Manipal Academy of Higher Education (MAHE), Manipal

Institution of Eminence – Deemed to be University

Faculty of Liberal Arts – Humanities and Social Sciences

050 Department of Philosophy (DoP)

PhiloGrad: 205001001

Program: 5001MA Indian Philosophy (MAIP)

Course: Research Methods

Instructor: Dr Yatharth Kachiar

Supervisor: Dr Arjuna SR

Assessment: Summative Assessment

Date: Friday, 31 December 2021

Paper: Literature Review

1
 A Comparative Analysis of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave and Śaṅkara’s Nescience

Table of Contents

Abstract

Part A

1. Introduction
2. Rationale
2.1.1. Theme 1
2.1.2. Theme 2
3. Research Questions
4. Research Objectives
5. Theoretical framework
6. Definitions
7. Limitations

Part B

1. Literature Review
2. Brief Context
2.1. Theme 1
2.2. Theme 2
3. Research Gap
4. Hypothesis
5. Conclusion
6. References

2
Abstract

This literature review investigated the scope of a comparative study between Plato and
Śaṅkara. Plato comes from the Western tradition around 2400 year back and Śaṅkara comes
from the Eastern tradition around 1300 years back. Though they come from two different
continent and at different time yet their interest and ideological similarities bring them
together on a same platform. This review strictly focused on Plato’s allegory of the cave and
Śaṅkara’s nescience. In this review, it has analysed fifteen journals and two books in general.
More specifically, it has analysed seven journal related to Plato’s allegory of the cave, five
journal and two book related to Śaṅkara’s nescience, and three comparative study in that two
related with allegory of the cave and one related with nescience. In this investigation, it is
understood that these two philosophers have certain common features in their writings.
Moreover, the allegory of the cave and nescience travel in similar fashion. As these
philosopher’s general interest is to address the human issues so they have exposed the human
issue through allegory of the cave and nescience, then addressed them from their
philosophical perspective. To understand them and their philosophical concepts this literature
review worked under a constructed title “A comparative study of Plato’s allegory of the cave
and Śaṅkara’s nescience”. Then, with a research question “How do the concept of Plato’s
allegory of the cave and Śaṅkara’s nescience compare and contrast, and what significant
conclusion can be drawn out of it? So, this paper explains how this review conducted and
arrived at a conclusion that Plato’s allegory of the cave and Śaṅkara’s nescience exposes
human issues and addresses them in these concept in a similar fashion. This paper has divided
into two part and it explains the result of this literature review within research framework.
Part A

Introduction

It is quite fascinating to know that human aspiration has no set limit so they are always
curious about themselves, and their surroundings. It is in this endeavour philosophy become a
friend to one and all. Philosophy in its essence is an activity where those who aspires to know
the reality, or to know the meaning of life, or to gain knowledge involves in philosophising
things that fall in their way. This is not a new phenomenon; throughout human history many
involved in this activity of philosophising, so they come up with their own version of findings
regarding reality, meaning of life, gaining knowledge etc. Therefore, the focus of this
literature review is to explore the philosophising of two great intellectuals who ventured to

3
expose human issues and address them through their philosophising. More specifically,
Plato’s allegory of the cave and Śaṅkara’s nescience.

Plato was an Athenian philosopher who “was born in 428 or 427 BEC” and died in 348 or
349” (Airoboman 2019). He studied under Socrates, and later, he trained Aristotle. He found
an Academia; later, it turned into a university, the first Western university. In his academia,
he emphasized “science” and “Mathematics” thus he was known as the “maker of
mathematicians”[ CITATION Mei21 \l 1033 ] . Plato penned “many philosophical texts, at least
25”[ CITATION Mei21 \l 1033 ] . In this, the most famous text is the “Republic”[ CITATION
Mei21 \l 1033 ]. The text describes how a “wise society run by a philosopher” [ CITATION Mei21
\l 1033 ]. He is also known for his “dialogue” [ CITATION Mei21 \l 1033 ]. His contributions are
notable. He has contributed several “philosophical subfield including ethics, cosmology, and
metaphysics”[ CITATION Mei21 \l 1033 ]. Alfred North Whitehead has mentioned about Plato “a
safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a
series of footnotes to Plato”.

Śaṅkara was an Indian philosopher who was born around “700 CE at Kaladi Village” and
“died around 750 CE at Kedarnath” [ CITATION May21 \l 1033 ] . He was a well-known
“philosopher” and “theologian”[ CITATION May21 \l 1033 ] in Advaita Vedānta tradition. His
well-organized doctrinal foundation kindled “the main currents of modern Indian
thought”[ CITATION May21 \l 1033 ]. He has penned commentaries on “the Brahma-sutra, the
principal Upanishads and the Bhagavad-Gita”[ CITATION May21 \l 1033 ]. He holds his belief
"in one eternal, unchanging reality (Brahman), and the illusion of plurality and
differentiation”[ CITATION May21 \l 1033 ] . He was a student of Govinda, and Govinda was the
student of Gaudapada. There is not much information about Govinda, his teacher; however,
information about Gaudapada is available. Gaudapada has penned a significant work on
Vedānta called “Mandukya-karika” in that the influence of “śunyavādā of Mahayana
Buddhism”[ CITATION May21 \l 1033 ] is quite vivid. He develops his theory on this concept
"śunyavādā" and takes the position against dualism. Śaṅkara further builds on Gaudapada’s
concept of “śunyavādā” and develops the concept of avidyā or nescience.

The allegory of the cave is a metaphor that is used in the seventh book of the Republic. This
describes one of the concepts that have already been mentioned in the sixth book of the

4
Republic Divided Line. The concept of Divided Line has several sections, and it talks about
various stages of knowledge. In the allegory of the cave, this concept of Divided Line is more
explained. It is a dialogue between Socrates and Glaucon; they are along with a group of
people at Polemarchus's house. Here the focus is on Socrates’s and Glaucon’s conversation.
To Glaucon, Socrates explains, some persons live in an underground abode, similar to a cave,
with a light-filled entrance. The path into the cave's lower portion is lengthy and as wide as
the cave itself i.e., the cave's lowest part. These men have been chained since birth; their legs
and necks are so tightly bound that they can't move and can only look front of them, as the
shackles prohibit them from turning their heads around. Imagine a brilliant fire burning
behind and above them, and a roadway at an elevation between the fire and the prisoners.
Along this roadway, a low wall is created, similar to the screens jugglers set up, above which
they exhibit their puppets. A strange picture, and strange prisoners like ourselves such
prisoners would hold that the shadows of the manufactured objects which they see moving
upon the cave wall before them were the only realities. Such prisoners would hold that the
shadows of the manufactured objects which they see moving upon the cave wall before them
were the only realities. In this allegory, Plato compares the cave world with the natural world
of experience. In the cave world, it is a fire that gives light, which in turn presents the shadow
of the manufactured objects in front of the prisoners, and they believe that as real. Similarly,
whatever they perceive in the natural world of experience with the help of the sun is not real,
impermanent, changing, and shadow of the ideal world.

The fundamental principle of Advaita Vedānta is “non-duality” or “denial of duality in

Brahman” [ CITATION Bha10 \l 16393 ]. However, all Vedānta schools maintain that Brahman is
the reason for this universe and the supreme reality. Then what makes Advaitin different
from other schools? As for other dualistic schools, "individuality is real," but for Advaitins,
"individuality is unreal" [ CITATION Bha10 \l 16393 ]. Śaṅkara comments that “what is called as
the jiva is not different from Brahman” rather “Brahman” itself appeared by limiting himself
as “buddhi (intellect)” [ CITATION Bha10 \l 16393 ] . This buddhi is the "doer and experiencer,"
so the difference between the “individual self” and Brahman is the limiting factor of the body
itself; it has “names, forms and created by avidyā” [ CITATION Bha10 \l 16393 ] . In dualistic
schools, individual self (Atman) and Brahman remain distinctive in time of liberation,
whereas in non-dualistic concepts, it becomes one with Brahman. In other words, there is no
difference between the individual self and Brahman; as soon as the limiting factor body
disappears, it becomes one with Brahman.
5
Śaṅkara’s chief concern is to show the unchanging reality of Brahman, so he starts with the
changing, unreal world of experience. To support his claim of changing, unreal world of
experience, he refers to the scripture. Thus, he establishes the unreal, changing world at its
practical level itself. There are two arguments he shows to prove that this world of experience
is changing and not actual. The first argument is that “the impermanent is unreal (anitya is
asatya)”, then the second argument is that “the antinomic nature of the subject and the object
(Cit and Jada)” [ CITATION Bha10 \l 16393 ]. How do they argue the impermanent is unreal?
First of all, Brahman is unchanging, real, and eternal, which means it negates that whatever is
contrary to Brahman is impermanent and that is unreal. So, the principle of non-contradiction
is implied here. For example, when someone is in a dream or a deep sleep, the external world
ceases. In this case, it contradicts; the dream or deep sleep state contradicts with the waking
state. The waking state is unreal, and the deep sleep state is real because the real Brahman
(intellect) can recognize or recall it as I have had a deep sleep, not anything else. Thus, the
intellect or consciousness or the Brahman is unchanging or even present in a dream that is
real. Then, how do they argue the antinomic nature of the subject and the object? In their
proposition, the main “premise is that intellect or consciousness is subject” and “it can never
be objectified” [ CITATION Bha10 \l 16393 ] . For example, to know an object subject is required,
so subject and object cannot be the same. How do we know an object? It is through
consciousness; so is the subject, and it is self-luminous.

Plato’s allegory of the cave and Śaṅkara’s nescience discuss three similar themes, the
material world, the immaterial world, and the human being. For both, the immaterial world is
an ideal world or the real world. The material world is unreal; according to Plato, the material
world is the shadow of the immaterial world, whereas according to Śaṅkara, the material
world is avidya or nescience. Then, for Plato, the world of the cave is a picture of the human
condition that human is in error or bondage, so they are forced to believe the unreal as real.
Only if only those who come out of that cave can understand the cave world experience is
unreal and real experience is different. Similarly, according to Śaṅkara, because of nescience,
humans believe unreal as real. Only, if only those who detach from avidya will know that
they are one with Brahman. Though there are thematical, ideological, and conceptual
similarities present in these two thoughts yet a preliminary analysis of Plato’s allegory of the
cave and Śaṅkara’s nescience, show that both Plato and Śaṅkara are investigating into two
different worlds of experiences. These investigations of both Plato and Śaṅkara into the
6
material world, immaterial world, and human life fall under the broad philosophical domain
of idealism.

Rationale

The humans are curious about themselves and their surroundings. Their curiosity to know
more led them to explore everything that fall in their way. In their pursuit, human has moved
from Bullock Carts to Aeroplanes, earth the natural habit to space the non-natural habit for
human. All these achievements starts with their simple desire to know more and more. There
are many ventured to explore about themselves and their surroundings. In this Plato and
Śaṅkara were also included. However, the way they exposed the human issues and the way
they addressed them are unique. Those expositional methods and their findings have not been
replaced even in this well advanced scientific era. There might be several reasons, however;
here I would like to state two reasons. The first one, they might be accurate and reasonable in
their investigation into human issues. The second one, there might not be accurate and
reasonable investigation done after them. So, this is the ground on which this literature
review take-off its investigation into Plato’s allegory of the cave and Śaṅkara’s nescience
which exposes and addresses the human issues. It also provides the answer to the basic quest
of human being. What is reality? What is knowledge? What is the meaning of life?

The basic themes that are discussed within these concepts are;

 The human being and their condition

 The material world and its condition
 The immaterial world and its prospect

Research Questions

 Main Question
o How do the concept of Plato’s allegory of the cave and Śaṅkara’s
nescience compare and contrast, and what significant conclusion can be
drawn out of it?
 Sub-questions
o What are the fundamental concepts addressed in these two thoughts?
• The concept of the man or human soul

7
 • The concept of the immaterial world
• The concept of the material world
o What are the similarities and dissimilarities between these two thoughts?
o What significant conclusion can be drawn out of it?
• The epistemological challenge
• The metaphysical relevance
• The ontological relevance
• The practical implication to everyday life
Research Objectives

 To identify the fundamental concern of these two thoughts

 To compare the similarities and dissimilarities of these two thoughts
 To assess the relevance of these thoughts to everyday life

Theoretical framework / Definition

The concept of Plato’s allegory of the cave and Śaṅkara’s nescience come under the broad
idealistic philosophical domain. Idealism is a philosophical position, and it has a long
tradition in the history of philosophy. The idealist view is in contrast with realism and
naturalism. A minimalist definition of idealism is “any view that stresses the central role of
the ideal or the spiritual in the interpretation of experience. It may hold that the world or
reality exists essentially as spirit or consciousness, that abstractions and laws are more
fundamental in reality, or, at least, that whatever exists is known in dimensions that are
chiefly mental – through and as ideas” [ CITATION Dan20 \l 1033 ] . In short, idealism maintains
the view that human experiences as illusory or as a mental construct. The Western
philosopher Plato and the Indian philosopher Śaṅkara employ this idealistic concept in their
work. Since this study falls under the domain of idealism, this paper will also investigate the
critic of idealism, especially realism and naturalism. The scope of this study is to analyse and
evaluate the concept of Plato’s allegory of the cave and Śaṅkara’s nescience. These two
thoughts are significant in terms of their philosophical investigation into human life, the
world in which humanity lives, and the world to which humanity aspires or these thinkers
consider as the ideal world of experience. So, the guiding question of this research is; how
does the concept of Plato’s allegory of the cave and Śaṅkara’s nescience compare and
contrast, and what significant conclusion can be drawn out of it?

8
The methodology implied in this writing is descriptive, and it discusses and describes various
concepts to analyse them in detail.

Limitations

The major limitation of this literature review is that it completely depends on secondary and
tertiary resources. That means, it completely depends on the interpretation of other scholars.
Therefore, the idea of this literary review is to analyse and describe these concepts rather than
interpretation. Plato’s allegory of the cave is widely interpreted piece of writing but
Śaṅkara’s nescience is less explored concept. So, there is a scarcity of material available
especially a comparison between Plato and Śaṅkara.

Part B

Literature Reviews

Airoboman, Dr. Felix Ayemere. "Plato's Allegory of the Cave and its Implication for
Modern Living." POLAC INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES
AND SECURITY STUDIES (PIJHSS), 2019: 13.

In this study, the writer deals with the allegory of the cave and its implication to modern
living. Plato’s metaphysical and epistemological ideas are emphasised in this article. Also, he
makes the difference between the reality and appearance. Also, this journal emphasis the
practical implication of the allegory of the cave. The kind of education it provided those time
is compared with the present time. It shows the kind of issues the human faces in those time
as well as this time.

Airoboman, Felix Ayemere. "A Contemporary Reinterpretation of Plato’s Notion of

Reality." International Journal of Latest Research in Humanities and Social
Science (IJLRHSS), 2017: 9.

In this journal, the author shows a clear picture of Plato's allegory of the cave. What is the
background in which this allegory is used? Then, what this allegory means. How Plato
himself interpreted this allegory. What was the situation of those people in those time? The
difference between the reality and appearance. Why people leaves reality and goes after mere
appearance. Also, this study argues that the reason behind appearance, those reasons draw
them closer to appearance. This paper then deals with possible difficulty those people might

9
face when they go after the unreality. Finally, it emphasis the risk that is associated with this
tendency of leaving the reality and going after unreality.

Bilimoria, Purushottama. "Tapti Maitra: Advaita Metaphysics: A Contemporary."

Indian Council for Philosophical Research with DK Printworld, 2014: 12.

In this journal, Purushottama Bilimoria, criticises the critique of Advaita’s metaphysics.

Though, Bilimoria is not speaking much about the Advaita’s metaphysics still he criticises
the critique of Advaita’s metaphysics. It shows that the Advaita metaphysics are not much
explored. Therefore, one must be careful when one comments on the Advaita’s metaphysics.
As already mentioned in this introductory part, Advaita’s metaphysics are not well discussed.
However, Advaita’s contribution to metaphysics has its importance in the knowledge domain.
In this journal, the author comments on how Advaita’s metaphysics has not been properly
discussed.

Coward, Harold. THE ADVAITA WORLDVIEW. New York: STATE UNIVERSITY OF

NEW YORK PRESS, 2006.

This is a book and it is a large contribution so as part of this paper it has taken only few
sessions. Sessions where it discusses about human being, the present world, and the world
above. In this session, it is clear about the concept this system maintains. The concept about
human being and their condition. The concept about the present world and its condition. And
the concept about the above world and its condition. These are few important concept
covered from these book as part of literature review.

DALVI, ELIOT DEUTSCH & ROHIT. The Essentials of Vedānta. Bloomington,

Indiana: World Wisdom, 2004.

This is a book, and as part of this literature review the portion that deals with Śaṅkara
Advaita is reviewed. This portion provides the details about Śaṅkara the proponent of this
system. Also, his view on God, World, and Man. How Advaita system perceives God, world,
and man? This part is well explained. Also, it talks about the source of Advaita system
especially all proponents of Advaita line.

Doherty, Martha J. "A C ontemporary Debate in Advaita: Avidyā and the Views of
Swami Satchidānandendra Saraswati." PhD Thesis, 1999: 24.

10
This thesis deals with contemporary debate in Advaita about nescience. This is a very
important concept that is well connected to Plato’s allegory of the cave. In this journal, the
author brings the concept of avidya. This concept avidya is much debated concept in Vedānta
tradition. So, this paper explains the transition that happened within the Advaita line. How it
was constructed and deconstructed throughout centuries. Then, what is the present status of
this discussion that is also discussed in this thesis.

Ferguson, A. S. "Plato's Simile of Light. Part II. The Allegory of the Cave
(Continued)." The Classical Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Jan., 1922), pp. 15-28,
1922: 15.

In this article, it is argued against the traditional interpretation of the cave allegory. The
author argues that this is not something Plato intended. The argument that he brings is that
Plato compare the cave light with the sun light. It brings a different interpretation from the
traditional understanding of the Cave. Then, it argues that the natural illustration symbolises
the Platonic education. And the unreal light and objects represents the current or in his time
education. His argument is that when there is natural light is present people are bound to
unnatural images and light.

Gawde, Shakuntala. "Monism of Śaṅkara and Spinoza – A Comparative Study ."

International Journal of Social Science and Humanities Research, 2016: 7.

Though, this is a comparative study, yet it talks about Śaṅkara’s epistemology and
metaphysics in detail.

Groth, Miles. "A Review of Metaphysics." The Review of Metaphysics, 2005: 3.

In this review, it deals with Plato’s metaphysical aspects. Especially, when it comes to the
allegory of the cave how and what Plato meant through this. This concept is emphasised in
this review.

Hall, Dale. "INTERPRETING PLATO'S CAVE AS AN ALLEGORY OF THE

HUMAN CONDITION." University of Arizona, n.d.

In journal also, the author is commenting on the traditional interpretation of the allegory of
the cave. He argues that the traditional interpretation might seem like orthodox interpretation.
Because, it varies in its interpretation so it must be careful when it uses. The traditional
interpretation what he meant is that it talks about the epistemological issues rather than the

11
political issues. He argues that it is possible to misinterpret it because different interpreters
interpret it differently. He further argues that there are various levels of people are there in
the cave so when it connect to common people it is possible to draw a conclusion that these
common people are ignorant. However, it is not the case rather it shows the condition of
entire humanity.

Hirst, J G Suthren. Śaṅkara's Advaita Vedānta. London and New York:

ROUTLEDGECURZON HINDU STUDIES SERIES, 2015.

This is a book, in this a book chapter is taken and it deals with the Advaita’s world view.
How do they see man? How do they see God? How do they see the material and immaterial
world?

Horrwitz, Ernest Philip. "ADVAITA AND PLATONISM." Annals of the Bhandarkar

Oriental Research Institute, 1927: 9.

First of all, it gives an idea about Platonism and Advaita Comparison. Though, it did not
specifically talk my area of research yet it provides a general view of how Plato's and
Advaita's views are presented.

Louth, Marko Ursic and Andrew. "The Allegory of the Cave: Transcendence in
Platonism and Christianity." Trinity College Dublin, 1998: 24.

First of all, this article gives an overview of how a comparative study is all about. Then, in
this article it provides the explanation of the Allegory of the Cave. Especially, the levels of
knowledge it provides.

RAO, SRINIVASA. "TWO “MYTHS” IN ADVAITA’ ." Department of Philosophy

Bangalore, n.d.

In this journal, it basically talks about the Advaita system as a whole what it believes? How
the do they behold the wold? How do they behold the world? How do they behold man? This
points are well explained in this journal. Though its title seems two myths but it speaks about
one or non-duality.

Rukmani, T.S. "Dr. Richar . Richard De Smet and Sankar d De Smet and Sankara's
Advaita." Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies, 2003: 11.

This is a comment on comparative study between Advaita and Dr Richard. Richard being a
Christians tried to compare Advaita with Christianity. However, Rukmani the author,

12
criticises Dr Richard’s effort to compare. It seems Rukmani is assuming that the reader
knows both system. In this writing, it seems the author is little biased in her approach to a
comparative study.

Scott, Dominic. "The Cave Allegory and the Structure of the Republic." Oxford
Scholarship Online, 2015: 22.

This journal, provides the complete picture of the allegory of the cave. How it is told in the
text? What its connection to the previous metaphor that is used in the previous book. In the
previous book Plato introduces the Divided Line, a simile and its explanations are given
through this cave allegory. Then, regarding the characters and their connection with previous
conversations are well explained in this journal. This helps the reader to get the long and
immediate context of this metaphor.

Wright, John Henry. "The Origin of Plato's Cave." :Harvard Studies in Classical
Philology ,, 1906: 13.

This journal discusses originally this metaphor is with whom? There are argument that says
that cave allegory is not originally with Plato. This is taken by Plato and used in his writing.
However, this article argues that the cave allegory is originally with Plato not with anyone
else. To prove this the author brings substantial evidence to his claim.

Brief Context

Having reviewed three books and fourteen journals related to the allegory of the cave and
nescience. The following themes are well explained. The concept of material world. The
concept of immaterial world. The concept of man. In addition to this, in Advaita they
extensively talk on the concept of God. Then, the difference between these two philosophers
is their emphasis on these themes. For Plato, he emphasis more on the material world and
human condition whereas he gives less important to the immaterial world. He speaks on
immaterial world also he considers immaterial world is the real world and the material world
is the copy of this immaterial world. Then for Śaṅkara, he emphasis more on immaterial
world and human condition whereas he gives less important to the material world. This is the
difference in their approach especially in regards to these two concepts.

Research Gap

13
In this literature review on Plato’s Allegory of the cave and Śaṅkara’s nescience it is found
that this two concepts moves in same line. These philosophers exposes human issues and
addresses them. In their view, human are in chain (according to Plato) or bound by avidya
(according to Śaṅkara) so it is knowledge that will set human free from this chain or avidya.
In one of the literature reviews, it is found that there is a growing tendency among human
being to move from real to unreal. So, what is the reason behind this tendency is not
addressed in detail. So, this is a gap in this literature review. Then, the second gap is that their
concept on the other world or the immaterial world. How is this other world? How it looks
like? Is it a mere imagination? Is there an entity like that? Those aspects are not adequately
covered in these literatures. So, exploring into this immaterial world is a gap found in this
literature review. Because whatever they have contributed to other domains of knowledge
made a huge impact. Also, there is a scope for comparative study between Plato and Śaṅkara.
Because, these two philosophers have several common theme in their writing.

Hypothesis

In Plato’s allegory of the cave and Śaṅkara’s nescience they discuss on the material world
and its condition, the immaterial world and its condition, and the human being and their
condition. The first and last themes got considerable attention whereas the middle theme did
not get considerable attention. If their contribution to other domain is worth considering then
surely their contribution to the other world is also worth considering. Plato considering the
material world as the world of imagery. Also, it is a copy of the original world or the ideal
world. In the similar way, Śaṅkara also consider the present world is not permanent it is
temporary or the world of avidya. So, these philosopher’s investigation into other world is
worth discussing because of their impact on other field.

Conclusion

In short, this literature review investigated on Plato’s allegory of the cave and Śaṅkara’s
nescience. These two concepts goes hand in hand with slight difference. The difference lies in
their emphasis on themes. They basically emphasis on three theme such as the idea of human,
the idea of material world, the idea of immaterial world. Plato focuses more on the idea of
human being and the material world whereas Śaṅkara focuses more on the immaterial world
and human being. Though Plato talks about immaterial world yet he gives less emphasis on
it. In the similar way, though Śaṅkara talks about the material world yet he gives less

14
weightage to it. The areas yet to explore is the material and immaterial world. Though, these
philosophers investigate into it and provide their finding yet extensive work on it yet to do.

References
Airoboman, Dr. Felix Ayemere. "Plato's Allegory of the Cave and its Implication for Modern
Living." POLAC INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND SECURITY
STUDIES (PIJHSS), 2019: 13.

Airoboman, Felix Ayemere. "A Contemporary Reinterpretation of Plato’s Notion of Reality."

International Journal of Latest Research in Humanities and Social Science
(IJLRHSS), 2017: 9.

Bilimoria, Purushottama. "Tapti Maitra: Advaita Metaphysics: A Contemporary." Indian

Council for Philosophical Research with DK Printworld, 2014: 12.

Coward, Harold. THE ADVAITA WORLDVIEW. New York: STATE UNIVERSITY OF

NEW YORK PRESS, 2006.

DALVI, ELIOT DEUTSCH & ROHIT. The Essentials of Vedānta. Bloomington, Indiana:
World Wisdom, 2004.

Doherty, Martha J. "A C ontemporary Debate in Advaita: Avidyā and the Views of Swami
Satchidānandendra Saraswati." PhD Thesis, 1999: 24.

Ferguson, A. S. "Plato's Simile of Light. Part II. The Allegory of the Cave (Continued)." The
Classical Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Jan., 1922), pp. 15-28, 1922: 15.

Gawde, Shakuntala. "Monism of Śaṅkara and Spinoza – a ." International Journal of Social
Science and Humanities Research, 2016: 7.

Groth, Miles. "A Review of Metaphysics." The Review of Metaphysics, 2005: 3.

Hall, Dale. "INTERPRETING PLATO'S CAVE AS AN." University of Arizona, n.d.

Hirst, J G Suthren. Śaṅkara's Advaita Vedānta. London and New York:

ROUTLEDGECURZON HINDU STUDIES SERIES, 2015.

Horrwitz, Ernest Philip. "ADVAITA AND PLATONISM." Annals of the Bhandarkar

Oriental Research Institute, 1927: 9.

15
Louth, Marko Ursic and Andrew. "The Allegory of the Cave: Transcendence in Platonism
and Christianity." Trinity College Dublin, 1998: 24.

RAO, SRINIVASA. "TWO “MYTHS” IN ADVAITA’ ." Department of Philosophy

Bangalore, n.d.

Rukmani, T.S. "Dr. Richar . Richard De Smet and Sankar d De Smet and Sankara's Advaita."
Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies, 2003: 11.

Scott, Dominic. "The Cave Allegory and the Structure of the Republic." Oxford Scholarship
Online, 2015: 22.

Wright, John Henry. "The Origin of Plato's Cave." :Harvard Studies in Classical Philology ,,
1906: 13.

16