Advaita Vedanta

Historical Background and Sources

Advaita Vedanta is one of the most influential schools of Hindu philosophy, known for its doctrine of non-dualism. While its roots lie in the ancient Upaniṣads (c. 800–300 BCE), it was systematized between the 7th and 9th centuries CE, most prominently by Ādi Śaṅkara (Shankaracharya).

Advaita forms a major branch of Vedānta, the tradition that interprets the Upaniṣads, the Brahma Sūtras, and the Bhagavad Gītā as its triple scriptural foundation (prasthāna traya). Earlier thinkers such as Gauḍapāda (author of the Māṇḍūkya Kārikā) articulated radical non-dual ideas that strongly influenced Śaṅkara.

Historically, Advaita arose in debate with other orthodox (āstika) schools, especially Mīmāṃsā, Sāṃkhya, and Nyāya, and with rival Vedānta interpretations such as Viśiṣṭādvaita and Dvaita. Over centuries, Advaita became a pan-Indian intellectual tradition, associated with monastic centers (maṭhas), commentarial literature, and later neo-Vedāntic reinterpretations in colonial and postcolonial India.

Core Metaphysical and Epistemological Doctrine

At the heart of Advaita lies the claim that Brahman, the absolute, is the sole ultimately real principle. Brahman is characterized as non-dual, attributeless consciousness (nirguṇa brahman), beyond all distinctions of subject and object, time, space, or causality. The famous formula “tat tvam asi” (“That thou art”) from the Chāndogya Upaniṣad expresses the identity of Ātman (the innermost self) and Brahman.

Advaita distinguishes between:

• Paramārthika-sattā (ultimate reality): Only Brahman.
• Vyāvahārika-sattā (empirical reality): The everyday world of persons, objects, and moral action.
• Prātibhāsika-sattā (illusory reality): Dream or hallucination-like appearances.

The empirical world is described as mithyā—neither absolutely real nor wholly unreal. It is dependent and appearance-like, comparable to seeing a snake in a rope at dusk: the rope (Brahman) alone is real, while the snake (world of plurality) is a misperception produced by ignorance (avidyā).

This process of misperception is analyzed through adhyāsa (superimposition): the mind projects names, forms, and individuality onto the non-dual ground. Bondage (saṃsāra) consists in mistaking the limited body-mind as one’s true self. Liberation (mokṣa) is the direct realization that one has always been Brahman.

Epistemologically, Advaita recognizes several means of knowledge (pramāṇas), including perception, inference, and particularly scriptural testimony (śruti) for matters beyond sense-experience. Śaṅkara interprets scriptural passages that describe Brahman with attributes (e.g., as personal deity) as provisional, suited to the empirical standpoint, while non-dual statements reveal the highest truth. The logical method of adhyāropa–apavāda (“superimposition and subsequent negation”) is used: conceptual frameworks are first introduced and then transcended to reveal non-duality.

Soteriology, Practice, and Ethics

For Advaita Vedanta, mokṣa is not a future event but the recognition of a present fact: the identity of Ātman and Brahman. However, this recognition requires a disciplined transformation of the seeker.

Classical texts outline a graded path:

• Preliminary qualifications (sādhana-catuṣṭaya): discrimination between the eternal and non-eternal, detachment from fruits of action, cultivation of virtues such as self-control, and intense longing for liberation.
• Karma-yoga (disciplined action) and upāsanā (devotional and meditative practices) purify the mind.
• Śravaṇa, manana, nididhyāsana: systematic listening to non-dual teaching, reflective inquiry to remove doubts, and deep contemplation to dissolve habitual misidentifications.

Ethically, Advaita emphasizes ahiṃsā (non-harm), satya (truthfulness), compassion, and equanimity. Proponents argue that seeing the same Self in all beings provides a metaphysical basis for universal respect and altruism. However, Advaita typically treats ethics as instrumental: moral discipline is necessary for mental purity and clarity, rather than being an independent ultimate good.

The school also maintains a distinction between two standpoints:

• From the empirical perspective, moral norms, social duties (dharma), and devotion to God (Īśvara) are affirmed as meaningful.
• From the ultimate perspective, such distinctions are transcended, since there is no real multiplicity of agents and actions.

This two-level view allows Advaita to accommodate ritual, devotion, and social life while upholding non-dual metaphysics.

Critiques and Influence

Advaita Vedanta has been the subject of sustained critique from other Indian traditions. Dualist Vedānta schools, such as Madhva’s Dvaita, object that Advaita undermines the reality of God, the world, and moral responsibility, and argue that scriptural texts affirm lasting distinctions between God, souls, and matter. Viśiṣṭādvaita, associated with Rāmānuja, accepts a form of qualified non-dualism but rejects the Advaitic notion that the world is mithyā, emphasizing a real plurality within the unity of Brahman.

Non-Hindu traditions, particularly Buddhist Madhyamaka and Yogācāra, both influenced and contested Advaita. Some scholars highlight similarities between Advaita’s analysis of illusion and Buddhist theories of emptiness or consciousness-only, while Advaitins insist on the positive reality of Brahman as distinct from Buddhist non-self doctrines.

In modern times, Advaita has exercised broad influence beyond India. Figures such as Swami Vivekānanda, Ramana Maharshi, and Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan presented Advaita as a universal, rational spirituality, shaping global perceptions of “Hindu philosophy” and contributing to various forms of neo-Vedānta and contemporary non-dual movements. Critics contend that some modern presentations simplify or reinterpret classical doctrine, especially in relation to social ethics and religious pluralism.

Despite internal debates and external critiques, Advaita Vedanta remains a central reference point in Indian philosophy, continuing to inform scholarly discourse, monastic practice, and global conversations about consciousness, selfhood, and the nature of reality.