SYMPTOMS OF WITHDRAWAL: THE THREEFOLD STRUCTURE OF HEGEL’S AND SCHOPENHAUER’S INTERPRETATION OF HINDU RELIGION AND PHILOSOPHY DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Sai Prakash Bhatawadekar, M.A. * * * * * The Ohio State University 2007 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Nina Berman, Advisor _______________________________ Professor Thomas Kasulis, Advisor Advisor Professor John Davidson _______________________________ Advisor Graduate Program in Germanic Languages and Literatures Copyright by Sai Prakash Bhatawadekar 2007 ABSTRACT German Romanticism and its enthusiasm about India produced significant research, translations, and comparative analyses of ancient Indian literary, religious, and philosophical texts. Among the German philosophers, who interpreted and commented upon this material, this dissertation investigates G. W. F. Hegel’s and Arthur Schopenhauer’s interpretation and structuring of Hindu religion and philosophy. The analysis of their interpretations reveals that Hegel and Schopenhauer imposed a threefold conceptual structure, within which they approached, interpreted, and presented Hindu religion and philosophy. Hegel and Schopenhauer identified and isolated three aspects as fundamental and defining concepts of Hindu religion and philosophy: 1. the metaphysical universal principle, 2. the world and its particular entities, and 3. the non-duality of the particular with the universal principle. They both argued that Hindu religious thought contemplates upon the concept of brahman as the singular sustaining universal principle, considers the world and its particular entities as illusory, temporary, and secondary, and ii recommends complete withdrawal into the non-duality with brahman as the religio- philosophical goal. This dissertation further demonstrates that the threefold structure is inherently connected and directly derives from Hegel’s and Schopenhauer’s own philosophies. This threefold structure is a result of their attempt to incorporate, place, and fit Hindu religion and philosophy within the presuppositions of their systems. Hegel analyzed Hindu religious thought in terms of his own triadic dialectical structure and criticized it as primitive and unsophisticated, belonging to the early stages of Spirit’s development. Schopenhauer attempted to establish kinship with it by seeking analogous explanations in Hindu religion and philosophy for his overarching rubric of representation, will, and denial of will. Upon comparing their interpretation with the information given in their own sources, this analysis ascertains that Hegel and Schopenhauer imposed the threefold conceptual structure by selectively reading their sources, restructuring schools of Indian philosophy, isolating and recontextualizing Hindu quotes and explanations, and reconfiguring the connotations and meanings of concepts. This dissertation further exposes the discrepancies and conceptual tensions in their interpretations of Hindu religion and philosophy that potentially challenge the consistency of their own systems. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my advisors Prof. Nina Berman and Prof. Thomas Kasulis for their faith and enthusiasm for this project, their patience, encouragement, and support in difficult times, and for the hours of lively discussions on Spirit, will, and brahman. I would also like to thank Peter Kraemer, Audra Starcheus, and Stafford Noble for helping me edit this document. I must thank all my friends and my students who brighten my days. Finally I am grateful for my loving family and close friends for their unconditional support and brilliant sense of humor. iv VITA June 1994…………………………...B.A. Germanistik Fergusson College, University of Poona Pune, India Spring 1999…………………………M. A. Germanic Languages and Literatures The Ohio State University Autumn 1998- Spring 2001…………Graduate Teaching Associate Taught German at The Ohio State University Autumn 2001- present………………Graduate Teaching Associate Developed and taught Hindi language and culture program at The Ohio State University PUBLICATIONS “Reconfiguring India: Inconsistencies in Schopenhauer’s Referencing of India.” 18th Annual Edward F. Hayes Research Forum Proceedings. Ed. Michael W. Daniels. Vol. 4. Columbus: The Ohio State University, 2004. 213-21 “Femme Fatale and Fallen Teacher: The Images of the Self in Der Blaue Engel (Germany) and Pinjra (India).” The Images of Twentieth Century in Literature, Media and Society. Ed. Will Wright and Steven Kaplan. Pueblo: University of Southern Colorado, 2000. 339-45. FIELD OF STUDY Germanic Languages and Literatures. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract…………………………………………………………………………..ii Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………iv Vita……………………………………………………………………………….v. Introduction………………………………………………………………………1 Chapter 1 Hegel’s interpretation of Hindu Religion and Philosophy……….………18 Section 1 Overview of Hegel Scholarship Classification and Appraisal of Scholarship My Contribution to the Scholarship………………………………………21 Section 2 Precepts of Hegel’s Philosophy…………………………………………..66 Section 3 Threefold Structure: Hegel’s Understanding and Use of Hindu Religious Thought………………………………………………84 Section 4 Selective Reading, Restructuring, and the Resulting Discrepancies…......140 vi Chapter 2 Schopenhauer’s Interpretation of Hindu Religion and Philosophy………160 Section 1 Overview of Schopenhauer Scholarship Classification and Appraisal of Scholarship My Contribution to the Scholarship………………………………………163 Section 2 Precepts of Schopenhauer’s Philosophy………………………...………..205 Section 3 Threefold Structure: Schopenhauer’s Understanding and Use of Hindu Religious Thought………………………...……………………227 Section 4 Selective Reading, Recontextualizing and the Resulting Discrepancies…294 Conclusion…………………………………………………………...…………...334 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………...341 vii INTRODUCTION G. W. F. Hegel and Arthur Schopenhauer established extraordinary but very different philosophies. Hegel introduced a remarkable idealism, which argued for a teleological dialectic development of the “Geist’s” self-cognition that claimed to necessitate and account for the entire history of human civilization. To put it more simply, Hegel argued that the history of human civilization embodied the Spirit’s dialectical development. Schopenhauer, launching an open attack on the “Unsinn der Hegelei,” declared that history was inconsequential to philosophy.1 Schopenhauer, instead, presented a bleak vision of our “miserable” universe driven by the unstoppable force of “Wille.” Schopenhauer argued that the world we experience is not what it seems; it is only “Vorstellung” – representation and it is perpetuated by will, which is the essence of everything.2 1 Arthur Schopenhauer, Zürcher Ausgabe: Werke in Zehn Bänden, ed. Arthur Hübscher and Angelika Hübscher, vol. 1 (Zürich: Diogenes, 1977) 21. Schopenhauer’s work Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung I occupies the Band 1 and 2 of the Zürcher Ausgabe with continuous page numbers; correspondingly Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung II occupies Band 3 and 4 with continuous page numbers. Henceforth I will refer to this specific work as Welt als Wille und Vorstellung I or II. 2 Throughout this document the philosophical concepts, such as Spirit, representation, will, thing-in- itself, brahman,and māyā are italicized to specify them as philosophical concepts. According to the 1 Hegel’s and Schopenhauer’s philosophies both used Hindu religion and philosophy in their thought. Given the statements expressed in their own philosophies, their respective evaluations of India were very different. Hegel’s interpretation of India was marked by negative assessment. India occupied only a small, albeit important, part of Hegel’s complex and comprehensive philosophical system. More importantly, Hegel did not have a high opinion of India: he argued that India had no concept of history, that Indian social and political structures displayed no concept of individual freedom, and that India did not produce evolved religious or philosophical concepts of metaphysics or of ethics and morality. Hegel strongly criticized Romanticism for its glorification of Indian wisdom. For him India was but a “childhood” stage in the development and self-realization of the Spirit; the Indian mind was primitive, savage, amoral, and unfree. For Hegel there was no point for the enlightened European to go back to the East. In contrast with Hegel, no other Western philosopher of his era is as well known as Schopenhauer for his enthusiasm and admiration for Eastern philosophy.3 Schopenhauer greatly admired Indian thought, both Hindu and Buddhist religions and philosophies, and argued that his own philosophy had much in common with them. Unlike the case of Hegel, Hindu religion and philosophy permeated MLA style handbook the names of Eastern scriptures, such as the Upanisads, the Bhagavadgītā, and the Vedas are not underlined. These scriptures are not specific publications, therefore they cannot be underlined, and they are not philosophical concepts, so they have not been italicized. 3 His admiration was not only philosophical in nature but also personal: his dog’s name was Ātman; he acquired a statue of the Buddha, gilded it and proudly displayed it in his house. He considered the Upanisads to be the comfort for his life and the solace of his death. 2 Schopenhauer’s entire system. In his works Schopenhauer constantly commented on what he thought the commonalities