The threefold practice: sravana (hearing), manana (thinking) and nididhyasana (meditation)

The Advaita tradition teaches that correct knowledge, which destroys avidya, psychological and
perceptual errors related to Atman and Brahman,[214] is obtained in jnanayoga through three stages
of practice,[208] sravana (hearing), manana (thinking) and nididhyasana (meditation).[19] This
three-step methodology is rooted in the teachings of chapter 4 of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad:
[204][205]

Sravana, which literally means hearing. The student listens and discusses the ideas, concepts,
questions and answers.[19][204] of the sages on the Upanishads and Advaita Vedānta, studying the
Vedantic texts, such as the Brahma Sutras, aided by discussions with the guru (teacher, counsellor).
[207][215][19]
Manana refers to thinking on these discussions and contemplating over the various ideas based on
svadhyaya and sravana.[204][215][216] It is the stage of reflection on the teachings;[204][215]
Nididhyāsana, the stage of meditation and introspection.[82][web 12] This stage of practice aims at
realization and consequent conviction of the truths, non-duality and a state where there is a fusion
of thought and action, knowing and being.[217][204]
Although the threefold practice is broadly accepted in the Advaita tradition, Shankara's works show
an ambivalence toward it: while accepting its authenticity and merits, as it is based in the scriptures,
he also takes a subitist position,[87] arguing that moksha is attained at once when the mahavakyas,
articulating the identity of Atman and Brahman, are understood.[88][16][note 46] According to
Rambachan, "it is not possible to reconcile Sankara's views with this seemingly well-ordered
system."[86]

Mandana Misra, on the other hand, explicitly affirms the threefold practice as the means to acquire
knowledge of Brahman, referring to meditation as dhyana.[218] He states that these practices,
though conceptual, 'can eliminate both ignorance and coneptuality at the same time, leaving only
the "pure, transparent nature" of self-awareness'.[219]

Bilimoria states that these three stages of Advaita practice can be viewed as sadhana practice that
unifies Yoga and Karma ("action," referring here to ritual) ideas, and was most likely derived from
these older traditions.[220][215]

Guru
Main article: Guru
Advaita Vedānta school has traditionally had a high reverence for Guru (teacher), and recommends
that a competent Guru be sought in one's pursuit of spirituality, though this is not mandatory.[221]
Reading of Vedic literature and reflection is the most essential practice.[221] Adi Shankara, states
Comans, regularly employed compound words "such as Sastracaryopadesa (instruction by way of
the scriptures and the teacher) and Vedāntacaryopadesa (instruction by way of the Upanishads and
the teacher) to emphasize the importance of Guru".[221] According to Comans, this reflects the
Advaita tradition which holds a competent teacher as important and essential to gaining correct
knowledge, freeing oneself from false knowledge, and to self-realization.[222] Nevertheless, in the
Bhamati-school the guru has a less essential role, as he can explain the teachings, but the student
has to venture its further study.[223]

A guru is someone more than a teacher, traditionally a reverential figure to the student, with the
guru serving as a "counselor, who helps mold values, shares experiential knowledge as much as
literal knowledge, an exemplar in life, an inspirational source and who helps in the spiritual
evolution of a student.[224] The guru, states Joel Mlecko, is more than someone who teaches
specific type of knowledge, and includes in its scope someone who is also a "counselor, a sort of
parent of mind and soul, who helps mold values and experiential knowledge as much as specific
knowledge, an exemplar in life, an inspirational source and who reveals the meaning of life."[224]
Pramana (means of knowledge)
In classical Indian thought, pramana (means of knowledge) concerns questions like how correct
knowledge can be acquired; how one knows, how one doesn't; and to what extent knowledge
pertinent about someone or something can be acquired.[225][226] In contrast to other schools of
Indian philosophy, early Vedanta paid little attention to pramana.[227] The Brahmasutras are not
concerned with pramana, and pratyaksa (sense-perception) and anumana (inference) refer there to
sruti and smriti respectively.[227] Shankara recognized the means of knowledge,[228][note 47] but
his thematic focus was upon metaphysics and soteriology, and he took for granted the pramanas.
[233] For Shankara, sabda is the only means of knowledge for attaining Brahman-jnana.[234]
According to Sengaku Mayeda, "in no place in his works [...] does he give any systematic account
of them,"[233] taking Atman-Brahman to be self-evident (svapramanaka) and self-established
(svatahsiddha), and "an investigation of the means of knowledge is of no use for the attainment of
final release."[233]

Nevertheless, the Advaita tradition accepts altogether six kinds of pramāṇas.[235][236][237][234]

While Adi Shankara emphasized Śabda (शब्द), relying on word, testimony of past or present reliable
experts with regard to religious insights,[226][238][235][239] and also accepted pratyakṣa (प्रत्यक्षाय),
perception; and anumāṇa (अनुमान), inference — Classical Advaita Vedānta, just like the Bhatta
Purvamimamsaka school, also accepts upamāṇa (उपमान), comparison, analogy; arthāpatti (अर्थापत्ति),
postulation, derivation from circumstances;[226][240] and anupalabdi (अनुपलब्धि), non-perception,
negative/cognitive proof.[238][235]

Samadhi
The Advaita tradition emphasizes that, since Brahman is ever-present, Brahman-knowledge is
immediate and requires no 'action', that is, striving and effort, as articulated by Shankara;[14] yet, it
also prescribes elaborate preparatory practice, including yogic samadhi, posing a paradox which is
also recognized in other spiritual disciplines and traditions.[241][20][note 10]

Shankara regarded the srutis as the means of knowledge of Brahman, and he was ambivalent about
yogic practices and meditation, which at best may prepare one for Brahma-jnana.[web 13]
According to Rambachan, criticising Vivekananda, Shankara states that the knowledge of Brahman
can only be obtained from inquiry of the Shruti, and not by Yoga or samadhi, which at best can only
silence the mind.[242] The Bhamati school and the Vivarana school differed on the role of
contemplation, but they both "deny the possibility of perceiving supersensuous knowledge through
popular yoga techniques."[243] Later Advaita texts like the Dṛg-Dṛśya-Viveka (14th century) and
Vedāntasara (of Sadananda) (15th century) added samādhi as a means to liberation, a theme that
was also emphasized by Swami Vivekananda.[39] The Vivekachudamani, traditionally attributed to
Shankara but post-dating him,[244] "conceives of nirvikalpa samadhi as the premier method of
Self-realization over and above the well-known vedantic discipline of listening, reflection and deep
contemplation."[61] Koller states that yogic concentration is an aid to gaining knowledge in
Advaita.[79]

Anubhava ('experience')
The role of anubhava, anubhuti ("experience," "intuition"[245]) as "experience" in gaining
Brahman-jnana is contested. While neo-Vedanta claims a central position for anubhava as
"experience," Shankara himself regarded reliance on textual authority as sufficient for gaining
Brahman-jnana,[246][note 48] "the intuition of Brahman,"[245] and used anubhava interchangeably
with pratipatta, "understanding".[247] Arvind Sharma argues that Shankara's own "direct experience
of the ultimate truth" guided him in selecting "those passages of the scriptures that resonate with
this experience and will select them as the key with which to open previously closed, even
forbidden, doors."[248][note 49]
The Vivekachudamani "explicit[ly] declar[es] that experience (anubhuti) is a pramana, or means of
knowing (VCM 59),"[61] and neo-Vedanta also accepts anubhava ("personal experience") as a
means of knowledge.[249] Dalal and others state that anubhava does not center around some sort of
"mystical experience," but around the correct knowledge of Brahman.[202][250] Nikhalananda
conquers, stating that (knowledge of) Atman and Brahman can only be reached by buddhi,
"reason,"[251] stating that mysticism is a kind of intuitive knowledge, while buddhi is the highest
means of attaining knowledge.[252]

Adhyaropa Apavada - imposition and negation

See also: Neti Neti
Since Gaudapada,[253] who adopted the Buddhist four-cornered negation which negates any
positive predicates of 'the Absolute',[254][255][note 50] a central method in Advaita Vedanta to
express the inexpressable is the method called Adhyaropa Apavada.[253] In this method, which was
highly estimated by Satchidanandendra Saraswati, a property is imposed (adhyaropa) on Atman to
convince one of its existence, whereafter the imposition is removed (apavada) to reveal the true
nature of Atman as nondual and undefinable.[257] In this method, "That which cannot be expressed
is expressed through false attribution and subsequent denial."[258] As Shankara writes, "First let me
bring them on the right path, and then I will gradually be able to bring them round to the final truth
afterwards."[258] For example, Atman, the real "I," is described as witness, giving "it" an attribute
to separate it from non-self. Since this implies a duality between observer and observed, next the
notion of "witness" is dropped, by showing that the Self cannot be seen and is beyond
qualifications, and only that what is remains, without using any words:[web 14]

After one separates oneself i.e. 'I' or Atman from the sense objects, the qualities superimposed on
Self are also negated by saying that which not being and not non-being, cannot be described by
words, without beginning and end (BG 13.32) or as in Satyam Jnanam Anantam Brahman, beyond
words, beyond mind and speech, etc. Here there is an attempt to negate the earlier attribute like
being witness, bliss, most subtlest, etc. After this negation of false superimposition, Self Alone
shines. One enters into the state of Nirvikalp Samadhi, where there is no second, no one to
experience and hence this state cannot be described in words.[web 14]