A

 Got it — you’d like a comparison of Advaita Vedānta, Schopenhauer’s philosophy, and Jung’s psychology. These three traditions overlap in their concern with ultimate reality, illusion, and the self, but they approach it differently.

Here’s a comparative table:

Aspect	Advaita Vedānta	Schopenhauer	Jung
Ultimate Reality	Brahman: nondual, infinite, impersonal absolute reality	Will: blind, irrational striving underlying all phenomena	Collective Unconscious: archetypal layer of the psyche that underlies individual consciousness
Self	Ātman = Brahman (true self identical with absolute reality)	Individual subject is manifestation of Will; the “principium individuationis” (time/space) creates illusion of separateness	Self (capital “S”): the totality of psyche, integrating conscious + unconscious
World / Phenomena	Māyā: illusion or appearance superimposed on Brahman	Representation (Vorstellung): phenomenal world shaped by cognition, mere appearance of Will	Symbols & archetypes shape perception of world; external reality intertwined with psyche
Ignorance / Suffering	Avidyā (ignorance of true self) causes bondage and suffering	Suffering is inherent to existence due to endless striving of Will	Neurosis arises from imbalance between conscious and unconscious; repression of archetypal energies
Liberation / Goal	Mokṣa: realization of nonduality, dissolution of ego, unity with Brahman	Denial of the Will: asceticism, art, compassion as escape from suffering	Individuation: integration of unconscious contents into conscious life; wholeness of the Self
Method / Path	Self-inquiry (ātma-vicāra), meditation, renunciation, knowledge (jñāna)	Aesthetic contemplation, compassion, ascetic practices	Active imagination, dream analysis, symbolic work, dialogue with unconscious
View of Religion / Myth	Scriptures (Upaniṣads, Gītā) point toward ultimate truth; myths are provisional aids	Religions express truths allegorically; Schopenhauer admired Upaniṣads & Buddhism	Myths and religions express archetypes of collective unconscious; symbolic guides to individuation
Attitude to Ego	Ego is illusion (ahaṃkāra), must be transcended	Ego is subject of representation, still bound to Will	Ego must mediate but not dominate; should relate to unconscious to avoid inflation
Common Ground	Nondual insight: self/world distinction is illusory	Nondual leanings: will–representation divide echoes māyā–Brahman	Union of opposites: individuation mirrors nondual integration
Key Difference	Metaphysical monism: only Brahman is real	Pessimistic voluntarism: Will is blind, endless striving	Psychological pluralism: psyche structured by archetypes, oriented toward wholeness

Would you like me to expand this into a detailed essay-style comparison (exploring influence, similarities, and divergences), or keep it as a concise reference table?