Sage Sankara's system of Advaita does not need the support of any Scripture or Revelation like the Vedas. The Srutis may all disappear, yet will his school stand. Since it is based, not upon the varying theological fancies, which are as numerous as the sands of the sea, but upon reason, the common heritage of all mankind, irrespective of color or creed or clime.
The tenet of Nirguna Brahman is true for Sage Sankara, not because it is taught by the Sruti, but because it is based on the realization that it is also supported by the Sruti... The Advaitin knows that a legitimate doubt may have here to arise. The Rishis may have truly spoken, but they may have been deluded themselves. How are we certain that what the Rishis cognized is the Reality or Truth? This can be proved according to the Advaita, only by the realization of truth beyond the form, time, and space.
And also:~
Again, in the absence of this realization, Nirguna Brahman as an object of thought is mere sound without sense. To one who has not seen a penguin, for instance, the word has no meaning ... Of what use, then, is such Sruti to him? Similarly, common sense tells the Advaitin that the meaning of the Sruti and especially where there are conflicting interpretations is made out by means of reasoning based upon the authority of realization, which is final.
Thus, the reason comes into play between Sruti and realization corroborating the data of intuition with those of the revealed texts.
But reason also permits discrimination between the different possible experiences, for, in an a priori astonishing fashion:
Realization ... can reveal not two, but twenty thousand conflicting experiences. And the business of the wise is to sift the ultimate truth from out of all these ... The Advaitin rejects nothing. All human experiences are his data. He tests all by reason.
The only Advaita can reply: it is the witness, the Seer. The Buddhists are in error in regards to the finite ego as illusory, and as having nothing more behind it: but they would have been perfectly correct in such outlook had they added the notion of the witness. How is it that Skandhas come together and compose the ego? Who sees them come and go? It is the witness, the Atman, and this lack Vedanta supplies in the seer and seen and reason Analysis. When they say that the mind comes and goes they are forgetting that there must be another part of the mind as the consciousness which notices it and which tells them of this disappearance and appearance. All their misunderstandings arise from the fact that Buddha refused to discuss the ultimate questions. When Buddhism degenerates into Nihilism Advitin refutes it (See Mandukya P.281).
The truth of a single reality within or underlying the illusory ego is all-important and without it Buddhism becomes fallacious.
Vedanta admits the transitoriness and evanescence of thoughts just like Buddhism, but not of the Mind which observes this transitoriness and knows it.
Manduka Upanishad:~ Buddhists borrowed from Upanishads because they were Indians. The Vedantins did not need to borrow from Buddhism, therefore (see P.396 v.99)
Bhagavan Buddha taught the illusoriness of ego but did not go further, probably because he thought the world could not understand the higher truth. Hence followers go with him to that point of his and then deny the Vedantic doctrine of one supreme reality when the Bhagavan Buddha himSelf neither denied nor advocated it. Anyway, the refutation of his followers is to ask them “What is it that is aware of the ego's illusoriness?" There must be something that tells you that. That something is the Drik, and if you say this Drik itself may be illusory, coming and going, still, there must be something non-transient i.e.permanent, to tell you this.
Bhagavan Buddha's teachings that all life is misery belongs to the relative standpoint only. For you cannot form any idea of misery without contrasting it with its opposite, happiness. The two will always go together.
Bhagavan Buddha taught the goal of cessation of misery, i.e. peace, but took care not to discuss the ultimate standpoint for then he would have had to go above the heads of the people and tell them that misery itself was only an idea, that peace even was an idea (for it contrasted with peacelessness). That the doctrine he gave out was a limited one, is evident because he inculcated compassion. Why should a Buddhist sage practice pity? There is no reason for it.
Advaita is the next step higher than Buddhism because it gives the missing reason, viz. unity, non-difference from others, and because it explains that it used the concept of removing the sufferings of others, of lifting them up to happiness, only as we use one thorn to pick out another, afterward throw both away. Similarly, Advaita discards both concepts of misery and happiness in the ultimate standpoint of non-duality, which is indescribable.
Buddhists say that a thing exists only for a moment, and if that thing has still got some of the substance from which it was produced how then can they deny that its cause is continuing in the effect; hence its existence is more than a moment. Vedanta is concerned with whether it is one and the same thing which has come into being or has it come out of nothing.
Even the Sunyavada ultimate of the "void" is really a breath, and therefore an imagination and not truth.
Bhagavan Buddha as a constructive worker committed an error in failing to give the masses a religion, something tangible they could grasp, something materialistic, if symbolic that their limited intellect could take hold of, in addition to his ethics and philosophy. Here Sage Sankara was wiser and gave religion; such as Bajan, worship, etc.--to the ignorant masses, as well as Advaitic wisdom to those who are capable of grasping the 'Self' hidden by the 'I',
Bhagavan Buddha gave as the central feature of his doctrine the great law of Karma in order to reiterate its ethical meaning. He did more good in this to uplift the people than the ritualists.
Tibetan and Chinese Buddhists who say that there are many Buddhas living in spirit bodies and helping our earth from the spiritual world are still in the sphere of religious illusion, not the ultimate truth. Their statements are wrong. Every sage realizes that the only way to help mankind is to come down amongst them, for which he must necessarily take on flesh-body. When people are suffering how can he relieve their suffering unless he appears amongst them? When people are suffering how can he feed them from an unseen world whether their struggle is for material bread or for spiritual truth? No! He must be here actually in the flesh. It is impossible to help them in any other way and all talk of Shiva living on Mount Kailas in the spiritual body or Bhagavan Buddha in Nirmanakaya, invisible body belongs to the realm of delusion or Self-deception.
Remember:~
It is no use arguing Bhagavan Buddha is wrong or Sage Sankara is right, but where we are going wrong in our understanding the non-dualistic or Advaitic truth, propagated by the great sages of the past. Some say, that without the sunyavada, Advaita philosophy could not have come into existence because Advaita starts from where sunyavada ends. That is why they say it is an extension of Buddhism. If Advaita existed prior to Buddha, he would not have advocated sunyavada at all because Advaita is the final and ultimate truth.
Since the Buddhist and the Vedic scriptures have been passed down by hearing, they were written down only relatively late so one wouldn't know whether to rely on the times they give. Also, a lot depends on the translation. Each 'Sloka' or sutta is open to many layers of interpretation.
Sage Sankara said:~ Talk as much philosophy as you like, worship as many gods as you please, observe ceremonies and sing devotional hymns, but liberation will never come, even after a hundred aeons, without realizing the Oneness.
Sage Sankara himself had often said that his philosophy was based on Sruti, or revealed scripture.
This may be because Sage Sankara addressed the ordinary man, who finds security in the idea of causality and thus in the idea of God—and Revelation is indispensable to prove the latter. He believed that those of superior intelligence, have no need for this idea of divine causality, and can, therefore, dispense with Sruti and arrive at the truth of Non-Dualism by pure reason.
Sage Sankara’s Supreme Brahman is Nirguna (without the Gunas), Nirakara (formless), Nirvisesha (without attributes) and Akarta (non-agent). He is above all needs and desires.
Sage Sankara says:~ "This Atman is self-evident. This Atman or Self is not established by proofs of the existence of the Self. It is not possible to deny this Atman, for it is the very essence of he who denies it. Atman is the basis of all kinds of knowledge. The Self is within, the Self is without, the Self is before and the Self is behind. The Self is on the right hand, the Self is on the left, the Self is above and the Self is below".
Satyam-Jnanam-Anantam-Anandam, are not separate attributes. They form the very essence of Brahman. Brahman cannot be described because the description implies a distinction. Brahman cannot be distinguished from any other than God.
The objective world-the world of names and forms have no independent existence. The Atman alone has real existence. The world is only phenomenal.
Sage Sankara was the exponent of Advaita philosophy. His teachings can be summed up in the following words:-
Brahma Satyam Jagat Mithya,
Jeevo Brahmaiva Na Aparah
Brahman alone is real, this world is unreal; the Jiva is identical with Brahman.
As one indulges in deeper self-search he becomes aware: - As per the religious archaeologist's view: the date of Sage Sankara may be taken most correctly as that of the 9th century. Some claims are made in India that he lived two thousand years ago, but there is absolutely no proof for this claim. They do not go back farther than the 12th century A.D. and that all so-called evidence for Sage Sankara having lived two centuries before Christ is either were conjectures or orthodox fabrication.
Regarding the question of Sage Sankara's death, one may dismiss the legend that he did not die, at the age of 32, but disappeared into a cave. This is another orthodox story which is quite unfounded. He did really die in the Himalayas at that age.
As one goes into the annals of history, one becomes aware of the fact that; the spiritual Advaita is mixed up with punditry. Therefore, there is a need to do his own research in order to know the true essence of Advaita propounded by Sage Sankara, and Sage Gudapada, and the emptiness of the Bhagavan Buddha.
How Sage Sankara could have written so many books during such a short term of existence. The fact is that he wrote very few books. Those actually written by him were Commentaries on Brahma Sutras and the Upanishads and on the Gita. All other books ascribed to him were not written down by his own hand.
Sage Sankara wrote his Manduka commentary first, and then as this revealed that he thoroughly understood the subject, his gurus requested him to write the commentary on Badarayana's Brahma Sutras, which was a popular theological work universally studied throughout India. That is why his commentary is written from a lower dualistic point, for those who cannot rise higher, save that here and there Sage Sankara occasionally has strewn a few truly Advaitic sentences.
Sage Sankara had only four fully trained disciples, although he advised some kings. His doctrines spread after his lifetime. Sage Sri Sankara’s books were dictated to secretaries as he traveled, therefore, only a few who were capable of understanding his philosophy.
Nearly all orthodox hold views of Maya which are entirely incorrect and untenable. They do not know Sri, Sankara's Upanishad Bashyas, but only the Brahma Sutra Bashya.
Sage Sankara varied his practical advice and doctrinal teaching according to the people he was amongst. He never told them to give their particular religion or beliefs or metaphysics completely; he only told them to give up the worst features of abuse: at the same time, he showed just one step forward towards the truth.
In Brahma Sutras, Sage Sankara says that Brahman is the cause of the world, whereas in Manduka he denies it. This is because he says that at the lower stage of understanding, the former teaching must be given, for people will get frightened as they cannot understand how the world can be without a cause, but to those in a higher stage, the truth of non-causality can be revealed.
Brahma Sutras, i.e. "Vedanta Sutras" by Badarayana, are intended for those of middling intellects, not for those who have the best brains: it is a semi-theological, semi-philosophical work; it starts with the assumption that Brahman exists.
The opening sentence is "All this is Brahman." But nobody knows or has seen Brahman.
If one says "All this is gold" and shows a piece of gold, the words are understandable. Suppose one has never seen gold. Then what is the use it becomes meaningless when the object indicated is seen by none.
Hence, the Brahma Sutra opening is equivalent to "All this is Brahman". Both have no meaning so long as they are not understood if we take them as the data to start from. It is for this reason, the Brahma Sutra is intended for theological mindsets because it begins with dogma although its reasoning is close. For it starts with something imagined.
Critics who declare Sage Sankara's philosophy as negative (because of his Neti, Neti) do not know that this is applied only to the witnessed (three states), the critic ignorantly believes that it is also applied to the formless witness (soul). The seeker should never negate the formless witness, only witnessed.
Sage Sankara himself had often said that his philosophy was based on Sruti, or revealed scripture. This may be because Sage Sri, Sankara addressed the ordinary man, who finds security in the idea of causality and thus in the idea of God—and Revelation is indispensable to prove the latter. He believed that those of superior intelligence, have no need for this idea of divine causality, and can, therefore, dispense with Sruti and arrive at the truth of Non-Dualism by pure reason.
Remember:~
Scriptural mastery is not wisdom:~
That is why Mundaka Upanishad:~ This Atman cannot be attained through the study of the Vedas, nor through intelligence, nor through much learning. He who chooses Atman—by him alone is Atman attained. It is the Atman that reveals to the seeker Its true nature. (3 page-70- Mundaka Upanishad. Upanishads by Nikilanada)
The Veda serves only at the starting point. What one has to learn from Veda must be understood through the exercise of reason, as far as reason might go. And what one has understood must be realized in one’s life.
It is not that one should pore over the ancient scriptures. There is no need to study first then realize. One has to realize first then only he will know ‘what is the truth?’ and ‘what is untruth?’.
There are hundreds of commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita. Each one goes on spinning yarns imagining as he likes what the meaning may be. But once one acquires Self-knowledge or Brahma Gnana or Atma Gnana he will know what they really meant, he will see that there is only one possible interpretation, irrespective of his opinion or imagination.
A permanent view of the world as unreal can come only after soul-centric reasoning; such knowledge cannot change. Were the seeker who is sufficiently sharpness he could grasp the unreal nature of the world by soul-centric reasoning alone. To know the whole truth, one must know the whole universe, otherwise, he gets only half-truth.
According to Advaita Vedanta, the Veda addresses itself to two kinds of audiences - the ordinary ones who desire the transitory heaven and other pleasures obtained as a result of ritual sacrifices, and the most advanced seeker who seeks to know Brahman. Thus, the Purva mimam.sa, with its emphasis on the karma kanda of the Vedas, is meant for the first audience, to help lead its followers along the way. However, the Vedanta, with its emphasis on the jnana kanda, is meant for those who wish to go beyond such transient pleasures.
As one goes deeper on the subject one becomes aware of the fact that the religion, scriptures, and concept of God is nothing to do with the religious side of Advaita, the present religious-based Advaitic knowledge and theories are meant for the ignorant mass, who hold the religion as high, not the ultimate truth because religion is based on the form (waking entity) and they view and judge and argue on the base of the waking entity(ego) as self, but Gnanic Advaita is based on the formless (soul) and it negates everything other than the Soul, the Self.
All the conceptual divisions invented by teachers of philosophy by their excessive analysis. Where do all these concepts end? Why should confusion created and then explained away? Fortunate is the man who does not lose himself in the labyrinths of philosophy but goes straight to the source from which they all arise.
The ignorance is the cause of experiencing the duality (universe or waking) as reality. Thus, eradicating ignorance completely is necessary. And this is possible only through self-knowledge. Thus, there is no other road to freedom other than Gnana. There is no other entrance other than Gnana.
The ignorance will vanish only when the nondual wisdom dawns. Detachment to attachment is impossible without wisdom. Only when one realizes the fact that the 'Self' is not the form but the 'Self' is formless, then only it is possible to detach the ‘Self’ from the false attachment.
That is Sankara, in Bhaja Govindam says:~ [Jnana Viheena Sarva Mathena Bajathi na Muktim janma Shatena] - One without knowledge does not obtain liberation even in a hundred births, no matter which religious faith he follows.
Thus, it proves that wisdom is universal irrespective of any religion of faith one belongs to. Thus, religion is not a means to Self-knowledge. Thus, Sage Sankara’s Advaita minus orthodoxy is true Advaita. : ~ Santthosh Kumaar
