Introduction To Vedanta - P. Nagaraja Rao 4 страница

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 8 из 20Следующая ⇒

represents the philosophy of the Upanisads. It is very

difficult to adjudge whether the Upanisads are com-

pletely after the heart of Sankara or Ramanuja. The

Upanisads are the records of the intuitions of the

great seers. They have reported their vision and ex-

periences. They have not built systems of thought.

They are not the works of a single author. They

are the reports of the first-hand mystic experience

of sages and not a dialectical and metaphysical discus-

sion about Reality. They are “more poetic than philo-

sophical. ” They take the forms of informal discus-

sions, parables, and intimate dialogues. In the words

of Sri Aurobindo,

The Risis disclose what they have seen, they do not argue. The

dialogue is often between a qualified aspirant and a sage. It is

not a free broadcasting of truth. The Risis imparted the truth to

aspirants only after testing the sincerity and strength of the

student’s mind.

Heraclitus is reported to have said, “If men care

for gold they must dig for it; otherwise they must

be content with straw. ”

9. See Breath of the Eternal (an anthology of the Upanisads)

by Swami Prabhavananda and Frederic Manchester (Published

by Vedanta Society of Southern California, U. SA. )

42 INTRODUCTION TO VEDANTA

The Upanisads, like all great classics, have the

power of self-renewal. They are neither old nor new.

They are eternal. They are ageless. They are

modern and topical in a sense. They have a message

for all ages and specially for our owfl. “Modernity

is not a question of date but of outlook”. When we

read and ponder over the passages in the Upanisads

they re-emerge in answer to our present problems.

They have the power to produce from age to age the

necessary corrective to men’s sense of values and con-

duct of life by recreating the spiritual ideal which

gives them the vision of Truth.

The two schools of Vedanta claim that their

philosophy is identical with the thoughts in the

Upanisads, the Gita, and the Vedanta Sutras. They

do not agree with the modern scholars who hold the

opinion that it is foolish metaphysical ambition to

read one rigorous system of thought in this book of

ancient wisdom, the Upanisads. The orthodox Vedan-

tin regard's that a single system of thought is develop-

ed in all the three texts; hence they have commented

on all the three texts and derived their doctrines

from them. 1 0

The other two texts which are the source books

and authorities for Vedanta are the Bhagavad-Gita

and the Vedanta-Sutras. These two are human

10. Max Muller writes: ‘With us philosophy always means

something systematic, while what we find here are philosophic

rhapsodies rather than consecutive treatises. But that is the very

reason why the Upanisads are so interesting to the historical

student. Nowhere, except in India, can we watch that period of

chaotic thought, half poetical, half religious, which preceded, in

India at least, the age of philospohy properly so called And

however unsystematic these relics of the childhood of philosophy

may seem, there is really more system in them than appears at

first sight. 9 ‘

APPROACH TO VEDANTA

compositions. They derive their authority from their

theme. Sankara treats the Gita as one of the triple

texts because the Lord Himself has delivered the mes-

sage. The Gita is the most popular Hindu scripture.

It is enshrined in the Mahabharata and is admired

by all as the layman's Upanisad. Here too, both the

schools of Vedanta claim that it embodies their philo-

sophy of life and not their rival's. Though a com-

pletely objective approach is not possible, still one

feels, taking the verses of the Gita by and large, that

it is more akin to theistic Vedanta than the absolu-

tism of Sankara. There is very little support for

Sankara’s doctrines in the Gita except for a few

verses in Chapter XIII. Sankara strives hard to read

his doctrines in the Gita. The Gita speaks in one

voice unlike the Upanisads. It is predominently

theistic. It is the treasure-house for the method of

devotion.

The philosophy of the Gita is the philosophy of

the theistic Vedanta. Its general importance is very

great. It affirms the reality and validity of religious

experience and man’s imperative need for it. It pre-

sents unambiguously a complete and comprehensive

ideal of true religion. It outlines a religion based on

the philosophy of action. It declares that religion

has no secrets which absolve us from right living.

It asks each of us to take up the duty that is dictated

by our svabhava (talents) and svadharma (indivi-

dual’s norm of life). It does not force all men into

one path or one vocation. Each grows to his best in

his own way. All paths lead to God. There are not

only many mansions in the Lord’s Home, but there

are many paths to it. The Lord of the Gita pleads

for the unity of religions and the Fellowship of Faiths.

INTRODUCTION TO VEDANTA

Every faith is a path to God. 1 1 Tolerance is the chief

article of the religion of the Gita. It recognizes that

formal renunciations of all actions is wrong. There

is no freedom from action, but there is “only freedom

in action. ” f

The supreme secret of the Gita is the path of

devotion and surrender. The ideal man of the Gita,

is called the Karma-Yogin. The dialogue form, the

dramatic context, the charming personages, the uni-

versality of the message of the discourse and the res-

plendent demonstration of the Visvarupa to Arjuna,

‘the close companion, the chosen instrument and the

representative man’ have all made the Gita a world

scripture.

The Gita has attracted the attention of all the

modem savants. Gandhiji, Dr. Tagore, Tilak, Sri

Aurobindo and Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, have all found

their inspiration in the Gita and have written about

it. The Gita is the first Sanskrit work to be translat-

ed into English (1785).

Dr. S. " Radhakrishnan’s estimate of the Gita sums

up the nature and content of the scripture.

It sets forth a tradition which has emerged from the religions

life of mankind. It is articulated by a profound seer who sees

truth in its many-sidedness and believes in its saving power. It

represents not any sect of Hinduism but Hinduism as a whole,

not merely Hinduism but religion as such, in its universality with-

out limit of time and space, embracing within its synthesis the

whole gamut of the human spirit from the crude fetishism of the

savage to the creative affirmation of the saints

Both the schools of Vedanta cite the verses of the

11. " Some run swiftly, some walk, some creep painfully, but

everyone will reach the goal who keep on. Some seek a Father

in Heaven above. Some ask a Human image to adore. Some

crave a Spirit vast as life and love. Within Thy mansions we

have all and more. ”

12. Dr. S. * Radhakrishnan’s Bhagavad-Gitd. See Introduction*

APPROACH TO VEDANTA

Gita in their support. It is not difficult to see a cer-

tain unity of outlook in the Gita. Even that is not

agreed to by many. The Gita has proved a source of

comfort for millions of men throughout the centuries

in their setbacks and successes in life. It has been

the most powerful shaping factor in the renewal of

the spiritual life of man. It is regarded on all hands

as the best guide in life.

The status accorded to the Gita as one of the

triple texts on which Vedanta is based is not as funda-

mental as that of the Upanisads. Vedanta recognizes

two types of scriptures — Sruti (the Upanisads) and

Smritis. The Smritis lay down the laws of conduct

in the light of the Vedas and guide individuals and

communities in their daily life and apply the eternal

truths of the Vedas to the changing conditions of our

life. Their authority is derived from the Vedas.

There are several such Smritis, e. g., that of Manu,

Yajnavalkya, and Parasara. The Mahabhdrata is

one such great Smriti and the Gita is a part of it. The

Gita is given a special place because it is the directly

delivered message of the Lord.

As for the Smritis, they are acceptable when

they are in agreement with the Sruti, and are to

be disregarded when they contradict the Srutu

They have only a derivative validity. 13

The third important foundation of Vedanta is

the Vedanta Sutras of Badarayana. It is variously

called Brahma-Sutras because its subject matter is

Brahman, Uttara-mwnamsa-Sutras, Vyasa Sutras, and

Sdriraka Sutras. The Sutras aim at a systematic

working out of the teaching of the Upanisads. The

13. For a clear and full discussion of the topic see Sankara's

commentary on the Vedanta- Sutras, II. i. 1.

INTRODUCTION TO VEDANTA

Upanisads speak in different voices in different con-

texts. The Sutras reconcile the apparent contradic-

tions and set them in order. The various passages

in the Upanisads are arranged under different topics

(adhikaranas ). The Sutras aim at definiteness and

coherence and seek to demonstrate tliat the teaching

of the Upanisads forms a consistent whole, free from

all contradictions. The Siitra form is not self-

evident. In the words of Thibaut, there is scarcely

one single Sutra intelligible without a commentary.

The Sutras are often concise to excess. They retain

what is essential in a given phrase. They do not

include all those aspects that can be supplied, with

some strain, by the reflection and the memory of the

reader. They rigidly exclude all words that can

possibly be spared and they avoid all unnecessary

repetition. They are like algebraic equations which

we have to expand when we are to understand their

implications. 1 4

The exact number of the Sutras is 535 accord-

ing to Sdnkara and 564 according to Madhva. The

schools of Vedanta have all commented on the

Sutras. We have the commentaries from Sankara,

Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallabha, Nimbarka, Nilakantha,

etc. The two schools of Vedanta are represented by

the commentaries of Sankara and Ramanuja. San-

kara’s commentaries are both philosophical classics

and pieces of great literature. Sankara belongs

to the group of the great philosophical prose-

writers which includes Sahara, Vagaspati, and the

author of the Mahabhasya. Each of the school of

Vedanta claims that their system alone is in complete

14. ' ‘Svalpaksaram-asandigdham saravat vishvatomukham,

AstQbham-anavadyanca sutram sutravido viduh. *

APPROACH TO VEDANTA 47

accord with * the Vedanta-Sutras. Critical scholars

like Thihaut opine that the Upanisads are after the

heart of Sankara and the Sutras after the heart of

Ramanuja. The avowed function of the Sutras is to

synthesize the Upanisads.

The reliance of Vedanta on the authority of

scriptures, i. e. the triple texts (Upanisads, Gita, and

Vedanta-Sutras) has been a target of attacks for

critics at home and abroad. Certain European critics

and their friends in India have regarded the Vedanta

as religion and not as philosophy. Philosophy,

according to the Western conception, is the pure in-

tellectual interpretation of Reality. It is based on

logic and inference. Reason is its guide and not

revelation. In this sense Indian philosophy is not

pure philosophy. It combines religion also. There

is no pure logical approach to Truth as in science or

philosophy. Things are taken on faith and trust and

no proof is asked for them. The strongest belief of

the Vedantin is his faith in the infallibility and iner-

rancy of the Vedas. Hence it is declared to be un-

scientific, irrational and dogmatic. The close associa-

tion of religion and philosophy in India is held up to

ridicule.

Further, some hold that Vedanta believes in a

faculty called intuition. The intuition of the seers is

dubbed as unreasoned. They say it is found in the

depths of silence with a capital ‘S’. Indian philosophy

is said to work in the twilight zone of experience.

Uninformed and unsympathetic critics regard Indian

philosophy as a hotchpotch of " lofty ethics, low

customs, subtle wisdom, superstitious ideas, profound

thought, and priestly barbarism. ” The criticism boils.

INTRODUCTION TO VEDANTA

down to the point that the supreme authority claim-

ed for scripture by Vedanta makes it unphilosophical,

authoritarian and dogmatic. The criticism derives

support from the Western conception of the term

Philosophy.

The term Philosophy in the West has acquired a

restricted sense. It is a purely intellectual interpre-

tation of Reality. It makes use of reason and percep-

tion, i. e., sense knowledge. Reliance on intuition is

considered as taking away the scientific value of

philosophy. Intuition and scriptural authority do not

brooke the spotlight of reason. They are not germane

to facts. They work, not in the region of the clear

light of reason, but in the twilight zone of experience.

Thus we see that the primacy of the intellect or

'critical intelligence, ’ in the words of Dr. S. Radha-

krishnan, is the characteristic of the Western systems

of philosophy. There is close and rational alliance

between science and philosophy in the West. Philoso-

phy strives to become more and more scientific by

adopting mathematical methods. Philosophy in the

West is speculative. Reason is given the greatest

place as the method of understanding Reality.

Socrates urged the need for cdncepts and definitions

and equated virtue with knowledge. Plato admitted

none in his academy who had not a course and was

not efficient in Geometry and Numbers. Socrates de-

fined man as a ‘rational animal’, Plato as a ‘social

animal’ and Aristotle as a ‘political animal’. It did

not occur to any of them to define man as a spiritual

being. The. philosophy of the Middle Ages is one

long chain of the development of the Christian

dogmas. Descartes, the father of modern philosophy,

APPROACH TO VEDANTA

declared, ‘th$t which is clear and distinct is true’. His

successor Spinoza sets forth his Ethics in geometrical

fashion. He declared that “Truth will be eternally

hidden from the human race, had not mathematics,

which deals not with ends, but with the nature and

properties of figures, shown to man another form of

Truth. ” Leibnitz outlined his philosophy on the basis

of symbolic logic and infinitesimal calculus. He

declared that mathematics is our guide; “If we had

it, we should be able to reason in metaphysics and

morals in much the same way as in geometry and

analysis. If controversies were to arise, there

should be no more need for disputation between

two philosophers than between two accountants.

Eor, it would suffice to take their pencils in their

hands, to sit down to their slates, and to say to each

other (with a friend as witness if they liked) “Let

us calculate. ”

Kant effected the Copernican revolution in

philosophy by declaring that it is impossible to have

a science of metaphysics. Metaphysics as a natural

disposition is possible and not as a science. Hegel

identified the real with the rational.

Thus we find that the logical consequence of

interpreting philosophy in terms of pure reason has

landed the West in logical positivism. The logical

positivists declare that they are taking one step ahead

of Kant. Kant declared the impossibility of meta-

physics as a science. The positivists say that if

metaphysics is not verifiable, it is nonsensical.

They regard all the philosophical problems

and propositions of traditional metaphysics and

speculative philosophy as either tautologous or

INTRODUCTION TO VEDANTA

nonsensical. Wittgenstein, the prophet of the school,

writes that “the right method of philosophy be this,

to say nothing except what can be said in terms of the

propositions of natural science, i. e., something which

has nothing to do with philosophy: and then always

when some one wished to say something metaphysical,

to demonstrate to him that he had given no meaning to

certain signs in his propositions. ,, Analysis, we are

told, is the chief method and creed of this school.

Propositions are analysed by them into two classes, the

analytic and the negative and the negative again into

the empirical and the logical. Such an analysis per-

force excludes all value-judgments and does not

commit us to any transcendental or metaphysical views

or even meaningful ideas. The logical positivists hold

the view that metaphysical terms like God, soul, im-

mortality are unverifiable. Sensory verification is

their great principle. They confine meaningful asser-

tions only to matters of empirical fact which can be

submitted to sensory verification They hold ethical

statements # as ejaculations of emotion. They declare

that the acceptance of metaphysical categories and a

deep analysis of them bring one up against logic, lan-

guage and Truth which are pretty serious things to

find oneself against.

Philosophical systems in the West, by unduly

restricting the meaning of the term philosophy to a

purely logical and rational interpretation of Reality,

have landed themselves in logical positivism. In

their anxiety to emancipate themselves from the

apron-strings of theology and religion they have only

succeeded in hanging on to the coat-tails of science

and logic. It has resulted in the new slavery to

science and semantics.

APPROACH TO VEDANTA

The Vedanta, like all other systems of Indian

thought, interprets the term philosophy in its plenary

sense and not as mere rational knowledge. This fact

arises from several reasons and a proper understand-

ing of all the arguments is absolutely necessary for

an appraisal of Vedanta as philosophy. Indian philo-

sophy, and Vedanta in particular, feels that the know-

ledge of ultimate Reality cannot be had by the exclu-

sive use of man’s instrument called Reason. The

Vedantins have submitted the faculty of reason to a

thorough and critical examination in order to know

its powers and limitations. They examined the in-

strument before they used it.

Reason is one of the recognized instruments of

philosophy. Vedanta holds that reason cannot work in

a vacuum. It is a mere instrument which cannot by

itself lead us to any truth. It elaborates, explains

and systematizes the basic spiritual experiences of the

Upanisadic seers. We affirm and discover the

Supreme Reality by immediate, direct spiritual expe-

rience and interpret it in terms of logic. When logic

goes against the deliverances of the spiritual intui-

tions of seers, it is set aside. Sankara, in his com-

mentary on the V edanta-Sutras, observes:

In matters to be known from Sruti, mere reasoning is not

to be relied on. As the thoughts of man are altogether unfettered,

reasoning which disregards the holy texts and rests on individual

opinion only, has no proper foundation. One sees how arguments

which some clever men had excogitated with great pains, are

shown by people still more ingenious to be fallacious, and how the

arguments of the latter are refuted in their turn by other men;

so it is impossible to accept mere reasoning as having a sure

foundation. Nor can we get over this difficulty by accepting as

well founded the reasoning of some person of recognized emi-

nence, whether Kapila or any one else, since we observe that even

INTRODUCTION TO VEDANTA

men of the most undoubted intellectual eminence, such as Kapila*

Kanada, and other founders of philosophical schools have contra-

dicted each other.

The scripture is self-valid. It does not need any

proof. Its authority needs no support from any-

where. It is the direct evidence of Tru^h, just as the

light of the sun is its own evidence and at the same

time the direct means of our knowledge of form and

colour. The authority of the Scripture is not invoked

in all matters. What can be known by perception

and inference is not to be learnt from Scripture. It

is authoritative in respect of those facts that cannot

be known by other pramanas. 16 Nor can Scripture

attain authoritativeness when it contradicts the expe-

rience of the sense knowledge of objects. A hundred

scriptural texts declaring fire to be cold or non-lumi-

nous will not attain authoritativeness.

Spiritual realization, which is the goal of

Vedanta, is immediate experience carrying its own

validity with it. It is not a relational or mandate type

of knowledge involving the subject-object relation.

The faculty of reason works only when premises are

supplied to it. The subject matter for reason comes

only from experience. Western philosophers employ

reason to synthesize sense-experience. They restrict-

ed the term experience to the world disclosed by the

senses only and leave out all other forms of human

experience. They confine their attention to the world

of objects. They leave out the experiences of the

subject. Vedanta takes the entire experience of man

into account. It includes not only his sensuous wak-

ing experience but also his super-sensuous, dreaming,

15. * Aprapte sdstram-arthavat. ’

APPROACH TO VEDANTA

53:

sleeping experiences also. The entire inward expe-

rience of the subject is given prominence in Vedanta.

It is ‘Atman-centric’ in the words of Dr. P. T. Raju.

Vedanta gives a synthetic view of all experience.

Hence, it affords an integral view of Reality.

To regard the senses and reason as the only

sources of knowledge is to restrict the significance of

the term Reality. These two faculties tell us very

little about Reality. The knowledge they give us

is mediate and relational. The mere fact that the

human mind is not aware of what is beyond the

senses is not the same as saying that there is nothing

beyond the senses. The Vedantin agrees with the

poet Browning when he says our reach should exceed

our grasp. We have an earnest intimation of the trans-

cendental spirit. We are half conscious of it. The

Vedantin does not, like the agnostic, declare that the

transcendent is unknowable. He accepts the need

for a separate means of knowledge ( pramdna ) for the

realization of the extra-empirical. This is his justi-

fication for the authority of Scripture, i. e., revelation.

The knowledge which we get from reason is not free

from defects. It cannot give us immediate and cer-

tain knowledge. All relational way of knowing, in

the last resort, is involved in contradictions. Hence

the need to accept scriptural authority in respect of

the Supreme. The Vedantin posits the existence of

the Supreme as a working hypothesis on the basis of

Scripture. The postulation is an act of faith. Aldous

Huxley sums up the issue in his saying, “Faith is a

pre-condition of all systematic knowing, all purposive

doing and all decent living. ” Refering to the need

for a wav of knowing higher and other than the intel-

lect, A. E. Taylor writes,

INTRODUCTION TO VEDANTA

It seems indeed as if the function of mere intellect were only

that of a- necessary and valuable * intermediary between a lower

and a higher level of immediate apprehension. , It breaks up the

original union of the what and the that of simple feeling, and

proceeds to make the what, which it deals with in its isolation,

ever more and more complex. But the ultimate issue of the pro-

cess is only reached and its ultimate aim onl^ satisfied so far as

it conducts, us at a higher stage of mental development to the

direct intuition of a richer and more comprehensive whole in the

immediate unity of the that and the what.

Vedanta proves the limitations of reason and so

posits the existence of a Supreme Reality on the

authority of the Sruti. In the last analysis, it is the

first-hand immediate self-certifying spiritual experi-

ence that is the proof positive for the existence of the

Spirit. The Vedantic sages affirm what they accept

as a working hypothesis on the authority of Scrip-

ture by their own spiritual experience. Experience

is the ultimate test for the existence of the Spirit.

Such an attitude can hardly be called dogmatic and

unscientific. The Vedic sages talk of their experience

of Reality T have heard’, T have seen’, ‘I have en-

joyed’, T have drunk’. They do not speak from

second-hand knowledge. They speak from direct ex-

perience. There is a striking unanimity in the expe-

rience of the spiritual seers of different ages and diffe-

rent climes. They shake hands with one another and

proclaim the unity of all religions and the Fellowship

of Faiths. The philosophical system built on the ex-

perience of the mystics is called Perennial Philosophy

or Eternal Gospel.

The Vedanta is not dogmatic in any sense of the

term, for it bases its ultimate faith on experience

and not hearsay. Its acceptance of the authority of

Scripture is unphilosophical only on the surface.

APPROACH TO VEDANTA

55 >

Scripture, by its very nature, is a collection of words.

It has to be * interpreted if we are to understand its

meaning. Sankara, the representative of Advaita

Vedanta, does not accept all the Vedas as authorita-

tive. Only the purportful Scripture is authoritative.

The purport of the Scripture is determined by six

determinative marks of purport called tatparya

Ungas. They are the harmony of the initial and con-

cluding passages ( upakrama and upasarhhdra) repeti-

tion (abhyasa), novelty (apurvata), fruitfulness

(phala), glorification by eulogistic or condemnatory

passages ( arthavada ) and intelligibility in the light of

reasoning (upapatti).

Though reason (upapatti) is only one of the deter-

minative marks of purport, on close examination we

find that it is all in all. In fact, reason steps in at

every stage. It is reason that has to decide which

passage is the initial one and which the concluding

one. It is again reason that points out which repe-

tition is purportful and which is not. The really novel

message has to be ascertained by reason. Thus we

see that the role of reason is very prominent in the

interpretation of the scriptures.

Vedanta does not minimize the importance of

logic. Like all the other systems of Indian philosophy

it makes epistemology the portal to metaphysics. In

the words of Max Muller, “almost the first question

which every one of the Hindu systems of philosophy

tries to settle is, How do we know? They give

noetics the first place. No object of knowledge can

be established or known without the help of pramdna.

The dictum of the Mlmamsaka is ‘manddhinam-meya-

⇐ Предыдущая 3 4 5 6 789 10 11 12 Следующая ⇒