Shivanandalahari (Sivanandalahari) - An advaitic Hymn by Adi Shankaracharya

Shivanandalahari (Sivanandalahari) is one of the greatest poetic prayer couched in an undercurrent of practical philosophy by Sri Adi Sankara Bhagawatpada. Unlike Soundrya Lahari, this stotra does not seem to have tantric implication. It is more simpler and enriched with several alankaras. Any one reading this and understanding it would get peace, steadfast mind and knowledge of God and Philosophy.

Prayer to the teacher

Imkara hrimkara rahasya yuktha
Srimkara gudartha Maha vibhoothya
Om kara marma prathi paadinibhyam,
Namo nama Sri Guru Padukabyam

I bow before the holy footwear of my teacher,
Who taught me the meaning of “OM”,
Which is the inner meaning of the sound “Srim”,
Being a holy combination of the sounds “Im” and “Hrim”.

Translation : Click here for full translation

Does Advaita believe in reincarnation? (part 2)

Q: But if reincarnation is not real at the ultimate level, what happens to dharma and ethics?

All dharma and adharma operate at the transaction level only. They are as real as jiiva and Isvara. Everything is included in that One - which is real from the absolute point.

When we say 'I am', 'I' stands for the consciousness aspect and 'am' stands for the existence aspect. When we say ‘I am this’, there is the confusion of identification of the subject ‘I am’ with the object 'this'. That is due to error ,which is due to the ignorance of not knowing that 'I am'. Right now 'I am a jiiva' is the notional understanding while ‘I am Brahman’ is the vision of my self according to the Upanishads. That true ‘I am’ has to realized or recognized.

The body is only a vehicle or instrument required to exhaust my vAsana-s. Essentially, vAsana-s decide the type of body required - man or woman, white, brown or black skin etc. I, the jiiva, gravitate towards the environment that is conducive to my vAsana-s. Hence they are called 'kAraNa shariira' or causal body.

Hence what birth I take next depends on the most powerful vasana-s that are ready to germinate next. There is my ‘total bank account’ of karma (saMchita karma), of which I brought into this life only those that can be exhausted (prArabdha karma) and, if in the process I make new ones (AgAmin karma), which cannot be exhausted in this life, these are deposited to my account. Until all vasanas get neutralized, I will continue taking births in one form or the other. By yoga or sAdhanA, I neutralize the vAsanas. When I realize who I am - I am ‘not this, not this’ etc. (since I am the subject that can never be an object 'this') - I recognize that I am that sat chit ananda and then there is no more ownership of any karma. All are transcended in that knowledge of who I am.

As long as I think I am a jiiva, these notions are regarded as facts and Brahman does not come into picture – ‘I am Brahman’ is only realised from the state of absolute knowledge. Until this is recognized as a fact and not merely as a thought, jiiva-hood is there and vAsana-s operate. So karma and its kShaya (dominion) are there as long as you are there to question, since the questioning is done by a jiva.

As long as I am dreaming that I am being chased by a tiger, that dream tiger is as real as the one who is being chased. I have to run away as fast as I can to save myself from that tiger. Only when I am awakened to the higher state of consciousness, are the tiger and the one whom the tiger is chasing, as well as the forest and the ground upon which I am running, all resolved into my own mind.

The dreamer thinks that the dream world is real until he is awakened to a higher state where there is only one mind that projects the world of plurality. The plurality is real as long as dream lasts. The problem in your questions is that you want to place one leg in the waking state and one leg in the dream state and then question the validity of each from the other reference point. Any question from the Brahman viewpoint whilst still sitting at the jiiva position is like a dreamer asking about the waking mind. The waking mind is one – Advaita. The plurality of the dream world is from the viewpoint of a dreamer who thinks he is different from the tiger and the trees in the forest.

Source: http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/reincarnation_sada.htm

More Info: Philosophy of Advaita Vedanta (expounded by Sankaracharya)

Does Advaita believe in reincarnation?

To answer simply, Advaita is not based on any single soul - there is no soul and not-soul at that ultimate understanding - there is only one non-dual sat chit and ananda. Existence-consciousness-ananda cannot be divided. If one sees divisions they are only apparent and not real. If one takes the apparent as real, then all others factors become as real.

Jiiva (soul) itself is a notion and when that notion is taken as real - all other problems become as real as jiiva. Hence reincarnation and transmigration of soul are all real in that frame of reference.

Look at this way: gold, iron and copper look different if these difference as taken as real. They can exist in different forms - now as ring, now as bangle, now as chain, now as bracelet - gold undergoing transmigration or reincarnation into different forms.

If one understands that all are nothing but electrons, protons, neutrons etc., then from that perspective gold, iron, copper are just bunches of electrons, protons and neutrons - which themselves are nothing but energy-states.

I can understand as a scientist they are all one - yet I can transact in the world taking gold as different from iron and copper. Transactions are done at one level while understanding is at the ultimate level - there is no confusion if one understands correctly. I know that the sun neither rises nor sets but I can still appreciate the beauty of sunrise and sunset.

That is advaita in spite of dvaita - that is no incarnation in spite of reincarnation. Karma (action) is at the transactional level. At the absolute level I realize that I am never a kartRRi (doer). That is Advaita. Advaita in spite of dvaita.

Source: http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/reincarnation_sada.htm

More Info: Advaita Vedanta of Shankaracharya

Advaita Articles: Oneness in spite of Duality

An Article posted to Advaitin EList By Madathil Nair:
Knowledge, inferential or direct, is necessarily dualistic. There is a knower and there is a known. It is the apparent chasm between the two that necessitates ‘add ins’ like body, mind, intellect etc., which are absolutely necessary if we get down to analyzing the process of knowing and of which, however, we are not at all aware through most of our waking moments. The question now is if we can get rid of, or at least limit, the sense of duality while keeping our eyes open and experiencing the world. The sense of duality emerges only when ‘we get down to analyzing’. Otherwise, it is all One. This is the exact reason why empirical sciences unfailingly fail at appreciating Reality because they stick their nose deep into ‘enquiring’. Well, that is their job. Can't help it.
This reminds me of a story of a king and his consort which I read in some old philosophical work. The lady was a realized being and the king was a spiritual struggler. She taught him Vedanta and, as a result, he reached a stage of spiritual evolution where he was able to enjoy samaadhi at will - but only when he sat in a particular posture and kept his eyes closed! His consort was not happy with the situation. She continued helping him until at last he opened up like Arjuna saying "naShTo moha"! He no more needed a posture or closed eyes to be One with everything. He ‘knew’ that he had always been just That!
As advaitins, we know duality and we know that there is only Oneness despite duality. In acquiring this knowledge, no doubt, we necessarily made use of concepts like adhyaasa, body, mind, intellect etc. But, isn't it yet time we kept these tools and equipment on the shelf, opened our eyes, looked upwards at the Sun and chanted the gAyatrI mantra or showed the lighted lamp to our smiling devI (She is my iShTadevata) and said "na tatra sUryo bhaati ………." or looked at the splendour of the night sky and thrilled heaven and earth by singing from dakshinAmUrti stotram: "Naanachchiddra ghatodarasthithamaha deepaprabhabhaasuram….."?
Will you feel any sense of duality then? I am sure no. You then have no time to entertain duality. This guy called duality is there in your sitting room only as long as you care to entertain him.
The whole of waking life or most of it can thus be rendered ‘non-dual’. We don't have to necessarily turn ‘inwards’ to do that. There is no ‘inwards’ or ‘outwards’ in this business. All directions are the same. An ‘inwards’ can exist only in relation to the limitations of the body-mind-intellect equipment. Haven't we already placed it on the shelf? Neither have we got to negate anything. We can be just That inspite of everything. In other words, we accept everything and see them from a different angle, wherefrom only the oneness in diversity is perceived. This is my ‘I know’ - the common denominator of all transactions.
I am reminded of two situations Swami Dayananda Saraswatiji mentions in this context. You are alone and there is a beautiful sunset. That makes you extremely happy. There is no wish fulfilment here. Yet, you are happy, because you are essentially happiness and the sunset made you forget your limitations for a second. In other words, you tasted oneness. The second situation (slightly embellished by me): You are with your business rival in his sitting room struggling to sort differences out. You hate the man because he is a big pain on the neck. And suddenly you spot his baby. It is smiling at you - a toothless, innocent smile. You forget everything for a moment and break out into being a tender expansiveness in spite of the fact that that baby is not yours and its father is your bitter foe.
These are classical examples where duality vanishes without a trace. There is no body-mind-intellect equipment here unless you sit back later and analyze. You are then inviting the guy - the unwanted duality - back into your sitting room.
It is within us to make each and every moment of our life ‘non- dually’ happy if we really contemplate and endeavour. The ‘I know’ (or jaanaami) explanation helps. One can even reach a point where one is able to spot, appreciate and love the endearing ‘cherubicity’ (my coinage) behind the bushy moustache of Saddam Hussein without any sense of separation. (I was a war prisoner in his Iraq some time ago. I, therefore, have every reason to love him, for the hardships I then underwent taught me great lessons.). There are masters around us living this truth. Why can't we at least aspire to be in their footsteps?
With advaitic contemplation, we begin to spontaneously glow like glow-worms. It is the waking, continuous glow of knowing (jaanaami) without a sense of separation. Deep sleep, experiences (!) of anaesthesia and hypnosis are within that glow. The concept of non-existent death too. Who cares? I have got to glow. I don't have time to see what happens to this body-mind-intellect equipment. It is there on the shelf. I can take a look at it when I want. It does not matter if it was the same one which I left there last time!
More: Advaita Vedanta Resources

Advaita Articles: The Enlightenment 'event'

A discussion from Advaitin Mailing List:

Dennis: What is the nature of the event that must occur before we can make the 'transition' from an intellectual acceptance of who we really are to full liberation?
I am not asking 'what do I have to do' or anything similar - I know that there is nothing that 'I' can do; indeed nothing that 'I' do at all. It has also been said that enlightenment is rather a 'non-event'. What I am interested in is the 'lead up' for want of a better phrase to the 'paradigm-shift' of realisation.
Greg: The lead-up is quite often a two-phase process.
The first phase is often a very strong desire to know the Truth, to finally BE it. This desire is sweet and benevolent, not agitated. It is stronger than anything else, and it places itself in the background behind all other thoughts and feelings. Whenever you are not thinking about the business of the day, you will think of getting at least a tiny glimpse of this Truth. Your mind will just be there, aligned with that desire to Know/Be. The strength will develop so that it's more important than life itself.
The second phase, closer to the 'non-event', is often an indescribably sweet feeling of being summoned home. Of being beckoned back to a place that you can't describe phenomenally, but which feels soft and inviting and altogether familiar nevertheless. And as time goes on, there is a greater and greater feeling of confidence and realisation that this will happen. From this perspective, it is probably considered a real and quite momentous phenomenal event, but the feeling of momentousness and reality attributed to this event also softens with time.
Dennis: Some of the new, 'neo-advaitin' teachers are saying that no 'event' need actually occur. Once we have an intellectual appreciation of the truth, the seeking can effectively end and we should simply wait for this knowledge to 'sink in', as it were. What do you say to these claims?
Greg: Definitions such as 'Enlightenment = the end of seeking!' are a logical misunderstanding, and even a trivialization of enlightenment, compared to its articulation in the great traditions such as Advaita Vedanta.
If we propose two definitions:
(A) If Enlightenment, then no seeking. (B) If no seeking, then Enlightenment.
The logical misunderstanding consists partly in confusing (A) with (B). According to most time-honoured definitions of enlightenment, something like (A) would be true, whereas (B) would be false.
Incidentally, one thing that modern interpreters of Advaita do is to attribute a lion's share of suffering to the seeking itself. I've heard many spokespeople say: "Enlightenment = the end of seeking!" This is quite a psychological definition of enlightenment, together with a personalized preoccupation with one's feeling states and one's progress on the path.
This kind of seeking-based suffering is often a self-indulgent and intellectually-acquired thing. There are lots of other kinds of suffering that can remain even when seeking ends. E.g., I know one lady whose seeking ended, but in despair. She even had a mild resentment towards what she considered the charlatanry of some modern teachers, and went on to live her life doing other things. No more seeking, but still various kinds of suffering.
Dennis: But what about the actual transition?
I mentioned, before, the idea of a paradigm shift. I suppose it must be something like the change that came about when man, originally believing that the earth was the centre of the universe, suddenly understood the implications of Copernicus. And yet there, the event that tipped the balance was the assimilation of new knowledge. Is this all (!) that is happening here? In fact, could it happen without the knowledge of the shruti (direct or indirect)?
What 'sort of' event is it, in vyaavahhaarika terms? Is the elusiveness caused by trying to describe the indescribable again, because the 'event' is a sort of intersection of noumenal and phenomenal?
Greg: In the same terms as your question -- It's the transition between seeing it as an event, and not seeing it as an event. It's the transition between seeming to experience a real difference between the noumenal and the phenomenal, and not.
As seen from 'before'", there's a before and after, and an imagined phenomenal distinction. As seen from 'after', there is not.

Free Will and Predetermination - Do we have Free Will?

Aeshines - A Newly Discovered Socratic Dialogue

SOCRATES Hail to Thee, Aeschines! From where do you return to visit us now?

AESCHINES I have just returned from my father's kitchen where I was assisting him in making his famed spiced meat delicacies.

S. Yes! Charinus makes the finest sausages in all Athens, that is beyond dispute.

A. Thank you, Socrates. Next to my father, I love you dearly. I hope I shall never leave you. Strike me with your staff, for you will find no wood hard enough to keep me away from you, so long as I think you've something to say.

S. Only the sausage-maker's son knows how to honour me. ² I wish all my friends were as loyal as you, Aeschines. In some ways, your respected profession has often appealed to me as most enviable. You assist your Father whom you love, earn an honest livelihood, exercise great care and attention keeping the restless mind in check, and what is more, create delicacies for the citizens of Athens to enjoy with wine and fill their bellies, which when digested, turns to thought and hopefully beneficial actions.

A. Thou speakest truth as always, Socrates. I have toiled to excel at this work, selecting the choicest herbs, learning to pound the cooked rare meats into a paste and blend them, pack them in an edible skin and make them look as appetising as possible.

S. I am persuaded of your eminent skill, Aeschincs. I trust you will not refuse me a sample of your labours.

A. Here is one of Father's latest concoctions, a mixture of lamb and rabbit flavoured with honey, thyme and black pepper.

S. Thank you. I shall relish it more after our conversation but now ask me whatever you will.

A. You said earlier that my food after being digested, stimulates thought which leads to action.

S. I recall having said that.

A. Does this mean I am indirectly responsible for my clients' thoughts and deeds?

S. After a fashion, partially, but not completely. Thoughts need food stuff to make them happen.

A. But surely Socrates, man is responsible for his own thoughts and actions, and has the freedom to decide his acts?

S. Dear boy, I hope you will not be shocked when I tell you that man has no freedom of will, and is not responsible for his actions.

A. But surely Socrates, this goes against the 'consensus gentium' of educated people and their commonsense. I feel and I know that I am responsible for my acts. When I think to do something, I carry it out.

S. Are you so sure, my dear fellow? Let us examine this matter more closely. Sit down a while. You say you think; where does the thought that you have, come from, in the first instance? Where does it arise?

A. From me, of course.

S. From Me. Tell me, who is this Me? Can you find him inside? Now watch closely. Where do thoughts actually come from? Be very honest.

A. Well, surprisingly they seem to arrive from nowhere, out of the blue. From the Gods, perhaps.

S. Now you see that you did not create the initial thought. It arrives from you know not where. Then what happens?

A. It commences the faculty of reasoning.

S. Yes. It touches your mind, and either the thought is rejected as unworthy or accepted as useful, according to needs, standards of upbringing and so forth; and it starts a process called thinking.

A. But surely I start the process of reasoning.

S. Are you sure? Look closely now. See what actually happens. A thought arrives from nowhere, touches the mind which reacts according to its patterns of education and what it believes to be the right response, and some more thought weighs the matter up.

A. But surely in the weighing I choose from the alternatives offered by commonsense and reason?

S. I mistrust your commonsense and conventional opinion, the so-called reason of the masses. Only the philosophers understand the nature of choice, and not too many of them, I suspect.

A. Do you mean I didn't choose?

S. What happens if you watch, dear sausage maker, is that the mind or thoughts present alternatives, and according to your disposition you choose what you consider to be the most practical, pleasurable and in the best interest for you. But there is no daemon inside to choose. The choice happens mechanically, like an abacus, and then the mind foolishly ascribes it to itself as "a free agent", boasting arrogantly "I CHOOSE."

A. Please continue, Socrates. This is most illuminating.

S. Truly the choice was inevitable. The so-called act of choosing was part of the structure of predetermination. The choice was inevitable, because it appealed to your hidden tendencies of pleasure, and what you believe to be appropriate. In fact there was never any freedom to choose anything other than that which was chosen.

A. But surely if a man does good deeds, they are his own, just as the man who does evil deeds?

S. Again, Aeschines, let us examine very closely. Watch how everything happens. A train of inevitable events leads one man to the good, another to the so-called evil.

A. How is that?

S. One man is born into a noble womb, with refined educated parents, another into an uncaring home of ignorance. Patterns of behaviour are laid down like a mosaic, by example and imitation. What you call good and bad habits are largely mimicry.

A. But surely, Socrates, there are innate tendencies of good and evil that men are born with?

S. Yes. Souls are transmigrated with these tendencies laid down.

A. So what determines this behaviour of these souls?

S. Examples from parents, family, teachers, people you meet, heroes, reading, and so forth. You are determined all the time, by each new event.

A. Is this the way the Gods control our destiny?

S. Broadly, yes.

A. I see. So when I choose, I imagine I'm choosing, but really it's all predetermined.

S. Exactly. You are beginning to see the point.

A. Then tell me, Socrates, the idea that I can do anything of my own free will, is that falsely imagined?

S. Yes.

A. Then how do I live?

S. Choose as if you have choice, knowing you really have none. This is a step towards freedom and the Good. It will remove guilt, and stop you from blaming others for their so called bad deeds, and stop you from flattering others for their so called good deeds, according to society's approval or disapproval.

A. If this was generally understood, what would our tragedians have to write about?

S. Very little. But about good and bad, the Nubian, Libyan and Egyptian have quite different standards to we Greeks, neither better nor worse except according to our opinion. Moreover, each tragedy illustrates a chief characteristic which prevents the hero from coming to Self knowledge. Such was the blindness of Oedipus.

A. But how will I live, knowing all this?

S. Enjoy yourself, my boy. Be happy. Love your work, and study philosophy, but don't attribute your actions to an imaginary ME who doesn't actually exist which is the real slavery.

A. Thank you Socrates. But…

S. There are always 'buts' - listen! This idea that men can act independently of the Gods is at the root of their bondage, and enslaves master and boy alike. To be free, a man must know this clearly. This is my point. I hammer it home continuously.

A. How do I see this clearly?

S. Some time, reflect on major events of your day and examine how much they really happened through your free will? This will undermine your vanity and your pride.

A. Thank you.

S. The tyrant is the imaginary ME who has usurped the Good which is our birthright of freedom. Sacrifice him to the Gods, and all will be well, I promise.

A. Thank you again, Socrates.

S. Come, my dear friend, let us enjoy your sausage with some Cypriot wine; Ah! I can see Alciabides approaching.

source: http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/freewill_jacobs.htm

The Unreal

Most of us believe that we are a 'person' with a unique body and mind. Possibly there is a 'soul' that survives death in some way. We think that there are other individuals and separate objects out there, alien and potentially threatening. We are constantly searching for happiness but, all too often, finding only misery.

But is any of this really true? The notion of a 'person' stems from the Latin persona, referring to the mask worn by actors in the ancient Greek theatre. It is used now in psychology when talking about the artificial facade that we display to others and behind which the 'real' I hides. And we do recognise the sense of an unchanging 'I', the same now as it was when we first acknowledged it. Our bodies are older and larger, our thoughts and beliefs more mature but most of us feel that I have a body and mind, not that I am a body or mind.

The body is nothing but the food that we eat, cleverly rearranged into more complex proteins, serving specific functions, by the mechanical instructions of the DNA, itself nothing more than processed food. Our opinions and thoughts are an inevitable product of our upbringing. Parents, peers, teachers and books conspire unwittingly (or not) to 'educate' us into our outlook on life and our aspirations. We need to look behind this facade.

The process by which we 'attach' our true Self to a mistaken idea of what we are is called in Sanskrit ahamkara. This literally means 'the making (kara) of the utterance 'I' (aham)'. It is often equated to the Western concept of 'ego' and it must be controlled by the intellect if we are to make any 'progress' on a spiritual 'path'.

Similarly, the 'states of consciousness' with which we are familiar are illusory. Only when our minds are completely still or 'in the interval between thoughts' if you like, are we truly ourselves. This 'background' state is called turiya and underlies all of our experience.

To the vast majority of people in the world, the topic of happiness is both mystifying and complex. Philosophers in the west have thought about it for the past two and a half thousand years; psychologists and sociologists have experimented and conducted polls on it for the past hundred. Still there is little consensus and, if anything, there appears to be less happiness in the world today than ever.

To the Advaitin, on the other hand, the subject is ever so simple. There is only the Self and, accepting that we can never speak of this objectively, by definition, we can say that the Self IS happiness. And that is really all there is to it.

Likewise with the question of ‘meaning’ and ‘purpose’ in our lives. In the world in general, there are likely to be almost as many ideas and answers to these as there are people. As far as the Advaitin is concerned, of course, there are no people so perhaps this does not count for very much! Furthermore, we know that concepts of meaning and purpose are simply that – ideas in mind. As such, their value is, at most, in their utility as tools to take the mind to the brink of understanding. Once there, all ideas must be surrendered so that the final leap can be made, extinguishing forever all identification with ego and mind.

Source: http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/unreal/unreal.htm

Necessity of a Guru in the trdition of Advaita Vedanta

Advaita vedānta requires anyone seeking to study advaita vedānta to do so from a Guru (teacher). The Guru must have the following qualities (see Mundaka Upanishad 1.2.12):

• Śrotriya — must be learned in the Vedic scriptures and sampradaya
• Brahmanishtha — literally meaning established in Brahman; must have realised the oneness of Brahman in everything and in himself

The seeker must serve the Guru and submit questions with all humility in order to remove all doubts (see Bhagavad Gita 4.34). By doing so, advaita says, the seeker will attain moksha (liberation from the cycle of births and deaths).

More Info: Necessity of a Guru in the trdition of Advaita Vedanta

Free Will according to Advaita Vedanta

Apart from karma, there is scope for free will (called “purushartha”) in human lives. Good action and good thought can reduce papa and increase punya. Whether free will or karma will prevail or to what extent free will can mitigate karma depends on the relative strength of the two. Since there is no way of knowing what one’s karma is, wisdom lies in doing good actions and entertaining good thoughts. One should not lose faith in the efficacy of good actions and good thoughts; good actions and good thoughts are bound to bring about a better balance of punya papa and, consequently, mitigate suffering and increase happiness in the present janma itself or in future janmas.

Brhadaranyaka Upanishad, fifth chapter, fourteenth section talks of the beneficial result of the chanting of the famous Savitri mantra in the Gayatri metre.

Full Article: Free Will according to Advaita Vedanta

Theory of creation according to Advaita Vedanta Philosophy

In the pragmatic level, Adi Shankara believes in the Creation of the world through Satkaryavada. It is like the philosophy of Samkhya, which says that the cause is always hidden into its effect—and the effect is just a transformation of the cause. However, Samkhya believes in a sub-form of Satkaryavada called Parinamvada (evolution)—whereby the cause results in an action. Instead, Adi Shankara believes in a sub-form called Vivartavada. According to this, the effect is merely a superimposition of its cause—like its illusion. eg., In darkness, a man often confuses a rope to be a snake. But this does not mean that the rope has actually transformed into a snake.

At the pragmatic level, the universe is believed to be the creation of the Supreme Lord Ishvara. Maya is the divine magic of Ishvara, with the help of which Ishvara creates the world. The serial of Creation is taken from the Upanishads. First of all, the five subtle elements (ether, air, fire, water and earth) are created from Ishvara. Ether is created by Maya. From ether, air is born. From air, water is born. From water, earth is born. From a proportional combination of all five subtle elements, the five gross elements are created, like the gross sky, the gross fire, etc. From these gross elements, the universe and life are created. This series is exactly the opposite during destruction.

Some people have criticized that these principles are against Satkaryavada. According to Satkaryavada, the cause is hidden inside the effect. How can Ishvara, whose form is spiritual, be the effect of this material world? Adi Shankara says that just as from a conscious living human, inanimate objects like hair and nails are formed, similarly, the inanimate world is formed from the spiritual Ishvara.

More Info: Advaita Vedanta Philosophy

Advaita concept of liberation

In the advaita analysis, human life and behavior is explained on the basis of the theory of karma, which sets the cycle of rebirths into motion. All actions, good or bad, create their own karmic residues called vAsanas , which exhibit their results over a period of time. The karma which has already started taking fruit is called prArabdha karma. This is the karma that is responsible for the current birth. The accumulated karma which is yet to take fruit is called sancita karma. As long as the cycle of rebirths continues, more karma will be done in the future, and this is called Agamin karma. Liberation (moksha) is the way out of this endless cycle.

Full Article: Advaita concept of liberation

Advaita on Transmigration and Karma

Another fundamental tenet of Advaita Vedanta – indeed of all schools of philosophy in Hinduism – is that the sukshma sarira in which cidabhasa is always there survives the death of the sthoola sarira and is involved in transmigration from one world to another among the fourteen worlds (lokas) mentioned in Sastra and entry into different sthoola sariras in successive births (janmas). Associated with this tenet, there is the theory of karma. According to this, for the actions and thoughts ofjivatmas they incur what are called “punya” and “papa” (merit and demerit) and have to undergo enjoyment or suffering in future janmas and, sometimes in this janma itself.

Vide Brhadaranyaka Upanishad IV.4.vi – “Being attached, the (transmigrating jivatma) together with its karma attains that on which its subtle body or mind is set. It experiences (in the other world) the karma phalam (recompense for punya papa in the form of enjoyment and suffering) for whatever karma it had done in this world. When it is exhausted, it comes again from that world to this world for new karma. Thus does the man with craving (transmigrate)”.

Full Article: Advaita on Transmigration and Karma

Who is the founder of Advaita Philosophy?

There is no single founder of advaita vedanta. Since the philosophy of advaita is rooted in the upanishads, which are part of the eternal vedas, the advaita tradition does not trace itself to a historical personality. However, Adi SankarAcArya is venerated as the most important teacher of advaita vedAnta, as he wrote commentaries to the basic scriptural texts, and placed the living advaita tradition on a firm footing. Before SankarAcArya's time, the tradition was passed down mainly through oral instruction.

Adi Sankaracharya's param-guru (guru's guru) Sri Gaudapada ws also an important acharya in advaita tredition. His celebrated karikas (explonatory extensions) to Madukhya Upanishad are considered valuble in advaitic tradition, in which he explains how this waking world can be seen as unreality just like the dreaming world.

Related: Advaita FAQ

Sankara Bhashya of Bhagavad Gita

Presented here is the Bhagavad Gita with the commentary of Sri Adi Sankaracharya translated by Swami Gambhirananda. This is one of the most important and revered works of Sri Sankaracharya along with his commentaries on Brahma-Sutras and Upanishads. Together called as "Prastana Traya" bhashya, these commentaries by Sankaracharya forms the central basis for the Advaita philosophy that he propounded.

Read More: Gita Bhashya of Adi Sankaracharya

Philosophy of Advaita Vedanta - How Maya Operates?

How Maya operates?

Advaita Vedanta - Questions and Answers

The word, avidya, used in Sastra (translated as “nescience” in English) is a technical term. Avidya and Maya are synonyms. (Other terms used for Maya are “avyakta”. “avyakruta”, prakriti”. Sometimes, the word “ajnanam” which literally means ignorance, is also used as a technical term for avidya. But none of these terms, not even the word,”ajnanam”should be confused with the word “ignorance” used in common parlance). Avidya (Maya) is a positive entity.

Maya is constituted of three factors, satva, rajas and tamas. Maya is matter. At the macrocosmic level, with the Brahman-consciousness reflected in Maya, there is Isvara. Thus Isvara has two aspects – the consciousness aspect and the matter aspect. Iswara in his consciousness aspect visualises the pattern of creation suited to the requirements of the karma of the jivas and impels the matter aspect containing the universe including the sukshma sariras of jivas and the karmas of jivas in seed form to unfold into the universe of diffentiated objects. This unfolding is the vikshepa sakti of Maya at the samashti (macrocsomic) level. Iswara is not affected by the avarana sakti of Maya and is therefore ever aware of his true nature being Brahman. At the vyashti (microcosmic) level, in so far as jivas are concerned, both the avarana sakti and the vikshepa sakti of Maya come into play. The avarana sakti makes jivas ignorant of their true nature as Brahman and the vikshepa sakti makes them identity with the body mind complex and regard the world with its divisions to be the reality. Avarana Sakti is indicated in Kathopanishad mantra I.iii.12. In Pancadasi, Vidyaranya gives an ingenious explanation for the avarana sakti being non–operative at the microcosmic level and being operative at the microcosmic level. He says that at the macrocosmic level, avidya is satva predominant, whereas at the microcosmic level, it is tamas rajas predominant.

More Info: Advaita Vedanta Philosophy Portal

Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of Adi Shankaracharya

The essence of Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of Adi Shankaracharya

The teachings of Sankara can be summed up in half a verse: “Brahma Satyam Jagan Mithya Jivo Brahmaiva Na Aparah—Brahman (the Absolute) is alone real; this world is unreal; and the Jiva or the individual soul is non-different from Brahman.” This is the quintessence of his philosophy.

The Advaita taught by Sri Sankara is a rigorous, absolute one. According to Sri Sankara, whatever is, is Brahman. Brahman Itself is absolutely homogeneous. All difference and plurality are illusory.

Brahman—The One Without A Second

The Atman is self-evident (Svatah-siddha). It is not established by extraneous proofs. It is not possible to deny the Atman, because It is the very essence of the one who denies It. The Atman is the basis of all kinds of knowledge, presuppositions and proofs. Self is within, Self is without; Self is before, Self is behind; Self is on the right, Self is on the left; Self is above and Self is below. Brahman is not an object, as It is Adrisya, beyond the reach of the eyes. Hence the Upanishads declare: “Neti Neti—not this, not this....” This does not mean that Brahman is a negative concept, or a metaphysical abstraction, or a nonentity, or a void. It is not another. It is all-full, infinite, changeless, self-existent, self-delight, self-knowledge and self-bliss. It is Svarupa, essence. It is the essence of the knower. It is the Seer (Drashta), Transcendent (Turiya) and Silent Witness (Sakshi). Sankara’s Supreme Brahman is impersonal, Nirguna (without Gunas or attributes), Nirakara (formless), Nirvisesha (without special characteristics), immutable, eternal and Akarta (non-agent). It is above all needs and desires. It is always the Witnessing Subject. It can never become an object as It is beyond the reach of the senses. Brahman is non-dual, one without a second. It has no other beside It. It is destitute of difference, either external or internal. Brahman cannot be described, because description implies distinction. Brahman cannot be distinguished from any other than It. In Brahman, there is not the distinction of substance and attribute. Sat-Chit-Ananda constitute the very essence or Svarupa of Brahman, and not just Its attributes. The Nirguna Brahman of Sankara is impersonal. It becomes a personal God or Saguna Brahman only through Its association with Maya. Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman are not two different Brahmans. Nirguna Brahman is not the contrast, antithesis or opposite of Saguna Brahman. The same Nirguna Brahman appears as Saguna Brahman for the pious worship of devotees. It is the same Truth from two different points of view. Nirguna Brahman is the higher Brahman, the Brahman from the transcendental viewpoint (Paramarthika); Saguna Brahman is the lower Brahman, the Brahman from the relative viewpoint (Vyavaharika).

The World—A Relative Reality

The world is not an illusion according to Sankara. The world is relatively real (Vyavaharika Satta), while Brahman is absolutely real (Paramarthika Satta). The world is the product of Maya or Avidya. The unchanging Brahman appears as the changing world through Maya. Maya is a mysterious indescribable power of the Lord which hides the real and manifests itself as the unreal: Maya is not real, because it vanishes when you attain knowledge of the Eternal. It is not unreal also, because it exists till knowledge dawns in you. The superimposition of the world on Brahman is due to Avidya or ignorance.

Nature Of The Jiva And The Means To Moksha

To Sankara, the Jiva or the individual soul is only relatively real. Its individuality lasts only so long as it is subject to unreal Upadhis or limiting conditions due to Avidya. The Jiva identifies itself with the body, mind and the senses, when it is deluded by Avidya or ignorance. It thinks, it acts and enjoys, on account of Avidya. In reality it is not different from Brahman or the Absolute. The Upanishads declare emphatically: “Tat Tvam Asi—That Thou Art.” Just as the bubble becomes one with the ocean when it bursts, just as the pot-ether becomes one with the universal ether when the pot is broken, so also the Jiva or the empirical self becomes one with Brahman when it gets knowledge of Brahman. When knowledge dawns in it through annihilation of Avidya, it is freed from its individuality and finitude and realises its essential Satchidananda nature. It merges itself in the ocean of bliss. The river of life joins the ocean of existence. This is the Truth. The release from Samsara means, according to Sankara, the absolute merging of the individual soul in Brahman due to dismissal of the erroneous notion that the soul is distinct from Brahman. According to Sankara, Karma and Bhakti are means to Jnana which is Moksha.

More Info: Shankarachaya Advaita Vedanta Portal