|
|
 |
ADVAITA VEDANTA: A SURVEY OF THE ROOTS AND
THE FRUIT
OF A MOVEMENT Bill
Honsberger This paper will look at the
origins and development of the particular Hindu school of thought known
as
Advaita Vedanta. I will first look at the medieval roots of
Vedanta as
founded by Sankara and later critiqued by Ramanuja. I will then
show how
Vedanta was transformed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by
interaction with colonial and nationalist ideas and by interaction with
the
world at large. “I believe in Advaita; I
believe in the
essential unity of man and for that matter, for all that lives.
Therefore, I believe that if one man gains spiritually, the whole world
gains
with him and if one man fails, the whole world fall to that extent…”(1)
With
these words the Father of modern India, Mahatma Gandhi, revealed the
thoughts
that were a major influence on him in 1924. However, the ideas he
mentioned date back hundreds of years to the thoughts of an influential
thinker
named Sankara, and they also reflect the ideas of more modern Indian
scholars
who were shaping and adapting ancient ideas to a contemporary
present.
The terms Advaita, which means non-dualistic, and Vedanta, which
literally
means the end of the Vedas, together refer to a series of thinkers and
ideas
that go back to the eighth century C.E. The most notable scholar
who is usually
seen as the originator and systemizer of Advaita is Sankara (788 – 820
C.E.). The
Vedanta accepts the scriptural authority of the four Vedas, the Upanishads,
and the two great epics, the Mahabharata, and the Ramayana,
and
the Brahmasutras. It gives little acknowledgement to the
Puranas
and Tantras. In fact, one could argue that in the great ebb and
sway of
Hindu thought in general, that the Advaita “revolution” was the
backlash
against a major emphasis on idols and “bhakti” devotion to numerous
gods and
goddesses. Amidst the huge sea of millions of deities, Vedanta
attempts
to synthesize the earlier texts of Hindu scriptures into an overarching
system,
which, while not totally dismissing bhakti, relegates it to a secondary
place
in favor of a higher and ultimate unity “behind” or “underneath” all
the
respective deities. Advaita was built upon the earlier Mimamsa
tradition
of exegesis. This tradition, dating back to the second century
C.E.,
stressed the Vedic tradition of dharma, the ritual understanding of how
people
are to act in the universe. As Clooney notes, “Ultimately, the
only thing
that matters is the event of sacrifice: dharma, the object of Mimamsa
inquiry,
is the sum of all right relations, the activated, fully understood and
rightly
connected set of all the small and large activities and things which
together
constitute the sacrificial whole.” (3) Even though Advaita is modeled
on the
same paradigm, it does break in some significant ways and claims to
have
superseded its predecessor. It is often called the Uttara (later)
Mimamsa.
Born into a family of Shiva worshipers, Sankara has been
transformed over
time into an avatar, a literal incarnation of Shiva himself. Seen
as a
child prodigy, his hagiographers state that he had mastered the four
Vedas by
the age of eight, the age when boys normally begin to study the
Vedas! Even as a young man he showed his desire to become a
renouncer, a
“sannyasin”, and seek “moksha” or liberation from the wheel of birth,
death,
and rebirth, or “samsara”. At sixteen he left his family home and
became
a sannyasin. For the next sixteen years he would travel to many
parts of His teachings on
Advaita center on
several important ideas. The most important is “The Brahman is
real; the
world is unreal. The “jiva” (individual soul or spirit) is verily
Brahman and
no other.” This needs to be unpacked quite a bit. The Vedas
teach
about many gods, but to Sankara, the key is Brahman. Using many
Vedic and
Upanisadic texts, Sankara argues that all the deities mentioned in the
scriptures are merely hints of the one real god. When Sankara
argues in
this way, his point is not that the other gods are not gods, but
rather, they
really represent the one true reality of the universe – Brahman.
In the
same way, all that appears in the world to the senses is
“unreal”. In
this sense, Sankara thought that the world is “Maya”, the dream or
illusion. Maya also means “that which measures”, and is used in
the sense
that Maya measures the unmeasurable, diversifies the undiversified, and
changes
the immutable. The world is illusion because of “avidya” or
ignorance of the true nature of things. The jiva is the
individual soul
or “atman”. Each bit of the world is atman. So in essence
Brahman
really is all that there is, but the individual is blinded by his/her
own
ignorance into thinking that he/she, as an individual, is separate from
the
universal one. Maya blinds from the true or higher nature, and
through
knowledge of the truth “tat tvam asi” (that art thou) the atman
recognizes what
is real and Maya has no more power over the enlightened mind. There are several other
important ideas for
Sankara. The first is Nirguna Brahman. By this he meant
that
Brahman is pure being, consciousness and bliss (Sat-cit-ananda), and
without
attributes. This Satcitananda is not three qualities or
attributes of
Brahman; rather it is “its essential nature. Looked at
ontologically, we
realize the Being or “Sat’ aspect of Brahman. From the
epistemological
viewpoint, Brahman is revealed as “chit” or consciousness. And
from the
point of view of the highest value Brahman is “ananda” or bliss
itself.” (4)
The idea of nirguna Brahman is in direct contrast with Saguna Brahman
or God
with attributes. In bhakti devotion it is common to speak of the
grace,
mercy, love, or anger of the deity. Many of the deities were
known for
their “specialties” in that they fulfilled certain roles for their
devotees. For example, Ganesha the elephant-headed deity was (and
is)
prayed to for help in starting new endeavors, as Ganesha will clear the
path of
all obstacles. Brahman for Sankara was beyond all these worldly
things. The attributes of Ganesha were of Maya; they were not the
ultimate reality. Brahman is also beyond form (nirakar).
Brahman
could not be perceived in the world of forms. This was quite
radical in a
time of overwhelming idol devotion. Brahman also involves
transcendentality. Brahman is the all-pervading Self immanent in
the
phenomenal world. In this sense Nirguna Brahman is manifested as
Saguna
Brahman in relation to the created universe. So Sankara could
argue that
Nirguna Brahman was “present” in all of creation but not in the sense
of
reality, but “behind” or underneath the false perception of reality –
Maya. The goal of life is to
realize or recognize
the unity of Brahman and the identification of the individual self with
the
ultimate self. This one thing should dominate one’s life.
There are
different methods of recognition of the true reality, but the ultimate
path for
Sankara is that of self-knowledge (jnana) through textual study and
meditative experience.
Moksha or liberation comes in the ultimate sense when the atman/jiva
recognizes
its true self. Man must realize this liberation intuitively because
Brahman is
without physical senses. This also cannot be done by reason,
whose only
role is to show the impermanence of Maya. This liberation is not
attained by
works or devotion but rather through wisdom and realization. Once
liberated, the atman is released from Maya and is absorbed into Brahman
consciousness. The individual is under bondage and liberation
does not
literally cause him/her to be absorbed, because that would mean that
there is
change in Brahman. The famous illustration is that of the
“snake-rope”. One thinks one sees a snake but the illusion
vanishes when
one realizes the true nature of the rope. But there still are
physical
consequences in Maya, such as shortness of breath from fear and so
on. Others
think that Sankara
saw the soul or atman also as an impermanent entity. As in
Theravada
Buddhism, Menon sees that “The Jiva is the Self immanent in the
material mind,
but it is not itself the Self…the Self has no individuality or
manifoldness or
limitations and admits of no divisions.” (5) So absorption (atman
returning to Brahman as the drop into the ocean) is really a metaphor
for a
change of thinking.
What about all the changes in the world? How is it that the world
has a
beginning and ages and seems to be changing if in fact Brahman does not
change? Shankara replied to these questions:
To the ordinary ignorant people, - who under the influence of avidya
resolve the underlying unity into the multiplicity of the changes and
thus identifies the two, - the multiplicity of the changes is the only
Reality…But those who have realized the truth that the underlying
is untouched by the evolving multiplicity of changes – do not
regard these changes as something separate and apart from
Brahman, do not look upon them as so many independent and
self-sufficient things complete in themselves… (6)
Sankara thus has set up in essence a two-tiered universe. The
lower tier
consists of Maya brought about by avidya. For this reason, the
physical
universe appears the way it does. People trapped in this tier by
their
ignorance think that they exist as separate atmans. But
ultimately
enlightened souls are liberated from their ignorance and “sees” that
this world
can be transcended and not ultimate, and finally recognized that they
are not
separate but rather identical to Brahman. In this moment their
consciousness changes and they now still may live on in the second
tier, but
remain unaffected by all that happens in it. Good, evil, life,
death, and
all the rest have lost their hold on them. The upper tier is pure
being,
consciousness and bliss. This is the true and ultimate reality of
Brahman. One famous Advaita illustration is the ocean and
raindrops.
The hydration cycle pulls the water from the ocean and the clouds move
the
water over land. Then the water is released as rain drops to fall
to the
ground. But somewhere in the process the individual drops forgets
that
they were part of the ocean. They were mistakenly thinking that
they were
individual drops. So the raindrops fall and then sweep into
streams and
rivers and finally return to the ocean. It is their return to the
ocean,
which is moksha and Samadhi (absorption into Brahman) all at
once. They
don’t change and become the ocean. They merely lose their
illusory
bondage and return to their pristine state.
So how does one live in this two-tiered reality? It is
interesting to
note here that Sankara often worshipped publicly in temple and gave
prayers and
devotions to different deities. Many have speculated on the lack
of
consistency at this point. In some of his writings Sankara also
criticizes
bhakti devotion as basically the point of view of a child or foolish
person.
But then he would also say that idol worship was better than no worship
at all
as it still moved one towards the ultimate realization of
Advaita. This
type of inconsistency haunted much of Sankara’s writings and, as we
will see
later, it is also typical of many modern Advaitans. Ravi
Zacharias, in
commenting on the story of “Arjuna’s dilemma” from the epic Bhagavad-Gita,
recounts an old story about Sankara’s duplicity on this point.
Sankara
had just finished lecturing the King on the deception of the mind and
its
delusion of material reality. He goes on “The next day, the King
let
loose an elephant that went on a rampage, and Shankara ran up a tree to
find
safety. When the King asked him why he ran if the elephant was
nonreal,
Sankara, not to be outdone, said, ‘What the King actually saw was a
nonreal me
climbing up a nonreal tree!” (7) One might add here that
modern
Advaitists look both ways before they cross the street as well.
In rejection of these teachings but staying within the same
scriptural
traditions as Sankara, comes Ramanuja (1017-1137). He was a
devotee and
leader of a Vaisnava community. He is considered the
leading
thinker of Visistadvaita Vedanta. This means qualified
non-dualism.
Like Sankara, Ramanuja is concerned with scriptural adherence and
claims that
Sankara has misread many of the important Vedic passages.
Sankara’s
hermeneutic involved seeing a two-tiered system of understanding the
text. The higher meaning always refers in some way to monistic
Brahman. The lower meaning refers to Brahman as incarnate
deities.
Ramanuja rejects this distinction and call for an even reading of all
texts. His own commentary on the Brahmasutras rebuts Sankara on
several
points. As one writer puts it:
Ramanuja’s theory of language is a decisive element in his
philosophy. He
repeatedly expresses opinions to the effect that language mirrors
reality. He
writes, for example, “the plurality of words is based on plurality of
meanings;
the sentence, therefore, which is an aggregate of words expressing some
special combination of things, and hence has no power to denote a thing
devoid of all difference.” To say the same thing in the recently
developed
paradigm-case argument jargon “here is a jar” is meaningful if there is
a jar.
But ‘here is a jar’ is meaningful. Therefore here is a jar.
This
stance with
regard to language leads Ramanuja to reject as meaningless all sentences
that do violence to the elementary laws of logic. Hence his
arguments
“tend to refute the view that there is a difference and absence of
difference
at the same time.” (8) Sounding very close to
modern discussions
about language as put forward by the modernist/postmodernist argument,
Ramanuja
argues in a way similar to the way modern Realist thinkers do about
reality in
general, that the Vedas have meaning in that they actually are
discussing
something that exists, as opposed to Sankara’s assertion that there is
difference and no difference at the same time. Ramanuja seems to
think
that Sankara violates the law of non-contradiction when it suits him
and
therefore does violence to the meaning of the texts.
The system is qualified non-dualism because in some important ways
Ramanuja
still agrees with Sankara, even while he criticizes him. Ramanuja
would
agree that Brahman is the ultimate reality and that Maya hides that
ultimate
reality. He would agree that moksha from Samsara is the central
goal of
life. But his critique of Sankara centers on the fact that, for
all
intents and purposes idol worship, bhakti devotion, has been relegated
to a
secondary status or even worse; to the thinking of children and
fools.
Ramanuja’s understanding of Brahman is that Brahman is Atman, and that
means
that each bit of Atman really is Brahman. Therefore Brahman
permeates the
universe with presence. Brahman exists within or as the
universe.
As such Brahman has qualities. He is Saguna Brahman.
Ramanuja
claimed this was not pantheism because he still wants a distinction
between
creator and creation. His own Vaisnava beliefs saw moksha as
being with
Vishnu is heaven, saturated by the grace of Vishnu but not identical
with
Vishnu. So Brahman pervades the universe but is in some way not
the
universe.
His view of Maya is also distinct from Sankara’s. This “soft”
version of
Maya sees avidya as the real problem and liberation coming through
realization,
but liberation can also come through bhakti. Since the idol
really does
“contain” deity in some meaningful way, then devotion is just as
appropriate as
self-realization. Maya still hides the reality of divinity, but
itself
has some existence. Ultimately, Ramanuja still wants to agree
with
Sankara that Brahman is undivided, but this unity in some sense is
eschatological. During the present age, Brahman permeates the
universe
and so Ramanuja “saves” idol worship from the ravages of the
iconoclastic
Sankara.
Now I want to turn from the medieval roots of Vedanta and go to more
recent
representatives. Some important historical information must be
mentioned
here. In the late 1700’s,
One notable influence on these “reformers” of Hinduism is that many of
them had
deep and meaningful contacts with western ideas and religion through
British
schools and government agencies. Many of them went to the schools
and were
confronted with Christianity, western philosophy, and new
technologies.
According to Andrew Fort, “the connection of neo-Vedantins to the Hindu
tradition came after a Western, Christian-influenced and
English-language-based
intellectual formation”. (9) In some ways these influences help shape
the type
of Hinduism that is produced by them. What some refer to as
“syndicated
Hinduism” models this approach. A synthesis of what seems to be basic
across
the board to all the diverse groups that comprise Hinduism.
The first prominent reformer is Rammohan Roy (1774-1833). He was
the
founder of the Brahmo Samaj. He was trained in many languages and
had
sympathies with both Christian and Islamic thought. His attitude
towards
the Vedas is interesting and problematic. His commentators are
very
divided about his attitude as to whether the Vedas are divinely
inspired or
not. Regardless of this contention, they agree that for
Ramakrishna (1836-86) was a Hindu mystic who, unlike most of the other
reformers, did not have Western training. He grew up in a
Vaisnava family
and became a priest at a temple for Kali. Known for his fanatical
devotion to Kali, he claimed to have an experience of Kali, which gave
him a
vision for the underlying truth of all religions. He became a
bhakti
devotee to Allah, Jesus, the Buddha and a host of other religious
figures. He did not travel far, and had limited reading and
writing skills,
but was very influential, primarily because he becomes the mentor of
Vivekananda. His version of Vedanta emphasized experience over
Vedic
texts, a big break from both Sankara and Ramanuja. According to
Swami
Satprakashananda, Ramakrishna simplified Vedanta into the following
teachings: 1) To realize God is
the goal of human
life.
2) The methods of
God-realization differ according to the seekers’ capacities and
conditions of
life.
3)
By following a progressive course of discipline an
individual can
proceed towards God from any sphere or level of life.
4)
Every religion is a pathway to God-realization.
5)
There should be harmony among the followers of
different religions.
6)
God dwells within man as the inmost self.
7)
Man is to be served in the spirit of worshipping
God. (11)
One can immediately see some affinity with Sankara and also some with
Ramanuja. With Sankara, Ramakrishnan affirms God-realization, but
contrary to Sankara he affirms a more egalitarian approach to
enlightenment. With Ramanuja he affirms the validity of many
different
paths, all of which shared their own reality as well as a central
reality among
them all. But as a modern Vedantist, he shows his desire to help
the
masses.
The next modern Vedantist we will look at is Aurobindo Ghose
(1872-1950).
His personal life is an interesting study in itself in that he started
as a
political activist and was involved in armed rebellion. But then
in the midst
of his life he switched profoundly, renounced violence and political
agitation,
and became a guru. As Aurobindo started having mystical
experiences and
expanded his practice of yoga, he learned from his visions that
This “ontological” structure included the following:
1)
Sachchidananda – the Absolute; existence,
consciousness, bliss.
2)
Supermind – Dynamic aspect of the Absolute.
3)
Overmind – Mediating plane between Individual Mind
and Supermind.
4)
Intuitive Mind
5)
Illumined Mind
6)
Higher Mind
7)
Mind – Capable of intellectual knowledge, moving
towards intuitional
knowledge, through the higher levels approaching Supermind.
8)
Soul or Psyche – Inner self, True Self, Essential
Self.
9)
Life – Vital level, Organic level.
10) Matter
or Body – The Inconscient. (12) Yoga for Aurobindo had
a slightly
different twist as well. Usually seen as a means of moksha, for
him it
was a method of transformation. Following Ramanuja here, he saw
the body
not as something to be rejected or escaped from, but rather as a
partial
manifestation of the divine. Like the other reformers, he affirms
the Advaita
traditions and scriptural standards but also adds some Tantric and
Vaisnava
texts as well. He also affirmed a universal religion: “A
religion
of humanity means the growing realization that there is a secret
Spirit, a
divine Reality, in which we are all one, that humanity is its highest
present
vehicle on earth, that the human race and the human being are the means
by
which it will progressively reveal itself here.” (13)
Another more conservative
voice among the reformers is Ramana Maharshi (1879-1950). Ramana
taught a
very conservative brand of Advaita, along the lines of
Sankara.
Considered a Bhagavan (blessed one or liberated being) by many of his
followers, he also stressed some non-Sankaran ideas. Like many of
the
modern reformers, he stressed the value of personal experience over
yoga or
bhakti or over textual knowledge. He also assumed a
universalistic
position in regards to the world’s religions. What makes this
position
rather controversial is that Ramana tried to argue that this sort of
open-mindedness
was also the position of Sankara himself. His back-to-the-Vedas
approach
to his faith caused him to differ from other reformers in that he
rejected
social concern as a major issue for the enlightened one. His
favorite
question was to ask “Who am I?” and using that as a starting point for
a
discussion on the need for the individual to spend his/her life in
self-discovery. His position on social concern can be seen when
he would
say things like “Because you wrongly identify yourself with the body,
you see
the world outside you and its suffering becomes apparent to you; but
the world
and its sufferings are not real. Seek the reality and get rid of
this
unreal feeling.” (14) He would also question the motives of some of his
contemporaries who seemed so motivated by social issues.
Probably the best known
modern Hindu reformer and perhaps first Hindu missionary to the west
was Swami
Vivekananda (1863-1902). Known for his quick wit, charm, and
ability to
captivate a crowd, Vivekananda become a world known figure when he
appeared
before the 1893 Parliament of World Religions. Having been a
participant
in the 1993 Parliament, I can note that he was in many ways the star of
that
parliament as well. He grew up in
Another example of his
mercurial thought process was his understanding of Advaita. At
some
points in his life he was a classic non-dualist, sounding very similar
to
Sankara in his denunciation of idols. In a letter to an American
disciple
he said: “He
who is eternal, without limits, omnipresent and
all-knowing is not an individual person, but only a
consciousness. You,
I, and everyone else are but manifestations of that
consciousness.
Finally everyone must become his image in full…and then in reality
everything
will become one. Religion is nothing but this. The obsolete
and
lifeless rituals and notions regarding godhood are but ancient
superstitions”.
(16) But he also told
a monastic order
that they need to worship only Ramakrishna. (17) He told another
friend
“…I wish I could be an Advaitist, calm and heartless…” (18) His trip to
America
changed the world; his trip was an abject failure, and so on.
One persistent and consistent
theme of Vivekananda was his interest in raising the status of the
people in
India. His trip to the west had inspired him and he was always
commenting
how the people in the west could benefit those in the east with their
technological expertise, while the people in the east could help those
in the
west with their spiritual expertise. One example of his
egalitarian
message was in his break with classic Advaita thought on the
accessibility of
Self-Knowledge. One of his admirers notes that “he proclaimed
this
message of the divine nature of man to one and all, to the seekers of
temporal
values as well as to the seekers of Self-knowledge”. (19) This in
Vivekananda’s mind would lead to societal liberation. His motto
for his
Ramakrishna Order was “Atmano moksartham jagaddhitaya ca.” (while
striving for
his own liberation the seeker should work for the good of the world as
well). While his statements about Advaita seemed to go back and
forth,
his passion to bring about change in India never seemed to waver.
In so many ways, modern
Indians and therefore modern Advaita Vedantins, have been influenced by
western
thinking. All of them and many others whom we did not look at,
had
scriptural warrant, particularly from the Vedas, for what they
espoused.
Many of them affirmed what their contemporaries denounced. For
example,
many would affirm a “kindler, gentler” version of the caste system,
while
others would denounce it for the social horror that it is. But
the
dilemma is clearly illustrated here. How can one be Hindu and
Indian and
deny what has been a major part of the culture for so long? For
many, the
answer is that it is impossible. For Ramana, Maya is the key and
one
should not be attached to the current state of affairs, while for
Vivekananda
the Vedas can be shaped into such a way that social concern was always
a part
of Advaita! The contradictions continue to this day. As
Fort points
out, “Ideas seen as laudable to the West, such as this-worldly
technological
progress, valuing ecological harmony with nature, or caring for and
actively
providing humanitarian social service to all persons without
distinction, are
claimed to be present but go without support (or even reference) in the
classical texts”. (20) When Paul Hacker surveyed ethical teachings in
Sanskrit
literature he found no evidence at all that the phrase “tat tvam asi”
was ever
used to justify practical ethical concerns, which was Vivekananda’s
claim for
years. (21) Nevertheless, one thing that can be said about
Advaita
Vedanta as well as the whole of Hinduism, is that it has an amazing
ability to
adapt and change to the wishes of its practitioners. Called “the
embrace
that smothers” Hinduism has absorbed many “foreign” ideas before and
made them
her own and it is clear that the reformers of the past two centuries
have done
just that, and no doubt will continue to do so in the future. ENDNOTES
1)
Rukmani, T.S. Shankaracharya.
P.1
2)
Satprakashananda, Swami. Swami
Vivekananda’s Contribution
to the present age. P.112
3)
Clooney, Francis X. Theology after Vedanta.
P.24
4)
Rukmani. P.60
5)
Menon, Y. Keshava. The Pure Principle.
P.26
6)
Vidyaratna, Kokileswar Sastri. Adwaita
Philosophy. P.173
7)
Zacharias, Ravi. Jesus among other Gods.
P.119
8)
Pappu, Rama Rao. Perspectives on Vedanta.
P.57
9)
Fort, Andrew. Jinvanmukti in Transformation.
P.130 This
book showed some very interesting material on the issue described in my
paper. An excellent read.
10) Rambachan,
Anantanand. The Limits of Scripture. P.17
11) Satprakashananda.
P.76
12) O’Connor,
June. The Quest for Political and Spiritual Liberation.
P.32
13) Ibid.
P.119
14) Fort.
P.143
15) Sil,
Narasingha P. Swami Vivekananda. P.104
16) Radice,
William. Swami Vivekananda and the Modernization of Hinduism.
P.2
I found this text very helpful on understanding some of the tensions in
colonial India and how the reformers struggled with the bifurcation of
their
world.
17) Ibid.
P.3
18) Sen,
Amiya P. Swami Vivekananda. P.97
19) Satprakashananda.
P.96
20) Fort.
P.172
21) Ibid.
P.177 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beversluis,
Joel. A Sourcebook for the Community of
Religions. Grand Rapids, MI: The Sourcebook Project,
1993. Clooney,
Francis X. Theology After Vedanta: An
Experiment in Comparative Theology. New York, New York: State
University of New York. 1993. Flood,
Gavin. An Introduction to Hinduism.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Fort, Andrew
O. Jinvanmukti in Transformation:
Embodied Liberation in Advaita and Neo-Vedanta. New York, New
York:
State University of New York, 1998. Gupta,
Bina. Perceiving in Advaita Vedanta:
Epistemological Analysis and Interpretation. Cranbury, New
Jersey:
Associated University Presses, 1991. Menon, Y.
Keshava. Allen, Richard F. The Pure
Principle: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Shankara..
Lansing,
Michigan: Michigan State University Press. 1960. O’Connor,
June. The Quest for Political and
Spiritual Liberation: A Study in the Thought of Sri Aurobindo Ghose.
Cranbury, New Jersey: Associated University Presses, 1977. Pappu, Rama
Rao. Ed. Perspectives on Vedanta:
Essays in Honor of Professor P.T. Raju.. Leiden, The Netherlands:
E. J.
Brill, 1988. Radice.
William. Ed. Swami Vivekananda and the
Modernization of Hinduism. , Delhi, India: Oxford
University
Press, 1998. Rambachan,
Anantanand. The Limits of Scriptures:
Vivekananda’s Reinterpretation of the Vedas. Honolulu,
Hawaii:
University of Hawaii Press, 1994. Rukmani,
T.S. Shankaracharya. New Delhi,
India: Publications Division, Ministry of Information, Government of
India,
1994. Satprakashananda,
Swami. Swami Vivekananda’s
Contribution to the Present Age. St. Louis, Missouri: The
Vedanta
Society of St. Louis, 1978. Satprem.
Sri Aurobindo: or The Adventure of
Consciousness. New York, New York: Harper & Row
Publishers, 1968. Sen, Amiya P.
Swami Vivekananda. London,
England: Oxford University Press, 2000. Sharma,
Arvind. The Philosophy of Religion and
Advaita Vedanta: A Comparative Study in Religion and Reason.
University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University
Press,
1995. Sil,
Narasingha P. Swami Vivekananda: A
Reassessment. Cranbury, New Jersey: Susquehanna University
Press.
1997. Smith,
Huston. The World’s Religions: Our Great
Wisdom Traditions. San Francisco, California: HarperCollins
Publishers, 1991. Vidyaratna,
Kokileswar Sastri. An Introduction to
Adwaita Philosophy: A Critical and Systematic Exposition of Sankara
School of
Vedanta. Varanasi, India: Bharatiya Publishing House, 1979. Yogananda,
Paramahansa. Autobiography of a Yogi.
Los Angeles, California: Self-Realization Fellowship Publishers, 1959. Zacharias,
Ravi. Jesus Among Other Gods: The
Absolute Claims of the Christian Message. |
|
|
|
|
|
|