Talk:Advaita Vedanta

Image of Gandhi not necessary
The proclamation that 'I am an advaitist' does not necessarily make one an advaitist. Nonduality which is the hallmark of advaitist is not applicable to Gandhi as his words and actions reflected dualism. This does not mean that he was right or wrong but that he is not an advaitist truly. The hallmarks of an advaitist in the transactional world are neither acceptance, neither rejection and neither indifference. For one who 'knows' the Brahman, there is no 'world' including 'oneself'. From the perspective of 'ajativada' there is no qualification. The 'I' appearing in 'I am advaitist' is an oxymoron for there is truly NO individual 'I' ! 180.151.249.250 (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Yajnavalkya, Buddhism
The Vedic rishi Yajnavalkya is mentioned in this article once. He is also not mentioned in the history section at all. He lived in the 7th or 8th century BCE.

The Chandogya and Brihadaranyaka Upanishads are important to Advaita Vedanta and are historically relevant. Yajnavalkya's life predates the content in the early Advaita subsection and whatever vague "Buddhistic influences" are continually hinted at throughout this page but scarcely enumerated in clear and unambiguous terms.

Advaita isn't just "Buddhism + self". Advaita makes no sense without Atman. To an Advaitin, the Buddhist claim of Annata/Anatam is basically incoherent. This isn't a small difference, it's a major rift. Indeed, no-self is probably incoherent to most thinkers outside of Buddhism.

This need to put everything in eastern philosophy in Buddhist terms (primarily for white western intellectuals who know little beyond Buddhism) seems to be a sickness throughout wikipedia. The differences in praxis between Buddhist schools (both Theravada and Mahayana) and Advaita was even more significant. Shankara's Advaita did not emphasize anything other than intellectual study and inquiry (look at Atmabodha and Upadesasahasri). Vicara of Advaita, as a form of inquiry, is quite different from Buddhistic meditation. Advaita is entirely intellectual in praxis (outside of appeasing Brahmannical culture) while Buddhism isn't. Buddhism has a significant meditative component in all schools I have ever heard of.

The "Buddhist influences > Mahayana influences" section, despite being ostensibly about Buddhist influences, offers little to no hard evidence about these influences. It makes vague claims, probably to overemphasize the extent of any influence. The neti neti idea/practice of inquiry was something Yajnavalkya devised. Why not talk about how Yajnavalkya may have influenced Buddhist thought for a change? Why is it always about how Buddhism basically invented everything? Why not acknowledge the Upanishadic influence on Buddhism, for once? I know, there are footnotes, but why aren't these ever in main bodies?

What we do get is "Advaita Vedānta adapted philosophical concepts from Buddhism, giving them a Vedantic basis and interpretation". Vague and broad, giving little acknowledgement to what Advaita devised on its own. It basically implies that Advaita is a flavor of Buddhism. Absurd nonsense.

Nakamura: "Accordingly, it has become clear that the opinion of a great many scholars who formerly held that the Vedanta school flourished as such for the first time with Sankara, is mistaken. Instead, the Vedanta school itself must have existed in reality from before the time such a name was recorded and handed down in the literature." Advaita is not just about Shankara. Advaita is not all that similar to Buddhism, though there was a discourse between Indian Buddhism and Advaita (like there was between all Indian philosophical schools). 98.35.116.223 (talk) 14:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * No, the Upanishads cannot be the solid basis of Advaita. Because along with the monistic Upanishads there are also dualistic-theistic Upanishads. In the Upanishads, if you consider them as a group of texts, and do not select only the texts you need, there is no unambiguous clear teaching at all. An attempt to derive such a unified teaching of the Upanishads has long been made by the Hindu tradition - these are the Brahma Sutras of Badarayana, but these sutras also only gave rise to opposing schools of Vedantic thought, in the form of various commentaries. 2A00:1FA0:8218:1583:68C3:E05E:5394:3F2F (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Influence of Buddhism
Advaita Vedānta adapted philosophical concepts from Buddhism, giving them a Vedantic basis and interpretation,[23]

This claim is solely based on a book, published from a Japanese author and which therefore cannot be accepted as telling the truth, Can we not say that the statement can be vice-versa, i.e., Advait influenced Buddhism ? NerdyRas007 (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * What's your problem with Japanese authors? Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  16:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * AdiShankaracharya was the BIGGEST Critic of Buddhism and some of the older Upanishads were completed during the Buddha's time, infact Shankara came to defend Vedic orthodoxy from Buddhism. 108.39.84.90 (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, Shankara indeed often criticized Buddhism. However, the Indological consensus is that the very first Advaitin Gaudapada (6th-7th centuries CE) was influenced by Buddhism. Gaudapda adopted the Buddhist doctrines that the ultimate reality is pure consciousness (vijñapti-matra) and that the nature of the world is quadrangular negation. Gaudapada wove both doctrines into the Mandukya Upanishad philosophy, which was further developed by Shankara. Gaudapada also adopted the Buddhist concept of Ajata from the philosophy of Madhyamaka Nagarjuna. Shankara succeeded in introducing the Maya-Vada of Gaudapada into the Brahma Sutras of Badarayana and giving it a locus classicus, contrary to the realistic trend of the Brahma Sutras. 2A00:1FA0:8218:1583:68C3:E05E:5394:3F2F (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It must be clearly stated that Advaita is not at all a numerous branch of Vedanta
Only 10% of Hindus follow Advaita. 2A00:1FA0:8218:1583:68C3:E05E:5394:3F2F (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Prediction of Adi shankaracharya. It's a Mayavada philosophy
Plz read this once.

Another interesting prediction is that Lord Shiva, one of the great demigods, would appear in Kali-yuga as Shankaracharya. In the Padma Purana (6.236.5-12) Shiva explains to his wife, Parvati, that he will appear in the age of Kali to proclaim that the Buddhist doctrine is a false religion and illusory. He also said that he would propound the mayavada or impersonalist philosophy, emphasizing the indefinable nature of the Brahman, the great, impersonal spiritual force. He explained, "The philosophy of Maya (mayavada) is a wicked doctrine and is pseudo-Buddhist. In the form of a brahmana, I proclaim this doctrine in Kali-yuga. It makes the words of the holy Vedic texts meaningless and is condemned in the world. In this doctrine it recommends giving up one's duties of life [in order to be free of karma], which is said to be religiousness for those who have fallen from their duties. I will propound the identity of the Supreme Soul and the individual soul to be the [one and the same] Brahman in nature, without qualities. O goddess, I have conceived this mayavada (impersonalist) doctrine, which resembles a purport of the Ve das, for deluding people in this age of Kali [to mislead them toward atheism by denying the personal form of God]." 2409:4071:2104:311C:827B:8D73:BE76:E78 (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)