Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Indian Philosophy v2.c26.s6: I Introduction

Indian Philosophy v2.c26.s6

Language
English

I Introduction

v2.c26.s6.2

THE Advaitism of Śaṁkara is a system of great speculative daring and logical subtlety. Its austere intellectualism, its remorseless logic, which marches on indifferent to the hopes and beliefs of man, its relative freedom from theological obsessions, make it a great example of a purely philosophical scheme. Thibaut, who cannot be charged with any partiality for Śaṁkara, speaks of his philosophy in these words: "The doctrine advocated by Śaṁkara is, from a purely philosophical point of view, and apart from all theological considerations, the most important and interesting one which has arisen on Indian soil; neither those forms of the Vedānta which diverge from the view represented by Śaṃkara, nor any of the non-Vedāntic systems can be compared with the so-called orthodox Vedānta in boldness, depth and subtlety of speculation.” ¹ It is impossible to read Śaṃkara’s writings, packed as they are with serious and subtle thinking, without being conscious that one is in contact with a mind of a very fine penetration and profound spirituality. With his acute feeling of the immeasurable world, his stirring gaze into the abysmal mysteries of spirit, his unswerving resolve to say neither more nor less than what could be proved, Śaṃkara stands out as a heroic figure of the first rank in the somewhat motley crowd of the religious thinkers of mediæval India. His philosophy stands forth complete, needing neither a before nor an after. It has a self-justifying wholeness characteristic of works of art. It expounds its own presuppositions, is ruled by its own end, and holds all its elements in a stable, reasoned equipoise. The list of qualifications ² which Śaṃkara lays down for a student of philosophy brings out how, for him, philosophy is not an intellectual pursuit but a dedicated life. The first, “discrimination between things eternal and non-eternal,” demands of the student the power of thought, which helps him to distinguish between the unchanging reality and the changing world. For those who possess this power, it is impossible to desist from the enterprise of metaphysics. “Renunciation of the enjoyment of the reward here and in the other world” is the second requirement. In the empirical world and man’s temporal life within it there is little to satisfy the aspirations of spirit. Philosophy gets its chance, as well as its justification, through the disillusionment which life brings. The seeker after truth must refuse to abase himself before things as they are and develop an austere detachment characteristic of the superior mind. Moral preparation is insisted on as the third requisite,³ and, lastly, longing for liberation (mumukṣutvam) is mentioned. We must have a mind disposed, as St. Luke expresses it, “for eternal life.”¹ Śaṁkara presents to us the true ideal of philosophy, which is not so much knowledge as wisdom, not so much logical learning as spiritual freedom. For Śaṁkara, as for some of the greatest thinkers of the world, Plato and Plotinus, Spinoza and Hegel, philosophy is the austere vision of eternal truth, majestic in its freedom from the petty cares of man’s paltry life. Through the massive and at the same time subtle dialectic of Śaṁkara there shows forth a vivid, emotional temperament, without which philosophy tends to become a mere game of logic. A master of the strictest logic, he is also master of a noble and animated poetry which belongs to another order. The rays of his genius have illumined the dark places of thought and soothed the sorrows of the most forlorn heart. While his philosophy fortifies and consoles many, there are, of course, those to whom it seems to be an abyss of contradiction and darkness. But whether we agree or differ, the penetrating light of his mind never leaves us where we were.

v2.c26.s6.3

¹ Introduction to B.S., p. xiv. The system of Śaṃkara, according to Sir Charles Eliot, “in consistency, thoroughness and profundity, holds the first place in Indian philosophy” (Hinduism and Buddhism, vol. ii, p. 208).

v2.c26.s6.4

² S.B., Introduction.

v2.c26.s6.5

³ S.B., ii. 1.1.

v2.c26.s6.6

¹ Acts, xiii.

v2.c26.s6.7

DATE AND LIFE OF ŚAṀKARA

v2.c26.s6.8

According to Telang, Śaṁkara flourished about the middle or the end of the sixth century A.D.² Sir R. G. Bhāndārkar proposes A.D. 680 as the date of Śaṁkara’s birth, and is even inclined to go a few years earlier.³ Max Müller and Professor Macdonell hold that he was born in A.D. 788, and died in A.D. 820. That he flourished in the first quarter of the ninth century is also the opinion of Professor Keith.⁴

v2.c26.s6.9

The picture of a solitary ascetic thinker, at home in austere meditation as well as in practical work, touches our imagination. Some of Śaṁkara’s disciples compiled biographical accounts of which the chief are Mādhava’s Śaṃkaradigvijaya and Ānandagiri’s Śaṃkaravijaya.¹ Śaṃkara belonged to the simple, learned and hardworking Nambūdri sect of Brahmins of Malabar, and is generally supposed to have been born at Kāladi, on the West Coast of the peninsula.² Though there is a tradition that Śiva was the family deity of Śaṃkara, it is also held that he was by birth a Śākta. Early in his youth he went to a Vedic school, presided over by Govinda, the pupil of Gauḍapāda. In all his works, Śaṃkara subscribes himself as the pupil of Govinda, who evidently taught him the main principles of the Advaita system. Even while a young boy of eight he is said to have devoured with avidity and delight all the Vedas. Apparently he was a youthful prodigy of Vedic learning and free intelligence. He was impressed with the mystery and importance of life, and had an early vision of the beauty of holiness. Before he learned the ways of the world, he rejected them and became a saññyāsin. But he was no passionless recluse. The pure flame of truth burned within him. He wandered as a teacher from place to place, engaging in discussions with the leaders of other schools of thought. According to the traditional accounts, he met, in the course of these tours, Kumārila ³ and Maṇḍana Miśra, who later became his disciple under the name of Sureśvarācārya.⁴ The story of his entering the dead body of Amaruka shows that Śaṃkara was an adept in yogic practices. He established four mutts or monasteries, of which the chief is the one at Śringeri in the Mysore Province. The others are those at Pūri in the East, Dvārakā in the West, and Badarināth in the Himalayas. A touching incident, about which tradition is unanimous, shows how full of the milk of human kindness and filial affection Śaṃkara was. In open defiance of the rules which govern the order of Saññyāsins, Śaṃkara performed the funeral rites of his mother, and thus incurred the serious opposition of his community. He died at Kedārnāth in the Himalayas at the age of thirty-two, according to the tradition. To us, men of life and feeling, there seems to be a certain bareness in the life of Śaṃkara lacking the colour and joy of cheerful fellowship and social amusement, but this is generally the case with those who pursue the higher life and feel called to exalt God’s righteousness and the claims of spirit. He was a prophet commissioned to lead a people along the paths of virtue, and nobody in India can undertake this task if he does not back his message with a life of detachment from the cares of the world.

v2.c26.s6.10

⁴⁸ See I.P., pp. 45-46. ² His argument is that Pūrṇavarman referred to in Śaṁkara’s commentary on the B.S. was a Buddhist king of Magadha about that time. ³ See the Report on the Search for Sanskrit MSS., 1882, p. 15. ⁴ I.L.A., p.

v2.c26.s6.11

³⁰ In the Nāndiśloka of Prabodhacandrodaya of Kṛṣṇa Miśra (middle of sixth century A.D. circa), the most popular illustrations of the conception of māyā as those of the mirage and the snake-rope are given; but they need not be taken as borrowings from Śaṁkara, since they are to be met with in Buddhist writings also.

v2.c26.s6.12

¹ Cidvitasa and Sadānanda wrote some accounts. Skanda Purāṇa gives a few facts (see ix). A Madhva writer, Nārāyaṇācārya, relates some details in his Madhvavijaya and Maṇimañjari. But many of the facts mentioned in these are legendary and of doubtful historical value. See Life and Times of Śaṃkara, by C. N. Kṛiṣnaswāmi Aiyar, Madras.

v2.c26.s6.13

² Ānandagiri holds that Śaṃkara was born at Cidambaram in 44 B.C. and died in 12 B.C. His views have not received much support.

v2.c26.s6.14

³ A South Indian tradition states that Śaṃkara was a disciple of Kumārila.

v2.c26.s6.15

⁴ Professor Hiriyanna of Mysore has urged cogent arguments against the identification of Sureśvara with Maṇḍana Miśra. See J.R.A.S., April 1923, and January 1924.

v2.c26.s6.16

In a few years Śaṁkara practised several careers, each enough to satisfy an ordinary man. His great achievement in the field of speculation is the Advaita system which he developed by means of commentaries on the ancient texts. He found it the best way to reconcile contemporary standards of knowledge and belief with the ancient texts and traditions. The sixth and the seventh centuries saw the rise of popular Hinduism. In the South, Buddhism had begun to decline¹ and Jainism was at its zenith. The Vedic rites were falling into disrepute. Śaivite bhaktas (adiyārs) and Vaiṣṇavite devotees (aḷvārs) were popularising the way of devotion to God. Festivals and temple worship connected with Purāṇic Hinduism were spreading everywhere. In South India the Pallava sovereignty was supreme, and in the freedom and peace afforded by a central government, Brahmanism was being transformed into Hinduism. The religious persuasions of the Pallava kings give a clear indication of the reconstruction then taking place. While the earliest rulers of the Pallava dynasty were Buddhists, those next in order were Vaiṣṇavites, while the latest were Śaivites. As a reaction against the ascetic tendency of Buddhism and the devotional one of theism, the Mīmāṁsakas were exaggerating the importance of Vedic rites. Kumārila and Maṇḍana Miśra denounced the value of jñāna and saññyāsa, and insisted on the value of karma and the stage of the householder. Śaṁkara appeared, at one and the same time, as an eager champion of the orthodox faith and a spiritual reformer. He tried to bring back the age from the brilliant luxury of the Purāṇas to the mystic truth of the Upaniṣads. The power of the faith to lead the soul to the higher life became for him the test of its strength. He felt impelled to attempt the spiritual direction of his age by formulating a philosophy and religion which could satisfy the ethical and spiritual needs of the people better than the systems of Buddhism, Mīmāṁsā and Bhakti. The theists were veiling the truth in a mist of sentiment. With their genius for mystical experience, they were indifferent to the practical concerns of life. The Mīmāṁsaka emphasis on karma developed ritualism devoid of spirit. Virtue can face the dark perils of life and survive only if it be the fine flower of thought. The Advaita philosophy alone, in the opinion of Śaṁkara, could do justice to the truth of the conflicting creeds, and so he wrote all his works with the one purpose of helping the individual to a realisation of the identity of his soul with Brahman, which is the means of liberation from saṁsāra.² In his wanderings from his birthplace in Malabar to the Himālayas in the north he came across many phases of worship, and accepted all those which had in them the power to elevate man and refine his life. He did not preach a single exclusive method of salvation, but composed hymns of unmistakable grandeur addressed to the different gods of popular Hinduism—Viṣṇu, Śiva, Śakti, Sūrya. All this affords a striking testimony to the universality of his sympathies and the wealth of natural endowment. While revivifying the popular religion, he also purified it. He put down the grosser manifestations of the Śākta worship in South India, and it is a pity that his influence is not perceptible in the great temple of Kālī in Calcutta. In the Deccan, it is said that he suppressed the unclean worship of Śiva as a dog under the name of Mallāri, and the pernicious practices of Kāpālikas whose god Bhairava desired human victims. He condemned branding or marking the body with hot metallic designs. He learned from the Buddhist church that discipline, freedom from superstition and ecclesiastical organisations help to preserve the faith clean and strong, and himself established ten religious orders of which four retain their prestige till to-day.

v2.c26.s6.17

¹ While Fahian saw Buddhism flourishing in the fifth century, Yuan-Chwang, who came later, i.e. in the sixth and seventh centuries, witnessed evident signs of decline. Bāṇa's Harṣacarita confirms this impression.

v2.c26.s6.18

² "Saṁsārahetunivṛttisādhanabrahmātmaikatvavidyāpratipattaye." See S.B., i. 1. 1.

v2.c26.s6.19

The life of Śaṃkara makes a strong impression of contraries. He is a philosopher and a poet, a savant and a saint, a mystic and a religious reformer. Such diverse gifts did he possess that different images present themselves, if we try to recall his personality. One sees him in youth, on fire with intellectual ambition, a stiff and intrepid debater; another regards him as a shrewd political genius, attempting to impress on the people a sense of unity; for a third, he is a calm philosopher engaged in the single effort to expose the contradictions of life and thought with an unmatched incisiveness; for a fourth, he is the mystic who declares that we are all greater than we know. There have been few minds more universal than his.

v2.c26.s6.20

The central texts of the school are Śaṃkara’s commentaries on the principal Upaniṣads,¹ the Bhagavadgītā and the Vedānta Sūtra. Upadeśasahasrī and Vivecacūḍāmaṇi reflect his general position. His popular hymns to the different forms of Godhead, such as Dakṣiṇāmūrti Stotra, Harimīḍe Stotra, Ānandalaharī and Saundaryalaharī, explain to us his faith in life and justify his love of it. Other works attributed to him are Āptavajrasūcī, Ātmabodha, Mohamudgara, Daśaślokī, Aparokṣānubhūti and commentaries on Viṣṇusahasranāma and Sanatsujātīya. The many strands of the complex texture of his personality found their expression in his writings. The great point about his style is the way in which it mirrors the qualities of his mind, its force, its logic, its feeling and its sense of humour. The philosophy set forth by Śaṁkara has a long history which is yet in progress. The upholders of other views generally support their positions by refuting those of Śaṁkara. This has rendered necessary a defence of Śaṁkara’s position in every age. It is not possible for us to trace adequately the fortunes of his system in times later than his own.¹

v2.c26.s6.21

¹ The Chāndogya, the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, the Taittirīya, the Aitareya, the Śvetāśvatara, the Kena, the Kaṭha, the Īśa, the Praśna, the Muṇḍaka, and the Māṇḍūkya. He is also said to have written commentaries on the Atharvaśikhā, Atharvaśiras and Nṛsiṃhatāpanīya Upaniṣads.

v2.c26.s6.22

¹ Sureśvarācārya’s Vārttikas and Naiṣkarmyasiddhi, Vācaspati’s Bhāmatī, Padmapāda’s Pañcapādikā, and Ānandagiri’s Nyāyanirṇaya are well-known Advaita treatises, which were composed immediately after Śaṁkara’s time. Amalānanda’s Kalpataru (middle of the thirteenth century) is a commentary on Bhāmatī. Appayadīkṣita (sixteenth century) wrote his Kalpatarupari-mala, a voluminous treatise on the Kalpataru. His Siddhāntaleśa is an important summary of the divergent developments of Advaita. Padmapāda’s Pañcapādikā, which is an elaborate gloss on the four sūtras, was commented on by Prakāśātman (A.D. 1200) in his Pañcapādikāvivaraṇa. Vidyāraṇya (fourteenth century), generally identified with Mādhava, wrote his Vivaraṇaprameyasaṁgraha as a gloss on Prakāśātman’s work. While his Pañcadaśī is a classic of later Advaita, his Jīvanmuktiviveka is also of considerable value. Tradition is divided as to the authorship of the Pañcadaśī. Vidyāraṇya is said to have written the first six chapters and Bhāratītīrtha the other nine (see Pītāmbarasvāmin’s ed., p. 6). Niścaladāsa, in his Vṛttiprabhākara (p. 424), assigns the first ten to Vidyāraṇya and the other five to Bhāratītīrtha. Sarvajñātmamuni (A.D. 900) made a general survey of Śaṁkara’s position in his Saṁkṣepaśārīraka, which was commented on by Rāmatīrtha. Śrī Harṣa’s Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (A.D. 1190) is the greatest work of Advaita dialectics. It is one long dissertation on the vanity of philosophy, setting forth the inability of the human mind to compass those exalted objects which its speculative ingenuity suggests as worthy of its pursuit. In the spirit of Nāgārjuna, he analyses the common categories with minuteness and accuracy and takes the reader through a long and arduous process of dissection to establish the simple truth that nothing can be conclusively proved to be either true or false. Everything is doubtful except universal consciousness. His belief in the ultimate reality of spirit marks him off from Buddhist nihilism (i. 5). He discusses at great length the pramāṇas of the Nyāya, its theory of causation, and argues that the Nyāya is busy with apparent existence and not reality. The diversity of things is not ultimate (i. 9), while the absolute is, though never known. Citsukha wrote a commentary on it in addition to an independent work on the same lines known as Tattvadīpikā. Citsukhīyam is criticised in Nyāyāmṛtam. Madhusūdana Sarasvatī (sixteenth century) criticises the latter work in his Advaitasiddhi. Rāmatīrtha criticises Advaitasiddhi in his Taraṅgiṇī. Gauḍabrahmānandīyam, a work by Brahmānanda, is a defence of Advaitasiddhi against the criticism of Taraṅgiṇī. Śaṁkara Miśra and Raghunātha wrote independent works on the Khaṇḍana. Dharmarāja’s Vedāntaparibhāṣā (sixteenth century) is an excellent manual of logical metaphysics. Rāmakṛṣṇa, the son of Dharmarāja, wrote his Śikhāmaṇi on it. Amaradāsa’s Maṇiprabhā is a useful gloss on it. Vijñānabhikṣu’s Vijñānāmṛta (sixteenth century) attempts to prove that the duality of the Sāṁkhya persists within the Vedānta. Advaitānanda’s

v2.c26.s6.23

GAUḌAPĀDA

v2.c26.s6.24

Gauḍapāda¹ is the first systematic exponent of the Advaita Vedānta. He is reputed to be the teacher of Śamkara’s teacher, Govinda, and is said to have lived about the beginning of the eighth century or the end of the seventh.² It is said that Gauḍapāda also wrote a commentary on the *Uttaragītā*. The central principles of the Advaita philosophy, such as the orders of reality, the identity of Brahman and Ātman, Māyā, the inapplicability of causation to ultimate reality, jñāna or wisdom, as the direct means to mokṣa or *Brahmavidyābharaṇa* (fifteenth century), Govindānanda’s *Ratnaprabhā*, Sadānanda’s *Vedāntasāra* (fifteenth century), with its commentaries, *Subodhinī* and *Vidvanmanorañjanī*, Prakāśānanda’s *Siddhāntamuktāvali*, Sadānanda’s *Advaitabrahmasiddhi*, Lakṣmīdhara’s *Advaitamakaranda* are other works of considerable importance. Many of the later Upaniṣads, such as *Mahopaniṣad* and religious works like *Yogavāsiṣṭha* and *Adhyātmarāmāyaṇa*, advocate advaitism. *Yogavāsiṣṭha* is coloured by the Buddhist views. Cp.

v2.c26.s6.25

¹ He is, perhaps, not the same as the author of the commentary on the Sāṃkhya system.

v2.c26.s6.26

² He must be much earlier, since Walleser states that the *Kārikā* is quoted in the Tibetan translation of Bhavaviveka’s *Tarkajvālā*. The latter author is earlier than Yuan Chwang, and Gauḍapāda must be therefore about A.D. 550 or so (see Jacobi, J.A.O.S., April 1913). Jacobi believes that the *Kārikā* is later than the B.S. This view is not affected by the absence of any references to the B.S. in the ancient Buddhist works, for the “enigmatical character” of the B.S. makes it impossible for outsiders to quote it to illustrate points of the Vedānta philosophy. “Besides, the Buddhists may have ignored the old Vedānta of Bādarāyaṇa, as the Jainas did so late as the ninth century A.D.; but they could not well have ignored the Gauḍapādī, since that work taught a philosophy which resembled their own in many regards” (J.A.O.S., April 1913). Many Indian scholars are inclined to Jacobi’s opinion, though not for his reasons, as against that of Walleser.

v2.c26.s6.27

Yad idaṃ dṛśyate kiñcit tan nāsti kim api dhruvam
Yathā gandharvanagaraṃ yathā vārimarusthale (ii).

v2.c26.s6.28

Many other works on Advaita Vedānta have been written which do not add to the depth and solidity of Śamkara’s utterances. Sureśvara, Vācaspati, Padmapāda, Śrī Harṣa, Vidyāraṇya, Citsukha, Sarvajñātmamuni, Madhusūdana Sarasvatī, Appayadikṣita, though they all belong to the same general type of thinking, have something fresh to say, and reflect some facet of the meaning of absolute idealism not seen before with the same intensity. While they employ the same method and expound the same view, they yet manage to maintain their own individualities.

v2.c26.s6.29

freedom, and the inconceivability of absolute nothing, are set forth in the Kārikā. This work is divided into four chapters. The first, called the Āgama, explains the text of the Māṇḍūkya-upaniṣad. Gauḍapāda tries to show that his view of reality is sanctioned by śruti and supported by reason.¹ The second chapter, called Vaitathya, explains by means of arguments the phenomenal nature of the world, characterised as it is by duality and opposition. The third part establishes the Advaita theory. In the last part, called Alātaśānti or Quenching the Firebrand, there is a further development of the Advaita position regarding the sole reality of the Ātman and the relative character of our ordinary experience. As a stick burning at one end, when waved round, quickly produces an illusion of a circle of fire (alātacakra), so is it with the multiplicity of the world.² It refers to the Yogācāra views, and mentions the name of Buddha half a dozen times.

v2.c26.s6.30

¹ iii. 23.

v2.c26.s6.31

² See also Maitrāyaṇī Upaniṣad, vi. 24. The simile is frequently employed in Buddhist writings. Indeed, in language and thought the Kārikā of Gauḍapāda bears a striking resemblance to the Mādhyamika writings, and contains many illustrations used in them. Cp. especially ii. 32; iv. 59. See J.R.A.S., 1910, pp. 136 ff.

v2.c26.s6.32

Gauḍapāda lived at a time when Buddhism was widely prevalent. Naturally he was familiar with Buddhistic doctrines, which he accepted when they were not in conflict with his own Advaita. To the Buddhists he appealed on the ground that his view did not depend on any theological text or revelation. To the orthodox Hindu he said that it had the sanction of authority also. His liberal views enabled him to accept doctrines associated with Buddhism and adjust them to the Advaita design.

v2.c26.s6.33

V

Cites (52)