Vedānta is a school of Hindu philosophy which is based on the teachings of the Upanishads.

The
Upanishads are ancient Hindu scriptures which constitute the final section of the Vedas. Thus, the
Upanishads have also been called the Vedanta. Vedānta literally means “end of the Vedas.” Vedānta
philosophy interprets and develops the teachings of the Upanishads.

Where all versions of Vedānta intersect in their effort to provide a consistent and defendable
interpretation of the Brahma Sūtra, on philosophical and hermeneutic grounds. Given the common
textual bases, there are certain doctrinal invariances amongst the various sub-schools of Vedānta. The
three main branches of Vedānta philosophy are: 1) Advaita (i.e. non-dualism), which represented by the
teachings of Śamkara , 2) Visishtadvaita (i.e. qualified non-dualism), which is represented by the
teachings of Rāmānuja, and 3) Dvaita (i.e. dualism), which is represented by the teachings of Mādhva.

Śamkara argued that Brahman is undifferentiated being and that Brahman and Ātman are a unity.
Rāmānuja argued that Brahman is a unity, but that it has two forms, the self and matter. Madhva argued
that Brahman is differentiated being, and that it is different from both the self and matter.

In accordance with the Upaniṣads, these schools of Vedānta hold that there is an ultimate entity, called
Brahman, which also is referred to by scripture as “Ātman” (“Self”). The Vedānta schools recognize, in
accordance with the Upaniṣads, that Brahman plays a key role in the organization of the universe.
Attainment of Brahman by an individual constitutes its highest good: moḳsa.

The chief areas of disagreement amongst the various schools of Vedānta are on the nature and
ontological status of individual selves, objects of cognition and Brahman, as well as the relevance and
importance of ethics or duty (dharma) to the good life.

For classical Advaita Vedānta, Brahman is the fundamental reality underlying all objects and
experiences. It is explained as pure existence, pure consciousness and pure bliss. All forms of existence
presuppose a knowing self. Brahman or pure consciousness underlies the knowing self.

Consciousness, according to the Advaita School, unlike the positions held by other Vedānta schools, is
not a property of Brahman but its very nature. Brahman is also one without a second, all-pervading and
the immediate awareness. This absolute Brahman is known as nirguņa Brahman, or Brahman “without
qualities.” This Brahman is ever known to Itself and constitutes the reality in all individual selves, while
the appearance of our empirical individuality is credited to avidya (ignorance) and māyā (illusion).

Brahman thus cannot be known as an individual object distinct from the individual self. However, it can
be experienced indirectly in the natural world of experience as a personal God, known as saguņa
Brahman, or Brahman with qualities. It is usually referred to as īśvara (the Lord). The appearance of
plurality arises from a natural state of confusion or ignorance (avidya), inherent in most biological
entities.

Given this natural state of ignorance, Advaita provisionally accepts the empirical reality of individual
selves, mental ideas and physical objects as a cognitive construction of this natural state of ignorance.
But from the absolute standpoint, none of these have independent existence but are founded on
Brahman. From the standpoint of this fundamental reality, individual minds as well as physical objects
are appearances and do not have abiding reality. Brahman appears as the manifold objects of
experience because of its creative power, māyā.
Māyā is that which appears to be real at the time of experience but which does not have ultimate
existence. It is dependent on pure consciousness. Brahman appears as the manifold world without
undergoing an intrinsic change or modification. At no point of time does Brahman change into the
world. The world is but a superimposition on Brahman. The world is neither totally real nor totally
unreal. It is not totally unreal since it is experienced. It is not totally real since it is sublated by
knowledge of Brahman.

There are many examples given to illustrate the relation between the existence of the world and
Brahman. The two famous examples are that of the space in a pot versus the space in the whole cosmos
(undifferentiated in reality, though arbitrarily separated by the contingencies of the pot just as the world
is in relation to Brahman), and the self versus the reflection of the self (the reflection having no
substantial existence apart from the self just as the objects of the world rely upon Brahman for
substantiality).

The existence of an individual jīva and the world are without a beginning. We cannot say when they
began, or what the first cause is. But both are with an end, which is knowledge of Brahman. According
to classical Advaita Vedānta, the existence of the empirical world cannot be conceived without a creator
who is all-knowing and all-powerful. The creation, sustenance, and dissolution of the world are overseen
by īśvara. īśvara is the purest manifestation of Brahman.

The cosmic aspect belongs to one īśvara, and the individual aspect, avidya, belongs to many jīvas. But
the difference is that īśvara is not controlled by māyā, whereas the jīva is overpowered by avidya. Māyā
is responsible for the creation of the world. Avidya is responsible for confounding the distinct existence
between self and the not-self. With this confounding, avidya conceals Brahman and constructs the
world. Śamkara described avidya as beginningless. He considered that to search the origin of avidya
itself is a process founded on avidya and hence will be fruitless.

Both Rāmānuja and Śamkara's systems of Vedanta were predicated on their respective interpretations
of the Upanishads and Brahmasutra Bhasya. Since the heterogeneous Upanishads presented
inconsistent views on God, containing contradictory passages about the unity and diversity of Brahman,
it is not surprising that Rāmānuja and Śamkara developed different perspectives on Brahman. Whereas
Śamkara attempted to reconcile the conflicting Upanishadic passages by positing two levels of reality
(nirguna and saguna Brahman), Rāmānuja, in contrast, postulated three interrelated theories to account
for the unity and diversity of Brahman: (1) the "Body of God" doctrine, (2) co-ordinate predication
(samanadhikaranya), and (3) the body-inner-controller relationship (sarira-sariri bhava). Each of these
theories will be briefly explained below.

Subsequent tradition has applied the label “Viśiṣṭādvaita” to the philosophy of Rāmānuja. The term
“Viśiṣṭādvaita” is often translated as ‘Qualified Non-Dualism.’ An alternative translation is “Non-duality
of the qualified whole,” or perhaps ‘Non-duality with qualifications.” The label attempts to mark out
Rāmānuja’s effort to affirm the unity of the many, without giving up on the reality of distinct persons,
qualities, universals, or aesthetic and moral values.

According to Rāmānuja, the universe is made up of souls (jīva), matter (jagat), and Brahman. He asserted
that souls and matter are entirely dependent on Brahman and qualify Brahman's existence. Thus, the
whole universe is the body of God, which consists of two modes: finite souls and matter. The
relationship between these two modes is inseparability. Consequently, Rāmānuja 's system of thought is
called Visistadvaita (qualified non-dualism), because Brahman is allegedly qualified (visesya) by souls
(cit) and matter (acit).

Rāmānuja used the concept of co-ordinate predication to show how two aspects of Brahman can be
distinct from each other yet inseparable. The universe, while distinct from Brahman, is still a part of
Brahman- it is an attribute and not an independent principle capable of functioning on its own. In other
words, the universe is dependent on, and inseparable from God.

Rāmānuja taught that souls and matter are utterly dependent on Brahman for their existence. Brahman
is the supreme Soul who is present in all finite souls and matter. Brahman dwells in the souls
unrecognized and unknown until liberation (moksa) is reached. During liberation, the finite souls realize
their divine nature but do not become identical with God—Brahman and souls remain distinct yet
inseparable.

Rāmānuja’s gives the cosmological doctrine of śeṣa and śeṣin (dependant and dependant upon).
According to Rāmānuja, Brahman is the Self of all. However, this is not because our individual
personhood is identical with the personhood of Brahman, but because we, along with all individuals,
constitute modes or qualities of the body of Brahman. Thus, Brahman stands to all others as the soul or
mind stands to its body. The metaphysical model that Rāmānuja thus argues for is at once cosmological
in nature, and organic. All individuals are Brahman by virtue of constituting its body, but all individuals
retain an identity in contradistinction to other parts of Brahman, particularly the soul of Brahman.

Where all versions of Vedānta intersect is in their effort to provide a consistent and defendable
interpretation of the Brahma Sūtra, on philosophical and hermeneutic grounds. Given the common
textual bases, there are certain doctrinal invariances amongst the various sub-schools of Vedānta. In
accordance with the Upaniṣads, the various schools of Vedānta hold that there is an ultimate entity,
called Brahman, which also is referred to by scripture as “Ātman” (“Self”). The Vedānta schools
recognize, in accordance with the Upaniṣads, that Brahman plays a key role in the organization of the
universe. Attainment of Brahman by an individual constitutes its highest good: soteriological liberation
or moḳsa.

The chief areas of disagreement amongst the various schools of Vedānta are on the nature and
ontological status of individual selves, objects of cognition and Brahman, as well as the relevance and
importance of ethics or duty (dharma) to the good life. Rāmānuja’s foils in the articulation of his
philosophy are two forms of Vedānta that were not clearly distinguished during his day: these are the
Bhedābheda view, and the Advaita philosophy. Both these views take a similar stance on the
relationship of an individual’s subjectivity and Brahman: on both accounts, the conscious principle of the
individual is of a piece with Brahman. In the case of Advaita Vedānta, the consciousness of an individual
is regarded as numerically identical with the consciousness of Brahman. On this view, the psychological
ego or sense of individuality is something distinct from consciousness: it is its object.

In accordance with much of the monism of Upaniṣadic passages, Rāmānuja maintains that there is a way
in which the individual self (jīva, or jīvātman) is identical with the Ultimate Self (Ātman or Paramātman).
According to Rāmānuja, each jīva shares with Brahman an essential nature of being a knower. However,
due to beginningless past actions (karma) our true nature (as being knowers and dependants upon
Brahman) are obscured from us. Moreover, our sharing this nature in no way implies that we have the
same relationship to other things. In other words, our likeness in one respect with Brahman does not
imply that we are either omnipotent, omniscient or all good.