English
Accordingly, the view that the Vedanta philosophy is the philosophy of the Brahmasutras as its only authoritative source-book appears to be an ’initial misdirection, making the designation in the end a misnomer merely. It has neither the sanction of .sane criticism nor of authoritative tradition. On the contrary the view sponsored by Acharya Sadii- mnda in his Veddntasara appears to be at once the most reasonable and authoritative pronounce¬ ment on this debatable issue. To quote his very words, “ it is, forsooth, the Upanishad that is the measure or authoritative source-book of the Vedanta, the Sdrirakasutras standing in a comple¬ mentary or instrumental relation thereto.”* Thus, it may be safely concluded that the term ’ Vedanta,’ in its primary or substantive sense, stands for the Upanishads, and, in its secondary or transitive application for the Sarirakasutras. Confessedly, it is not a conclusion universally accepted. Some are evidently in favour of giving INTRODUCTION 21 an unlimited range to the term ‘ Vedanta ’—in¬ cluding within its scope .every blessed commentary and annotation, manual or monograph on the main findings of the Vedanta. Some, again, e.g., Brah- mananda Saraswati, more moderate in their claims, pick and choose from among the vast literature on the subject and canonize the following five as they appeared more or less in apostolic succession : “ The Sariraka Mimarrisa in its four divisions (by Badarayana), commentary or Bhdshya on it (by Samkara), a gloss on it, again (named Bhamati) by Vacaspatimi^ra, a commentary (on Bhamati again) called Kalpatam (by Amalananda Yati) and finally, a commentary (on the last-named) called Kalpataruparimala by Apyayadikshita,—as consti tuting in their ensemble the Vedantatiastra.’’* It is here that the need of the sutra makes itself acute¬ ly felt, and its importance recognised. Like the proverbial Ariadne’s thread, the sutras of Indian thought provide a way of escape from the inevitable impasse to which one is driven in the bewildering mazes of commentaries and glossary, bhashyas and tikds, and the like. As is well known, the sutra form, proceeding upon the maxim that brevity is the soul of wit has pursued with relentless consis¬ tency this ideal of abbreviation, and exercised such a rigorous economy in its formulation as would come readily within the purview of the classic cari¬ cature of the grammarian ‘ as rejoicing in the 22 A SYSTEMATIC STUDY OP THE VEDANTA economy of half a short vowel as much as he does on the birth of a son to him.’ As a matter of fact the siitra has been defined as ‘ a short aphorism of minimum possible words, of unambiguous mean¬ ing, of the nature of epitome, possessing omni- formity, unbroken continuity and flawlessness.’* Although it is with a variant of the language em¬ ployed here that the commonly accepted definition of siitra quoted by Vacaspati Mi&ra occurs in the Bhamati, t the construction that he puts upon the word is eminently suggestive and important. “ The siitra is so called,” writes Vacaspati “ because of its multivocal character.”! It is exactly here that lie at once the strength and weakness of the siitra. The extreme terseness of the sutras which spells their congenital weakness has its own historic justification. In the absence of present-day printing facilities, the entire mne¬ monic (i.e., siitra) literature that had to be impro¬ vised under the controlling lead of oral tradition, could not but invoke a rigidly compact form despite the risk of obscurity and ambiguity. The same enforced necessity of abbreviation that engenders this anaemic helpless state of the sutras, invents a remedy in the prescript of periodical infusion of new blood from concrete flesh-and-blood existence of ^ ?jft?f ft?: n t qftaiulft ■n i roj*nft n t i INTRODUCTION 23 commentaries and scholia. Thus embodied and vitalized the sutras prove to be a tower of strength and fountain-head of inspiration for the commen¬ taries with which they appear in constant conjunc¬ tion—by providing a mariner’s compass to the in¬ dividual co m mentators who might otherwise navi¬ gate in an uncharted sea without being ever brought to definite moorings. Hence, it is not merely from an historic necessity that the sutras came into being, but the recognition of their need proceeds from a principle. They are mainly designed to arrest the rampant growth of unfettered free thinking (niramkuSatarkah) that leads nowhere, and to stake out the limits beyond which such free thinking may not stray. That does not mean that the sutras by themselves constitute the repository of all wisdom, dispensing with the necessity of in¬ dividual commentaries. Adapting the words of an historian of European philosophy, one can observe that the sutras “ do not think themselves, but arc thought by living spirits, which are something other and better than mere thought-machines—by spirits who live these thoughts, who fill them with personal warmth and passionately defend them.” In fact every articulate system of philosophic thought has a well-marked individuality; and it is the individuality of a thinker’s ‘ vision,’ Weltans¬ chauung or dar&anam, meaning among others an intuition of the whole, that counts after all in a philosophical rendering of the world. There is, admittedly, in this recognition of the individuality of a philosophic thinker, the danger of the reign of a lawless individualism in the sphere of philosophic 24 A SYSTEMATIC STUDY OF THE VEDANTA thinking. The remedy, however, lies not in obliterating or discounting altogether the indivi¬ duality of the thinker or commentator, but in sub¬ limating and maintaining it at a higher level. The way to achieve this lies in an advance through con¬ quest of selfish prejudice or bias, if any, to that disinterested intellectual curiosity which alone can appropriate or assimilate truth. That is why, among other pre-requisites, the renunciation of all self-centred interests or apathy towards enjoyment of the fruits of one’s actions, whether here on earth or hereafter in the life to come ( ihamutraphalabho - gavirdgah ),* is demanded of the student of the Vedanta. The change thus wrought in the soul of the philosophic inquirer bears testimony to the ‘ expulsive power of a higher affection.’ In the absence of such higher affection or mastering en¬ thusiasm for truth, there will spring up distracting varieties of polemics leading men astray from the pursuit of truth. Such a mishap was foreshadowed by Samkara and the necessary safeguard provided for. “ If men’s inclinations,” as he clearly laid down, “ were not regulated, establishment of truth would be impossible on account of the endless diversity in their power of apprehension.”t The strength or efficacy of the sUtras thus consists in its prescript of a chartered freedom as against the possible abuse or license of free think¬ ing. The sutra form has the effect of pruning away INTRODUCTION 26 the rapid accretion of rival commentaries and ex¬ positions, destitute of a survival-value. The tem¬ peramental bias of the Oriental mind against chroni¬ cling or conserving historical data or individual peculiarities or biographical details explains this natural predilection for the sutra form. In a wider reference the same tendency expresses itself in the instinctive preference not for personal, but corporate, immortality. The sutras accordingly, are professed¬ ly conservative—illustrating in a limited manner what we understand by ‘conservation of values.’ But it is this very conservatism that has ensured the historic continuity and perpetuity of the doctrines of a particular school in defiance of the spoil of ages. ‘ ‘ For the Western philosopher, ’' as writes * Dr. LTrquhart with the added authority of one representing Western philosophy, “ it is true that our little systems have their day and cease to be’ ’ whereas “ in the Vedanta, as well as in other Indian philosophies, we may notice a remarkable unity of development more closely knit than in Western philosophy.” Indeed, the ilan vital df Indian thought has from time immemorial carried forward the undying past into the living present which it interpenetrates, and thus, pressing on the frontiers of the unknown, created fresh channels of thought. Viewed thus the sutra form stands as the very symbol or formula of ‘ creative evolution.’ That seems to be also the drift of Prof. Radhakrishnan’s suggestive phrase—“ the constructive conservatism * The Vedanta and Modern Thought, p. 9. 4 A SYSTEMATIC STUDY OF THE VEDANTA of.Indian thought.” This innate conservatism of Indian thought,—which is symbolised by the sutra, —with its retrospective outlook towards antecedent conditions, does not, however, land us in sheer emptiness. The sutra does not leave us, in the end, with a barren, abstract, colourless universal that rides rough-shod over the particular. It is the universal in the particular and the particular as embosomed in the universal—or, to use the oft- repeated phrase ‘ the concrete universal’—that is not merely the ‘secret’ of Hegel, but the ‘open cons-, piracy ’ of the Real. The white light, that is appa¬ rently colourless, reveals itself on spectral analysis to be a harmonious blend of variegated colours. So does the sutra justify its essential character as vifoato- mukham emulating, in capacity and function, a myriad-minded personality.