ADHYĀROPĀPAVĀDA: REVISITING THE INTERPRETATIONS OF SVĀMI SACCIDĀNANDENDRA SARASVATĪ AND THE POST-ŚAṄKARĀDVAITINS
by Manjushree Hegde
(Read Part 4)

*** Abbreviations, Notes and References ***

Abbreviations

AS                  Advaitasiddhi of Madhusūdana Sarasvatī. Advaitasiddhi of Madhusudanasarasvati with the commentaries Gaudabrahmānandī, Viṭṭhaleśopādhyāyī, Siddhivyākhyā of Balabhadra and a critical summary called Chaturgranthī by M.M. Ananta Kṛiṣṇa Śāstrī. 1937. Edited by Anant Kṛiṣṇa Śāstrī. Revised by Śivrām Śāstrī Śintre. 2nd ed. Bombay: Nirnaya Sagar Press.

BGB                     Bhagavadgītābhāṣya of Śaṅkarācārya. Śrīmadbhagavadgītā with the commentaries Śrīmat-Śānkarabhāṣya with Ānandagiri; Nīlakaṇṭhī; Bhāṣyotkarṣadīpikā of Dhanapati; Śrīdharī; Gītārthsañgraha of Abhinavaguptāchārya; and Gūḍhārthadīpikā of Madhusūdana with Gūḍhārthatattvāloka of Śrīdharmadattaśarmā (Bachchāśarmā).
1936. Edited by Wāsudev Laxmaṇ Śāstrī Panśīkar. 2nd ed. Bombay: Nirnaya Sagar Press.

BS                  Brahmasūtra of Bādarāyaṇa. See BSB.

BSB           Brahmasūtrabhāṣya of Śaṅkarācārya. The Brahmasūtra Sankara Bhāshya with the Commentaries Bhāmatī, Kalpataru, and Parimala. 1917. Edited by Nurani Anantha Krishna Śastri and Vāsudev Laxman Shastri Pansikar. Bombay: Nirnaya Sagar Press.

BU                  Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. See BUB.

BUB          Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣadbhāṣya of Śaṅkarācārya. The Works of Sri Sankaracharya, vol. 8-10. 1910. Srirangam: Vani Vilas Press.

CU                   Chāndogya Upaniṣad. See CUB.

CUB          Chāndogyopaniṣadbhāṣya of Śaṅkarācārya. The Works of Sri Sankaracharya, vol. 6-7. 1910. Srirangam: Vani Vilas Press.

GK             Gauḍapāda Kārikā of Gauḍapādācārya. Gauḍapāda-Kārikā. 1953. Edited by Raghunath Damodar Karmarkar. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

GKB          Gauḍapādakārikābhāṣya of Śaṅkarācārya. The Works of Sri Sankaracharya, vol. 5. 1910. Srirangam: Vani Vilas Press.

IS              Iṣṭasiddhi of Vimuktātman. Iṣṭa-siddhi of Vimuktātman with Extracts from the Vivaraṇa of Jñānottama. 1933. Edited by M. Hiriyanna. Baroda: Oriental Institute.

NS             Naiṣkarmyasiddhi of Sureśvarācārya. Naishkarmya-siddhi of Shri Suresvarācārya with The Klesāpahārinī (an original commentary) by Shri Shri Satchidānandendra Saraswati. 2005. Edited by Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati. 2nd ed. Holenarsipur: Adhyatma Prakasha Karyalaya.

PPV                      Pañcapādikāviviraṇa of Prakāśātman. Pañcapādikā of Śrī Padmapādācārya with Prabodhapariśodhinī of Ātmasvarūpa and Tātparyārthadyotinī of Vijñānātman and Pañcapādikāviviraṇa of Śrī Prakāśātman with Tātparyadīpikā of Citsukhācārya and Bhāvaprakāśikā of Nrsiṁhāśrama.
1958. Edited by S. Śrīrāma Śāstrī and Sri S. R. Krishnamurthi Śāstrī. Madras: Government Oriental Manuscripts Library.

PUB          Praśnopaniṣadbhāṣya of Śaṅkarācārya. The Works of Sri Sankaracharya, vol. 4. 1910. Srirangam: Vani Vilas Press.

SLS Siddhāntaleśasaṅgraha of Appayya Dīkṣita. Sastra-Siddhanta-Lesa-Sangraha of Śrīmad-Appayya-Dīkṣitendra with the commentary Kṛṣṇālaṅkāra of Acyutakṛṣṇānanda-Tīrtha. 1973. Edited by S. R. Krishnamurti Sastri and Dr. N. Veezhinathan. Secunderabad: ŚrīmadAppayya-Dīkṣithendra-Granthāvali-Prakāśana-Samiti.

SŚ          Saṃkṣepaśārīraka of Sarvajñātman. The Saṁkṣepaśārīraka of Sarvajñātman. 1972. Edited by N. Veezhinathan. Madras: Centre for Advanced Study in Philosophy, University of Madras. TP              Tattvapradīpikā of Citsukha. Tattwapradipika (Citsukhī) of Paramahaṃsa Citsukhāchārya With the Commentary Nayanaprasādinī. 1931. Edited by Raghunāth Kāshīnath Shāstrī. 2nd ed. Bombay: Nirnaya Sagar Press.

TŚ     Tattvaśuddhi of Jñānaghanapāda. Tattvaśuddhi of Jñānaghanapāda.
1941. Edited by Suryanarayana Shastri and E.P. Radhakrishnan. Madras: University of Madras.

TU              Taittirīya Upaniṣad. See TUB.

TUB          Taittirīyopaniṣadbhāṣya of Śaṅkarācārya. The Works of Sri Sankaracharya, vol. 6. 1910. Srirangam: Vani Vilas Press.

VKL Vedāntakalpalatikā of Madhusūdana Sarasvatī. Vedantakalpalatika by Madhusūdana Sarasvatī. 1962. Edited by R. D. Karmarkar. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

VS Vedāntasāra of Sadānanda. Vedānta-sara of Sadananda. 1962. Edited by M. Hiriyanna. 2nd ed. Poona: Oriental Book Agency.

Notes

1. – See Hirst (2006), Murthy (1959) and Rambachan (1991), and so on.
2. – Most notable figures include Sureśvara (c. eighth century C.E.), Padmapāda (c. eighth century C.E.), Sarvajñātman (c. tenth century C.E.), Vācaspati Miśra (c. tenth century C.E.), Prakāśātman (c. thirteenth century C.E.), Citsukha (c. thirteenth century C.E.), and Madhusūdana Sarasvatī (c. midsixteenth century C.E.). While Maṇḍana Miśra (c. seventh to eighth century C.E.) may not be considered a direct participant in the post-Śaṅkarite tradition, the profound impact of his seminal work, Brahmasiddhi, on Vācaspati Miśra necessitated the critical evaluation of his works by SSS.
3. – Note that SSS does not reject other methodologies like lakṣaṇā or netivāda; instead, he subsumes them under the umbrella term, adhyāropāpavāda. See Saraswati (1964, Introduction, p. 136. Dalal’s observation is similar (but not entirely synonymous): “The particular form of implication (lakṣaṇā) in which words mutually restrict each other’s meaning is similar to (if not the same as) anvaya and vyatireka and negative language (neti neti) … We may thus view all three as different iterations of a unified method despite their nuanced differences” (Dalal 2020, p. 54).
4. – We see here a nuanced difference in the interpretation of adhyāropāpavāda. For SSS, the ‘achievement’ of adhyāropāpavāda is strictly negative, i.e., the removal of ignorance; for the PSA, on the other hand, while the method operates negatively, its ‘achievement’ is a ‘positive indication’ of brahman. Traditional commentators (PPV, p. 499; SŚ 1.257, etc.) and modern scholars (Comans 2000, p. 290ff; Rambachan 1991, p. 69, etc.) accord precedence to ‘positive’ indications over negations, and therefore frame adhyāropāpavāda within the context of ‘indication.’ Comans writes, “… negation itself functions in the context of lakṣaṇā … It is not sufficient merely to say: “not a snake, not a snake!”, the substratum of the error must also be positively pointed out (“this is not a snake, it is a rope!”) …” (Comans 2000, p. 289). This, SSS vehemently refutes. See Saraswati ([1967] 1990, p. 82).
5. – See Comans (1990, 2000), Doherty (1999, 2005), Fort (1980), Murthi (2009), Sharma (2004), and so on.
6. – Murthi (2009) discusses—and dismisses—it as a pedagogic method. Rambachan (1991, 2017) discusses it in the light of the PSA; Hirst (2006) and Loundo (2015) discuss the method critically; however, I argue that neither capture correctly the essence of SSS’ interpretation.
7. – ‘na hi idam atigambhīraṃ bhāvayāthātmyaṃ muktinibandhanam āgamam antareṇa utprekṣitum api śakyam.’
8. – ‘tadbrahma sarvajñaṃ sarvaśaktijagadutpattisthitilayakāraṇaṃ vedāntaśāstrād eva avagamyate.’
9. – See Adhyāsabhāṣya; BGB 2.18; BGB 2.69; BSB 1.1.4; BSB 2.3.7, etc.
10. – ‘śāstraṃ tu antyaṃ pramāṇam, ataddharmādhyāropaṇamātranivartakatvena pramāṇatvam ātmanaḥ pratipadyate na tu ajñātārthajñāpakatvena.’
11. – See BGB 18.50; BSB 1.1.4; BUB 1.4.10; GKB 2.32; TUB 1.11.1-4, etc.
12. – For example, a rope for a serpent, brahman for the world, etc. See Adhyāsabhāṣya. The terms ‘āropa,’ ‘adhyāropa,’ ‘samāropa,’ and so on are commonly used in philosophical discourses to refer to erroneously confounding one object with another. See Kataoka (2012–2013).
13. – The difference between inherent and intentional adhyāropas is sometimes established by designating the former as lokasaṃvṛti and the latter as kalpitasaṃvṛti. Etymologically, saṃvṛti means ‘concealment.’ If lokasaṃvṛti refers to the conventional viewpoint—a false or illusory viewpoint that arises from being “concealed” by the veil of ignorance, kalpitasaṃvṛti is a strategic device—an upāya—that utilizes lokasaṃvṛti for the purpose of imparting the truth. See GKB 4.74.
14. – This statement demands a meticulous investigation/justification for its unconditional acceptance. While the limitations of this article preclude such an exploration, it must be noted that such an investigation does inform the bulk of SSS’ work. Also, note that the upāsanākāṇḍa, like the karmakāṇḍa section of the Vedas, is exempt from the rule; it does not employ the pedagogic method of adhyāropāpavāda. See Saraswati (1964, Ⅲ.52, p. 93ff).
15. – Loundo’s analysis of SSS’ position is articulate and insightful. Nevertheless, he makes a critical error. He posits that SSS delineates two sequential stages to the pedagogic task of adhyāropāpavāda: (a) the identification of the semantic nuances of individual terms and the recognition of their constitutive contraries with the intention of negating the latter, and (b) the realization of mahāvākyas such as ‘tattvamasi’ which culminates in gnosis (“akhaṇḍākāra bodha”). See Loundo (2015, p. 75ff). But SSS does not mandate mahāvākya-śravaṇa as a crucial, sequential step in the method of adhyāropāpavāda; in fact, he criticizes the PSA’s undue emphasis on them, contending that Śaṅkarācārya did not imbue mahāvākyas with any special efficacy. See Saraswati (1964, XⅥ.294, p. 649; [1967] 1990, p. 81) and so on.
16. – The prasthānatraya texts constitute the foundational texts of Vedānta, and include the Upaniṣads, the Bhagavadgītā, and Bādarāyaṇa’s Brahmasūtras.
17. – SSS has not explicitly articulated this; it is extrapolated from a comprehensive analysis of his collective writings.
18. – ‘dehavati pratyagātmani bhedaviṣaye prayujyamānaḥ śabdaḥ dehādīnām ātmatve pratyākhyāyamāne yat pariśiṣṭaṃ sat avācyam api pratyāyayati.’
19. – See Dalal (2020, p. 49), Hirst (2006, p. 149), Lipner (2003), and Saraswati (2001, pp. 64–65), and so on.
20. – See BSB 1.1.4; BSB 2.1.7; BSB 2.1.14; BUB 1.4.7; GK 3.15; GK 3.27; GK 3.48; GK 4.42, etc.
21. – ‘tadevaṃ kāryakāraṇavivekaprakriyayā śrutyā svīkṛtā sṛṣṭiḥ na sṛṣṭipratipādanārthā, kiṃ tarhi, kāryasya jagataḥ kāraṇabhūtabrahmānanyatvajñāpanena paramārthasya advaitatvajñāpanārthā.’
22. – ‘sṛṣṭyādi vākyānām ātmaikatvapratipattyarthaparatvāt prakṛtameva tasya darśanam.’ Also see BSB 1.1.11; BSB 1.4.14; BSB 2.1.4, etc.
23. – SSS writes, “The Upanishads take advantage of this tendency called Avidyā (Ignorance), and taking an apparently real thing for the really real for the time being, discard some other thing, the obviously unreal as unreal, and then reject the reality of the apparently real also by assuming something else to be really real. Thus, according to this method, the apparently real becomes a means to determine the really real, while all the while the method keeps in mind that Brahman alone is the one absolutely real entity,” (Saraswati [1971]2008, p. 25). Also see Saraswati (1964, Introduction, p. 63) .
24. – It must be noted that this understanding is not explicitly stated in any PSA text; yet, it exists as an unacknowledged a priori and colors every theoretical explanation proposed by the PSA.
25. – See Deutsch (1969), Grimes (1991), Hirst (2006), and so on.
26. – Although Ingalls’ observation contextually pertains to avidyā, it is extendable to other issues.
27. – Note that for SSS, brahman can neither be ‘shown’ nor described.
28. – See Comans (2000, p. 284ff), Murthy (1959, p. 57ff), Rambachan (1991,
    a. p. 69), and so on.
29. – ‘jñeyasya brahmaṇaḥ śaktisannidhimātreṇa pravartanasāmarthyaṃ tatsattvaṃ nimittīkṛtya svakāryavantaḥ bhavanti pāṇyādaya iti kṛtveti yojanā,’ (Ṭīkā). Also, see Bhāṣyotkarṣadīpikā (13.14).
30. – For SSS, on the other hand, according to the maxim, ‘adhyāropa is apavāda pradhāna,’ the deliberate ādhyāropa of “pāṇi-pāda” does not ‘indicate’ immanent brahman; rather, it counters the wrong notion that brahman does not exist. In the next verse, the adhyāropa is rescinded to avoid its concretization (apavāda). Both statements are fundamentally negative; their aim is to counter wrong ideas about brahman—natural or deliberated. The difference is nuanced. See Saraswati ([1969] 1996, p. 59).
31. – For SSS, on the other hand, adhyāropāpavāda constitutes a direct negation of ignorance; gnosis is the ‘cumulative outcome’ of the iterative application of the method of adhyāropāpavāda. (Note that “ignorance,” the “negation of ignorance,” and “gnosis” are, in themselves, adhyāropas.)
32. – Akhaṇḍākāravṛttijñāna is purported to be an extraordinary mental mode that destroys every other mental mode, engenders a direct perception of brahman, and itself perishes. An oft cited analogy is that of water poured on red-hot metal—the water destroys the heat, but also itself. Akhaṇḍākāravṛtti is discussed in detail in Citsukha’s TP and Madhusūdana Sarasvatī’s VKL. It is a concept that is absent in the works of Śaṅkarācārya and the early commentators. SSS’ criticism of the concept stands on the absolute reification of the idea of ‘destruction of ignorance’ that underlies it.
33. – See the commentaries of Kalpataru, Parimala, Ratnaprabhā, and Nyāyanirṇayavyākhyā on BSB 1.4.14.
34. – ‘avidyāpratibimbitaṃ brahmānavacchinnatvād īśvara iti gamyate,’ TŚ, p. 243.
35. – ‘ācchādya vikṣipati saṃsphuradātmarūpaṃ jīveśvaratvajagadākṛtibhiḥ mṛṣaiva. ajñānam āvaraṇavibhramaśaktiyogāt ātmatvamātraviṣayāśrayatābalena.’
36. – See BSB 1.1.2; BSB 1.2.2; BSB 1.2.21; BSB 1.3.13; BSB 2.1.14; BSB 2.1.18; BUB 1.5.20; TUB 2.8.5, etc.
37. – Rambachan (2001) argues against the PSA’s quibbles about īśvara from a different vantage point: he suggests that the vyāvahārika description of immanent brahman does not contradict transcendental brahman due to its paradoxical nature. Elaborate justifications for ‘creatorship’ are, therefore, rendered unnecessary. In contradistinction, SSS maintains that any proposition stemming from a vyāvahārika dṛṣṭi is intended to eliminate inherent misunderstandings about brahman, and therefore, attention must be directed towards the latter.
38. – This is reflected in the observations of many scholars; for instance, Hedling notes that Śaṅkara’s treatment of jīvanmukti lacks coherence and consistency (Hedling 2020, p. 290). Hacker observes that Śaṅkara shows little interest in systematizing a cosmogonical mythology based on the Upaniṣads (Hacker 1972). Fort (1980) and Sharma (2004) demonstrate contradictions in Śaṅkara’s views on avidyā in deep sleep, etc. Note that the contradictions cease to be contradictions when interpreted within the framework of adhyāropa and its corresponding apavāda.
39. – See Fort (1998), Hirst (2016), Nelson (1996), and so on.
40. – BSB 4.1.15: ‘kulālacakravat pravṛttavegasya antarāle pratibandhāsaṃbhavāt bhavati vegakṣayapratipālanam.’
41. – ‘mithyājñānaṃ dvicandrajñānavat saṃskāravaśāt kaṃcit kālam anuvar‐
    a. tata eva.’
42. – Śaṅkarācārya employs a similar line of reasoning to accommodate the concept of avatāras—emancipated beings tasked with a mission on earth. Citing the example of Apāntaratamas, Śaṅkarācārya writes that such beings possess complete knowledge of brahman, and yet persist in their corporeal forms until their divine assignments are fulfilled.
43. – ‘vidyāprārabdhabhogayoḥ avirodhitvam. ata āprārabdhabhogakṣayāt vidvaccharīram api tiṣṭhaty eva. tatra yathā vidyā bhogaṃ na bādhate, tatha bhogo’pi na vidyāṃ bādhate.’
44. – ‘gandhacchāyāleśasaṃskārabhāṣā vijñātavyā bhāṣyakārīyatantre. svāvidyāyā bādhitāyāḥ pratītiḥ paurvāparyeṇa artham ālocya budhyā.’
45. – ‘māyāleśaḥ jīvanmuktasya anivṛttaḥ samādhyavastāyāṃ tirohitaḥ anyad dehābhāsajagadābhāsahetutayā anuvartate. prārabdhakarmaphalopabhogāvasāne tu nivartate … sarvakarmaṇāṃ vināśāt viduṣaḥ sadya eva śarīrapāte jīvanmuktyabhāvaprasaṅgāt … akṛtaprāyaścittānāṃ karmaṇāṃ dehārambhakakarmabhogaikenāśyatvaniyamāt.’
46. – ‘nanu brahmātmānubhavadvaitadarśanayoḥ kutaḥ sāhityam ucyate? na vayaṃ sāhityaṃ brūmaḥ. kadācid asamprajñātātmaikatvadarśanaṃ kadācid ārabdhakarmopasthāpitadoṣanimittadvaitadarśanaṃ ceti.’
47. – Note that a single deliberated adhyāropa does not necessarily refute a single undeliberated adhyāropa; rather, it may refute many. SSS writes, “Nor is it a rule that each superimposition aims at removing only one particular thought-construction. To illustrate by an example: Superimposition of knowability of Ātman not merely wards off the supposition that some other thing deserves to be known, but also suggests that one becomes omniscient by the knowledge of Brahman and that all his ignorance is removed once and for all. It is also implied that ignorance of Ātman alone is responsible for the appearance of all duality, and that subsequent to the dawn of Self-knowledge there would no longer continue the distinction of knower, means of knowledge, and the object of knowledge. And so on… The intelligent reader can now proceed for himself and infer the implied negations in similar cases” (Saraswati 2001, pp. 61–62).
48. – ‘śarīre patite aśarīratvaṃ syāt na jīvata iti cet na saśarīratvasya mithyājñānanimittatvāt. na hy ātmanaḥ śarīrātmābhimānalakṣaṇaṃ mithyājñānaṃ muktvā anyataḥ saśarīratvaṃ śakyaṃ kalpayitum.’
49. – ‘tasmāt mithyāpratyayanimittatvāt saśarīratvasya siddhaṃ jīvataḥ api viduṣaḥ aśarīratvam,’ (BSB 1.1.4).
50. – ‘mokṣākhyam aśarīratvaṃ nityam iti siddham.’
51. – ‘samyagdarśanakālameva tat phalaṃ sarvātmatvaṃ darśayati.’
52. – ‘vidyā svayamevotpadyate tayā cāvidyā bādhyate. tataḥ cāvidyādhyastaḥ saloko’yaṃ nāmarūpaprapañcaḥ svapnaprapañcavat pravilīyate.’ Also see BGB 5.17; BGB 5.24; BGB 6.27; BGB 8.24; BGB 13.30; BSB 2.1.22; BSB 3.4.52; BUB 4.4.6-7; NS 4.36-37, etc.
53. – ‘evaṃ dharmādharmayoḥ bandhahetvoḥ vidyāsāmarthyāt aśleṣavināśasiddheḥ avaśyaṃbhāvinī viduṣaḥ śarīrapāte muktiḥ ity avadhārayati.’ Videhamukti is variously termed kṣemam, kaivalya, apunarāvṛttiḥ, brahmasampattiḥ, brahmanirvāṇam, brahmabhūyam, etc in different texts.
54. – ‘na hi viduṣaḥ mṛtasya bhāvāntarāpattiḥ jīvato’nyabhāvaḥ dehāntarapratisaṃdhānābhāvamātreṇaiva tu brahmāpyetīty ucyate.’
55. – ‘bhāmatīvivaraṇaprasthānayoḥ upeyabhūtapāramārthikādvaitasiddhāntasthāpanaikaparamatātparyavatoḥ api tad upāyabhūtavyāvahārikaprameyaviśeṣe tātparya bhedaḥ.’
56. – ‘na ca sarve advaite tātparyavantaḥ te vādina iti sūtrabhāṣyavārttikakārā manaḥsamādhānam āsādya tūṣṇīṃ tasthuḥ, kiṃ tarhi, te sarve’pi parapraṇītaprakriyāṃ nāyam advaitapratiṣṭhāpanamārga iti svābhiprāyam udvuṣya svamatānuguṇaśrutiyuktyādyānayanena khaṇḍayāmāsureva. na hi parasparaviruddhatayā ābhāsamānānāṃ śrutīnāṃ eva tāvad ekavākyatām anāpādya prāmāṇyam abhyupagantuṃ yujyate, kimu yuktīnām iti. anyonyaviruddhaprasthānānām eka eva hi samyaṅmārgo bhavitum arhati. vastuni vikalpāsambhavāt, viruddhadikkānāṃ mārgāṇām ekasmin sthāne paryavasānāsaṃbhavāt.’
57. – This is captured in Śaṅkarācārya’s statement, “that which is inexpressible is ‘expressed’ through the method of adhyāropa-apavāda” (‘adhyāropāpavādābhyāṃ niṣprapañcaṃ prapañcyate,’ BGB 13.13.)
58. – ‘saiṣā prakriyā sarvavedāntasamuddiṣṭā ekaiva satī nānārūpāṇi dhatte.’
59. – See Saraswati (1960, p. 15; 1964, Ⅵ.88, p. 183).
60. – See Saraswati (1964, Introduction, p. 36). This is also Comans’ (2000, p. 263) observation.
61. – For example, Vācaspati Miśra’s philosophical underpinnings bear the indelible marks of Maṇḍana Miśra’s Brahmasiddhi. Padmapāda’s formulation of avidyā intriguingly surfaces as a pūrvapakṣa in the Brahmasiddhi (“avidyopādānabhedavādinaḥ”), which strongly suggests the existence/contemplation of such ideas during that period. Moreover, the pervasive influence of philosophical systems like Sāṃkhya and Yoga becomes apparent in the works of various commentators. See Saraswati (1964, Ⅵ.88, p. 183ff).

References

Alston, A. J., trans. [1989] 1997. The Method of the Vedanta: A Critical Account of Advaita Tradition (by) Sri Swami Satchidanandendra Sarasvati. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass PPL.

Andrijanić, Ivan. 2022. “The development of the terms māyā, īśvara and saccidānanda in the early Advaita Vedānta.” Paper presented at The 38th Annual Sanskrit Traditions Symposium, May 27, 2022.

Comans, Michael. 1990. “The self in deep sleep according to Advaita and Viśiṣṭādvaita.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 18:1–28.

———. 2000. The Method of Early Advaita Vedānta: A Study of Gauḍapāda, Śaṅkara, Sureśvara, and Padmapāda. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass PPL.

Dalal, Neil. 2020. “Contemplating Nonduality: The Method of Nididhyāsana in Śaṅkara’s Advaita Vedānta,” In The Bloomsbury Research Handbook of Vedānta, edited by Ayon Maharaj, pp. 45–74. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

Deutsch, Eliot. 1969. Advaita Vedānta: A Philosophical Reconstruction. Honolulu, HI: East West Centre Press.

Doherty, Martha J. 1999. “A Contemporary Debate in Advaita Vedānta: Avidyā and the Views of Swami Satchidānandendra Saraswati.” PhD Dissertation: Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard University.

———. 2005. “A Contemporary Debate among Advaita Vedantins on the Nature of Avidyā.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 33:209–241.

Fort, Andrew O. 1980. “The Concept of Suṣupta in Advaita Vedānta.” Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 61, nos. 1/4:221–228.

———. 1998. Jīvanmukti in Transformation: Embodied Liberation in Advaita and Neo-Vedanta. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Grimes, John. 1991. “Some Problems in the Epistemology of Advaita.” Philosophy East & West 41, no. 3:291–301.

Hacker, Paul. 1972. “Notes on the Māṇḍukyopaniṣad and Śaṅkara’s Āgamaśāstravivaraṇa.” In India Maior, edited by J. Ensink and P. Gaeffke, pp. 115–132. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.

Hedling, Klara. 2020. “Nondual Philosophies in Dialogue: The World and Embodied Liberation in Advaita Vedānta and Pratyabhijñā.” In The

Bloomsbury Research Handbook of Vedānta, edited by Ayon Maharaj, pp. 281–306. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

Hirst, J. G. Suthren. 2006. Śaṃkara’s Advaita Vedānta: A way of teaching. London: Routledge.

———. 2016. “When the body does not fall: Śaṃkara, Sureśvara and

Ānandagiri on living while liberated.” The Journal of Hindu Studies 9:1–28.

Ingalls, Daniel H. H. 1953. “Śaṁkara on the Question: Whose is avidyā?” Philosophy East & West 3, no. 1:69–72.

Loundo, Dilip. 2015. “Adhyāropa-apavāda Tarka: The Nature and Structure of the Soteriological Argument in Śaṅkarācārya’s and Swami

Satchidanandendra Saraswati’s Advaita Vedānta.” The Journal of Hindu Studies 8:65–96.

Kataoka, Kei. 2012–2013. “Dharmottara’s Theory of Apoha.” Journal of Indological Studies, 25, no. 24:115–135.

Murthi, S. K. A. 2009. “The Mūlāvidyā Controversy among Advaita Vedāntins: was Śaṅkara Himself Responsible?” Journal of Indian Philosophy 37: 149–177.

Murthy, K Satchidananda. 1959. Revelation and Reason in Advaita Vedānta. Waltair: Andhra University.

Nelson, Lance E. 1996. “Living Liberation in Śaṅkara and Classical Advaita: Sharing the Holy Waiting of God.” In Living Liberation in Hindu Thought, edited by Andrew O. Fort and Patricia Y. Mumme, pp. 17–62. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Lipner, Julius. 2003. “Śaṅkara on Satyaṃ Jñānam Anantaṃ Brahma.” In Relativism Suffering and Beyond, edited by P. Bilimoria and J. N. Mohanty, pp. 301–318. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Rambachan, Anantanand. 1991. Accomplishing the Accomplished: The Vedas as a Source of Valid Knowledge in Śaṅkara. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i Press.

———. 2001. “Hierarchies in the Nature of God? Questioning The SagunaNirguna Distinction in Advaita Vedanta.” Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies 14:13–18.

———. 2017. “‘That From Which All Words Return’: The Distinctive Methods of Language Utilization in Advaita Vedānta.” In Ineffability: An Exercise in Comparative Philosophy of Religion, edited by Timothy D. Knepper and Leah E. Kalmanson, pp. 157–167. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

Saraswati, Swami Satchidanandendra, ed. 1960. The Mundaka Upanishad: with Sri Shankara’s Commentary. Holenarsipur: Adhyatma Prakasha Karyalaya.

———. 1964. Vedanta-Prakriya Pratyabhijna. Holenarsipur: Adhyatma Prakasha Karyalaya.

———. 1966. Pancapadika-prasthanam: A Critical Appreciation. Holenarsipur: Adhyatma Prakasha Karyalaya.

———. [1967] 1990. Salient Features of Śaṅkara’s Vedānta. 2nd ed. Holenarsipur: Adhyatma Prakasha Karyalaya.

———. [1969] 1996. Śaṅkara’s Clarification of Certain Vedāntic Concepts. 2nd ed. Holenarsipur: Adhyatma Prakasha Karyalaya.

———. [1973] 1998. Misconceptions about Śaṅkara. 2nd ed. Holenarsipur: Adhyatma Prakasha Karyalaya.

———. 2001. Śuddha-Śāṅkara-Prakriyā-Bhāskara. 2nd (comprehensive) ed. Holenarsipur: Adhyatma Prakasha Karyalaya.

———. [1971] 2008. Essays on Vedanta. 2nd ed. Holenarsipur: Adhyatma Prakasha Karyalaya.

Sharma, Arvind. 2004. Sleep as a State of Consciousness in Advaita Vedānta.

Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.