Neo- Vedanta and Modernity (An Old and Rare Book) Only 1 Quantity Available

Email

Whatsapp

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Copy link

As College students we were reared on Neo-Vedanta and the Indian brand of Neo-Kantianism. Kant was the most important philosopher of the West for us because he seemed to have stated clearly the limitations of reason, vis-a-vis the region of the transcendent. As the Indian philosophical heritage was preoccupied with the effort of delimiting the scope of rationality in the sphere of ontology, Kant was hailed as a kindred spirit. We were not to know that Kant was one of the most important turning points in the history of Western philosophy and that he in fact, was perhaps, nowhere near the thoughts the Indians ascribed to him.

A. C. Mukerji, a leading exponent of the critical philosophy of his time, was my teacher and guide. His lectures on Vedanta were extremely popular. We could not and would not entertain the thought that his rendering of the Western tradition as paralleling the quest for the 'unmediated knower' was anything but true to the facts. For him the only worthwhile question (with which he sought to inspire every generation of students) in philosophy worth meditating upon was "how to know the Self or the 'unmediated knower?"

My understanding of philosophy as a ground on which all people seized with similar concerns may meet and help each other was undermined, when I went to Geneva in 1972 for one year, to lead a seminar on Hinduism and Christianity. For the first time I was made aware of the many dimensions which go into the makeup of the West. The students were from many countries and from many denominations and all of them very well trained in theology. It was an exacting task for me to understand their problems and deal with them meaningfully. A philosophical discourse on "The One Reality' seemed out of place because the problem haunting the Graduate School at Bossey from the beginning was how to enter into a dialogue with 'the other'. I write all this because this was an occasion for me to live and work together with people of dedication, who made me feel very welcome, although my presence called into question, for many of them, much of what they stood for.

I learnt much more about the Western tradition from Prof. George P. Grant at McMaster during the years 1973-77. Whatever is right and perceptive about the West, in this book, I have gathered from him and what is partial or wrong is my own interpretation of it.

to It is a strange fact but I also came to a greater understanding of Advaita Philosophy at McMaster. I can not say enough about the dedicated work being done there by Drs. J. G. Arapura and K. Sivaraman. My understanding of the ontology of Bliss owes very much Dr. Arapura's writings on the subjects of maya and gnosis. The difficult subject of my thesis which is now being printed as a book, was made interesting and worthwhile proposition for me by Dr. K. Sivaraman. Without the many discussions we have had on the topic I would not have been able to develop the theme at all. The problem that I chose for study is, therefore, my way of acknowledging all that I had the opportunity of learning at McMaster.

I have great pleasure in recording my appreciation of the sustained encouragement extended to me by Dr. Peter George, during my absence from McMaster and also Dr. Chauncy Wood, who made it possible for me to return and defend the thesis.

I take this opportunity to acknowledge my indebtedness to my friends in Canada Ms Grace Gorden, Ms Marftha Frohlinger, Dr. Ivan Kocmarek and Wayne Barody who made this work not only possible but also enjoyable.

My grateful thanks are due to Dr. Sudhakar Malaviya who assumed the responsibility of printing the book and also Sri Rajendra Tiwari for his help in publishing it.

It is said very often that Advaita philosophy reflects the general mood of the Indian people. Even when they do not intellectually subscribe to this school of thought, they are drawn into using its terminology as most expressive of their cherished beliefs. This is so because the basis of all understanding regarding life in the world is formulated in the light of a dichotomy obtaining between what is merely pleasing (preyas) and what is good (freyas).

This separation runs through all modes of thought, such as monistic, monotheistic or dualistic. The sense of distinction between 'what is agreeable' and 'what should be preferred' pervades the ethos of India and can be recognized immediately in the mood of detachment, or withdrawal, or renunciation, which characterises it. It can be readily understood that a demand for discrimination comes with the built-in implication that one sphere is to be given up in order to appropriate the other.

The ideal of renunciation as a form of knowledge, has been thematized only in the Advaita philosophy of Samkaracarya, the well-known ascetic thinker and writer of the 8th/9th century A.D. All other schools of thought subscribe to it as a high ideal but it is not integral to their philosophy. Samkaracarya, on the other hand, has placed it in the very heart of his writings on the unity of Self (atman) with Ultimate Reality (Brahman). The sphere of the world, together with its knowing subject, the I-consciousness is, as if superimposed on this unity and needs to be 'cancelled' before Brahman as Bliss may be realised as an existential experience.

This supreme discrimination between that which is the of the not-self and that which leads toward true knowledge or self-realization, is called renunciation. It should not be misunderstood to be an act of physical withdrawal from the world, which any way, is not perhaps the best mode of denying the world. The very demand of the world to be considered real and final is called maya in Advaita philosophy; this dimension of non-reality or maya can be offset only by an equally powerful process of meta-physical cancellation, a renouncing of layers of false identification, so that the veil may be set at naught. The inspiration for this trans-natural way of understanding the human condition comes from the Upanishads which speak in the language of poetry to recall man's attention dispersed in the world in search of happiness, to focus it on the quest This is how for the very source of Bliss itself. Samkaracarya has developed his exegeses on the Upanishads and his major work the Commentary on the Vedanta-Sutra.

In neo-Vedanta, that is, contemporary interpretations of Samkaracarya's thought, we meet with a very different under-standing of 'maya' as well as of the philosophical grounding of the Texts of the Upanishads. It will not be perhaps out of place, if Samkaracarya's theory of maya is explained a little here, since, I am going to develop the idea that this very concept has undergone almost a total transformation in the writings of modern thinkers.