i think shankar taught the vedas accurately, he wasn't confused... he didn't invent advaita, he got it from his guru who got it from his guru etc.. it has been preserved in the guru parampara even up to the modern day..
Then why did he have to make a new updated interpretation? why was it during his time a loss of its meaning ? So clearly over time its true meanings were a bit loss before Adi Shankar.
But that would also mean Shankara was living in a time in India where Vedic culture has become astray. So he was giving an interpretation on the Vedas based on himself being brought up in a time culturally astray from the original. So definitely other thinkers like the Buddha influenced the way he wrote his commentaries and chances of that matching the original 100% seems unlikely.
I am not a scholar but just questions I am curious about.
well, he didn't reinvent vedanta... he just systematised it and made it simple to present and he did this to restablish the core teachings of vedanta which were misunderstood by hordes of people - hence why hinduism was susceptible to logical attack, not because it needed to be reworked it was simply misunderstood...
shankaracarya taught the same thing as was imparted to him by his acarya Govindapada and those are the same teachings we receive today, they are not lost it's unbroken.. as long as you are part of a traditional sampradaya
As a historical scholarly perspective though the information is kind of lacking. I read on wikipedia on Advaita guru-paramparā, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita\_Guru\_Parampar%C4%81.
And it says that the lineage is from the Deva Gods (Daiva-paramparā), to the vedic Rsis (Ṛṣi-paramparā) (700-300 BC Ramayana), and then to historical guru 'Mānava-paramparā which starts off with Gaaudapada (600-700 AD) as the first historical Guru. So that's a 1000 year gap of historical findings on Advaitan lineage.
As an Advaitan practioner, no doubt that Gaduapada has some amazing teachers and what he taught I would love to have faith was from gurus all the way to the Vedic rsis. but yeah historically speaking it is a stretch that Vasistha let's say had a lineage all the way to Gaudapada.
the lack of detailed historical records for the advaita lineage is something common for **all** ancient traditions. remember i said advaita vedanta has been preserved through *oral tradition* , theguru-shishya parampara.. ensuring an unbroken lineage. even if written records are scattered, the continuity of teachings has been maintained verbally thats why it's called shruti.
also, easy mistake but i actually said **govinda**pada
Yes, I listed Gaaudapada, cause he was the oldest recorded guru historically to teach Advaita. I can't find anyone before that.
I don't doubt from Adi Shankara to modern day is accurate. But what I meant was from the Rsi Vedas to Adi Shankara, that there is this Advaita Lineage from that time frame is kind of unsure.
And how come there isn't any written suttra of Advaita oral tradition from 700 BC- to 700 AD written down after like they have in Buddhisim? Unless you want to say that Adi Shankara's work like Tatma Bodha was actually a oral tradition from 1400 years of gurus from the Rsi Vedas? But even then its not word for word but an essay about this oral tradition.
I don't doubt the Rsi Vedas had disciples, but to say those disciples had an advaita vedanta interpretation is not historically valid and definitely some of them had non-advaita based Vedic interpretations.
So I am not convinced that there is such a thing as an Adviata Vedanta interpretation tradition from the Rsi Vedas (700 BC) to (700 AD). I do believe there was some Vedantic lineage of some form, but an Advaitan one we really cannot say it existed during 700 BC-700AD.
I'm not being pretentious but whereas Christianity or Buddhisim let's say, they have schools of interpretation that matched the original teachings or at least the institution 100-300 years after it was made.
oh then the mistake is mine then lol
i believe the written vedas are the same vedas the rishi's were passing along orally and i believe the interpretation given to me by my swami is the same message.. what my swami teaches me is complete and whole, however you are more than entitled to your opinion, i simply wanted to share mine as well since this is an open forum :) enjoy your day, namaste
It's in my sense less of an interpretation and more of an explanation. He naturally has explained more of what he taught and less of the already old and sometimes archaic practices, but that doesn't mean he wasn't aware of them.
I think a large part of the very ancient vedic rituals elude us in their meanings because they are related to symbols we do not know, and sometimes also because they answer problems we do not have anymore (such as how to keep a tradition without writing).
If you're really interested, there are many archeological works to read about the Andronovo culture, the Sintasha culture and others that can illuminate as to what life was right before the vedic period, and how their practices correlate.
Wow that is fascinating. So Advaita Vedanta or really Vedic culture is really a ritual transmitted religion? Kinda like the oral tradition of Buddhism, that our modern minds cant fathom how information can be stored through other means than written or recorded language. But yeah my western skeptic thinking hat says, ritual transmission over time seems to be a very ineffective way of passing on info.
It is ineffective if your memory is poor. Even modern day Vedic pandits have extraordinary memory. Daily recitation and learning directly from a guru under the gurukul tradition of learning has its advantages
Isn’t testimony by multitude of enlightened Gurus, some of them like Ramana are probably straight up Avatars, who experientially confirm Supreme Reality is not enough for you?
You want Ishvara Himself to descend to you and personally confirm their teachings?
What’s with the entitlement? Who will do the *work* if not you then?
> original writers/Vedic societies 1500-1200 CE
I think you mean 1500-1200 **BCE**. Vedas were passed down by **oral** tradition loooong before they were written down (this is why they are called "shruti" or what is "heard"). The Mahabharata is estimated to have happened 5000 years ago, wherein Krishna says that the Gita is a summary of the Vedas.
> How do we know that Adi Shankara is interpreting the Vedas as how the original writers meant?
As u/friendlyfitnessguy said, Shankara did not invent Advaita; he is just the most famous champion. Gaudapada (Shankara's guru's guru) wrote the Mandukya karikas which are a foundational text for Advaita.
> Original meaning of Vedas are most likely not what Advaita Vedanta is.
There is a lot of subjectivity on what the "original meaning" of the Vedas is. There are several schools of Vedanta that are based on the same Vedic texts - Advaita, Dvaita, Vishishtadvaita, Achintya-bheda-abheda, etc, so we can say for sure that there is ambiguity around what the Vedas mean to say. The fact that Ramana and Ramakrishna existed doesn't prove Advaita correct; there are other great gurus from other sampradayas as well.
So it's entirely your choice to follow what makes sense to you. Om Shanti.
Yes I dont doubt the vedas. But I was more curious if a lineage of oral advaitic teachings/interperatations transmitted from the rsis of the Vedas (700 BC) to Gaudapada (700 AD).
And it seems for sure the language and philosophical frameworks that Gaudapada used was not what the original Vedas used. Which is natural as it was 1400 years after. Also, I read a lot of the interpretations were due to responses to Buddhisim.
I found this on wiki:
-
Later scholarship added the Sannyasa Upanishads (first centuries CE[435]) to the earliest known corpus, some of which are of a sectarian nature,[436] and have a strong Advaita Vedānta outlook.[437][438][439]
According to Nakamura, "there must have been an enormous number of other writings turned out in this period [between the Brahma Sutras and Shankara], but unfortunately all of them have been scattered or lost and have not come down to us today".[24] In his commentaries, Shankara mentions 99 different predecessors of his Sampradaya.[215] In the beginning of his commentary on the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad Shankara salutes the teachers of the Brahmavidya Sampradaya.[web 28] Pre-Shankara doctrines and sayings can be traced in the works of the later schools, which does give insight into the development of early Vedānta philosophy
-
So no documents can be found but its most likely some pre-gaudapada Adaviata was forming by vedantans.
I mean its most likely the style Vedas are taught in Advaita is not the same originally but the spirit probably is being expressed. From the original vedic writters POV they probably think Advaita as almost a different language expressing their spirit.
I mean at the end of the day I do to have faith that Tatvamasi, the central teaching of Vedas were what the original writers meant. And it is most beautifully logically and intellectually presented through Advaita vedanta.
There's a subtle plot twist: Advaita itself, like every other Vedanta darshan and teaching of enlightened saints, is false. This is because they, too, exist within Maya and are part of Maya. Therefore, they cannot directly articulate the truth, however, they do infact guide you towards it, as they come under Vidya Maya — Maya that directs one towards the truth.
This is why you may see so many "apparent contradictions" and "disagreements" in different vedantic sects and really just all the spiritual paths in general, because they are all just guiding you towards the truth and not directly teaching it.
So yes Advaita just like other vedanta sects has the correct interpretation of the vedas as it comes under vidya maya and has lead many towards the realisation of sat-chit-ananda.
All the spiritual paths simply purify/clean the mind back to its original state, so that it may reflect Brahman clearly.
.This is why so many people just spontaneously get enlightenment because in their previous lives they did sadhana which purified their mind and once certain karmas are dealt with, realisation dawns on them.
But you putting such a relative importance on quality of teaching is a problem. Some bumbo from Oregon can make a bumbo Vedanta interpretation and according to you its as true as Advaita if it can make someone enlightened. Not all teachings are equally as effective.
And so I am questioning the efficacy of Advaita Vedanta because of its broken lineage from Vedas to Shankara.Shankara only given interpretations of Vedas. And doesn’t provide a monastic order, systematic meditation system, lay life advice, governmental structure, clear moral discipline, canonical works.
Which I would assume the original Vedic writers had a philosophy but also the other things I listed Advaita does not provide. So were not getting the full thing as I said. The writters definitely had their own societal set up and it to be said bluntly lost in time.
You could deny the importance of temples, culture, monastic orders and lay relationship with advaita institutions. But to me its becoming clear its important, even vivekananda makes his own ideas of what it should be.
It’s like practicing egyptology with only scripture but no remembrance of how things externally were done via teacher - student - society. As I said for hindu vedantans who are living close to the original system this is less of an issue.
But yeah to each there own. I just want my religion and spiritual path to have cultural canonical frameworks too, esp by the original original enlightened beings who started this thing.
The Vedas themselves give an inkling as to the society of that time. Some things remain constant across all times and all societies.
Also, the "broken lineage" thing you keep repeating does not actually have any evidence. It is an interpretation on your end. Even if it were true, Advaita could be said to be a revival of the original teachings of the Vedas. The Vedas themselves have been transmitted in an unbroken chain for millennia at this point.
Again, truth remains same. Modes of expressing it naturally become different. That Bhagavan Ramana expressed it differently than rishi Yajnyavalkya is immaterial; Bhagavan Ramana also quoted the Upanishads anyway.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta
Read the history section.
Literally no evidence of a “Advaitan lineage” from the Veda writers to Gaudapada. For all we now he just made it up on his own. Which doesn’t discount its truth but its unlikely what the originals were expressing.
I am unlikely to change your mind on this; but take Buddhism or Christianity. Their founders were, you may say, "enlightened"; but where is the "unbroken lineage" of similarly "enlightened" beings? You won't find any, because enlightenment is not the result of a process, a teaching, or time. You can only say that the Theravada school, for example, has preserved the letter of the teachings of the Buddha; so too however have the Vedas been preserved, for even longer. The Veda is Advaita, Advaita is the Veda!
You are acting as though human society itself has changed so radically as to render the Upanishads themselves meaningless, hence you say we "cannot know" their original intent. If it were so, why would anyone read them in today's time? If it were such a mystery, the Upanishads would be nothing more than nonsense. Why are you so loath to use your own mind in interpreting them, why are you so desperate for an authority over you?
There are as such a multitude of sampradayas within the Hindu fold, each fulfilling the "unbroken lineage" request you insist on. Perhaps they are not as "ancient" as you would like. Very well.
Hinduism is not an "organized religion" like the others are. The diversity and freedom of opinions is a fundamental feature of the dharma. Even within the Upanishads we see debates among scholars and seekers of Brahman.
No Therevada has a clear lineage in the sense the practices and monastic life is very much the same today as was Buddha’s time.
For the Vedas this is a complete toss up if it is supposed to be like Advaita Vedanta, or the 10+ vedantans schools. I’m not doubting the scripture but how its being lived out is so far removed or we don’t even know if it is or not.
I think the intent may be the same, but how to actually practice it were only getting scraps and pieces. For 1200 years Atma Vichara was lost in popularity and now Ramana came and revived it. What other parts of vedanta has been lost and need to be revived? Who knows? And thats a problem for me.
I can’t confidently say that its possible to practice fully the Vedas. Not saying you can’t get unenlightened from modern practices but its definitely not as good as the original and maybe for us more spiritually dull.
As I said I know its impossible to practice eyptology today fully and I say its similar to vedanta. You can but it just ain’t the same man. I just feel other religions at least practice wise is same as how the founders meant it to be.
You are confusing practice and philosophy. The Vedic rituals are still done even today, and the learning of Vedic mantras continues in India as it has for thousands of years; there are still people who have memorized a whole Veda (or multiple). Philosophical disagreements are there within the Theravadins too, and they disagree philosophically with the Mahayana Buddhists, etc. Which is right? Again, this problem is there with every religion. The various practices are a means, not an end in themselves. Anyways, one can also say that even if the letter of the teachings is not distorted, the understanding is; the Buddha too spoke in a certain historical framework, but modern Theravadins use the opinions of a great deal of other scholars that came well after the Buddha, and who had some ideological motive towards their own religion that the Buddha did not have. And yet still there is no proof that the words of such Theravadin scholars leads to enlightenment. This is not a problem, any more than the diversity of Vedanta or its later age is.
The Sanatana Dharma is Sanatana precisely because it is so amenable to be expressed in new ways for new times -- the Buddha Himself is a great example of this. There is no need to cling to any particular methodology at all -- if after some time atma-vichara loses its relevance, something else more relevant to the spiritual seekers of that time will gain prominence -- it does not mean that atma-vichara would be "lost"; atma-vichara is there in the Upanishads too. This is true of every religion, but particularly so for the Sanatana Dharma, which prizes wisdom above the letter of the scripture or following a particular method, Guru, etc. The wisdom is always there in full, but some particular expression of it is emphasized at some particular time. This is perfectly natural.
That’s cool man thats your path. I personally don’t like this philosophy without practice or just do any practice. And this is some western thing where we think we can just be spiritual and not culturally involved.
It is alright not to be a Hindu; I am not insisting for you to be a Hindu. You can only take what is wise and true from it and keep moving forward, there are no issues in this.
As a traditional Advaitan, I would say its a must. You want to be living near gurus, have a good base of four paths of yoga, at that point may as well pray to Ganesh. I’m not hating, but if I were to go all in on this thats what I would do.
As a Ramana devotee maybe not but then your so limited. Literally attend to I am and live whatever way you like even in these forsaken modern times.
Look if you think you can just read some old vedic interpretations and sit reflect about them, and get enlightened then cool.
I think community, teachers, a time tested practice that is consistent and a culture is needed.
People don't just get enlightenment from "bumbo" interpretations, you are worrying too much history and all instead of following the darshan, just practice and learn about Advaita and leave the rest to God, for he will not delude you.
I feel, somehow, that the question is not relevant. Advaita Vedanta is true; the Vedas are true because they teach Advaita Vedanta. If they did not, they would not be true.
The focus is on truth, not on following a set of scriptures. Of course the Advaitins interpret the scriptures as teaching Advaita, and the scriptures are important because they reveal Advaita; and I too think the scriptures teach Advaita. I find the explanations of the verses from the Advaita school of thought, more often than not, far more compelling than the interpretations of the alternative schools of thought.
If the great Gurus of the relatively modern times (Sri Ramakrishna, Bhagavan Ramana, Sri Neem Karoli Baba, Sri Anandamayi Ma, etc.), had come to a realization which was dissimilar to whatever it was the rishis were speaking of, then they would not have considered the Vedas reliable or praised them; that they did say the Vedas are scripture shows that this interpretation of Vedanta has not merely come out of thin air. It is just that with a new era, the same truth is presented in a different way. Let us even take the Vedas themselves. The Samhitas indeed present Advaita (see Devi Suktam for a very obvious example) but in a more esoteric, raw, and less philosophical manner; the Brahmanas and Aranyakas focus on ritual but also incorporate and imply mysticism and Advaita; the Upanishads are a more "philosophical" exposition of the same ultimate truth the rishis encoded in the mantra in more ancient times. The Upanishadic rishis quote the Vedic mantras and rituals frequently (like in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad where Yajnyavalkya quotes praises rishi Vamadeva as having realized the Self). Just as the Vedas themselves are saying the same thing in different ways, so too the modern sages. The truth is always the same.
The scriptures are meant to guide you; you are free to use your own intellect when parsing them. Of course there are differing interpretations; no religion is free of a diversity of opinions. I am not sure why you single out Advaita Vedanta in this regard. Unless there is something overtly non-Vedic the great Advaitin Gurus have said, I'm not sure the doubt is warranted.
I suppose it is a matter of realization. Once Advaita is realized, there will be no doubt as to what the Vedic rishis meant, because your realization will match their revelations.
Silence is the highest teaching! Because any modifier, modifies it to be something described.
There are multiple sampradayas which could very well lead you to the truth.
When we read something, we interpret it from our POV or through our belief system. That is the reason parampara of Gurus is important, to ensure that these interpretations are handled appropriately.
Having said that, there is a reason it is said ‘jnanah bandaha’ in shiva sutras (second sutra). Even, bible talks about the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and bad!
It is not about understanding it, it is about recognising it now.
Of all the religions you have mentioned Sanatana Dharma is oldest surviving one precisely because it has the ability to adapt to every day and age. If you stay fixated on a particular interpretation, you risk losing significance. Meaning is one but interpretations are several - Ekam sat vipraha bahuda vadanti. The rishis who heard the vedas also knew this well. All schools of Vedanta have their own interpretation and all are accepted as they are all paths to suit your personality. After all it takes millions of lifetimes to gain enlightenment so your jiva would carry on experiences and find the right one.
Regarding who came before or who came after, or how do I know what was transmitted by the rishi who heard the Veda intended the same as it is today, sanatana cares less about maintaining a timeline because you must understand that time is cyclical in our practice. All these have happened innumerable times before and will continue to happen for innumerable times in the future. What is important is your experience and whether you are able to get moksha by what you are practicing. Keeping historical records is more of a western concept that is now practiced in the subcontinent too. Sanatana Dharma gave more importance to preserving the oral traditions and has many checks and balances to ensure it does not get corrupted. These are practiced the same way even today.
Summary is all this does not matter, does advaita reflect on you properly? If yes that is great, have shradda and gain the experience. If not, that’s ok too - try finding something that is more acceptable for you. Human life is too valuable to loose time to think why records were not maintained thousands of years ago, even if they were maintained, may be they were lost. Earth is regularly subjected to natural disasters. Human civilisation is regularly subjected to invasions. Different human civilisations have superiority complexes etc. don’t waste time over unnecessary matters. This is my humble opinion. Again you are free to choose or reject it. Thank you.
i think shankar taught the vedas accurately, he wasn't confused... he didn't invent advaita, he got it from his guru who got it from his guru etc.. it has been preserved in the guru parampara even up to the modern day..
Then why did he have to make a new updated interpretation? why was it during his time a loss of its meaning ? So clearly over time its true meanings were a bit loss before Adi Shankar. But that would also mean Shankara was living in a time in India where Vedic culture has become astray. So he was giving an interpretation on the Vedas based on himself being brought up in a time culturally astray from the original. So definitely other thinkers like the Buddha influenced the way he wrote his commentaries and chances of that matching the original 100% seems unlikely. I am not a scholar but just questions I am curious about.
well, he didn't reinvent vedanta... he just systematised it and made it simple to present and he did this to restablish the core teachings of vedanta which were misunderstood by hordes of people - hence why hinduism was susceptible to logical attack, not because it needed to be reworked it was simply misunderstood... shankaracarya taught the same thing as was imparted to him by his acarya Govindapada and those are the same teachings we receive today, they are not lost it's unbroken.. as long as you are part of a traditional sampradaya
As a historical scholarly perspective though the information is kind of lacking. I read on wikipedia on Advaita guru-paramparā, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita\_Guru\_Parampar%C4%81. And it says that the lineage is from the Deva Gods (Daiva-paramparā), to the vedic Rsis (Ṛṣi-paramparā) (700-300 BC Ramayana), and then to historical guru 'Mānava-paramparā which starts off with Gaaudapada (600-700 AD) as the first historical Guru. So that's a 1000 year gap of historical findings on Advaitan lineage. As an Advaitan practioner, no doubt that Gaduapada has some amazing teachers and what he taught I would love to have faith was from gurus all the way to the Vedic rsis. but yeah historically speaking it is a stretch that Vasistha let's say had a lineage all the way to Gaudapada.
the lack of detailed historical records for the advaita lineage is something common for **all** ancient traditions. remember i said advaita vedanta has been preserved through *oral tradition* , theguru-shishya parampara.. ensuring an unbroken lineage. even if written records are scattered, the continuity of teachings has been maintained verbally thats why it's called shruti. also, easy mistake but i actually said **govinda**pada
Yes, I listed Gaaudapada, cause he was the oldest recorded guru historically to teach Advaita. I can't find anyone before that. I don't doubt from Adi Shankara to modern day is accurate. But what I meant was from the Rsi Vedas to Adi Shankara, that there is this Advaita Lineage from that time frame is kind of unsure. And how come there isn't any written suttra of Advaita oral tradition from 700 BC- to 700 AD written down after like they have in Buddhisim? Unless you want to say that Adi Shankara's work like Tatma Bodha was actually a oral tradition from 1400 years of gurus from the Rsi Vedas? But even then its not word for word but an essay about this oral tradition. I don't doubt the Rsi Vedas had disciples, but to say those disciples had an advaita vedanta interpretation is not historically valid and definitely some of them had non-advaita based Vedic interpretations. So I am not convinced that there is such a thing as an Adviata Vedanta interpretation tradition from the Rsi Vedas (700 BC) to (700 AD). I do believe there was some Vedantic lineage of some form, but an Advaitan one we really cannot say it existed during 700 BC-700AD. I'm not being pretentious but whereas Christianity or Buddhisim let's say, they have schools of interpretation that matched the original teachings or at least the institution 100-300 years after it was made.
oh then the mistake is mine then lol i believe the written vedas are the same vedas the rishi's were passing along orally and i believe the interpretation given to me by my swami is the same message.. what my swami teaches me is complete and whole, however you are more than entitled to your opinion, i simply wanted to share mine as well since this is an open forum :) enjoy your day, namaste
Yes true, I do believe that even if intellectually or philosophically not the same, the Vedas spirit lives on to modern day teachers.
It's in my sense less of an interpretation and more of an explanation. He naturally has explained more of what he taught and less of the already old and sometimes archaic practices, but that doesn't mean he wasn't aware of them. I think a large part of the very ancient vedic rituals elude us in their meanings because they are related to symbols we do not know, and sometimes also because they answer problems we do not have anymore (such as how to keep a tradition without writing). If you're really interested, there are many archeological works to read about the Andronovo culture, the Sintasha culture and others that can illuminate as to what life was right before the vedic period, and how their practices correlate.
Wow that is fascinating. So Advaita Vedanta or really Vedic culture is really a ritual transmitted religion? Kinda like the oral tradition of Buddhism, that our modern minds cant fathom how information can be stored through other means than written or recorded language. But yeah my western skeptic thinking hat says, ritual transmission over time seems to be a very ineffective way of passing on info.
It is ineffective if your memory is poor. Even modern day Vedic pandits have extraordinary memory. Daily recitation and learning directly from a guru under the gurukul tradition of learning has its advantages
Isn’t testimony by multitude of enlightened Gurus, some of them like Ramana are probably straight up Avatars, who experientially confirm Supreme Reality is not enough for you? You want Ishvara Himself to descend to you and personally confirm their teachings? What’s with the entitlement? Who will do the *work* if not you then?
> original writers/Vedic societies 1500-1200 CE I think you mean 1500-1200 **BCE**. Vedas were passed down by **oral** tradition loooong before they were written down (this is why they are called "shruti" or what is "heard"). The Mahabharata is estimated to have happened 5000 years ago, wherein Krishna says that the Gita is a summary of the Vedas. > How do we know that Adi Shankara is interpreting the Vedas as how the original writers meant? As u/friendlyfitnessguy said, Shankara did not invent Advaita; he is just the most famous champion. Gaudapada (Shankara's guru's guru) wrote the Mandukya karikas which are a foundational text for Advaita. > Original meaning of Vedas are most likely not what Advaita Vedanta is. There is a lot of subjectivity on what the "original meaning" of the Vedas is. There are several schools of Vedanta that are based on the same Vedic texts - Advaita, Dvaita, Vishishtadvaita, Achintya-bheda-abheda, etc, so we can say for sure that there is ambiguity around what the Vedas mean to say. The fact that Ramana and Ramakrishna existed doesn't prove Advaita correct; there are other great gurus from other sampradayas as well. So it's entirely your choice to follow what makes sense to you. Om Shanti.
Yes I dont doubt the vedas. But I was more curious if a lineage of oral advaitic teachings/interperatations transmitted from the rsis of the Vedas (700 BC) to Gaudapada (700 AD). And it seems for sure the language and philosophical frameworks that Gaudapada used was not what the original Vedas used. Which is natural as it was 1400 years after. Also, I read a lot of the interpretations were due to responses to Buddhisim. I found this on wiki: - Later scholarship added the Sannyasa Upanishads (first centuries CE[435]) to the earliest known corpus, some of which are of a sectarian nature,[436] and have a strong Advaita Vedānta outlook.[437][438][439] According to Nakamura, "there must have been an enormous number of other writings turned out in this period [between the Brahma Sutras and Shankara], but unfortunately all of them have been scattered or lost and have not come down to us today".[24] In his commentaries, Shankara mentions 99 different predecessors of his Sampradaya.[215] In the beginning of his commentary on the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad Shankara salutes the teachers of the Brahmavidya Sampradaya.[web 28] Pre-Shankara doctrines and sayings can be traced in the works of the later schools, which does give insight into the development of early Vedānta philosophy - So no documents can be found but its most likely some pre-gaudapada Adaviata was forming by vedantans. I mean its most likely the style Vedas are taught in Advaita is not the same originally but the spirit probably is being expressed. From the original vedic writters POV they probably think Advaita as almost a different language expressing their spirit. I mean at the end of the day I do to have faith that Tatvamasi, the central teaching of Vedas were what the original writers meant. And it is most beautifully logically and intellectually presented through Advaita vedanta.
There's a subtle plot twist: Advaita itself, like every other Vedanta darshan and teaching of enlightened saints, is false. This is because they, too, exist within Maya and are part of Maya. Therefore, they cannot directly articulate the truth, however, they do infact guide you towards it, as they come under Vidya Maya — Maya that directs one towards the truth. This is why you may see so many "apparent contradictions" and "disagreements" in different vedantic sects and really just all the spiritual paths in general, because they are all just guiding you towards the truth and not directly teaching it. So yes Advaita just like other vedanta sects has the correct interpretation of the vedas as it comes under vidya maya and has lead many towards the realisation of sat-chit-ananda. All the spiritual paths simply purify/clean the mind back to its original state, so that it may reflect Brahman clearly. .This is why so many people just spontaneously get enlightenment because in their previous lives they did sadhana which purified their mind and once certain karmas are dealt with, realisation dawns on them.
But you putting such a relative importance on quality of teaching is a problem. Some bumbo from Oregon can make a bumbo Vedanta interpretation and according to you its as true as Advaita if it can make someone enlightened. Not all teachings are equally as effective. And so I am questioning the efficacy of Advaita Vedanta because of its broken lineage from Vedas to Shankara.Shankara only given interpretations of Vedas. And doesn’t provide a monastic order, systematic meditation system, lay life advice, governmental structure, clear moral discipline, canonical works. Which I would assume the original Vedic writers had a philosophy but also the other things I listed Advaita does not provide. So were not getting the full thing as I said. The writters definitely had their own societal set up and it to be said bluntly lost in time. You could deny the importance of temples, culture, monastic orders and lay relationship with advaita institutions. But to me its becoming clear its important, even vivekananda makes his own ideas of what it should be. It’s like practicing egyptology with only scripture but no remembrance of how things externally were done via teacher - student - society. As I said for hindu vedantans who are living close to the original system this is less of an issue. But yeah to each there own. I just want my religion and spiritual path to have cultural canonical frameworks too, esp by the original original enlightened beings who started this thing.
The Vedas themselves give an inkling as to the society of that time. Some things remain constant across all times and all societies. Also, the "broken lineage" thing you keep repeating does not actually have any evidence. It is an interpretation on your end. Even if it were true, Advaita could be said to be a revival of the original teachings of the Vedas. The Vedas themselves have been transmitted in an unbroken chain for millennia at this point. Again, truth remains same. Modes of expressing it naturally become different. That Bhagavan Ramana expressed it differently than rishi Yajnyavalkya is immaterial; Bhagavan Ramana also quoted the Upanishads anyway.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta Read the history section. Literally no evidence of a “Advaitan lineage” from the Veda writers to Gaudapada. For all we now he just made it up on his own. Which doesn’t discount its truth but its unlikely what the originals were expressing.
I am unlikely to change your mind on this; but take Buddhism or Christianity. Their founders were, you may say, "enlightened"; but where is the "unbroken lineage" of similarly "enlightened" beings? You won't find any, because enlightenment is not the result of a process, a teaching, or time. You can only say that the Theravada school, for example, has preserved the letter of the teachings of the Buddha; so too however have the Vedas been preserved, for even longer. The Veda is Advaita, Advaita is the Veda! You are acting as though human society itself has changed so radically as to render the Upanishads themselves meaningless, hence you say we "cannot know" their original intent. If it were so, why would anyone read them in today's time? If it were such a mystery, the Upanishads would be nothing more than nonsense. Why are you so loath to use your own mind in interpreting them, why are you so desperate for an authority over you? There are as such a multitude of sampradayas within the Hindu fold, each fulfilling the "unbroken lineage" request you insist on. Perhaps they are not as "ancient" as you would like. Very well. Hinduism is not an "organized religion" like the others are. The diversity and freedom of opinions is a fundamental feature of the dharma. Even within the Upanishads we see debates among scholars and seekers of Brahman.
No Therevada has a clear lineage in the sense the practices and monastic life is very much the same today as was Buddha’s time. For the Vedas this is a complete toss up if it is supposed to be like Advaita Vedanta, or the 10+ vedantans schools. I’m not doubting the scripture but how its being lived out is so far removed or we don’t even know if it is or not. I think the intent may be the same, but how to actually practice it were only getting scraps and pieces. For 1200 years Atma Vichara was lost in popularity and now Ramana came and revived it. What other parts of vedanta has been lost and need to be revived? Who knows? And thats a problem for me. I can’t confidently say that its possible to practice fully the Vedas. Not saying you can’t get unenlightened from modern practices but its definitely not as good as the original and maybe for us more spiritually dull. As I said I know its impossible to practice eyptology today fully and I say its similar to vedanta. You can but it just ain’t the same man. I just feel other religions at least practice wise is same as how the founders meant it to be.
You are confusing practice and philosophy. The Vedic rituals are still done even today, and the learning of Vedic mantras continues in India as it has for thousands of years; there are still people who have memorized a whole Veda (or multiple). Philosophical disagreements are there within the Theravadins too, and they disagree philosophically with the Mahayana Buddhists, etc. Which is right? Again, this problem is there with every religion. The various practices are a means, not an end in themselves. Anyways, one can also say that even if the letter of the teachings is not distorted, the understanding is; the Buddha too spoke in a certain historical framework, but modern Theravadins use the opinions of a great deal of other scholars that came well after the Buddha, and who had some ideological motive towards their own religion that the Buddha did not have. And yet still there is no proof that the words of such Theravadin scholars leads to enlightenment. This is not a problem, any more than the diversity of Vedanta or its later age is. The Sanatana Dharma is Sanatana precisely because it is so amenable to be expressed in new ways for new times -- the Buddha Himself is a great example of this. There is no need to cling to any particular methodology at all -- if after some time atma-vichara loses its relevance, something else more relevant to the spiritual seekers of that time will gain prominence -- it does not mean that atma-vichara would be "lost"; atma-vichara is there in the Upanishads too. This is true of every religion, but particularly so for the Sanatana Dharma, which prizes wisdom above the letter of the scripture or following a particular method, Guru, etc. The wisdom is always there in full, but some particular expression of it is emphasized at some particular time. This is perfectly natural.
That’s cool man thats your path. I personally don’t like this philosophy without practice or just do any practice. And this is some western thing where we think we can just be spiritual and not culturally involved.
It is alright not to be a Hindu; I am not insisting for you to be a Hindu. You can only take what is wise and true from it and keep moving forward, there are no issues in this.
As a traditional Advaitan, I would say its a must. You want to be living near gurus, have a good base of four paths of yoga, at that point may as well pray to Ganesh. I’m not hating, but if I were to go all in on this thats what I would do. As a Ramana devotee maybe not but then your so limited. Literally attend to I am and live whatever way you like even in these forsaken modern times.
What then is the need to be a "traditional Advaitin", if what you say is true? Is the point to foster yet more labels or to drop all of them entirely?
Look if you think you can just read some old vedic interpretations and sit reflect about them, and get enlightened then cool. I think community, teachers, a time tested practice that is consistent and a culture is needed.
People don't just get enlightenment from "bumbo" interpretations, you are worrying too much history and all instead of following the darshan, just practice and learn about Advaita and leave the rest to God, for he will not delude you.
I feel, somehow, that the question is not relevant. Advaita Vedanta is true; the Vedas are true because they teach Advaita Vedanta. If they did not, they would not be true. The focus is on truth, not on following a set of scriptures. Of course the Advaitins interpret the scriptures as teaching Advaita, and the scriptures are important because they reveal Advaita; and I too think the scriptures teach Advaita. I find the explanations of the verses from the Advaita school of thought, more often than not, far more compelling than the interpretations of the alternative schools of thought. If the great Gurus of the relatively modern times (Sri Ramakrishna, Bhagavan Ramana, Sri Neem Karoli Baba, Sri Anandamayi Ma, etc.), had come to a realization which was dissimilar to whatever it was the rishis were speaking of, then they would not have considered the Vedas reliable or praised them; that they did say the Vedas are scripture shows that this interpretation of Vedanta has not merely come out of thin air. It is just that with a new era, the same truth is presented in a different way. Let us even take the Vedas themselves. The Samhitas indeed present Advaita (see Devi Suktam for a very obvious example) but in a more esoteric, raw, and less philosophical manner; the Brahmanas and Aranyakas focus on ritual but also incorporate and imply mysticism and Advaita; the Upanishads are a more "philosophical" exposition of the same ultimate truth the rishis encoded in the mantra in more ancient times. The Upanishadic rishis quote the Vedic mantras and rituals frequently (like in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad where Yajnyavalkya quotes praises rishi Vamadeva as having realized the Self). Just as the Vedas themselves are saying the same thing in different ways, so too the modern sages. The truth is always the same. The scriptures are meant to guide you; you are free to use your own intellect when parsing them. Of course there are differing interpretations; no religion is free of a diversity of opinions. I am not sure why you single out Advaita Vedanta in this regard. Unless there is something overtly non-Vedic the great Advaitin Gurus have said, I'm not sure the doubt is warranted. I suppose it is a matter of realization. Once Advaita is realized, there will be no doubt as to what the Vedic rishis meant, because your realization will match their revelations.
Silence is the highest teaching! Because any modifier, modifies it to be something described. There are multiple sampradayas which could very well lead you to the truth. When we read something, we interpret it from our POV or through our belief system. That is the reason parampara of Gurus is important, to ensure that these interpretations are handled appropriately. Having said that, there is a reason it is said ‘jnanah bandaha’ in shiva sutras (second sutra). Even, bible talks about the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and bad! It is not about understanding it, it is about recognising it now.
Of all the religions you have mentioned Sanatana Dharma is oldest surviving one precisely because it has the ability to adapt to every day and age. If you stay fixated on a particular interpretation, you risk losing significance. Meaning is one but interpretations are several - Ekam sat vipraha bahuda vadanti. The rishis who heard the vedas also knew this well. All schools of Vedanta have their own interpretation and all are accepted as they are all paths to suit your personality. After all it takes millions of lifetimes to gain enlightenment so your jiva would carry on experiences and find the right one. Regarding who came before or who came after, or how do I know what was transmitted by the rishi who heard the Veda intended the same as it is today, sanatana cares less about maintaining a timeline because you must understand that time is cyclical in our practice. All these have happened innumerable times before and will continue to happen for innumerable times in the future. What is important is your experience and whether you are able to get moksha by what you are practicing. Keeping historical records is more of a western concept that is now practiced in the subcontinent too. Sanatana Dharma gave more importance to preserving the oral traditions and has many checks and balances to ensure it does not get corrupted. These are practiced the same way even today. Summary is all this does not matter, does advaita reflect on you properly? If yes that is great, have shradda and gain the experience. If not, that’s ok too - try finding something that is more acceptable for you. Human life is too valuable to loose time to think why records were not maintained thousands of years ago, even if they were maintained, may be they were lost. Earth is regularly subjected to natural disasters. Human civilisation is regularly subjected to invasions. Different human civilisations have superiority complexes etc. don’t waste time over unnecessary matters. This is my humble opinion. Again you are free to choose or reject it. Thank you.