Intorduction to Vedanta, Indian Philosophy

Historically one can speak of three periods in Vedanta. The first period is the creative presentation of the Upanishads. The next period consists of the systematisation and harmonisation of the Upanishadic teaching represented by the Brahma Sutras. And finally the third stage consists in the exposition, elaboration and diversification by the commentaries on the Brahma Sutras. We shall say a word about each of these periods.

First phase The Upanishads came to be written

Second Phase The Systematisation of the Upanishads through the Sutras

Third Phase The Commentaries on the Sutras were written by various theologians

The Upanishads hold that the ultimate reality could not be comprehended through logical reasoning. True knowledge consists in the direct experience of the ultimate reality. Thus in the Upanishads we see a shift in

Moksha is not an achievement of something that one did not possess, rather it is the very realisation of one’s true nature. It the realisation of the true nature of oneself which has been forgotten. Therefore liberation is the blissful intellectual experience of Brahman along with the complete cessation of man’s ignorance. The ignorance is removed by recognition of Brahman and by a state of total intellectual communion with him. This sort of liberation can be attained even in this life. It is called jivan-mukti. A jivan-mukta is a person who has attained liberation while being alive in this world. therefore according to De Smet liberation is no longer a merging into Brahman, where one looses ones identity, rate it is a relationship of communion with the ultimate God, without totally loosing oneself.

Brahman is the only reality. It is absolutely undetermined and non-dual. It cannot be described, neither can it be framed into categories. Brahman is pure consciousness, pure bliss and pure existence. Sankara describes Brahman as follows: “Brahman is that whose nature is permanent purity, intelligence, and freedom; it transcends speech and mind, does not fall into the category of ‘object’, and constitutes the inward self of all. Of this Brahman our text denies all plurality of forms;” Therefore we can say that Sankara’s vision of the ultimate reality is that of ‘being itself.’ Being itself, being non-dual is non-polar. Reality is one and it is Brahman. all those who hold that reality is diversity are in a world of illusion.

Thus God and the world are one. They are not two as propagated by dvaita. Neither are they one in the monistic sense that the world is an illusion and the human being is the same as the reality of God. In the non dualistic position God still remains the ultimate reality, but the world is not unreal. The souls and the world are real, but have a relative reality because they totally depend on God for their existence. Secondly, God in creating the world does not undergo any modification, but instead is the material and efficient cause of the world.

As part of conclusion to this paper, I would like to compare the Christian world view with the non-dualism of Sankara. Does Christianity profess non-dualism? Can a Christian be an advaitin? Many people hold that a Christian cannot be an advaitin, because they feel that that Christianity upholds dualism – that reality is made up of two distinct realities namely God and the world. The difficulty also increases because advaita is popularly identified with monism.

Some topics in this essay:
De Smet, Liberation Sankara, Maya Sankara, Individual Self, Causality Sankara, Coming Sankara’s, Brahman Brahman, Aquinas God, According Sankara, Commentaries Sutras, de smet, interpretation sankara, self brahman, ultimate reality, classical interpretation, god world, individual self, brahma sutras, world illusion, cause world, classical interpretation sankara, commentaries brahma sutras, material cause world, de smet explains, monism soul reality,