Mahayana Buddhism and Early Advaita Vedanta (Study)

by Asokan N. | 2018 | 48,955 words

This thesis is called: Mahayana Buddhism And Early Advaita Vedanta A Critical Study. It shows how Buddhism (especially Mahayana) was assimilated into Vedantic theorisation in due course of time. Philosophical distance between Mahayana Buddhism and Advaita-Vedanta became minimal with the advent of Gaudapada and Shankaracharya, who were both harbinge...


In the ancient Indian Philosophical schools, Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta are quite significant and have made their presence felt till today. Philosophical enquiry is based on man’s desire to understand what is reality, the assumption being that the present way of understanding and even experiencing it is flawed. As a result of this flawed understanding, human life is immersed in ignorance and misery. Most schools of philosophy have ignorance as the starting point and this ignorance leads to attachment, desire, delusion and craving for things, which puts them in misery or suffering. The elimination of this ignorance leads to the correct understanding of reality and this is what great philosophers have sought to understand. This led philosophers to identify with a mysterious or mystical aspects that promised an ‘ultimate’ or ‘absolute’ reality beyond this mundane world, or a view that denied the possibility of any understanding or release from the worldly affairs, or even an extreme indulgence in the world affairs, taking that to be the reality.

Hence the philosophies that existed at that time of Gautama Siddhartha offered people extreme ways of thought and action to realize the ‘truth’ or understand reality. Gautama experienced the extreme practices of indulgence and self-mortification and realized that both could not lead to enlightenment. The Buddha was not for any of the ways of absolutism, skepticism, materialism or asceticism as a means for realizing oneself. In the line of the Buddha, after about 600 years of his Mahaparinirvana, appeared Nagarjuna who made substantial contribution to Buddhism by his thinking of the Middle way which he emphasized.

Nagarjuna was the first Indian Buddhist philosopher, who articulated ‘the doctrine of emptiness’ or Shunyavada and is traditionally regarded as the founder of Madhyamika school of Buddhism. Gaudapada, the grand-preceptor of Adi Shankara was the one who in his Mandukya-karika (hereafter MK) has again brought out the essence of Mandukya Upanishad that speaks of a person in the world being different from a person of the world. Both the schools treat the reality as trans-empirical in different ways. The purpose of Nagarjuna was to explicate shunyata whereas the sole purpose of Gaudapada’s Mandukya-karika was to expound the central teaching of the Upanishads and portraying the illusoriness of the world. The proposed research work is a comparative study of the philosophies of Nagarjuna as portrayed in his Mula-Madhyamika-karika (hereafter MMK) and Gaudapada as envisaged in his Mandukya-karika and discusses their relative philosophical merits. This critical and comparative analysis will highlight their contribution to Indian philosophical heritage and influences on later philosophical writings.

Objectives of the Research Project

The main aim of this research project is to compare and contrast the philosophies of Nagarjuna and Gaudapada and to understand their philosophical tenets as well as their approach to reality. It would also like to study the Shunyavada doctrine from the background of Buddhism and Brahmavada from the standpoint of Advaita. The main idea is to find out the role of Buddhism and that of Advaita in their contribution to Indian Philosophy by enriching it in many ways and providing the space for human liberation and equality in the observation of religiosity though coming down from two opposing traditions, one vedic and other non-vedic.


In India, traditional philosophy has been ordinarily discussed under three heads: God (Ishvara) individual soul (Jiva) and the phenomenal world. In contrast to the orthodox view, Nagarjuna has developed his radical views on God and soul. The methodology is adopted to study, compare and contrast the three categories, through analytical and comparative methods. An analysis of the basic concepts put forward by Nagarjuna and Gaudapada with regard to the above factors like world, soul and God leads us to the conclusion that none of them can be taken to be real. Nagarjuna follows the Buddha’s view and emphasizes the theory of non-origination and shunyata. To Gaudapada, these three are appearances of a transcendental entity. Historically, both systems form a continuous search of human intellect to uplift man with the help of a philosophy. A comparative study of the two philosophical traditions leads to an understanding of what causes the world of plurality and contradictions. The critical method has also been used in analyzing the problems and concepts of both the schools. The underlying methodology is phenomenological because all through the subject matter has been the reality, the being.

Introducing the problem

The emergence of the Madhyamika school of Buddhism brought forth new interpretation of the thought propounded by the Buddha and carried forward in the teachings of the Buddha by opening up the doors of liberation for one and all. Each religious and philosophical system that came into prominence provided ways to avoid speculations and assumptions. This led to a sympathetic understanding of the varied structural and philosophical meaning of the reality leading to personal and social growth. The similar attempt was made by Gaudapada followed by Shankara and they too advocated the fact that everyone has the right to be liberated. Buddhism and Advaita are the two examples that this research attempts to undertake.

Buddhism flourished about six hundred years before Christ. The Buddha was born in Lumbini, north-east of India’s border, now in Nepal. The literature dealing with the life-details of the Buddha was codified in the language of Pali, after the Mahaparinirvana of the Buddha and is known as ‘Tripitaka[1] -three baskets. This consists of Suttapitaka that contains the teachings of Buddha and his disciples. From Vinayapitaka we get a clear picture of the life style of the bhikkus, the rules and regulations to be followed by disciples and common man. The changes entered into these rules and regulations over a period of time. Abhidhamma-pitaka has seven prakaranas containing discussions of the principles of Buddhism and the teachings of the Buddha. In this research work, I would also attempt to analyze and study the philosophical atmosphere of India before the Buddha and how he challenged the existing Brahmanical hegemony.

Gaudapada appeared in the Indian Philosophical scenario, probably in 2nd century AD and held the view that Upanishads speaks of what the Buddha taught. Several centuries later, Shankara appeared in the scene. His philosophy and teaching was in many ways only a re-interpretation of what Gaudapada said. Advaita has since then has grown into a big tree having several philosophical branches and disicussion here in this thesis would be on the tradition highlighting the contribution of Gaudapada.

The central philosophy of Nagarjuna is the notion of shunyata or essenceless-ness. Essenceless is the absence of Svabhava (real nature) of anything. Svabhava is the inherent existence or intrinsic nature. There are two main conceptual dimensions of the concept of Svabhava that is ontological and cognitive. Ontological is the particular way in which objects exist. Cognitive is the way in which objects are conceptualized by humans. Svabhava is understood in three different ways. Nagarjuna explores, in detail, the Absolute reality. He makes a distinction between primary existence and secondary existence. Nagarjuna brings four ways in which things could be causally brought out–(a) from themselves, (b) from other things, (c) from both themselves and other things, and (d) from neither. He considered cause and effect as mutually dependent. Since causal relation is conceptually constructed, it is without an essence.

Like Buddhism, Advaita emphasized a code of values and a culture based on spirituality. Its greatness lies in the acceptance of investigations directed inwards. Advaita harmonizes the laws of nature with nature of truth. Advaita seems to have appeared at a time when society had broken into numerous sects engaged in philosophical arguments. People who had embraced Buddhism could not live up to the noble ideals put forward by the Buddha. It is at such a period that Advaita emerged with its theory of illusoriness of the world. Gaudapada, the preceptor of Advaita, logically established the illusoriness and unreality of the phenomenal world through his explanations of the three states of existence: waking, dream and deep sleep. He proved that this illusoriness is the stepping stone towards the awareness of the Absolute Brahman. Gaudapada explained that the phenomenal world is considered to be real so long as the knowledge of Brahman had not arisen. When the latter arises, the world perception as such is sublated. During the period after Gaudapada, Shankara emphasizes not only the intellectual knowledge of truth and reason by Upanishadic discipline, which results in the purification of mind, but also emphasized on the directknowledge by anubhava, realization or personal experience for realizing Brahman itself. The realization of the Brahman is the awareness that the knowledge of the Self is the real knowledge. This state can be had by the analysis of the Mahavakyas and that will end in liberation. This knowledge can be acquired from a teacher who is realized and well-versed in the sastras. It is therefore said that he who knows Brahman becomes Brahman. He attains the absolutely highest state of human endeavor. All that it means is that according to Advaita, Brahman, that is Self, is ever realized but is not manifest because of ignorance.

The development of Buddhism during post-Buddha period is very complex due to the great freedom of enquiry enjoyed by its followers; this happened primarily through the classified division of Buddhism into Theravada (elders’ way) and Mahayana (great vehicle). In course of history, the philosophical discussions over various abhidharmas gave rise to the later Mahayana schools of Madhyamika and Yogacara.

Nagarjuna is known as the expounder of Mahayana–Madhyamika (middle-path) Buddhism. Theoretically and practically, he developed the Madhyamika philosophy in a very systematic way. The kernel of Madhyamika philosophy is Prajnaparamita-shastra, a commentary on Prajnaparamitasutra. The Prajnaparamita-sutra (PPS) is one of the earliest works of the Mahayana school. Like Vedanta, the PPS begins to explain negative terms like unthinkable, indescribable, unnamable etc. It is in which the philosophical implications of the school are rooted known as tathata comparable with the mind of the Buddha himself. Therefore, it is called as shunyata-essencelessness. Tathata is Shunyata, according to Nagarjuna.

The Middle Path (Madhyama-marga) of Nagarjuna

In the quest for Nirvana, there are two paths: Pravriti-marga and Nivritimarga; indulgence and renunciation. Buddha studied and experienced both these paths and found that both of them are unsatisfactory and, hence, he preferred the middle path. He was not in favour of sasvata-vada or ucchedavada. The middle path consists in becoming free of desires so that they are subdued. This midway between two paths is, therefore, known as madhyama-marga. It is further explained in terms of the path of eight virtues. This path of eight virtues can be divided into three jewels as 1) Sila 2) Panna 3) Samadhi.

In Vedanta, reality appears as the world of plurality, the world of Maya. By giving the analogy of space and pot, Gaudapada explains that the self is like space and Jivas are all like the spaces enclosed in a pot (avacchedavada). There is no difference between Brahman and individual soul. Brahman and Ishvara (God) are not two distinct beings. The world of souls and things is an appearance superimposed by the self, as if the snake form superimposed on the rope-substance seen in dim-light. Gaudapada’s theory is ekatmavada, not ekajivavada. As the spokes are fixed in the nave of a wheel, so are all beings centered around the self. The things created in the mind within and those posited in the world without are the illusory imaginations of the Atman. In dream as well as in waking, it is the mind that moves being impelled by maya. The self, maya and the mind are stated to be responsible for the manifestation of the world. Ajativada–theory of non-origination is the important conceptual contribution of Gaudapada. Atman is to be meditated by the symbol of OM. Gaudapada analyzes the three manifestations of the selfmentioned in the Mandukya Upanishad. One and the same self appears in different stages of waking, dreaming, and dreamless sleep state. The fourth, the Turiya is to be known by the negation of the three, the essence of consciousness, the non-dual reality is known as Advaita. This is Turiya–Atman which is Brahman. This non-dual reality is called Pranava or OM-kara. Gaudapada in his Karika discusses elaborately, the pranava and its three pada’s as Vishva, Taijasa and Prajna. Turiya which is the inner ruler is the immortal self.

Ajativada of Gaudapada

Mandukya-karika is also known as Gaudapadiya-karika and Agama-shastra of Gaudapada. It is an explanatory commentary of Mandukyopanishad. This Upanishad is considered as one of the principal Upanishads by all the schools of Vedanta. It consists of four chapters and two hundred and fifteen karikas. The fourth chapter deserves more attention for our research project. The fourth, Alatashanti discusses the unreality of the visible world. Alata is a symbol of unreality.

There were large interactions between Upanishadic and Buddhist schools. Gaudapada, the Vedantic philosopher attempted an Advaitic interpretation of Vedanta in the light of Madhyamika and Yogacara doctrines that preceded him. The Buddhist concept of maya was utilized by the Vedantic schools in one way or another, by identifying it with the unmanifest (avyakta) and Prakriti. The Advaitins use the word maya to mean the disappearance of the object as an existent and its non-existence at a higher level. Advaita developed a few concepts to explain God, World and soul based on maya.

Non-origination is a very important concept in Gaudapada’s theory. The absolute alone is real, all others are unreal appearance. Appearance of diversity is due to maya. In the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad we find that the self (Atman) is uncaused and uncreated. The Atmatattva is aja (unborn) and advaya (non-dual). It is mind that moves through maya (spandate mayaya manah) and creates the illusion of a world involving destruction of seer and seen, cause and effect etc.


Gaudapada’s view on maya is that world of plurality is an illusory appearance induced by maya. His contention is that there is no world in reality. Hence there is no question as to the mode of its origination. The universe appears;it is only an illusory manifestation and is called ‘vivarta’. He uses the rope snake analogy. It is mere illusion. Maya is responsible for the world illusion. It covers the real self and projects the non-real world. It is illusory, erroneously cognized and characterized as mithya and kalpita. This perception of the world is an error, contrasted with the Absolute reality–Paramarthasatya, which is Brahman indeed. Gaudapada says that Ishvara is resident in the heart of all and he is all pervasive. Advaita theory of creation is that the universe is not real, but an illusory manifestation due to maya. The things of the world put up by maya are unthinkable (anirvacaniya).

Doctrine of Self

In the Taittiriya Upanishad, there is an enquiry into the koshas or sheaths[2] which encase the self. These five garments are the veils of the true self. The purpose of inquiry is to disentangle the self from the non-real koshas and to realize the eternal nature. The sheath of food (annamaya) is the gross body. The sheath of vital force, mind and including vijnana, the three is called sukshma-sharira or linga-sharira. The sheath of ananda, which is enfolded in avidya, is the causal body. And we should correlate these bodies with Vishva, Taijasa and Prajna. The three states-waking, dream and sleep, are not to be identified as the true self. The true self is the witness of the three states (avasthatrayasakshi). Distinct from the five bodies and three avasthas (states), the true self that is Brahman should be realized. This is the position of Gaudapada. When one attains real knowledge, who realizes as the self and Brahman are one. Tat tvam asi–aham brahmasmi.

Review of Literature

In my data collection, I came across many books and articles related to the topic of my research work. One of the path making work has been by Professor Vidhusekhara Bhattacharya who is of the opinion that Mandukya-karika is a text of Vijnanavada school of Buddhism.[3] TMP Mahadevan’s book ‘Gaudapada: A Study in Early Advaita’[4] defends the position of Advaitins stating that Gaudapada was a staunch Advaitin. Mahadevan is of the view that Shankara’s thinking is only a reiteration of the thinking propounded by Gaudapada. There is little doubt about the fact that Gaudapada has been influenced by Madhyamika dialectics of Ajati (no-creation). The dialectic is used by Nagarjuna to reject the reality of creation. Gaudapada, on the other hand is affirming the reality of Brahman to the exclusion of everything and he does so on the basis of Upanishads. A critical exposition of Buddhism and Advaita has been attempted by T.R.V. Murthy. In his book, ‘Central Philosophy of Buddhism’[5] Murthy attempts to analyze the Madhyamika on the model of Upanishadic Advaita and vice versa. Though it has created some controversy in the academic circles it has been the widely referred book so far on the subject.

Another book, which deserves the special mention is ‘Early Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism’ by Richard King[6] who tries to show how both schools have been interacting all along and how Mahayana has borrowed from the upanishadic tradition and Advaita has been influenced by Mahayana tenets. ‘The Self and its States’ by Andrew O Fort[7] provides us with the translation of Mandukya-karika. He has attempted to analyze the text from the point of “transpersonal psychology”. Another work that has been used in building up of this is the book of Thomas Wood’s ‘The Mandukya Upanishad and the Agamashastra’.[8] His work is more based on theological perspectives and brings out the essence of non-dualism as we find in Advaita and Buddhism. The recent work of Douglas A Fox, ‘Dispelling lllusions (Gaudapada’s) Alatashanti’ (SUNY Press) summarizes some of the main aspects of the text and throws lights on the philosophical implications.

In this thesis, I have made a comparative analysis of the works to show how Advaita of Gaudapada and that of Shankara gets developed from that of Nagarjuna and he has been influenced by the Upanishads.

The thesis is divided into five chapters besides introduction and conclusion.


Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta are living philosophies of the people in their practice and predilections. Nagarjuna, a master in Buddhist faith and philosophy represents a transformational thinking through its moral values and action. Gaudapada, an advocate of Advaita non-dualism emphasizes the Advaitic teachings based on Upanishads. For him, through the practice of yoga disciplines one can attain the moksha which is the summom bonum or ultimate aim of the seeker. These two different systems of Indian philosophy depict two streams of human thinking. And it is the deepest part of our being in the existential essence of the world.

Chapter 1: Buddha, Nagarjuna, Gaudapada and Shankara

With its origin in India, Buddhism developed almost two thousand five hundred years of free thinking and moral values. Buddha’s teachings fall under three main groups called as Tripitakas (three baskets). In Pali literature, Tripitakas are the most famous collection of Buddhist history and literature. It contains suttapitaka, vinayapitaka and abhidharmapitaka. After the council of Vaishali the progressive members known as ‘Mahasamghikas’ developed as the Mahayana sect. Nagarjuna developed the middle path known as Madhyamika. Nagarjuna is the first great name in Buddhist thought since the Buddha and he is referred to as the second Buddha. He has been attributed to many works in Sanskrit. Among them Mula-Madhyamika-karika is important. Mula-Madhyamika-karika is the systematized form of the Shunyata doctrine of Prajnaparamita. Prajnaparamita (PP) revolutionized Buddhism.

The Mandukya-karika of Gaudapada is an attempt to combine in one whole negative logic of the Madhyamikas with a positive idealism of the Upanishads. Ajati (unborn) is the important philosophical concept of the Gaudapada. According to the concept of Ajati nothing is born. It is on account of maya, the duality is visible. The world of souls and things is an appearance superposed on the self, as the snake superposed by in dark light. Like dream and magic it is illusory. When the true knowledge arises the seer sees the truth everywhere i.e.

Brahman. The central philosophical problem of the Vedanta is the conception of Brahman, the nature of causality, and the reality. Shankara’s philosophy, like most pre-Buddhistic philosophy is oriented toward the one practical aim moksha -the bliss Absolute. Shankara takes for granted the validity of the Shruti and Gita as the embodiment of highest truth. He supports the Upanishads and refute all other systems of thought. In his commentary on Brahma-sutra, he harmonizes the two truths, Vyavaharika and Paramarthika (contingent and ultimate) respectively. He has been obviously inherited this dialectical mechanism of argumentation form Gaudapada, his great guru.

Chapter 2: Buddhism -Mula-madhyamika-karika: Nagarjuna’s Perspective

Nagarjuna is the proponent of Mahayana school. His position is based on the early Mahayana literature known as the ‘Perfection of Wisdom Verses’-Prajnaparamita-sutras’. In it, he emphasizes mainly on the doctrine of emptiness (shunyata) and it is an important term in the Madhyamika Buddhism. This is Madhyama-marga. When desires cool down, the life of suffering automatically ceases. Peace of mind is generated by the control of desires. This is what Nirvana in simple words.

In his Mula-Madhyamika-karika he distinguished two truths, paramarthasatya and samvritisatya, through rigorous logical argumentation. He criticizes both Hinayana Buddhist and Upanishadic views on existence. Nagarjuna demonstrates the flux itself could not be held to be real, nor could the consciousness perceiving it, as it itself is a part of the flux. The Dependent Origination or Pratityasamutpada is the central philosophy of Buddhist teaching. But it is by no means easy to grasp in its full implication.

Chapter 3: Advaita in the Mandukya-karika

A commentary in verse form on Mandukya Upanishad is Mandukya-karika. It is the earliest systematic treatise on Advaita Vedanta. This karika of Gaudapada has four chapters or prakaranas-Agamaprakarana, Vaitathyaprakarana, Advaitaprakarana and Alathashantiprakarana. The first chapter expounds the mantras of the Mandukya Upanishad. The four states of consciousness are explained. Gaudapada goes beyond the Upanishadic text to establish the unreality of things experienced in dreams. Karika presents a clear statement of the non-dualist position. Gaudapada puts forward ‘ajata doctrine’-the doctrine of non-origination (non-becoming). Gaudapada quotes several passages from Brihadaranya Upanishad and Chandogya Upanishad to support his views to establish the Advaita doctrine. He mentions Taittiriyaupanishad in Karika and speaks of the five sheaths that over the soul. He also explains the limitations of verbal explanations, stressing the need to depend on Shruti. The most important fact is that at every stage of the interpretation of spiritual texts reason plays the most prominent role.

Chapter 4: Reality according to Madhyamika and Advaita

Nagarjuna and Gaudapada appeared in the Indian philosophy after Buddha and Upanishads. Gaudapada constructs Buddhism in a traditional Upanishadic format by thorough criticism of Buddhist concepts. The both have adopted similar methodology and arrived at similar conclusions. However the Upanishads were fully accepted by Gaudapada was not taken into consideration by Nagarjuna while constructing a reality which Advaita did.

Chapter 5: Nagarjuna and Gaudapada-A Comparative Study

Both systems have similar philosophical outlook. Both believe in causality and the theory of Karma. Both believe in renunciation and meditation. Both believe the world is transitoriness. Buddhism holds that there is no permanent reality, but only a stream of passing consciousness-flux. Advaita holds that Brahman or Atman is the ultimate reality i.e. unchanging.

Gaudapada reformulated the upanishadic ideal in the light of Madhyamika and Vijnanavada dialectic. Gaudapada assimilated Buddhist Shunyavada. Both reach the same goal of total desirelessness, but through different means of experience. Brahmavada is same as Nirvana. So Advaitins’ Brahman is similar to the Shunyata of the Madhyamikas-MahayanistsBuddhists.

Critical Evaluation

The rise of Madhyamika is a land mark development in Buddhism. Gaudapada’s perspective on reality is having similarity of Vijnanavada Buddhism. Nagarjuna and Gaudapada have used same arguments to prove the unreality of the world. The phenomenal world is a vibration of the mind (cittaspandita). There is sufficient evidence in the karika for thinking that Gaudapada was possibly himself a Buddhist. Gaudapada makes use of Buddhist terms like dharma, samghata, advaya, sauvriti etc. to prove the unreality of the world. But eventually his conclusions are Advaitic. When Gaudapada used the word ‘citta’ a term used by Vijnanavada, he did not mean the contentless mind, which is the reality according to Vijnanavada but Atman, the Self. Gaudapada’s arguments are derived from upanishadic passages. A Bodhisattva abstains from entering Nirvana, in order to help other living beings to obtain Bodhi. Jivanmukti corresponds to Arhant. Buddhism has heavily borrowed from brahmanical literature and is influenced by Upanishads. But the conclusions arrived by Nagarjuna and Gaudapada are different.

The two concepts that emerge from a study of Nagarjuna and Gaudapada are freedom as a metaphysical and moral concept and apparent reality of the phenomenal world. In today’s world of science and enquiry, it is important and necessary that we understand the nature of the world, our role in it, our relationships with others and nature, our duties to preserve harmony within and without and how to consider others as our own. In short, study of ancient philosophical texts help us in a systematic, subjective enquiry in to the inequalities leading to violence in society. Wisdom is the guide in our search for truth. This wisdom is gained by a deep knowledge of ancient religious and philosophical texts with the help of commentaries.

Whole science is external search for truth, ancient philosophical enquiry is search directed inwards. What we witness around us today is the results of total avoidance of the internal search for truth. Buddhist view that nothing is permanent in this world and that trishna is the root cause of all evil, cannot and should not be ignored as useless and outdated. In the same way the Advaitic view that the divisions and differences that we find around us are not real but reflections of our own limited knowledge, cannot be ignored as irrelevant.

Brahman, as the ultimate ontological Being. It is the foundation of all our being. Like Ocean and the waves, and Sun and its rays. Advaitin says: God is Brahman, and soul is the Brahman limited by the inner instrument, which is a product of maya. Non-origination is a very important concept in Gaudapada’s thought. It is conceiving of the real as changing. In both the ego is transcended. In Buddhism this is done by denying it altogether, in the Advaita by identifying it with God or Brahman. Shunyata is Absolute.

Footnotes and references:


The Tripitaka are Suttapitaka, Vinayapitaka and Abhidhamma-pitaka, which translates as 'Three Baskets.' The dating of the Tripitaka is unclear. Max Muller states that the current structure and contents of the Pali Canon took shape in the third century BCE after which it continued to be transmitted orally from generation to generation, like the Vedas and the early Upanishads. According to A. K. Warder the Tibetan historian Bu-ston said that around or before the 1st century CE there were eighteen schools of Buddhism and their Tripitakas were written down by them. Only one version of the text has survived in full, and others of which parts have survived, all of these texts are lost to history or yet to be found. The tripitaka was compiled and put into writing for the first time during the reign of King Walagambahu of Sri Lanka (1st century BCE).


The koshas or sheaths are annamaya, pranamaya, manomaya, vijnanamaya and anandamaya


Vidhusekhara Bhattacharya, ‘Agamashastra of Gaudapada’, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, New Delhi, 1989


. TMP Mahadevan, ‘Gaudapada: A Study of Early Advaita’, University of Madras, 1954


TRV Murthy, ‘The Central Philosophy of Buddhism: A Study of Madhyamika System’, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, New Delhi, 1980


Richard King, ‘Early Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism’, Satguru Publications, Delhi, 1990


Andrew O Fort, ‘The Self and its States: A States of Consciousness Doctrine in Advaita Vedanta’, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 1990


Thomas Wood, ‘The Mandukya Upanishad and the Agamashastra: An Investigation into the meaning of Vedanta’, University of Hawaii Press, 1990

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: