Who founded Advaita?

[renuka]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Taken from Quora.

I feel this person has understood Advaita concept really well...worth a read.


Stefan Pecho, As science approaches the nonduality, so Advaita Vedanta approached the science.
Updated Sep 22, 2018 · Author has 2.4k answers and 3.4m answer views


Let me answer in an unorthodox way.
When one views Advaita as a philosophy (school, system, etc.), one naturally has the tendency to fix the founder and historicity of the philosophy.
However, let us view at Advaita not philosophically but technically / semantically / substantially. A-Dvaita means clearly Not-Two (No-Two). Even in my mother (Slovak) language it means clearly No-Two because in Slovak Dva=Two.

Technically, Advaita describes the experiential (not philosophical) spiritual knowledge. As an expression of a natural human spiritual experience, Advaita is an eternal human reality not depending on any religion, philosophy, school, or whatever formal concepts.

Understand me please properly. Surely, I am aware that the Advaita is a constituent of the Indian spiritual tradition mentioned already in Upanishads and later in other scriptures and connected historically with Adi Shaknkaracharya.

Anyhow, in understanding the Advaita technically as a universal human experiential spiritual reality, it is clear that Non-duality was a constituent of human experience in all cultures, all ethnics, all religions, and all spiritual systems, regardless of the fact if this human spiritual experience was formalized, labeled by name, or framed in a teaching or philosophy…

By other words, one can have the non-dual spiritual experience without knowing anything at all about Advaita, Zen, Sufism, or Dzogchen…

Thus, Advaita is eternal within the existence of humankind. It means it is much “older” than any formal naming of it by/in any culture or spiritual tradition.

In ancient times, when the human spirituality was practical and not philosophical and religious, the spiritually matured people (standing on a non-dual spiritual experience) did not show themselves publicly as special individuals or groups of people. They lived the life, as it is = not as a special, ideal, or highest “level of life”. We can understand this reality thanks to Dzogchen. In old Tibet (actually even yet in 18th century), people even did not know that among them there were spiritually highly matured individuals. Dzogchen as a system / school / philosophy is relatively new “discipline”.

India played an important role in giving to the world several great treatises dealing with Advaita teaching. No other culture enriched in such a way the human spirituality in its realms of non-duality.
However, it must be also openly said, that India also philosophized Advaita too much. Advaita became the intellectual discipline like to be manageable only by smart and sophisticated intellectual thinking and understanding.

Advaita is not an intellectual discipline. Advaita is a result of deepening the human observation and experience reflecting the world as it is in reality. Therefore, the readers of treatises can be enriched by the messages contained in the Advaita books only through their personal spiritual experiences; not through the brightness of their intellect.
4.3k views · View 41 Upvoters · View Sharers

 

[Jaykay767]

Sorry Renukaji , have to strongly disagree.

First off, western cultures have zero contribution to the philosophy except for some childish literature from the 1500s like, I think, therefore I am, etc.. Hence it is intellectual dishonesty, ignorance to even compare our highly advanced spiritual philosophies with some generic observations of other ancient cultures.

Dualism was the norm, where the human soul is different from the supreme soul or being, and by sadana of different means, we can reach or merge with the supreme.

It was credit to shankarars genius, that he proved that it is Non dualism, that is the ultimate reality. And it is not just a experiential , but a intellectual pursuit as well.

Most Indian philosophers used meditation, mind power to experience / see beyond this world, but none were able to deduce that it is non dualism that is the ultimate reality till Shankara ...

 

[Jaykay767]

if the ancient Europeans were so smart, that they came to india as Aryans, and went to Egypt and built great pyramids and temples, why the heck they didn't build such massive structures in Europe ???

Big Nothing in europe eh, but so much so much contribution all over the world ... LOL.

Intellectual dishonesty and destruction of glorious ancient cultures like Mayan, Mexican, Australian tamil natives, canary island natives etc.., is the only contribution by these junk whites !!

 

[Vaagmi]

Taken from Quora.

I feel this person has understood Advaita concept really well...worth a read.

Stefan Pecho, As science approaches the nonduality, so Advaita Vedanta approached the science.
Updated Sep 22, 2018 · Author has 2.4k answers and 3.4m answer views


Let me answer in an unorthodox way.
When one views Advaita as a philosophy (school, system, etc.), one naturally has the tendency to fix the founder and historicity of the philosophy.
However, let us view at Advaita not philosophically but technically / semantically / substantially. A-Dvaita means clearly Not-Two (No-Two). Even in my mother (Slovak) language it means clearly No-Two because in Slovak Dva=Two.

Technically, Advaita describes the experiential (not philosophical) spiritual knowledge. As an expression of a natural human spiritual experience, Advaita is an eternal human reality not depending on any religion, philosophy, school, or whatever formal concepts.

Understand me please properly. Surely, I am aware that the Advaita is a constituent of the Indian spiritual tradition mentioned already in Upanishads and later in other scriptures and connected historically with Adi Shaknkaracharya.

Anyhow, in understanding the Advaita technically as a universal human experiential spiritual reality, it is clear that Non-duality was a constituent of human experience in all cultures, all ethnics, all religions, and all spiritual systems, regardless of the fact if this human spiritual experience was formalized, labeled by name, or framed in a teaching or philosophy…

By other words, one can have the non-dual spiritual experience without knowing anything at all about Advaita, Zen, Sufism, or Dzogchen…

Thus, Advaita is eternal within the existence of humankind. It means it is much “older” than any formal naming of it by/in any culture or spiritual tradition.

In ancient times, when the human spirituality was practical and not philosophical and religious, the spiritually matured people (standing on a non-dual spiritual experience) did not show themselves publicly as special individuals or groups of people. They lived the life, as it is = not as a special, ideal, or highest “level of life”. We can understand this reality thanks to Dzogchen. In old Tibet (actually even yet in 18th century), people even did not know that among them there were spiritually highly matured individuals. Dzogchen as a system / school / philosophy is relatively new “discipline”.

India played an important role in giving to the world several great treatises dealing with Advaita teaching. No other culture enriched in such a way the human spirituality in its realms of non-duality.
However, it must be also openly said, that India also philosophized Advaita too much. Advaita became the intellectual discipline like to be manageable only by smart and sophisticated intellectual thinking and understanding.

Advaita is not an intellectual discipline. Advaita is a result of deepening the human observation and experience reflecting the world as it is in reality. Therefore, the readers of treatises can be enriched by the messages contained in the Advaita books only through their personal spiritual experiences; not through the brightness of their intellect.
4.3k views · View 41 Upvoters · View Sharers

Renukaji,

I agree that advaita is a way of looking at and understanding the reality as it exists. But in the process advaita leaves a number of questions unanswered. One important one is when at an intellectual or experiential level you say it is all one consciousness, "who" is saying this and about "whom" is it said. And there goes your non-duality.

My understanding is that there is a supreme entity and we try to understand about it with what we are equiped with. There may be limitations to that equipment's ability but that is not to be factored into my understanding or my effort to understand as otherwise we will end up with an infinite regression. I would tend to agree that that entity can not be comprehended fully and determined within my known coordinates like time space etc., Even as I struggle to explain my thought process in this matter with the tool called language, I find how true it is that "yatho vaacho nivartante". So I delineate the contours of that entity with what I am familiar with. I give it the best human form that I know. I credit it with all the stellar qualities that one can think of. I give it an exalted position and a beautiful man made form (even though I must reiterate that that form or the material with which that form is made is not my "object". The indwelling entity I finally worship because it is when doing that worship that I wipe out the "first person singular" in me completely and try to just melt into that vast "non existence" which call God entity.

So it is dualism if you want to call it. But I will as many learned acharyas have named it qualified monism. Because just Monism does not explain the given reality to my complete satisfaction.

Read it twice please. Thank you.

 

[Krishna Kumaran]

Taken from Quora.

I feel this person has understood Advaita concept really well...worth a read.

Stefan Pecho, As science approaches the nonduality, so Advaita Vedanta approached the science.
Updated Sep 22, 2018 · Author has 2.4k answers and 3.4m answer views


Let me answer in an unorthodox way.
When one views Advaita as a philosophy (school, system, etc.), one naturally has the tendency to fix the founder and historicity of the philosophy.
However, let us view at Advaita not philosophically but technically / semantically / substantially. A-Dvaita means clearly Not-Two (No-Two). Even in my mother (Slovak) language it means clearly No-Two because in Slovak Dva=Two.

Technically, Advaita describes the experiential (not philosophical) spiritual knowledge. As an expression of a natural human spiritual experience, Advaita is an eternal human reality not depending on any religion, philosophy, school, or whatever formal concepts.

Understand me please properly. Surely, I am aware that the Advaita is a constituent of the Indian spiritual tradition mentioned already in Upanishads and later in other scriptures and connected historically with Adi Shaknkaracharya.

Anyhow, in understanding the Advaita technically as a universal human experiential spiritual reality, it is clear that Non-duality was a constituent of human experience in all cultures, all ethnics, all religions, and all spiritual systems, regardless of the fact if this human spiritual experience was formalized, labeled by name, or framed in a teaching or philosophy…

By other words, one can have the non-dual spiritual experience without knowing anything at all about Advaita, Zen, Sufism, or Dzogchen…

Thus, Advaita is eternal within the existence of humankind. It means it is much “older” than any formal naming of it by/in any culture or spiritual tradition.

In ancient times, when the human spirituality was practical and not philosophical and religious, the spiritually matured people (standing on a non-dual spiritual experience) did not show themselves publicly as special individuals or groups of people. They lived the life, as it is = not as a special, ideal, or highest “level of life”. We can understand this reality thanks to Dzogchen. In old Tibet (actually even yet in 18th century), people even did not know that among them there were spiritually highly matured individuals. Dzogchen as a system / school / philosophy is relatively new “discipline”.

India played an important role in giving to the world several great treatises dealing with Advaita teaching. No other culture enriched in such a way the human spirituality in its realms of non-duality.
However, it must be also openly said, that India also philosophized Advaita too much. Advaita became the intellectual discipline like to be manageable only by smart and sophisticated intellectual thinking and understanding.

Advaita is not an intellectual discipline. Advaita is a result of deepening the human observation and experience reflecting the world as it is in reality. Therefore, the readers of treatises can be enriched by the messages contained in the Advaita books only through their personal spiritual experiences; not through the brightness of their intellect.
4.3k views · View 41 Upvoters · View Sharers

I need Your Help.https://www.tamilbrahmins.com/threads/pilli-soonyam-eval-removal.9972/post-159262

 

[sravna]

The concept of non duality and maya is sheer genius. I think only 1 in a trillion can truly reach that realized understanding. Does it mean the other philosophies are not correct? Far from it. Ancient Indians always had a way of stratifying things in accordance with spiritual development. The anti construct of spirituality is force. People can travel all the way up till moksha by using that philosophy of force in more and more refined way. The western countries exemplify that.

So there are basically two distinct routes with shades of gray between them. The world is meant to be in such a way. Otherwise it wouldn't be so colorful.

 

[sravna]

A clarification. Does belief and adherence to advaita man one is superior in intelligence? Absolutely not. It is totally subjective and situation based. In some cases touch with an immediate reality is important and in some others belief in surreal reality may be more important.

From the point of view of God He created everything and everybody equal.

 

[sravna]

No one philosophy is special. We can learn something from each one of them. But I think because of seeming contradictions between them, we are bound to disavow ones that are not in sync with our understanding.

 

[prasad1]

Advaita and Vedanta
Advaita is primarily a term of Advaita Vedanta, the non-dualistic tradition of Vedanta. Though rooted in the Vedas, Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita, its most characteristic form occurs in the teachings of Shankaracharya (c. 500 AD), who put these Vedic teachings in a clear rational language that remains easily understandable to the present day. The basic language and logic of Shankara can be found behind most Advaitic teachings, even those who may not have studied Shankara directly. There are many specifically Advaitic texts from Shankara’s Upanishadic commentaries to more general works like Yoga Vasishta, Avadhuta Gita, Ashtavakra Samhita and Tripura Rahasya as part of an enormous literature, not only in Sanskrit but in all the dialects in India.

Similarly, there have been many great gurus in the tradition of Advaita Vedanta throughout the centuries. Most of the great gurus of modern India have been Advaitins including Vivekananda, Rama Tirtha, Shivananda, Chandrashekhar Saraswati of Kanchi, Ramana Maharshi and Anandamayi Ma. Most of the great gurus from India who brought Yoga to the West like Vivekananda, Yogananda, Satchitananda, Swami Rama and Mata Amritanandamayi, have also taught Advaita Vedanta, if we look deeply at their teachings.

However, a recent trend has been to remove Advaita from Vedanta, as if it were a different or independent path, and not bring in the greater tradition of Vedanta. Though neo-Advaita usually bases itself on modern Advaita Vedantins like Ramana Maharshi or Nisargadatta, it can leave Vedanta out and neglect the teachings of other great modern Vedantins from Vivekananda to Dayananda, though their works are easily available in English and relevant to any Advaitic practice.

This ‘Advaita without Vedanta’ is particularly strange because many important ideas found in the neo-Advaita movement, like that a universal path of Self-knowledge, reflect the neo-Vedanta movement popular in the early twentieth century since the teachings of Ramakrishna and Vivekananda.

Misconceptions about Advaita

The Allure of the Direct Path Advaita, which refers to the state of non-duality of the Self and God, can easily lend itself to all sorts of misconceptions. Indeed one can argue that since the Advaitic

www.vedanet.com

 

[prasad1]

Ramana keeps the requirement for Advaita simple yet clear – a ripe mind, which is the essence of the whole thing, and encourages practice of the teaching without overestimating one’s readiness for it. Yet a ripe mind is not as easy as it sounds either.

Ramana defines this ripe mind as profound detachment and deep discrimination, above all a powerful aspiration for liberation from the body and the cycle of rebirth – not a mere mental interest but an unshakeable conviction going to the very root of our thoughts and feelings (note Ramana Gita VII. 8-11).
A ripe, pure or sattvic mind implies that rajas and tamas, the qualities of passion and ignorance, have been cleared not only from the mind but also from the body, to which the mind is connected in Vedic thought. Such a pure or ripe mind was rare even in classical India. In the modern world, in which our life-style and culture is dominated by rajas and tamas, it is indeed quite rare and certainly not to be expected.

To arrive at it, a dharmic life-style is necessary. This is similar to the Yoga Sutra prescription of the yamas and niyamas as prerequisites for Yoga practice. In this regard, Ramana particularly emphasized a sattvic vegetarian diet as a great aid to practice.

The problem is that many people take Ramana’s idea of a ripe mind superficially. It is not a prescription that anyone can approach or practice Advaita in any manner they like. Advaita does require considerable inner purity and self-discipline, developing which is an important aim of practice which should not be lightly set aside.

Misconceptions about Advaita

The Allure of the Direct Path Advaita, which refers to the state of non-duality of the Self and God, can easily lend itself to all sorts of misconceptions. Indeed one can argue that since the Advaitic

www.vedanet.com

 

[renuka]

A clarification. Does belief and adherence to advaita man one is superior in intelligence? Absolutely not. It is totally subjective and situation based. In some cases touch with an immediate reality is important and in some others belief in surreal reality may be more important.

From the point of view of God He created everything and everybody equal.

"Superior intelligence'' can be one's best friend and also one's worst enemy.
At times "superior intelligence" runs the risk of not willing to go beyond the intellect.
The intellect is just a tool to aid understanding and should not be rigid at any given situation.
Also we should not forget that any philosophy should be dynamic.
The words of Truth wont change but its expressions is fluid and oriented to time,place,person and also it evolves.

But mostly we are not finding any new expression of Advaita in a clearer perspective for present time and day.
It has sort of stalled and not progressing and has just become an intellectual badge worn with some amount of pride.
It's become the "intelligent's man's domain" and becomes stagnant.

 

[Vaagmi]

........But mostly we are not finding any new expression of Advaita in a clearer perspective for present time and day. It has sort of stalled and not progressing and has just become an intellectual badge worn with some amount of pride. It's become the "intelligent's man's domain" and becomes stagnant.

And there is another possibility. There may be many "intelligent" men and women who prefer to stay away from this domain and they may have a better understanding of the "advaita".

I quote" Na dharma nishtosmi, nachaathma vedi, na bhaktimaansdwachcharanaaravindhe, akinchano ananyagatissaranya, twatpaada moolam saranam prabhatye".

For those who are stuck within the "domain", it will be worth their time and effort to reflect on the above quote and get free to perceive reality in all its glory.

 

[renuka]

And there is another possibility. There may be many "intelligent" men and women who prefer to stay away from this domain and they may have a better understanding of the "advaita".

I quote" Na dharma nishtosmi, nachaathma vedi, na bhaktimaansdwachcharanaaravindhe, akinchano ananyagatissaranya, twatpaada moolam saranam prabhatye".

For those who are stuck within the "domain", it will be worth their time and effort to reflect on the above quote and get free to perceive reality in all its glory.

But there are also those who stay away becos they imagine themselves to be intelligent just becos they follow another philosophy!LOL

My point is philosophizing everything too much keeps the masses away.

I was reading up on origins of Qawallis and its fusion of Persian Music with Indian ragas and a new brand of music which somehow sounds catchy enough to general public and that lead to the bhajan group singing eventually where everyone can join and enjoy.

Compare this with Carnatic music which in its own right is also a "philosophy" and still is very much an acquired taste and not something that masses can relate too or enjoy(till today I cant relate to Carnatic music though I have western music training)..somehow I prefer music that is catchy and gets to your heart.

Likewise...Advaita became an acquired taste philosophy which kept the masses away as it became "elite"

Vishishtadvaita is more welcoming to the general public becos bhakti movements has less emphasis on creating an "elite" club but more emphasis on spreading the love for the beautiful form of God and the final journey of being one with His essence, the journey to the Essence is the Jnaana here.

Vishishtadvaita is somewhat like Sufism where the journey itself becomes knowledge to drink the Essence of The Divine.


Now, eventually all schools of thought do have about a Ghar Wapsi feeling..whether one goes to Heaven or has Sayujyam..its all about the journey back Home.

Advaita these days is marketed almost Atheistic which is totally reducing Jnaana to dry logic and not able to go beyond the intellect.

Advaita should be presented with a "human touch" to allow one to use his heart to feel love for the Divine and not be so "elite" acquired taste in application.

 

[sravna]

Renuka,

That's what gives advaita its usp. It has to have its selling point and that selling point is the arrant logic that it uses to explain reality. If you want to understand reality from out and out a logical point view you have to resort to advaita.

 

[Vaagmi]

Renuka,

That's what gives advaita its usp. It has to have its selling point and that selling point is the arrant logic that it uses to explain reality. If you want to understand reality from out and out a logical point view you have to resort to advaita.

Dear Sravna,

Please read my post #4 above. Could you logically tell me who is speaking to whom?

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

Please read my post #4 above. Could you logically tell me who is speaking to whom?

Dear Vaagmi,

The truth of one consciousness exists at the ultimate reality. All other reality is just projection. There are avatars or seers along with the setting in space time who play a special role in impressing upon this truth on other jivatmas. Even the avatars and seers and space time settings are projections. The whole thing can be seen as a hide and seek game where the objective of the projected jivatmas is to learn the truth of one consciousness

 

[renuka]

Renuka,

That's what gives advaita its usp. It has to have its selling point and that selling point is the arrant logic that it uses to explain reality. If you want to understand reality from out and out a logical point view you have to resort to advaita.

Dear Sravna,

Don't get me wrong..to be honest Advaita philosophy is not the problem at all..The problem lies in its application.

To great extent I feel Bhakti is inherent in each human being regardless of religion or culture or country.
Its this Bhakti that eventually opens up all doors of Jnaana hence you would find almost every religion has a Sayujyam concept of either going back to God,Heaven concept or becoming one with Brahman.

Advaita philosophy has philosophized Jnaana but sans bhakti these Jnaana of Advaita remains just information or data.

You are right about the usp,marketing and selling point because we can market information/data but we can't market Jnaana.

Information is like wine in a goblet.
Jnaana is the the taste of the wine.

Bhakti marg allows us to be deserving for the Jnaana to be experienced by us.
Hence the adherence to prayer,...even after one reaches the station where one can get the Jnaana the Bhakta does not give up his adherence to prayer even though he can technically transcend that but he does not give up becos he understands that he is not attached to it rather he enjoys the sweetness of his worship..

You would notice that though most prophets or messengers could actually give up adherence to prayers yet they did not give it up cos they enjoy sweetness of worship sans desire.

They have given up both their shoes of desire for higher heavens or the phenomenal world and walk a silent path with only one set of footprints..the footprints of The Ultimate One.

Advaita or Vishishtadvaita do not really differ in the real sense..its just that the current marketing of Advaita is actually focusing on Aham(I) more on Tat(That).

Let me end my post with a quote from Rumi..he explains Sayujyam well:

One went to the door of the Beloved and knocked.
A voice asked "Who is there?"
He answered "It is I"
The voice said "There is no room here for me and thee"
The door was shut.
After a year of solitude and deprivation the same man returned to the door of the Beloved and knocked.
A voice from within asked "Who is there?"
The man said "It is Thou"
The door was opened for him.

 

[Vaagmi]

Dear Sravna,

The truth of one consciousness exists at the ultimate reality.

can there be a temporary reality and another ultimate reality. If so I would prefer to call the temporary one as a fraud.

All other reality is just projection.

My understanding about projection is that it requires some one to project and some others to visualise/perceive. Who is projecting here and who are visualising/perceiving it here? and among the two who is real and who is a mirage and this is most important - "WHY".

.......... The whole thing can be seen as a hide and seek game where the objective of the projected jivatmas is to learn the truth of one consciousness

If it is all one consciousness, why do I not understand what the cockroach sitting on the ceiling of my bedroom thinks as it twitches its mush. Or what does the lion in the jungle think about the pain inflicted by it on its prey.

Answer please.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Vaagmi,

Temporary reality is not a fraud. It is a reality in its own right. It is a projection and discretized by space and time. Projection is automatic. The discretized consciousness of space time reality cannot experience the oneness of consciousness till it completely evolves.

 

[kpsarathy]

Taken from Quora.

I feel this person has understood Advaita concept really well...worth a read.

Stefan Pecho, As science approaches the nonduality, so Advaita Vedanta approached the science.
Updated Sep 22, 2018 · Author has 2.4k answers and 3.4m answer views


Let me answer in an unorthodox way.
When one views Advaita as a philosophy (school, system, etc.), one naturally has the tendency to fix the founder and historicity of the philosophy.
However, let us view at Advaita not philosophically but technically / semantically / substantially. A-Dvaita means clearly Not-Two (No-Two). Even in my mother (Slovak) language it means clearly No-Two because in Slovak Dva=Two.

Technically, Advaita describes the experiential (not philosophical) spiritual knowledge. As an expression of a natural human spiritual experience, Advaita is an eternal human reality not depending on any religion, philosophy, school, or whatever formal concepts.

Understand me please properly. Surely, I am aware that the Advaita is a constituent of the Indian spiritual tradition mentioned already in Upanishads and later in other scriptures and connected historically with Adi Shaknkaracharya.

Anyhow, in understanding the Advaita technically as a universal human experiential spiritual reality, it is clear that Non-duality was a constituent of human experience in all cultures, all ethnics, all religions, and all spiritual systems, regardless of the fact if this human spiritual experience was formalized, labeled by name, or framed in a teaching or philosophy…

By other words, one can have the non-dual spiritual experience without knowing anything at all about Advaita, Zen, Sufism, or Dzogchen…

Thus, Advaita is eternal within the existence of humankind. It means it is much “older” than any formal naming of it by/in any culture or spiritual tradition.

In ancient times, when the human spirituality was practical and not philosophical and religious, the spiritually matured people (standing on a non-dual spiritual experience) did not show themselves publicly as special individuals or groups of people. They lived the life, as it is = not as a special, ideal, or highest “level of life”. We can understand this reality thanks to Dzogchen. In old Tibet (actually even yet in 18th century), people even did not know that among them there were spiritually highly matured individuals. Dzogchen as a system / school / philosophy is relatively new “discipline”.

India played an important role in giving to the world several great treatises dealing with Advaita teaching. No other culture enriched in such a way the human spirituality in its realms of non-duality.
However, it must be also openly said, that India also philosophized Advaita too much. Advaita became the intellectual discipline like to be manageable only by smart and sophisticated intellectual thinking and understanding.

Advaita is not an intellectual discipline. Advaita is a result of deepening the human observation and experience reflecting the world as it is in reality. Therefore, the readers of treatises can be enriched by the messages contained in the Advaita books only through their personal spiritual experiences; not through the brightness of their intellect.
4.3k views · View 41 Upvoters · View Sharers

Our faith is based on our scriptures. There are three fundamental concepts one needs to understand - Prameyam, Pramanam and Pramatha. Prameyam is the ParaBrahman who needs to be understood with Pramanam, the proof found in our Vedic scriptures with the help of our Acharyas ( Pramatha ). Our srutis (pramanam) has no origin...Vedas are the breadth of our Lord and hence the Contemporary saint-philosophers, AdiSankara, Ramanujacharia and Madhvacharia are not the inventors of the respective philosophies. We should not seek the orgin of Advaita or other branches since all are based on originless srutis. In ancient times our maharishies should have discussed (Brahma vichaaram) and arrived at correct interpretations. There were thousands of Veda saakaas which are lost and hence trying to date or argue about the Brahma-Athma swaroopams even by modern vidwanas will be fruitless. This does not mean we are helpless. Following the respective guru's guidance with total sincerity would yield desirable result with the grace of the Lord. How we feel has no place in understanding the scriptures. God's grace alone will guide us through this samsaaram.
Dr. K. P. Sarathy