The fundamental presupposition that governs almost every inquiry into the Upaniṣads is that they reveal an unknown reality called Ātman or Brahman. Such a supposition, though almost universally entertained, is precisely what the Advaita tradition rejects at the outset. For whatever is revealed by a pramāṇa must, prior to that revelation, stand as an object … Read more
The persistent debates surrounding the existence, primacy, and ontological status of consciousness are, I believe, rooted in a methodological oversight rather than in the complexity of consciousness itself. Contemporary discussions often begin by treating consciousness as an explanatory problem—as something whose existence, origin, or nature must first be established. This starting point is already questionable, … Read more
In ordinary cases of error (bhrama), the knowledge of reality proceeds in two stages. First, the erroneous superimposition must be removed by separating the real object from the falsely attributed one. Second, the substratum itself must be positively known. For example, in the classic rope-snake illusion, it is not sufficient merely to know, “This is … Read more
Advaita Vedānta is often presented as a philosophical system whose primary concern is the establishment of metaphysical non-duality. Such a characterization, while not entirely false, misses the distinctive genius of the Advaitic tradition. For Śaṅkara, Vedānta is not fundamentally a speculative theory about reality but a complete pedagogical discipline whose purpose is the removal of … Read more
Sureśvarācārya in the Naishkarmyasiddhi and Vārtikas on Resolving the Dilemma and Establishing Non-Duality Introduction One of the most subtle philosophical questions in Advaita Vedānta concerns the status of the Witness (sākṣin). Is the witness-consciousness itself the ultimate Brahman? Or is Brahman something beyond even the witness? Many later Advaita discussions became entangled in this issue … Read more
I have a question—perhaps somewhat rough and unsophisticated—regarding the way nididhyāsana has been presented in your explanation. Let us suppose that one has gained the knowledge of Brahman. Yet, according to your presentation, that knowledge has not been fully assimilated in lived understanding; consequently, one may sometimes not “feel” oneself to be Brahman. In such … Read more
Among the most philosophically dense and programmatic passages in the Advaita Vedānta tradition is the opening Adhyāsa Bhāṣya of Śaṅkarācārya, traditionally placed at the head of his commentary on the Brahma-sūtra. Far from being a mere preliminary remark, this bhāṣya functions as a foundational prolegomenon (upodghāta) to the entire Advaitic enterprise. It sets out not … Read more
Modern Vedānta teachers often present the path in this form: But when I read Śaṅkara, what I see is quite different. He is emphatic that once knowledge arises, nothing remains to be done. His reasons, as I understand them, are the following: i) In knowing the Self, all else is automatically known as the Self (sarvātmaikatva).Śaṅkara on Bṛhadāraṇyaka … Read more
Sentiency permeates the entire body. This pervasive feeling suggests the existence of a separate self. Yet, upon careful analysis, this sentiency becomes objectified. It becomes clear that no actual individual person exists within. What remains? Merely a reflection of all-pervading consciousness—a blend of consciousness and matter. This is simply abhasa: a natural, feeling-sensation occurring within everyone. … Read more
1. Introduction Among the most profound contributions of Śaṅkara’s Advaita Vedānta is his doctrine of adhyāsa — superimposition — introduced in the opening of his Brahma-sūtra Bhāṣya. The very first sentence of that introduction sets the tone for all subsequent Advaitic thought: “mithyā-jñāna-nimittam ātmani anātma-adhyāsaḥ”— “The superimposition of the non-Self upon the Self is caused … Read more
