I have read that, this world is formed with the single fabric known as Bramhan which is the Goal of Advait philosophy of Hinduism, Is it true ? What is the exact Advait Philosophy?

  • Is this question specific to hinduism in scope or do you want an answer from the academic discipline of philosophy? If the former, there's a SE dedicated to that. If the latter, please make clear how you would like this question answered -- what philosophical school you think has an opinion on this that you have a question about. – virmaior Mar 21 '16 at 15:32
  • virmaior ! I want an answer from academic discipline of philosophy, rather I want the TRUTH – pran Mar 21 '16 at 17:42
  • 1
    It's worth pointing out that advaita means quite directly non-duality: a =non and dvaita=duality. – Mozibur Ullah Mar 24 '16 at 5:07

The advaita philosophy is often summarized by advaita commentators with one quote from Adi Sankara. It is verse 20 from his Brahmajnanavali-mala. It goes:

Brahman is the Truth, the universe is false, the jiva (individual self) is, indeed, Brahman, not another; By this should be known the Truth of the scripture; Thus is the drumbeat of Vedanta.

Swami Vireswarananda after the Introduction to his translation of the Brahma-Sutras, says in the section entitled Adhyasa Or Superimposition (available here - http://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/brahma-sutras/d/doc62753.html) [the verse he quotes below is the first half of the verse quoted above]:

The whole of Sankara’s philosophy may be summed up as follows:

ब्रह्म सत्यं जगत् मिथ्या, जीवो ब्रह्मैव नापरः |

brahma satyaṃ jagat mithyā, jīvo brahmaiva nāparaḥ |

—The Brahman of the Upanishads is the only Reality, and everything else—this world of manifoldness—is unreal, is a mere appearance; the individual soul (Jiva) is identical with Brahman, the One without a second, which the scriptures define as Existence-Knowledge-Bliss Absolute. “Brahman is Existence, Knowledge, Infinity” (Taitt. 2.1); “Brahman is Knowledge, Bliss” (Brih. 3.9,28). This identity of the Jiva and Brahman is clearly stated by the scriptures in texts like : “Thou art That, O Svetaketu” (Chh. 6.8.7), “I am Brahman” (Brih. 1-4-10), and “The Self alone is to be meditated upon” (Brih. 1.4.7).

  • Don't you feel that interpreting "मिथ्या" as "unreal" is erroneous? "मिथ्या" means "pseudo / incorrect / unworthy / vain". But all these terms are still "real"! e.g. if I am given a math equation to solve. Due to lack of knowledge whatever efforts I put, goes in "vain". Still the existence of "incorrect" efforts is there. But only "no efforts" should be termed as "unreal efforts". So from above verse, "जगत् मिथ्या" can mean "universe is unworthy (for any consideration)", but that doesn't mean as "unreal". What I said above can be मिथ्या, but not "unreal"! :) Just a thought: "मिथ्या ≠ unreal". – iammilind Mar 25 '16 at 9:35
  • This is more specific to Hinduism, hence I have created a post According to ShankarAchArya in Advaita, the universe is “unreal” or “unworthy”?. – iammilind Mar 25 '16 at 12:54

The latest components of the Vedas are teachings called Upanishads. To a large part they are agnostic and speculate about general principles of our world.

Broadly speaking, the Upanishads are teaching a grand unification, expressed in the doctrine

Atman = Brahman.

Here Atman denotes the individual person, while Brahman denotes a fundamental principle which - as it is said - governs the universe. Technically this position is a monism, later called Advaita (= not two) Vedanta (= end of the Veda).

This position has been elaborated to an influential philosophical position in India and in Western Hinduism. Its most well-known advocate in modern times was Vivekananda at about 1900, an earlier influential thinker was Shankara.

Note. Besides Advaita Vedanta there exist different philosophical schools in Hinduism which advocate quite different positions.

  • "Atman denotes individual person" -- In good translations of Gita & such literatures, Atman or Atma is equated with "Self". It's neither "individual" nor "person". Probably you meant Jiva or "Consciousness". "Brahman governs the universe" -- That breaks the concept of Advaita. In modern interpretation (from Gita), saguna Brahman (manifested Brahman) is not just governing the universe, but 'that' itself is universe. Probably you meant what I wrote above, but I am just being too technical on these 2 terms. Excuse me for that! – iammilind Mar 25 '16 at 6:52
  • @iammilind According to Monier-Williams Sanskrit-English dictionary Atman = "the individual soul, self, abstract individual" and Brahman = "the one universal Soul (or one divine essence and source from which all created things emanate or with which they are identified and to which they return)". Apparently, translating these terms means interpreting them. I consider the terms "soul" and "Self" overloaded with traditional associations and lacking a precise definition. I do not discriminate between a person and her Self: There is only one person, not a second entity "Self" in addition. – Jo Wehler Mar 25 '16 at 7:56
  • @iammilind I consider the equation "atman = brahman"i.e. "Self = Universe" a statement without a precise semantics. I had several discussions, also in this blog, but nobody could explain me in precise words neither the meaning of this grand unification nor presenting arguments for the truth of this claim. - I know some of the metaphors presented in the Upanishads, but metaphors are no substitute for philosophical argumentation. – Jo Wehler Mar 25 '16 at 8:02
  • Actually "Self = Universe" is anyway not a right equation. Rather "Self = 0" or "Self = void" is a better representation. Where 'Self' is English of 'Atma' ('Nirguna/unmanifested Brahman'). What we call "Universe" is a manifestation of this "0/void". I am not sure about Upanishads, as I follow only Gita for now. Such kind of philosophical discussion with logic & spirituality are always interesting to me. It's good to engage in such discussions without "conviction of convincing others". If you have such chat room created for yourself, then we can discuss in that whenever you & me find time. – iammilind Mar 25 '16 at 8:16
  • @iammilind You find some references to the relevant passages in three of the oldest Upanishads in Vishwananda's answer to your post. While the old Upanishads do not focus on theism, the Bhagavad Gita is much later and takes up much theistic thoughts. See also Vishwananda's answers to philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/28211/… – Jo Wehler Mar 25 '16 at 8:55

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.