shankara 788-820 ad

1. Shankara*(788-820 AD) Commentary on the Vedanta Sutras (Brahmasutra-Bhashya)

3. Background India & Hinduism

5. Hinduism Basic Beliefs Sacred Literature The Raja Yoga System

6. Outline of the Text Self (Atman) & Non-Self -- the problem of superimposition (229-230) The Desire to Know Brahman (230-233) Knowing Brahman (230-231) Brahman as the cause of the world (not in text) The relationship between Brahman and Self (Atman) -- identity (231-233) Critique of Other Philosophical Systems (233-250)

7. 3 Critique of Other Philosophical Systems, cont’d Vedanta vs. Samkhya (233-241) Brahman as the cause of the world’s existence The Vedanta critique of Samkhya metaphysics (the purusha-prakriti theory) The Samkhya critique of Vedantic non-dualism Vedanta vs. Vaisheshika (atomism) (241-245) Brahman as the material cause of the world Critique of Vaisheshika atomism Critique of the Vaisheshika theory of categories

8. 3 Critique of Other Philosophical Systems, cont’d Vedanta vs. Buddhist Philosophy (245-250) Shankara’s non-dualism vs. Buddhist Realism, Idealism, & Voidism -- Editor’s Comment Critique of Buddhist Realism -- interdependent causation & momentariness Critique of Buddhist Idealism -- consciousness-only Critique of Buddhist Voidism -- emptiness = nothingness (?) General assessment of Buddhist philosophy

9. Self & Not-Self (subject & object) The mistake of superimposition How is objectification of the Self possible, since it is not an object of sense perception? First, Self is not absolutely a non-object. It is the object [reference] of the word “I,” & it is known to have real (objective) existence through direct intuition (“I am”) [Descartes: “I think; therefore I am”]. Second, objectification of things that are not objects of sense perception takes place (e.g., the dark blue color of the ether). Ignorance (avidya) as opposed to knowledge (vidya) as the basis of superimposition. Examples of ignorant objectification of the Self . The path to knowledge of the Self: study of the Vedanta Sutras.

10. Knowing Brahman Prerequisites to knowledge of Brahman Knowledge of Brahman as the highest good Is Brahman known or not known? Brahman (“the greatest”) [“that than which nothing greater can be conceived”?] is known to exist & is the universal Self (Atman). Also, the Self is known to exist [because it is impossible for anyone to think “I am not”? (Descartes again)].

11. since there are many conflicting views of the nature of the Self (231) & of its relationship with Brahman, it is necessary to inquire further into the nature of Brahman & of the Self & into the relationship between them (231).

12. Brahman as cause of the world The origin, subsistence, & dissolution of the world must (each) be caused. (Why?) The cause cannot be non-intelligent matter (prakriti), nor atoms, nor non-being, nor the world itself. (Why not?) Brahman (omniscient & omnipotent) is the only possible cause of the world’s origin, subsistence, & dissolution. (Why?)

13. The relationship between Brahman & Self (231-3) Description of Brahman: eternal, all-knowing, absolutely self-sufficient, ever pure, intelligent, free, pure knowledge, absolute bliss, omnipresent, immutable, non-composite (one), self-illuminating. Description of Self: permanent, unitary, eternally unchanging, present in everything, imperishable, eternally pure & free.

14. one, i.e., identical, & knowledge of this identity is moksha (final release & experience of the union of Self & Brahman).

15. Tat tvam asi!* This means “That thou art!” The “That” refers to Brahman; the “thou” refers to the Self (Atman).

16. Two experiences of Brahman Brahman as other than the Self, qualified by limiting conditions (definable characteristics), an object of religious devotion. This view is based on ignorance (avidya). Brahman as one (identical) with the Self, free from all limiting conditions (having no definable qualities or characteristics), not an object of religious devotion [because not other than the Self]. This view is based on knowledge (vidya).

17. How the Self gets confused with the Not-Self & how the individual soul awakens to its true identity as the universal Self (Atman) through critical thought & reflection

18. Critique of Other Philosophical Systems The orthodox schools Samkhya & Yoga Nyaya & Vaisheshika Mimamsa & Vedanta The unorthodox schools Buddhism Jainism Carvaka

22. Shankara’s Cosmology “Non-Dualism” (Advaita)

23. The issues addressed in Shankara’s treatment of Samkhya-Yoga philosophy The efficient & material causation of the world’s existence How can the pradhana (prakriti) be active or activated? The Samkhya-Yoga critique of Shankara’s non-dualism

24. Two kinds of causation Material causation The material cause of an entity (e.g., a clay pot) is the matter or substance of which the entity is made or composed or constructed (e.g., clay). Efficient causation The efficient cause of an entity or event is the active agent that produces the entity or event (e.g., a potter molds clay to form a clay pot).

25. The disagreement: For Shankara, Brahman is the material cause of the world. The world is an appearance of Brahman projected from & by Brahman through the power of maya. For Samkhya-Yoga, the pradhana (prakriti) is the material cause of the world. The world is other than Brahman (purusha), which is the efficient but not the material cause of the world.

26. The arguments Why & how does Samkhya-Yoga argue that Brahman cannot be the material cause of the world? How does Shankara respond to the S-Y position on this matter? How does he argue that Brahman is both the efficient and the material cause of the world?

28. Let’s go over pp. 237 in detail. This is the section entitled, “(2) The primal cause of the world must be intelligent”.

29. According to Shankara, S-Y’s dualistic cosmology makes activity & motion (& therefore the existence of the world) impossible.

30. S-Y dualism negates motion. How can the pradhana be activated by purusha? How does the disequilibrium of the gunas originate? How does the Mahat arise? (237-8) How can the pradhana serve any purposes of purusha? (238) Can (or how can) purusha move the pradhana? (239) The activity of the pradhana is impossible (or unintelligible) on S-Y assumptions (239).

31. The S-Y critique of Shankara’s Non-Dualism (239-240) Non-Dualism destroys the distinction between sufferer & cause of suffering, between the desiring person & the object desired, between the non-desiring person & the object not desired (the object of aversion). Non-Dualism also makes final release from suffering impossible [because suffering would then belong to the essence of the Self], contrary to Scripture, whereas Dualism makes final release possible [because suffering would then be distinct from the Self].

33. Perhaps neither S-Y Dualism nor Shankara’s Non-Dualistic Vedanta can do justice to the subject-object distinction. What do you think?

35. The issues addressed in Shankara’s treatment of Nyaya-Vaisheshika atomism The material causation of the world (Can an intelligent cause produce effects that do not possess intelligence?) Problems with atomism: The problem of initial atomic motion The indivisibility & immutability of atoms The N-V categories of the understanding (substance, quality, motion, generality, particularity, inherence)

37. Shankara vs. Buddhist Realism The chain of interdependent causation - cannot explain the material & mental aggregations that are governed by the Wheel of Becoming The Buddhist doctrine of momentariness undermines the principle of causality (168-9) is inconsistent with the phenomenon of remembrance

39. Shankara vs. Buddhist (Yogacara) Idealism 5 arguments in support of Yogacara idealism (248) Shankara’s general response (including rejections of the five arguments for idealism) (248-250) The external world is given as a phenomenon in consciousness & is experienced as external. The existence of the external world is confirmed by all the standard means of knowledge (pramanas). [See next slide] Although consciousness is always accompanied by an object, there is a distinction between consciousness & object (i.e., they are not identical). Examples of dreams, illusions, & mirages do not prove the truth of idealism. The Yogacara explanation of the variety of ideas implies an infinite regress [see fn 3 on p. 250].

41. Shankara vs. Buddhist Voidism Voidism is negated by all of the standard means of knowledge (pramanas).

42. Shankara’s final assessment of Buddhist philosophy

43. The End