1.

Metaphysical assumptions
Due to the manner in which The Upanishads and From Many to One are written, their
metaphysical commitments appear to be almost completely assumptive. Rather than attempting
to prove those assumptions, Hindu theorists present them as truth, and command that a devoted
individual personally reflect on the commitments veridical nature. One example of a particular
metaphysical assumption is the process of reincarnation as dictated by ones dharma and karma.
The most important metaphysical assumption presented by the Advaita Vedanta school of
Hinduism, however, is a robust monism that entails pantheism.
Proponents of Advaita Vedanta argue that ultimately there is only one substance, with that
substance being Brahman. Brahman is undifferentiated Reality that is progenitor of the apparent
world, serving as the substratum on which all other things depend. The world of pluralities that
each of us is apparently situated is simply a manifold of illusory perceptions that are rooted in
ignorance. Brahman is also eternal and infinite, existent in transcendence of time, space, and
causality. However, even applying the predicate infinite or eternal is prescribing a limitation
on Brahman through discursive signification. As Brahman can admit no limitations, its true
essence is beyond concepts or rational identification, and so enlightenment necessarily resists
intellectual cognition. Since all of Reality is solely comprised of Brahman, so too is every
apparent object as well as every individual.
While Western philosophic tradition affirms the empirical ego as a primitive, Advaita
Vedanta Hinduism rejects the pervasive notion that each individual is her own detached self.
Rather, the particular I is a perversion of Reality that is imposed by each individuals limited
perspective. So while nearly everyone pragmatically operates as if they are different selfs, their

true Self (called Atman) is identical to overarching Brahman. This monistic characterization of
personal identity regards everyone and everything as a harmonious whole that does not
ultimately admit any division.
If all of Reality is undifferentiated one-ness, then why is it that nearly everyone
apprehends the world as if it were many? Through the power of Maya, Brahman creates the
illusory world with all of its apparent pluralities. Maya is sometimes explained as ignorance and
other times a power. Swami Abhedananda writes in his essay Good and Evil that the word
create does not denote a creation out of nothing, but rather a projection. The apparent world
is not ultimately Real but is a type of illusion generated from ones fallible perception of Reality.
This is why Advaita Vedanta asserts that the apparent world has not been created in the strictest
sense. It is not the case that the phenomenal world was actually brought into existence by
Saguna Brahman, but that its inhabitants are in a sort of hypnotic trance. Brahman, being
factually without quality (as quality is limitation through predication), does not act because an
action presupposes both a change as well as more than one entity. In the monistic Hindu
universe, neither of those two conditions can admit absolute Reality. A metaphor for the
ontological status of the apparent world would be a movie screen. Brahman is the screen, the
actors, the audience, as well as the entire production team. The experience of the apparent world
is Brahman reflected upon itself but mistaken as fragmented. One who becomes enlightened
achieves bliss in the realization that the events in the allegorical movie are completely
inconsequential. Even dangerous or frightening events can be viewed as the delusion that they
are.
Advaita Vedanta Hinduism presupposes many metaphysical commitments that Western
audiences would consider alien to the point of nonsense. Processes like superconscious

meditation and reincarnation are certainly integral components to Hindu theology, but are all
derivative of the overarching monism. The realization of Absolute Reality through enlightenment
is a type of praxis that allows the enlightened to see reality as it actually is. Monism through an
advocacy that Atman is Brahman results in an attunement with a necessary universal.

2. Knowledge of the Real

Hinduism establishes several pramnas, or sources of valid knowledge (Journey pg.). The
pramna that yields knowledge of the Real is shabda pramna, which is translated as reliable
testimony. Transmission of the ultimate truth via the Vedas or by a legitimate guru is a necessary
precondition for the proper apprehension of Reality. Once the intellectual content of absolute
Truth has been received by a proper student, the student must then meditate on the Truth of that
transmission. Upon reaching enlightenment, a student will have discovered for herself the
legitimacy of Advaita Vedanta. This means that one component of enlightenment pertains to
being taught with the rest of the process pertaining to individually driven spiritual work.
The idea that one must rely on expert testimony is one that many Western thinkers would
reject. Philosophical tradition rooted in Socratic questioning generally encourages subjects to
ultimately determine matters independently. After all, contemporary society is so saturated with
half-truths and outright falsities that is seems irresponsible to simply trust an expert at their word.
However, this line of reasoning ignores the inescapable fact that nearly all that modern peoples
take as knowledge is irreducible to the transmission of testimony. First, everyone must
uncritically receive testimony from authorities during their intellectual developmental phase. A
child is simply not in a position to determine for herself the accuracy of what she has been

taught. Upon moving past the developmental phase, that subject will determine if new findings
are consistent with what she already considers herself to know. However, even in this phase the
subject is still relying on her naturalized testimonial knowledge as the criterion for truth. The
attempt to reduce testimonial knowledge to other sources will always ultimately fail. Second,
most of what is taken to be known presently is always contingent upon testimony. Anything
about ones family history, or about events that are spatially isolated from ones self will require
testimonial knowledge. If one were to hear reports of a troop build-up in China, not only is that
actual event dependent on expert testimony, but the notions of China, troops, and what
constitutes aggression are as well. Third, there are many matters that one is barred from
apprehending either from the difficulty or specialization of the task. Most contemporary
individuals believe that beyond the terrestrial atmosphere lies the void of space, but very few
people have directly perceived it. The average individual simply does not have the equipment or
training to achieve this knowledge on their own.
Perhaps a more sustainable objection is that the nature of Reality is not something that can be
known. Because Brahman is without limit, exhaustive knowledge of its nature is impossible as
long as it is approached from a finite mind. Brahman also transcends concepts because concepts
serve as a limitation on its Reality. Knowledge in the conventional sense presupposes that the
object of knowledge is separate from the subject. Since Atman is Brahman, ones particular
consciousness and ultimate Reality are identical, and so one cannot have knowledge of it. This is
why personal meditation and reflection are necessary, because the path to enlightenment cannot
be communicated through human language. The guru illuminates the terrain that contains the
path to enlightenment, but only the student can traverse it. Anyone who claims to have
intellectual or propositional knowledge of ultimate Reality is misunderstanding the

transcendence of Brahman. Since cognition of Reality is impossible, it is not clear that anyone
will every come to know the Real.
However, this objection is not so much in response to Hinduism, but to the way that
knowledge is generally treated. For the enlightened, rationality places fundamental universality
under erasure and treats the subject as separate from the external world. If the rest of the
conclusions in Hinduism are true, then the mundane knowledge that is ordinarily prized is
ultimately of no importance. In other words, if Brahman is ultimately reality, then the fact that it
cannot be intellectually understood is not problematic.

3. Karma, dharma and the caste system