1. Origin and development of Vedanta.

2. Development of Vedanta in the Vedas and Upanishads.

3. Unified views of the two main schools of Vedanta.

Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta (monism)

1. Origin and development of Vedanta

Vedanta literally means the end (“anta”) of the Vedas. Initially, this word was understood as the Upanishads, but later it acquired a broader meaning, and the word "Vedanta" began to call all the basic philosophical ideas and principles that emerged from the Upanishads. Why is it precisely the Upanishads that receive such close attention? Because the Upanishads contain eternal postulates that do not change (over time). And Something that is not subject to the ravages of time, like diamonds, is valued above all else. That which in later literary, philosophical and religious works (for example, in the Puranas) is in a processed and diluted state, is contained in the Upanishads in a concentrated, extremely condensed form. These sacred texts are literally teeming with the most incredible, amazing revelations and mystical insights. The Upanishads are the quintessence, the pinnacle, the culmination of the centuries-old Vedic Knowledge. The Upanishads can be considered the completion of the Vedas in different ways. First, the Upanishads were the last literary works of the Vedic period (although the chronology of ancient Indian literature is for the most part rather arbitrary). In general, at that time there were three types of works: the earliest were the Vedic hymns (suktas), or mantras collected in various samhitas (Rig, Yajur, Sama, and later Atharva); then the brahmanas appeared, which were treatises containing guidelines for performing sacrifices (i.e., vidhi-prescriptions) and encouraging (arthavada) Vedic rituals, and, finally, the Upanishads, where the most subtle philosophical and psychological problems were considered. All these three types of works (both poetic and prosaic) were considered the texts of the divine Revelation (Shruti), and sometimes were also called the Vedas in the broad sense of the word. The ancient Aryan sages-rishis, kavi, in a state of mystical trance, self-deepening, self-knowledge, discovered and implemented these sacred texts, which were not thus their personal writings, but, rather, were the embodied voice of God himself, who dictated to the illuminated sages these timeless Revelations ... Second, the Upanishads were studied last as the most important. As a rule, samhitas were studied in childhood and adolescence; then the person entering into life and obliged to perform the rituals (kalpa) prescribed for the grhastha householder was to study the brahmanas; The Upanishads (which in some cases were called "aranyaks" - "forest treatises"), necessary for a person when he retired from worldly life and led the life of a hermit in the forests, trying to understand the higher meaning of life and reflecting on the spiritual secrets of the Universe, were studied in the last turn. Third, the Upanishads can be seen as the completion of the Vedas also in the sense that they represent the culmination point (i.e., the metaphysical peak) of Vedic thinking and reasoning. The Upanishads themselves say that even after studying the Vedas and other branches of knowledge (for example, Vedangs), a person's education cannot be considered complete (and perfect) until he becomes acquainted with the instructions of the Upanishads, i.e. with the ideology of Vedanta.

2. Development of Vedanta in the Vedas and Upanishads

Of the four Vedas - the Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda and Atharva Veda - the first (i.e. Rig Veda) is the main work, resource, and the other three mostly contain the hymns of the Rig Veda, arranged in one way or another, convenient for their performance at sacrifices. The hymns of the Rig Veda consist mainly of prayers addressed to many deities: Agni, Mithra, Varuna, Indra, and others. The hymns sing of the power and noble deeds of various gods and contain prayers calling for their help and mercy. Sacrifices to the gods consist of the libation of refined cow butter and other substances (for example, soma) into the sacrificial fire, accompanied by hymns and chants in their honor. These deities were considered realities, certain entities that determine all natural phenomena and govern them (i.e., the elements), such as fire, sun, wind, rain, etc. on such important moments as life, agriculture, well-being. Nature, although inhabited by various deities, was considered subordinate to some basic law (called rita, and later - dharma), which rightly governs the whole world - objects of nature, as well as living beings. The function of this law is not only to maintain order and order among planets and other objects, but also to establish justice.

Belief in many gods is called polytheism; therefore it is very often said that the Vedas are polytheistic. But Vedic ideas have such features that call this point of view into question. Each god, when addressed with prayer, is extolled in the hymn as the supreme God, the creator of the universe and the Lord of all gods. Therefore, Oxford professor Max Müller argues that the name "polytheism" is not suitable for this faith, and suggests another - "henotheism" or "catenotheism". But whether the Vedic faith is polytheism or henotheism depends largely on how we explain this phenomenon, that is, on a subjective factor. The Vedas can be called polytheistic if the exaltation of each god in them to the degree of the supreme Deity is considered not an indicator of a real belief in the superiority of such a god, but only a deliberate exaggeration, poetic hyperbole. But if the Vedic Kawi poets really believed what they were talking about, then henotheism would be a better name. The latter point of view is more than probable, since in the Rig Veda we find places where it is clearly stated that different deities serve only as manifestations of the One underlying Reality. "The One Reality is called by the sages in different ways: Agni, Yama, Matarishva ..." (Ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti ...). Therefore, it becomes possible to regard each deity as supreme.

According to many researchers of this subject, Vedic thinking has evolved, and the idea of ​​God gradually developed from polytheism through henotheism to monotheism, that is, to faith in one God (Tad Ekam). This hypothesis may be correct. But henotheism is not just a transitive (temporary) phenomenon; even in its most advanced form, Indian monotheism retains the belief that although God is one, it manifests itself in many gods, and each of them can be worshiped as a form of the supreme Deity. Even at the present time in India there are various cults - Shivaism, Vishnuism, etc. - flourishing next to each other. Almost every one of them is based on the philosophy of one supreme God, often even one all-encompassing Reality.

Feature of Indian monotheism:

Indian monotheism in its living forms, from the Vedic period to the present day, is based rather on the belief in the synthetic Unity of the gods in the person of a single transcendent God-Brahman, than on the denial of many gods for the sake of a single (personal) God. Thus, Vedantic monotheism has a feature that distinguishes it favorably from the orthodox Christianity or Mohammedanism. These features of Indian religion are not simply past phases of the religion of the Vedic period. The conviction about the Unity of all gods, which we meet in the Rig Veda, is an organic part of a more general great idea, which we also find here in a clear form - the idea of ​​the Unity of all that exists. And all the sages of the East and West, sooner or later, came to this amazing conviction.

The unity of all things:

In the famous hymn "Purusha-sukta" (10.90.), Which is still pronounced every day by every devout Brahmin, the Vedic prophet, perhaps for the first time in the history of mankind, expressed the idea of ​​the organic Unity of the entire Universe. Here are some verses of this hymn: “The Purusha has a thousand heads, a thousand eyes, a thousand hands; It covers the Earth on all sides and extends ten fingers beyond it. Purusha is all that is, and all that was and that will be; endowed with immortality, He is all that grows (increases) thanks to food. Such is His unparalleled greatness; and the Purusha is even greater: this whole world is only a fourth of Him, and three-quarters of Him are immortal in Heaven. For three-quarters of the Purusha goes up: but one-fourth of Him remains here, and then spreads everywhere through the living and lifeless world. "

Transcendence and Immanence of God:

Everything that exists - the Earth, Heaven, planets, gods, living and inanimate objects - is understood here as part of one great divine Essence (Purusha), which penetrates, permeates the whole world, and at the same time always remains outside it. In Purusha, everything that is, was and will be is one. This hymn is the fruit of an incredible poetic-metaphysical insight that reveals not only the Universe as a single organic whole, but also the supreme reality, both immanent and transcendent. God permeates the whole world with Himself, but at the same time he is not exhausted by the world and remains outside of it. In Western theology, this concept is called panentheism (pan - everything, en - in, theos - god) - not to be confused with pantheism - not all the same to God, but everything is in God, who is even greater than everything. With great art and inspiration, this universal view is being developed in the Bhagavad Gita. The brightest flash of prophetic imagination, manifested in the hymn quoted above, shows us all the wealth of ideas that inspired the best Vedic minds - monism, panentheism and the organic concept of an interconnected world.

Impersonal Absolute:

In another well-known hymn called Nasadiya-sukta (10.129.), We are introduced to the Vedic concept of the impersonal Absolute. The Reality underlying all existence, all life, is the primordial Reality from which everything comes; this transcendental Reality, as it is said in this hymn, cannot be described either as non-existent, or as existing (i.e., She is neither asat nor sat). Here we have, perhaps, the first glimpse of the concept of the indefinable Absolute, Parabrahman, which is the Reality underlying all things, but not amenable to description. The hymn begins like this: “Then there was neither that which is (sat), nor that which is not (asat); there was no sky, no Heaven, which is higher. " This hymn ends with striking words: “He, from whom all creation originated, - whether He created it or not, - is the highest prophet in the highest Heavens, - He truly knows (everything about everything), and maybe even he does not know ? "

Regarding the connection between the understanding of the primary Reality as a divine personality and as an indefinite Absolute, it should be said that in the description of Reality as a person there is a mention of its transcendental aspect, which defies description within the framework of objects of experience and, thus, is indefinable (inexpressible). Hence, the personal and impersonal understanding of God is considered to be two aspects of the same Reality. Although many of the important elements of Vedanta can be found in this way in the Rig Veda, they are expressed there in a rather vague poetic form. The method by which the sages arrive at these views is not mentioned, nor are the arguments given to substantiate them. True philosophy should be based mainly on clear thinking and convincing argumentation. Therefore, strictly speaking, there is no real philosophy in the Vedas. The first attempt at consistent philosophical reasoning is found in the Upanishads, where the most important problems of "I" (ie individual self-consciousness), God and the world are clearly posed and considered. But even here, the philosophical method of obtaining a conclusion based on accurate argumentation is only partially manifested (used). Some of the Upanishads, written in verse, contain, like the Rig Veda, inspired sayings on philosophical matters. Similar philosophical sayings are also found in other prose Upanishads. Only in a few Upanishads can one find an approximation to the philosophical method of presentation: when in dialogues, by means of questions and answers, an attempt is made to lead, step by step, a skeptical student to a certain conclusion. But despite the lack of precise forms of argumentation, the Upanishads are enchantingly charming and attractive. This is because they combine the sublimity of ideas, the depth of penetration, the magical appeal to everything that is virtuous and sublime in man, and the irresistible force with which they defend their ideas, as if they were generated by direct contemplation of Truth. The great German thinker Schopenhauer, who was greatly impressed by the Upanishads, declared that "In the whole world there is no teaching so beneficial and so exalting the Soul as the teaching of the Upanishads." He called them the consolation of his life and even his death.

Questions illuminated by the Upanishads:

In the Upanishads, we mention the following most significant problems: What is the Reality from which all things originate, thanks to which everything lives and in which everything disappears (dissolves) after destruction? What is That (TAT), with the help of the cognition of which everything can be cognized? What is That, through the knowledge of which the unknown becomes known? What is That, through the knowledge of which you can achieve immortality? Who is Brahman? Who is Atman? The very nature of these questions suggests that the thinkers of the Upanishads were quite sure of the existence of some all-pervading Reality underlying (i.e., in the form of a substrate) of all things arising from It, existing in It and returning to It, and that that there is some Reality through the cognition of which immortality (amritatva) can be achieved. This Reality is sometimes called Brahman (God), sometimes Atman (I), sometimes just Sat (pure being). “In the beginning there was only Atman,” says Aitareya (1.1) and Brihadaranyaka (1.4.1). “All this is Atman,” says Chandogya (7.25.2). “If the Atman is cognized, everything is cognized,” says again in the “Brihadaranyaka” (4.5,6). We also read: “In the beginning there was only being (Sat); it was one without a second ”(“ Chandogya ”, 6.2.1). Further, "All this is Brahman" (Mundaka, 2.2.11, and Chandogya, 3.14.1). In these different contexts, the terms Brahman and Atman are used synonymously. In some places it is clearly said: “This I (Self) is Brahman” (Brihadaranyaka, 2.5.19); “I am Brahman” (ibid. 1.4.10). The Upanishads transfer the focus of attention from the Vedic gods to the I (i.e., to the inner consciousness) of a person. They analyze the Self, distinguishing between the outer shell of a person and his inner, true Reality. The body (deha), feelings (indriyas), mind (manas), intellect (buddhi), and the short-term pleasures generated by them (from contact with objects of the material world) lend themselves to sensation (being objects) and are considered transient, changing modes-properties, and not the constant Essence of I. The outer sheaths (kosha), so to speak, the veils, hide the inner, constant, Reality, which cannot be identified with anything, although everything is rooted in It and is Her manifestation. The real "I" is pure consciousness (chaitanya), and any particular consciousness of the objects of being is its limited manifestation. Not limited by any object, this pure consciousness is also unlimited. The real "I" is called Atman. As an infinite, conscious Reality (satyam, jnanam, anantam), the “I” of a person is identical with the “I” of all beings (sarva-bhutatma) and, therefore, God, Brahman. The Katha Upanishad says: “This I (ie Atman) is hidden in all things, and therefore does not seem to be there (ie, as if absent there), but it is perceived by a particularly perceptive person with the help of an acute, pure, all-perceiving intellect "(3.12).

Self-knowledge is the highest knowledge:

Everything possible is done to help a person discover this real Self. Knowledge of the Self (Atma-Vidya, or Atma-Jnana) is considered the highest knowledge (Para-Vidya); all other knowledge and study is considered inferior to him (apara-vidya). The method of self-knowledge is carried out through yogic control over the lower self (i.e. body consciousness), over its deeply rooted interests and impulses through the study of Vedanta under the guidance of an enlightened Teacher, reflection and natural concentration-meditation (shravana, manana, nididhyasana) until then, until the forces of past habits and thoughts (i.e. samskaras and vasanas) are completely overcome by firm faith in the Truth being studied. This is a difficult path, which can only be embarked on by one who is so strong and wise that for the sake of virtue (sreyas) he can reject the pleasant (preyas).

Rituals are insufficient:

The Vedic belief in sacrifice was seriously shaken by the Upanishads, who boldly declared that sacrifices (i.e. karmic activities) cannot achieve the highest Goal (Paramagatim) - immortality and freedom from suffering. The Mundaka Upanishad says that these sacrifices are like rafts that have leaked (that is, they are useless in the ocean of worldly suffering), and those fools who consider them the best remedy suffer death throes in old age and die. At best, performing rituals can provide a temporary stay in heaven (svarga), but when the merit-reward (punya) deserved in this world is exhausted, then a new birth (punarjanma) occurs in this mortal world. A deeper meaning, however, is given to sacrifice when the worshiper is identified with the worshiped gods. That is, only those sacrificial acts are not condemned, in the process of performing which the worshiper (sacrificer) and the objects of worship (devatas) are recognized as internally identical, i.e. having the same spiritual nature of Brahman. Thus, the ceremonies of sacrifice to the gods should be considered only as external acts of significance to the uninitiated, who does not understand the innermost secrets of the universe.

Cognition of the inner I, or God, is a means of achieving the highest Good:

The sacrifice intended for the Self - i.e. Brahman is immeasurably higher than sacrifice to the deities. Only through cognition of the I, i.e. Brahman, - rebirth in samsara can be stopped, and with it all misery and suffering. He who truly understands his Oneness with the Immortal Brahman, realizes immortality (i.e., becomes immortal). The Upanishads present Brahman not only as the pure basis of all Reality and consciousness, but also as the primary source of all joy and all happiness. Worldly pleasures are just distorted fragments of this joy, just as the objects of the world are limited manifestations of this Reality. One who can plunge into the deepest recesses of his Self, not only realizes his identity with Brahman, but also reaches the heart (core) of Infinite Joy. Sage Yajnavalkya says to Maitreya: “The proof that I am the source of all joy lies in the fact that it (i.e. Atman) is the most precious thing for every person. Every person loves another person or thing because he identifies himself with this person or thing, considering them as his own I ”. “Nothing is precious in itself,” says Yajnavalkya. A wife is not dear because she is a wife; a husband is not dear because he is a husband; a son is not dear because he is a son; wealth is not precious for the sake of wealth itself. Everything is expensive due to the fact that it is I. That the Self in itself is bliss can also be proved by the fact that during dreamless sleep (sushupti) a person forgets about his connection with the body, senses, mind and external objects, and plunges, thus, into Himself, into his inner "I", dwelling in peace, not disturbed by either pleasures or sufferings. Modern biology claims that self-preservation is the basic instinct inherent in all living things. But why is it I, or life, so dear to us? The Upanishads answer this: because life is joy. Who would love to live if life was not joy? The joy that we experience in everyday life, no matter how limited and no matter how darkened, supports our desire to live (i.e. the so-called will to live, abhinivesha). But in fact, leaving your inner Self (Atman) into the world of material things does not bring great and lasting joy. The desire for objects turns out to be fetters connecting us with the mortal world, with the vicious circle of birth, death and new birth, full of suffering, and so on. Desire forces by themselves distract us from the Self and the natural conditions of our spiritual existence. And the more we give up our craving (trishna) for objects and try to realize our identity (abheda) with the true Self (Atman), or God (Brahman), the more we realize true happiness. To feel your oneness with I means to be in oneness with the Infinite God, with Immortality and Unlimited Joy. Then nothing will remain unattained, nothing will remain desired. Therefore, in the Katha Upanishad it is written that a mortal can achieve immortality and oneness with Brahman even in this life if his mind is purified and his heart is freed from all desires.

If Atman-Brahman is the Reality underlying the entire Universe, then the question may arise about the nature of the relationship between Brahman and the world. The descriptions of the creation of the world given in various Upanishads do not quite coincide. However, all these descriptions unanimously state that Atman (or Brahman, or Sat) is both the creator and the material cause of the world. In most of these descriptions, the starting point of the creation of the world is depicted something like this: first there was a Soul; she thought, “I'm alone. Why don't I become a multitude? , I have to create worlds. " The description of the subsequent stages-stages at which all objects-objects were created varies: it is sometimes asserted that first the subtlest element akasha (ether) arose from the Atman, and then gradually all physical objects; in other cases, a different picture is drawn. As we will see later, there is nothing reprehensible in these discrepancies, for the world exists forever, and stories about its creation should be understood figuratively, and not literally. Cosmogonic theories express truth not directly, but allegorically.

Denial of plurality:

If you believe these descriptions, then the creation of the world should be real, and God should be its real creator (that is, the absolute Soul). But in a number of places it is indicated that there is no plurality (neha nana asti kinchan) and that one who sees many here is doomed to death (mrtyoh sam mrityum apnoti iha naneva pashyati). There is no multiplicity in Reality. To explain the oneness of all things that appear to be multiple, the following examples are given: Just as different gold items are actually the same gold, which is their only real substance, and their different names and forms (nama-rupa), which make they seem to be many - these are only ephemeral verbal differences - and all objects in general are the same as Reality, and their differences are purely verbal. The separate, independent existence of objects in the world is denied. Brahman (or Atman) in many places is also viewed not as a creator, but as a reality that defies description, being not only ineffable in words, but even inaccessible to thought. Brahman cannot even be an object of worship. Thus, the Kena Upanishad says: “This (Brahman) is something else, something that is known and beyond that that is unknown. What is inexpressible by speech, but due to which speech itself is expressed, is known as Brahman, but he is not one who is worshiped as Brahman. " Blind idolatry is condemned here.

Is the creation of the world real?

These two different statements about the world and God are naturally perplexing. Is God the real creator of the world and, therefore, is the world real, or was there really no creation and the world of objects is just a mere appearance, a chimera? Is God a determinable, knowable Reality that can be described with the proper attributes, or is God something indefinite, unknowable? What is the real point of view of the Upanishads? These problems are attempted by the Vedantists in all subsequent Vedantic treatises. As already noted, Badarayana's Brahma Sutra attempts to establish and systematize the real views of the sacred texts of Shruti. But the extremely short statements (sutras) available per se admit different interpretations. The Mandukya-Karika Gaudapada, which is actually the basic text (manifesto) of Vedanta, differs in a much clearer and more definite presentation of the principles of Vedanta. Badarayana himself, by the way, mentions in his sutras about the other seven Masters of Vedanta. Subsequent commentators on the Brahma Sutras give their own detailed interpretations of the Upanishads and Sutras. Of the various competing schools that have arisen in this way, the most famous is the Shankar-Acharya school. What people now accept as Vedanta and sometimes even Indian philosophy in general is in fact the Advaita-Vedanta of the Shankara school. The next most popular is the Vishishta Advaita of the Ramanuja Acharya school.

3. Unified views of the two main schools of Vedanta

The unified concept of Vedanta about the Universe:

Following Badarayana, Shankara and Ramanuja reject theories that explain the world 1) either as a product of material elements (atoms) that combine to form objects, 2) or as a transformation of the unconscious nature (prakriti), which arbitrarily creates all objects in its development, 3) or as a product (combination) of two types of independent reality, that is, matter-prakriti and God, one of which is the material (upadana), and the other is the acting (nimitta) cause that creates the world from the material. Both Shankara and Ramanuja agree that an unconscious cause cannot create the world (jagat); they both argue that even the dualistic concept of two primary independent realities - conscious and unconscious - creating the world through interaction is unsatisfactory. The Shankara and Ramanuja schools adhere to the Upanishads, according to which "Everything is Brahman" (Sarvam khalv idam Brahma), and matter and mind are not independent realities, but are rooted in the same Brahman. Thus, both schools are monistic, believing in a single, absolute, independent Reality, which permeates the world of a multitude of objects and a multitude of selves. Badarayana, followed by Shankara and Ramanuja, carefully examines the unsatisfactory nature of other opposing theories of the origin of the world. The refutation of these opposing views is based both on independent reasoning and on the evidence of the ancient scriptures of Shruti. We can summarize here those independent arguments with which the main theories of Indian philosophy are refuted.

Refutation of the teachings of Sankhya and Vaisesika about the creation of the world:

The Sankhya teaching that unconscious primordial matter (prakriti), consisting of three gunas (sattva, rajas and tamas), produces the world without the intervention of any conscious force is not satisfactory. For the universe is a system of well-adjusted objects, and it cannot be believed that the latter were the accidental product of some unconscious cause. As Sankhya herself admits, this world, consisting of living bodies, senses, motor organs (karma-indriyas), and other objects, was created precisely in order to be suitable for various souls who are born in accordance with their past deeds (karma). But how can unconscious nature carry out such a complex plan? It's hard to believe that this could have happened on its own. Recognizing that the world has a goal (liberation of the Purusha), but at the same time denying the existence of a conscious creator (Ishvara), the Samkhya puts itself in an absurd position. Teleology, which denies the existence of a conscious creator-steward, is meaningless. The adaptation of the means to the ends is impossible without conscious leadership. Sankhya points to the spontaneous discharge of milk by a cow to feed the calf as an example of an irresponsible but purposeful act. However, it is forgotten that the cow is a living conscious being, and milk production is caused (among other things) by her love for the calf. It is impossible to give a single convincing example where an irresponsible object would perform a complex purposeful act. Souls (purushas), the presence of which is recognized by the Samkhya, are inactive and, therefore, cannot contribute to the evolution of the world. A great connoisseur of Indian metaphysics, Schopenhauer writes in his notes on Sanskrit literature: “The philosophy of the Sankhya school, which is considered the predecessor of Buddhism, unfolds before us the basic dogmas of any Indian philosophy, including the need to get rid of sorrowful existence (in samsara), the correspondence of transmigration of souls to deeds ( karma), cognition (jnana) as the main condition for self-liberation, etc. But all this philosophy (sankhya) is corrupted by one basic false thought - the absolute dualism of principles: prakriti and purusha. And this is where Samkhya is at odds with the Vedas. Therefore, the question remains insufficiently clarified - why is prakriti (i.e. matter) trying so hard to liberate Purusha? Further, the Samkhyaiks tell us that the ultimate goal is the emancipation of the Purusha, and then suddenly it turns out that Prakriti (from itself) must be freed. All these contradictions would not exist if Prakriti and Purusha had a common root. " The Protestant Sanskrit scholar Richard Garbe, on the other hand, strongly advocated a dualistic and theistic interpretation of the Vedas. He was very unfriendly towards Advaita Vedanta, and even deleted from his translation of the Bhagavad Gita all those passages (i.e. shlokas) that contained at least hints of monism (i.e. Advaita) and the theory of illusion the material world. (Garbe's disciple Rudolf Otto went even further in the application of this anti-scientific method.) Hatha yoga is also refuted by the Vedic dictum: “There is no uncreated (i.e. Nirvana) through the created (i.e. physical effort)” (Mundaka Upanishad) because it is impossible to achieve the final Liberation through manipulation of the physical body. The Vaisheshik doctrine that the world is formed by a combination of atoms is also untenable, because the atoms devoid of consciousness cannot create this superbly adapted (for life activity) world. The Vaishesika system recognizes, of course, the moral law of adrishta, which governs the atoms in the creation of the world. But this law is also devoid of consciousness, and therefore the difficulty is not eliminated. In addition, it remains unclear how atoms are first set in motion. If movement were the inherent nature of atoms, then they would never stop moving, and there would never be a disintegration (pralaya) of objects, which is recognized by the Vaisheshikas. Of course, the Vaisheshik school recognizes souls, but they have no inner consciousness. Consciousness arises only after souls unite with bodies and organs of cognition, and the latter do not exist before the creation of the world. Therefore, atoms cannot receive any conscious guidance, even from the side of souls.

The unified teaching of Vedanta about God:

We have seen that even in such ancient times as in the Vedic period, God was understood in two aspects: God pervades the world, but is not exhausted by it; He goes beyond it. God is both immanent and transcendental. These two aspects of understanding God passed through the Upanishads into later Vedanta, although not all thinkers attached the same importance to transcendence and immanence. The teaching that God is in all things is called pantheism. Therefore Vedanta is usually indicated by this term. Pantheism etymologically means the theory "everything is in God." But if everything is God, then the question is: is God just the totality of all objects in the world, that is, the totality of things, or something more? - remains open. With this distinction, the word "pantheism" denotes a theory according to which God dissolves in nature, while "panentheism" is used in the second sense. To avoid ambiguity in the word "pantheism" and keep in mind that God in Vedanta is not just immanent, but also transcendental (in His main aspect), we will call the Vedantic teaching about God, rather, panentheism than pantheism.

Broader and narrower meanings of the word "God":

It should be noted here that in the Upanishads and later in Vedantic literature the word "Brahman" is used to designate both the Supreme Principle, the Absolute Reality, and the creator of the world (the object of worship). As the creator of the world, Brahma-Prajapati is one of the trimurti. In this, the second meaning in the later literature, the word "Ishvara" is found. In English, the term “Absolute” is sometimes used to denote the “Supreme Reality” and the word “God” is used for the creator of the world. But the word "God" is used in a broader sense in both meanings (for example, in Spinoza, Hegel, Whitehead). In his work Evolution of Theology in Greek Philosophers (vol. I, p. 32), Edward Card defines "the idea of ​​God as an absolute force or principle." Here we use the word "God" together and along with the term "Brahman" in a broader sense (to denote both God in religion and the Absolute in philosophy); the context in each case will suggest its exact meaning. The use of two names, or names, can cause the assumption of the presence of two realities and obscure the correct understanding of these two terms as a single Reality with two sides.

Another point on which the followers of Vedanta agree is the following: they all believe that the knowledge of the existence of God, Brahman, is carried out primarily not through meditation, but through the revelations of the Holy Scriptures, Shruti. They admit, of course, that pious souls leading a religious life can comprehend the presence of God. But initially we must proceed from the mediated knowledge of God through the undoubted testimony of the Holy Scriptures. Thus, in Vedanta, as in nyaya and other theistic systems, almost no attempt is made to provide purely logical evidence for the existence of God. The arguments presented are usually limited to showing the general insufficiency of all theories of God that are not based on sacred Scripture, and to justify the teachings set forth in the sacred texts. This position of Vedanta seems somewhat dogmatic and sometimes becomes the object of criticism. It should be noted, however, that even many Western philosophers (like Kant, Lotze, and others) from time to time speak out against theistic evidence, considering it weak and unsatisfactory. Lotze made it clear that unless we start with some faith in God, rational evidence of his existence would be of little use. Therefore, Lotze points out, all evidence that God exists is good for justifying our faith. According to Lotze, this belief follows from “an unknown impulse that prompts us to move in our thinking - since we cannot but do this - from the world given in experience to the world not given in experience, but located above and beyond experience. " According to Vedanta, initial faith is necessary for both religious life and thinking. "The Believer Gains Knowledge." But although the starting point of this faith lies in a feeling of dissatisfaction, anxiety and striving for something Higher, it remains blind wandering in the dark until the Vedantin (Jnana Yogin) is enlightened by the Teaching of the Holy Scriptures, Shruti, indicating the path to knowledge God-Brahman. Reflection (manana, chintana) is necessary for understanding this Teaching, realizing its irrefutability and eliminating doubts. Reflection itself is an empty form or method of thinking, capable of acting only in the presence of material. Scripture provides the mind with material for speculation, argumentation and reflection. This kind of dependence of the mind on material delivered from an irrational source is not unique to theology. Even the greatest discoveries in science go back to some irrational source, such as intuitive glimpses of truth in the imagination, which thinking then tries to justify through further observation, experimentation, proof, and development. "Dialectics," says Bergson, "are necessary to justify intuition." Although all followers of Vedanta accept the scriptures as the primary source of faith in God, they make full use of meditation to justify and develop this faith. They know from the Upanishads that God, Brahman, is the infinite, conscious, all-embracing Reality, the creator of the Universe, as well as its keeper and destroyer. Each of the followers of Vedanta tries in his own way to develop what, from his point of view, is the most consistent theory of God. The Badarayana sutras are dedicated to God and are therefore called the Brahma Sutra. However, they are written for a human being, that is, for an embodied soul, and therefore are also called the Sariraka Sutra. Thus, in Vedanta, man is given a central place. It is for his enlightenment and salvation that Vedanta engages in philosophy. But what is the real nature of man? The Upanishads teach that man does not exist independently of God, Brahman. Both Shankara and other Vedantists agree on this. But they interpret the dependence of our I on God in different ways.

Shankara and Hinduism:

Shankara very often tried and still try to squeeze into the Procrustean bed of the so-called Hinduism. (By the way, the frequent use of the concept of Hinduism is a tribute to ignorance, and educated people try to pronounce this word as little as possible; the word Hinduism itself is a fictitious term meaning that which does not exist in reality. Hinduism is an abstract concept, with a light hand which is supposedly allowed to unite, or rather, lump together, completely incompatible and antagonistic views and doctrines. For example, the philosophy of Shankara and the philosophy of Ramanuja (and even more so Madhva) reveal glaring contradictions and obvious dissimilarities among themselves on almost all important points, - however both the one and the other, and the third are often called the philosophers of Hinduism, and none of the Indian or Western scholars has ever been able to give a clear and precise definition of the so-called Hinduism simply because there is no Hinduism as such, and never has been. this is an attempt to combine the incompatible.) It is understandable: Shankara is the most famous, influential and authoritative thinker in matters of metaphysics, psychology and religion. But the inner connection between Shankara and Hinduism is essentially weak and superficial; It would be more fair to call Advaita Shankara more Buddhist than Hindu. After all, Hinduism is just a vulgar folk religion, and Advaita-Vedanta is a sacred spiritual Teaching, hardly suitable for the broad masses. Advaita is the inner, secret Doctrine of all religions, beliefs and systems. Shankara himself repeatedly emphasized that one who has grasped the essence of the Teachings of Advaita, who has attained merging with Brahman, can no longer call himself either a Brahmin, or a Kshatriya, or a Vaisya, or a Sudra, or a man, or a woman, or fat or thin, neither rich nor poor, neither young nor old, that is, all self-identifications are dropped, and only the pure Spirit, Brahman, remains. But the ignorant continue to label Shankara as “Hindu”, “Hindu”, etc., not realizing that Shankara Himself has nothing to do with them. Such false concepts as caste, nationality, country, state affiliation, etc. are not applicable to the pure Spirit, Brahman, the exponent of which is Shankara. All these empty and meaningless concepts were invented by politicians in order to deceive and subjugate the masses of the people to their power. It is clear that Shankara, with his desire to free people from the tyranny of dogmas and prejudices, comes into conflict with the actions of unscrupulous politicians. Shankara's philosophy rightfully belongs to all intelligent people living on Earth, without exception, and is not at all limited to the narrow framework of one Hinduism or any other cult complex. The title of Sri Shankaracharya is Jagad Guru, i.e. Teacher, Guru of the whole world, the whole Universe.

Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta (monism)

Advaita Vedanta (Skt. "Vedanta of nonduality") is the first religious and philosophical school that developed within the framework of Vedanta. This is the only consistent monistic direction of Vedanta, postulating the thesis of the unity of Atman and Brahman, and their absolute identity. Some ideas of Advaita Vedanta were outlined by Gaudapada (6th century) and systematically developed by Shankara (7th-8th century) in Brahma-sutra-bhashya and other works.

While maintaining the closest connection with the sacred tradition of Vedanta, Advaita Vedanta, nevertheless, sought to overcome the discrepancies between "statements about identity" and "statements about difference", that is, to reconcile the idea of ​​one Brahman as a "material" and "effective" cause the world with the statement about its immutability and indivisibility. Advaita Vedanta put forward the concept of the so-called vivarta-vada, or the doctrine of appearance, illusion, according to which the universe owes its phenomenal existence to maya - a veil, or magical illusion. Just as a rope in the hands of a magician looks like a snake, a shell can appear from afar as a piece of silver, so the diverse properties of the world are only temporarily "superimposed" on the unchanging and only true basis - Brahman.

The Supreme Brahman is devoid of any properties (and is called "Nirguna Brahman", that is, "qualityless"), he eternally remains self-identical and one. In its “concealing” aspect, Maya is nothing more than avidya (ignorance) - not just ignorance or false knowledge, but the only way of perception available to us and at the same time the way of existence of the profane world. In other words, from the point of view of the "highest truth" (paramarthika-satya), nothing happened to Brahman at all, there was no creation of the world, and Brahman itself remains unchanged and the only reality (sat).

At this level of "highest truth", Brahman is absolutely identical with the pure Atman, or pure consciousness (chit). Such Atman-Brahman, devoid of qualities and attributes (nirguna), cannot at all be considered according to the principle of substance. Rather, it is the pure basis of consciousness, which can never act as an object either for itself or for any other consciousness. At the level of the "profane", "practically convenient" truth (vyavaharika-satya) lies the entire sphere of the natural world, i.e. the sphere of maya-avidya.

Only here, within the empirical world, there is a plurality of individual souls (jiva), and only within it is the creator god Ishvara, who in Advaita Vedanta is considered "Saguna Brahman" (Brahman endowed with qualities). Finally, only within the phenomenal world are sources of reliable knowledge (pramana) valid.

The realization of this identity and the collapse (nivritti) of the illusory evolution of the phenomenal universe are possible only in the mystical act of dissolution in Brahman, where the former division into object, subject and the process of cognition disappears.

Even speaking about the nature of the soul (jiva), advaita-vedanta offers not so much a clear theoretical explanation of the plurality of souls, as a series of equally possible images or metaphors. According to avaccheda-vada (the doctrine of separation), the soul owes its individual characteristics to the so-called. To "passing limitations" (upadhi). Just as a single ether, or space, seems to be fragmented due to the earthen vessels placed in it, a single consciousness seems to be divided due to the limitations of avidya. It is worth removing or breaking these pots, and the unity of space will be restored without any damage. Similarly, the soul, after the removal of time restrictions, immediately realizes itself as Brahman.

Abhasa-vada (the doctrine of reflection) speaks of the temporary reflection of pure consciousness in maya, and bimba-pratibimba-vada (the doctrine of the image and prototype) presents the formations of avidya as a multitude of mirror fragments, each of which reflects the highest Atman in its own way.

From the point of view of Advaita Vedanta, one who pays with austerity, piety or love receives only a "good share" in the next birth. However, this is nothing more than a way of orienting oneself in the world of karma, not leading beyond its limits. The soul, which is essentially identical with the Supreme Brahman, does not act and does not partake of the fruits of its actions; the illusion of samsaric incarnations of the Atman ends once and for all, as soon as its own true essence is revealed to it - a pure consciousness devoid of properties.

Differences in the views of later representatives of Advaita Vedanta concern mainly problems that have not received an unambiguous interpretation from Shankaracharya, in particular, the problem of the source and basis (ashraya) of avidya, as well as the question of the nature of Ishvara and jiva. If Shankaracharya identified Maya and Avidya, then his followers were inclined to think that creative, generating (vikshepa, literally "crushing") functions are more characteristic of maya, and avidya acts, first of all, as a "concealing" (avarana) force.

After Shankaracharya, Advaita Vedanta continued to develop in three main directions. The first of them originates in the views of the closest disciple of Shankaracharya - Padmapada, the author of "Panchapadika" ("Five-domed"). In the 12th century Prakashatman wrote a commentary on the Panchapadika. Its title "Vivarana" ("Clarification") gave the name to the new advaitist school, whose representatives (Sriharsha, Chitsukha and others) - emphasized the positive nature of maya. This brought this branch of Advaita Vedanta closer to the concept of prakriti in Sankhya.

The second direction of Advaita Vedanta was laid down in the works of another disciple of Shankara, Sureshvara (8th century), as well as his followers such as Sarvajnatman and Prakasananda.

Sureshvara noted that although knowledge of the Vedic texts in itself cannot lead to the realization of Brahman, the constant repetition of these sayings helps the adept to move towards liberation. According to Sureshvara, the basis of avidya is not a separate jiva, but pure consciousness itself: this position served as a reason for criticism of the Advaita Vedanta by adherents of the Vishnu Vedanta movement, who indicated that if this were so, the liberation of at least one soul, i.e. the removal of avidya by it would automatically entail the liberation of all souls bound by samsara.

A number of ideas of Sureshvara and his follower Sarvajnatman (X-XI centuries) were further developed in drishti-srishti-vada ("vision equivalent to creation"), the largest representative of which was Prakashananda (16th century-early 17th century). Treating Maya as absolutely illusory, Prakashananda believed that in advaita Vedanta there can be no talk of causality, since the existence of objects is reduced to their perceptibility. Being the second extreme point of Advaita Vedanta, the concept of drishti-srishti-vada is closest to the Buddhist vijnana-vada.

The development of the third direction of Advaita Vedanta is associated with the names of Mandana Mishra (VIII century, author of the treatise "Brahma-siddhi", or "Attainment of Brahman") and Vachaspati Misra (VIII-IX centuries, author of Bhamati). Vachaspati Mishra distinguishes between two types of avidya - subjective and universal, "root" (mula-avidya), which persists even at the end of the next universal cycle. Speaking about the nature of the jiva, the followers of Vachaspati Misra preferred the doctrine of avacheda-vada ("the doctrine of separation"), since, in their opinion, the basis of avidya in any case remains the souls, and not the supreme Brahman. This school of Advaita Vedanta can be considered a compromise between vivarana and the ideas of the followers of Sureshvara.