Sankara's Advaita Vedanta

In this paper, I will be evaluating Sankara's Advaita Vedanta (Unqualified Non-dualism) to Ramanuja's Visistadvaita (Qualified Non-dualism) and show, how in my opinion Sankara triumph in his argument for monism.

The Advaita Vedanta and the Visistadvaita are considered one of the most renowned schools of thought during the Vedic period. Both Sankara and Ramanuja were the most important Vedantins of that era. Interestingly, both these philosophers did not agree with each other and in fact, Sankara rejected Ramanuja's school of thought as it had its origins from Pancaratra religious thought. Sankara saw this as non-vedic and unacceptable (P.T. Raju, 1985, p. 438).

Yet, the two schools of thought had the same assertion of the Vedic notion that reality is non-dual. Reality is one. Both Sankara and Ramanuja agreed on the idea of Brahman as the one ultimate reality. The concept of Brahman can be understood as follows:

Brahman, the One, is a state of being. It is not a "He," a personal being; nor is it an "IT", an

impersonal concept. Brahman is that state which is when all subject/object distinctions are obliterated. Brahman is ultimately a name for the experience of the timeless plentitude of being (Deutch, 1969, p. 10,).

The two schools of thought argue that Brahman is monistic. However, their argument for why they are monistic differs. I will address this later. Sankara's argument will be addressed in the first part of the essay followed by Ramanuja's. I will then analyze both Ramanuja and Sankara's ideas and analytically criticize them.

Sankara and his argument:

Sankara was the first philosopher to consolidate the doctrine of the Advaita Vedanta. His teachings are based on the unity of the soul and Brahman. Brahman is viewed as without attributes. His works in the Sanskrit, all of which exist today, concern themselves with establishing the doctrine of Advaita. Sankara quotes extensively from the Upanishads and other Hindu scriptures in forming his teachings. He also includes arguments against opposing schools of thought like Samkhya and Buddhism in his works (Sharma, 1962)

One must understand that Sankara privileges singularity by claiming that Brahman and the self (Atman) are the same, they share a complete identity. This establishes a complete monism in Sankara's argument. Sankara argues that Brahman is the one absolute, independent reality which alone exists thus; there is no need for him to reconcile the perceived plurality and difference in the empirical world with his non-dual thesis. Brahman in the context of the Advaita Vedanta is the name of the fullness of being which is the "content" of non-dualistic

spiritual experience: an experience in which all distinctions between subject and object are shattered and in which remains only a pure, unqualified oneness" (Deutsch, 1969, p.13).

He reconciles this by claiming the illusory nature of the world. Sankara via negative of the Advaita Vedanta safeguards the unqualified oneness of that state of being called Brahman and silences all arguments that try to clarify this (Deutsch, 1969). His argument was that human language was based on phenomenal experience and therefore, was limiting in explaining the Brahman state of being which is beyond normal human experiences (Deutsch, 1969, pg 11-12). Interestingly, this draws very similarly to the Buddha's silence, however I will not touch on this aspect in this essay.

Sankara held that what appears to us in the world is ultimately illusory, pretty much unreal. From a higher order of experience, the phenomenal world is an error in cognition and that everyone misperceives the world. I shall use a log-alligator analogy to illustrate the point he was trying to make (Deutsch, 1969, p.21). For example, if we were at a crocodile farm, we might mistakenly perceive a log to be an alligator, likewise the reality of the Brahman might also be misperceived as the world. Sankara claims that this analogy shows how the idea of the world is a mere appearance, a sort of act/show where all acts are temporary. This ignorance known as avidya causes the superimposition known as adhyasa of an unreal existence onto the

real. Adhyasa makes us believe that the world is real, it is however just an illusion. It is analogous to how the imagined alligator conceals and distorts reality of the log's existence; likewise the world is 'simply concealing distortion of Brahman which alone is real"

Sublation has to occur for this to happen. Sublation is the mental process whereby one disvalues some previously appraised object or content of consciousness because of its being contradicted by a new experience" (Deutsch, 1969, p.15) Thus, in order for Brahman to be realized, one has to transcend the illusory existence and once, this sublation happens, the world as an appearance will be sublated and hence, realized.

Sankara's clarifies sublation by positing an ontological hierarchy. I have attached a diagram of it on the next page and will go on to explain it.

The idea of this hierarchy is to explain how each level sublates the other by an understanding of a higher reality until Brahman is achieved. Level one, is the level of non-being where things are logically impossible. They may or may not be sublated as they just do not exist. Level 2, the level of illusory existence is that of dreams and illusions which will be sublated by a normal waking experience. The third level is that of a waking experience in our everyday life. Basically, worldly level of existence. Ramanuja being a realist would see this level as the ultimate reality. However, for Sankara there is a fourth level, the level of ultimate reality- Brahman. The ultimate reality sublates the normal waking experience. Sankara reconciles his monistic intention with the perceived multiplicity of the world by positing that it is unreal and thus, resolves his concept of absolute oneness.

Sankara separates Brahman into two forms, Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman. Saguna Brahman is Brahman with qualities and represents the state of devotional spiritual awareness and is referred to as God in devotional passages in scriptures. Nirguna Brahman on the other hand, is a transcendental Brahman without any qualities. From Sankara's standpoint, the belief in a theistic God