Knowledge is liberating

The soteriological goal, in Advaita, is to gain self-knowledge as being in essence (Atman), awareness or witness-consciousness, and complete understanding of the identity of jivan-ātman and Brahman.^[1] Correct knowledge of Atman and Brahman is the attainment of Brahman, immortality,^[189] and leads to moksha (liberation) from suffering^{[note 39]} and samsara, the cycle of rebirth^[1] This is stated by Shankara as follows:

I am other than name, form and action.
My nature is ever free!
I am Self, the supreme unconditioned Brahman.
I am pure Awareness, always non-dual.

— Adi Shankara, Upadesasahasri 11.7, ^[1]

According to Advaita Vedānta, liberation can be achieved while living, and is called Jivanmukti.^[190] ^[191]^{[note 40]} in contrast to Videhamukti (moksha from samsara after death) in theistic sub-schools of Vedānta.^[192]^{[better source needed]} The Atman-knowledge, that is the knowledge of true Self and its relationship to Brahman is central to this liberation in Advaita thought.^{[note 41]} Atman-knowledge, to Advaitins, is that state of full awareness, liberation and freedom which overcomes dualities at all levels, realizing the divine within oneself, the divine in others and all beings, the non-dual Oneness, that Brahman is in everything, and everything is Brahman.^[115]^[124]^{[note 42]}

According to Anantanand Rambachan, in Advaita, this state of liberating self-knowledge includes and leads to the understanding that "the self is the self of all, the knower of self sees the self in all beings and all beings in the self."^[193]

Attaining vidyā (knowledge)

Advaita Vedānta regards the liberated state of being Atman-Brahman as one's true identity and inherent to being human. According to Shankara and the Vivarana-school, no human action can 'produce' this liberated state, as it is what one already is.^[32] As Swami Vivekananda stated:

The Vedas cannot show you Brahman, you are That already. They can only help to take away the veil that hides truth from our eyes. The cessation of ignorance can only come when I know that God and I are one; in other words, identify yourself with Atman, not with human limitations. The idea that we are bound is only an illusion [Maya]. Freedom is inseparable from the nature of the Atman. This is ever pure, ever perfect, ever unchangeable.

— Adi Shankara's commentary on Fourth Vyasa Sutra, Swami Vivekananda^[194]

Yet, the Advaita-tradition also emphasizes human effort, the path of Jnana Yoga, a progression of study and training to realize one's true identity as Atman-Brahman and attain moksha.^[32]^[34]^[35] According to critics of neo-Advaita, which also emphasizes direct insight, traditional Advaita Vedanta entails more than self-inquiry or bare insight into one's real nature, but also includes self-restraint, textual studies and ethical perfection. It is described in classical Advaita books like Shankara's Upadesasahasri^[195] and the Vivekachudamani, which is also attributed to Shankara.

Sruti (scriptures), proper reasoning and meditation are the main sources of knowledge (vidya) for the Advaita Vedānta tradition.^[36]^[196]^[197] It teaches that correct knowledge of Atman and Brahman is achievable by svādhyāya,^[198] study of the self and of the Vedic texts, and three stages of practice: sravana (perception, hearing), manana (thinking) and nididhyasana (meditation),^[36] a three-step methodology that is rooted in the teachings of chapter 4 of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.^[199]^[200]

Preparation: the fourfold qualities

The Advaita student has to develop the fourfold qualities,^[201] or behavioral qualifications (Samanyasa, Sampattis, sādhana-catustaya):^[202]^[203]^[204]^{[note 43]} A student in Advaita Vedānta tradition is required to develop these four qualities:

Nityānitya vastu viveka (नित्यानित्य वस्तु विवेकम्) – Viveka is the ability to correctly discriminate between the real and eternal (nitya) and the substance that is apparently real, illusory, changing and transitory (anitya).^[202]^[89]
Ihāmutrārtha phala bhoga virāga (इहाऽमुत्रार्थ फल भोगविरागम्) – The renunciation (virāga) of all desires of the mind (bhoga) for sense pleasures, in this world (iha) and other worlds. Willing to give up everything that is an obstacle to the pursuit of truth and self-knowledge.^[89]^[205]
Śamādi ṣatka sampatti (शमादि षट्क सम्पत्ति) – the sixfold virtues or qualities -
1. Śama - mental tranquility, ability to focus the mind.^[89]^[205]
2. Dama - self-restraint,^{[note 44]} the virtue of temperance.^[89]^[205] restraining the senses.
3. Uparati - dispassion, lack of desire for worldly pleasures, ability to be quiet and disassociated from everything;^[89] discontinuation of all religious duties and ceremonies^[205]
4. Titikṣa - endurance, perseverance, putting up with pairs of opposites (like heat and cold, pleasure and pain), ability to be patient during demanding circumstances^[89]^[205]
5. Śraddhā - having faith in teacher and the Sruti scriptural texts^[89]
6. Samādhāna - contentedness, satisfaction of mind in all conditions, attention, intentness of mind^[89]^[205]
Mumukṣutva (मुमुक्षुत्वम्) – An intense longing for freedom, liberation and wisdom, driven to the quest of knowledge and understanding. Having moksha as the primary goal of life^[89]^[201]

The threefold practice: sravana (hearing), manana (thinking) and nididhyasana (meditation)

The Advaita tradition teaches that correct knowledge, which destroys avidya, psychological and perceptual errors related to Atman and Brahman,^[18] is obtained in jnanayoga through three stages of practice,^[203] sravana (hearing), manana (thinking) and nididhyasana (meditation).^[36] This three-step methodology is rooted in the teachings of chapter 4 of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad:^[199]^[200]

Sravana, which literally means hearing. The student listens and discusses the ideas, concepts, questions and answers.^[36]^[199] of the sages on the Upanishads and Advaita Vedānta, studying the Vedantic texts, such as the Brahma Sutras, aided by discussions with the guru (teacher, counsellor).^[202]^[209]^[36]
Manana refers to thinking on these discussions and contemplating over the various ideas based on svadhyaya and sravana.^[199]^[209]^[210] It is the stage of reflection on the teachings;^[199]^[209]
Nididhyāsana, the stage of meditation and introspection.^[89]^{[web 17]} This stage of practice aims at realization and consequent conviction of the truths, non-duality and a state where there is a fusion of thought and action, knowing and being.^[211]^[199]

Although the threefold practice is broadly accepted in the Advaita tradition, Shankara's works show an ambivalence toward it: while accepting its authenticity and merits, as it is based in the scriptures, he also takes a subitist position,^[87] arguing that moksha is attained at once when the mahavakyas, articulating the identity of Atman and Brahman, are understood.^[88]^[33]^{[note 45]} According to Rambachan, "it is not possible to reconcile Sankara's views with this seemingly well-ordered system."^[93]

Mandana Misra, on the other hand, explicitly affirms the threefold practice as the means to acquire knowledge of Brahman, referring to meditation as dhyana.^[212] He states that these practices, though conceptual, 'can eliminate both ignorance and coneptuality at the same time, leaving only the "pure, transparent nature" of self-awareness'.^[213]

Bilimoria states that these three stages of Advaita practice can be viewed as sadhana practice that unifies Yoga and Karma ("action," referring here to ritual) ideas, and was most likely derived from these older traditions.^[214]^[209]

Guru

Advaita Vedānta school has traditionally had a high reverence for a Guru (teacher), and recommends that a competent Guru be sought in one's pursuit of spirituality, though this is not mandatory.^[215] Reading of Vedic literature and reflection is the most essential practice.^[215] Adi Shankara, states Comans, regularly employed compound words "such as Sastracaryopadesa (instruction by way of the scriptures and the teacher) and Vedāntacaryopadesa (instruction by way of the Upanishads and the teacher) to emphasize the importance of Guru".^[215] According to Comans, this reflects the Advaita tradition which holds a competent teacher as important and essential to gaining correct knowledge, freeing oneself from false knowledge, and to self-realization.^[216] Nevertheless, in the Bhamati-school the guru has a less essential role, as he can explain the teachings, but the student has to venture its further study.^[217]

A guru is someone more than a teacher, traditionally a reverential figure to the student, with the guru serving as a "counselor, who helps mold values, shares experiential knowledge as much as literal knowledge, an exemplar in life, an inspirational source and who helps in the spiritual evolution of a student.^[218] The guru, states Joel Mlecko, is more than someone who teaches specific type of knowledge, and includes in its scope someone who is also a "counselor, a sort of parent of mind and soul, who helps mold values and experiential knowledge as much as specific knowledge, an exemplar in life, an inspirational source and who reveals the meaning of life."^[218]

Pramana (means of knowledge)

In classical Indian thought, pramana (means of knowledge) concerns questions like how correct knowledge can be acquired; how one knows, how one doesn't; and to what extent knowledge pertinent about someone or something can be acquired.^[219]^[220] In contrast to other schools of Indian philosophy, early Vedanta paid little attention to pramana.^[221] The Brahmasutras are not concerned with pramana, and pratyaksa (sense-perception) and anumana (inference) refer there to sruti and smriti respectively.^[221] Shankara recognized the means of knowledge,^[222]^{[note 46]} but his thematic focus was upon metaphysics and soteriology, and he took for granted the pramanas.^[227] For Shankara, sabda is the only means of knowledge for attaining Brahman-jnana.^[228] According to Sengaku Mayeda, "in no place in his works [...] does he give any systematic account of them,"^[227] taking Atman-Brahman to be self-evident (svapramanaka) and self-established (svatahsiddha), and "an investigation of the means of knowledge is of no use for the attainment of final release."^[227]

Nevertheless, the Advaita tradition accepts altogether six kinds of pramāṇas.^[229]^[230]^[231]^[228] While Adi Shankara emphasized Śabda (शब्द), relying on word, testimony of past or present reliable experts with regard to religious insights,^[220]^[232]^[229]^[233] and also accepted pratyakṣa (प्रत्यक्षाय), perception; and anumāṇa (अनुमान), inference — Classical Advaita Vedānta, just like the Bhatta Purvamimamsaka school, also accepts upamāṇa (उपमान), comparison, analogy; arthāpatti (अर्थापत्ति), postulation, derivation from circumstances;^[220]^[234] and anupalabdhi (अनुपलब्धि), non-perception, negative/cognitive proof.^[232]^[229]

Samadhi

The Advaita tradition emphasizes that, since Brahman is ever-present, Brahman-knowledge is immediate and requires no 'action', that is, striving and effort, as articulated by Shankara;^[31] yet, it also prescribes elaborate preparatory practice, including yogic samadhi, posing a paradox which is also recognized in other spiritual disciplines and traditions.^[235]^[37]^{[note 10]}

Shankara regarded the srutis as the means of knowledge of Brahman, and he was ambivalent about yogic practices and meditation, which at best may prepare one for Brahma-jnana.^{[web 18]} According to Rambachan, criticising Vivekananda, Shankara states that the knowledge of Brahman can only be obtained from inquiry of the Shruti, and not by Yoga or samadhi, which at best can only silence the mind.^[236] The Bhamati school and the Vivarana school differed on the role of contemplation, but they both "deny the possibility of perceiving supersensuous knowledge through popular yoga techniques."^[237] Later Advaita texts like the Dṛg-Dṛśya-Viveka (14th century) and Vedāntasara (of Sadananda) (15th century) added samādhi as a means to liberation, a theme that was also emphasized by Swami Vivekananda.^[39] The Vivekachudamani, traditionally attributed to Shankara but post-dating him,^[238] "conceives of nirvikalpa samadhi as the premier method of Self-realization over and above the well-known vedantic discipline of listening, reflection and deep contemplation."^[59] Koller states that yogic concentration is an aid to gaining knowledge in Advaita.^[84]

Anubhava ('experience')

The role of anubhava, anubhuti ("experience," "intuition"^[239]) as "experience" in gaining Brahman-jnana is contested. While neo-Vedanta claims a central position for anubhava as "experience," Shankara himself regarded reliance on textual authority as sufficient for gaining Brahman-jnana,^[240]^{[note 47]} "the intuition of Brahman,"^[239] and used anubhava interchangeably with pratipatta, "understanding".^[241] Arvind Sharma argues that Shankara's own "direct experience of the ultimate truth" guided him in selecting "those passages of the scriptures that resonate with this experience and will select them as the key with which to open previously closed, even forbidden, doors."^[242]^{[note 48]}

The Vivekachudamani "explicit[ly] declar[es] that experience (anubhuti) is a pramana, or means of knowing (VCM 59),"^[59] and neo-Vedanta also accepts anubhava ("personal experience") as a means of knowledge.^[243] Dalal and others state that anubhava does not center around some sort of "mystical experience," but around the correct knowledge of Brahman.^[197]^[244] Nikhalananda concurs, stating that (knowledge of) Atman and Brahman can only be reached by buddhi, "reason,"^[245] stating that mysticism is a kind of intuitive knowledge, while buddhi is the highest means of attaining knowledge.^[246]

Adhyaropa Apavada - imposition and negation

Since Gaudapada,^[247] who adopted the Buddhist four-cornered negation which negates any positive predicates of 'the Absolute',^[248]^[249]^{[note 49]} a central method in Advaita Vedanta to express the inexpressable is the method called Adhyaropa Apavada.^[247] In this method, which was highly estimated by Satchidanandendra Saraswati, a property is imposed (adhyaropa) on Atman to convince one of its existence, whereafter the imposition is removed (apavada) to reveal the true nature of Atman as nondual and undefinable.^[251] In this method, "That which cannot be expressed is expressed through false attribution and subsequent denial."^[252] As Shankara writes, "First let me bring them on the right path, and then I will gradually be able to bring them round to the final truth afterwards."^[252] For example, Atman, the real "I," is described as witness, giving "it" an attribute to separate it from non-self. Since this implies a duality between observer and observed, next the notion of "witness" is dropped, by showing that the Self cannot be seen and is beyond qualifications, and only that what is remains, without using any words:^{[web 19]}

After one separates oneself i.e. 'I' or Atman from the sense objects, the qualities superimposed on Self are also negated by saying that which not being and not non-being, cannot be described by words, without beginning and end (BG 13.32) or as in Satyam Jnanam Anantam Brahman, beyond words, beyond mind and speech, etc. Here there is an attempt to negate the earlier attribute like being witness, bliss, most subtlest, etc. After this negation of false superimposition, Self Alone shines. One enters into the state of Nirvikalp Samadhi, where there is no second, no one to experience and hence this state cannot be described in words.^{[web 19]}

The Mahavyakas - the identity of Ātman and Brahman

Moksha, liberation from suffering and rebirth and attaining immortality, is attained by disidentification from the body-mind complex and gaining self-knowledge as being in essence Atman, and attaining knowledge of the identity of Atman and Brahman.^[1]^[189] According to Shankara, the individual Ātman and Brahman seem different at the empirical level of reality, but this difference is only an illusion, and at the highest level of reality they are really identical.^[253] The real self is Sat, "the Existent," that is, Atman-Brahman.^[254]^[255]^{[note 1]} Whereas the difference between Atman and non-Atman is deemed self-evident, knowledge of the identity of Atman and Brahman is revealed by the shruti, especially the Upanishadic statement tat tvam asi.

Mahavakyas

According to Shankara, a large number of Upanishadic statements reveal the identity of Atman and Brahman. In the Advaita Vedanta tradition, four of those statements, the Mahavakyas, which are taken literal, in contrast to other statements, have a special importance in revealing this identity.^[83]^[256] They are:

तत्त्वमसि, tat tvam asi, Chandogya VI.8.7. Traditionally rendered as "That Thou Art" (that you are),^[257]^[258]^[259] with tat in Ch.U.6.8.7 referring to sat, "the Existent"^[260]^[8]^[261]); correctly translated as "That's how [thus] you are,"^[257]^[259]^[262] with tat in Ch.U.6.12.3, its original location from where it was copied to other verses,^[257] referring to "the very nature of all existence as permeated by [the finest essence]"^[263]^[264]
अहं ब्रह्मास्मि, aham brahmāsmi, Brhadāranyaka I.4.10, "I am Brahman," or "I am Divine."^[265]
प्रज्ञानं ब्रह्म, prajñānam brahma, Aitareya V.3, "Prajñānam^{[note 50]} is Brahman."^{[note 51]}
अयमात्मा ब्रह्म, ayamātmā brahma, Mandukya II, "This Atman is Brahman."

That you are

The longest chapter of Shankara's Upadesasahasri, chapter 18, "That Art Thou," is devoted to considerations on the insight "I am ever-free, the existent" (sat), and the identity expressed in Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7 in the mahavakya (great sentence) "tat tvam asi", "that thou art."^[268]^[269] In this statement, according to Shankara, tat refers to 'Sat,^[269] "the Existent"^[260]^[8]^[270]^[271] Existence, Being,^{[web 21]} or Brahman,^[272] the Real, the "Root of the world,"^[269]^{[note 52]} the true essence or root or origin of everything that exists.^[8]^[270]^{[web 21]} "Tvam" refers to one's real I, pratyagatman or inner Self,^[273] the "direct Witness within everything,"^[20] "free from caste, family, and purifying ceremonies,"^[274] the essence, Atman, which the individual at the core is.^[275]^[276] As Shankara states in the Upadesasahasri:

Up.I.174: "Through such sentences as "Thou art That" one knows one's own Atman, the Witness of all the internal organs." Up.I.18.190: "Through such sentences as "[Thou art] the Existent" [...] right knowledge concerning the inner Atman will become clearer." Up.I.18.193-194: "In the sentence "Thou art That" [...] [t]he word "That" means inner Atman."^[277]

The statement "tat tvam asi" sheds the false notion that Atman is different from Brahman.^[278] According toNakamura, the non-duality of atman and Brahman "is a famous characteristic of Sankara's thought, but it was already taught by Sundarapandya"^[279] (c.600 CE or earlier).^[280] Shankara cites Sundarapandya in his comments to Brahma Sutra verse I.1.4:

When the metaphorical or false atman is non-existent, [the ideas of my] child, [my] body are sublated. Therefore, when it is realized that 'I am the existent Brahman, atman', how can anyduty exist?^[281]

From this, and a large number of other accordances, Nakamura concludes that Shankar was not an original thinker, but "a synthesizer of existing Advaita and the rejuvenator, as well as a defender, of ancient learning."^[282]

Direct perception versus contemplation of the Mahavakyas

In the Upadesasahasri Shankara, Shankara is ambivalent on the need for meditation on the Upanishadic mahavakya. He states that "right knowledge arises at the moment of hearing,"^[33] and rejects prasamcaksa or prasamkhyana meditation, that is, meditation on the meaning of the sentences, and in Up.II.3 recommends parisamkhyana,^[283] separating Atman from everything that is not Atman, that is, the sense-objects and sense-organs, and the pleasant and unpleasant things and merit and demerit connected with them.^[284] Yet, Shankara then concludes with declaring that only Atman exists, stating that "all the sentences of the Upanishads concerning non-duality of Atman should be fully contemplated, should be contemplated."^[285] As Mayeda states, "how they [prasamcaksa or prasamkhyana versus parisamkhyana] differ from each other in not known."^[286]

Prasamkhyana was advocated by Mandana Misra,^[287] the older contemporary of Shankara who was the most influential Advaitin until the 10th century.^[30]^[288]^{[note 9]} "According to Mandana, the mahavakyas are incapable, by themselves, of bringing about brahmajnana. The Vedanta-vakyas convey an indirect knowledge which is made direct only by deep meditation (prasamkhyana). The latter is a continuous contemplation of the purport of the mahavakyas.^[289] Vācaspati Miśra, a student of Mandana Misra, agreed with Mandana Misra, and their stance is defended by the Bhamati-school, founded by Vācaspati Miśra.^[290] In contrast, the Vivarana school founded by Prakasatman (c. 1200–1300)^[291] follows Shankara closely, arguing that the mahavakyas are the direct cause of gaining knowledge.^[292]

Shankara's insistence on direct knowledge as liberating also differs from the asparsa yoga described in Gaudapada's Mandukyakarika III.39-46.^[293] In this practice of 'non-contact' (a-sparśa), the mind is controlled and brought to rest, and does not create "things" (appearances) after which it grasps; it becomes non-dual, free from the subject-[grasping]-object dualism.^[294]^[48] Knowing that only Atman-Brahman is real, the creations of the mind are seen as false appearances (MK III.31-33). When the mind is brought to rest, it becomes or is Brahman (MK III.46).^[293]

Renouncement of ritualism

In the Upadesasahasri Shankara discourages ritual worship such as oblations to Deva (God), because that assumes the Self within is different from Brahman.^{[note 53]}^{[note 54]} The "doctrine of difference" is wrong, asserts Shankara, because, "he who knows the Brahman is one and he is another, does not know Brahman".^[299]^[300] The false notion that Atman is different from Brahman^[278] is connected with the novice's conviction that (Upadesasaharsi II.1.25)

...I am one [and] He is another; I am ignorant, experience pleasure and pain, am bound and a transmigrator [whereas] he is essentially different from me, the god not subject to transmigration. By worshipping Him with oblation, offerings, homage and the like through the [performance of] the actions prescribed for [my] class and stage of life, I wish to get out of the ocean of transmigratory existence. How am I he?^[301]

Recognizing oneself as "the Existent-Brahman," which is mediated by scriptural teachings, is contrasted with the notion of "I act," which is mediated by relying on sense-perception and the like.^[302] According to Shankara, the statement "Thou art That" "remove[s] the delusion of a hearer,"^[303] "so through sentences as "Thou art That" one knows one's own Atman, the witness of all internal organs,"^[304] and not from any actions.^[305]^{[note 55]} With this realization, the performance of rituals is prohibited, "since [the use of] rituals and their requisites is contradictory to the realization of the identity [of Atman] with the highest Atman."^[307]