Shankara & the Samkhya-Yoga philosophers agree that Brahma

1
Shankara(788-820 AD)
12/19/05

• Commentary on the Vedanta Sutras
• (Brahmasutra-Bhashya)

Sankara, Sancara, Shamkara
Text, 229-250
2
Shankara
3
Background

• India
• Hinduism

4
(No Transcript)
5
Hinduism

• Basic Beliefs
• Sacred Literature
• The Raja Yoga System

See Notes on Hinduism
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,
contd

• Vedanta vs. Samkhya (233-241)
• Brahman as the cause of the worlds 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)
8
3 Critique of Other Philosophical Systems,
contd

• Vedanta vs. Buddhist Philosophy (245-250)
• Shankaras non-dualism vs. Buddhist Realism,
  Idealism, Voidism -- Editors 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)
1

• 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
2. The Desire to Know 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).

However,
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).

(Why is it necessary?)
12
Brahman as cause of the world
2. The Desire to Know Brahman, contd

• 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 worlds origin,
  subsistence, dissolution. (Why?)

(Not in Text)
13
The relationship between Brahman Self (231-3)
2. The Desire to Know Brahman, contd

• 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.

Brahman Self are . . .
14
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.
15
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
16
Two experiences of Brahman
2. The Desire to Know Brahman, contd

• 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).

• Brahman as other than the Self, qualified by
  limiting conditions (definable characteristics),
  an object of religious devotion.
• This view is based on ignorance (avidya).

17
How the Self gets confused with the Not-Self
2. The Desire to Know Brahman, contd

• 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
18
Critique of Other Philosophical Systems
3

• The orthodox schools
• Samkhya Yoga
• Nyaya Vaisheshika
• Mimamsa Vedanta

• The unorthodox schools
• Buddhism
• Jainism
• Carvaka

(See Text, 233, fn 1)
19
Vedanta vs. Samkhya ( Yoga)
(Text, 233-241)
20
Samkhya-Yoga Cosmology (metaphysical dualism)
Purusha
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)
Prakriti
Matter, Not-Self, Object
21
Purusha
Subsistence
Generation
Dissolution
(Mahat)
Prakriti
Disequilibrium
Return to . . .
Equilibrium
(light pleasure activity pain inertia
numbness)
22
Shankaras Cosmology

• Non-Dualism
• (Advaita)

Reality is "not-two" "not-many" (anti-dualism
anti-pluralism).
Brahman-Atman alone is real. The world is merely
an appearance of Brahman-Atman. The Brahman-Atman
the world are "not-two."
(Rope)
(Snake)
23
The issues addressed in Shankaras treatment of
Samkhya-Yoga philosophy

• The efficient material causation of the worlds
  existence
• How can the pradhana (prakriti) be active or
  activated?
• The Samkhya-Yoga critique of Shankaras
  non-dualism

24
Two kinds of causation
Causation of the Worlds Existence

• 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).

• 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).

Shankara the Samkhya-Yoga philosophers agree
that Brahman (purusha) is the efficient cause of
the worlds existence. They disagree about the
material causation of the world.
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.

(Non-Dualism vs. Dualism again)
26
The arguments
Causation of the Worlds Existence

• 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?

(233-237)
27
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 non-intelligent,
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).
28
Lets go over pp. 237 in detail.
Causation of the Worlds Existence

• This is the section entitled,
• (2) The primal cause of the world must be
  intelligent.

29
According to Shankara,
How can the pradhana (prakriti) be active or
activated? (237-8)

• S-Ys dualistic cosmology
• makes activity motion
• ( therefore the existence of the world)
• impossible.

How does he explain back up this criticism?
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 Shankaras 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.

Major points???
32
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
33
Perhaps neither S-Y Dualism nor Shankaras
Non-Dualistic Vedanta can do justice to the
subject-object distinction.

• What do you think?

(See fn 1 on p. 241)
34
(Text, 241-244)

Vedanta vs. Vaisheshika (Atomism)

(I.e., Nyaya-Vaisheshika)
35
The issues addressed in Shankaras 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)

36
(Text, 244-250)

Vedanta vs. Buddhist Philosophy

Buddhist Realism (Sautrantika
Vaibhashika) Buddhist Idealism (Yogacara) Buddhist
Voidism (Madhyamaka)
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

38
The
12.
1.
Aging Dying
Ignorance
2.
11.
Wheel of
Impulse to Exist
Birth
Heaven
3.
10.
Con- scious- ness
Human Realm
Demon Realm
Becom- ing
Greed Delusion Hatred
Bhavachakra
4.
9.
Hungry Ghost Realm
Animal Realm
Mind- Body
Cling- ing
Becoming
5.
8.
Six Senses
Hell
Craving
6.
7.
Contact
Sensations
39
Shankara vs. Buddhist (Yogacara) Idealism

• 5 arguments in support of Yogacara idealism (248)
• Shankaras 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.

40
The Standard Means of Knowledge (pramanas)

• Perception
• Inference
• Verbal testimony (scripture)
• Comparison (analogy)
• Postulation
• Valid non-perception

Fn 1, p. 249
41
Shankara vs. Buddhist Voidism

• Voidism is negated by all of the standard means
  of knowledge (pramanas).

Text, 250
42
Shankaras final assessment of Buddhist philosophy
Text, 250
43
The End