Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Encyclopedia of India–China Cultural Contacts v1.c7.s7.t15: Vedanta

Encyclopedia of India–China Cultural Contacts v1.c7.s7.t15

Language
English

Vedanta

v1.c7.s7.t15.1

Vedanta is one of the main schools of Brahmanism philosophy in Ancient India. Its theory is the base of ideological system of Hinduism, which is the school with the greatest impact on the later generations of Indian philosophy of religion. The absorption and development has been carried out in the Brahmanism mainstream ideology since Veda Upanishad, which is the main representative of Indian orthodox school philosophy. After its foundation, Vedanta theory generally had the leading role in Indian history, which has still played an important role in the thought circle of India currently.

v1.c7.s7.t15.2

Thought origin and major development branch

v1.c7.s7.t15.3

The Sanskrit of "Vedanta" is " Vedānta ". Its literal meaning is "the ending of Vedas", which mainly refers to the last part of the Veda in a broad sense, namely the Upanishad. Because many theories of this school are derived from Upanishad, it has received the name.

v1.c7.s7.t15.4

Although many theories of Vedanta are created on the basis of Upanishad, the time for occurrence is later than other schools as an independent philosophical school. It is generally acknowledged that such a school has been founded by Badarayana in about 1st century CE. Some main thoughts of Veda Upanishad have been concluded by Badarayana in theory to create the earliest fundamental and classic “Brahma Sutra”, which has established the basic ideas of Vedanta.

v1.c7.s7.t15.5

Agama-sastra, Gaudapada Acarya (front cover)

v1.c7.s7.t15.6

There are many famous ideologists in the developments of Vedanta, such as Gaudapada (about 7th century CE), Shankara (788-820), Vacaspati Misra (about 9th century CE), Bhaskara (about 9ᵗʰ-10ᵗʰ century CE), Ramanuja (about 11th-12th century CE), Sriharsa (about 12th century CE), Madhva (about 13th century CE), Vallabha (about 13th century CE), Sripati (about 15th century CE) and Baladeva (about 18th century CE).

v1.c7.s7.t15.7

There are many similarities and differences in the theory of these ideologists, which have formed many branches. The foundation of each branch in such school is related to the understanding in the interrelated thesis of Upanishad by the thinkers. When narrating the previous theory of Upanishad in *Brahma Sutra*, there is also the ambiguity. Therefore, there are some differences in the understanding of the previous traditional theory by the later Vedanta ideologists; different branches have taken shape.

v1.c7.s7.t15.8

The core issue of Upanishad is the relationship between “Brahman” and “Atman”. Many philosophers have proposed “The unity of god and man”. However, the obvious problem exists when discussing this theory, ie on one hand, Brahman and Atman are the same thing; on the other hand, distinction has been made between them, such as Brahman is unique, while Atman is motley. Brahman is free and pure, but Atman is constrained and unpurified. In this way, there are various understandings in Brahman and Atman to the same degree and the differential degree, or even with the completely opposite explanation. When Vedanta was rising, the philosopher was carrying on the theory of “the unity of god and man” in Upanishad. The problem that also occurred was - how to deal with the relationship between Brahman and Atman, which are absolutely the same without any difference, or they are basically the same, with a little difference; perhaps the identity is true and the difference is visional. Consequently, numerous branches have been taken shape by different answers to the problem of relationship between Brahman and Atman (phenomenal world).

v1.c7.s7.t15.9

The main types of the theory in the relationship between Brahman and Atman are as follows: “Bhedabheda”, “Advaita”, “Visista-advaita”, “Dvaita-Vada”, “Dvaita-advaita”, “Suddha-advaita”, “Sakti-visista-advaita” and “Acintya-bhedabheda”.

v1.c7.s7.t15.10

Among these theories, the theories with more influence are as below: “Bhedabheda” by Badarayana, “Advaita” by Shankara, “Visista-advaita” by Ramanuja and “Dvaita-vada” by Madhva.

v1.c7.s7.t15.11

Badarayana and “Brahma-sutra”

v1.c7.s7.t15.12

The production of *“Brahma-sutra”* by Badarayana is the outstanding feature when Vedanta was viewed as an independent school. The life of Badarayana wasn’t quite clear, but his *“Brahma-sutra”* has become the fundamental sutra of Vedanta, which has occupied an important position in the intellectual history of India. At present, the *“Brahma-sutra”* we have read is a supplementary, which had been finished about the beginning of the 5th century CE.

v1.c7.s7.t15.13

*“Brahma-sutra”* consists of 555 simple sentences, with four sections, and each section is divided into four chapters. Section 1 is mainly to discuss the outline of the whole book, emphasising that Brahman is the basis of things in the world. Section 2 is to criticise the doctrines of other schools, such as Samkhya, Vaisesika, Buddhism and Jainism, expounding the generation of the world. The 3ʳᵈ section explains the relationship between Brahman and small self (individual) and the state of reincarnation, while section four focusses on man’s meditation, behaviour retribution and liberation.

v1.c7.s7.t15.14

There are many issues involved in *“Brahma-sutra”* and the understandings of Brahman, but the written language is very simple. The meaning of many sentences in *“Brahma-sutra”* is understood by the related annotation. Generally speaking, the relationship between Brahman and Atman is carried forward from Upanishad; while discussing Brahman or the supreme self as the base of all things on earth, it is viewed as god.

v1.c7.s7.t15.15

When expounding the relationship between Brahman and Atman in *“Brahma-sutra”*, several main viewpoints have been mentioned by the previous ideologists of Brahmanism. According to the annotation from 1, 4, 19—22 of “*Brahma-sutra*” by Shankara, the standpoints to the relationship between Brahman and Atman by three ideologists are stated in “*Brahma-sutra*” as below: Asmarathya believed that Brahman and Atman was the relationship of “Bhedabheda”; Audulomi thought that Brahman and Atman was the relationship of Satya-bheda; Kasakrtsna considered that Brahman and Atman was the relationship of Advaita with no difference. It was quite simple to *Brahma-sutra*. Some discussions aren’t inconsistent from the beginning to end. So the viewpoint on the relationship between Brahman and Atman was not clear sometimes by Badarayana. Generally recognising, Badarayana is inclined to “Bhedabheda” in the relationship between Brahman and Atman. This theory thinks that Brahman is different from its part, property or creature - Atman (phenomenal realm) as the creator or the cause in the world. However, Atman (phenomenal realm) has Brahman, and everything cannot exist without Brahman. Brahman and Atman are the same. The relationship between them is compared to the sun and its shadow reflected in the water.

v1.c7.s7.t15.16

Adi Shankaracharya preaching to disciples

v1.c7.s7.t15.17

“*Brahma-sutra*” also discusses reincarnation and liberation, and represents the reincarnation process of the individual and how to acquire Brahman through meditation. The sacrifice to Brahmanism is helpful to know Brahman correctly. It has stressed if the individual is integrated with Brahman, we cannot be reborn in the world again.

v1.c7.s7.t15.18

There are many glossographers of “*Brahma-sutra*” in later ages. There are different sayings to the implication of some scriptures frequently, which is also a reason to facilitate Vedanta to form different branches.

v1.c7.s7.t15.19

Gaudapada’s Theory

v1.c7.s7.t15.20

Gaudapada is an ideologist of Vedanta with more influence, with an unknown life. His main work is “*Agamasastra*” (*Āgama-śāstra*, referred to as “*Ode to Frog*” and “*Ode to Gaudapada*”. Based on the related idea of absorbing and reforming Upanishad and “*Brahma-sutra*”, he first put forward the thinking of “Advaita” between Brahman and Atman in this school.

v1.c7.s7.t15.21

Gaudapada considered that Brahman or the greater self is the foundation. All things are the eidolon of Brahman or the greater self in essence, which are false. There is no existence that is independent of Brahman or the spiritual self. The small self is not a part of Brahman, nor its variation. Their relationship is like the small emptiness of bottle and the large emptiness outside the bottle, ie the small emptiness of the bottle and the big emptiness outside the bottle are the same thing, and they are distinct due to the limitation of the bottle. Similar to this situation, the countless small self and the spiritual self are the same thing as the phenomenon of life. They are different because of the physical limitation, in fact, they are identical.

v1.c7.s7.t15.22

In the age of Gaudapada, Mahayana has already been developed for a long time, which has the significant influence in an ideological circle. Gaudapada learnt a lot of Buddhist ideas to organise the Advaita doctrine of Vedanta. He especially focussed on the concept of “Emptiness” of Mahayana to incorporate the theory of Vedanta that there is no real thing independent of Brahman. In “Agamasastra”, the theory of Mahamaya (māyā, which is the unclear magic power) is related and analysed through the length of an article by Gaudapada. It believes that universal is shown by people’s ignorance, just like the way we dream in bed, which is to support the idea of “Unity of dream and awakening”. This sense was very popular in ancient India, yet its initiator, in addition to Mahayana, Gaudapada has also made a brilliant achievement in this aspect.

v1.c7.s7.t15.23

Although Gaudapada wasn’t the first ideologist who proposed Advaita, he was the person who demonstrated this theory earliest. His theory had a great impact on the foundation of systematised thinking of Advaita philosophy by Shankara and other thinkers. In Vedanta, it had the vital function in the process of being mainstream faction in intellectual history of India.

v1.c7.s7.t15.24

**Shankara’s Ideological System** - Shankara was the philosopher with the greatest impact in Vedanta, which was the ideologist with a higher position in the whole Indian history. His theory has still played an important role in the Indian idea in modern times, which is the thought core of Hinduism.

v1.c7.s7.t15.25

Shankara was born in Southern India, with the family name of Brahman. In his early years, he had once learnt from Govinda, the ideologist of Vedanta. He had an accomplishment in philosophic theory of Brahmanism since Upanishad to create the most representative doctrinal system of Vedanta. He had taken activities in many parts of India to take great efforts in propagating theories of Brahmanism or Hinduism, and died in north India finally.

v1.c7.s7.t15.26

There were many works related to philosophy of religion by Shankara, such as “*Brahma-sutra-bhāsya*”, “*Upadeśasāhasrī*”, “*Panci-karana prakriyā*”, “*Ātmabodha*” and the annotations to “*Bhagavad Gīta*” and “*Brihadaranyaka Upanishad*”.

v1.c7.s7.t15.27

The relationship between Brahman and Atman of Shankara was directly influenced by “Advaita” doctrine of Gaudapada. Further transformation and development have been made to Upanishad and “*Brahma-sutra*” to build the most systematic “Advaita” doctrine in Vedanta, which has become the orthodoxy of Brahmanism or Hinduism philosophy.

v1.c7.s7.t15.28

Shankara viewed that Brahman is the only thing that was existing in the world among many things. Brahman is the base of everything, and the phenomenal world is a kind of illusion. Because the universal is rooted in Brahman, Brahman is also viewed as a power like the supreme god who is omnipotent.

v1.c7.s7.t15.29

Shankara also thought that, like other Upanishads say, Brahman cannot be known by the common means like general things adopted. Brahman can be really realised only by a ceaseless negation. Shankara has the same opinion with that of Upanishad, using “Neti, Neti” to describe Brahman. On one hand, what he did was to indicate Brahman’s supremacy, which is incomparable; on the other hand, he wanted to deny other things except Brahman. It was very popular in Ancient India to know or realise the foundation or reality of things by apoha.

v1.c7.s7.t15.30

When Shankara lays stress on Brahman as the only and real entity, the independent truth of all kinds of things in the world has been denied, with detailed argumentation. He considered that the essence of Brahman is unique. There are two kinds of Brahman due to the understanding of it, and one is Apara, also called “Saguna-Brahman” with limitation and property; another one is Para, also called “Nirguna-Brahman”, which is to get rid of all condition factors with no difference and no property. Shankara demonstrated that the difference between Para and Apara is only the product of human’s subjective cognisance. In fact, there is only one Brahman.

v1.c7.s7.t15.31

There is the origin relation between the concept of Para and Apara, and the discussion of Upanishad. In 5 and 2 of “Praśna Up”, this pair of concepts has been mentioned. In addition, “Tangible Brahman” and “Intangible Brahman” are also mentioned in 6 and 3 of “Maitri Up”, which are close or similar concepts. However, it is very clear that although the thinkers of Upanishad have referred to the concepts of Para and Apara, they haven’t elaborated them intensively and deeply, nor without attaching importance to them. Additionally, such distinction has not been made to Brahman by all Upanishads. Yet, the concepts of Para and Apara have been served as the key concepts by Shankara. The real noumenon is stated clearly with Para by Shankara; the false delusion appeared due to the incorrect understanding of reality of thing as illustrated by Apara.

v1.c7.s7.t15.32

Shankara viewed that the idea of epistemology and theory of reality was closely related to each other. When discussing the reality of thing, he presented “Para” and “Apara”. Correspondingly, “Aparavidya” and “Paravidya” have been put forward in his epistemology. Shankara considered that the inconsistent Brahman is viewed as Apara, which is uneducated, called “Aparavidya”. Brahman is thought as the sole and true Para, ie genuine knowledge or “Paravidya”. In his opinion, supreme and true cognition was acquired only by a variety of false appearances, and was universal to know the truth of Brahman (only the Para).

v1.c7.s7.t15.33

There are the origin relations with the “Aparavidya” and “Paravidya” and the idea of some Upanishads by Shankara. Such distinction has been once made in 1, 1 and 4-5 of “*Mundaka Up.*” To think that “Paravidya” is the knowledge of “Immortal” while “Aparavidya” is related to the knowledge of “Four Vedas”. When expounding “Aparavidya” and “Paravidya”, Shankara expanded its deep meaning instead of just explaining the original sense of Upanishad. There is something similar between “Paravidya” and the primary meaning in “*Mundaka Up.*” The immortal of “*Mundaka Up*” means Brahman, but “*Mundaka Up*” doesn’t clearly say that the immortal is Para. There are more meanings in “Aparavidya” as stated by Shankara than those in “*Mundaka Up*”. “Aparavidya” was discussed from Avidya or “Mahamaya” (Māyā, fantasy) to a large extent. “Quantity” of various factions in Indian philosophy was also involved when Shankara was discussing the theory. Three kinds of quantity have been referred to by Shankara, such as partyaksa, anumana and agama. His later followers mentioned more about the related information of quantity. However, the quantity mentioned by Shankara was familiar with the general things in society instead of knowing the supreme reality “Brahman” (Para). Therefore, the cognition obtained from these quantities was concluded into the range of Aparavidya. According to Advaita of Shankara, the only reality was Brahman (Para), while other things were imaginary. Due to man’s ignorance, the imaginary things were viewed as real. Such kind of ignorance was so-called “Mahamaya” by Gaudapada. The imaginary things could be regarded as reality by Mahamaya, so it was a power (fantasy). When discussing Mahamaya that lead to the false cognition of things, the interpretation of Shankara was similar to that of Gaudapada. Shankara explained in 1, 4 and 22 of “*Brahma-sutra-bhāsya*”, “The distinction between individual and supreme self is caused the restrictive factors, such as the body. Their (bodies) are consisted of the name and form. Thus, the difference is not real.” This was similar to that people’s view of small emptiness and big emptiness as two types of emptiness because of the bottle, the description of restricting factors. It should be mentioned that Shankara assimilated knowledge from Gaudapada in this aspect.

v1.c7.s7.t15.34

The philosophy theory and Shankara’s liberation theory are linked together. In ontology and epistemology, “Para” and “Apara”, “Aparavidya” and “Paravidya” were put forward. Similarly in liberation theory, liberation was divided into two kinds. One is “Gradual liberation” and the other is “Total liberation”. He deemed that gradual liberation was produced in the faith of Apara, which has been obtained by “Aparavidya”. This liberation believed that individual would go to the Brahman world and lead a life of pleasure after man’s death, but it is not true or not total liberation. Complete liberation is generated from the faith of Para to acquire from “Paravidya”. This liberation has no body because it has got rid of metempsychosis without any body. Nevertheless, when analysing this liberation, Shankara also maintained that it was beneficial to achieve liberation by complying with all provisions of Brahmanism and Hinduism, and performing the duty of caste. However, to fulfill liberation, one should depend on supreme intelligence of Vedanta and insist in the viewpoint of “Unity of god and man” and “Advaita”. Only in this way could a person reach the uppermost realm and be liberated completely.

v1.c7.s7.t15.35

During the process of creating the theory by Shankara, some ideas of Buddhism have been absorbed. A long time ago, Mahayana was very popular in India. When discussing Advaita, Shankara more or less absorbed some theories of Buddhism, such as “Emptiness”, “True meaning” and “Samvrti-satya”, the method to control the reality of things by Buddhism. Shankara has also been called “Pracchanna Buddha” in India’s history because he absorbed some Buddhism components in his theory. But it is obvious that the attitude to Buddhism by Shankara is different from that of Gaudapada. In the degree of absorbing Buddhism theory, Gaudapada had more achievements than Shankara. Furthermore, when assimilating Buddhism theory, some ideas of Buddhism was also criticised by Shankara. This is different from Gaudapada. In addition, the foundation for Advaita formation of Shankara and Gaudapada was the doctrine of Ancient India canon in Brahmanism, especially the idea of Upanishad and “*Brahma-sutra*” instead of the theory of Buddhism. Moreover, some doctrines, which were usually viewed as independent theories of Buddhism, were absorbed by Buddhism from references of ancient Brahmanism in fact, such as Veda Upanishad; or founded on the base of Brahmanism. Viewed from this aspect, Advaita of Shankara mainly resulted from the transformation and improvement on the development of Brahmanism. Its theoretic source is still the canon of ancient Brahmanism.

v1.c7.s7.t15.36

In Vedanta, there are many works that proposed Advaita. It had much to do with the core theory of Vedanta. This theory was mostly close to the core theory of “Unity of god and man” in Brahmanism of Upanishad.

v1.c7.s7.t15.37

Ramanuja’s Theory

v1.c7.s7.t15.38

Ramanuja was a famous philosopher of Vedanta since Shankara, the ideological forerunner of pietist in India. He was born in a Brahman family. In his early year, influenced by Shankara, he earned the Advaita from Shankara and his followers. But later, the new opinions between god and man were produced to create “Viśista-advaita”, the important theoretic branch of Vedanta.

v1.c7.s7.t15.39

There are many works by Ramanuja, such as *Sri-bhasya*, the annotation of *Brahma-sutra*, *Gita-bhasya* and *Vedartha-samgraha*.

v1.c7.s7.t15.40

The theory of the relationship between god and man was proposed on the basis of the absorbing and changing of the canon of Brahmanism in early stage by Ramanuja. The base of his view was Brahman Monism of Upanishad and “*Brahma-sutra*”. Some concepts of Advaita in Shankara’s theory have been accepted by Ramanuja, but the vital revolution was carried out in the Advaita of Shankara. He was opposed to Mahamaya theory by Gaudapada and Shankara, denying that the phenomenal world was illusory or with avidya product.

v1.c7.s7.t15.41

Ramanuja considered that although Brahman was the supreme entity, it had a few properties and differences. As for the opinions by Shankara and other famous thinkers that there was not any property or difference in the supreme substance, he said in 1, 1, 1 of “*Brahmsatra-bhashya*” as follows: “The people who proposed that there is no difference has no right to assert this or that a kind of entity proven because all the correct ways of knowing have the differential things as the objects.”

v1.c7.s7.t15.42

In Ramanuja’s view, the relationship between individual (phenomenal world) and supreme self (Brahman) was like the relationship between attribute and entity or the part and entirety. It was like light was a part of fire or the sun, or white was the nature of the thing with colour. Although the small self was close to the supreme self, they were also different. Small self is the attribute or part of the supreme self. Although property or part belongs to entity or entirety, we cannot think that property and part are different. Similarly, although the phenomenal world that serves as the property or part belongs to the Brahman as the entity or entirety, we cannot think that the phenomenal world is false. The phenomenon in the world is not visional.

v1.c7.s7.t15.43

Although the diversity and distinctiveness of the phenomenal world proposed by Ramanuja are true, as the thinker of Vedanta, he also acknowledged that only the supreme self or Brahman exists as the reality of thing. Although the phenomenal world (small self) is not meaningless, it is only the property or part to limit the highest reality; the highest reality of thing being “Consistent”. This relationship between Brahman and Atman by Ramanuja was called “Viśista-advaita”.

v1.c7.s7.t15.44

In epistemology, the theory of knowledge was evolved by Ramanuja. He mentioned three types of quantities: partyaksa, anumana and agama. These quantities were viewed as the effective tool to obtain correct understanding. These three quantities have a higher position than those of Shankara’s theory. Because Shankara asserted “Aparavidya”, the said three quantities and the knowledge acquired belong to the range of “Aparavidya”. Therefore, the three quantities stated by both of them were different in impact or position.

v1.c7.s7.t15.45

Ramanuja, like other Vedanta thinkers, pursued liberation. In this aspect, he specially laid stress on belief and respect to god. In Ramanuja’s eye, Brahman was god, especially to Vishnu who had supreme position. Ramanuja emphasised to view god directly by remembrance and meditation, to gain liberation.

v1.c7.s7.t15.46

The religion theory of Ramanuja included ideology of equality, during the process of getting rid of metempsychosis, even the lower caste like Sudra could reach his goal. According to him, if we can really respect god, we can achieve liberation through sacrificing ourselves and returning to Vishnu.

v1.c7.s7.t15.47

*Statue of Adi Shankaracharya*

v1.c7.s7.t15.48

developed some basic concepts in Upanishad and “*Brahma-sutra*”. He admitted that Brahman is the original cause of all things. He thought that Brahman was Vishnu who is powerful, omniscient and omnipotent. God or Brahman owns the essence of unadulterated spirit, which exists in all different things. Madhva, like other ideologists of Vedanta, considered that Brahman, as the highest entity or supreme god, has the indescribability. Brahman exceeds the range that speech and ratiocination can reach. However, he opposed to the visible description of “Saguna-Brahman” (Apara) and the invisible and indescribable views of “Nirguna-Brahman” (Para) by some Vedanta thinkers of Advaita.

v1.c7.s7.t15.49

In the relationship between “Brahman” and “Atman”, Madhva was opposed to the related ideas of Shankara and “Mahamaya”. In his eye, things in the world were not the products of avidya, without approving “Advaita”, but supporting “Dvaita-vada”. He thought that Brahman was the foundation, but Brahman and Atman were not alike, but detached. In fact, he emphasised more on the substantiality of the small self and the differences between the small self and Brahman. In his “*Brahmsatra-bhashya*”, Madhva explicitly declared as follows: small self and Brahman were separated from each other, which were different. Because Madhva extremely emphasised the double reality between god (Brahman) and small self (phenomenal world), and his theory was known as “Dvaita-vada”. This theory tends to confirm the factuality of things in the world, which are obviously different from Advaita, the mainstream ideology of Vedanta.

v1.c7.s7.t15.50

When demonstrating the relationship between “Brahman” and “Atman” in his “Dvaita-vada”, Madhva put forward five theories of basic difference. He considered that there were eternal

v1.c7.s7.t15.51

Madhva’s Theory

v1.c7.s7.t15.52

Since Shankara, Madhva was another famous thinker of this school. He was born in southern India and accepted the education of traditional ideology of Brahmanism. In his early years, the relationship between Brahman and Atman by Shankara influenced him, but later there were some new opinions in this aspect, and Madhva proposed his theory. There are many works written by Madhva, and he had the notes and commentaries to the ancient canons of Brahmanism. The annotations of “*Brahma-sutra*” were deeply influenced. He also concentrated on the ideas of some other schools of philosophy, absorbing the theories from Samkhya, Vaisesika, Nyāya and Jainism. Like great majority of ideologists of Vedanta, Madhva inherited and differences between god (Brahman) and small self, god and material, one kind of substance and another kind of substance, small self and small self, small self and matter.

v1.c7.s7.t15.53

The epistemology idea of Madhva was close to that of Ramanuja. He recognised the effectiveness of partyaksa, anumana and agama and the significance of gaining correct cognition of ancient canons in Brahmanism like Upanishad. Additionally, he also attached great importance to the sacrifice of Brahmanism, viewing that sacrifice was important to acquire the right cognition.

v1.c7.s7.t15.54

Gaining the knowledge of this school and liberation was directly connected to each other by Madhva. Anyone who wanted to reach liberation, he should rely on the intelligence of Vedanta. Madhva put a high value on worship to god. He considered it vital to obtain liberation by dedication to Vishnu.

v1.c7.s7.t15.55

In addition to the theories for the relationship of Brahman and Atman from the thinkers who had the brilliant achievements of Vedanta as said above, there are also numerous bifurcation theories. Although there are varying degrees among these theories, the core of the discussion by these branches focus on traditional problems like whether Brahman and small self (phenomenal world) is same or differentm and if the small self is substantial or visional.

v1.c7.s7.t15.56

Since the foundation of Vedanta, it has had an extensive and powerful influence on the history of India. Many ideologists and social activists in modern times in India have taken the theories of Vedanta as the base of the ideological system, and then absorbed or changed the doctrine of Vedanta to a varying extent.

v1.c7.s7.t15.57

In modern and contemporary times, the theory of Vedanta not only kept the crucial influence on the development of social thought in India, but it also propagated many countries and territories. It has been researched by the international community as the most representative theory of the traditional culture of India, which has been attached importance to various countries, playing an important role in the development of Orientalism in the world.

v1.c7.s7.t15.58

Transmission and Impact in China

v1.c7.s7.t15.59

The idea of Vedanta was introduced to China with Buddhism in ancient times. This school was indirectly recommended to the Chinese people during the process of relating or criticising outer-course idea by Buddhist ideologists. The contents about the idea of Vedanta in Buddhist Scripture with Chinese translation have certain influence on the thought circle in ancient China. The initial source of Vedanta originated from Upanishad, the ancient canon in India. Many concepts are the same as those of Veda Upanishad. As a result, when discussing Vedanta in the theory of Chinese Buddhism, Veda was basically the same, which was usually translated as “Doctrine of knowledge” and “Clear knowledge”.

v1.c7.s7.t15.60

Brahman is frequently described as god or Mahesvara by Vedanta. The school viewed that the fundamental cause of the world is Brahman or Mahesvara. Mahesvara is the supreme reality or god in all things, and all things on earth are created by him. Everything lies as the basis of him in essence. The basic cause is identified as real existence and ubiquity, which can produce many methods. In some literatures, such concept of Vedanta was argued by Buddhism. This kind of literature has also been translated into Chinese. The first chapter of “Vijnaptimatratasiddhi-sastra” is as follows, “Somebody thinks that there is Mahesvara, “Entity” exists in the world and can derive various kinds of “dharma”. The viewpoint kept by him was unreasonable. Why do we say so? If “dharma” can be created, it must not be unchangeable. However, the mortal is capriccioso, certainly with no universality. Yet, the thing without generality cannot exist in the world really. Since “Entity” is in the universality of the world with many functions, all “dharmas” can be derived in all places. If “dharma” can be produced due to “Inspiration” or “Reason”, theory of one cause is violated. Perhaps “Inspiration” or “Reason” immediately appears due to methodicalness of all things on earth. In my opinion, Brahman, time, square, bhuta-koti, void and self exist in the real world with various functions, which produce all dharmas. All is such a principle.” Some concepts of Vedanta orientated in dominant ideas of Upanishad are included in this citation. “Mahesvara”, “Brahman” and “Self” are proposed by Vedanta. Such contents can be found in the Chinese scripture as well. As a result, the idea of Vedanta was mainly related by Buddhism literature to become known by Chinese in ancient times.

v1.c7.s7.t15.61

In modern and contemporary times of China, Vedanta has been attached great importance. There is much contact between Indian and Chinese, which made the Chinese aware about Hinduism to a certain degree. As the prevailing philosophy of Indian culture, the idea of Hinduism has got a lot of attention from Chinese. There is a close relationship between the core ideology of philosophy in Hinduism and Vedanta, and when the Chinese got in touch with Hinduism, they could also familiarise themselves with Vedanta.

v1.c7.s7.t15.62

In the study of Indian philosophy of modern China, Vedanta is very important. When writing thesis in the study of Indian philosophy, there are many Chinese scholars who have written on Vedanta philosophy as the subject. In modern China, there are many treatises of Vedanta that have been published. In Chinese universities or the scientific research institutions, the courses of Vedanta are established. In the related academic conferences, there are seminars related to Vedanta.

Cites (13)