Transcript Shankara

12/19/05
Shankara*
(788-820 AD)
Commentary on the Vedanta Sutras
(Brahmasutra-Bhashya)
*Sankara, Sancara, Shamkara
Text, 229-250
Background
India
&
Hinduism
Hinduism

Basic Beliefs

Sacred Literature

The Raja Yoga System
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)
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
(Continued on next slide)
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
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.
2. The Desire to Know Brahman
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)].
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).
(Why is it necessary?)
2. The Desire to Know Brahman, cont’d
Brahman as cause
of the world
The origin, subsistence, &
dissolution of the world must
(each) be caused. (Why?)
The cause cannot be nonintelligent matter (prakriti),
nor atoms, nor non-being, nor
the world itself. (Why not?)
(Not in Text)
Brahman (omniscient
& omnipotent) is the
only possible cause of
the world’s origin,
subsistence, &
dissolution. (Why?)
2. The Desire to Know Brahman, cont’d
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.
one, i.e., identical,
& knowledge of this identity is
moksha (final release & experience of
the union of Self & Brahman).
Knowledge & realization of the identity of
Atman & Brahman also result in freedom
from the transmigratory world (samsara),
whereas ignorance (avidya) of the “supreme
identity” binds us to that world.
Tat tvam asi!*
This means
“That thou art!”
The “That” refers to Brahman;
the “thou” refers to the Self (Atman).
*From the Chandogya Upanishad, VI, 8, 7
2. The Desire to Know Brahman, cont’d
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).

2. The Desire to Know Brahman, cont’d
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
Dream states & waking states
The rope-snake analogy
Critique of Other
Philosophical Systems

The orthodox schools

The unorthodox schools

Samkhya & Yoga

Buddhism

Nyaya & Vaisheshika

Jainism

Mimamsa & Vedanta

Carvaka
(See Text, 233, fn 1)
(Text, 233-241)
Samkhya-Yoga Cosmology
(metaphysical dualism)
Consciousness, Self, Subject
(no real interaction)
Origin, Subsistence, & Dissolution of Worlds
Disruption of Equilibrium -- Intermingling of Gunas
Equilibrium of the Three Gunas
(sattva, rajas, tamas)
Matter, Not-Self, Object
Shankara’s Cosmology
“Non-Dualism”
(Advaita)
(Rope)
(Snake)
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
Causation of the World’s Existence
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).
Shankara & the Samkhya-Yoga philosophers agree that Brahman
(purusha) is the efficient cause of the world’s existence. They
disagree about the material causation of the world.
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.
Causation of the World’s Existence
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?
pp. 233-237
Samkhya-Yoga: An effect cannot have qualities different from
the qualities of its material cause. The world is non-intelligent
(non-conscious), composed of parts, and impure (a mixture of
pleasure, pain, & numbness). Brahman (purusha) is
intelligent (conscious), one (not composed of parts), and pure
(not a mixture of qualities). Therefore, Brahman (purusha)
cannot be the material cause of the world.
Vedanta (Shankara): (1) Some effects have qualities different
from the qualities of their material causes (humans
[intelligent, conscious] growing hair & nails; cow dung [nonintelligent, non-living] giving rise to scorpions & similar
animals. (2) Originally, there was nothing but Brahman. If
the material from which the world is made is other than
Brahman, then that material must emerge from Brahman. (3)
In fact, the whole world is intelligent (or a manifestation of
intelligence).
Causation of the World’s Existence
Let’s go over pp. 237 in detail.
This is the section entitled,
“(2) The primal cause of the world must be intelligent”.
How can the pradhana (prakriti) be active or activated? (237-8)
According to Shankara,
S-Y’s dualistic cosmology
makes activity & motion
(& therefore the existence of the world)
impossible.
How does he explain & back up this criticism?
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).

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 nondesiring 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].

How does Shankara respond to the S-Y
critique of his Non-Dualism?
How does he explain the relationship
between sufferer & cause of suffering?
All subject-object dualities are
phenomenal (apparent) only; they are
not “really real”; there is no duality in
the Brahman-Atman.
Release from suffering results from the
realization that suffering is not “really
real,” & that realization comes with
knowledge of Brahman-Atman.
Text, 240-241
Perhaps neither S-Y Dualism
nor Shankara’s Non-Dualistic
Vedanta can do justice to the
subject-object distinction.
What do you think?
(See fn 1 on p. 241)
(Text, 241-244)
*
*
(I.e., Nyaya-Vaisheshika)
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)
(Text, 244-250)
Buddhist Realism (Sautrantika & Vaibhashika)
Buddhist Idealism (Yogacara)
Buddhist Voidism (Madhyamaka)
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
11.
Birth
12.
Aging &
Dying
1.
Ignorance
Heaven
2.
Impulse
to Exist
3.
Demon ConRealm sciousGreed
ness
Delusion
4.
9.
Hatred
Hungry
MindCling- Animal
Ghost
Realm
Body
ing
Realm
8.
Six 5.
Hell
Craving
Senses
6.
7.
Sensations Contact
10.
Becom- Human
Realm
ing
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].
The Standard Means of
Knowledge (pramanas):
Perception
Inference
Verbal testimony (scripture)
Comparison (analogy)
Postulation
Valid non-perception
Fn 1, p. 249
Shankara vs. Buddhist Voidism
Voidism is negated by all of the
standard means of knowledge
(pramanas).
Text, 250
Shankara’s final assessment
of Buddhist philosophy
Text, 250
The End