English
This is as it ought to be. For, as is known to you, the aim of religion, as well as of philo- sophy, is nothing but truth, and necessarily the one ought to be an agreeable colleague of .the other, and not a formidable foe to destroy or damage the other. However •it may sound in the ears of other. people, ' our philosophy is the supporter of our re*- ligion, and we are proud of its being so. It is our business to-day to deal with the philosophical part of the Vedanta, which is styled the Adwaitavada, i, e.,the theory of universal unity or abstract identity of the soul with Brahman. It is also called Uttara mimansa, i. e:, the final inquiry or the in*- quiry of Brahman, the highest self, in con- tradistinction to Purvamimansa,z.e., preli- minary inquiry, or the inquiry of religious formalism or merit arising from carrying out Y edic injunctions. Thus -it forms the part of Vedic Jnankanda,or spiritual knowledge, and is distinguished from its counterpart, •the Karmakanda, ?. the part, dealing 8 A L150TURB DN with V eclic ritualism. The V edan ta is one of the six Darsanas, i. e., schools of phi- losophical thoughts known to the Hindus. It is the most iinportaiit of them, on ac- count of the vast erudition displa3’’ed by the diflerent authors and commen- tators on this subject, on account of the depth of thought and sublimity of ideas we meet with here and there n Ve- dantic works, and on account of its own merit. There are different sects of this Vedantic system. They arose out of the different ways in which different philosophers inter- preted the Sutras of Yadarayana, which acquired an independent authority for themselves. Thus there were (1) the Su- dhadwaitaor Kaivalyadwaita, or abstract- monism of Sankaracharya (2) the Vi- sistadwaita, or modified monism of Ram- anuja and (3) the Visudhadwaita, or purified monism of Ballabha. Madhu also founded another system. Ramanuja, Ballabha and Madhu have also many followers. But principally the Vedanta is divided into two schools, namely that of Sankara, aiid that of Ramanuja. It is beyond our powers, owing to the absence of any his- torical records, to know exactly which of these two schools of Vedantism x’epresen- ITHE VEBAUTA PHILOSOPHY. 9 ted the more ancient or the more modern system of the Vedanta, if there was any. But we know that men naturally cannot give an unanimous assent to all the parti- cular points of any systerd of philosophy, especially when it is highly abstract and complicated. This very probably, was the case with the Vedanta. Except in its essential principles, teachers explained the Sutras and the Upanishada on particular points in their own ways. Thus there arose two sects principally, \side by side, each looking to the Sruti as its guide. It appears that Sankara and Ramanuja res- pectively represented the two opposed sects. The Bhagavatas whom Ramanuja represented, were prior to Sankara, who also appealed to many very ancient tea- chers. Ramanuja came after Sankara. But there is no reason to suppose that either of them represented any system of the Vedanta, which was comparatively more ancient. It should be noted here that the extreme elasticity of the Vedic language . afforded ample room for both the systems to appeal to the Vedas as their authority. But the system of Vedantism which is widely known to the world at present is system of Sankara^ and .this, system 10 A LEGTXTRE OJT was, once for all, developed in its full maturity in the hands of the celebrated ‘scholiast, Sankara himself. This system represents the orthodox side of the Brah- minic theology and, apart from theological and philosophical considerations, it is the most important arid most interesting philo- sophy that has arisen in India. The aim of this philosophy is to dispel that Avidya or N escience, z, e , the pheno- menal knowledge, which lies inherent in ns as individual beings, and to replace it by Vidya, or true knowledge. About this Avidya or Nescience we shall speak after- wards. A few more words as to the origin of the Vedanta. We have already said that the Vedanta is based on the Upanishads, or Aranyaka portions of the Brahmanas of the V edas. Hence it is called Oupanishadi Vidya, or knowledge founded upon the Upanisadas. In fact the two are sometimes identified. Now Upanishad etymologi- cally means, according to Professor Max- Muller, sitting near a person, z. c., sittings or gatherings where the old sages imparted ■ spiritual knowledge to their pupils. This is, I believe, the most probable meaning. However, there is anotlier inte'rpretatioii THE VEDANTA PHILO'SOPHT. 11 of it. According to this, it is derived from the root sad to destroy, and it means that body of teaching, which destroys the Ne-! science or world-phenomena, and reveals . the absolute. These Upanisads are writ- ten in the form of dialogues, and they are two hundred and thirty-five in number, of which thirteen are very important. These are all founded, as has been said, on the Vedas. So, ultimately, we see that the origin of the Vedanta is the Veda. But though we see that the V edanta Philo- sophy is founded on the Vedic Upanir shads, and though it is controlled by them in its method, of inquiry, that is to say, though^ Adwaitism is a philosophical reli- gion directly deduced from the Upani- shads, and not from independent observa- tion and analysis alone, as other systems .of philosophy are, we are not to understand that it stands entirely severed from reason, experience, observation and common sense. Por it emphatically and clearly declares that Sruti or revelation, not supported by reason and not corroborated by experience and common sense, is not valid, and is not conducive to right knowledge. So we see that the Vedanta Philosophy is a combina- tion of reason and revelation. 12 A IrECTIT-RE OEf Before we enter into the subject, it is our duty to explain the meanings of the three terms, on the understanding of which depends the understanding of this philoso- phy. These are (1) Param^rthika, or the .true, (2) VyavahSrika, or the practical, and glPratibhasika, or the apparent. The first Paramarthika means the really true. Such a state is called the Nirguna state; which is^ the most abstract state, and as such it is highly philosophical, containing metaphysi- cal truth, and is therefore meant only for such persons who are thoughtful and learn- ed. I need hardly tell you that Brahman, the highest self, is the only representative of this state. The Paramarthika knowledge, or knowledge per se, i, e., the most philo- sophical knowledge, which was only meant for the few, is by some scholars, called esoteric, in contradistinction to the theo- logical knowledge meant for the many, which is termed exoteric. But, truly speak- ing, there was no esoteric Yedanta in the sense of its being shut up from the public at large. In fact it was open to all who were , deserving students, irrespective of caste. The second state, ^. e., the Vyava- harika, or the practical state, includes all phenomena, and thus it includes Iswara or 13 THE VEDANTA raiLdSOPHTr creator, individual souls and the whole world. So Vyavaharifca knowle(%e onljr means phenomenal knowledge and not knowledge per se. The world including our body, is known to us only phenomenally. Hence the whole world re^esents the second state, that is> the Vyavaharika, or the conventional state, The third is Prati- vasika or the apparent state. This includes such phenomena as a mirage, or a serpent imagined iii a rope. These are tlxe results •of some defect ill, us, in addition to our naturally limited powers of kijiowledge, . Before giving a full analysis of the Vedanta Philosophy in detail, I may be allowed to lay before you a brief outline of it, giving the principal divisions and departments of this philosophy, in order to enable the beginners to grasp it fully after- wards. We shall confine ourselves chiefly to Sankara’s system, which is considered the most important of all Vedantic sys- tems, on .account of the sublimity of its thoughts and subtlety of its arguments. (1) The doGtrine of PmAmafi— -the -highest self, which is the only truth, there being no other truth existing along with This, ' I may Temmd you, is the only Paramarthika -stato, that is to say the only u A LECTXrRE ON • ' really- true entity with us. Gentlemen, you are requested to notice the expressions really true, praGtically true, ^^wp'parenily true, which we shall have occasion to use very often. (2) .The doctrine of the world. Here it is said- that e.,- this world, from a tuft of grass to the Creator, is the outcome- of Maya or Avidya, i. e., Nescience, which comes in contact with Brahman, or the highest self, -which is the only all-comprehensive truth. It will be worth noticing here, that Brahman in the neuter means the highest' self, whereas its masculine form, Brahma, means the Creator, who is only a manifestation of the highest self. The world is not really and absolutely true, but is only practically true. The whole amounts to this that this practically true world was created, as it were, only practically by the Creator, who is also true only practically. In reality, there is no world, no creation, and no Creator. The Avidya or Maya, com- ing in contact with Brahman, becomes the centre of creation, or the.- origin of this world. This Avidya, or Nescience, consists of three qualities, i. e., goodness or pas- sivity, i. g., passion or activity, and THE VEDANTA PHIEOSOPHT. IB z. 6., darkness or grossness. Out of these, the five subtle elements,- with their respective characteristics, are evolved?