Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies

Volume 22 Article 6

2009 Rethinking Advaita: Who is Eligible to Read Advaita Texts? Anantanand Rambachan

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

Recommended Citation Rambachan, Anantanand (2009) "Rethinking Advaita: Who is Eligible to Read Advaita Texts?," Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies: Vol. 22, Article 6. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.7825/2164-6279.1433

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]. Rambachan: Rethinking Advaita: Who is Eligible to Read Advaita Texts?

Rethinking Advaita: Who is Eligible to Read Advaita Texts?1

_Anantanand Rambachan St. Olaf College

MY most recent work, The Advaita Worldview: presents us with a number of significant God, World and Humanity, exemplifies two questions centered on eligibility to read Advaita related movements. 2 First, I join the growing texts, the insider-outsider dilemma, and the stream of scholars who are making efforts to Christian theologian as reader of Advaita. Am I distinguish the interpretations of Sankara from as an Advaitin committed to an important stream later Advaita exegetes. The uncritical equation of the Hindu tradition, authorized to speak for of Sankara's views with those of later exegetes and about the tradition in ways that Thatamanil needs to be challenged.3 Second, I contend that cannot? Who are the new conversation partners Advaita reflection and scholarship cannot limit for Advaita? I want to focus my response on itself to the clarification of Sankara's some of these questions through an examination interpretations. These interpretations must also of the issue of the qualification to read Advaita be critically evaluated in order for the tradition texts that are considered to be authoritative. 4 to be relevant and creative. It is problematic to The classical Advaita tradition, as assume that Sankara was immune from expounded by Sankara, understands the historical influences, cultural. presuppositions Upanisads to be a prama1Ja or valid source for 5 and his stage in life as a renunciant. The latter is our knowledge of brahman . As Sadananda particularly important since renunciation states· it in Vedantasara, "Vedanta is the traditionally implied specific attitudes to the evidence of the Upani.sads, as well as the world, community and family that inform his Sariraka Sutras and other books that help in the reading of texts and the possibilities of meaning. correct expounding of its meaning. ,,6 In the A renunciant brings different questions and traditional sequence of Advaita study the next concerns to these texts than a householder, and step, after establishing the valid source of the renunciant reading of the Upanisads has been knowledge, is determining the competency of the dominant one. The traditional reverence for the student, the subject matter, and the Sankara and his deified position in the Advaita connection between the authoritative source and lineage ought not to exclude critical questions subject matter.7 Eligibility was traditionally and historical . inquiry. His monumental interpreted on the basis of the categories of caste contributions can be both gratefully and life stage rights and duties acknowledged and interrogated. (var1Jasramadharma). Withm. the confines of Thatamanil's work, The Immanent Divine: this socio-religious system, eligibility for Vedic God, Creation, and the Human Predtcament, study was limited to male members of the upper

Anantanand Rambachan is Chair and Professor or Religion, Philosophy and Asian Studies at Saint Olaf College, Minnesota, USA, where he has been teaching since 1985. Prof. Rambachan is the author of several books, book-chapters and articles in scholarlY'joumals. Among his books are Accomplishing the Accomplished: The Vedas as a Source of Valid Knowledge in Sankara (University of Hawaii Press, 1991), Limits of Scripture: Swami Vivekananda's Reinterpretation of the Vedas (South Asia Books, 1995), and The Advaita Worldview: God, World and Humanity (SUNY, 2006), Professor Ramabchan teaches courses on Hindu traditions, Indian philosophy, theologies of religious and interreligious relationships. He serves on the Theological Education Committee of the American Academy of Religion.

Journal ofHindu-Christian Studies 22 (2009):8-13

Published by Digital Commons @ Butler University, 2009 1 Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies, Vol. 22 [2009], Art. 6 Rethinking Advaita: Who is Eligible to Read Advaita Texts 9

three castes. Women and sudras were excluded Asian ancestry! Any tradition making such as well as the untouchables who were without universal claims cannot limit access on the basis caste. This interpretation of eligibility of restrictive criteria, such as caste or gender. circumscribed unjustly those who are entitled to Such restrictions undermine the heart of Advaita read Advaita texts. Sankara is a defender of the truth propositions. Second, the Advaita tradition, traditional order and argues against the as already noted, understands itself as a source eligibility of sudras to study the Vedas. "The of valid knowledge (vedanto sudra," according to Sankara, "has no naamopani$atpramanam). ill addition, Advaita competence, since he cannot study the Vedas; defmes valid knowledge as "that knowledge for one becomes competent for things spoken of which has for its object something that is not in the Vedas, after one has studied the Vedas already known and is uncontradicted. ,,9 A and known these things from them. But there defmition of truth such as this cannot privatize can be no reading of the Vedas by a sudra, for or privilege theological claims from open and Vedic study presupposes the investiture with the unrestricted inquiry. Since the validity of sacred thread, which ceremony is confined to the Advaita claims are essentially advanced on three castes."s One cannot, in other words, epistemological grounds and are similar to develop a desire for the goal of liberation claims advanced on the basis of other sources of described in the Vedas without exposure to these valid knowledge, such as perception or texts. The sacred thread ceremony (upanayana), inference, a response is invited. ill other words, which confers permission for Vedic study, is the grounding of its claims about the nature of forbidden to sudras, exemplifying a religious reality in a pramarza argument necessarily opens and social vicious cycle. the tradition to critical examination from so­ Are there resources in the Advaita tradition called outsiders who may subscribe to for overcoming these limits and welcoming non­ alternative authoritative sources of knowledge traditional readers whose identities are not and different truth claims. Advaita is not reticent defmed by. caste of life-stage? Clearly there are about the fact that its a.ssertions abut the nature and have been non-traditional readers; many are of reality are different from commonly held present in AAR sessions. Fortunately, the views and has not avoided efforts to refute Advaita traqition does not have a central claims that are incompatible with its own. The authority issuing permission to read texts! The tr~dition should not expect anything less from absence of a controlling authority is a weak rival contemporary .views. Third, the limiting of argument for the reading of texts by those eligibility on the basis of caste and gender is traditionally excluded, and the case remains and much less obvious in the three authoritative ought to be made from within the tradition on pillars of the tradition (prastanathraya),' the the issue of eligibility. A detailed articulation of Upani.sads, Bhagavadgita and the Brahmasutra. this case is beyond the scope of this ill these sources the emphasis is on the more presentation, but some of its crucial elements universal qualities of head and heart such as can be identified and commented upon. ability to distinguish between the real and unreal First, Advaita understands the human (viveka), detachment from that which is finite problem it describes and the solution it and subject to change (vairagya) and longing for prescribes to be universal. According to Advaita liberation (mumuk$utva). There is a tension humans everywhere experience the existential between the so-called inherited criteria, like lack that remains unsatisfied by the gain of caste, and those (sadhanacatustaya) that are wealth, pleasure, fame and power. The tradition available universally to any interested human also affIrms that all beings are identical, at the being. The latter are clearly more consistent with most fundamental level of self, with the infmite the nature and character of Advaita truth claims brahman. Advaita is an excellent example of an and need to·be emphasized over the conservative illdian tradition making explicitly universal requirements 'of caste and gender. These claims about the human condition and its requirements need to be consistently and . resolution; the Upanishads clearly do not explicitly refuted by prominent Advaita address themselves only to persons of South teachers.

http://digitalcommons.butler.edu/jhcs/vol22/iss1/6 2 DOI: 10.7825/2164-6279.1433 Rambachan: Rethinking Advaita: Who is Eligible to Read Advaita Texts? T :, 10 Anantanand Rambachan

Of course, in making the argument for a traditions or none. The Advaita tradition has not universal understanding of eligibility based on always noted or appreciated the contributions of qualities that may be cultivated by any interested the jijnasu,defined in this way, and has, and committed human being, one is still especially in more recent times, dismissed the advancing special criteria for the reading of work ofthejijnasu especially when the person is Advaita texts. Although I think that there are a so-called outsider. II The tradition has yet to valid epistemological grounds for these define a proper space, value and role for the qualities, based on the traditional understanding contemporary jijnasu and to see the rejuvenating of the function of the text and its salvific power, possibilities of engagement with the public the Advaita tradition needs to acknowledge the intellectual. A dialogue between the mumuk$u possibility and value of different kinds of and jijnasu, although difficult in an atmosphere readers and seekers.lOThe tradition has not had of growing suspicion about the agenda of the the need to reflect before on this possibility that scholar who is an outsider, is a necessity. arises, in particular, from the work of I should mention in passing, since it is comparative theologians like Thatamanil or beyond the scope of these comments, a third Frank Clooney. I can think of at least two kinds type of reader who combines the approaches of of Advaita readers. The first, is the aspirant for both the mimuksu and jijnasu. This is the one liberation (mok$a), spoken of as the mumuksu. who comes to the tradition with the predicament This reader comes to the tradition with an of the mumuksu and reads the text with a teacher . intense desire for liberation arising from for the attainment of liberation but who brings to dissatisfaction with the limits of fmite gains and the texts an academic training in historical achievements. The mumuk$u comes to the critical modes of study. Such readers are very Advaita text and teacher with the faith (sraddha) few in number but their potential to rejuvenate and hope of receiving a wisdom that teaches a and creatively. interpret Advaita are immense. way across suffering. Sadananda describes the Such .a reader may be distinguished from the mumuk$u as coming to the teacher like one jijnasu, as described above, by the fact that he or whose head is on fire rushes to a lake. For such a she comes to the tradition with a religious faith seeker the teaching of the text has the potential in the teacher or text and is seeking the to come with the. impact of a revelation. resolution of a existential problem. At the same Traditionally, such a reader became a renunciant time, the. person brings to the tradition the before commencing the study of authoritative critical reading skills of the jijnasu. texts with a teacher or did so during or after This is the context in which I welcome study. Renunciation was understood to indicate Thatamanil's Advaita scholarship and his the severing of all ties and commitments other critique of Sankara. He is an excellent example than the devotion to liberation (moksa). The of the jijnasu trained as a Christian theologian mumuksu is the reader with which the tradition and bringing the insights and methodology of is most familiar. his discipline to the study, of Sankara. It is The second kind of reader, I want to suggest, proper, in my judgment, for the theologian of is the jijnasu (one who desires to know). another tradition to offer critical judgments Although the Advaita tradition has not about Advaita. In addition to the arguments that distinguished the mumuk$u and jijjnasu, I think I offered above for the jijnasu as reader of that a contemporary distinction is appropriate Advaita texts, there is a further point to advance. and helpful, and I offer this distinction in the The Advaita tradition has always defmed and hope that the tradition will welcome and be explained itself in conversation with rival enriched by the insights and methodology of systems, orthodox and heterodox. It always took non-traditional readers. The jijnasu comes to the the critique of these systems seriously and was tradition as an inquiring reader working within a not unwilling to incorporate elements of rival recognized discipline such as theology, history worldviews. We see' the evidence of this of religion, religious studies or anthropology. approach prominently in Sa:6.kara's Such jijnasus may be outsiders to the Advaita commentaries. He expounds his interpretations tradition with commitments to other religious in disputation with orthodox schools such as the

Published by Digital Commons @ Butler University, 2009 3 Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies, Vol. 22 [2009], Art. 6 Rethinking Advaita: Who is Eligible to Read Advaita Texts 11

ritualist Purva Mimamsa, Sankhya. Yoga, and Athanasius, William of Ockham and Nyaya and heterodox traditions like Buddhism contemporary thinkers like Paul Tillich, Alvin and Jainism, and he demonstrates a Plantinga and Richard Swinburne is largely commendable effort to present and engage these unknown. Hindus continue to imagine and perspectives. In the process of engaging these encounter Christianity as an exclusive religion sophisticated traditions and attempting, when which is not genuinely open to the religious necessary to refute some of their claims, Sankara claims and experiences of others and which is incorporated many of their insights, and the concerned primarily with increasing its Advaita tradition was enriched. We ought to see institutional power and domination through the questions and assessment of the Christian evangelization and conversion. It 1s still seen as theologian in the context of this rich tradition of an ally of westernization. Such perceptions and openness to dialogue and engagement. The experiences induce uneasiness, defensiveness primary dialogue partners for Advaita are no and, on occasions, hostility. Hindus have the longer those of the classical period, and we must perception that mission is the most important now be willing to note and welcome interested concern of Christianity. Such attitudes, partners from other religious traditions or none. legitimate or not, constitute a significant Today, unfortunately, Advaita is still taught roadblock to enriching engagement in traditional institutions as though the characterized by attentive learning and conversation partners and the principal matters questioning. of dispute have remained unchanged. Although For reasons, some alluded to above, few very interesting and historically enlightening, Advaitins make the necessary effort to significant portions of Sankara's commentaries understand and engage these traditions through­ are devoted to arguments with opponents and reading seminal texts. When engagement does traditions that are no longer relevant. Clearly our occur, J fmd that these are too often based on location is now different and our disputations, simplistic and stereotypical understandings of unlike Sankara, are no longer with Mimamsakas these traditions. The reasons for the disinterest or exponents of Sankhya. The living traditions ,in dialogue are many and complex, but one of that ought to be our dialogue partners include the principal ones, in my view, has to do with Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Buddhism as the representation of Advaita, both by insiders well as contemporary materialist and secular and outsiders, as fundamentally mystical. 12 The perspectives. We must welcome readers from implication of this understanding is that these locations. There is still, however, too much theological engagement and the . life of reason mutual stereotyping between Advaita and those are seen as more appropriate to religious monotheistic traditions that expound an traditions that give value to doctrinal claims. ontological dualism. Many Advaita exponents Traditions such as Christianity, Islam and respond to dualistic traditions like Christianity, Judaism are represented as doctrine-based and I ! Islam and Hindu bhakti traditions with a m.ore congenial to, dialogical engagement. condescending elitism. Dualisitc traditions, on While mystical experience has been a part of the the other hand, equating Sankara with later wider Hindu tradition, it was not always exponents, dismiss Advaita' as a Godless championed at the expense of the life of the illusionism. Advaita needs to take more intellect and reason. The prominence that is seriously questions about the value of the world given in contemporary exposition to mystical and the nature of God presented by monotheistic experience is connected to the reinterpretation of traditions. the authority of scripture and the consequent In the specific case of Christianity, Advaita ~9-ecline in the significance of scriptural exegesis. practitioners, like most Hindus, associate the The consequence, in my view, is a weakening of tradition with Biblical fundamentalism, sin, and scholarship in Advaita and a lack of interest in faith in Jesus as an exclusive savior. The rich engagement with other traditions. It is not intellectual tradition of philosophical theology possible here to trace the historical roots of this exemplified in the works of such figures as process of reinterpretation, and I have done this Thomas Aquinas, _Saint Augustine, Anselm, elsewhere. 13 There are new and interested

I http://digitalcommons.butler.edu/jhcs/vol22/iss1/6 4 I DOI: 10.7825/2164-6279.1433 -~ Rambachan: Rethinking Advaita: Who is Eligible to Read Advaita Texts? 12 Anantanand Rambachan

partners for Advaita today, but the tradition must within it Matarisvan places the waters. welcome them and take their traditions and critiques seriously. New Advaita conversation It moves - yet it does not move partners must not be consigned to engagement It is far away - yet it is near at hand! only with Advaita texts. It is within this whole world - yet Others will comment with much greater It is also outside this whole world. 16 competency on Thatamanil's reading of Tillich. I welcome his careful explication of Sankara and, "Sitting down," says Katha Upanisad (2.21), "he in particular, his appreciation for the centrality roams far. Lying down, he goes everywhere." of scripture to Sankara's epistemology. Ashe There is a clear concern in the Upan{sads to states it so well, "Sankara rejects the possibility establish that brahman can be related to the of epistemologically extraordinary experience of world while at the same time not limited by such the sort that modem thinkers typically categorize relations. 17 Texts like these may well reveal as mystical. For Sankara scripture is the only Thatamanil's work to be less of a graft and more valid source of liberating knowledge." 14 I am in the nature of a faithful, but different reading challenged by Thatamanil's invitation to think of of sruti. brahman as ontological creativity rather than as Although particular characterizations of immutable and absolute "substance." One of the brahman may be more faithful to the sruti and intriguing possibilities of such an understanding more helpful for understanding brahman's is the affIrmation of human agency that is no nature, it is important to acknowledge, in longer consigned to the realm of the unreaL Advaita, that all words and characterizations, Action is not only a characteristic of that which including ontological creativity, fall short and do is other than brahman. ''What can and must be not reveal the intrinsic nature of brahman. preserved from Sankara's theological Brahman, as the Taittiriya Upani.sad (2.9.1) anthropology is rich portrait of liberated persons reminds us, is "that from which all words tum as established in the knowledge of Brahman; a back, together with the mind." The content of knowledge that liberates persons from the self­ liberating knowledge is the identity between the serving compulsions of conventional life. atman and the limitless brahman and brahman Typically such persons embrace a life of as the single ontological reality, non-different renunciation, but it is also possible that such from the essential nature of everything. This is persons can engage in spontaneous and not the same as knowing the intrinsic nature of compassionate action on behalf of the world's brahman which eludes all defmitions. Its well being.,,15 intrinsic nature can only be pointed to by Is there justification in the sruti pram ana for denying the validity of all descriptions as in the understanding brahman as ontological activity Brhadarnanyaka Upanisad (2.3.6) text, neti neti rather than immutable substance? Thatamanil (not this, not this). To know brahman, in this does not pursue this question in his fme study, sense, is to know it as transcending all but its investigation would make for fascinating descriptions. This is a point on which all readers comparative work. There are several Upani.sad can agree. texts that describe brahman as active, while This insight about the limits of all fmite characterizing this activity as non-pareiL It is language and symbols in the Upanisads is an activity without ontological change or loss. Isa excellent reason why Advaitins must be Upanisad (4-5), for example, describes the attentive to multiple readings and ways of activity of brahman in a series of paradoxes: understanding the nature of brahman and the brahman-world relationship. Although Although not moving, the one is swifter than acknowledging the wisdom and salvific the mind; effectiveness of traditional readings and our the gods cannot catch it, as it speeds on in need to be always 'grounded in these, such front. readings must not become idols and claim Standing, it outpaces those who run; exemption from scrutiny and questioning. We must be grateful to so-called outsiders whose

Published by Digital Commons @ Butler University, 2009 5 rr Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies, Vol. 22 [2009], Art. 6 Rethinking Advaita: Who is Eligible to Read Advaita Texts 13

questions enrich our understanding by helping to see more clearly the assumptions underlying our particular claims and the possibilities inherent in alternative ways of seeing and comprehending.

Notes 1 I am grateful to Bradley MaIkovsky and my two anonymous readers for their helpful comments and questions. 2 The Advaita Worldview: God, World and Humanity (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2007). 3 Paul Hacker and Sengaku Mayeda have made important contributions to this task. 4 I do appreciate the complexity of defIning insiders and outsiders, especially in the context of the diversity of Advaita and the contending meanings of non-duality. This requires further reflection. For the purposes of this essay, I understand insider to be someone committed to the truth of non-duality and who identifIes with a non-dual teacher or tradition. 5 I have articlulated Sapkara's arguments for the . Vedas as the authoritative source for our knowledge of brahman in Accomplishing the Accomplished: The Vedas as a Valid Source ofKnowledge in Sankara (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1994). 6 Vedantsara ofSadananda, trans. Swami Nikhilananda (Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1968), verse 3. 7 Ibid., verse 5. 8 Swami Gambhirananda, trans., Brahmasutra Bhasya ofSankaracarya (Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1986), 1.3.38. Hereafter abbreviated BSBh. 9 See Vedanta Paribha$a, trans., Swami Madhavananda (Howrah: The Ramakrishna Mission,1972),p.5. 10 For my epistemological arguments see The Advaita Worldview, Chapter 2. 11 I have explored some of the reasons for this anti­ intellectual stand in The Limits ofScripture: Vivekananda's Reinterpretation ofthe Vedas (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press,1994). 12 Thatamanillabors to correct this representation. See The Immanent Divine, pp.60-66. 13 See The Limits ofScripture. 14 The Immanent Divine, p. 6l. 15 Ibid., p.20l. 16 Upan~sads, trans. Patrick Olivelle (New Y ork:Oxford University Press, 1996). 17 See, The Advaita Worldview, pp.86-9l.

http://digitalcommons.butler.edu/jhcs/vol22/iss1/6 6 DOI: 10.7825/2164-6279.1433