section_path: Philosophy and practice/The Mahāvākyas - the identity of Ātman and Brahman/Meditation on the Mahāvākya
section_name: Meditation on the Mahāvākya
paragraph_text: Meditation on the Mahāvākya
  
  In the Upadesasahasri Shankara, Shankara is ambivalent on the need for meditation on the Upanishadic mahavyaka. He states that "right knowledge arises at the moment of hearing," and rejects prasamcaksa or prasamkhyana meditation, that is, meditation on the meaning of the sentences, and in Up.II.3 recommends parisamkhyana, separating Atman from everything that is not Atman, that is, the sense-objects and sense-organs, and the pleasant and unpleasant things and merit and demerit connected with them. Yet, Shankara then concludes with declaring that only Atman exists, stating that "all the sentences of the Upanishads concerning non-duality of Atman should be fully contemplated, should be contemplated." As Mayeda states, "how they differ from each other in not known."
  
  Prasamkhyana was advocated by Mandana Misra, the older contemporary of Shankara who was the most influential Advaitin until the 10th century. "According to Mandana, the mahavakyas are incapable, by themselves, of bringing about brahmajnana. The Vedanta-vakyas convey an indirect knowledge which is made direct only by deep meditation (prasamkhyana). The latter is a continuous contemplation of the purport of the mahavakyas. Vācaspati Miśra, a student of Mandana Misra, agreed with Mandana Misra, and their stance is defended by the Bhamati-school, founded by Vācaspati Miśra. In contrast, the Vivarana school founded by Prakasatman (c. 1200 –1300) follows Shankara closely, arguing that the mahavakyas are the direct cause of gaining knowledge.