Advaita never tires of repeating: liberation is not the acquisition of something new, but the removal of ignorance (avidyā). The Self is already Brahman, but through misidentification, we imagine ourselves to be the body, the senses, the mind. Liberation (mokṣa) is nothing other than the unveiling of what has always been the case.
Śaṅkara systematized this process into a sequence often summarized as śravaṇa, manana, nididhyāsana:
- Śravaṇa (Listening to the Teachings):
The first step is hearing the Upaniṣadic truth from a qualified teacher. Because Brahman transcends reasoning, revelation (śruti) is indispensable.
The mahāvākyas (“great sayings”) serve as lightning bolts that shatter the assumption of separateness: tat tvam asi (“Thou art That”), aham brahmāsmi (“I am Brahman”), prajnānam brahma (“Consciousness is Brahman”), ayam ātmā brahma (“This Self is Brahman”).
- Manana (Reflection):
Hearing alone is insufficient, for doubts remain. Reflection involves testing the teachings against reason, contemplating their meaning, and dissolving intellectual obstacles.
Śaṅkara insisted that Advaita is not irrational. Logic has a role, but only as a servant of revelation, not its master.
- Nididhyāsana (Deep Contemplation):
Beyond reasoning lies assimilation. In meditation, the seeker internalizes the truth until it saturates awareness. This is not concentration on an object but dwelling in pure subjectivity, abiding as the witness.
Nididhyāsana prepares the ground for aparokṣānubhūti — direct, immediate realization of Brahman.
These stages are not linear steps but deepening spirals. Again and again, the seeker listens, reflects, and meditates, until ignorance dissolves like mist under the sun.
The Role of the Guru
Advaita insists on the indispensability of the guru, not as a transmitter of doctrines but as the living embodiment of truth. The guru is one who has realized Brahman, and thus serves as both mirror and catalyst for the disciple’s awakening.
Śaṅkara himself composed hymns extolling the guru, declaring: gurur brahmā gurur viṣṇuḥ gurur devo maheśvaraḥ… gurur sākṣāt parabrahma — “The guru is Brahmā, the guru is Viṣṇu, the guru is Śiva… the guru is truly the Supreme Brahman.” Such exaltation is not personality worship but a recognition that the guru dissolves individuality and radiates the presence of the Absolute.
This dynamic mirrors the Zen tradition’s emphasis on the necessity of transmission “outside the scriptures.” In both cases, the teacher functions as a crack in the conceptual edifice, a living demonstration that liberation is possible and present.
Phenomenology of Liberation (Mokṣa)
What happens when ignorance falls away? Advaita describes mokṣa not as an event in time but as timeless recognition. From the empirical standpoint, liberation may appear to occur in the life of a particular individual, but from the absolute standpoint, the Self was never bound to begin with.
Classical texts and saints describe liberation in several recurring motifs:
* Egoless Awareness: The sense of “I am the doer” (ahaṁkāra) dissolves. Actions continue, but without identification. Śaṅkara calls this jīvanmukti — liberation while living.
* Freedom from Fear: Death holds no terror, for the Self is unborn. The liberated one knows: “As space is never burned by fire, so the Self is untouched by the body’s fate.”
* Non-duality of Subject and Object: The dualistic structure of experience collapses. All that appears is seen as Brahman; all distinctions are provisional.
* Spontaneous Bliss: Not a hedonic pleasure, but the serene radiance of sat–cit–ānanda. The Taittirīya Upaniṣad describes layers of bliss, culminating in the boundless joy of Brahman itself.
From the outside, such a liberated one may appear ordinary. Śaṅkara described the jīvanmukta as moving through the world without attachment, like a child, a madman, or a ghost. Yet within, the sense of bondage is gone, and with it the cycle of birth and death.
Advaita’s Debates with Rivals
Advaita’s radical non-duality did not go uncontested. Its history is punctuated by debates with other philosophical schools, which sharpened its positions and forced it to clarify its stance.
- Buddhists:
Śaṅkara engaged vigorously with Buddhist thought, especially Yogācāra and Madhyamaka.
He agreed with the Buddhists that the world of appearances lacks ultimate reality. But he accused them of falling into nihilism by denying an underlying Self. For Śaṅkara, consciousness cannot be reduced to momentary flux; it must be eternal and unchanging.
Buddhist critics, in turn, accused Advaita of smuggling a subtle form of eternalism into its doctrine.
- Sāṁkhya:
The dualist Sāṁkhya posited two ultimate realities: Purusha (consciousness) and Prakṛti (matter). Advaita rejected this duality, insisting that Prakṛti itself is a projection of māyā upon Brahman.
- Dvaita and Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta:
Later Vedāntic schools, such as Madhva’s Dvaita (dualist) and Rāmānuja’s Viśiṣṭādvaita (qualified non-dualist), critiqued Advaita’s claim that individuality is illusory.
Rāmānuja argued that liberation involves eternal union with God, not dissolution into a formless Brahman. Madhva went further, insisting on an eternal difference between God and souls.
These debates reveal the rich diversity of Vedāntic approaches to the Absolute and underscore the boldness of Śaṅkara’s radical non-duality.
Absolute Nothingness Revisited
Against this backdrop, the phrase “Absolute Nothingness” gains sharper contours. For Śaṅkara, Brahman is beyond attributes, beyond conception, beyond dualities. From the standpoint of thought, this is equivalent to nothingness. Yet, paradoxically, this nothingness is the ground of all existence, the infinite plenitude of consciousness.
Here the dialogue with Unborn Mind Zen becomes especially vivid. Both traditions confront the paradox of an Absolute that appears as nothing to the conceptual mind yet as everything in awakened realization. Both stress negation as a method of liberation. Both see liberation not as gaining something new but as recognizing what has always been.
And yet, the contrast remains: Advaita affirms a Self that is identical with Brahman, while Unborn Zen avoids all such affirmations. Whether these are complementary perspectives on the same ineffable reality or irreconcilable metaphysical stances will be the central drama of this series later chapters.