Hinduism: A Short History (52 page)

Commenting on the first
sūtra
of the
Vedānta Sūtra
, Śaṅkara writes:

The special question with regard to the enquiry into Brahman is whether it presupposes the understanding of

. To this question we reply: No! Because for a person who has read the Vedānta it is possible to begin the inquiry into the nature of

before having studied the

. The study of

results in transitory heaven and this depends on the performance of rituals. The inquiry into the nature of

, however, results in

, lasting liberation. It does not depend upon the performance of ceremonies. A few presuppositions preceding the inquiry into the nature of

will have to be mentioned. These are:

discrimination between the eternal and the non-eternal;

renunciation of the desire to enjoy the fruit of one’s actions either here or hereafter;

practice of the basic virtues like peacefulness, self-restraint and so on;

strong desire for liberation.

If these conditions are fulfilled, then a person may inquire into

whether before or after the

but not if these conditions are not fulfilled. The object of desire is the knowledge of

and complete understanding of it. Knowledge is therefore the means to perfect

. The complete knowledge of

is the supreme human goal, because it destroys the root of all evil, namely

, which is the seed of

. One may now ask: is

known or unknown? If

is known then there is no need for further inquiry; if

is unknown we cannot begin an inquiry. We answer:

is known.

, omniscient and omnipotent, whose essential nature is eternal purity, consciousness and freedom, exists. For if we contemplate the derivation of the word

from the root

, to be great, we understand at once that it is eternal purity, etc. More than that: the existence of

is known because it is the

, the self of everyone. For everyone is conscious of the “self” and no one thinks: I am not.

is

. If the existence of the self was not known each one would think: I am not. But if

is generally known as

, one does not have to start an inquiry. Our answer is: No. Because there is a diversity of opinions regarding its nature. Uneducated people and the Lokāyatas are of the opinion that the body itself, having

, consciousness as an attribute, is the

. Others believe that the sense-organs, endowed with the potency to experience, are the

. Others again believe that

, reasoning or

, mind is the

. Others again believe the self to be simply a momentary idea, or that it is

, emptiness. Some others explain that there is besides the body some supernatural being, responsible for the transmigrations, acting and enjoying; others teach that this being enjoys only but does not act. Some believe that besides these there exists an omniscient, omnipotent

and others finally declare that the

is that enjoyer ... The

, therefore presents a discussion of the Vedānta texts with the motto: “Inquiry into

, which proceeds with appropriate arguments and aims at supreme bliss.

Already his direct disciples and successors considered Śaṅkara a superhuman teacher, the embodiment of divine wisdom. His words were treated on a par with the words of revelation.
⁷⁶
Extreme care was taken not only to preserve his written works but also to ensure the succession in the
maṭhas
founded by him.
⁷⁷

As far as the further elaboration of the system of Advaita philosophy was concerned, a split developed among the immediate disciples of Śaṅkara. The two factions later became known as the “Vivaraṇa” and the “Bhāmatī” schools, named after two celebrated subcommentaries on Śaṅkara’s
bhāṣya
, written by Prakāśātman (c.1000 C.E.) and Vācaspati Miśra (c.850 C.E.). They differed on the role which ritual played in the process of emancipation and also on the question of whether the locus of
avidyā
(ignorance) was in the individual
jīvātman
or in the universal
brahman
.

A
recent bibliographical survey of Advaita Vedānta Literature
⁷⁸
enumerates almost five hundred Advaita philosphers from the seventh century to the present. This chapter cannot do justice to the breadth and depth of the history of Advaita Vedānta and can only highlight a few names.

The two most important immediate disciples of Śaṅkara were Maṇḍana Miśra, the author of
Brahmasiddhi
, a compendium of Advaita Vedānta; and Suresvara, author of
Na
skārmyasiddhi,
⁷⁹
another compendium, as well as of longish subcommentaries on Śaṅkara’s commentary on the
Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad
. The former laid the foundations for the Bhāmatī school; the latter for the Vivaraṇa school, whose “official” founder was Padmapāda (ninth century C.E.), author of the
Pañcapādikā
, a subcommentary on Śaṅkara’s
Brahmasūtrabhāṣya
on the first five sūtras. The author of the work
Vivaraṇa
, after which the school is called, was Prakāśātman (c.1000 C.E.). One of the most famous and still widely read representatives of this school was Vidyāraṇya, also known under the name Bhārati-tīrtha. According to Advaita tradition he was Prime Minister of the Hindu state of Vijayanagara before becoming head of the Śaṅkara-matha at Śriṅgerī. He is the author of
Pañcadaśī
, a widely used handbook for Advaitic meditation, as well as
of Jīvan-mukti-viveka
, a summary of teachings on “liberation while alive in a body.” Recently his authorship of the celebrated
Śarva-darśana-saṁgraha
, a critical survey of all (sixteen) Indian schools of thought, has been disputed.
⁸⁰
The work itself is remarkable for its method of argumentation.Instead of critiquing each school from his own standpoint, Vidyāraṇya lets them eliminate each other in turn before stating the final truth of Advaita in the last chapter.

Vācaspati Miśra (ninth century C.E.), the author of the
Bhāmatī
, a subcommentary on Śaṅkara’s commentary on the first four sūtras of the
Vedāntasūtra
, held that the individual self was the locus of ignorance, and not
brahman
. Another representative of this school was Amalānanda (thirteenth century), author of
Kalpatāru
. A major figure in this school, still widely read, was Appaya Dīkṣita (sixteenth century), author of the
Siddhānta-lesa-saṅgraha
.

Noteworthy representatives of Advaita Vedānta are also Sarvajñātman (tenth century), author of
Samkṣepa-śarīraka;
Vimuktātman (twelfth century), author of the
Iṣṭa-siddhi;
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī (sixteenth century), a great polemicist and author of
Advaita-siddhi;
Sadananda (fifteenth century), author of a widely used easy compendium of Advaita,
Vedānta-sāra;
and Dharmarāja (seventeenth century) whose
Vedānta-paribhdsa
is an invaluable introduction to Advaita epistemology.
⁸¹
A widely read nineteenth-century treatise in Advaita Vedānta is
Vicāra Sāgara
, written in Hindī by Niścaldās (and later translated into Sanskrit by one of the twentieth-century Śaṅkarācārayas, Brahmendra Saraswatī Swāmigal).

Not only was Advaita Vedānta eagerly studied by nineteenth-century Western Indologists, who saw parallels to Hegel’s philosophy in it, it is also the most widely held philosophy today in Indian professional academic circles. The Advanced Centre for Philosophy at the University of Madras under the leadership of its founder T. M. P. Mahadevan became a stronghold of Advaita Vedānta scholarship. T. M. P. Mahadevan and his colleagues translated numerous major Advaita texts into English and published widely recognized monographs on several aspects of Advaita Vedānta. Advaita Vedānta is certainly the best represented of the Hindu
darśanas
in the West today and a wealth of translations of original texts and scholarly studies is waiting to be explored.

Vedānta does not belong to the past only, but is also perhaps the most important contemporary expression of Indian philosophy and theology. An unbroken tradition of scholars and saints leads from the great
ācāryas
into the present time; all their major institutions are still centers of living Vedānta. Vedānta is not only speculative, abstract thought, but also mysticism, realization and the way to ultimate freedom.

HINDU PHILOSOPHY TODAY

It is worth noting that Hinduism has never known the division between a purely rational philosophy and a purely scripture-based theology, which has been so typical for the intellectual development of the West and so detrimental to both philosophy and theology. For Hindus philosophical reflection on the revelations given to
ṛṣis
and poets is an integral component of religion. Similarly, Indian philosophy has always dealt with questions of ultimate, “religious” significance and has endeavored to be meaningful to real people in their real lives.

While much of Hindu philosophy along traditional lines is pursued by the religious leaders of particular schools of thought in the context of preserving and propagating these schools, there is also a large number of academics teaching philosophy at the public universities all over India. Surprisingly many of these do philosophy in the old Hindu tradition, i.e., dealing with “religious” isssues and applying “theological” methodologies. The articles published in the prestigious
Indian Philosophical Annual
⁸²
are as good a proof of this statement as are the presentations given at the biennial
International Vedānta Conferences.
⁸³
In a collection of essays under the title
Contemporary Indian Philosophy
⁸⁴
a number of prominent Indian philosophers expressed the gist of their personal convictions. The majority of them were Hindus and most of these advocated a religiously inspired philosophy, much in tune with Hindu traditions.

Religion is not taboo in Indian intellectual circles, as it is in the West, and the development of Hindu philosophical ideas continues. In 1983 M. P. Rege from the University of Pune organized a highly original and successful dialogue between traditional Hindu pandits and modern Western-trained philosophers. Far from being overwhelmed or put off by such a dialogue, the assembled pandits, all discursing in Sanskrit, expressed very sound opinions on modern philosophical isssues and delighted in the give and take of discussions.
⁸⁵

NOTES

1.

X, 129.

2.

   The word

comes from a verbal root

, to see, and originally meant a comprehensive in-depth view of the principles of life and being.

3.

   Literally

means “it is” and

means “it is not.” The criterion is acceptance or non-acceptance of the Veda as revealed truth.

4.

   But even the fourteenth-century Mādhava enumerates in his

, the “Synopsis of All Philosophical Systems,” sixteen such philosophies.

5.

I, 1, 1.

6.

   Some interesting details are presented in a light-hearted manner by Kuppuswami Sastri in a contribution to “The Library Movement” under the title “Kośavān ācāryah” (i.e., one who has a library is a teacher, or: a teacher is one who has a library). Reprinted in S. S. Janaki, ed.,