sign in sign up
<<
Home , Richard De Smet, Satkaryavada

Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies

Volume 16 Article 6

January 2003

Dr. Richard De Smet and Sankara's Advaita

T.S. Rukmani

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.butler.edu/jhcs

Part of the Religion Commons

Recommended Citation Rukmani, T.S. (2003) "Dr. Richard De Smet and Sankara's Advaita," Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies: Vol. 16, Article 6. Available at: https://doi.org/10.7825/2164-6279.1295

The Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies is a publication of the Society for Hindu-Christian Studies. The digital version is made available by Digital Commons @ Butler University. For questions about the Journal or the Society, please contact [email protected]. For more information about Digital Commons @ Butler University, please contact [email protected]. Rukmani: Dr. Richard De Smet and Sankara's Advaita

Dr. Richard De Smet and Sankara's Advaita

T.S. Rukmani Concordia University

I HAVE had the privilege of meeting Dr. as if they mean the same thing. In such an Richard De Smet in Shimla at the Indian approach there is injustice done to both the Institute of Advanced Study, when we both systems and one ends up trying to, participated in a Seminar organized by the sometimes, fit round circles into square Institute in 1989. We had opportunities of pegs. It is wise to acknowledge that religious. discussing Sankara's and the and theological schools that rise and grow in Christian concept of God at that time different cultural milieus can have a without being able to fully understand each rationale of their own and the best we can other's position. That has been at the back of do, as scholars, is to understand and my mind all these years, and I was happy appreciate the dynamics of that growth in when Bradley Malkovsky asked me to write their own setting. There is a historical on Dr. De Smet's view of Sankara's dimension to every growth, and we sit on Brahman for the Bulletin. I thus got an the shoulders of our predecessors such that a opportunity to revisit that topic ·again and comparative study can only "pretend" to be have done so in what follows. Needless to an independent, objective approach. A say that, because of the limitation of space, I corollary to that is the question as to whether have not been able to do full justice to the the judgment - of another topic. philosophy//religion will be Before I venture to write something on acceptable to the other, when the approach is Dr. De Smet's approach to the ontological generally based on the values, concepts, understanding of the Brahman-concept in even the vocabulary and language of the one Sankara's Advaita (hereafter who studies the other, which the other need Advaita), I would ·like . to state what I not or does not recognize. understand by comparative work. In order to In Dr. De Smet's case we know that he do a comparative study of two different was working through the languages in which religions o.r , either in a religious the original material of the two schools he or theological sense, it is not necessary to studied was available as for instance, somehow fit the ontology·and epistemology for Sankara's Advaita and English of the two systems being studied to appear or any other language for the other

T. S. Rukmani is currently Professor and Chair of Hindu Studies at Concordia University, Montreal, Canada and was previously the first Chair in Hindu Studies and at the University of Durban-Westville, South Africa from 1993-1995. She holds Ph.D. and D.Litt. degrees from the University of , where her last assignment was as Principal, Miranda House, University of Delhi. She is a Sanskritist by training, and her areas of specialization are religious and theological issues in , reform movements in , women studies, Gandhian studies, Indian philosophy (in particular , , and ) and the . She is the author of ten books and numerous journal articles: Her latest books are Yogasutrabhasyavivarana, Vols. I and II (Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 2001) and Yogasutras of with the Commentary ofVyasa (Chair in Hindu Studies 2001).

Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin -16 (2003) 12-21 Published by Digital Commons @ Butler University, 2003 1 Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies, Vol. 16 [2003], Art. 6 Dr. Richard De Smet and Sankara's Advaita 13

Assuming his competence in these the term in the west, but perhaps a languages, he still had to transcend the arena hermeneutic unraveling of the acosmic of translations and somehow be able to (nisprapanca) meanings hidden ill the creatively intuit the meanings of the foreign Upanisads. concepts that he intended to compare and While in God is the which come with a lot of previous cultural Supreme; ontological Absolute, Sankara's and intellectual baggage. Advaita "has no room for gods or deity, . So there are a number of obstacles to excepting as a provisional posit. It has no overcome if indeed we cando an honest, room for God except in the context of a comparative work between two schools of (metaphysically) ignorant person's inquiry thought, from two very different cultures. about the cause of the universe which Because of the above limitations it is easy to unknown to him is only an unreal concur with B.K.Matilal's understanding of appearance (and so is not in need of a comparative work (though he was speaking creator).,,4 Thus we are conscious of the with reference to comparative philosophy) diametrically opposite ways of thinking of as "the task of explaining and translating the Ultimate, Ontological Entity, as well as classical Indian philosophical texts in a the different views of western language". 1 Since Sankara , s CreationlManifestation, that such divergent Advaita is closer to philosophy than to views entail. theology or religion this is relevant for our In this paper, I try and focus on three purpose and would come closest to what I published papers of De Smet, entitled would count as doing a comparative study. "Advaitavada and Christianity" (1973) When we take up the question of De (hereafter "Advaitavada,,)5, "Origin: Smet's comparative study of Christianity Creation and Emanation" (1978) (hereafter and Advaita, all the above thoughts crowd "Origin"),6 and "Forward Steps in Sankara one's mind. As a Christian theologian, it Research" (1987) (hereafter "Forward became important for De Smet to somehow Steps"),7 where he engages in a comparison find parallels between Advaita, the of some concepts in Advaita and paramount philosophical/theologiCal school Christianity, with a view to arriving at a in the mind of the in general, and convergence. I would have liked to have Christianity, for, in common. with other more of his publications for this study, but, theologians, a deeper theological exchange unfortunately, these were the only ones between followers of these two spiritual which were readily available. So if there are paths was possible only when other views and revisions presented in any misconceptions could be cleared away. 2 later papers, I plead guilty for not consulting De Smet's primary loyalty to Christian them, for in spite of my best efforts, I did theology and his love for Sankara's Advaita not succeed in procuring them. But I have expressed movingly as "From Sankara I had access to the excellent paper on "The learned to focus on the non-dualistic creative Personhood of S ankara , s " presence in me - and in all creatures - of the (1997) by Malkovskl as well as the volume absolute Brahman as my constant Ground of papers published (2000), in and Cause and thus Supreme Saksin and commemoration of the passing away of Dr. ", goaded him to find parallels De Smet in 1997 edited by Malkovsky.9 3 between these two systems , one of which is Froin these sources I can surmise that De out and out a theology with belief in a Smet did not change or modify his basic personal God, who created everything out of stand from his early publications regarding nothing, and the other not a theology in the his understanding of the concepts in strict sense of the term, maybe not a Advaita, based on which he made the philosophy as well in the accepted sense of comparative studies.

https://digitalcommons.butler.edu/jhcs/vol16/iss1/6 DOI: 10.7825/2164-6279.1295 2 Rukmani: Dr. Richard De Smet and Sankara's Advaita 14 T.S. Rukmani

If my reading of De Smet is right, then uses these hermeneutic devices to interpret the main concern he had was with the the in accordance with his Nirguna nature of Brahman as pure Advaita stance. Consciousness that could not permit the Given this importance to the exegetical attribution of a creative function to It. Since tradition of interpretation we cannot afford only a person having 'personhood' can have to ignore Sankara's methodological a relation of creativity to the world, approach to the understanding of each of the Christian theologians in general, and De sections (adhikarana) in Badarayana's Smet in particular, who is our focus, try to Brahmasutras (BS). His commentaries on find attribution of personhood to the the BS as well as the Upanisads (UP) and Nirguna Brahman. De Smet services a the Gita are very often preceded by a number of devices and uses some selective preamble to the concerned section, where he readings from Sankara's works to arrive at states his thesis and prepares the reader for the conclusion that it is possible to posit what follows in the subsequent sections of personhood to Brahman and thus link it with the particular chapter. He upholds the the manifested world. My task is to see how principle of ekavakyata or the first far De Smet has succeeded or not in this exegetical principle of consistency of the enterprise. main thesis throughout the entire work and As a preamble to this exercise we need frequently refers to it in the body of the to be clear about some points. Firstly there is work and in separate sections. It is always in place a strong hermeneutic tradition set useful to come back to these initial by the Purvamimamsa school, which is introductory portions in Sankara, in order to followed by Sankara as well, in his approach make sense of some very difficult points that to the interpretation of the Prasthanatrayi are raised in the course of the commentaries. (Brahmasutra, Upanisads and To come back to the paper Bhagavadgita). These principles, though "Advaitavada" mentioned above, De Smet well known, can suffer repetition as I will tries to set ilp an analogy between the take recourse to them in my explaining Advaita Nirguna Brahman and the God of Sankara, whenever it is relevant. These are Christianity, using mainly the passage 4.3.7. the six hermeneutic principles collectively from the Brhadaranyaka Up. (Br. Up.) for known as the sadlinga. The first is the understanding of Brahman. De Smet upakramopasarnharaikya which is important, tries to establish an analogical reading of the for it denotes an uniformity of meaning God of Christianity including that of between the start and finish of a sentence, a and Sankara's Advaita concept of Brahman. section, <;l chapter etc. The second principle This is one of the pet obsessions of De Smet, is abhyasa or the repetition of the theme for he again comes back to it in his paper being discussed in the work; the third is "Origin." In the "Origin" paper he uses apurva or a new conclusion. sought to be Aquinas' description of God as 'eminently brought about; the fourth is phala or the Esse (Be)' and the Taittiriya Up. statement fruitfulness of such a conclusion; the fifth is of Brahman being 'satyam, jnanam, arthavada or agreeing or criticizing it in the anantam' (Truth, Consciousness, Infinite).ll \york; and the sixth is upapatti or the method He talks about this again in his "Forward Of argumentation. Sankara also uses the Steps" where he tries to argue for the reasonings known as upakrama-parakrama identical ontological status of the Christian where the initial statements carry more God and Advaita Brahman, using a three weight then the later ones, as also level language for approaching both these apaccheda-, which allows the negation transcendent realities. Thus in "Forward of the previous statement in case the Steps" he believes that Sankara, when he subsequent one contradicts itlO. Sankara uses the three levels of adhyasa

Published by Digital Commons @ Butler University, 2003 3 Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies, Vol. 16 [2003], Art. 6 Dr. Richard De Smet and Sankara's Advaita 15

(superimposition), apavada (negation) and Reality as if they refer to just linguistic paramartha-laksana (indication by the categories is not fair to Sankara's Advaita. supreme sense), is actually talking about a Adhyasa is an overriding concept in three level language which can then be taken Sankara's Advaita and it cannot be used to indicate for both Christian God and selectively to explain some things while Brahman their transcendent nature beyond leaving out other things in the system. the primary meanings of ordinary language We also find Sankara talking about two (vyavahara), Upanishadic language which is kinds of knowledge, and that can only make metaphysical and metempirical language sense when the levels they deal with are two which absolutizes words. 12 This almost levels of reality 16. Br. Up. Adhyayas sounds like the sphota theory of the (chapters) three and four are together called grammarians who absolutize Word as the Yajnavalkyakanda, and they have to be sabdabrahman. But this not the case in read together as. one unit, along with Sankara, and his opposition to the sphota Sankara's commentaries, to understand how concept is well known. De Smet might find Sankara presents his two-level reality. Thus the three levels of adhyasa, apavada and in his commentary on Br. Up. 3.4.2 he paramarthata a satisfactory tool to explain clearly states his two-level reality which in the Christian God, but in Sankara that is not tum only reiterates what has already been the use to which adhyasa and apavada are said in 2.4.12, 1.5.3, and in other places. put to. That Brahman and Atman are One and is the Let us now look at Br. Up. 4.3.7 which Higher Reality, while the world and the Smet uses in "Advaitavada" for this selves in it belong to a lower reality, is the comparison. Sankara in fact has only two contention of Sankara. De Smet mentions in categories to which he applies the "Advaitavada" based on BSBh II.1.9 and methodology of adhyasa and apavada, i.e. TU. 11.6.1 that "we cannot go on repeating Brahman (Atman/Self) and the not-Self. In without ado that Sankara professes the Br. Up. 4.3.713. Sankara uses the two identity of the individual soul with the devices mail~ly for an epistemic purpose and Absolute,,17. While De Smet uses TU II.6.1 to extend the scope of adhyasa to explain which translates as "From that Brahman or how the Self functions at a lower level of from this Atman was produced Akasa" to reality. The main point here is the identity of arrive at his conclusion, it is a position Brahman with the intellect, the symbol of difficult to maintain especially when consciousness. Sankara is concerned with Sankara says in his bhasya on the same TU the way tne reflection of consciousness 2.1.1 "From That (Brahman) or from this functions and illumines the aggregate of Atman came into existence Akasah" body and organs. He has already declared in (emphasis mine), i.e. since the word Self many places the distinction between the (atman) is used with xegard to Brahman relational and non-relational view of Itself, it follows that Brahman is the Self of Realityl4, after stating it as his main thesis in the cogmzmg individual. Sankara's the Introduction to BS 1.1.1 (thus recalling commentary on TU 2.1.1 which De Smet to mind the second hermeneutic principle of refers to, only confirms Sankara's abhyasa). He has discussed his methodology conviction about the identity of the Self of adhyasa and apavada in BSBh 2.3.6 as (atman) with Brahman and not otherwise. well as in the Gitabhasya 13.14 and Repeatedly in that commentary, Sankara consistently maintains his main thesis in his speaks of this identity. It is a long commentaries on the Prasthanatrayi. He commentary, and I give below two of his adds one more level when talking about statements there to that effect. Thus he says error in the world and dream experiences. IS (1) " though' the individual Self is 18 To interpret the three or two levels of intrinsically identical to Brahman ... ;

https://digitalcommons.butler.edu/jhcs/vol16/iss1/6 DOI: 10.7825/2164-6279.1295 4 Rukmani: Dr. Richard De Smet and Sankara's Advaita 16 T.S. Rukmani

(2) "thus even though Brahman is one's Self way of mentioning the ongm etc. of the it can remain unattained through universe is only a hermeneutic effort to ignorance19; from these two combined with clarify TU 3.1; in other words there is no the statement that "From That Brahman or direct involvement of Brahman with the from this Atman came into existence Akasah world. Thus it is not possible to agree with " it becomes clear that Brahman is identical De Smet when he says " ... the mind is ready with the individual Self.20 So, in Advaita, to climb to the level of eminence (the there is no distinction between Atman and Dionysian Hyperoche or Sankarian Brahman and, therefore, it is not possible to paramarthapatti) and to say, for instance, acquiesce with Smet in this regard. with Aquinas : Creation is the emanation of The rest of "Advaitavada" dwells upon the whole universe by and from the the making of man in Christianity and goes universal Cause ... ,,24. De Smet also wants to on to talk about the" attainment of the eliminate the weak sense of "production" as "beatific vision" through the grace of God "mete manifestation" [of the universe]. This and how the individual "ceases to conceive is too tall an order. Manifestation is not itself as a being separate from God. Sankara's formulation at all. This This ... demands no annihilation of its. understanding is part of the Vedic tradition dependent existence... ,,21. De Smet tries hard and is a basic tenet of practically all schools to restate Sankara's position as follows: of religious thought in Hinduism. Therefore "The too little known anthropology which Sankara believes in a cyclical origin, Sankara develops around the notion of the sustenance and dissolution of the universe human ego as a reflection of the inner and also that successive Witness opens up towards a conception of creations/manifestations take place as a man as a totally dependent and contingent result of virtue and vice and come into being which is yet strongly integrated" 22. existence like the earlier ones.25 Sankara We can with confidence state that there is a discusses this elaborately in BSBh 2.1.10; world of difference not only in the way therefore it cannot be wished away and humans/Selves are perceived in Advaita, but certainly not in Sankara's Advaita. also in the nature of liberation, in the means At another level De Smet, in the same to liberation and in the identity repeatedly paper, uses the "satkaryavada" (the pre­ proclaimed by Sankara's Advaita between existence of the effect in the cause) to Brahman and Selves. All these are points of valorize St Thomas' statement of "a dispute and taken together leave us sceptical creature as pre-existing in God is the divine about the comparison between the two Essence itself ,26. There is a considerable. Ultimates and related issues. mixing up of categories in this statement. In "Origin" De Smet also discusses the Sankara nowhere states that Brahman is the notion of Creation, keeping the three locus of the Atman, which, l:?y the way, is linguistic, levels in the background. While also not a creature as understood by the Christian God creates ex nihilo, in Aquinas, but always and consistently Sankara's Advaita the universe/ exists in Sankara maintains Atman's identity with Brahman before its manifestation.23 Brahman. I have also a problem when De Christianity starts with God and then Smet argues for understanding time at two explains the universe as created by God. levels (1) Universal time as an abstraction Sankara's philosophical inquiry starts with and (2) "concrete time [which] is co-created the world in order to somehow explain it. He with the universe since, being a property of therefore resorts to adhyasa to retain the its being, it does not precede it but rather Absolute, Nirgnuna, intrinsic nature of follows from its essential mobility and Brahman. In his introduction to this .evolving changeability'. Whether it starts adhil<:arana (topic), Sankara states that this from a' first instant or is beginning1ess

Ii Published by Digital Commons @ Butler University, 2003 5 i Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies, Vol. 16 [2003], Art. 6 Dr. Richard De Smet and Sankara's Advaita 17

depends entirely on the Creator's free (repetition of what has already been decision and cannot be settled by any introduced) and upakrama-parakrama deductive pr6cess',27. There is again a (where . 'initial statements in general carry category mistake in this argument. All this more weight than subsequent ones) we have can make sense only in the context of to understand that here also it is Isvara that "Creation talk" and the "notion of the first is indicated. The debate is furthered in instant of the universe". De Smet also says 11.1.27 by stating that Brahman remains that ontological origination does not itself unchanged and beyond phenomenal actions, imply temporal beginning even if the reverse and all this is imagined through ignorancez9. is true. It is obvious, as already mentioned, Many statements from the BS and the that all this can only make sense in a Upanisads that De Smet uses to compare Christian context, where there is a positive Christianity and the Advaita of Sankara are temporal origination of the universe. For difficult to reconcile precisely because of Sankara the whole discussion of the origin Sankara's own devices of (adhyasa), of time or the universe, whether ontological nirguna/, etc. There or temporal is irrelevant, as it is within the are statements both in the BS and the UP domain of avidya. which can be profitably compared to De Smet comes back to the Creator Christianity, but those would be closer to notion of Christianity in a discussion of the Visistadvaita or Dvaita and not Advaita. nature of the effects of creation. In his paper Thus, we have to disagree with De Smet "Origin" he ties the creatures to the idea of when he states that "we can now with St. upadhis in Advaita, and one need not quarrel Thomas define creation adequately and with that. But it is difficult to agree with his eminently (paramarthatah) as the intelligent conclusion of the "creatures' total and freely willed emanation of the whole dependence on their Creator" in the context reality or positivity of the universe from the of Advaita. De Smet brings in the concept pure Esse" 30. of grace in Advaita (I will touch upon that In the same paper "Origin" there is briefly later),·· combining it with the mention of tadatmya, and De Smet's unsubstantiated theory. of creation in understanding of it, based on BS II.1.14, is Advaita. When De Smet quotes BS II.l.25 as follows. " ... the non-difference implied by and translates it as the "Supreme tadatmya does not eliminate distinction but Atman ... creates ... ", it is important to recall stresses the ontological character. of the Sankara's introduction of Isvara in the act of creature's dependence as well as the creation, preservation and destruction in BS Creator's transcendence." 31 BS II. 1. 14 has 1.1.2. Thus, he says "It is not possible to been explained at length by Sankara. The imagine any other than this kind of qualified in translation reads, 'There is Isvara Ifor the creation of this kind of ananyatva (non-difference) of those (cause qualified universe"z8. He clearly establishes and effect) because of the texts on origin that, according to him it is )svara, and not etc ... " The examples that Sankara brings in Brahman, that is associated with janma here are spaces within pots and jars being (origin), (maintenance) and laya non-different from all-pervading akasah, and (destruction) of the universe. As for 11.1.25 water in a mirage being non-different from a which is used by De Smet to undergird his sandy desert. In his commentary Sankara creation hypothesis, Sankara has already stresses the "elimination of distinction" stated as a preamble to this topic before 11.1 between the Self and Brahman. Sankara that "the omniscient omnipotent Sarvesvara again brings in Isvara in this context, who is the cause of the universe ... " and using the alone can be associated with creation etc., principles of both upakramopasamharaikya and reiterates the 'identity or non-difference (unity of meaning in the section), abhyasa of the Selves with Brahman.

https://digitalcommons.butler.edu/jhcs/vol16/iss1/6 DOI: 10.7825/2164-6279.1295 6 Rukmani: Dr. Richard De Smet and Sankara's Advaita 18 T.S. Rukmani

Continuing the discussion on tadatmya, hermeneutic principle of ekavakyata and De Smet uses TU 11.6.1 and Sankara's also reiterates (abhyasa) that the topic l;>eing commentary on it to substantiate his claim. examined is the knowledge of ,n.. 35 He translates one line of this really long I have spent some time explaining this at commentary as "names and forms in all their length because it is also quoted by states have Brahman alone as their Atman, Malkovsky in his paper titled "The but Brahman has not its Atman in them (i.e., Personhood of Samkara's Para Brahman".36 tadatmya is not mutual).,,32 There is a As this paper is concerned mainly with De misunderstanding of the word tadatmakam Smet's arguments I will not engage here by De Smet. I translate below the text Malkovsky's points raised in his paper. in question: 33 So the tadatmya or the unique. identity between Brahman and Atrnan is what Thus it is because of Brahman Sankara repeatedly emphasizes. He uses the alone that nama and rupa have their example of the mistaken identity between being in all conditions; but Brahman the rope/snake or shell/silver in order to is not of their nature [but Brahman illustrate this unique relation. The relation does not consist of them, according between the rope and snake is neither to Gambhirananda]; they are said to difference, as we cannot relate two different have their being in Brahman in terms as snake and rope as "This is snake", essence, because they are "no more" nor non-difference since the rope is [cease to exist, according to empirically real while the snake is only Gambhirananda] when Brahman is apparently so; therefore there can be no eliminated. By these two limiting relation of identity between "two levels of conditions, Brahman is the agent of being". It is, therefore, a unique relation all empirical experiences such as known as tadatmya. If, in the above, the knower, knowable and knowledge rope IS denied the snake "Is not"; but if the etc., and all that it entails. snake is denied (due to realizing one's mistake) the rope "Is". Thus, if we apply the Now the word tadatmakam is a same understanding to TU II.6.1, Brahman compound (samasa) and an adjective is the same as the rope, and therefore It qualifying Brahman, and the part tat stands underlies everything; but Brahman as for namarupa and not for Brahman. namarupa does not underlie them, i.e. isnot Atmakam means "made up or composed of, of their nature, since once namarupa is of the nature or character of" etc. Therefore transcended through knowledge it vanishes na tadatmakam cannot be translated as and Brahman alone "Is". This is another "Brahman does not have its Atman in them" example of adhyasa and also made clear in as De Smet does. It is like the word Br. Up. IV.3.7 and Sankar~'s commentary rasatmakam in vakyam rasatmakam kavyam on it with which De Smet starts the (A sentence that has the character of rasa is argument in "Advaitavada" and mentioned literature).34 Tadatmakam indicates that earlier.37 Brahman is not of the nature of namarupa Since the question of grace occurs in all and not that Brahman has not Atman in the three papers under consideration I will them. Sankara also makes reference to the briefly touch upon it here. De Smet uses BS topic under discussion by drawing our 2.3.41 and Sankara's commentary thereon attention to the introduction to this whole for support of Sankara's acceptance of section in the TU and indicating that the , both in "Origin" and "Forward topic under discussion is that the Self is Steps,,38 . One has only to read the entire imagined to enter the very cavity (of the commentary on 2.3.41 to know that Sankara heart). He thus makes use. of the does not support what De Smet believes he

Published by Digital Commons @ Butler University, 2003 7 + Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies, Vol. 16 [2003], Art. 6 Dr. Richard De Smet and Sankara's Advaita 19

does. The commentaries on 2.3.41 and Historical [philosophical] 2.3.42 have to be read together to make understanding, .. .is the action of sense. Firstly, it is Isvara, and not Brahman, subjectivity purged of all prejudices, whose anugraha (grace) is under discussion. and it is achieved in direct Secondly, Sankara continues the same topic proportion to the knower's ability to in the next sutra and says "(Isvara) is set aside his own horizons by means however dependent on the jiva's efforts, so of an effective historical method... .Is that injunctions and prohibitions are not it the case ... that the knower can meaningless and other defects do not leave his immediate situation in the arise,,39 . In his commentary Sankara clearly present merely by adopting an states that Isvara makes the jiva act now in attitude? accordance with its past , and He directed him earlier in accordance with what Shaped by the past in an infinity of he did earlier, and so on. So, since samsara unexamined ways, the present is without beginning, this is without fault. situation is the "given" in which We can thus see that it is difficult to read understanding is rooted, and which divine grace in Advaita. Grace has to be reflection can never entirely hold at showered o"n one without any pre-attached a critical distance and objectify. conditions, and that is not the case in Sankara's Advaita.40 Only a neutralized, prejudice-free This brief examination of the above consciousness guarantees the papers of Dr.De Smet has shown that he has objectivity of knowledge. not been able to make a case for either the personhood of Sankara's Advaita Brahman, Dr.De Smet was a Christian theologian nor for the origin of the seen universe, both and though sincere in his approach to of which differs radically from the Christian Sankara and in his efforts to understand God and from creation ex nihilo. De Smet Sankara's Advaita Vedanta, could not rid tried hard to find parallels between himself of his "prejudices". His efforts, Christianity and Sankara's Advaita, but he therefore, to reinterpret Brahman, tadatmya, was dealing with two entirely different adhyasa, and other Sankarian terms and systems of thought. Just as in the concepts, in order to bring Sankara's understanding of Christianity one has to Advaita closer to Christian theology, have look at all the aspects of its theology, so not yielded the desired result, in my view. also, in order to correctly comprehend Advaita, i( is necessary to read Sankara's Notes commentaries as a whole in order to arrive at an understanding of Advaita in all its 1. Satchidananda Murty, dimensions. Selective use of a line here or Philosophy in India: Traditions, there cannot help in the long run. This, in Teaching and Research (New no way belittles the sincere efforts of Dr. De Delhi: Indian Council of Smet who genuinely sought parallels in the Philosophical Research, 1999 two systems. While new interpretations are reprint), p. 204. always welcome they have to be in 2. Cf. Bradley Malkovsky, "The conformity with the understanding of the Personhood of Samkara's Para scholar they seek to interpret. Gadamer's Brahman," The Journal of insightful observations regarding what Religion 77 (1997):547. hermeneutics entails is true of all such 41 3. Bradley Malkovsky, exercises: "Introduction: The. Life and Work of Richard V. De Smet,

https://digitalcommons.butler.edu/jhcs/vol16/iss1/6 DOI: 10.7825/2164-6279.1295 8 ~ Rukmani: Dr. Richard De Smet and Sankara's Advaita 'II IiI 20 T.S. Rukmani I,!il'l I:,I ii:!

j ,i I I \ 'I, SJ.," New Perspectives on by Swami Madhavananda, The 'I Advaita Vedanta: Essays in Brhadaranyakopanisad with the :I," I', commentary of Sankaracarya, ! I Commemoration of Professor , ,I Richard De Smet, S.J., ed. Almora: Advaita , I Bradley Malkovsky (Leiden: 1950.) Sankara in his Brill, 2000), p. 11. commentary on the above talks I I 4. J. N. Mohanty, "Advaita about the reflection of the Self i Vedanta as Philosophy and as (consciousness) in the intellect, IiI" Religion," Explorations in mind, sense organs and the body Philosophy: Essays by IN. by which the entire, insentient Mohanty. Volume I: Indian complex of body-sense organs­ Philosophy, ed. Bina Gupta, intellect is illuminated by Ii (Oxford: Oxford University consciousness. Sankara also Press 2002, 2nd ed.), p. 107. says this superimposItIon 5. R.V. De Smet, "Advaitavada (adhyasa) is mutual. I and, Christianity," The Divine "The Self cannot be taken ! • Life 35 (1973):237-239. apart from anything else like a 6. R.V. De Smet, "Origin: stalk of grass from its sheath, Creation and Emanation," and shown in its self-effulgent Indian Theological Studies 15 form. It is for this reason that (1978):266-279. the whole world, to its utter 7. R.V. De Smet, "Forward Steps delusion, superimposes all III Sankara Research", Pratap activities peculiar to name and Seth Endowment Lecture on form on the Self, and all Sankara Vedanta, Darshana attributes of this self-effulgent International 26 (1987):33-46. light on name and form." 8. Cf. note 2, above. Translation by R. 9. Cf. note 3, above. Balasubramanian, History of 10. Satchidananda Murty, Science, Philosophy and Revelation and Reason in Culture in Indian Civilization. Advaita Vedanta (Delhi: Motilal Volume II, Part 2:, Advaita Banarsidass, 1974), pp. 81-87. Vedanta (New Delhi: Centre for 11. De Smet, "Origin," p. 275. Studies in Civilizations, 2000). 12. De Smet, "Forward Steps," pp. 14. Commentaries on BS.I.12; pp.44-45. Chand Up. 3.14.2; Br. Up. 13. Br. Up. 4.3.7. in translation 2.3.6; 4.4.15;, Kena Up. 4.4; reads: "Which is the Self? This Taitt. Up. 2.4.1; 2. (purusa) which is identified with 15. B.S.Bh. ILl.4; IV.3.14. the intellect is in the midst of 16. Commentaries on Mund.Up. the organs, the (self-effulgent) Ll.4 and 5; Br. Up. 3.5.l; light within the heart (intellect). -. Chand. Up. 6.2.1. Assuming the likeness (of the 17. "Advaitavada," p. 239. intellect) it moves between the 18. paramarthato two worlds; it thinks as it were, brahmasvarupasyapi satah asya and shakes, as it were. Being jivasya ... identified with dreams, it 19. evamavidyaya atmabhutamapi transcends the forms of death brahma 'anaptam syat. (ignorance etc.)." (Translation

Published by Digital Commons @ Butler University, 2003 9 i:, J ¥ Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies, Vol. 16 [2003], Art. 6 Dr. Richard De Smet and Sankara's Advaita 21

20. 'tasmadva etasmadatmanah' iti brahmanyeva 34. Sahitya Darpana 1, cited in atmasabdaprayo gat V .M.Apte' s The Practical vedituratmaiva brahma. Sanskrit-English Dictionary 21. "Advait~l.Vada," p. 238 (Delhi: , 22. Ibid., p. 239 1992), p. 355. 23. B.S.Bh. I. 2. 22. 35. kimarthamasthane carca. 24. "Origin," p. 269. prakrto hyanyo vivaksito'sya 25. B.S.Bh. I. 3. 30; II. 1. 10 vak-yarthah asti. sa smartavyah 26. "Origin," p. 269. - brahmavidapnoti param .. 27. Ibid., pp. 272-73. 36. "The Personhood ... ," p. 559. 28. na ca yathoktavisesanasya 37. Cf. note 13 above. jagato 38. "Origin," pp. 273-74; "Forward yathoktavisesanamisvaram Steps," p. 37. muktva 39. krtaprayatnapeksastu anyatah ... sambhavayitum vihitapratisiddhavaiyarthyadibh sakyate. yah. 29. avidyakalpitar'upabhedabhyu­ 40. api ca purvapraytnamapeksya pagamt; avidyakalpitena ca idanim karayati purvataram ca namarupalaksanena ... tattvanyat prayatnamapeksya vabhyamanirvacaniyena purvamakarayaditi brahmaparinamadisarvavyavah anaditvatsamsarasyeti araspadatvam pratipadyate; anavadyam. paramarthikena brahma 41. David Linge, "Editor's parinamarthikena ca rupena Introduction" to Hans Georg sarvavyavaharatitamaparinata Gadamer, Philosophical mavatisthate. Hermeneutics, Translated and 30. "Origin", pp. 276-77. Edited by David Linge 31. Ibid., p. 279. (Berkeley: University of 32. Ibid., p. 279. California Press, 1976),xiv-xvi. 33. atah namarupe sarvavasthe brahmanaivatmavati. na brahma tadatmakam. te tatpratyakhyane na sta eveti tadakmake ucyete. tabhyam ca upadhibhyam jnatrjneyajnanasabdarthadisarv asamvyavaharabhagbrahma.

https://digitalcommons.butler.edu/jhcs/vol16/iss1/6 DOI: 10.7825/2164-6279.1295 10