How To Recognize Method of Vedanta
How To Recognize Method of Vedanta
••
Atlhyiihlla Granthivap
HOW TO RECOGNIZE
by
@
All rights reserved
by
Adhyatma Prakasha Karyalaya
Holenarsipur, Hassan Dist.,
Kamataka State, India - 573 211.
Published by
Shri. A Tandaveshwar
Typeset at
L.M.Graphics,
Cpp. Maneswaram Railway Station,
Bangalore - 560 021.
Printed at
Sri Lakshrni Entetprises,
Chamarajapet, Bangalore - 560 053.
PUBUSHERS' NOTE
HOLENARSIPUR, A.THANDAVESHWAR
17-08-1995 Chairman, A.P.Karyalaya.
(Krishna Janmashtami)
CONTENTS
CONCLUSION 116-120
ABBREVIATIONS
N.B. - As a general rule, the Upanishads are indicated by the initial letter
or letters, and sailkara's Bhashya by the contraction Bh. Thus K. -
Kathaka Upanishad, and K.Bh. == Sailkara's Bhashya on the Kathaka.
Page references to the Upanishad-Bhashya and the Gita Bhashya relate
to the V~ivilasa Granthamala.
Ait. Aitareya Upanishad.
Ait. Bh. Sailkara'sBhashya on the Aitareya Upanishad.
Br. BrihadaraI).yaka Upanishad.
Br. Bh. Sailkara's Bhashya on the BrihadaraI).yaka Upanishad.
Br. S. The Brahma-Siddhi of Mat).Qana Misra (Madras).
Br. V. Suresvara's Vartika on the BrihadaraI).yaka Bhashya
Ch. Chandogya.
Ch. Bh. Sailkara's Bhashya on the Chandogya-Upanishad.
CPB The Central Philosophy of Buddhism by Dr T.R V.Murti
(Allen and Unwin).
FCA Lectures from Colombo to Almora by Swami Vivekananda
(Advaita Ashrama).
G The Bhagavadgita.
G. Bh. Sailkara's Bhashya on the Bhagavadgita Vat).i-Vilasa
Granthamala, Banaras.
HIP History of Indian Philosophy by Prof. Dasgupta
(Cambridge University Press).
IP Indian Philosophy by Prof. S. Radhakrishnan
(Allen and Unwin).
IS The Ishta-Siddhi by Vimuktatman (Baroda).
Ka. Kathaka-Upanishad.
Ke. Kena-Upanishad.
K.F. Vocab. of Philos. Krauth Fleming Vocabulary of
Philosophy.
Ma. Bh. SaIikara's Bhashya on the M&:tQukya.
Mu. MUQQaka Upanishad.
MRV The MaQQiikya Rahasya Vivriti by Satchidanandendra
Saraswati (The Adhyatma Prakasha Karyalaya).
Nai. The Naishkarmya Siddhi by Suresvara (Poona).
pp. Pages
PP The Pancbapadika by Padmapada
(E.G.Lazarus & Co., Banaras).
PU The Philosophy of the Upanishads by P.Deussen
(T. & T Clark).
PV The Philosophy of Vedanta by P.Deussen (Natesan).
SB Siitra Bhashya - Sailkara' s commentry on the Vedanta
Siitras (Nirnay Sagara Press).
SKh. Sri Harsha's KhanQana-KhanQakhiidya (Achyuta
Granthamala, KliSi).
SS Six Systems of Indian Philosophy by Max-Muller.
(Longmans Green & Co.).
SV The System ofthe Vedanta P. Deussen, (The Open Court
Publishing Company).
Tai. Taittinya Upanishad.
Tai. Bh. Sailkara's Bhashya on Taittinya.
Tai. Bh. V SureSvara's Vartika on the Taittinya Bhashya.
V The Vivarat).a of PrakaSatman (Lazarus & Co., Banaras).
VBh. Vachaspati MiSra's Bhamati, (Nirnaya Sagara Press).
vs Vedanta Siitras popularly known as the Brahma-Siitriis
(The page numbers given in Roman figures are to those
ofThibaut's Introduction to his translation of the Sutras).
VS~. The Vedantasiira by Col. Jacob, (Nirnaya Sagara Press),
HOW TO RECOGNIZE THE METHOD OF VEDANTA
SECTION ONE
not exist. For these treatises are not the work of a single genius,
but the total philosophical product of an entire epoch."
P.Deussen, Pu. p. 51
(2) " 'There is little that is spiritual in all this' ; 'this empty
intellectual conception, void of spirituality, is the highest form
that the Indian mind is capable of '."
Gough, quoted by S.Radhakrishnan, IP. Vol. 1, p. 139
GauQapada."
HIP, Vol. I, p. 422
Bhashyakara.
Thibaut VS. Intro., pp. xxi and xxii; Dasgupta HIP. Vol. I, p. 433
Dr. T.R.V.Murthi, however, admits that there were mo-
nistic schools of Vedanta before Gau<;lapada and Sarikara,
though he surmises that the latter two reformulated the
Upanishadic ideal in the light of the Madhyamika and
Vijiianavada dialectic.
CPB., pp. 13, 110-117
Dr. T.M.P. Mahadevan, the editor and translator of the
Sambandha ViTtika of Suresvara, stands alone among mod-
ern scholars in actually recognizing some Vedantic monistic
schools opposed to Sarikara's. Anyone who goes through
the ViTtika cannot but take cognizance of these schools,
since the very subject-matter of the work is a criticism of
different views with regard to the teaching of the Upanishads.
But as the editor was discussing only the relation between
the two KiilJ(Iii5 of the Veda according to Sailkara and
Suresvara, perhaps, he failed to notice what exactly was the
difference in outlook between Sarikara and his opponents,
and hence passed by the im portant question of the existence
or non-existence of Sailkara's tradition before Gau<;lapada.
Nor has he considered the equally important question of the
existence or non-existence of non-Advaita Vedantins during
the time of, or even antecedent to, Sarikara.
It is passing strange that scholars, who have been strenu-
ous in their efforts to determine the nature of the main
features of the Vedanta anterior to Sailkara, should have
searched for information in every quarter other than the one
which ought to have been the very first to be looked into.
What has Saitkara himself to say on the subject ? Had he a
traditional line of ancient teachers to appeal to for his pcsi-
The Orthodox View of the Upanishads In
(~) e'4'~HIQ..-q)~lfu~-q)~ I
"All those who teach the final release of the soul are
agreed that it results from right knowledge."
SB., 2-1-11 p. 193
There is cumulative evidence, therefore, for concluding
that Vedanta upto the time of Gau4apada and Saftkara has
always been Monistic or Absolutistic in its nature.
The Orthodox View of the Vpa nishads 18
~ ~......t,
'UlT-- 1 ~"+i(Y1qRi~
'"
~:
'"
~: ~: WilT: ~:
~: II -m. G-l-~.
" Through the off-shoot of food (the Earth), my dear
son, seek out the root Water, through the off-shoot of Water,
my dear son, seek out the root Fire, and through the off-shoot
of Fire, my dear son, seek out the Real. All these creatures,
my dear son, have the Sat (Being or Brahman) for their
source, the Sat for their abode, the Sat for their dissolving
goaL" (Ch. 6-8-4) That is to say, there is nothing that is not
born from Brahman, that does not subsist in Brahman, that'
is not finally dissolved in It. So then the substance of all
things created is Brahman only. Accordingly, Uddalaka in
this Upanishad, reiterates this one statement at every step of
his teaching" Aitadatmyam Idam Sarvam Tat Satyam Sa
Atma Tat Twamasi Swetaket6" (~C1~I\""4fct<~~ll' 3ffi'I1Tffi!.
~ ~ I) "That is why too he illustrates what he means
by citing clay etc, where he emphasizes that the material
cause such as clay alone is real while its effect is unreal, its
name being a mere play of words - Vacharambha\lam
(~. That what is meant to be proved is the unreality
of the so-called effect as distinct from the cause or rather the
sole reality of the cause as the substance of its effects, is
evident from texts like the one already quoted from the
Chiindifgya.
~ma~~~~~(1~?tflllql'II~I~<i7.i(ij
~~~~m~~11 Ch. 6-4-1.
The Vedanta Doctrine of Reality 34
deny that any other thing is knowable in the real sense of the
word. Some other texts presume that it is a knower and hence
unknowable, while other texts assert that, being the Witness-
ing Principle in us, It cannot be considered to be a knower.
Yet other texts deny that it can ever be described in positive
tenns. Some texts again, say that Brahman is known only
through instruction from the Vedas or a teacher, and hence
beyond the reach of perception and other means of knowl-
edge, while other texts aver that Brahman being self-evident,
is no object of speech or thought. In short, the vel}' soul of
this method consists in pre-supposing some characteristic as
pertaining to Brahman, just to discard its correlate or opposite
and then annulling the pre-supposition itself.
Now; the Upanishads teach that there is a basic super-
imposition called A vidyawhich is the root of all the various
particular super-impositions that obtain in empirical life, and
hence that all evils of life can be uprooted by seeing through
this fundamental error and Intuiting Brahman as It is. This
innate error in the human mind as well as the Knowledge of
Brahman attainable through Intuition are referred to in the
following Sruti : "~muif tcrrfi aWffiT <n 'l fcMfu ~ "
"These two, the error of A vidya and that which is known
as Vidyli, are far apart from each other, mutually exclusive,
and proceed in opposite directions' (K. 1-2-4).
Sailkara explains in the Introduction to his Sutra-
Bhashya that this Avidya consists in the mutual super-
imposing of the Self and the not-self, and a mistaken
transference of their properties to each other. This Avidya is
not an event in time or place and therefore, not to be likened
to temporary individual errors that men are liable to commit,
as for instance, when they mistake a rope for a snake or the
The Vedanta Doctrine of Reality 38
~II
"If it be objected that in case Brahman is no object (of
speech or Plind) the Sastra cannot possibly be the means of
its 'knowledge, we say no; for, the Sastra only purports to
remove all distinctions fictitiously constructed by Avidya.
(To explain) : the Sastra does not intend to teach Brahman
- partiCUlarly as this or that by objectifying It, but only to
teach that It is no object at all being one's own inner Self and
43 How to Recognize the Method of Vedanta
1. "It is the One that never moves and is yet swifter than
mind. The senses never overtake It, for It will have arrived
at the destination before them; resting, It outstrips all in a
race." ISa., 4.
[Opposite predicates mutually super-impose and rescind each other
and thus reveql the transcendental nature of the Self.]
2. "It is verily other than the known, and above the
unknown. " Ke., 1-4.
[The known or the manifold world of names and forms is fIrst
denied and, lest it be presumed to be the unmanifest world, that is also
expressly negated. In the result, the seeker is led to the Intuition of Atman
untainted by the knowable or conceivable objective world.]
3. "That which has no sound, no touch, and no colour,
that which is undecaying , tasteless, eternal, and scentless ;
that which has neither beginning nor end, that which is
beyond the Mahat, that which is constant - realizing That, one
is released from the jaws of death. " Ka. 1-3-15.
[Here the cancellation ofthe super-impositions proceeds gradually
from the grosser to the subtler til1 one fInally realizes Reality in all Its
nakedness and is thereby freed from death, that is, from ignorance, desire
and action as Satikara explains it.]
4. "He who is of divine splendour, formless, the Purusha
(all-pervading), .unborn without or within, without PraIfa,
without mind, pure, beyond even the imperishable
(undifferentiated seed of the world) - from this One~ is born
PraI).a, the mind, all the senses, the air, the fire, the water and
the earth that supporteth all. .. Mun., 2-1-2.
[From Brahman, which knows no birth and which is without PdiQa,
without mind, without senses, and without the elements, are born PraQa
and other effects, that is to say, everything is super-imposed on it. Hence
it is that the Sruti can declare that all this is Brahman. See Mun., 2-1-
11.]
The Vedanta Doctrine of Reality 48
cannot bum; this One, water cannot moisten; this One, the
wind cannot dry. " G., 2-23.
(3) "He is unperceivable, He is inconceivable, and He
is unchangeable, they say. " G., 2-25.
(4) " Beginningless is that Supreme Brahman. It is said
to be neither being nor non-being. " G., 13-12.
(5) " While appearing to discharge the functions of aU
the senses, It is deviod of all the senses ; having no contact,
It supports aU ; devoid of the GU1)as, It experiences the
GU1)as." G., 13-14.
(6) "It is both within and without all beings. It is both
the moving and the unmoving. It is both far and near. "
G., 13-15.
(7) "It is undivided, yet appears as though It were
divided in beings. Supporter of beings too is that knowable,
both absorbing and generating." G., 13-16.
[These negations and predications of the opposites are all to be
explained in the light of our observations on the Sruti texts.]
BRAHMA-SOTRA
1. This point will be discussed in greater detail in the next Section. under
the title 'The Two Aspects of Brahman'.
SECTION FOUR
THE TWO STANDPOINTS
1. THE USES OF THE EMPIRICAL VIEW
From the foregoing exposition of the method of
Vedanta, it will be clear that the teaching of Srutis pre-
supposes two different points of view in its procedure. One
of these is the natural view, the empirical view which
persuades a man to look upon himself as an ego endowed with
mind and senses, and stationed in a manifold universe along
With other embodied beings like himself, knowing, acting,
reaping and experiencing the friuts of his actions good or bad.
This view the Sruti calls the view of Avidyain contrast to
the correct view, the view of Vidyii, from the standpointl of
Alman as He is. The Upanishads, however, do make use of
the empirical view to a very large extent in connection with
their peculiar method, the Adhyiir6piipaviida, employed as a
device to reveal the absolutely Real.
It must not be supposed that the Srutis condemn the
emperical view altogether as wholly illusory and useless. For,
they utilise it to prescribe not only the modes of conduct and
discipline necessary to qualify the seeker for acquiring the
correct Knowledge of Brahman, but also cQrtain meditations
(Upasanas) and adaptations of Vedic rituals which would
indirectly help the aspirant to prepare himself to attain Self-
Knowledge later on. There are minor Upasanas too pre-
scribed from this point of view, which would be instrumental
in securing, for the qualified followers, fruits similar to those
vouched for rituals in the KannakaD-c.ia portion.
1. For Sruti texts making this distinction the reader is refered to the
previous section dealing with the Basic Super-imposition (p. 36).
53 How to Recognize the Method of Vedanta
2. Thibaut (VS., xcii, xxxviii, xci, xciv) ; Jacob (VSa., viii, ix).
These and other criticisms will have to be duly considered in the second
volume of the present work in connection with Rlimanuja's system.
3. Sailkara does not mean to say, as alleged by Thibaut (VS., xxxii,
xxxiii) that all the passages discussed hereafter will be devoted to settle
the question whether the Sagul)a Brahman or the Nirgul)a Brahman is
meant in each case, but only whether certain passages refer to Brahman
or something else. Whether in any individual text Brahman is to be taken
as an object of meditation or not, depends entirely on an express
injunction or its absence, and not upon what appelation the Sruti or
Sailkara uses to designate Brahman.
59 How to Recognize the Method of Vedanta
where, to this knowing one, all has become Atman, then how
can one see anything else, and with what organ? " (Br., 4-
5-15). This is what prompts Sarikara to make this apparently
sweeping statement :
~~3'lltLjHICGflfhlhHI~~~~1l1011l?i<~oqqtl<1
~~~:,~-:q~~~11
"All the talk of Pramfu).as and their objects whether
relating to the ordinary life or to Vedic action and all
scriptures relating to injunctions and prohibitions of actions,
or to Moksha, pre-suppose this mutual Adhyasa or Super-
imposition ofthe Self and the non-Self, called A vidya, before
they function." (SB., p. 21). And he makes this good by .
drawing our attention to the fact that no one could consider
himself competent to perceive or think before presuming that
he is identical with the body in which the senses and the mind
function (Dehendriyadishu Aham-mamabhimanarahitasya
Pramatrtvanupapattau Pramat;:tapravrttYanupapattehe ~
r<;tsq~44IAi41'1(f(iijfll ~41~(qlj44~ 1OI41011l1fllj44fj: " SB., p. 2.)1
That Vedanta is not a speculative system is borne out by
the Upanishad texts which warn us that' 'This Knowledge of
Brahman is un-attainable by ratiocination" (Naisha Tarket;:ta
Matirapaneya ~m~ K., 1-2-9). Sarikara gives an
alternative interpretation of this text, which assures us that
the Intuition ofBrahman transcends the entire sphere oflogic.
"Or this text may also mean that this Intuition cannot be
dispelled by logical reasoning." Reasoning based upon
1. A student of the Upanishads is struck by the conspicuous absence of
the word 'PramaQa' in all the Upanishads. This circumstance alone
should be sufficient for a discerning scholar to arrive at the conclusion
that Vedanta as taught by the Upanishads is not based on the ordinary
canons of knowledge.
The Two Standpoints 64
(1) SURESWARA
~CiT~CiT~~: II
"In fact, one can never know ignorance as belonging to
anyone, neither determine its nature nor conceive how it can
possibly be at all; for it is essentially of the nature of Pure
Intuition itself' (Sambandha Vartika, 184).
I have discussed this question more fully in the body of
the work, and shown how the distinction of Karal)avidya and
Karyavidya itself presupposes the basic Adhyasa and how
Sureswara also admits this (p. 223) indirectly. We have
therefore to conclude that insetting his face against
MithyajiUina (wrong knowledge) as Avidya, Sureswara was
only thinking of 'mis-conception' upheld by the Mlmal11sa
and other schools and not of the Adhyasa advocated by
Sailkara.
It is sometimes urged that Sureswara actually argues
against the two kinds of nescience recognized by Mal).Qana.
While it is true, as I have already explained, that the
Vartikakara lays emphasis on ignorance as non-apprehension
as contrasted with mis-apprehension, I think that he is not
particularly against giving false knowledge also its own place
as A vidya. He only means to say tl:1at, but for the ignorance
of the negative type, there could be no false knowledge at all,
since it is by reason of our not knowing a thing as it is, that
we mistake it for something else.
_ ~ fl1V01I~l1fi4ft1 ftfcfitr. I
_'fiR1JTmf~~: II <f. CiT. ~-¥-n~l
Here both doubt and false knowledge are declared to be
the effect of ignorance properly so called.
It is, however, necessary to repeat that, speaking from
Post-SaiJ.kara Systems 92
~II
"This beginningless Avidya obstructs the shining forth
of the inherent nature of Consciousness as being one with
, Brahman and brings on to It the state of Jiva. It is the canvas
on which is painted the impression of knowledge, action and
past experience, 1 and abides in deep sleep in the only form
of Acchiidana envelopement covering the light of conscious-
ness and the subtle form of Vikshepa or projection of false
appearances." (PP., p. 20).
And what is the warrant for the assumption of this
Avidya? The Paficapadika replies: "This Avidyasakti should
necessarily be assumed to reside in external and internal
things (the individual selves and the external objects), as
being attached to their very essential being, for otherwise no
false thing could appear. And it does not obstruct the nature
of inert things from appearing forth, for their being not
apprehended can be the result of the absence of a means of
their knowledge and also because the nature of a thing like
1. The original as found in the printed books has the variant reading
'Avidya-Karma-Piin).aprajiiii' and this is endorsed by the sub-commen-
tary the Vivarava. Actually, however, this phrase is a reference to the
Brbadarat).yaka (4-4-2) where we read 'Vidya-KarmaJ).i Samanvarabhete
Piirvaprajiiii Cha'.
Post-Sailkara Systems 96
the shell can be known both before and after the sublation
of the appearance of false silver, notwithstanding the
existance of Avidya throughout. Hence A vidya is only
responsible for the appearance of an objective thing in
another fonn. But in the case of the inner Self, which is of
the nature of Consciousness and hence self-luminous Its
being not known to be Brahman cannot be accounted for in
any other way and hence Its not being known as such is due
solely to the natural Avidya which inheres in It. Hence it
obstructs the shining forth of the Brahmic nature in the
internal Conscious Self and becomes the occasion ofIts false
appearance as the ego etc., and in deep sleep and other similar
states it stays in the shape of merely the subtle form of the
ego etc., and resumes its shape again." (PP., pp. 4, 5).
The above long passage is enough to convince the reader
that the author of the Pafichapadika is eager to show that
according to Sankara, Avidya is an ontological, rather than
an epistemic, principle, accounting for the false appearance
of the empirical world. Accordingly, he twists even the
definition of adhyasa or Super-imposition and interprets it as
though it described something super-imposed, rather than the
mental process of super-imposing. He is aware, however, that
Sankara later ~n explains himself in unmistakable terms
'Adhyaso Nama Atasmin Tadbuddhihi Iti Avochama ~
1f11~dGf~f{C'llcfi:q14 '. We have already said that 'Adhyasa,
Super-imposition, means mistaking something to be-what it
is not.' He therefore, hastens to add 'Arthat Tadvishayasyapi
AvabhasasyaIdameva LakshaI).am Uktam ~~(1fG:i'PH41'4qlmH4
~ ~~ ~ (Perforce, this may also be taken as the
definition ofthe knowledge of such an object). That is to say,
according to this explanation, Sankara is not primarily
97 How to Recognize the Method of Vedanta
5. PRAKASATMAN
Prakasatman, the disciple of Ananyanubhava, is the
most celebrated of the successors of Padmapada, the reputed
author of the Paiichapiidikii. In his production, the famous
Paiichapiidikii-Vivara.(1a he consolidated almost all that had
been said before him on behalf of the objective-avidya and
made contributions of his own in such an authoritative
manner that this line of thought is now known mostly as
belonging to the 'Vivara.{18 School', thus almost supplanting
the Paiichapiidikii and the lsh(a Siddhi.
In endeavouring to perfect the teachings of the
Anirvachanlyiividyii school, Prakasatman introduced many
remarkable changes into the system. The chief innovations
and improvements for which he is responsible may be
summed up as follows:
(1) In disregard of the Paiichapiidikii and the Bhiimatl,
which taught that texts dealing with SravaI)a, Manana and
Nididhyasana, were only Arlhaviida, eulogies, in the guise of
injunctions and in defiance of Sailkara's express statement
that Brahman is not taught as subservient to any injunction,
(SB. 1-1-4, p. 23), Prakasatman avers that Sravm;ta or'study
of the scriptures is enjoined as a means to be practised for
the Realization of Brahman, and that the very first SUtra of
BadarayaI)a is meant to discuss the nature and implications
of this injunction (V., p. 3).
(2) While agreeing with the Paiichapiidikii in holding
that the Anirvachaniya-Avidya is the material cause of false
appearances, the VivaraI)amakes it explicit that both the false
appearance and its knowledge are due to that Avidya, and
supports its views very much on the lines of the Ish(a Siddhi
(V., p. 14).
Post-Sankara Systems 108
OM TAT SAT
BACK TO SANKARA SERIES
Readers who have studied the Vedanta Prakriyii Pratyabhijjjii will
naturally be eager to know how the unique method of AdhyiiriJpa-
Apaviida would unravel all the intricacies of interpretation of
particular Upanishads, the Bhagavadg!tiiand the Brahma-SDtriis. The
following works, in Sanskrit, by Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswatiji
are an answer to this question :
Sugama - Adhyasabhashyasya Navinavyakhya
This, as its name implies, points out a straight and smooth way to the
essentials of the Vedantic method as understood by Saitkara. It shows
how the fundamental Adhyiisa or Super-imposition is the only hindrance
to the Realization of Truth and Reality.
Siitrabhashyarthatattvavivechani
This is an original sub-commentary on Sailkara's Bhlishya in three parts
on the first four aphorisms ofBooarayal).a. It dilates upon the application
of the Vedantic method to the question of the Knowledge of Brahman,
and sounds a note of warning against succumbing to mis-interpretations
that cannot appreciate the value of the genuine Vedantic method.
SUddha Saitkara Prakriya Bhaskara
(Light on the Vedantic Method according to Sailkara)
This is a publication in three parts containing Seven Sections,
determining the real doctrine of the Upanishads according to the tradition
of Sailkara's school.
MaI;l<.liikyarahasyavivrti
This is the first attempt to show how Gau<;lapada and Sailkara apply the
unique method of Vedanta to the examination of the ·three states of
Consciousness. The distinction between the Vedantic and the Mahayanic
way of reasoning has been clearly brought out here.
Apply to
ADHYATMA PRAKASHA KARYALAYA
Holenarsipur - 573211 or Thyagarajanagar, Bangalore - 560028.