Talk:Advaita Vedanta/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Poor Sources

The article uses poor sources to say Brahman is the cause of everything. This is simply not true. Please see Deutsch's Essential Vedanta pages 394-5. Under ignorance, Brahman is misperceived to be Isvara, who seems to cause everything. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Deutsch says that "Brahman" refers to consciousness an sich, or the "awareness" of being aware. He takes a phenomenological approach, which I appreciate, but which of course deviates from the self-understanding of the Advaita-tradition (emic and ...; I always confuse those two terms). But anyway, Brahman as a non-physical reality, which can be discerned by us humans (and is reified by the Advaita-tradition, but that's my personal opinion). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Through avidya, Brahman is misperceived to be Ishvara. Being a misperception, Isvara only seems to cause everything. Please see Deutsch's Essential Vedanta pages 394-5. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: I have Eliot Deutsch's books on my desk, and you are cherrypicking and misunderstanding Deutsch from Advaita perspective. See Deutsch's Advaita Vedanta : A Philosophical Reconstruction and others for more. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

See WP:IRONY. Deutsch's Essential Vedanta was published in 2004, as opposed to his outdated Advaita Vedanta : A Philosophical Reconstruction. VictoriaGrayson^Talk

@Vic: Where does this article confuse Brahman with Ishvara?, which is what Deutsch is talking about while discussing ignorance and errors with Brahman with attributes (saguna).

Eliot Deutsch (page 110): "Brahman is one and all is Brahman. To the jivanmukta, to the man who is free while living, Brahman is everywhere seen. Moksha or mukti, freedom or liberation, as realized through jnana-yoga, is just this power of being and seeing that excludes nothing, that includes everything. Brahman is One. Everything has its being in Spirit: everything in its true being is Brahman."

Michael Comans, Bina Gupta, Jeaneane Fowler I mentioned in section above, summarize Advaita position similarly, in their own words. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Lets take one of your own scholars. Rambachan says on pg. 112 of Advaita Worldview: God, World, and Humanity:

Saguna brahman is brahman thought of as cause, creator, and sustainer of the universe, while nigura brahman is brahman without any relation to the universe

VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: This is the Chapter 7 of Rambachan's book. Have you read the entire section, starting at page 111? If you cherrypick sentences out of context, you will be prone to misunderstanding them. If that sentence interests you, please read chapter 6 which discusses saguna and nirguna Brahman. Are you suggesting that saguna versus nirguna concepts, from Advaita perspective, be better summarized in this article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

(ps @Vic:) See pages 72-75 of Rambachan's book discussing Brahman as the efficient and material cause of the Universe, as well as Atman and all Universe is Brahman (idealistic monism), as the central belief in Advaita. Similarly Arvind Sharma, writes on pages 18-19 of Advaita Vedanta: An Introduction:

Quote: "The mahavakyas, in light of which the Upanishads should be understood according to the hermeneutical tradition of Advaita Vedanta, are the following: 1. All this is verily Brahman. 2. I am Brahman. 3. This Atman is Brahman. 4. That thou art. To this a fifth is sometimes added: 5. Brahman is spirit (or consciousness). MsSarahWelch omits crucial part of the passage in this spot without indication. The reader will note that this first statement identifies the objective universe with Brahman.

Sharma goes on to explain the different reasoning in Advaita school to support statements 1 and 2, and others, over pages 19-46, which I encourage you to read in its entirety. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Idealism means things are illusory.
• Realism and idealism are opposites.
• Pg. 21 of Sharma emphasizes illusion.
• Pg. 19 of which you incorrectly quoted actually says "These statements, however, need to be understood with extreme exegetical care, for they can be easily misunderstood". And then he says its not about "singling out these statements."VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: Please do not edit my comments (I struck out what you inserted above). I left a whole paragraph out, for brevity. That paragraph states that "These statement, however, need to be understood with extreme exegetical care, as they can be easily misunderstood. Indeed these mahavakyas are accepted as authoritative by other schools of Vedanta as well, so much the fact of singling out these statements as mahavakyas as their understanding within Advaita Vedanta, which sets this system apart from other schools of Vedanta". So, yes, extreme care is necessary, and different sub-schools of Vedanta interpret these differently. Extreme care is what you are not doing. Which page number do you see your first two statements? - note again that their meaning depends on the context.

As we discussed above, and you agreed with me, Comans' on page 26 states "According to Advaita, if something is truly real, it must be changeless." Maya, from this metaphysical perspective, is that which changes. Sharma writes on page 21, "Brahman is the sole reality, and it appears both as the objective universe and as the individual subject." On page 22 Sharma repeats this in first complete paragraph, again on pages that follow. Deutsch states on page 41, "The world is first affirmed as an empirical reality, as an effect of Brahman". On page 32, Deutsch states, "What is meant by calling the world an illusion and at the same time ascribing existence to it? The answer is that for Advaita Vedanta the term "real" means that which is permanent, eternal, infinite". Jumping for brevity again, Deutsch adds, "The world then is not real, but it is not wholly unreal" and he adds that it is necessary to emphasize this rather strongly because Advaita Vedanta is sometimes misrepresented as a philosophy that condemns the world as unreal illusion, something which is not Advaita's position.

Beyond these sources, I am willing to provide multiple recent WP:RS cites for "brahman is identical with atman and objective universe, in Advaita", "Unreal the world is, illusory it is not" and "Three levels of Reality" as important parts of Advaita in recent WP:RS scholarship on Advaita. If you are willing to accept these two additions into the lead, we can together formulate a compromise version. Are you? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Good disclaimer, worthy for citation in the article: "These statements [...] extreme exegetical care." Once and a while, like now, I wonder if we don't "change" Advaita Vedanta by looking at it with modern eyes, treating those statements as factual statements, as some sort of natural science. While maybe they should actually be treated as phenomenological statements. Maybe. As an aside, in these negotiations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: Indeed. There is some truth to "looking at it with modern eyes", both in romanticized and in prejudiced manner. There has been reliability issues in "looking at Indic schools of thoughts and concepts with colonial/Christian or Islamic proselytizer's/polemic eyes", which @Vic has been hinting at, in this and other articles. It is colonial scholarship which translated Maya as illusion (when Sanskrit concept of Maya is a far more complex than the English concept of "illusion"); similarly Sat was translated as reality (when it is a far more complex concept, is closer to Truth, and its discussion in many Hindu, Buddhist and Jain texts incorporates the A=A Law of identity principle). There are many such examples. One way to reduce "looking at it with modern eyes" is to read the manuscripts and the bhashyas directly, and completely, to get the context. The Three levels of Reality, is extensively discussed by Shankara (see Deutsch, Bina Gupta, Michael Comans etc). That is why we need to rely on recent RS scholarship for this article, and strive for NPOV and as faithful a summary as we can. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch. You say you "left a whole paragraph out for brevity", however you didn't use (...) to indicate you left out anything. And the part you left out contradicts taking the five statements at face value. Similarly, you continue to misrepresent other sources. Illusion is not a colonial idea. Its a Buddhist idea adopted by Advaita. Idealism means things are illusion. Realism and idealism are opposites. For example Andrew Nicholson's Unifying Hinduism pg.68 states:

"Even withing the Advaita school, there are a variety of views falling at different points on the realist/idealist spectrum. At one end are doctrines such as the extreme illusionism of the sixteenth-century Advaitin Prakasananda; at the other are the realist or nearly realist positions expressed in the early works of Sankara."

VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: You are free to believe in whatever you want, but here on this talk page we need to attempt a compromise for this article. We need a better summary of Advaita Vedanta in the lead, not overemphasize Gaudapada or Prakasananda or any single scholar, and we need to faithfully summarize the mainstream recent WP:RS on Advaita. The latter includes Three levels of Reality and other points I made. I am willing to reach a compromise consensus for lead that combines your and my suggestions, are you? If yes, what is your proposal? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you acknowledge "nigura brahman is brahman without any relation to the universe" as Rambachan states?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

No forum-y discussions. Lets focus on getting a few compromise consensus sentences for the lead. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

For the lead, we need to include "nigura brahman is brahman without any relation to the universe" as Rambachan states. Also the Deutsch book from the 1970's is outdated and superseded by his 2004 book.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: A faithful summary of page 112 of Rambachan will be acceptable to me. The 2004 book is similar to Deutsch's earlier books and papers. I will cite 2004 book, if we reach a consensus. Anything else? Are you okay with a two points above I want to include as part of the lead summary? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Page protection

I have requested page protection so that, rather than edit war, editors can discuss and arrive at consensus. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Core philosophy

@VictoriaGrayson: You added the following, without a source:

The core philosophy of Advaita Vedanta is Ajativada, meaning that the phenomenal world is illusory since the only reality is Brahman, a consciousness without attributes.

And you removed the following, which had WP:RS with it.

The core philosophy of Advaita is an idealist monism, and it is best known for asserting that Atman (soul, self) in a living being is identical to the metaphysical ultimate reality Brahman, and that there is oneness in all of existence.

Please add a source that Ajativada is the core philosophy of Advaita, and explain why you are removing the sourced text. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

References

You can read the article which mentions Ajativada in several places. You don't need sources in lead if its supported in the body. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: I already did before posting this message. Ajativada is mentioned 4 times in the main article, but the text in main article does not establish that it "core philosophy", and implies it is one aspect of Advaita philosophy. I am okay with your edit to the lead without a source, if you add supporting text to main with a reliable source that states that Ajativada is the core philosophy of Advaita. Since you didn't state an objection to my sourced text above, and it is well discussed in the main article, I will add it back to the lead. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course I have objections to your text. Thats why I removed it. You are making Advaita sound like Kashmir Saivism.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: Why remove sourced text? Do you have a RS that disputes those sources? Advaita is idealist monism is widely accepted. (Kashmir) Shaivism was influenced and in turn influenced Advaita Vedanta (and this too is mentioned in the article). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a concept called Māyā in Advaita Vedanta. Māyā means things are illusion. Māyā is the logical consequence of Ajativada. Māyā is not monism.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: Indeed, we can add the term Maya, into the lead. But why you have deleted John Grimes source and well supported summary from the lead? John Grimes is a well respected scholar, known for his translations of Advaita Vedanta manuscripts, and related books. I included it because it helped make the term and the summary in the lead more understandable. Why delete John Grimes source? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

In Michael Comans' book Method of Early Advaita Vedānta starting on page 27, he explains the defining characteristic of Advaita Vedanta, as opposed to Ramanuja, is that the world is as unreal as a dream. This contradicts "ideal monism" and "oneness in all of existence".VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: Where does Comans say it is not "ideal monism" and Advaita is not about "oneness"? In contrast, Comans writes about "oneness" on pages 354, 411, etc.; so do so many scholars. Why do WP:OR? Why not just faithfully summarize what the sources state? You have a strange and flawed understanding of "unreal and Maya" concepts in Advaita and Buddhism, but this is not forum for that discussion. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Comans explains that Gaudapada demonstrates the world is as unreal/real as a dream starting on page 27. Do you deny this? Page 354 is talking about oneness of self and Brahman, which is irrelevant to this point. So perhaps you are engaging in WP:OR.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: The discussion starts on page 26. Why jump from a discussion about unreal/real to your own conclusions about "idealistic monism" and "oneness"? Do read Comans' point on page 26 that "According to Advaita, if something is truly real, it must be changeless." Then he discusses "empirically evident/real", "empirically unreal" and "absolutely unreal", Mithya versus other concepts - which is all fine, also discussed by Arvind Sharma and other scholars. Is this something you want clarified in this article or its lead? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Correct, according to Advaita if something is truly real it must be changeless. Hence the world is not real. I ask again, do you deny that Gaudapada demonstrates the world is as unreal/real as a dream?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: Gaudapada and many Advaita scholars do use dream as an example to explain their real/unreal concepts. I am concerned about you deleting "idealistic monism" and "oneness" ideas in Advaita Vedanta that are scholarly sourced. If you want to suggest specific page and content that needs to be additionally summarized to improve the article, do so. But don't delete WP:RS content. As I wrote above, the "truly real is changeless" explanation is important. This is already in the main article. Is this what you would like to be added to lead too? (Let us avoid a forum like "do you deny this or that" debate on this talk page). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Another book, the Essential Vedanta, says the same thing on page 157:

The main doctrine that Gaudapāda puts forth is called ajātivāda—the theory of no-origination. According to ajātivāda the entire world of duality is merely an appearance: nothing ever really comes into being, for nothing other than Brahman really exists—the whole world is an illusion like a dream. At times Gaudapāda blurs the distinction between waking and dream consciousness, a distinction which Śamkara later insists upon, and suggests that the whole of our waking experience is exactly the same as an illusory and insubstantial dream. Gaudapāda establishes this by a dialectical critique of causation and by an appeal to the doctrine of māyā.

VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: The lead already has Ajativada. Remember this is not an article Gaudapada, but Advaita Vedanta – a sub-school of Hindu philosophy with numerous texts and scholars. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

But the lead doesn't have "the whole of our waking experience is exactly the same as an illusory and insubstantial dream" per the quoted passage.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: Consider it for the Gaudapada article? You are missing Shankara's distinction mentioned there, who is as much a part of Advaita as Gaudapada. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Your edit summary said "we can add different POVs for NPOV".VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, if it is mainstream and WP:DUE. Neither applies in this case. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

And how did you determine that?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: Because it would be undue and non-mainstream to mention just cherrypicked Gaudapada's POV, while ignoring Shankara's and others. Even that cherrypicked view is contested; Chapter 2 of his Karika where this discussion of dreams is, has been interpreted in various ways by scholars. For now, mentioning Ajativada and Maya in the lead, suffices. Let us work on the main article. Do you want to summarize Comans' pages on "According to Advaita, if something is truly real, it must be changeless"; "empirically evident/real", "empirically unreal" and "absolutely unreal" in the main article? You will find more on this in publications by Arvind Sharma, Stephen Phillips, Daniel Ingalls, Karl Potter and others. That would be welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Comans is saying Brahman is real and changeless. Not the phenomenal world. The book Essential Vedanta says the same thing: "for nothing other than Brahman really exists". See quoted passage above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. That is in the article. Phenomenal world is "empirically real but changing", and Brahman is "absolutely (metaphysically) real and changeless" in Advaita. These concepts will be more clear if we summarized Comans' pages on "According to Advaita, if something is truly real, it must be changeless"; "empirically evident/real", "empirically unreal" and "absolutely unreal" in the main article. As I mentioned earlier, this discussion is also in the publications by Arvind Sharma and others. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Where are you getting phenomenal world is "empirically real but changing" from? This is wrong. Comans says "According to Advaita, if something is truly real, it must be changeless".VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: Indeed. But there is a difference between "truly real" and other types of reality. Ultimate/True Reality is what metaphysics in philosophy is, in part, all about. That is what Advaita's "Three levels of Reality" doctrine is all about (Bina Gupta (1992), Perceiving in Advaita Vedanta: Epistemological Analysis and Interpretation, Bucknell University Press, ISBN 978-0838752135, pages 206-208); Jeaneane Fowler (2002), Perspectives of Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Hinduism, Sussex University Press, pages 246-254; Radhakrishnan, "Unreal the world is, illusory it is not"; See Comans' pages 26-39, 106, 174-177, 190-197. Comans summarizing Shankara, "Empirical reality (vyavahara) is not something fictitious, it refers to the empirical world of objective reality". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the Sanskrit, the hedging words of "truly" etc. are not present. These things are inserted by westerners. Radhakrishnan is not reliable. Click HERE.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: Indeed. Yet, the initial Two levels of Reality, followed by Three levels of Reality doctrines are part of Advaita Sanskrit texts. If you can read Sanskrit, I suggest you read texts by Gaudapada, Shankara and other Advaita Vedanta scholars. Set aside Radhakrishnan, but this is true for Advaita: "Unreal the world is, illusory it is not" (a phrase you will find in Jeaneane Fowler's book mentioned above, and she agrees). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The Essential Vedanta explicitly uses the words illusion and illusory:

The main doctrine that Gaudapāda puts forth is called ajātivāda—the theory of no-origination. According to ajātivāda the entire world of duality is merely an appearance: nothing ever really comes into being, for nothing other than Brahman really exists—the whole world is an illusion like a dream. At times Gaudapāda blurs the distinction between waking and dream consciousness, a distinction which Śamkara later insists upon, and suggests that the whole of our waking experience is exactly the same as an illusory and insubstantial dream. Gaudapāda establishes this by a dialectical critique of causation and by an appeal to the doctrine of māyā.

VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: This is not an article on Gaudapada. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You just mentioned Gaudapada in your last comment. Regarding the levels of truth, Comans says on page 94 of his book "that from the level of ultimate truth the world is a cosmic illusion."VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: This is not an article on cosmic illusion. All three levels of Reality are integral to Advaita Vedanta. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: See this.

@Vic's version: Gaudapada uses the concepts of Ajativada and Maya[1] to establish "that from the level of ultimate truth the world is a cosmic illusion,"[2] and "and suggests that the whole of our waking experience is exactly the same as an illusory and insubstantial dream."[3] In contrast, Adi Shankara insists upon a distinction between waking experience and dreams.[4]

My suggestion: Other elements of the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta is Ajativada,[note A][1][2] that the empirical phenomenal world is Māyā,[3] and that there are three orders of Reality.[4]

Emphasizing Gaudapada seems undue in the lead, given Shankara/Misra/most Advaita Vedanta scholars discuss the Three orders of Reality. Perhaps, we can incorporate, somewhere in the main article, the quote above from Comans, and Adi Shankara's different views. What are your thoughts? Do you or others have an alternate suggestion? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Vic and MSW. I've followed the discussion between the wo of you only partly; I trust that you (MSW) are doing a good job, even if it means that my darlings are being killed. That being said, I'm glad that the level of discussion on this article has risen to this level of expertise; that's very good. I've often thought myself that there was too much Shankara in this article, and too little of the later tradition. That also being said, upon first reading I also think that Vic's contribution is too specialized for the lead. It definitely needs an explanation! Though, the alternative also needs explanation. "Ajativada" is a difficult concept; that is, maybe not intuitively, but when on etries to explain it, with reference to reliable sources, it's a tough subject.

I'll read the discussion; again, I'm glad we've reached this level of expertise here. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've read the diffs of Vic's reverts/changes; to be honest, both your proposals have merits. Let me explain:

• "Other elements of the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta is Ajativada,(note:also called the Doctrine of Non-origination, which holds that the metaphysical Absolute Reality is not subject to birth, change or death; while empirical phenomenal world is always changing yet reducible to that Absolute.) that the empirical phenomenal world is Māyā, and that there are three orders of Reality."

• "Another element" - "a basic element of Gaudapada's philosophy, who provided the base for Shankara," or something like that;
• "also called the Doctrine of Non-origination" - "Non-origination";
• "the metaphysical Absolute Reality" - very apt to mention this, and yet, prone to misunderstanding.

• We could also write "The unchanging Reality beyond the everchanging phenomenal world." Ay, this is a though one...
• "metaphysical," not as in "speculative" (though it is speculative, I think), but as in "beyond sensory perception.
• "Absolute," as in final, the base, unreducable, etc; how many people read this as a reference to some sort of holism, instead of Brahman as some sort of "otherwordly" unchanging Reality? Compare "nonduality"; I'm afraid that many people understand "nonduality" to mean "the nonduality of everything that exists," instead of the nonduality of Atman and Brahman. Advaita Vedanta does postulate a duality between Brahman, the Real, and all phenomenological existences, though this duality is explained away by calling phenomenological realiity "Maya."
• "while empirical [...] Absolute" - yes! Very good!

• "Gaudapada uses the concepts of Ajativada and Maya to establish "that from the level of ultimate truth the world is a cosmic illusion," and "and suggests that the whole of our waking experience is exactly the same as an illusory and insubstantial dream." However Adi Shankara does make a distinction between waking experience and dreams."

• "Gaudapada [...] insubstantial dream." Yes, very good.
• "However Adi Shankara [...] dreams." Some inbetween sentence is missing? See "another element" above.

References

I hope that this helps. I still have to read the discussion, but you've both provided usefull info. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The section "Metaphysics and ontology" could use a short intro: "Advaita Vedanta" postulates the existence of a metaphysical reality, Brahman. Brahman is unchanging and unborn, and therefore Real. In contrast, empirical reality is everchanging, and therefore unreal, or maya, "illusion," "magic." The essence of each human, called Atman, is this unchanging Brahman. Knowledge of this identity is obscured. Knowledge of this identity can be obtained by correct understanding of the holy texts. The attainment of this knowledge liberates one from rebirth: that which is unchanging cannot be reborn." Something like that. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe "philosophy" is a mis-interpretation-presentation of Advaita Vedanta. Foremost, it's a hermeneutical practice, a reading of texts which brings these texts alive. Compare Hjalmar Sundéns role taking theory. The "core" would be, I think, the realisation that one's essence ("Atman") is Brahman, the unchanging Real "beyond" the ever-changing empirical reality. "Ik ben een God in het diepst van mijn gedachten" (Jacques Perk?). It's not about the arguments, as in western philosophy; it's about a living reality. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Three levels of reality

I thnk it would be better to start the Philosophy-section with this sub-section; it provides a very short, but usefull oveview and intro. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit war

VictoriaGrayson's revert to 29 October 2015

@VictoriaGrayson: There is no reason to edit war and reinstate a version with numerous "citation needed" from 2013, blogs and non-RS websites with allegations of WP:OWN. Our dispute is with some language in the lead, and neither should you or I insist on our own version. Let us cooperate and try to get to a consensus version together. @Kautilya3:, @Joshua Jonathan: Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You are the one edit warring. You unilaterally rewrote the article. The version I reverted to was merely the one that existed before you rewrote the article. It is not my version.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3, @JJ: the left out part above, "your comments and intervention would be helpful". @Vic: it is strange that you have accepted the edits I have made, the updated version, and discussed all in the sections above of this talk page, for last one week. And today, after our "illusion and reality" discussion, you start wholesale reverts, adding back citation needed tags, unsourced content etc. I am not going to have a forum-y discussion with you on nirguna Brahman on this talk page. That does not mean you should use wiki procedures disruptively. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss all your changes you have made to the article one-by-one on this talk page.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: Why WP:POINT and disrupt? There is no need for one-by-one discussion for addressing "citation needed" tags and unsourced content in an article, for example. You suggest the need to use recent RS in our discussion on 'illusion versus reality' above, yet you have twice reverted back to non-RS texts/blogs/websites. Are you seriously asking me to address 'cn' tag in the early December version of this article "one-by-one on this talk page"? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted back to the version that existed before you rewrote the article.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Such large-scale reverts are not helpfull; not for improving the article, nor for encouraging cooperation. I prefer MSW to proceed; if there are changes which I find problematic, I'll point them out and discuss them. And not necessarily right now; could also be next week, next month, a couple of months, whatever. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. @VictoriaGrayson: Reverting edits only buys you time for stating your objections. If you don't provide any policy-based objections, the content will go back in. There is no law against rewriting articles. The onus is on you as the reverter to state what your objections are. MSW doesn't need to do anything to argue for her edits. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no law against rewriting articles Not so, as there is a law for WP:CONSENSUS. Big re-writes are OK if accepted de facto. If not accepted, then per WP:BRD, an edit war is not the way forward. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, there is no deadline. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: are you familiar with WP:BRD? What you are doing is silly and never ends well. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Large-scale reverts are NOT the way to improve Wikipedia, nor to encourage participation ... neither is un-discussed large-scale rewrites. A middle path is to engage in discussions, item by item, starting with explaining why a rewrite was necessary and how it improves the article. WP:DR 101. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Pardon me? I see here a concensus for MSW's edits, and multiple protests against this large-scale revert. There's been a lot of discussion already, which has been aborted by Vic's large-scale reverts. Your reverts are quite unhelpfull. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I see no consensus emerging whatsoever. In these cases, a restore to the previous consensus version is the proper manner. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Cwobeel: Please note that @VictoriaGrayson and I have been working on this, in everyone's watch, since December 13. @Vic's first comment is here. This is not a WP:BRD issue. Because she should and would have stopped me on 13th and any of the days that followed, were it so. The issue is "illusion and three levels of reality" sentence in lead, which we were working on, above on this talk page. We can resolve that relatively easily. Imagine anyone reverting wiki articles back to 2-year old "citation needed" tags and OR and other serious problems, with WP:BRD argument. Note, no one is stopping @Vic to edit this article. In fact I will volunteer that I will not edit this article for next 48 hours and give @Vic and others complete freedom to change anything. Would my offer address her WP:OWN and WP:BRD concerns, and let us together work towards improving this article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) that may work, only if the edit warring is stopped cold. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

NB: let it be clear that a lot of my edits are being changed by MSW' edits. Maybe I won't agree with some of them; I don't know yet. I already didn't, as pointed out before. But I prefer her to continue, and see what's she got to offer. If I've got objections, I'll work them out later. No hurry; I've confidence in her competence. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

NB2: Cwobeel wrote: "I see no consensus emerging whatsoever. In these cases, a restore to the previous consensus version is the proper manner." Disgreement on one or two points is not a valid reason to revert all the edits another editor has made. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

All I am saying is that an edit war is not the way to resolve a dispute. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Cwobeel (why do I read "cobweels"?): agree. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Idealism, realism , and illusionism

JJ, Ms Sarah Welch won't even explain in the article that idealism is the opposite of realism and that idealism includes extreme illusionism.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: pfff... Is that so? Then either it should be explained, or it should be reworded. But please be aware that you're often so to the point, that for others it sometimes is cryptic what you're saying. To follow the discussion, I'd first have to read what the two of you wrote, and what spurces you're referring to. I guess that's also why I prefer MSW to continue: let's first see what she's got to offer, and then take the time to dive into it. If we first dicuss, there will never be any improvement, only s stalemate discussion. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: I welcome @JJ, you and others to edit this article, as much as you want, but do not expect forum-y discussions with me on this talk page. Idealism in philosophy, amongst other things, comes in ontological and epistemological flavors, and I just don't think this is the place to discuss it and how these flavors apply to various Indian philosophies. See this. On this talk page, we should work towards specific suggestions to improve this article, with specific WP:RS and page numbers. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly my point. Ms Sarah Welch refuses to explain in the article that idealism is the opposite of realism and that idealism includes extreme illusionism. Andrew Nicholson's Unifying Hinduism pg.68 states:

"Even withing the Advaita school, there are a variety of views falling at different points on the realist/idealist spectrum. At one end are doctrines such as the extreme illusionism of the sixteenth-century Advaitin Prakasananda; at the other are the realist or nearly realist positions expressed in the early works of Sankara."

VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: Go ahead, you explain and summarize it into the article. It would be even better, if you also summarized Nicholson's context that goes with it. As I wrote above, I will refrain from editing this article, and let @JJ, you and others edit, revise and add idealism/realism and anything else you want. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: FWIW, idealism has been and is in the article, and my original plan was to expand on idealism/realism/illusion as a subsection in the main article. I put idealism into the lead on December 14, but I was puzzled by your attempts to delete it here and your objections here. I then added additional sources, to back it up. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, it is not proper to start editing an old version of the article and throw away the new version by default. A revert should be done only if there is something wrong with the edit as per policies. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid objection. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Re-ordering and re-insertion

• Moksha: as far as I know, the study and correct intepretation of the sruti is central. Knowledge, insight, proceeds from this study, but may not even be the most important part, althoygh this may sound strange. It's the continuation of the tradition that's central: knowledge of the Truth, as preserved in the texts. By study, this knowledge, and thereby the universal order, is preserved.It gives a central function to mankind in this order (sorry, no sources).
• Vidya, Svādhyāya and Anubhava: since this study and preservation of the texts is central, or basic, this should be mentioned first. "Moksha" commences with this study.
• Avidya: belongs to the philosophy-section.
• Sat-cit-ananda: idem, at the Brahman-section.
• Philosophy-section: back to levels of reality, and then an explanation/exploration: absolute reality, empirical reality, et cetera.
• Koshas: it may seem strange to put these under avidya, but the koshas cover Reality; they sort of explin the conceopt of avidya.
• States of consciousness: this may be a matter of dispute, but turya is not a state of consciousness (in Advaita), but the basis, which is consciousness.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Brahman

It could be that I prefer "my" version of the Brahman-section. I'm not sure yet; I'll have to think it over. But it could be that "my" version is more 'tot he point', although less referenced. Again, it is about "phenomenology," about the "insiders-look." Not a "naturalistic" description of "Brahman," but the "experienced Brahman." As Deutsch wrote, Brahman is consciousness; it's one's own cponsciousness sort of reified (my parapharsing/reinterpretation). It's not an "object" "outside"; it's a "cleared" "self-awareness," without the I-distortion - I think. I'll have to think it over. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

That's why we need to start from the old consensus version.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

We already did: that's what MSW started with. I find it very paternalistic and "bossy" to demand a discussion, point by point, before making any changes. Maybe that's what we would demand from unexperienced or very one-sided editors, but not from a qualified editor like MSW. We are discussing, aren't we? I expect we will reach agreement on all the issues you've raised. It's a different matter with really contested isssues, like the pagiarism-charges against RM; that was really best to discuss, senetence by sentence, before inserting it into the article. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

See the comments of Cwobeel above, who explained it best.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I find Lochtefeld not very convincing. It's a short lemma, with "generalistic" notions on Brahman. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I've edited this section; I think that putting together a collection of definitions from various reliable sources is not necessarily enough to "explain," or give a "feel" of what Brahman is ("is"! Ha! What's in a name?). I hope the definitions work a little bit more together now to convey (is this teh correct word?) this "subjectve notion" or "feel." Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Lead

I've re-inserted the following sentence:

"It gives "a unifying interpretation of the whole body of Upanishads", providing scriptural authority for the postulation of the nonduality of Atman and Brahman."

I think that these two aspects, sruti and nonduality, are central, and understandable for most people.

I've also rephrased the term "core philosophy"; I don't think that the Advaita tradition itself uses this term, does it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Philosophy

Scrolling through the article, before I get off to make breakfast, I noticed that the Epistemology-section has become quite extended. It seems to be rather philosophical, in the western sense of the word: logical arguments. I think that this illustrates a difference in approaches, which is essential in the understanding/presentation of Advaita Vedanta: when it is approached as primarily a philosophy, in the western sense of the word, something essential gets lost: understanding, insight. It's not just logical arguments, it's logical arguments (or what are presented as such) to create a living reality. The logic is not a goal on it's own. Ehmm... I don't know if I'm making myself clear here; time for breakfast indeed, I guess. Best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

NB: I have removed this info from the lead; I think it's non-essential for mast readers, and hinders the accessibility ("toegankelijkheid"; sorry, "Dutchism," so to speak) of the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Atman - essence

I know that "soul" is an often-used translation of "Atman," but it's not correct, I think. It's more like a similitude, to explain (to westerners) what it is. Maybe it's a correct translation in dvaita-Vedanta, but here it's problematic, I think. "Essence" is better, when one thinks of the Upanishadic question "What's the essence, the eesential nature or quality, of all this?" Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Oh, and where did the breath go? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Atman = identity.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Monism, idealism & realism

See also Talk:Advaita Vedanta#Poor Sources and Talk:Advaita Vedanta#Edit war

@VictoriaGrayson: so, I've read page 68, which argues that portraying Advaita Vedanta as an idealist philosophy is a one-sided presentation, due to a western, idealist (may I dare say, Transcendentalist?) bias, right? we need a section on "Western perceptions of Advaita Vedanta." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch insists on calling Advaita Vedanta idealist (and without explanation). Its not my idea.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Get over it. I read the page; I think I understand what your point is. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm merely pointing out that its Ms Sarah Welch who insists on calling Advaita Vedanta idealist. Take it up with Ms Sarah Welch. It has nothing to do with me.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Fine, you're over it. Let's expand that section; it's an interesting topic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: Page 68 of Nicholson is a review of Garbe's late 19th-century view, not "western idealist biases" in recent scholarship. Let us not imply new conclusions that Nicholson doesn't make. On rest, can you identify a page number where Nicholson states AV was never idealistic monism? or equivalent? In my reading, he is actually saying it was monism, it was idealistic, and it was also more. Let us not confuse Nicholson's review of Hinduism, with something else. Indeed, Nicholson writes on page 25 that the teachings in the early Upanishads were varied, not uniformly monistic or idealistic, which is true. But that comment is about the Upanishads, not AV. Your comment on AV's history on your talk page is valid, Nicholson's views on it should be added to Pre-Shankara Vedanta section, which I did not touch in my edits last week. Consider embedding quotes with the controversial stuff in the lead, or discussing it better in the main article so that lead summary is well supported therein. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll have to go through Nicholson again; it's been a while since I read him, and I only checked p.68. Thanks for noticing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Deutsch (1973, Hawaii), AV:A Philosophical Reconstruction, p.31, 41, rejects "subjective idealism." The book doesn't even mention "monism." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Craig (1998), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Index, p.475: "The monism of Advaita is principally psychological." See also p.477, left column at the bottom. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: Indeed. But Craig's comment cannot be interpreted as "western idealist biases in recent scholarship" either. Craig (2000) in Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, adds "Monism in theology is important to almost all expressions, classical and modern, of Indian theism". He writes that Indian philosophy known as Advaita Vedanta is often identified as Indian monism. This is the majority mainstream view in recent scholarship: to verify, see publications by scholars in recent years, such as the sources I added, or Denise Cush's encyclopedia, or Brill's encyclopedia on Hinduism, or Brian Carr's encyclopedia on Asian philosophies, or Zaehner's encyclopedia on world religions, or Potter's Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, and so on. They all refer to AV as monism. The lead should summarize the majority "common/oft-stated" view, and alternate views or dissenting views should go into the main with "According to XYX scholar, ...". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

JJ, keep up the good work.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe my point would be that I'm not so sure that using western labels helps in understanding AV. It may be more helpfull to decribe AV on/in its own terms, and contextualize the term "monism," that is, explain how and why it is being used. It seems to me that Deutsch is "correct" in his phenomenological/"psychological" approach of AV. But alas, that's my impression. As I said, I'll have to go through Nicholson again. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: so, Vic, is your problem with the qualification "monims," or with the qualification "idealism."? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: Recent scholarship on AV has tried to describe AV in its own terms, and almost all RS are based on Sanskrit manuscripts from the AV school. Let us assume good faith, and that the peer reviewed work by numerous scholars over the last 30 years are RS for this article. Deutsch is not saying anything different, if you read his publications from 1960s onwards. His 1969 work, a bit dated, is one where he explained his views on non-dualism and monism in AV, with more nuance. I would welcome more from Deutsch, Comans, Sharma, Gupta, Potter, and others. Yet, overall, we need to stick to faithfully summarizing mainstream RS by multiple authors on AV, and not do inadvertent OR or push a non-RS/unsourced POV while "describing AV in its own terms (Sanskrit?)". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

JJ, you are doing a good job using recent sources such as Nicholson.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Joseph Milne (1997), Advaita Vedanta and typologies of multiplicity and unity: An interpretation of nondual knowledge, International Journal of Hindu Studies, 1, 1:

• "Sankara is not a philosopher in the usual Western sense proposing a metaphysical system through which reality is to be interpreted or explained to the satisfaction of reason. Even less is he proposing a scientific theory of the nature of reality." (p.166)
• "It is misleading, however, to call this teaching 'monism' or 'monistic,' as Robert Zaehner does, for example, in his Mysticism, sacred and profane (1961). Although this term is employed in a attempt to translate the negative term advaita into a positive Western philosophical equivalent, though the term 'monism' really has no precise meaning in Western philosophy, it results in a distortion of the concept. It confuses the negation of difference with the conflation into one." (p.168)

There's a subtle difference, Ithink, between "Advaita Vedanta is monistic, and "Advaita Vedanta is regarded as monistic by western interpreters."

Vic, you haven't answered my question yet: is your problem with the qualification "monims," or with the qualification "idealism."?

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: Indeed. Deutsch and Milne explain AV as nondualism, preferring that term over monism. The article should include both the majority "common/oft-stated" view, and alternate views or dissenting views, the latter explained in the main with "According to XYX scholar, ...". The ideal summary in lead would stick with the oft-stated view in secondary and tertiary literature, with a clause such as "with some scholars characterizing AV as nondualism rather than monism". I also took out the "despite" language you added to main few days ago and lead without source more recently. It misleads. It is incorrect and at least not acknowledging the majority peer reviewed literature that states something different. Exceptional claims need exceptional WP:RS sources, and I will be okay if you add it with WP:RS that makes that conclusion (w/o OR-synthesis). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with JJ.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

"Buddhism scholar"

[ This edit] changed

"In modern times, due to western Orientalism and Perennialism, and its influence on Indian Neo-Vedanta and Hindu nationalism, Advaita Vedanta has acquired a broad acceptance in Indian culture and beyond as the paradigmatic example of Hindu spirituality."

into

"According to Richard King, a Buddhism scholar, due to western Orientalism and Perennialism, and its influence on Indian Neo-Vedanta and Hindu nationalism, Advaita Vedanta has acquired a broad acceptance in Indian culture and beyond as the paradigmatic example of Hindu spirituality."

References

It's incorrect,for two reasons:

• Advaita Vedanta may have been regarded in (later) medieaval times already by some (or many) religious specialists as the quintessence of Indian spirituality, but it was in colonial times that it acquired this predominant position in the views on Hindu spirituality, thanks also to western interest in it. See also Sweetman, Will (2004), "The prehistory of Orientalism: Colonialism and the Textual Basis for Bartholomaus Ziegenbalg's Account of Hinduism" (PDF), New Zealand Journal of Asian Studies 6, 2 (December, 2004): 12-38 {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help).
• Why the (incorrect) addition of "a Buddhism scholar"? It's the kind of comments we usually see from editors with a preference for a specific POV. And it's incorrect:

"I am an historian of ideas and a philosopher by inclination but with a concern to explore genealogical questions of power and representation in the study of Asian traditions and religious studies in general. I write on classical Hindu and Buddhist philosophy, theory and method questions in religious studies, and on the comparative study of mysticism and spirituality. I am intrigued by the traditions that I study not only as historical phenomena but also as philosophical 'worldviews' with which one might intellectually engage, and this relates to my conviction that contemporary debates about 'theory' need to move beyond a limited Eurocentric framework and into a postcolonial and trans-cultural space. My work seeks to bring the study of Hindu and Buddhist philosophical ideas into interdisciplinary engagement with contemporary debates in cultural and critical theory. I have a particular interest in Indian philosophical thought in the period 200-900 CE and especially the formation of the Mahayana Buddhist schools (Madhyamaka and Yogacara) and early Advaita Vedanta." [1]

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 06:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: The NPOV policy states, "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." An opinion or minority significant POV must be attributed, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy. The same policy page reminds us, "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views" (WP:YESPOV). It is undue to imply doubts or new conclusions on what is the majority recent scholarly view verifiable in numerous secondary and tertiary sources on AV. It is undue to push unsourced text without page numbers and minority Richard King's POV on AV, assuming that is verifiable, as equal to the majority view of scholars. Yes, if you added multiple, independent scholarly sources, then I am fine with your wording; but neither in the main article nor in the lead you have offered anything other than King's POV. We can identify Richard King as "a Buddhism scholar" like Patrick Gray or Justin McDaniel or others do, or with other appropriate words. I welcome alternate wording. But for WP:DUE and balance, don't choose words that inadvertently push one person's POV, or minority POV as if it is the majority view, or give a dissenting view equal importance or more importance than the majority view verifiable in numerous sources. We need to include words that identify what is the majority view and what is minority dissenting/questioning view. We also need to avoid the impression that AV has no historical literature or history, is just fiction and western construction. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: Sweetman is just citing Richard King to criticize Christian missionaries such as Bartholomäus Ziegenbalg in constructing identities in South Asia. Indeed, feel free to add this to the history section. Our challenge is to summarize AV from recent RS, particularly what AV literature states in 100s of its Sanskrit/non-Sanskrit ancient/medieval manuscripts according to these RS. This article should not become an offtopic sideshow trial of Bartholomäus Ziegenbalg, colonialism-bashing, AV-bashing, Christian missionaries-bashing or something else. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but it does not answer my concern here: why call King "a Buddhist scholar," c.q. "a scholar of Buddhism," placing him in oppostion to "Indologists," while he studies both Buddhism and Advaita? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and in response to "neither in the main article nor in the lead you have offered anything other than King's POV": I'm the one who first added Nicholson, making clear that AV already in late medieaval times came to occupy a central position in classifications of Indian thought, and that there is more nuance to this view on AV's elevation - but which also implies that there's a history beyond the perception of AV as the centerpiece of Hindu spirituality. And I think that you're well aware that 'on the floor' bhakti and theistic strands of thought are more prominent than AV. AV is an eliticist affair, just like Buddhism was an eliticist affair. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: I added "a Buddhism scholar" here, the Buddhist is a typo. King is known for his (Mahayana) Buddhism-related work, and his writings on AV are from that perspective. His current title is "Professor of Buddhist and Asian Studies", and it is not "Professor of Hindu and Asian Studies". I am fine with an alternate wording such as "a professor of Buddhist and Asian studies", or just his name. On Bhakti and theistic schools, they are well known to have had a monism/AV influence. See Karen Pechelis book published by Oxford University Press, and other recent RS. But, if you offer me a page number and RS which states "bhakti and theistic strands were never influenced by AV", I will read them and get back to you. On which page number does Nicholson discuss Orientalism, Perennialism and nationalism in the context of Advaita Vedanta? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: Donald Wiebe's review of Richard king on Orientalism etc. It was critical. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

My question is still not answered: why do you deem this addition to be necessary?

Regarding the influence of Advaitic thought: "if you offer me a page number and RS which states "bhakti and theistic strands were never influenced by AV", I will read them and get back to you" is a rhetoric response, of course. Of course there were influences. But one might as well argue that those were Budhist influences, or even better, that Advaitic/idealistic thought was (and is?) a general development in Indian thought, carried by Buddhist, Vedic and Saiva traditions (I don't know about the Vishnu/Krishna traditions, so i can't tell). The point of King is, that Advaita Vedanta came to be regarded as the pinnacle of Indian thought due to the influence of Vivekananda and other neo-Vedantins, and that this is an incorrect representation of Indian history. Ironically, Vivekananda himself seems to be closer to bhedabheda (and Patanjali's yoga) than to Shankara's AV (and talking about yoga: Vivekananda refers to Patanjali, yet helped to popularize hatha yoga). What goes under the name of "Advaita Vedanta" these days is more like a syncretistic holism or whatever name we use. How many (western) regard the world to be maya? "Oh Lord, won't you buy me, a Mercedes Benz." And if not a Mercedes Benz, then peace of mind and a lot of worldly succes through the benefits of meditation. That's my point. All the best, as usual, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Sengaku Mayeda: "Sankara (700-750) has usually been regarded as the greatest philosopher of India since P. Deussen praised his philosophy and compared it with those of Pramenides and Kant." (A thousand teachings, preface, Motilall, p.xv, empahsis mine). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, and Paul Deussen was a friend of Vivekananda. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Advaita Mathas and blogs

@Joshua Jonathan: The Sampradaya section is very weak, with heavy reliance on a blog-like source, now a dead link. There is plenty of scholarly publications on Advaita Mathas, monasteries, sampradayas, whose roots reach at least through the last centuries of the 1st millennium BCE (see Olivelle's Samnyasa Upanishad book). There is more on Advaita monasteries in literature related to Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism and Bhakti movement, because major scholars from these traditions, such as Ramanuja, Ramananda, Madhvacharya, etc all started off their studies/career in Advaita monasteries of medieval India. I can summarize some of this with WP:RS (I will be delighted if you want to / have time for). But, before updating this section of this article, I would like to read the web source originally cited. Would you have know an alternate link to replace the dead link? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: yes, I see your point. I'd never examind this source. I never knew that Ramanuja and Madhvacharya started in Advaita monasteries. To return the favor: I know very little about these sampradayas, so if you're able to improve this section, with the knowledge and sources you've already got, I'd rather prefer you to do so. My knowledge is really to limited. NB: I've checked the link; the website still exists. I can't find the original page; they've got a nice quote in their main page, though: "Ah!" :) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

This may be the original page. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@JJ: Thanks for the link. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Philosophy

What would be a better term for "philosophy"? Upadesa? Darśana? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I missed this.

Upadesa = उपदेश ~ teach, preach, counsel, instruct, explain...

Darśana = दर्शन ~ view, philosophy, religious doctrine...

Philosophy ~ Darśana, Dharma, Tarka, Tantra, Vidyā, Tattvavidyā, Anvīkṣikī...

By "~", I mean the meaning depends on the context. By "...", I mean other contextual meanings exist. See Pannikar's chapter in Contemporary philosophy: Vol 7 (Asian philosophy), starts at page 11. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect image or name at right side

I noticed that at the right side, Image is of Gaudapada but text below it says Shankara. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.229.116.224 (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Advaita Vedanta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203004634/http://advaita-academy.org/Pages/PrintPost.aspx?PID=231 to http://advaita-academy.org/Pages/PrintPost.aspx?PID=231
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120508091224/http://www.sanskrit.org/www/Shankara/shankar4.html to http://www.sanskrit.org/www/Shankara/shankar4.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Structure modification and a proposal to merge

Have changed the structure to give the article a logical flow. It follows now from textual authority to history and then on to the philosophy part. I propose that Dashana and Moksha sections be merged as the later logically belongs to the former. Also, there is significant duplication of material making the article very bulky. The article could do with some copy-editing and de-duplication. Nrityam (talk) 13:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference to Sannyasa Upanishads in Pre-Shankara Advaita Vedanta

The reference has been removed due to a technical inaccuracy. The fact that modern scholarship has found strong advaita outlook in sannyasa upanishads is not relevant as the same can be said of all major upanishads as well. Upanishads are part of the prasthanatrayi, and that includes the Sannyasa upanishads. Sannyasa upanishad is a synthetic classification among the upanishads. It will be wrong to classify them as Advaita texts. Nrityam (talk) 06:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nrityam: Just because Advaita outlook is found in all major Upanishads, does not make Sannyasa Upanishads irrelevant. They are minor Upanishads to begin with, yet notable and significant as discussed by the sources. As Patrick Olivelle and others note, the Sannyasa Upanishads imply an ancient monastic culture in the Advaita Vedanta history, which is significant and not implied by the major Upanishads. I will therefore restore this. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nrityam: Since you seem busy improving the article, I will let you think about the above and re-instate the relevant Sannyasa Upanishads aspects where appropriate. I will check back later, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Relations between Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism

This is an unusually long piece and could do with a separate article. Contents have been copied and edited to draft a new article, Relationship between Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism. Once adequate content is added to the latter, the contents from the current portion will be summarized to not unnecessary conflate the current article. Suggestions welcome. Nrityam (talk) 08:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I added a link to the new article, the appropriate text in the main page can be now removed as it can be copied over to the secondary article:Relationship between Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism Daiyusha (talk) 11:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nrityam: Avoid bulleted list, use prose please wherever possible per MOS. The relationship between Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism is a notable and important topic for this article, and the WP:Summary needs to be clearer and comprehensive. The old version was long, may be too long and should be split as you did, but it was clearer. @Joshua Jonathan:, @JimRenge: what do you think? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I feel uneasy with the way information is removed and summarised now. I also wonder, Nrityam, if you've got persoanl objections against Advaita Vedanta? If I recall correct, at the Mahavyaka article you wrote that there was too much emphasis on Advaita-interpretations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted Nrityam's removals, re-ordered the subsections, and tried to shorten it a little bit. The subsection on Gaudapada is quite long; MSW, could you give it a try to shorten it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@JJ: Indeed. Will do, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Some of it could be moved to Gaudapada, maybe. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I was in the middle of a copy-edit of the article (in response to a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests) and took a bit of a break yesterday. Now I see work is still being done on the article. Could someone let me know at the Requests page when you'd like me to resume copy-editing? Thanks.  – Corinne (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Lead

I've restored part of the old lead, because of several inaccuracies which were introduced recently:

• Definition: first a general defintion ("a school of Hindu philosophy and religious practice"), then a more specific definition ("the oldest extant sub-school of Vedanta").
• "advaita" - not only Advaita vedanta uses this term; therefore, a more general definition of the term.
• "individual soul" - that's not what Advaita vedanta says
• "derives its philosophy" - this sort of reifies the interpretation of the texts into a independent "thing," a "philosophy." My point is that it is the interpretations themselves which are the "thing" which constitute Advaita.
• "The school uses concepts such as Brahman" etc - re-inserted sentence, to emphasize that Advaita vedanta is a interpretation of terms and concepts which are also being used by other traditions.
• "Advaita Vedanta traces its roots" etc - re-inserted sentence; provides historical background.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Atman and moksha

@Ms Sarah Welch: I've just reread the Vivekachudamani, and it seems to offer a mixed presentation of the means to moksha; that is, the goal is dispassion, but the means may be either ascetism and letting go of desires etc., but his may also be acquired by the realization of one's real identity as Atman, and the realisation that one is just an observer, not the passions and its attachments. The article as it is now seems to emphasize the realization that Atman = as the means to liberation, while the realization of one's true identity as Atman, the passionless motionless oberserber, may be more important. What do you think, and how can we incorporate this into the article? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: which translation? Grimes? Johnston? some other? Yes, please go ahead, and while you are at it, may be you can also cross check then where appropriate undo some of the zillion edits made by @Nrityam and socks between August and November 2016. Sorry, I haven't gotten around to reviewing their edits and scrubbing this article, after they were indef blocked. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

A Dutch translation (probably from English); no publisher, translator nor publication year.

There is a relevant comment (I think from Deutsch, but it could also be King or soemone else), that there was a development in Indian religious thought from self-control and dispassion to the 'insight' that one's real self is the dispassionate observer, and that by realizing this one is already liberated. Do you remember who wrote that? It's a key statement in understanding Poonja and his neo-Advaitins.

And yes, I will check those other edits too. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Brahman and vivarta

@Ms Sarah Welch: the article now says:

"The universe, according to Advaita philosophy, does not simply come from Brahman, it is Brahman. Brahman is the single binding unity behind the diversity in all that exists in the universe.[102] Brahman is the cause of all changes.[102][104] Brahman is considered to be the material cause[note 13] and the efficient cause[note 14] of all that exists.[103][128][129] Brahman is the "primordial reality that creates, maintains and withdraws within it the universe."[110] It is the "creative principle which lies realized in the whole world".[130]"

Yet, according to King, Indian Pholosophy, p.220-221, Vedanta shows a change in thought on Brahman, from a dynamic reality to "a astatic and uncganing reality"; and in the use of the term vivarta, from a "real transformation" into an "illusory trandformation." I think we have to include this in the text, but I'll have to read that passage again to do it properly. any thoughts? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@JJ: That reads like Bhartrhari's ideas. In all three of their traditions, Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism, and sub-schools within each, their scholars cross examined ideas and came up fascinating spectrum of disagreements/refinements. Please check if King is discussing one of these scholars on pages 220-221. This is worth a mention in the main article, but the mainstream dominant view needs to be preserved. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Atman

Soul

@Ms Sarah Welch: do we really have to state it like this:

"Advaita school asserts that there is "spirit, soul, self" within each living entity which is fully identical with Brahman – the Universal Soul. This identity holds that there is One Soul that connects and exists in all living beings, regardless of their shapes or forms, there is no distinction, no superior, no inferior, no separate devotee soul (Atman), no separate God soul (Brahman). The Oneness unifies all beings, there is the divine in every being, and that all existence is a single Reality, state the Advaita Vedantins. Each soul, in Advaita view, is non-different from the infinite.

To Advaitins, human beings, in a state of unawareness and ignorance of this Universal Self, see their "I-ness" as different than the being in others, then act out of impulse, fears, cravings, malice, division, confusion, anxiety, passions, and a sense of distinctiveness. 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 living beings, the non-dual Oneness, that Brahman is in everything, and everything is Brahman."

References

"Soul" is a western word, with a distinctive flavor of individuality and personhood, the "force" that animates inanimate stuff. More like Purusha, or jiva, than like Atman, I think. "Within" idem dito; the koshas-scheme of course could be interpreted as such, but it says that Atman is covered with layers, not, when we take it exactly, that there is Atman within. Well, at least, that's my understanding of this scheme. "All existence is a single reality" sounds also different from 'the phenomenal world is an illusional appearance'. "Atman-knowledge [...] everything is Brahman" - this is a modern understabnding of Reality, I think. Holism, interconnectedness. Nothing wrong with such a worldview an sich (it's my worldview too), but isn't all of this too much of a modern understanding of Advaita Vedanta, more neo-Vedanta than classical Advaita Vedanta, if not indeed a post-sixties understanding, so too speak? Shankara is quite outspoken about Maya and illusion, whereas we moderns almost can't help but see Reality as an interconnected oneness, not as a play of Maya on the Reality of Brahman.

I hope I'm able to convey what I mean here. Aupmanyav wrote at his userpage "I believe in existence of Energy (as in physics, light, electricity, etc.) and equate that with 'Brahman'. My 'Brahman' constitutes all things in the universe, assumes all forms, has attributes (physical and not divine)." I cannot help but agree with him, but it's different from classical Advaita Vedanta. In relation to Ira Leviton's comment above, it made me realize that it may be very hard for us moderns to fully describe, or explain, or comprehend, what Shankara himself meant; we can gain a technical understanding of his writings and ideas, but maybe we can never fully live his ideas, simply because we are 21st century humans, with a set of conceptual frameworks which are, at a deep and basic level, simply incompatible with his worldview.

So, what I'm saying is, I think, that the above sentences may be too much of a contemporary formulation/"hertaling"/interpretation, which gives it a different meaning. What do you think? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Sharma may not be the best source in this regard; too much neo-Vedanta and Sharma's own, modern interpretation.
• Roer: 1908... No, even worse: Edward Roer lived from 1805-1866. P.241: "...this all-knowing soul, this Purusha" - augh...
• Deutsch p.10-13 is about Brahman and negation; p.13 mentions "oneness" (without capital), but in connection with "experience"; it is a phenomenological reading of Advaita Vedanta, a "reconstruction," as Deutsch himself says.
• Potter (2008) p.510-512; I have access to the 1998 Motilall reprint, which says at p.510: "Atman is Brahman, and Brahman Atman." p.588: "individual soul (jiva)".
• "human beings, in a state of unawareness and ignorance of this Universal Self" - what does "human beings" refer to in this sentence? Individuals, the material layers? Is Atman personal? Is Atman unaware? Our real identity is Atman; the term "human beings" re-inforces the avidya which, according to Advaita Vedanta, created the illusion of individuality. The sentence uses modern terminology to explain Advaita Vedanta, but re-inforces the 'wrong' worldview which Advaita Vedanta tries to break down. At least, that's what I think.

• Rambachan (2006), p.114-122: inaccessible for me.
• A Bouquet of Nondual Texts: Advaita Prakarana Manjari is published by "Society of Abidance in Truth", and a primary source.

• Rambachan (2006), pages 47, 99-103: inaccessible for me.

All in all, I think that we better avoid the usage of the term "soul," since it refers to individuality, and re-inforces in a subtle way a non-Advaita worldview. As an alternative, maybe we can use some quotations from "A Thousand Teachings," Mayeda translation. Ch.10 (p.123-124) is beautifull: "I am seeing, pure and by nature changeless. There is by nature no object for me. Being the Infinite, completely filled in front, across, up, down, and in every direction, I am unborn, abiding in myself." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@JJ: The dominant mainstream scholarship translates Atman as soul. Richard King, whom this article cites a lot, translates Atman as soul. Other professors of Buddhist studies, Hindu studies, Indology, Vedic studies, Sanskrit translate Atman as soul (many explicitly stating its synonym to be "real self"). It is OR to allege someone in the West invented the concept of soul, the Buddhists/Hindus/Jains knew nothing about soul, and that this is a contemporary formulation/"hertaling"/interpretation. Sharma, Potter, Deutsch, King, Staal, Meister, Bowker, Deussen etc are WP:RS. I will recheck the above sources, reword where appropriate, and add a few more RS. We should avoid OR, and stick to summarizing the mainstream scholarship. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

'Lost in translation', so to speak. Given the "explicitly stating its synonym to be "real self"," I would still prefer "Universal Self" and "One Self" over "Universal Soul" and "One Soul," in cases where we use only one term. "Soul" seems to be a translation convention to me, to render the word "Atman" in an accessible form for westerners, but less precise than "real self." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

We do need to explain the various scholarly views of atman as "soul", "real self" etc. In the rest of the article, when we use a term/translation for Atman or Brahman, perhaps our best compromise might be to stick to the source. Use Atman, or real self, or true self, or one self, or Self, or soul or whatever, depending on the term the cited source is stating. Your comments, @JJ, are thought provoking as always. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you; I'm glad you appreciate it. Good proposal. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Human beings

@Ms Sarah Welch: there is still this sentence:

"To Advaitins, human beings, in a state of unawareness and ignorance, see their "I-ness" as different than the being in others, then act out of impulse, fears, cravings, malice, division, confusion, anxiety, passions, and a sense of distinctiveness.[94][95][96]"

At the relative level, "human beings" may be considered to be a correct term. But from the absolute level, "human beings" are illusionary, and is only Atman/Brahman real. This sentence somehow puts the locus of control/"being" at the phenomenal individual, and not at the Real Self. It implies that, when "enlightened," it's still individual human beings who are enlightened and released, while Shankara says that with insight and release Atman is recognized, and the individual human being is seen as an illusion. No individual consciousness, but Atman-consciousness. Technically more correct would be:

"To Advaitins, in a state of unawareness and ignorance Atman is perceived as "I-ness," and as different from the being in others. In this state of unawareness, there is identification with acts, which are driven by impulse, fears, cravings, malice, division, confusion, anxiety, passions, and a sense of distinctiveness.[94][95][96]"

This may not be linguistically completely correct, but it conveys somehow what I perceive to be slightly misleading. And maybe we can introduce here a technical term for this list of malicious drives. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@JJ: This being a general overview article on Advaita Vedanta, we should try to explain this sub-school at both relative and absolute levels. Parts of your comment are puzzling, as they are not mainstream. Which page are you seeing the above? I will like to read the context and source, then get back to you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Mayeda, partly; my personal understanding of Advaita; and a training if critical hermeunetics through an academic education in the social sciences. Look at the second part: "then act out of impulse, fears, cravings, malice, division, confusion, anxiety, passions, and a sense of distinctiveness. What does Shankara write in A Thousand Teachings? That AStman is not the body, thoughts, feelings and acts. The full sentence implies that it is acting human beings which gain insight, while Shankara states that Atman is totally different from this empirical human being, yet that due to ignorance the empirical human being is perceived to be the self.

And yes, that's a logical contradiction: if Atman is pure etc., how can it be deluded? - which is a central question in Advaita Vedanta, isn't it?

I hope that this explanation helps; maybe I'm very sensitive to the exact meaning of words here, but it does make a crucial difference. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Problems/Issues with Advaita

@Joshua Jonathan: I will move the problems section to a later, just like the Buddhism and other articles. The article should first provide a proper, as non-technical as we can, an overview and introduction that is well supported in WP:RS. Are you okay if, just like the problems and disputes with Buddhist doctrines, we can in a later section briefly summarize the problems and disputes with Advaita (after its ideas and aims have been explained)? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

No, on the contrary! I think it provides a very good introduction. Advaita derives from the problems with its basic tenets, and the solutions that have been developed for those problems. When we start with the questions, it becomes much easier to understand why, for example, the identity of Atman and Brahman is a big deal in Advaita Vedanta

Otherwise, it becomes an overview of doctrine, as if "Advaita Vedanta" is some sort of empirical science which lays bare self-veidnt 'truths'; a 'closed' and finished set of doctrines, instead of a developing tradition of thought and interpretation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@JJ: That is ahistorical, and not how Advaita developed however. The mainstream scholarship places its ideas to Yajnavalkya and the Vedic period. I re-read the cited pages of Mayeda. He is stating the questions to set the context for Upadesasahasri, and there is more to Advaita than Upadesasahasri and Mayeda. Let me think a bit, and meditate on how to incorporate what you suggest plus keep this historical and non-technical. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

You do refer to the "Darśana (philosophy) - central concerns" section, don't you? Otherwise, I may be misunderstandiing you here. Though, I do get your point about Mayeda. Maybe you should just go ahead, and we'll see what it will like then. I think we'll never get it perfect anyway, so it may be allright to have an article which keeps developing - or changing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, that is the section I am referring to. But, you make a good point. Let me brew over this a bit. Meanwhile, lets take that technical hat tag out, since we are actively working on this article to explain the subject better (to the best of our inabilities!). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

"(to the best of our inabilities!)" - :)! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Doublure

@Ms Sarah Welch: where's the doublure? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Here, in each of the three bulleted Prasthanatrayi sub-section list. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Technical

@Ira Leviton: I fully understand your adiition of the "too technical"-template, but it's almost unavoidable. Acvaita Vedanta is a very technical, or theoretical topic. Have you ever tried to read the Brahma Sutras with Shankara's commentary? You'll go nuts. I tried it three times, at least, and got stuck on page 10 or so.
Nevertheless, maybe you've got concrete instances? In that case, we can try to make it better. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jonathan,

I came to the page to fix a spelling error... and was overwhelmed. It was easy to correct that error, of course, but wow - there's so much information, and I think it's presented in a way that is accessible only to people who already are familiar with many of the terms or know a lot about the subject, much like many of the scientific or medical articles. The page is simply way above the level of general readers, is extremely long, and dense in some places. I think that many people speak their own language about topics that they know too well and that's what has happened. But Advaita Vedanta is not a topic that I know much (or being blunt with myself, anything) about and I don't feel that I can help on a nuts-and-bolts level. I think breaking it into separate pages may help, and it should be at a more understandable level. I'm sorry I can't help in a practical way.

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ira Leviton: thanks for your response. Maybe it is a page for advanced readers; traditionally Advaita vedanta is restricted to Brahmns, who have already been studying the Vedas for years. It's not meant for common folks like you and me. Buddhist philosophy has the same problem: you need a basic understanding of the texts and vocabulary to get a grip on it. And then, still, it's hard. I've been studying Buddhism now for nearly thirty years, and I pretty sure I've got a good grip on some of the basic themes, but I know and understand only a fragment of the tradition. Alfred Scheepers, a Dutch Indologist who did his PhD on Shankara, once wrote me that he still wasn't sure if he had understood Shankara... And that was after more than thirty years of study! If a reader really wants to understand Advaita Vedanta, they'll have to read introductions on Advaita Vedanta, Indian philosophy and religion in general, some text on Indian history, basic Advaita vedanta texts, and also the basics (well, somewhat more than the basics) of Buddhism. And meditational experience may also help. Don't forget, students in this tradition study for years and years. Not really hopeful, is it? All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ira Leviton: While I agree with @JJ that there will be sections in this article that will tend to be technical just like some of the articles in the Buddhism space, the article is too technical indeed. Your feedback is important and we should try to explain better. I have revised the lead and shifted sections so that terms are explained as early as possible in the article. There is much scope for improvement, but have another look please. Are there specific sections that are more technical than others, and need greater attention? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: I apologize for taking so long to respond. An article like this is tough because the topic is so specialized. I don't think that I can offer much useful specific advice because it's also an area that I know nothing about. Perhaps the general advice that's best is to try to keep in mind that it has to be both a reference for people who are familiar with the subject, but also readable by somebody like me, which is likely a majority of readers, and you want to keep them for more than the first paragraph. Wikipedia says to always bring something one level down. I think that keeping the first few sections simple, especially the terminology, is a good approach, and it can build up from there. That way, people who are reading can stick with it longer and be drawn to the rest of the article if they have the perseverance and interest, and maybe will be more likely to come back to it if they don't make it all the way through. Ira Leviton (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ira Leviton: Thank you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Buddhist influences

Shankara uses the Two Truths doctrine; his Atman is very akin to Buddhist Sunyata. Are we referring to this in the article? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@JJ: We should at least mention the Two Truths doctrine debate somewhere, with Hugh Nicholson, John Grimes and others as sources. Probably in the Three Realities subsection. I will meditate on this a bit. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Tattva

Should we also pay some attention to Advaita's version of the Tattvas? 'Unevolved name-and-form evolves from Brahman; ether evolves from Unevolved name-and-form' et cetera. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I wondered about adding Tattva section to the Buddhism article too last year (from 1 e.g.), but did not go forward. Tattva etc discussions may make that article and this one too complicated and technical. Perhaps, we should first improve the Tattva article, add and expand it, rather than add subsections in Buddhism and this article. A sentence or two or just a wikilink may suffice. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I also figured it might become too (more too, so to speak) complicated. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Buddhist influences

The influence of Buddhism on Advaita is a different topic than the influence of Advaita on Hinduism, and the changes in how Advaita is regarded within Hinduism. I think it's better to have these two topics as two different sections. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, perhaps under a more neutral subtitle "Relationship with Buddhism". The literature of some early, but now extinct Buddhist schools as well as the Theravada (Hinayana) Buddhists made the opposite accusations. Interesting pre-Shankara Sanskrit manuscripts those are!! Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The section is on Buddhist influences on Advaita Vedanta; this may be painfull for some readers, but it is the oft-repeated point of scholarly studies on the history of Advaita Vedanta. The 'Theravada accusation' was from Bhaviveka, a Mahayana author, who attributed the similarities to Buddhist influences on (early Advaita) Vedanta; his "Hinayana interlocutor" is a literary construct. This reading of the source was too far-stretched, but I'm impressed again with the broad range of sources you command. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I can't access Newland, but Cozort writes on a very specific Tibetan debate. To present this note correctly, the Madhyamaka dominance should be explained properly, and the almost 'heretic' position of idealist schools of thought in Tibetan Buddhism. So, your original addition

"Similarly, early Hinayana Buddhist (now called Theravada) scholars have accused Mahayana Buddhists of being crypto-Vedantins, an accusation that is found in later medieval era Buddhist traditions as well."

References

is too broad and suggestive; it is not "early Hinayana Buddhist scholars" (plural) who "accused Mahayana Buddhists of being crypto-Vedantins." And it is not "later medieval era Buddhist traditions" which accuse "Mahayana Buddhists" of being crypto-Vedantins, but the dominant Tibetan Mahayana school which accuses a specific rival Tibetan Mahayana school of being crypto-Vedantic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, searching for "crypto" in newland gave me a look into it; also about Jonang. That's really specific; even most Buddhists probably don't know about it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@JJ: I am fine with clarifying that the Hinayana accusation on Mahayana being "crypto-Vedantins" happened centuries before Adi Shankara. Given the late chronology for Mahayana, this is prudent and suffices. I am also fine with clarifying the later "Tibetan" accusation. FWIW, this is not at all unusual, on both sides. There is a lot more, and I do not want to cite primary texts here. The three secondary sources suffice. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The section on Buddhist accusations of crypto-Vedantism is become quite long; the sentence "The Japanese Buddhist texts discuss the eighth century Advaita Vedantin Adi Shankara, but do not consider him to be a Buddhist" is puzzling to me. What is "the Japanese Buddhist texts"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@JJ: I am fine with your revisions and trimming. The Japanese reference is to the medieval era translations and works, which also mention pre-Shankara Advaita, Bhavya, Santaraksita among others. I will look into it, but I hesitate in adding more from Ingalls given the article's length. May be that needs to go in the Adi Shankara article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Bhaviveka

@Ms Sarah Welch: why do you write

"the Mahayana Buddhist scholar Bhaviveka used (pre-Shankara) Advaita Vedanta concept of ultimate reality Brahman and equated it to the Buddha's Dharma body."

when the source says

"equates the Buddha's Dharma body with Brahman." (p.7)

The phrase "pre-Shankara" cane from previous edits, when I wrote

"the Buddhist author Bhaviveka noted similarities between early (pre-Shankara) Advaita Vedanta and Mahayan Buddhism, which he attributed to Buddhist influences on this school."

That's quote different from stating that Bhaviveka used the Vedantic concept of Brahman... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Because that is what the sources state. Bhaviveka lived long before Adi Shankara. Vedantin concept of Brahman is Advaita Vedantin concept, but if instead of "Advaita Vedantin", you feel just "Vedantin" is better, I am fine with that. I wrote so to explain the context, and I have no strong preference either way. Remember, other Vedanta school founders such as Ramanuja and Madhvacharya were born centuries after Adi Shankara, and they all studied in Advaita Vedanta monasteries. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@JJ: You added,

redefined Vedantic concepts to show how they fit into Madhyamaka concepts,[440]

Which Nichols ref is this? Please add the harv details. Bhaviveka and Buddhapalita works on Buddhism are very interesting!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

As you wrote it, it suggests that Bhaviveka took over this Vedantic concpet. Well, any way, Mark Siderits, Studies in Buddhist Philosophy, p.299, gives a comment on Eckel's study that's probably more relevant. Siderits' writes that Eckel has made clear that Madhyamaka and Advaita have different views on ultimate ontology, which cannot be confused. But interestingly, Siderits point to the other side, namely writers who "claim that Madhyamaka affirms an inexpressible ultimate." (compare Murti!) So, it's a multi-faceted debate, onn Buddhist influences on Advaita, Vedantic influences on Buddhism, and also on Vedantic misunderstandings of Buddhism (the fourth possibility, Buddhist misunderstandings of Vedanta, no doubt also exist).

I'm reading this article by Ingalls; he writes somewhere that Shankara starts with the premisse of the existence of Brahman, from which he (Shankara) arrives at the statement that the world is unreal. That's exactly what's problematic for Buddhists, to start with the authority of the Upanishads. Interesting article.

I'll look into the reference; I'd already written a reply, and just copied it after your follow-up reply. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

And I still think that the differences between Advaita and Mahayana are not that black-and-white. The theoretical/philosophical stances are quite opposed to each other, but in Buddhism there is a good deal of Atman/Brahman like stuff. See also, for example, the Dalai Lama; for what I know about him, his ideas on the continuation of mind(stream) come close to essentialist ideas. And Buddhism has a major problem in explaining reincarnation, when there is no self. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@JJ: Ingalls was a big admirer of Shankara, and "world is unreal" is too simplistic. Not the position he attributes to Shankara, Ingalls explanation is much more interesting than that. In the 1st millennium Indian texts and after, allegations, scholarly accusations and polemics have been common in Indian history. The Jains and the Dvaita Vedanta scholars had the choicest accusations against the Buddhists, for example, to place the accusations against Advaita Vedanta in perspective. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Scholarly reception

Maybe we should change "Scholarly reception" into "Scholarly approaches," with:

• a section on whether Advaita Vedanta is monism or not;
• a section on methodological approaches: textual/philosophical studies, phenomenological approaches (Deutsch, Sharma), social-historical and anthropological approaches (Dubois, The Hidden Lives of Brahman);
• topical studies.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Why? I was wondering that section needs a trim down or just go, for the same reason that an equivalent section in the main Buddhism or Christianity article would be overly technical, non-overview and inappropriate. The "monism or non-dualism" and such do need a mention, and they already are in other parts of this article. I am okay with a few line summaries added to Reception section, of anything that is notable, oft discussed in reliable sources, but not yet mentioned elsewhere in the article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Remove is also fine, or integrate the info in that section into other sections. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Pramana

Maybe we should add info on "personal religious experience" as a pramana in neo-Vedanta. Thomas J. Green (2016), Religion for a Secular Age: Max Müller, Swami Vivekananda and Vedānta, Routledge, p.7 (seems to be an interesting book, by the way):

"Vivekananda and Muller interpreted vedanta as a philosophical system and were generally not convinced of the value of scriptural reasoning in any tradition."

Compare Arvind Sharma on "experiential Advaita," and Leesa Davis and her reference to Fort, making similar disticntions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@JJ: Do you have a reliable source that explicitly states that conclusion, i.e. "personal religious experience is a pramana", to avoid OR:Synthesis concerns? The pramana literature is extensive, and this is not mainstream. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Rambachan, Sharma, others as well, I suppose. Yet, they do not call it pramana. It's a well-described development, from classical Advaita to neo-Vedanta. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Lets not call "personal religious experience" a "pramana" then, here or any other article. Other neo-Vedanta related content should go into the article dedicated to it, with a short summary style sentences here. Reminds me of the interesting review of Paul Hacker on it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Brahmānubhava as Überpramāṇa in Advaita Vedānta: Revisiting an Old Debate. I thnk it's essential to add this; it's a departure from classical Advaita Vedanta, but central to neo-Vedanta and its derivatives, like the Perennial philosophy, neo-Advaita and New Age. And it's a topic of debate for academics: can "religious experience" provide proper knowledge of a (supposed) transcendental realm? See Sharf's The Rhetoric of Meditative experience. 07:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!

See also Arvind Sharma, Is Anubhava a Pramāṅa According to Śaṇkar?. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@JJ: Indeed. There is more on Anubhava (experience, intuition) as an epistemic method to spiritual knowledge. Let me dig into these and other sources. We barely touch it in the "Vidya, Svādhyāya and Anubhava" section right now. Needs a few more sentences and sources there. Should we also add a brief summary on this to the neo-Vedanta sub-section? Please feel free to add a few sentences. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Some more sources:

• A. Rambachan (2013), The Traditional Roots of Difference, Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies: Vol. 26, Article 3.
• Menezes, W. J., Symbiosis, Paradoxes, and Dialectics: a Narrative of the Non-Dual Path in the Vivekacūḍāmaṇi Indian Counc. Philos. Res. (2016) 33: 137. doi:10.1007/s40961-015-0037-3
• Menezes, W., Is Viveka a Unique Pramāṇa in the Vivekacūḍāmaṇi?, J Indian Philos (2016) 44: 155. doi:10.1007/s10781-014-9257-0

NB: I found an interesting comment when reading & writing on the Traditionalist School; this "school" rejects mainstream perennialism, arguing that socalled mystical experience does not suffice as a 'means of knowledge'; true "perennial wisdom" is provided by 'metaphysical intuition'. This argument keeps simmering in my mind; it is more in line with "enlightenment" as bodhi, prajna, kensho, that is, insght, which is a cognitive event; in contrast with the popular notion of "mystical experience" as an experience of oneness which is supposed to be the quinteessence of Asian religions. It's not! Insight into the illusionary nature of phenomenal reality, c.q. our daily experiences, and our attachment to pleasure, that's what Asian religions are about. This preoccupation with mystical experiences is a preoccupation with spectacular experiences, which may as well be caused by epilepsy etc., but are not the same as insight into maya and the sustained practices of self-awareness c.q. mindfulness. Sorry, looking for an audience to share my thoughts... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@JJ: Yes. While mystical experiences is a part of spirituality for some and need a mention in this and other Asian religion articles, it is neither correct nor mainstream to present Advaita Vedanta, other traditions of Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism to be nothing but a "preoccupation with mystical/spectacular experiences". A major part of their pursuits has been a search of happiness, inner peace, insights, understanding of consciousness and its processes, cognitive events, meaning, axiology, and "holistic awareness" of all there is to be aware of. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Advaita Vedanta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j22/stacey.asp?page=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130310124030/http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j20/editorial.asp to http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j20/editorial.asp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j31/translucent.asp?page=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced edits

@UnicornPusheen: You added unsourced content such as "other sub-schools of Vedanta consider Atman and Brahman to be separate entities," etc. This is not only incorrect in most cases (except Dvaita), such insertions of personal opinions/wisdom/prejudice without citing WP:RS is inappropriate per wikipedia content guidelines. Such insertions are also undue, since this article already has a dedicated section comparing Advaita and Dvaita later. If you have concerns, please explain and we can discuss them. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that most of his edits, being minor copy-edits, were fine. Haven't looked at the issue above though, yet. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Advaita Vedanta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518100046/http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/mpath/2004/october/mp.swf to http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/mpath/2004/october/mp.swf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518100046/http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/mpath/2004/october/mp.swf to http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/mpath/2004/october/mp.swf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Minor edit to link directing to article "Buddhist influences on Advaita Vedanta"

To ensure consistency, I've changed the link from "Buddhism and Vedanta" to "Buddhist influences on Advaita Vedanta", as the latter is the name of the article that is being linked to. I forgot to log in when doing this (apologies), so am mentioning it here in case it is disputed. Trutheyeness (talk) 08:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Later Advaita Vedanta tradition

The section "Later Advaita Vedanta tradition" needs to be expanded. James Madaio, Rethinking Neo-Vedanta: Swami Vivekananda and the Selective Historiography of Advaita Vedanta (emphasis mine):

This paper problematizes the prevalent model of studying the “Neo-Vedanta” of Swami Vivekananda (1863–1902) principally in terms of an influx of Western ideas and nationalism. In particular, I demonstrate how scholarly constructions of “Neo-Vedanta” consistently appeal to a high culture, staticized understanding of “traditional” Advaita Vedanta as the alterity for locating Vivekananda’s “neo” or new teachings. In doing so, such studies ignore the diverse medieval and early modern developments in advaitic and Advaita Vedantic traditions which were well-known to Vivekananda and other “Neo-Vedantins”. Redressing this discursive imbalance, I propose that close attention to the way in which Swami Vivekananda drew from Indic texts opens up a wider frame for understanding the swami and the genealogy of his cosmopolitan theology.

This explains why contemporary "Advaita Vedanta" is, in several aspects, different from classical Advaita Vedanta. This should be reflected in the article; Advaita Vedanta apparently is more than Shankara. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

See also Michael S. Allen & Anand Venkatkrishnan (2017) Introduction to Special Issue: New Directions in the Study of Advaita Vedānta, International Journal of Hindu Studies, December 2017, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 271–274:

The articles in this issue make the cumulative argument that we do not yet under stand the history of Advaita Vedanta nearly as well as one might think. To give a single, surprising example: scholars have yet to provide even a rudimentary, let alone comprehensive account of the history of Advaita Vedanta in the centuries leading up to the colonial period, though this history is precisely what set the stage for its modern reception. Scholarship on Advaita Vedanta has tended to focus overwhelmingly on Sankara, the founding figure of the tradition, but our knowledge of the thousand-year period between the Brahmasūtrabhāṣya and the lectures of Svamı Vivekananda remains largely incomplete.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

And:

• Christopher Minkowski (2011), Advaita Vedanta in early modern history
• Michael S. Allen (2013), The Ocean of Inquiry: A Neglected Classic of Late Advaita Vedānta (doctotal thesis)

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Purushavada

I'm and Indian Odia. According to what i know, I think Purushavada in India will mean "giving preference to men" or like saying "a mans world". Lalat14 (talk) 11:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Concept of Advaita explained in Tripura Rahasyam

Philosophy of Advait (a+dvait- non duality) has been explained in Tripura Rahasya Dnyan khand (Book of Knowledge) in over 2200 verses in Sanskrit. the name means The Mystery beyond the Trinity. Trinity are the three stages of living body - Awakened, Dreaming and Dreamless sleep. The scripture is also known as Datta Bhargav Samvad. It explains how the universe is mere imagination and show the path to reach to the point of knowledge of Advait, which helps one experience the pure consciousness. It is difficult to ascertain period of this scripture, but this must have been created pre-Mahabharat era.

• Tripura_Rahasya
• Ramana_Maharshi

Ajaysdate (talk) 07:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Pre-Mahabharat is most unlikely. Medieaval seems more likely. 6,000 BCE is impossible. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Category problem: Advaita and Nondualism are mutually inclusive

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I notice that at the present time, Category:Advaita has Category:Nondualism as a subcategory. Conversely, Category:Nondualism has Category:Advaita as a subcategory. This is a problem, because according to WP:SUBCAT, "no category should be contained as a subcategory of one of its own subcategories". I'm not sure I see an easy fix. Should these categories be merged? I think there needs to be a discussion that draws on experts in categorization and experts in the topic to decide how to fix these category schemes. I'm not sure where that discussion should happen. Perhaps someone with experience in categorizing can start the discussion? --Presearch (talk) 04:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mayavadins

Yes, Advaitins are also known as "Mayavadins," akin to Madhyamaka Buddhism. Paul Hacker (1995), Philology and Confrontation: Paul Hacker on Traditional and Modern Vedanta, SUNY, p.78:

The doctrine of the school of S.(hankara] has for centuries been called māyāvāda.

And no, that term is not being used by "heterodox fringe schools" diff, but by rivalry schools of Vedanta. And no, "Buddhist Mayavada says everything is a lie or Sunya"; sunyata means 'empty of inherent existence', not 'non-exustent'. And no, that's noy about "soul," but about the nature of consciousness c.q. awareness. But yes, Advaitins presume that consciousness c.q. awareness has an existent of its own, whereas some strands of Buddhism argue that consciousness c.q. awareness has no existence of its own.

Compare Mackenzie, Matthew (2012), "Luminosity, Subjectivity, and Temporality: An Examination of Buddhist and Advaita views of Consciousness", in Kuznetsova, Irina; Ganeri, Jonardon; Ram-Prasad, Chakravarthi (eds.), Hindu and Buddhist Ideas in Dialogue: Self and No-Self, Routledge: "Advaita reifies consciousness as an eternal self."

See further Chakravarthi Ram-Prasad, Situating the Elusive Self of Advaita Vedanta, p.235: "they assert a stable subjectivity, or a unity of consciousness through all the specific states of indivuated consciousness, but not an individual subject of consciousness [...] the Advaitins split immanent reflexivity from 'mineness'."Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Darśana (view) – central concerns

I've shortened the section on Advaita Vedanta#Darśana (view) – central concerns diff. originally, this section was meant as an introduction, providing a short overview of the questions Advaita seeks to answer. It had development into a longer overview of teachings, if not dogmas, contrary to the intention of this section. After all, learning, knowledge and traditions starts with questions, doesn't it; without questions, the answers become dogmas, unintelligible eternal truths. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Self-luminosity

@Javierfv1212: can you trace "self-luminosity" in the Yogachara-corpus? "The debts of Shankara to the self-luminosity[note 22] of the Vijnanavada Buddhism can hardly be overestimated." Compare Walter Menezes (2017), "Exploring Ātman from the Perspective of the Vivekacūḍāmaṇi", p.198: "Self-luminosity (svayam prakāśa) means self is pure awareness by nature." See also Shyama Kumar Chattopadhyaya, "The Philosophy of Sankar's Advaita Vedanta", p.266.

Is it the same as the "self-reflexive nature of awareness"? Or as cittatva, sems-nyid, Svasaṃvedana, "the essence of mind," rigpa p.73 note 6?

Compare also Taiken Kyuma, likanātha’s Criticism of Dharmakīrti’s svasaṃvedana Theory: "It has been pointed out that S´a¯likana¯tha’s tripu:t¯ı theory and svayam: praka¯s´a theory are very close to Dharmakı¯rti’s epistemology."

Wolfgang Fasching, "Prakāśa. A few reflections on the Advaitic understanding of consciousness as presence and its relevance for philosophy of mind", note 20: "Yogācāra’s concept of svasaṃvedana."

Ah yes: Jonardon Ganeri, Indian Philosophy: A Reader, p.103.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The best study I know of at the moment of this topic is The Buddhist Theory of Self-Cognition by Zhihua Yao. ☸Javierfv1212☸ 11:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The edits are just confusing and not concise. I have reverted back to previous version, as it summarizes the school succinctly without introducting contentious terminology. JJNito197 (talk) 11:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Javierfv1212: thanks!

@JJNito197: Svayam prakāśa is a central doctrine of Advaita Vedanta, essential for understanding it's basic tenets; calling this "contentious terminology" is misplaced.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Buddhist terminology is not essential for understanding hindu philosophy. Atman is not 'self-luminous pure awareness', Atman is Brahman. Brahman is satchitananda. Anything else added is confusing for the reader, especially when we consider the fundemental differences in both schools. You should consider whether you are acting neutral or why your edits are considered inflammatory regarding these matters, even though no doubt you do do good work. JJNito197 (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh my, did you actually check the references I gave? They state that 'Atman is self-luminous pure awareness', referred to as svayam prakāśa in the Advaita tradition. We try to give an accurate overview of the subject of our articles, summarizing what WP:RS state, and we do not leave out info compromising on accuracy because some editors deem that info to be confusing for the readers. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: You linked it to Svasaṃvedana which is Buddhist terminology. That is confusing off the bat. The fact you don't understand its contentious is interesting. Do you want me to provide sources that state Brahman is satchitanda? This by proxy will overall your previous edit as Atman = Brahman. JJNito197 (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Jonardon Ganeri in Indian Philosophy: A Reader traces self-luminosity "svayam prakāśa" to Dignaga (c. 480 – c. 540 CE), "its first Buddhist propounder", so maybe Dignaga first used this term. However the basic idea (under a different name, like svasamvedana etc) seems to be earlier as noted by Zhihua Yao in the book I mentioned above. ☸Javierfv1212☸ 16:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Javierfv1212: yeah, thanks; I already thought so! Reading "Extracting the Essence of the Sruti" I thought that this notion of "the seer" as Turya etc. is not specifically Vedic, but must have been around earlier, and adopted by the Advaitins as well. Thanks for the title. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

It may go back even further: Purusha, which is a really ancient concept; see Patrick S. Bresnan (2007), Awakening: An Introduction to the History of Eastern Thought, Routledge, p.60-62.

In Samkhya, buddhi, "prescience, intuition, perception, point of view." is the discernment between purusha (consciousness, awareness) and prakriti (emotions, thoughts, that is, defilements). Zhihua Yao related the origins of self-luminosity to the Mahasamghika debate on omniscience. It's all colesely related... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Dangling refs

I have located some dangling refs and hidden them, replacing each with a citation needed tag. This has been done because we have references pointing to sources that are not recorded in the article. Please feel free to contact me if you need assistance fixing this. - Aussie Article Writer (talk)

I've added Hiltebeitel and Katz. User:Joshua Jonathan/Sources may be helpfull. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits

Regarding the recent edits diff, I agree, it was confusing and is now simpler and concise. Per Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable and Wikipedia:Good lede, this current version is more accommodating to a wider audience. This was the standard lede as of recently.[2] JJNito197 (talk) 06:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't. Atman/Brahman is pure awareness/consciousness; to state otherwise is defying Shankara himself; see, for example, Upadesasahasri chapter 1, "Pure Consciousness," verse 1:

Salutation to the all-knowing Pure Consciousness [note 1] which pervades all, is all, abides in the hearts of all beings, and is beyond all objects [of knowledge].
[Note 1 by Mayeda: "The Sanskrit term caitanya translated here as "Pure Consciousness" is used as a synonym for Brahman-Atman, indicating the nature of It."]

Or Upadesasahasri 11.7, as quoted in the article:

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.

"Unusual descriptions" is a personal opinion. The article repeatedly states that Atman/Brahman is pure awareness/consciousness, in line with sources such as Mayeda. And according to Dasgupta, svayam prakāśa, "self-luminous," is "the most fundamental concept of the Vedanta." As such, stating this in the lead is a summary of the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Wikipedia is not about you Joshua, its about the public. Anybody who understands Advaita knows that the summary was precise and simple before. Per Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable the article was fine prior. Atman is Brahman in the Advaita tradition in its most simplest explanation, not anything else. I advise you to take a step back from this article otherwise I will get administator attention. You have been warned. JJNito197 (talk) 12:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

That's not an excuse to remove all of my edits, in the lead and in the body of the article, including three notes and five or six sources.

Regarding "Atman is Brahman": you're wrong. Jivanatman is Brahman; that's the essence, as given by the sources. It's been incorrect for eightteen yers; youreverted the correction. If you want to present simple information, you should start with correct information.

You're objecting to this piece of info:

[Brahman], which is self-aware (svayam prakāśa) pure Awareness or Consciousness.

References

This is factual correct, as stated multiple times in the article, supported by multiple sources, and even by quotes from Shankara himself. If you don't want to summarize Shankara, then what do you want to present in this article? "Brahman is consciousness" is completely u controversial; it's even one of the mahavikyas. At best, we can discuss "Brahman is self-luminous," though this too is a basic tenet.

Regarding adminstrator attention, be aware of WP:BOOMERANG. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

You have now been reported.[3] JJNito197 (talk) 14:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Reference error

@Epachamo: it seems to me that this revert by you introduced a reference error, while solving another one. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Gotcha; the year of publication was incorrect. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

And I thought I was being so helpful! My bad, sorry for the extra churn and cleaning up my mess. Epachamo (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Bundled references

@WikiLinuz: I've debundled some of the references in the lead; single references show the source straightaway, which is to be preferred, I think. And I'm working on those notes; I can keep better track of what I'm doing when I can see the references. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Alright, if you're working on them then that's fine. But we generally bundle multiple references together for readability, to feel less cluttered both for editors and readers. WikiLinuz 🍁 (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

We do? As far as I can tell, from my experience, it's quite unusual. Looking at the policies and guidelines, I can find this:

• WP:CITEKILL: "if four or more are needed, consider bundling (merging) the citations."
• WP:CITEBUNDLE: gives various examples, all of which show the specific citations written out when looking at the bundled citation.

With the sfn-format, you can't read the specific citations straightaway when they are bundled; therefor, bundling is unpractical. Nor is it mandatory; it's optional. I'll take a look at the consciousness-sentence again (6 citations), and try to reduce the number. Alternatively, a note with the sources in harvtxt (or harvnb). Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I imagine you both already know about it, but just in case not, there is the option of {{sfnm}} for bundled short footnotes. I find it a bit fiddly in the wikitext, but I think the result is OK for the reader. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 07:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, I've seen it once, but I find it very unclear in the wikitext. Combining refn with harvnb/harvtxt works fine, though. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Arvind Sharma - "direct experience"

I have removed the sentence Direct experience is a prerequisite for the understanding of correct knowledge., source Sharma, Arvind (1993). The Experiential Dimension of Advaita Vedanta. Motilal Banarsidass Publishe. ISBN 978-81-208-1058-7. Sharma writes from a neo-Vedanta perspective; his emphasis on "experience" is typical for Vivekananda c.s., c.q. certain western approaches to religiosity, which also informed neo-Vedanta; see also Religious experience#History. Shankara is plain simple: the sruti provide the "truth," not personal experience. What comes most close is anubhava, but that is not some kind of mystical experience (Sharma p.xiv: "a life-transforming experience which enables one "to grasp the unity of ecperience directly""); see Rambarachan (1991) (According to Rambachan, Vivekananda interprets anubhava as to mean "personal experience", akin to religious experience, whereas Shankara used the term to denote liberating understanding of the sruti.[87][514][515]) and Dalal (2009); and see also Sharf, Robert H. (1995), "Buddhist Modernism and the Rhetoric of Meditative Experience" (PDF), NUMEN, vol.42 (1995). Tellingly, Sharma refers to Ramana Maharshi, not Shankara, when explaining the 'experience of the Realized' (chapter IV), stating (p.xiv) Thus Ramana may be said to be the chief spokesman of experiential Advaita just as the philosopher Sankara (788-820) is looked upon as the leading expositor of doctrinal Advaita. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

PS: what Sharma says (p.9) is that the proof of the Advaita position comes from a special kind of experience, not that "direct experience is a prerequisite for the understanding of correct knowledge." The "experience" is the understanding, and is "the correct knowledge." The "experience" that Sharma refers to is that of pure consciousness (p.44)(the witness, Purusha, etc.). Compare, from our article, This culminates in what Adi Shankara refers to as anubhava, immediate intuition, a direct awareness which is construction-free, and not construction-filled. It is not an awareness of Brahman, but instead an awareness that is Brahman.[71]. Which is, by the way, very close to Yoga... One could argue that Advaita Vedanta is Yoga (as in Patanjali, but also Buddhism) framed in Upanishadic authority and tradition; the 'incompatibilities' which this provides brings us back to questions like: if pure consciousness (yoga) is the essence (Atman-Brahman), and Atman-Brahman is one, how then can conscious create visible, tangible "things"? Et cetera. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Responded below, will further engage and find sources. JJNito197 (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Yogapedia

Yogapedia is not WP:RS ("In Jnana yoga and Advaita Vedanta, "neti-neti” may be a chant or mantra. It is an 8,000-year-old practice" - which takes us to the time of the oldest neolithis pre-Harappan sites, or to the predecessors of the predecessors of the Yamnaya-culture. The oldest source for these statements are the pre-Buddhist Upanishads from the first half of the first century BCE; quite old, but nevertheless more than 5,000 years younger):

The Sanskrit expressions tat tvam asi ('that art thou' or 'you are That') and neti neti ('not this, not that' or 'neither this, nor that') are used in the Advaita Vedanta tradition to remind one to negate the illusory misconceptions, false knowledge and ego (maya) which obfuscates the truth (satya) in the understanding of the unity of Atman and Brahman.

References

Most of this sentence is not supported anyway by this source. And maya is not ego; according to the linked page, Maya is "the powerful force that creates the cosmic illusion that the phenomenal world is real."[7] In this nondualist school, Maya is the source of ignorance which causes the finite, empirical ego to be mistaken for the infinite Self (Ātman).[8]Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

No issue there regarding the removal of the Sharma cite. I will find further sources. I understand the philosophy in singular manner, and it seems you understand it in a more critical manner, there is no problem in that. It was posited that way in the sense that vidya ultimately leads to liberation and a misunderstanding of said correct-knowledge instead leads to false-knowledge (avidya), which would mean no-liberation by proxy as only the correct understanding can lead, one to liberation, not necessarily becoming one with Brahman. Maya is inserted likewise, and it referred to as avidya in the Advaita tradition, because it is false knowledge. It is the root definition. The earlier sentence in the paragrah was nididhyasana a process to understand vidya not necessarily predisposing one knowledge of the self or Brahman, which ulitimatley only direct experience/Kripa (philosophy)/Guru etc can bring. I presume that is why that direct experience article is a footnote. Its hard to concisley explain the intangible. I will find further sources, bear in mind that these are definitions of sanskrit words that has multple meanings. JJNito197 (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

A couple of years ago I had email-contact with Alfred Scheepers, a Dutch Indologist who wrote a PhD-thesis on Shankara's u derstanding of avidhya. He was already in his fifties the (or older), and wrote me tbat, after all those years of study, he still wasn't sure if he had understood what Shankara meant...

Regarding the tradition: yes, there is a difference between 'classical Advaita' (Shankara), and 'greater Advaita', the living Advaita tradition influenced by, and incorporating, Yoga-thougbt. And u firtunately, very little is known about the development of this 'greater Advaita' tradition, except for'neo-Vedanta', which explicitly incorporates Yoga-elements, and may actually be closer to bedhabheda than to Advaita. It's an extremy complicated topic (that's also why I think it's impossible to elevate to GA-status: too complicated, too manydifferent points of view). Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I must say it was hard for me to reconcile the fast-track method of neo-advaita with the traditional methodical advaita approach, although I'm sure its helpful to some people. I have replaced the sources with three new ones that define the three phrases as accurately as possible. Best JJNito197 (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I've changed it around for more clarity to The Sanskrit expressions tat tvam asi ('that art thou' or 'you are That') and neti neti ('not this, not that' or 'neither this, nor that') are used in the Advaita Vedanta tradition to remind one to negate the illusory misconceptions, false knowledge, and ego (maya) which obfuscate the ultimate truth; the unity of Atman and Brahman with the removal of satya insert which seems inappropriate. JJNito197 (talk) 03:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

What you seem to mean is that meditation on the mahavakyas negates false knowledge. Neti-neti is a description of nirguna Brahman. None of the sources refers to ego:

• Brasant Padhan only refers to neti-neti as a (negative) descriptor of Brahman.
• Jeffery D. Long does refer to the mahavikyas.
• Harold Coward, A Hindu response to Derrida's negative theology is an odd choice, the result of a Google search-string, but Coward is an accomplished author. He refers to neti-neti as a descriptor of nirguna Brahman. No mention of false conceptions and ego.

I get the impression that you're writing your own understanding of Advaita Vedanta into the article, and are looking for sources to support this understanding. But try Google with Mahavakya meditation, or Google scholar; plenty of sources (but beware of the quality; most, if not all, of those guru's seem to have some form of neo-Vedanta and Advaita-Yoga understanding of Advaita). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Neti neti in its essence refutes stimuli (this, that) which otherwise would be called maya in the orthodox understanding. I only understand advaita in the strictest manner classical/traditonal Avaita (not Neo-Vedanta which does explain the same root truth, just not the same process). Anything that is not Brahman (nirguna) is avidya/maya/illusion including saguna. Ego (ahamkara) is considered to be a form of maya as you need to submit humbly to a guru as a prerequisite to be able to understand correct knowledge (vidya), in order to receive direct experience, without the perpetual egotic scrutinzation in the mind and its misconceptions. This is how vidya can cause direct experience as the information is absorbed/processed by the intellect Dhi (Hindu thought) which is considered to be a higher form of understanding than just impressions in the mind. It would be impossible for one to attain further knowledge if one is aware of the truth (Atman = Brahman), but lacks correct understanding of the truth which inhibits ones attainment of the ultimate truth (nirguna/moksha). To further clarify my understanding, I would hypothetically be in flux if I was an Advaitin with no guru/preceptor. The content you added does improve the readability with added context. I will try and find further cites for the neti neti expression. Regards JJNito197 (talk) 13:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Moving content

To shorten this page, I'm moving several topics to stand-alone pages, to shorten them here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Good, about 90,000 characters proze now. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Means of insight

As a note, for future usage:

• William Cenkner (1995), A Tradition of Teachers: Śaṅkara and the Jagadgurus Today, Motilall Banarsidas, p.95 ff, on sruti versus mediation as the means to insight.
• Arvind Sharma (2000), Sacred Scriptures and the Mysticism of Advaita Vedanta. In: Steven T. Katz (ed.)(2000), Mysticism and Sacred Scripture, Oxford University Press, p.174 ff, on meditation, and Shnkara's personal mystical experience.
• Anantanand Rambachan (1991), Accomplishing the Accomplished: The Vedas as a Source of Valid Knowledge in Shankara, p.156:

According to Vācaspati , it is the mind , perfected and refined through deep meditation , which is the immediate cause of brahmajñāna . This argument is associated with the Bhāmati school of Advaita , named after Vācaspati's famous work ...

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC) / update Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Cleaning powder

For future reference: Atma-Bodha verse 5, 'cleaning powder', an analogy also used by Mandana Misra - while the Atma-Bodha is attributed to Shankara! See also here. And: Atma-Bodha propagates "constant practice," while Shankara advocates direct insight! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

ref-error

@Wham2001: there's a ref-error in the notes, but I'm unable to fix it. I suspect it's here diff. Could you take a look? Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Ah, yes diff - but, do you understand why? I don't! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, but I have an idea. If I move the {{refn}} from the Notes section to be in-place in the article, the error goes away, even with the <ref> included. I don't know how refn (or indeed any of MediaWiki) works internally, but my guess is that the issue is something to do with defining a reference after the reference parsing has been started (because of the {{reflist}} template). Looking at the docs now to see whether they clarify the matter at all. Wham2001 (talk) 10:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be more prosaic than I thought: Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no key#Issues and resolution. I have no idea why one can only have one list-defined {{refn}}, but apparently that is how it is. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Something like calling the Catholics 'Formerly: Romish'

In Gaudiya Vaishnava esp. in the ISKCON cult, the words Purushavada and Mayavada are used as derogatory terms to demean Advaita as Buddhism.We can see the second ref. is from an iskcon source.Maya is diff. from Mayavada which denies the soul.

Maya= Transience Mayavada =Ilusion Gaudiya Vaishnava was non existant at Shankaras time. So how can they say "formerly"?? 117.249.181.84 (talk) 05:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Good points; thanks. I've checked Timalsina; "Purushavada" was not an early term for Advaita Vedanta, but for Upanisadic philosophy in general. I've made some corrections. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

No target errors and Long 2000

I've managed to fix all the no target errors in this article apart from one. Three references are made to Long 2000, but I can't determine exactly what this should relate too. I suspect it's Jeffrey D. Long's 2000 thesis "Plurality and relativity: Whitehead, Jainism, and the reconstruction of religious pluralism", but I can't say for sure. @Joshua Jonathan: is this something you could confirm? LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 17:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: I think it's Long, Jeffery D. (15 April 2020). Historical Dictionary of Hinduism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I have, after a false start, corrected the date and clear the error. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 10:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Mayavada

Since the Shankaracharyas are living, this violates living person policy of wiki. [Mayavada] is a misleading jibe by ISCKON to make Advaita appear Buddhist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.209.136.22 (talk) 11:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's a point of view, indeed, and as such worth mentioning - but it may be WP:UNDUE to mention it there in the lead. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it's UNDUE to mention the well-poisoning POVs from Vishnavism or ISKCON cult in the lead's opening sentence. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 20:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Lead: "reveal" and sat-cit-ananda

@Kkollaps: I've restored part of the former diff, for the following reasons:

• It's not the Advaita which reveals the identity of (jiv)Atman and Brahman, but the Upanishadic mahavikyas. That's an important grammatical and methodological nuance;
• You removed the nuanced explanation of Sat, cit and ananda. There's more to those terms than just being-consciousness-bliss, as explained in the article.

Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

[ad 1] What chiefly distinguishes Advaita from other forms of Vedanta (which also ground themselves in the Upanishads, as all Vedanta) is its specific interpretation of that Atman-Brahman equation (identity, not qualified identity or duality). It makes little sense to have this profoundly distinctive doctrine buried in the paragraph after a much more generic statement about detaching from “doership,” an idea which can be found in many Asian spiritual traditions and does little to distinguish Advaita as a defining trait. That’s why this was moved to the beginning of the paragraph, and I think it’s the correct move.

[ad 2] As you say, it is "explained in the article"—the lead is precisely not the place to bog down the unfamiliar reader in "nuance" or dense detail. If they wish to know more in-depth detail, they can read further in the article or click on the term. One can certainly find countless sources describing the term as it appeared in the lead with little further explanation.

It seems many other changes, including removal of the historical context of Vedanta from the opening paragraph, has taken place. I don’t think these changes are for the better of the page and at least one other editor seemed to support the previous version. Can you justify all these reversions after earnest work was done to make the lead more accessible and accurate an introduction? Kkollaps (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• ad 1. I've added that definition to the first paragraph.
• ad 2. I disagree here; we don't have to make the lead misleadingly 'simple'. The term sat-cit-ananda is used only once in the body of the article, while sat and consciuosness are used, and explained, throughout the article. Using the term sat-cit-ananda is, therefor, undue for the lead; using the separate terms is in line with the article.
• Can you be specific regarding historical context that was renoved, according to you? I think I moved it downwards.
• Regarding earnest work: same for me. I spent years to study Advaita Vedanta, and invested many hours to weed out the platitudes and cliches, and provide a proper historical context, and nuances and differences from within the AV-tradition. The lead reflects these nuances.
• You moved the info on the yoga-influences, and Shankara's rejection of yoga, to the last alinea, on the growth of Shankara's prominence. While not unlogical, it's not warranted; the last alinea is on the origins and growth of this prominence, while the third alinea mentions the influence of other traditions on Advaita Vedanta. (NB: see Sringeri Sharada Peetham#Reforms for a single united Indian religion to understand what this promimence is currently about: Shankara as a rallying point for a universal Indian religion).

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I've

• reinserted part of the older lead (dec 2021);
• removed sat-cit-ananda, as it is mentioned only once in the lead, while notable scholars emphasize the notions of sat and cit to characterize Shankara's thought;
• moved the yoga-stuff back downwards, as you did;
• shortened the info on the later influence of influence, to makte the lead more accessible.

NB: "disidentification from the notion of doership" is relevant, as "Shankara emphasized that, since Brahman is ever-present, Brahman-knowledge is immediate and requires no 'action', that is, striving and effort." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Joshua, I like the changes you've made quite a bit. Cheers! Kkollaps (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Kkollaps: it looks like I pretty much came out at the same edits you made, after my anger had subsided... Apologies. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The addition of the "refers to the idea that Brahman alone is ultimately real" sentence in the first paragraph was a great improvement. Kkollaps (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Influence of Shankara

Hi Kkollaps. Regarding your recent edits:

• diff] Shankara isn’t introduced until the next paragraph - that's right, but this is specifically Shankara's point of view, which contrasts with later Advaita, revealing discrepancies between Shankara's celebrated status and his actual views. This cannot be solved by removing Shankara's name here;
• diff Samadhi would be the goal of meditation, no? Not the actual practice - yes, that's exactly the point here;

I’m fine with all these edits except this one: the sentence says "preparatory practice," but Samadhi is a state, not a practice (meditation is the practice). Right? Kkollaps (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• diff Remove Shankara note - why?

The point is that Shankara's influence is not as large as the tradition propagates; the yogic influences, rejected by Shankara, are quite substantial. Yet, Shankara's subitism has parallels in other traditions; the discrepancy between samadhi and insight as means to liberation are highly relevant for practice. Compare Mazu polishing a tile link, a famous Zen-story.
I've restored those specific points diff, but also done some copy-editing, to 'introduce' Adi Shankara in a more proper way diff . Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kkollaps: I see your point; yet, it's what those sources say. It's both, in a sense: a state, and a practice: it takes effort to stay in samadhi, until you've reached sahaja samadhi (compare Ramana Maharshi). The point is, still: how can you attain insight while you are in a state of samadhi? How can the I, the doer, 'disappear', when there is effort, 'doership', to stay in samadhi? NB: please read what's written in the article on "samadhi" and "doership." Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Just one extra thing: I'm concerned the bit in the second paragraph about Shankara stating that realization does not require any action or striving is misleading—surely Shankara talked about the importance of finding a guru, meditating, and contemplating Upanishadic truths in various prominent texts. I think the current version suggests Shankara didn’t recommend any action at all while the subsequent tradition contradicts him. Thoughts? Kkollaps (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Please read the sources; they explain. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Of course! But if one needs to read the sources to clarify a common misunderstanding, should that really be in the lead to begin with? Kkollaps (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

It's also explained in the Wiki-article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

One quote in the article, from the Rambachan source: "Shankara states that the knowledge of Brahman can only be obtained from inquiry of the Shruti, and not by Yoga or samadhi"....inquiry would still be an action! I think the problem is inclusion of the phrase "Brahman-knowledge"—i.e. no action is needed to make the truth of Atman-Brahman real, but knowledge of this truth is not something that Shankara suggests is already consciously present, because Maya etc etc. The nature of that paradox mentioned in the lead just seems overstated to me—it's not literally a question of "don't do anything in particular" vs "do yoga", that's too simple. Kkollaps (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)