4. The Truth and Avidyd This chapter is focused on the question of how the identity of Brahman and Atman can be explained by Sankara. It is through the purport of the Upanisadic texts that the identity is known and interpreted consistently by him. Just as the text itself is established with the help of the logic of avidyd, the truth of the text is also properly established with the help of its logic. As all the Upanisadic texts do not provide the idea of advaita with compatibility, Sankara has to interpret them consistently by means of the purport (tdtparya) of the text, i.e. the identity of Brahman and Atman. After establishing the Upanisads as the texts, Sankara’s another step is to give complete harmony to the texts themselves for maintaining their authority. However, the ground of the two processes is one and the same since the identity of the reality paves the way for the making of the text and for the verification of the truth in the text as well. Avidyd in this chapter is again proved to be a device that supports the advaita purport for the textual harmony. Though Sankara’s expositions always seem to be mixed without a semblance of order, he never misses what he has to accept and reject, and the logic of avidya is applied to take charge of what he has to reject in the interpretation of the texts. The first section. The Purport for Textual Harmony, deals with the meaning and importance of purport or import in Sankara’s system. It is proved that the purport is the vital core of Sankara’s interpretation of the Upanisads not only for the textual harmony but also for consistent systematization of advaita theory. Though the purport of the Upanisads is well known, it is traced here again according to Sankara’s own remarks. The application of the purport is for the most part related to the theory of creation, so in the second section, Creation Theory and Avidya, the main topics of Sankara’s creation theory is discussed as an example of his application of the purport to the textual harmony. Though Sankara uses many terms for the subject of creation and prime matter of creation, there cannot be any terminological confusion as the purport is always maintained in the context. Again, while Sankara interprets different expressions of the Upanisads on the cause and the effect, he does not miss the identity of both by placing the difference under the realm of avidya. This methodological usage of avidya has bearing on the Two Viewpoints and the Truth (which consists of the third section), insofar as the scope of avidya is the relative or empirical viewpoint, and the truth or Brahman is never touched by that avidya. Together with the absolute or transcendental viewpoint, the relative viewpoint is a great force to make the texts into the harmony or reconciliation, and as a 118 result the truth is automatically revealed. 1. The Purport for Textual Harmony It has been a long debate in the modern circle of the Advaita Vedanta whether Sankara’s commentary is faithful to the real intention of Badarayana’s Brahmasutra. G. Thibaut in his introduction of the translation of BSB gives us a negative answer that the sutras do not teach what Sankara explains in BSB. The four points suggested by Thibaut are; (1) the sutras do not set forth the distinction of a higher and lower knowledge of Brahman, (2) they do not acknowledge the distinction of Brahman and Isvara, (3) they do not hold the doctrine of the unreality of the world, and (4) they do not proclaim the absolute identity of the individual and the higher Self.' These four points are so crucial to Sankara’s system, if Thibaut’s analysis be correct, then Sankara’s commentary on the Brahmasutra should be regarded as an independent interpretation different from the sutras themselves. On the other hand, V. S. Ghate insists that none of the five major commentators of the Brahmasutra, namely, Sankara, Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Madhva and Vallabha, could succeed to know the real and natural meaning of the sutras. After analyzing their com^ftentaries objectively, he makes the conclusion: “In any case the sutras are absolutely unaware of the *Cf. G. Thibaut, The Vedanta Sutras, Introduction, p. c. In the same page he says that the system of Badarayana has greater affinities with that of the Bhagavatas and Ramanuja than with that of Sankara. For the similar opinion, see M ax MuHer, The Six Systems of Indian philosophy, p. 117. 119 particular dogmas enunciated by each of the different Vedanta schools of the later tim es.The gulf between the Siitrakdra and the Bhdsyakdra (Sankara) is also pointed out by P. M. Modi who specially investigates the Brahmasutra 3.3. Modi displays many instances of Sankara’s difference from the Siitrakdra, together with his suggestion that Sankara wrongly organizes adhikarana and misinterprets the sutras in a large number of cases. Some of his instances are: (1) while the Siitrakdra holds rUpavai and arupavat Brahman, which have nothing to do with attributeless Brahman, Sankara insists saguna and nirguna Brahman, (2) while the SQtrakdra’s Brahman is laid down by vidhi (Vedic injunctions), Sankara’s Brahman is above any vidhis, (3) while the Siitrakdra emphasizes parindma or modification of Brahman (dtmakrti), Sankara the creation from Brahman that is associated with mdyd etc.^ As stated above, it is an almost undeniable fact that Sankara does not sincerely follow the system of the Siitrakdra so far as his own commentary is concerned. Then, does Sankara, at any rate, follow the Upanisadic lines of thinking in BSB instead of the BrahmasUtral As a matter of fact, the BrahmasUtra has a similar character with the Upanisads in the sense that it can be interpreted in more than one- way.'^ It is quite possible that the BrahmasUtra is in the beginning the culmination of one line of traditions (Vedic school called sdkhd, or V . S. Ghate, The Vedanta, p. 170. ^Cf. P. M . Modi, A Critique of the Brahmasutra (III.2.11-IV), Part II, pp. 364- 365. ■*Cf. V. S. Ghate, The Vedanta, p. 41. He also says that every school of the Vedanta appears to attempt to find its own system in it, shutting its eyes to all contradictory passages or more often trying to interpret them in a far-fetched manner, so as to confirm their own doctrine (pp. 47-48). 120 larger Vedic school called carana), and in the course of time, many others are complementarily appended to the original forms.^ It is also possible that Sankara does interpret the sutras for the sake of revealing or systematizing the Upanisadic teachings within the boundary of “sutra-bhdsya” tradition. In the commentaries on the Upanisads and the Upadesa-sdhasri Sankara does not directly quote the Brahmasutra, while there are innumerable quotations in BSB from all the Upanisads except the Upadesa-sdhasri. If Sankara bears the authority of the sutras themselves in mind, he should at least quote them for reference in his commentaries on the Upanisads and the Upadesa-sdhasri to some extent, although the authority of the BrahmasHtra does not match that of the Upanisads. Thus we may propose that for Sankara, the faithful interpretation on the Brahmasutra is less important than the compatibility with the Upanisadic texts in BSB. In this regard, so far as the consistency with the Upanisads is concerned, we may say that Sankara’s commentary on the Brahmasutra is probably the best which can be devised.^ Another question we have to ask is, if Sankara’s commentary on the Brahmasutra is somehow compatible with the teachings of the ^Thibaut places the Vedantasutra at the intermediate position between the Upanisads and Sankara, cf. G. Thibaut, The Vedanta Sutras, Introduction, p. cxxvii. P. Deussen first mentions the intimate connection between the Chdndogya Upanisad and the Brahmasutra (cf. P. Deussen, The System of the Vedanta, p. 31, fn. 21), and Belvalkar further insists that the present Brahmasutra is originated from Jaimini’s Sdrlrakasutra, which is postulated “Chdndogya” Brahmasutra, since Jaimini and the Chdndogya Upanisad belong to the Sdmaveda (cf. S. K. Belvalkar, Vedanta Philosophy, p. 141). For more detailed discussion of the relationship between the Chdndogya Upanisad and the Brahmasutra, see S. M. Bhatkhande, The Chdndogya Upanisad and the BrahmasHtras of Bddardyana. *Cf. G. Thibaut, The Vedanta SHtras, Introduction, p. cxxii. 121 Upanisads, then, is there a consistency in the Upanisadic texts themselves? Many scholars have a doubt that there is no such consistency in the Upanisads as Sankara intends to build up. A single idea or system cannot be deduced from the Upanisads, for they are no homogeneous products but are compilations from different sources.^ The Upanisads are taken root in different periods by different thinkers, and it is almost impossible to reduce the whole instructions of the Upanisads to a single doctrine. Furthermore, it may be added that the philosophy of the Upanisads is in the condition of origin and fluidity.^ In other words, the Upanisads are culmination of philosophical speculations, which is still in the form of a sprout, and are the chapter of various thought experiments which is still not completed as a system, although “there is material useful even for the different systems of philosophical thought”.^ However, S. Radhakrishnan alike G. Thibaut admits that Sankara’s view is representative of the classical Upanisads, though he does not ignore the divergent view of the whole Upanisads. So far as the early Upanisads are concerned, there are some fundamental and distinctive ideas or doctrines, which are finally systematized in the philosophy of ’Cf.