[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Advaita
ahudli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (anand hudli) wrote:
> The discussion between Vidyasankar Sundaresan
> and Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian bring out two
> aspects of advaita.
>
> Although GauDapaada and Shankara were both advaitins,
> there is a vital difference between their approaches.
> Gaudapaada explains everything from the paaramaarthika
> view point whereas Shankara explains both from the
> paaramaarthika and vyaavahaarika view points. Ofcourse,
> the terms paaramaarthika and vyaavahaarika satya were
> invented by later advaitins; neither Shankara nor
> GauDapaada used them.
> Another observation is the way Shankara treats the reality
> of the world vis-a-vis the reality of a dream. For him,
> the world is ultimately unreal, but it is more
> consistent than a dream which is pure imagination.
> Thus the world is somehow "more" real than a dream.
> Shankara is more of a "realist" than GauDapaada.
Nooooooo!! Shankara was a cool Ajata Advaitin :-). I don't think that Shankara
explains things from a "vyaavahaarika" view point. Let me explain my thoughts
here with facts and some inferences (my own) based on facts.
First there seems to be some thought among the general public that Shankara
gave more importance to the waking state or "more reality" to the waking state,
as compared to a dream. This is NOT true. Consider the following stanzas from
the Updesha Sahasri:
Jagradascha yaTha BheDho Jnanasyasya vikalpitha:
budDhisTham vyakarothyarTham Bhranthya thruShnodhBhvakriaya:
As in a dream, so in the waking state different forms are superimposed on
this consciousness. It manifests the objects of the intellect when It performs
actions produced by desires due to delusion (XVII, 17)
Further the translation of (XVII, 18) is:
The events in the waking state are similar to those in a dream. The ideas of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
interior and exterior in the former state is as unreal as in the latter state,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
like reading and writing depend on each other.
This ought to make it pretty clear about Shankara's opinion on "vyavaharika
reality", whatever it might be.
Next, I have some explanations on how and why people perceive a fundamental
shift in the philosophy of Shankara from that of Gaudapada. My contention is
that there is NO shift, both were Ajata advaitins.
The only way we can perceive Shankara's thoughts on any subject is through his
works. Here there is a whole mass of confusion.
1. Considering any work of Shankara, we have to know if he really was the
author.
2. Even among his works WHY did he compose that particular work?
In my opinion both these matter considerably. There are a whole lot of hymns
and works attributed to Shankara, which scholars doubt. One such famous example
is the Saundarya Lahari. In this particular hymn Shankara totally departs from
his characteristic style and actually talks about chakras etc, about which he
mentions NOTHING in any of his other works. Many scholars doubt the attribution
and there seems to be some strong evidence that Shankara did not actually write
the Lahari (refer the Harvard oriental series translation for some very
interesting details). If people are interested in the details, please e-mail
me. If there's some interest I'll post some excerpts from the book.
Second, the works which are indubitably his (the opinion of many scholars) are
the following:
1. Commentaries on the Brahma sutra
2. Commentaries on the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad
3. Commentaries on the Taittriya Upanishad
4. Upadesha Sahasri
5. Gaudapada Karika
It is my opinion that undue importance has been given to Shankara's commentary
on the Brahma Sutra by various people. Let's compare the Brahma sutra and the
Upadesha Sahasri. In the Brahma Sutra:
1. One stanza says that women can't achieve realization.
2. Another stanza explains in detail the passage of the individual soul through
heavens etc, before "realization", indicating some kind of "vyavaharika
reality".
(I am not giving the exact stanza numbers here, I am quoting it from memory. If
anyone feels I am wrong, I can produce the exact stanza numbers.)
These two CANNOT be reconciled with the attitude of Shankara in the Upadesha
sahasri. No self respecting advaitin will ever say "Women cannot attain
realization." Shankara also makes it quite clear that the waking state has no
more reality than the dream state. If he considered the passage of souls etc.
important he should have atleast mentioned it somewhere in the Upadesha Sahasri.
However, he does no such thing.
So how could Shankara have composed both works? It's quite simple, if one
considers Shankara's mission viz., the setting up of mutts and the practical
things one needed to do, to set up a school in those days. Obviously the
majority of the people wouldn't be bothered about Advaita, Visishtadvaita or
Dvaita. The key people to be convinced were the scholars, since the acceptance
by scholars, who always form the intelligentsia, is key to setting up a "new"
school of philosophy. The acceptance could be easily gained by writing a bhas-
ya on the Brahma sutras, since the Brahma sutras themselves had a cult status
due to the authorship of Vyasa.
My opinion is that people get the idea that Shankara accepted a "vyavaharika
reality" due to the Brahma sutras. In ALL his other works he pays scant regard
to the supposed "reality" of the world. It can only be concluded that Shankara
wrote a commentary on the Brahma sutras to fulfill some criteria. The
sutra-bhashya itself would prove that the author was well versed in the Vedas
and other important works like the Gita and give him a status among scholars.
And finally something I found on the Web-pages on Ramana Maharishi, in the
recollections of Balaram Reddy, a close disciple of the Maharishi:
'Bhagavan refused to see the least difference between the two states, and in
this he agreed with all the great Advaitic Seers. Some have questioned if
San-kara did not draw a line of difference between these two states, but
Bhagavan has persistently denied it. "Sankara did it apparently only for the
purpose of clearer exposition," the Maharshi would explain.'
(NOTE : The two states above refer to the dream and waking states)
> GauDapaada, on the other hand, makes no distinction
> between the unreality of the world and that of the
> dream. In fact, in his MaaNDuukya kaarika he explains
> that the world is as imaginary as a dream.
>
> Shankara never decried worship of the SaguNa Brahman, but
> GauDapaada condemns this in his kaarika. He calls a person
> who meditates or worships the conditioned Brahman, a
> pitiable one.
Note that Gaudapada calls the worshipers of Saguna Brahman "pitiable ones". He
does not say it is wrong (I think). This is quite true since all duality has
not been lost yet. Also note that Shankara was out to reform the whole scale
confusion which had resulted from teaching every one non-dualism (Buddhism
i.e.). So obviously he would never have made such statements. Again the
historical perspective is very important here!
> Anand
Ramakrishnan.
--
Two monks were arguing about a flag. One said, "The flag is moving." The other
said, "The wind is moving." The sixth patriach happened to be passing by. He
told them, "Not the wind, not the flag; mind is moving." - The Gateless Gate
