the broad framework of Vaisnavism.[61]

In the Vaishnava traditions, four sampradays are considered to be of special significance,[2] while

the number of prominent Vedanta schools varies among scholars, with some classifying them as
three to six.[12][41][4][62][3][f][g]

1. Bhedabheda, as early as the 7th century CE,[55] or even the 4th century
CE. [64]

o Dvaitādvaita or Svabhavikabhedabheda (Vaishnava),
founded by Nimbarka[4] in the 7th century CE[65][66]
o Achintya Bheda Abheda (Vaishnava), founded
by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (1486–1534 CE),[67] propagated
by Gaudiya Vaishnava
 2. Advaita (monistic), many scholars of which most prominent
are Gaudapada (~500 CE)[68] and Adi Shankaracharya (8th century CE)[69]
3. Vishishtadvaita (Vaishnava), prominent scholars
are Nathamuni, Yāmuna and Ramanuja (1017–1137 CE)
o Akshar-Purushottam Darshan, based on the teachings
of Swaminarayan (1781-1830 CE) and rooted in
Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita;[h] propagated most notably by BAPS[70]
[71][72][73]

4. Tattvavada (Dvaita) (Vaishnava), founded by Madhvacharya (1199–

1278 CE). The prominent scholars are Jayatirtha (1345-1388 CE),
and Vyasatirtha (1460–1539 CE)
5. Suddhadvaita (Vaishnava), founded by Vallabha[4] (1479–1531 CE)

Bhedabheda Vedanta (difference and non-difference)[edit]

Main article: Bhedabheda

Bhedābheda means "difference and non-difference" and is more a tradition than a school of

Vedanta. The schools of this tradition emphasize that the individual self (Jīvatman) is both
different and not different from Brahman.[55] Notable figures in this school are
Bhartriprapancha, Nimbārka (7th century)[65][66] who founded
the Dvaitadvaita school, Bhāskara (8th–9th century), Ramanuja's teacher Yādavaprakāśa,
[74]
 Chaitanya (1486–1534) who founded the Achintya Bheda Abheda school,
and Vijñānabhikṣu (16th century).[75][i]

Dvaitādvaita Vedanta[edit]

Nimbarkacharya's icon at Ukhra, West Bengal

Main article: Dvaitadvaita

Nimbārka (7th century)[65][66] sometimes identified with Bhāskara,[76] propounded Dvaitādvaita.

[77]
 Brahman (God), souls (chit) and matter or the universe (achit) are considered as three equally
real and co-eternal realities. Brahman is the controller (niyanta), the soul is the enjoyer (bhokta),
and the material universe is the object enjoyed (bhogya). The Brahman is Krishna, the ultimate
cause who is omniscient, omnipotent, all-pervading Being. He is the efficient cause of the
universe because, as Lord of Karma and internal ruler of souls, He brings about creation so that
the souls can reap the consequences of their karma. God is considered to be the material
cause of the universe because creation was a manifestation of His powers of soul (chit) and
matter (achit); creation is a transformation (parinama) of God's powers. He can be realized only
through a constant effort to merge oneself with His nature through meditation and devotion. [77]
Achintya-Bheda-Abheda Vedanta[edit]

Chaitanya Mahaprabhu

Main article: Achintya Bhedabheda

Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (1486 – 1533) was the prime exponent of Achintya-Bheda-Abheda.

[78]
 In Sanskrit achintya means 'inconceivable'.[79] Achintya-Bheda-Abheda represents the
philosophy of "inconceivable difference in non-difference",[80] in relation to the non-dual reality
of Brahman-Atman which it calls (Krishna), svayam bhagavan.[81] The notion of "inconceivability"
(acintyatva) is used to reconcile apparently contradictory notions in Upanishadic teachings. This
school asserts that Krishna is Bhagavan of the bhakti yogins, the Brahman of the jnana yogins,
and has a divine potency that is inconceivable. He is all-pervading and thus in all parts of the
universe (non-difference), yet he is inconceivably more (difference). This school is at the
foundation of the Gaudiya Vaishnava religious tradition.[80] The ISKCON or the Hare Krishnas
also affiliate to this school of Vedanta Philosophy.

Advaita Vedanta (non-dualism)[edit]

Shankaracharya

Main article: Advaita Vedanta

Advaita Vedanta (IAST Advaita Vedānta; Sanskrit: अद्वैत वेदान्त), propounded by Gaudapada (7th

century) and Adi Shankara (8th century), espouses non-dualism and monism. Brahman is held
to be the sole unchanging metaphysical reality and identical to the individual Atman.[39] The
physical world, on the other hand, is always-changing empirical Maya.[82][j] The absolute and
infinite Atman-Brahman is realized by a process of negating everything relative, finite, empirical
and changing.[83]

The school accepts no duality, no limited individual souls (Atman / Jivatman), and no separate
unlimited cosmic soul. All souls and their existence across space and time are considered to be
the same oneness. [84] Spiritual liberation in Advaita is the full comprehension and realization of
oneness, that one's unchanging Atman (soul) is the same as the Atman in everyone else, as well
as being identical to Brahman.[85]

Vishishtadvaita Vedanta (qualified non-dualism)[edit]

Ramanujacharya depicted with Vaishnava Tilaka and Vishnu statue.

Main article: Vishishtadvaita

Vishishtadvaita, propounded by Ramanuja (11–12th century), asserts that Jivatman (human

souls) and Brahman (as Vishnu) are different, a difference that is never transcended.[86][87] With
this qualification, Ramanuja also affirmed monism by saying that there is unity of all souls and
that the individual soul has the potential to realize identity with the Brahman.[88] Vishishtadvaita,
like Advaita, is a non-dualistic school of Vedanta in a qualified way, and both begin by assuming
that all souls can hope for and achieve the state of blissful liberation.[89] On the relation between
the Brahman and the world of matter (Prakriti), Vishishtadvaita states both are two different
absolutes, both metaphysically true and real, neither is false or illusive, and
that saguna Brahman with attributes is also real.[90] Ramanuja states that God, like man, has both
soul and body, and the world of matter is the glory of God's body.[91] The path
to Brahman (Vishnu), according to Ramanuja, is devotion to godliness and constant
remembrance of the beauty and love of the personal god (bhakti of saguna Brahman).[92]

Swaminarayan Darshana[edit]

Swaminarayan
Main articles: Swaminarayan Darshana and Akshar-Purushottam Darshan

The Swaminarayan Darshana, also called Akshar Purushottam Darshan by the BAPS, was
propounded by Swaminarayan (1781-1830 CE) and is rooted in Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita.[h] It
asserts that Parabrahman (Purushottam, Narayana) and Aksharbrahman are two distinct eternal
realities. Adherents believe that they can achieve moksha, or freedom from the cycle of birth and
death, by becoming aksharrup (or brahmarup), that is, by attaining qualities similar to Akshar (or
Aksharbrahman) and worshipping Purushottam (or Parabrahman; the supreme living entity;
God).[93][94]

Tattvavada Vedanta (Dvaita)(dualism)[edit]

Madhvacharya in Jnana mudra.

Main article: Dvaita

Tattvavada, propounded by Madhvacharya (13th century), is based on the premise of realism or

realistic point of view. The term Dvaita which means dualism was later applied to
Madhvacharya's philosophy. Atman (soul) and Brahman (as Vishnu) are understood as two
completely different entities.[95] Brahman is the creator of the universe, perfect in knowledge,
perfect in knowing, perfect in its power, and distinct from souls, distinct from matter.
   In Dvaita Vedanta, an individual soul must feel attraction, love, attachment and complete
[96] [k]

devotional surrender to Vishnu for salvation, and it is only His grace that leads to redemption and
salvation.[99] Madhva believed that some souls are eternally doomed and damned, a view not
found in Advaita and Vishishtadvaita Vedanta.[100] While the Vishishtadvaita Vedanta asserted
"qualitative monism and quantitative pluralism of souls", Madhva asserted both "qualitative and
quantitative pluralism of souls".[101]

Shuddhādvaita Vedanta (pure nondualism)[edit]

Vallabhacharya

Main articles: Shuddhadvaita and Pushtimarg

Shuddhadvaita (pure non-dualism), propounded by Vallabhacharya (1479–1531 CE), states

that the entire universe is real and is subtly Brahman only in the form of Krishna.
[46]
 Vallabhacharya agreed with Advaita Vedanta's ontology, but emphasized
that prakriti (empirical world, body) is not separate from the Brahman, but just another
manifestation of the latter.[46] Everything, everyone, everywhere – soul and body, living and non-
living, jiva and matter – is the eternal Krishna.[46] The way to Krishna, in this school, is bhakti.
Vallabha opposed renunciation of monistic sannyasa as ineffective and advocates the path of
devotion (bhakti) rather than knowledge (jnana). The goal of bhakti is to turn away from ego, self-
centered-ness and deception, and to turn towards the eternal Krishna in everything continually
offering freedom from samsara.[46]

History[edit]
The history of Vedanta can be divided into two periods: one prior to the composition of
the Brahma Sutras and the other encompassing the schools that developed after the Brahma
Sutras were written. Until the 11th century, Vedanta was a peripheral school of thought.[102]

Before the Brahma Sutras (before the 5th century)[edit]

Little is known[103] of schools of Vedanta existing before the composition of the Brahma
Sutras (400–450 CE).[104][64][l] It is clear that Badarayana, the writer of Brahma Sutras, was not the
first person to systematize the teachings of the Upanishads, as he quotes six Vedantic teachers
before him – Ashmarathya, Badari, Audulomi, Kashakrtsna, Karsnajini and Atreya.[106]
[107]
 References to other early Vedanta teachers – Brahmadatta, Sundara, Pandaya, Tanka and
Dravidacharya – are found in secondary literature of later periods.[108] The works of these ancient
teachers have not survived, but based on the quotes attributed to them in later literature, Sharma
postulates that Ashmarathya and Audulomi were Bhedabheda scholars, Kashakrtsna and
Brahmadatta were Advaita scholars, while Tanka and Dravidacharya were either Advaita or
Vishistadvaita scholars.[107]

Brahma Sutras (completed in the 5th century)[edit]

Main article: Brahma Sutras

Badarayana summarized and interpreted teachings of the Upanishads in the Brahma Sutras,

also called the Vedanta Sutra,[109][m] possibly "written from a Bhedābheda Vedāntic
viewpoint."[55] Badarayana summarized the teachings of the classical Upanishads[110][111][n] and
refuted the rival philosophical schools in ancient India.Nicholson 2010, p. 26 The Brahma Sutras
laid the basis for the development of Vedanta philosophy.[112]

Though attributed to Badarayana, the Brahma Sutras were likely composed by multiple authors
over the course of hundreds of years.[64] The estimates on when the Brahma Sutras were
complete vary,[113][114] with Nakamura in 1989 and Nicholson in his 2013 review stating, that they
were most likely compiled in the present form around 400–450 CE.[104][o] Isaeva suggests they
were complete and in current form by 200 CE,[115] while Nakamura states that "the great part of
the Sutra must have been in existence much earlier than that" (800 - 500 BCE).[114]

The book is composed of four chapters, each divided into four-quarters or sections.[14] These
sutras attempt to synthesize the diverse teachings of the Upanishads. However, the cryptic
nature of aphorisms of the Brahma Sutras have required exegetical commentaries.[116] These
commentaries have resulted in the formation of numerous Vedanta schools, each interpreting the
texts in its own way and producing its own commentary.[117]

Between the Brahma Sutras and Adi Shankara (5th–8th

centuries)[edit]
See also: Vedas, Upanishads, and Darsanas

Little with specificity is known of the period between the Brahma Sutras (5th century CE) and Adi
Shankara (8th century CE).[103][69] Only two writings of this period have survived: the Vākyapadīya,
written by Bhartṛhari (second half 5th century,[118]) and the Kārikā written by Gaudapada (early
6th[69] or 7th century[103] CE).

Shankara mentions 99 different predecessors of his school in his commentaries.[119] A number of

important early Vedanta thinkers have been listed in the Siddhitraya by Yamunācārya (c. 1050),
the Vedārthasamgraha by Rāmānuja (c. 1050–1157), and the Yatīndramatadīpikā by Śrīnivāsa
Dāsa.[103] At least fourteen thinkers are known to have existed between the composition of the
Brahma Sutras and Shankara's lifetime.[p]

A noted scholar of this period was Bhartriprapancha. Bhartriprapancha maintained that the
Brahman is one and there is unity, but that this unity has varieties. Scholars see
Bhartriprapancha as an early philosopher in the line who teach the tenet of Bhedabheda.[14]

Gaudapada, Adi Shankara (Advaita Vedanta) (6th–9th centuries)

[edit]
Main articles: Advaita Vedanta and Gaudapada

Influenced by Buddhism, Advaita vedanta departs from the bhedabheda-philosophy, instead

postulating the identity of Atman with the Whole (Brahman),

Gaudapada[edit]

Gaudapada (c. 6th century CE),[120] was the teacher or a more distant predecessor
of Govindapada,[121] the teacher of Adi Shankara. Shankara is widely considered as the apostle
of Advaita Vedanta.[41] Gaudapada's treatise, the Kārikā – also known as the Māṇḍukya
Kārikā or the Āgama Śāstra[122] – is the earliest surviving complete text on Advaita Vedanta.[q]

Gaudapada's Kārikā relied on the Mandukya, Brihadaranyaka and Chhandogya Upanishads.
[126]
 In the Kārikā, Advaita (non-dualism) is established on rational grounds (upapatti) independent
of scriptural revelation; its arguments are devoid of all religious, mystical or scholastic elements.
Scholars are divided on a possible influence of Buddhism on Gaudapada's philosophy.[r] The
fact that Shankara, in addition to the Brahma Sutras, the principal Upanishads and
the Bhagvad Gita, wrote an independent commentary on the Kārikā proves its importance
in Vedāntic literature.[127]

Adi Shankara[edit]

Adi Shankara (788–820), elaborated on Gaudapada's work and more ancient scholarship to write
detailed commentaries on the Prasthanatrayi and the Kārikā. The Mandukya Upanishad and
the Kārikā have been described by Shankara as containing "the epitome of the substance of the
import of Vedanta".[127] It was Shankara who integrated Gaudapada work with the
ancient Brahma Sutras, "and give it a locus classicus" alongside the realistic strain of
the Brahma Sutras.[128][s]

A noted contemporary of Shankara was Maṇḍana Miśra, who regarded Mimamsa and Vedanta

as forming a single system and advocated their combination known as Karma-jnana-
samuchchaya-vada.[129][t] The treatise on the differences between the Vedanta school and the
Mimamsa school was a contribution of Adi Shankara. Advaita Vedanta rejects rituals in favor
of renunciation, for example.[130]

Early Vaishnavism Vedanta (7th–9th centuries)[edit]

Early Vaishnava Vedanta retains the tradition of bhedabheda, equating Brahman with Vishnu or
Krishna.

Nimbārka and Dvaitādvaita[edit]

Main article: Dvaitadvaita

Nimbārka (7th century)[65][66] sometimes identified with Bhāskara,

[76]
 propounded Dvaitādvaita or Bhedābheda.[77]

Bhāskara and Upadhika[edit]

Bhāskara (8th–9th century) also taught Bhedabheda. In postulating Upadhika, he considers both

identity and difference to be equally real. As the causal principle, Brahman is considered non-
dual and formless pure being and intelligence.[131] The same Brahman, manifest as events,
becomes the world of plurality. Jīva is Brahman limited by the mind. Matter and its limitations are
considered real, not a manifestation of ignorance. Bhaskara
advocated bhakti as dhyana (meditation) directed toward the transcendental Brahman. He
refuted the idea of Maya and denied the possibility of liberation in bodily existence.[132]

Vaishnavism Bhakti Vedanta (11th–16th centuries)[edit]

Main articles: Vaishnavism and Bhakti
See also: Bhakti movement

The Bhakti movement of late medieval Hinduism started in the 7th century, but rapidly
expanded after the 12th century.[133] It was supported by the Puranic literature such as
the Bhagavata Purana, poetic works, as well as many scholarly bhasyas and samhitas.[134][135]
[136]

This period saw the growth of Vashnavism Sampradayas (denominations or communities) under
the influence of scholars such as Ramanujacharya, Vedanta
Desika, Madhvacharya and Vallabhacharya.[137] Bhakti poets or teachers such as Manavala
Mamunigal, Namdev, Ramananda, Surdas, Tulsidas, Eknath, Tyagaraja, Chaitanya
Mahaprabhu and many others influenced the expansion of Vaishnavism.[138] These Vaishnavism
sampradaya founders challenged the then dominant Shankara's doctrines of Advaita Vedanta,
particularly Ramanuja in the 12th century, Vedanta Desika and Madhva in the 13th, building
their theology on the devotional tradition of the Alvars (Shri Vaishnavas),
[139]
 and Vallabhacharya in the 16th century.

In North and Eastern India, Vaishnavism gave rise to various late Medieval
movements: Ramananda in the 14th century, Sankaradeva in the 15th
and Vallabha and Chaitanya in the 16th century.

Ramanuja (Vishishtadvaita Vedanta) (11th–12th centuries)[edit]

Rāmānuja (1017–1137 CE) was the most influential philosopher in the Vishishtadvaita tradition.

As the philosophical architect of Vishishtadvaita, he taught qualified non-dualism.
[140]
 Ramanuja's teacher, Yadava Prakasha, followed the Advaita monastic tradition. Tradition has
it that Ramanuja disagreed with Yadava and Advaita Vedanta, and instead
followed Nathamuni and Yāmuna. Ramanuja reconciled the Prasthanatrayi with the theism and
philosophy of the Vaishnava Alvars poet-saints.[141] Ramanuja wrote a number of influential texts,
such as a bhasya on the Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita, all in Sanskrit.[142]

Ramanuja presented the epistemological and soteriological importance of bhakti, or the

devotion to a personal God (Vishnu in Ramanuja's case) as a means to spiritual liberation. His
theories assert that there exists a plurality and distinction between Atman (souls) and Brahman
(metaphysical, ultimate reality), while he also affirmed that there is unity of all souls and that the
individual soul has the potential to realize identity with the Brahman.[88] Vishishtadvaiata provides
the philosophical basis of Sri Vaishnavism.[143]

Ramanuja was influential in integrating Bhakti, the devotional worship, into Vedanta premises.[144]

Madhva (Tattvavada or Dvaita Vedanta)(13th–14th centuries)[edit]

Tattvavada[u] or Dvaita Vedanta was propounded by Madhvacharya (1238–1317 CE).[v] He

presented the opposite interpretation of Shankara in his Dvaita, or dualistic system.[147] In contrast
to Shankara's non-dualism and Ramanuja's qualified non-dualism, he championed unqualified
dualism. Madhva wrote commentaries on the chief Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita and
the Brahma Sutra.[148]

Madhva started his Vedic studies at age seven, joined an Advaita Vedanta monastery in Dwarka
(Gujarat),[149] studied under guru Achyutrapreksha,[150] frequently disagreed with him, left the
Advaita monastery, and founded Dvaita.[151] Madhva and his followers Jayatirtha and Vyasatirtha,
were critical of all competing Hindu philosophies, Jainism and Buddhism,[152] but particularly
intense in their criticism of Advaita Vedanta and Adi Shankara.[153]

Dvaita Vedanta is theistic and it identifies Brahman with Narayana, or more specifically Vishnu, in
a manner similar to Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita Vedanta. But it is more explicitly pluralistic.
[154]
 Madhva's emphasis for difference between soul and Brahman was so pronounced that he
taught there were differences (1) between material things; (2) between material things and souls;
(3) between material things and God; (4) between souls; and (5) between souls and God.[155] He
also advocated for a difference in degrees in the possession of knowledge. He also advocated
for differences in the enjoyment of bliss even in the case of liberated souls, a doctrine found in no
other system of Indian philosophy.[154]

Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (Achintya Bheda Abheda) (16th century)[edit]

This section needs expansion.

You can help by adding to
it. (August 2020)
Achintya Bheda Abheda (Vaishnava), founded by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (1486–1534 CE),
[67]
 was propagated by Gaudiya Vaishnava. Historically, it was Chaitanya Mahaprabhu who
founded congregational chanting of holy names of Krishna in the early 16th century after
becoming a sannyasi.[156]

Modern times (19th century – present)[edit]

Swaminarayan and Akshar-Purushottam Darshan (19th century)[edit]

The Swaminarayan Darshana, which is rooted in Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita,[157][73][158][h] was

founded in 1801 by Swaminarayan (1781-1830 CE), and is contemporarily most notably
propagated by BAPS.[159] Due to the commentarial work of Bhadreshdas Swami, the Akshar-
Purushottam teachings were recognized as a distinct school of Vedanta by the Shri Kashi Vidvat
Parishad in 2017[70][71] and by members of the 17th World Sanskrit Conference in 2018.[70][w]
[72]
 Swami Paramtattvadas describes the Akshar-Purushottam teachings as "a distinct school of
thought within the larger expanse of classical Vedanta,"[160] presenting the Akshar-Purushottam
teachings as a seventh school of Vedanta.[161]

Neo-Vedanta (19th century)[edit]

Main articles: Neo-Vedanta, Hindu nationalism, and Hindu reform movements

Neo-Vedanta, variously called as "Hindu modernism", "neo-Hinduism", and "neo-Advaita", is a

term that denotes some novel interpretations of Hinduism that developed in the 19th century,
[162]
 presumably as a reaction to the colonial British rule.[163] King (2002, pp. 129–135) writes that
these notions accorded the Hindu nationalists an opportunity to attempt the construction of a
nationalist ideology to help unite the Hindus to fight colonial oppression. Western orientalists, in
their search for its "essence", attempted to formulate a notion of "Hinduism" based on a single
interpretation of Vedanta as a unified body of religious praxis.[164] This was contra-factual as,
historically, Hinduism and Vedanta had always accepted a diversity of traditions. King (1999,
pp. 133–136) asserts that the neo-Vedantic theory of "overarching tolerance and acceptance"
was used by the Hindu reformers, together with the ideas of Universalism and Perennialism, to
challenge the polemic dogmatism of Judaeo-Christian-Islamic missionaries against the Hindus.

The neo-Vedantins argued that the six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy were perspectives
on a single truth, all valid and complementary to each other.[165] Halbfass (2007, p. 307) sees
these interpretations as incorporating western ideas[166] into traditional systems,
especially Advaita Vedanta.[167] It is the modern form of Advaita Vedanta, states King (1999,
p. 135), the neo-Vedantists subsumed the Buddhist philosophies as part of the Vedanta
tradition[x] and then argued that all the world religions are same "non-dualistic position as the
philosophia perennis", ignoring the differences within and outside of Hinduism.[169] According
to Gier (2000, p. 140), neo-Vedanta is Advaita Vedanta which accepts universal realism:
Ramakrishna, Vivekananda and Aurobindo have been labeled neo-Vedantists (the latter called it
realistic Advaita), a view of Vedanta that rejects the Advaitins' idea that the world is illusory. As
Aurobindo phrased it, philosophers need to move from 'universal illusionism' to 'universal
realism', in the strict philosophical sense of assuming the world to be fully real.
A major proponent in the popularization of this Universalist and Perennialist interpretation of
Advaita Vedanta was Vivekananda,[170] who played a major role in the revival of Hinduism.
[171]
 He was also instrumental in the spread of Advaita Vedanta to the West via the Vedanta
Society, the international arm of the Ramakrishna Order.[172][page  needed]

Criticism of Neo-Vedanta label[edit]

Nicholson (2010, p. 2) writes that the attempts at integration which came to be known as neo-
Vedanta were evident as early as between the 12th and the 16th century−
... certain thinkers began to treat as a single whole the diverse philosophical teachings of the
Upanishads, epics, Puranas, and the schools known retrospectively as the "six systems"
(saddarsana) of mainstream Hindu philosophy.[y]
Matilal criticizes Neo-Hinduism as an oddity developed by West-inspired Western Indologists
and attributes it to the flawed Western perception of Hinduism in modern India. In his scathing
criticism of this school of reasoning, Matilal (2002, pp. 403–404) says:
The so-called 'traditional' outlook is in fact a construction. Indian history shows that the tradition
itself was self-conscious and critical of itself, sometimes overtly and sometimes covertly. It was
never free from internal tensions due to the inequalities that persisted in a hierarchical society,
nor was it without confrontation and challenge throughout its history. Hence Gandhi,
Vivekananda and Tagore were not simply 'transplants from Western culture, products arising
solely from confrontation with the west. ...It is rather odd that, although the early Indologists'
romantic dream of discovering a pure (and probably primitive, according to some) form of
Hinduism (or Buddhism as the case may be) now stands discredited in many quarters; concepts
like neo-Hinduism are still bandied about as substantial ideas or faultless explanation tools by the
Western 'analytic' historians as well as the West-inspired historians of India.

Influence[edit]
According to Nakamura (2004, p. 3), the Vedanta school has had a historic and central influence
on Hinduism:
The prevalence of Vedanta thought is found not only in philosophical writings but also in various
forms of (Hindu) literature, such as the epics, lyric poetry, drama and so forth. ... the Hindu
religious sects, the common faith of the Indian populace, looked to Vedanta philosophy for the
theoretical foundations for their theology. The influence of Vedanta is prominent in the sacred
literatures of Hinduism, such as the various Puranas, Samhitas, Agamas and Tantras ... [103]
Frithjof Schuon summarizes the influence of Vedanta on Hinduism as follows:
The Vedanta contained in the Upanishads, then formulated in the Brahma Sutra, and finally
commented and explained by Shankara, is an invaluable key for discovering the deepest
meaning of all the religious doctrines and for realizing that the Sanatana Dharma secretly
penetrates all the forms of traditional spirituality.[177]
Gavin Flood states,
... the most influential school of theology in India has been Vedanta, exerting enormous influence
on all religious traditions and becoming the central ideology of the Hindu renaissance in the
nineteenth century. It has become the philosophical paradigm of Hinduism "par excellence".[13]
Hindu traditions[edit]
Vedanta, adopting ideas from other orthodox (āstika) schools, became the most prominent
school of Hinduism.[14][178] Vedanta traditions led to the development of many traditions in
Hinduism.[13][179] Sri Vaishnavism of south and southeastern India is based on
Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita Vedanta.[180] Ramananda led to the Vaishnav Bhakti Movement in
north, east, central and west India. This movement draws its philosophical and theistic basis
from Vishishtadvaita. A large number of devotional Vaishnavism traditions of east India, north
India (particularly the Braj region), west and central India are based on various sub-schools
of Bhedabheda Vedanta.[55] Advaita Vedanta influenced Krishna Vaishnavism in the northeastern
state of Assam.[181] The Madhva school of Vaishnavism found in coastal Karnataka is based
on Dvaita Vedanta.[153]

Āgamas, the classical literature of Shaivism, though independent in origin, show Vedanta
association and premises.[182] Of the 92 Āgamas, ten are (dvaita) texts, eighteen (bhedabheda),
and sixty-four (advaita) texts.[183] While the Bhairava Shastras are monistic, Shiva Shastras are
dualistic.[184] Isaeva (1995, pp. 134–135) finds the link between Gaudapada's Advaita Vedanta
and Kashmir Shaivism evident and natural. Tirumular, the Tamil Shaiva Siddhanta scholar,
credited with creating "Vedanta–Siddhanta" (Advaita Vedanta and Shaiva Siddhanta synthesis),
stated, "becoming Shiva is the goal of Vedanta and Siddhanta; all other goals are secondary to it
and are vain."[185]

Shaktism, or traditions where a goddess is considered identical to Brahman, has similarly

flowered from a syncretism of the monist premises of Advaita Vedanta and dualism premises
of Samkhya–Yoga school of Hindu philosophy, sometimes referred to
as Shaktadavaitavada (literally, the path of nondualistic Shakti).[186]

Influence on Western thinkers[edit]

An exchange of ideas has been taking place between the western world and Asia since the late
18th century as a result of colonization of parts of Asia by Western powers. This also influenced
western religiosity. The first translation of Upanishads, published in two parts in 1801 and 1802,
significantly influenced Arthur Schopenhauer, who called them the consolation of his life.[187] He
drew explicit parallels between his philosophy, as set out in The World as Will and
Representation,[188] and that of the Vedanta philosophy as described in the work of Sir William
Jones.[189] Early translations also appeared in other European languages.[190] Influenced by
Śaṅkara's concepts of Brahman (God) and māyā (illusion), Lucian Blaga often used the
concepts marele anonim (the Great Anonymous) and cenzura transcendentă (the transcendental
censorship) in his philosophy.[191]

Similarities with Spinoza's philosophy[edit]

German Sanskritist Theodore Goldstücker was among the early scholars to notice similarities

between the religious conceptions of the Vedanta and those of the Dutch Jewish
philosopher Baruch Spinoza, writing that Spinoza's thought was
... so exact a representation of the ideas of the Vedanta, that we might have suspected its
founder to have borrowed the fundamental principles of his system from the Hindus, did his
biography not satisfy us that he was wholly unacquainted with their doctrines [...] comparing the
fundamental ideas of both we should have no difficulty in proving that, had Spinoza been a
Hindu, his system would in all probability mark a last phase of the Vedanta philosophy.[192]
Max Müller noted the striking similarities between Vedanta and the system of Spinoza, saying,
The Brahman, as conceived in the Upanishads and defined by Sankara, is clearly the same as
Spinoza's 'Substantia'."[193]
Helena Blavatsky, a founder of the Theosophical Society, also compared Spinoza's religious
thought to Vedanta, writing in an unfinished essay,
As to Spinoza's Deity – natura naturans – conceived in his attributes simply and alone; and the
same Deity – as natura naturata or as conceived in the endless series of modifications or
correlations, the direct outflowing results from the properties of these attributes, it is the Vedantic
Deity pure and simple.[194]