3. The Text and Avidya How can the identity between Brahman and Atman be known? It is through the Upanisadic texts. This chapter deals with Sankara’s making of the text, i.e. the Upanisads, with which the role of avidya is examined in its methodological usage. Indian orthodox system, especially the Advaita Vedanta, cannot be studied precisely unless the textual foundation is elucidated in the light of “revelation”. In the case of Sankara it is an inevitable task to place the Upanisads to be authoritative since the Upanisadic texts are always his exegetic basis for which he makes much effort to establish as the textual authority. For the sake of this, Sankara employs the logic of avidya that is nothing but the methodological usage in the process of the making of the text. The first section asks the origin of the term “Upanisad” and its special implication in Sankara’s philosophy under the title of The Implication of the Text. The authorless character of the Upanisadic texts requires itself to prove the authority in its internal structure, and therefore the texts are to be considered self-valid truth. However, when Sankara admits the neutral position of the text, a certain external device should be adopted to support the chosen text, or the Upanisads. The second section. Intervention of Avidyd, is connected with that device, viz. the method of avidyd. So far as Sankara’s main opponents are MJmdmsakas, he has to devaluate their texts by means of avidyd. This intervention of avidyd is in fact the backing of the text from outside the text, and it works together with the logic of jndna or vidyd by which the text is backed from inside the text. The logic of Jndna for the textual authority is a main topic of the third section, Jnana, Avidyd, and the Text, and the distinction between pramdna and pramd is also made there in order to make out the position of the text in Sankara. 1. The Implication of the Text One of the most unique features of Indian Philosophy is the postulation of verbal testimony {sabdaY as a valid means of knowledge (pramdna). Except Cdrvdkas, Buddhists and Vaisesikas almost all philosophical systems accept sabda-pramdna for the independent source of knowledge nonetheless their different numbers of pramdna.^ However, it can be said that the verbal testimony of Mlmdmsakas and Veddntins *The word sabda actually means a “ sound” , but as a pramdna it means “words”, which stand for “testimony” . Sabda-pramdna is therefore scriptures in general and the Vedas in particular. ^Perception, inference and authority are common to them. The Nyaya further takes analogy, and Prabhakara school of the M im am sa presumption as pramdna. Bhatta school of the M imamsa and the Advaita Vedanta recognize six pramdnas, viz. perception (pratyaksa), inference (anumdna), authority {sabda), analogy (upamdna), presumption (arthdpatti), and negation (abhdva) or non-apprehension (anupalabdhi). 71 has a special position compared to other pramanas, since their systems are closely adhered to the Vedas. The Mimarnsa and the Advaita Vedanta subscribe to the intrinsic validity of cognitions, and eternity of words, i.e. the Vedas that is not composed by one human being {apauruseyata). Furthermore, both systems believe that such supersensual things as dharma and Brahman are revealed only through the Vedas respectively. However, it is on these two different emphases, dharma and Brahman, that the gulf between two systems originates from two parts of the Vedas. While the Mimarnsa secures the superiority of karma-kdnda of the Vedas over jndna-kdnda, the Vedanta systems secure jfidna-kdnda over karma- kdnda. The jndna-kdnda, i.e. the Upanisads, is for Advaitins the ultimate source of valid knowledge, and especially for Sankara it is not merely the basis or ground from which his philosophical exegeses are started but also the authority by which his interpretations are supported. In order to know what is implied in the texts or the Upanisads, we will begin to discuss the meaning and implication of the word ‘‘'Upanisad" elucidated by Sankara. It is an obvious fact that Sankara is well acquainted with the Upanisadic literatures. According to Paul Deussen’s examination, quotations of the Upanisads in BSB are incomparably frequent than those of other Vedic and non-Vedic scriptures.^ It is again confirmed in the case of the Upadesa-sdhasrl through Sengaku Mayeda’s investigation, according to which quotations of the Upanisads are the Cf. Paul Deussen, The System of the Vedanta, pp. 29-35. 72 main current. The fact that a little quotation of the literatures preceding and following the Upanisads presents Sankara’s constructive interest in the Upanisadic texts. Though the Upanisads, the Bhagavadgltd and the Brahmasutra consist of the three basic texts (prasthdnatrayi) of the Vedanta systems, the Upanisads are in the real sense the most basic texts because of their special position and role. Sankara never says that he creates an entirely novel doctrine, and accordingly, it is an obvious fact that he simply exposes the Vedantic views that are already established in the Upanisads. Without reference to the problem of whether Sankara was a traditional follower of the Upanisads or a new systematic formulator, it is easy to find out how much weight Sankara has given to the Upanisadic texts throughout all his commentaries and independent work as well. Generally the word Upanisad is known as the combination of the terms, i.e., upa (near), ni (down), and sad (sit), and thus, it means, “sit down near (some one)”. In the commentary on the Katha Upanisad it is said that the word Upanisad is derived by adding upa (near) and ni (with certainty) as prefixes and kvip^ as a suffix to the root sad, meaning to split up (destroy), go (reach, attain), or loosen.® As a consequence the “*Cf. Sengaku Mayeda, “The Authenticity of the Upadesasahasrl ascribed to Sankara” , Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 85. 2. p. 188. Mayeda specially takes notice of the most frequent quotations of two Upanisads, Brhadaranyaka and Chandogya, in B S B and US, from which he identifies the author of U S with that of B S B . ^Kvip means krt affix zero, added to the roots sad, su, dvis, and others with a preceding word as upapada or with a prefix or sometimes even without any word ••• cf. K. V. Abhyankar, A Dictionary of Sanskrit Grammar, p. 135. ‘Cf. K a B 1.1.intro., p. 2, lines 8-9; Gambhira, p. 99: saderdhatorvisarana- gatyavasadandrthasyopanipurvasya kvippratyaydntasya rupamupanisaditi. see USII 1.26, p. 156; Mayeda, p. 105: saderupanipQrvasya kvipi copanisadbhavet, mandlkaranabhdvdcca garbhddeh sdtandttathd-, “And the word "Upanisad' may be 73 word is analyzed as; (1) It (viz. knowledge) “splits up”, “injures”, or “destroys” the seeds of worldly existence such as ignorance etc., ••• (2) it makes the seekers after emancipation, who are possessed of the qualities already mentioned, “attain” the supreme Brahman, (3) it “weakens” or “loosens” such multitude of miseries as living in the womb, birth, old age, etc., P f Similar expressions are clearly turned up in Sankara’s commentary on the Mundaka Upanisad: This is called an Upanisad, because it mitigates (nisdtayati) such numerous evils as birth in a womb, old age, disease, etc., for those who approach this knowledge of Brahman with loving eagerness that is preceded by faith and devotion; or it is called so, since it leads to the supreme Brahman, and completely weakens or destroys (avasddayati) the ignorance etc. that are the causes of the world; for traditionally, the meaning of the root sad, preceded by upa and ni, is shown to be so.^ Therefore, the word Upanisad denotes the disciple’s sitting down near derived from the verbal root ‘sad' preceded by the prefix ‘upa-' and 'ni-' and followed by the suffix 'kvip', since it diminishes and destroys birth and the like.” ; Also, see BrB 1.1.intro., p. 2, line 29: upanipurvasya sadestadarthatvdt. And also, BrB 2.1.20, p. 286, lines 13-14: ••• upanisadupa samipam nigamayati ■■■. Here, upa means takes one near to Brahman. ^KaB 1.1.intro., pp. 2-4; Gambhira, pp. 99-100: (1) tesdmavidyddeh sam- sdrr’Ajasya visarandddhimsanddvindsanddityanendrthayogena vidyopanisadityu- cyate. (2) piirvoktavisesandnmumuksunvd param brahma gamayatlti brahmagama- yitrtvena yogddbrahmavidyopanisat. (3) ••• garbhavdsajanmajarddyupadravavrn- dasya pravrttasydvasddayitrtvena saithilydpddanena apyupanisadityucyate. *M uB 1.1.intro., p. 4, lines 2-5; Gambhira, p. 75: ya imam brahmavidyd- mupayantydtmabhdvena sraddhdbhaktipurahsardh santastesdm garbhajanmajardro- gddyanarthapugam nisdtayati param vd brahma gamayatyavidydsamsdrakdranam cdtyantamavasddayati vindsayatityupanisat. upanipurvasya saderevamarthasma- randt. 74 his teacher for the purpose of receiving the knowledge of Brahman by which he can loosen miseries and evils, and destroy ignorance completely, and finally attain the supreme Brahman. In this regard, it is the knowledge of Brahman that makes such three kinds of results. Sankara says that this knowledge of Brahman is called Upanisad, and yet books are also called Upanisads as they have the same end in view.^ Therefore, it can be said that with regard to knowledge the word Upanisad is used in its primary sense; while with regard to a book it is used in a secondary sense.Sankara further proves, for the denotation of the word Upanisad, the more significance of the “knowledge of Brahman” than the “books” in the light of the higher and the lower knowledge. Sankara holds the view that: What is primarily meant in this context by the term ‘higher knowledge’, is that knowledge of the Imperishable {aksara) which is imparted only by the Upanisads (i.e. revealed knowledge), and not merely the assemblage of words found in the (books called) Upanisads. The higher knowledge is immediate knowledge of the reality to be known from the Upanisads, and it is in this sense that the term “higher knowledge” is used primarily.