Abstract
The first chapter is devoted to general appraisal on the text and includes a discussion on all the paraphernalia essential for a research, including nature, scope, methodology, and hypothesis, followed by a concise summary of the entire work. The chapter makes a textual analysis of the title Vivekacūḍāmaṇi and undertakes a brief study of the text, which puts an end to the popular criticisms against the text regarding its authorship, context, caste-bias, and originality. Having studied the important categories in the text, the chapter gives a brief summary of the text and draws its thematic outline. In the end, the chapter summarised the entire thesis in a few words, and the present chapter becomes a fitting prelude to what follows.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Ko nāma bandhaḥ kathameṣa āgataḥ kathaṁ pratiṣṭḥā’sya kathaṁ vimoksaḥ; ko’asau anātmā paramaḥ ka ātmā tayorvivekaḥ katham etad ucyatām.—VC: 49.
- 2.
The word pre-Śaṅkara covers an immensely vast period, from the earliest times of the Ṛgveda to the eighth-century AD, which is generally accepted date of Śaṅkara. In common parlance, Advaita owes its resurgence to Śaṅkara due to his commentaries on the Prasthānatraya among which Brahmasūtrabhāṣya is the most noteworthy contributions. Nevertheless, Advaita per se did not originate with the composition of Brahmasūtra or Śaṅkara-Bhāṣya on it. Bādarāyaṇa alludes to teachers such as Ᾱśmarathya, Auḍulomi and Kāśakṛtsna, while Śaṅkara consistently reveres the tradition in his important works. The concept of an Absolute Brahman, reigning supreme over the world of sentient and insentient creatures, seems in all evidence to have been first propounded by Yājñavalkya, and to him therefore would go the credit of being the first exponent of Advaita. Similarly, the concept of māyā, like that of Brahman can be traced back to the Ṛgveda, where reference has been made to the Supreme Being appearing in multiple forms through māyā. Advaita had a long tradition in the sphere of philosophical deliberation in India. Consequently, it is found that, apart from the three teachers mentioned above, many others, such as Ᾱtreya, Bādari, Jaimini, Kārṣṇājini, Upavarṣa, Bhatṛprapañca, Dravidācārya, Taṅka, Kāśakṛtsna, Aṣṭāvakra, Ᾱdiśeṣa, Dattātreya, Sanatsujātīya, Śukrācārya, and Vālmīki are referred to by both Bādarāyaṇa and Śaṅkara. Gauḍapāda was the most important pre-Śaṅkara Advaitin, who systematized the philosophy of Advaita through his treatise, Māṇḍūkya-Kārikā and proposed the doctrines of ajātivāda, and asparśayoga. Gauḍapāda in his works clearly foreshadows the celebrated māyā doctrine of Śaṅkara, when he quotes the text, which says “there is no plurality here. Indra, through the power of illusion is born variously”. According to him, Reality as such is one unique. If the bondage is non-existent from the ultimate point of view, then Brahman is never born. Thus, he proposed the concept of ajātivāda. His student Govinda, whom Śaṅkara refers in Vivekacūḍāmaṇi in the words, “Govindam paramānandaṁ sadguruṁ praṇato’asmyaham”, said to have revealed the advaita doctrines of Gauḍpāda to Śaṅkara (Sahasrabudhe 1968, 1; Roodurmun 2002, 9–21; Sharma 2009, 239–242, 248).
- 3.
Śrī Śaṅkarācārya of Kaladi (Kerala, 788–820 AD) was the most systematic expounder of the philosophy of non-dualism, popularly known as (Śaṅkara) Advaita Vedānta. Śaṅkara Advaita Vedānta points out to Śaṅkara’s contribution traceable in his voluminous works that was responsible for the division of history of Advaita into pre-Śaṅkara Advaita and post-Śaṅkara Advaita. Though the systematization of Advaita, philosophy was begun much earlier by Gauḍapāda, Śaṅkara’s commentaries on three genre of literature, namely the major Upaniṣads, the Bhagavad-Gītā and the Brahmasūtras became the magnus opus of Advaitic literature. Śaṅkara also wrote a number of independent works, among which Upadeśasāhasrī and Vivekacūḍāmaṇi occupy the prominent place. Despite the fact that the literary works available on the life of the author make him a legend in various ways, philosophers assign more importance to the philosophical concepts and their relevance to life than the legendary life of the thinker. (Some of the legendary works are, Śaṅkara Digvijaya: The Traditional Life of Sri Śaṅkarācārya, by Mādhavā-Vidāraṇya; Dvivedi M.N., The Imitation of Śaṅkara; Madugula I.S., The Ācārya Śaṅkara of Kāladī; Mukhyananda Swami, Sri Śaṅkarācārya Life and Philosophy; Roy S.S., and The Heritage of Śaṅkara.) All accounts unanimously state that Śaṅkara lived 32 years, though there is an unsettled opinion whether he entered into samādhi at Kāñchī or disappeared into a cave at Kedara in the Himalayas (Deussen 2003, 35). The scholars in keeping with the legendary stories claim that he was a great philosopher, mystic, missionary and founder of monasteries (Isayeva 1993, 2; Hirst 2005, 184; Cole 2004, 20, 25).
- 4.
The most prominent names in post-Śaṅkara Advaita begin from Totakācārya, the author of Śrutiśāra Samuddharana, who was the one of the foremost disciples of Śaṅkara. He was followed by Padmapāda who authored Pañcapādika, and Maṇḍana Miśra, the author of Brahmasiddhi, Sphotasiddhi, Vidhiviveka, Bhāvanāviveka, Mīmāṁsā-sūtrānukramaṇī and Vibhramaviveka. The other prominent post-Śaṅkara Advaitins are, Sureśvara, who wrote Naiṣkarmyasiddhi and Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad-bhāṣya-vārttika, Hastāmalaka (Hastāmalaka-stotra), Sarvajñātma Muni (Saṁkṣepa-śārīraka, Pañcaprakryā, Pramāṇa Lakśanam), Vācaspati Miśra (Bhāmatī, Sāṅkhyatattva Kaumudī, Tattvavaiśāradī, Tattvabindu, Nyāyakanikā, Brahmantattva Samīkśā), Prakāśātman (Pañca-pādikā-vivaraṇa), Śriharṣa (Khaṇḍana Khaṇḍa Khādhya), Ᾱnadabodha (Nyāya-makaranda, Nyāyadīpāvalī, Pramāṇamālā, Nyāyadīpikā), Citusukhācārya (Chitsukhī), Vidyāraṇya Swami (Jīvanmukti-viveka, and Vivaraṇa-prameya-sangraha), Dharmarāja Adavarīndra (Vedānta Paribhāṣā), Sadānanda Yogīndra (Vedāntasāra) and Madhusdana Saraswati (Advaitasiddhi) are the other thinkers of post Advaita Vedānta. The post-Śaṅkara school is primarily divided into Bhāmatī School, founded by Vācaspati Miśra and Vivaraṇa School, founded by Prakāśātman. (Roodurmun 2002, 29–42; Bhaskaranada 2009, 148–154).
- 5.
The Īśa, Bṛhdāraṇyaka, Chāndogya, Kena, Kaṭha, Taittirīya, Aitareya, Muṇḍaka, Māṇḍūkya and Praśna Upaniṣads (Potter 2008, 180–316).
- 6.
Yoga-Sūtra-Bhāṣya-Vivaraṇa is a commentary on Yogasūtra of Patañjali by Śaṅkara in which the non-advaitic doctrines of Patañjali are modified to suit his non-dualistic philosophy (YSV 2006).
- 7.
The Upadeśasāhasrī (A Thousand Teachings) is considered to be the most important prakaraṇa work, i.e. topical work which presents the teachings of non-dualistic Vedānta by employing careful conceptual analysis, vigourous arguments against the rival systems (US 2006).
- 8.
The Ᾱtmabodha is a short treatise, on Advaita that emphasizes the importance of Self-Knowledge for the non-dual realisation. It consists of sixty-eight verses in melodious Sanskrit, and it is attributed with the authorship of Śaṅkara (AB 1947).
- 9.
The Dṛg-Dṛśya-Viveka is a prakaraṇagrantha ascribed to Śaṅkara, the objective of which is an inquiry into the distinction of the “Seer” (Dṛg) and the “Seen” (Dṛśya) (DDV 2006).
- 10.
The Aparokṣānubhūti is a prakaraṇa text of Śaṅkara, prescribing the Vedāntic disciplines indispensable for the identification of individual self with the Supreme Self (APK 2009).
- 11.
The Pañcīkaraṇa is a small treatise on the Advaita philosophy by Śaṅkara. It is prakaraṇa work explaining the process of origination of the universe from the one Reality (Brahman) (PK 2009).
- 12.
After making a comprehensive study of these texts and taking into consideration the opinions of the many renowned scholars of Advaita, the present author considers the above-mentioned texts are of Śaṅkara, though some scholars might dispute on the authorship. (Most of these works are available in: CWS 1910.) They are available in a summary form in: Potter (2008, 119–345).
- 13.
When an abbreviation is accompanied by the “colon mark”, then the number following it indicates verse/s of the original sources. If a number follows a year without a “colon mark” after the abbreviation, then it indicates the page number of certain translated edition. All the verses on VC in this work are quoted from primary source (VC).
- 14.
The historical critical method is a series of critical procedures and techniques applied to a biblical text in order to determine the purport of the text and its meaning by examining the question of authorship, audience, and authenticity. The method studies the development of biblical writings through time (diachronic approach) as well as the text in its final form (synchronic approach). The historical critical method presumes the importance in understanding the process through which the composition took place, because the knowledge of the process of composition is useful to the exegete in understanding the imagery, symbols, stories, teachings, etc. as they were understood in their original context. Following the diachronic investigation, a synchronic approach studies the text as a complete and integral unit (For an advanced study see, Prior 1999, 19; Law 2012).
- 15.
Analytical method is defined by a set of rules that involve a clear and distinct formation of concepts, conscientious analysis of meaning, reliability, and consequence in using scientific terms and logical justification of declared statements. Analytical method in its broadest sense is a method that isolates or breaks the available raw material of study for better understanding. It is a method of separating and isolating different elements and aspects of the given concrete totality, and considering and defining these in isolation. The twofold methods used in this present study are textual analysis and conceptual analysis. In textual analysis, the linguistic phenomena, such as sentences and their formation of the text in question, are analysed and studied. Conceptual analysis consists primarily in breaking down or analyzing concepts into their constituent parts in order to gain knowledge or a better understanding of a particular philosophical issue in which the concept is involved (For details, see: Rzepa 1993, 234–236; Beaney 2014).
- 16.
Hypothetico-deductive method is popularly known as method of hypothesis, according to which the theories are to be evaluated by testing the observational predictions which follow from them as deductive consequences. It is an application of two operations: the formation of hypotheses and the deduction of consequences from them in order to arrive at beliefs which—although they are hypothetical—are well supported, through the way their deductive consequences fit in with our experiences and with our other well-supported beliefs. This method is a process of operations of raising precise questions and converting the questions into hypotheses concerning the subject matter under the study (Nola 2005, 231–258; Follesdal 1994, 233). In the present study, the hypothetico-deductive model is used as a means to arrive at certain set of beliefs as deduced consequences from certain hypothesis.
- 17.
Hermeneutics is a term derived from the Greek word “hermeneutikos”, meaning, to interpret. Hermeneutics was originally the method used for interpreting theological and legal texts. The two main features of these texts were that texts had arisen in times and circumstances that were very different from those in which the texts were applied. Secondly, it was considered important to give correct interpretation of these texts. Though originally hermeneutics was restricted to theological and legal texts, Dilthey and others improved its scope to cover the interpretation of all kinds of texts, and all manifestation of human spirits such as paintings, sculptures, social institutions, human actions and so on. Thus, Hermeneutics is defined as a theory of textual interpretation that leads to the correct interpretation of written and spoken texts, and indeed of human actions and non-verbal artefacts, such as buildings or works of art (Follesdal 1994, 233; Palmer 1969, 32).
- 18.
Critical theory is an approach to the analysis of society that seeks to offer a political evaluation of that society, and to guide political practice. This term was coined by the Frankfurt School thinker, Max Horkheimer in the 1930s and was adopted by Habermas in Knowledge and Human Interests (Habermas 1968 , 187–300). Horkheimer distinguished critical theory form what he called “traditional theory”. Traditional theory assumes that it is possible and indeed necessary, to develop methods for acquiring knowledge that are valid for all times and in all places, and indeed that are valid regardless of the subject matter studied. This entails that the subject matter of the science is same regardless of who is carrying out the inquiry, and when and where it is undertaken. Thus, it is assumed that subject matter exists independent of the scientists. Critical theory condemns the approach that ignores the thoroughgoing historical nature of perception and understanding. Human beings, even if they are scientists, do not exist in a cultural vacuum. They are informed by the values of their age, and come with preconceptions that are rooted in historical development of their science. The critical theory therefore becomes aware of those conditions of historical and cultural settings and crucially identifies the political values that infiltrate deep within the scientists thought and perception (Edgar 2006, 31–32).
- 19.
Communicative reason is the cognitive interest that human beings have in a dialogue with the text by trying to understand what the text tells the reader in a particular context. This concept is completely employed by Habermas in his book, The Theory of Communicative Action, 1984 (Edgar 2006, 23–25).
- 20.
Philosophical Hermeneutics of Gadamer “seeks to throw light on the fundamental conditions that underlie the phenomenon of understanding in all its modes, scientific and nonscientific alike, and that constitute understanding as an event over which the interpreting subject does not ultimately preside”. The question here is not what we do or what should we do, but what happens beyond our willing and doing. In Philosophical Hermeneutics, like all genuine dialogue, the hermeneutical conversation between the interpreter and the text involves equality and active reciprocity. It presupposes that both conversational partners are concerned with a common subject matter—a common question—about which they converse, for dialogue is always dialogue about something. Unlike the essentially reconstructive hermeneutics of Schleiermacher and Dilthey, which took the language of the text as a cipher for something lying behind the text (e.g., the creative personality or the world view of the author), Gadamer focuses his attention squarely on the subject matter of the text itself, that is, on what it says to successive generations of interpreters (Gadamer 2008, xi, xx).
- 21.
The process of interpretation runs from a set of general assumptions that the reader brings to the text. The particular details of the text challenge and demand the refinement of those assumptions. The refinement is the basis of another reading, and perhaps further challenges from the particulars of the text. Thus, particulars of the text would make sense in terms of an overreaching general assumption. While Dilthey presupposed that one could come to a definitive reading of the text, for Gadamer there is no pure theory from which we can look down objectively upon a text.
- 22.
The texts following Kāñci tradition have 580 verses, although certain versions of the text, such as the text from 20-volume edition of Śaṅkara’s writings published on the basis of Śṛṅgeri tradition, by Vani Vilas Press (Srirangam) (CWS 1910), the first translation by Mohini Chatterji, the commentary by Sri Chandrashekhara bharati of Śṛṅgeri, introduction and translation by John Grimes, and the commentary by Swami Chinmayananda have 581 verses (The variations in interpretations and certain terms employed in the verses make one to wonder how this could have been possible if the text had been written by the later Advaitins. It is clear that the text written by the later Śaṅkarites, belonging either of the above-mentioned tradition would maintain one single interpretation and would have been bound not to change the verses of such an authoritative text. And, the other tradition would not choose to endorse the text of the rival tradition, or might not have any right to change the verses of the text, that was produced by the opposite tradition. In such circumstances, one has a good reason to argue that this text was written prior to the origin of these traditions, and it would have been later retrieved, though we can foresee certain simple corrections in order to give completion to the text. In this regard, one should note that both the editions of the book begin and end with the same verse. With this probability, this text speaks well for Śaṅkara.) The verses from one to 18 are arranged in the same order, while the nineteenth and twenty-third verse of the Kāñci tradition consists of six quarters in the verse while the Śṛṅgeri tradition contains four quarters in the two verses in question. Depending upon the school of origin, the text has certain variations in the use of certain terms, and therefore cross-referencing from one publication to the other would not produce academically desired results. Accessing the authenticity of the tradition, as well as the academic acumen of Advaita Ashrama Publications, I have chosen VC1: Vivekacūḍāmaṇi of Śaṅkarācārya (2005). Swāmī Mādhavānanda (tr.). Kolkata: Advaita Ashrama., and VC2: Vivekacūḍāmaṇi of Śrī Śaṅkarācārya (1991). Swāmī Turīyānanda (tr.). Madras: Sri Ramakrishna Math as the primary sources for this work. Though this information would become handy to access the academic honesty of the work, for the sake of the primary teachings of Advaita, any of the translations would suffice.
- 23.
Prakaraṇa-grantha is an independent philosophical treatise that is written in a lucid style, dealing with a particular topic of Prasthānatraya (three foundational works). Prakaraṇa-grantha contains four indispensable elements (anubandha catuṣṭaya): the determination of the fitness of a student for the study of the treatise and the subject matter (adhikāri); the subject matter (viṣaya); the mutual relationship between the treatise and the subject matter (sambandha); and the object to be attained by the study (prayojana) (Grimes 1996, 235). The most important prakaraṇagranthas are Upadeśasāhasrī, Vivekacūḍāmaṇi, Ātmabodha, Aparokṣānubhūti, Pañcīkaraṇa, Vākyavṛtti, Laghu-Vākyavṛtti, Advaitānubhūti, Śatśloki, Daśaśloki, Dṛg-Dṛsya-Viveka and Maniśapañcakam (CWS: 1910, vol. 15, 16).
- 24.
Sakala-nigama-cūdā’svānta-siddhānta-guhyaṁ param idam ati-guhyaṁ darśitaṁ te may’ādya.—VC: 575.
- 25.
There are differences among the scholars about the exact date of Śaṅkara, but the commonly accepted date among the scholarly circles is 788–820 AD. While there is not much dispute about the role assumed, as the one who stemmed the tide of atheism and rejuvenated the Vedic tradition as holistic way of life, there is no consensus on the date of Śaṅkara for centuries. In contrast to the views of historians, who have settled to narrow down the extent controversy to within two centuries, it is worth noting that the traditional date upheld by most of the Śaṅkarite’s monasteries are much divergent from the critical scholarly opinion. The proponents of the Kāñcī Maṭha tradition, basing their arguments from the evidence found in Puṇya-Śloka-Mañjari, Prācīna-Śaṅkara-Vijaya and Ᾱtmabodha’s commentary called Suṣmā persisted the traditionalist view that Śaṅkara lived from 508 BC to 476 BC (Pande 2011, 41, 52; Sarasvati 1988, 108). But this underlines the necessity of taking into account both the approaches in a study tracing the roots of Advaita, as Śaṅkara is the central figure of this philosophical school and the religious tradition as well, which is popular and vibrant to this day. According to Pandey, the difference between 12 centuries in the dates is another sign of the difficulties faced when the tools of historical dating are applied to religious personalities, because biographical accounts tend to become hagiographical when faith takes center stage. This monastic chronology, which places Śaṅkara in the sixth- and fifth-century BC, hardly requires detailed refutation, because it contradicts the entire chronology of ancient India as determined by scientific history. It tends to make Śaṅkara a contemporary of Buddha whereas Śaṅkara, Kumārila and Sureśvara are clearly posterior to Dignāga, and at least Sureśvara is posterior to Dharmakīrti. According to Pandey, this chronology of Kāñcī Maṭha tradition errs by anti-dating Śaṅkara by more than a millennium. (The modern historians are of the opinion that the multiplication of Śaṅkaras and of other monastic pontiffs are only the consequence of the artificial gap created by antedated chronology. See, Pande 2011, 43). However, now it has been a settled view that Śaṅkara lived from 788 to 820 AD, argued on the basis of the evidence of a manuscript discovered by K.B. Pathak in Belgaum, which is backed by the evidences from Nilakantha Bhatta’s Śaṅkara-madāra-saurabha and Śaṅkarābhyudaya, Kṛṣṇabrahmānanda’s Śaṅkaravijaya, and Ᾱryavidyā-Sudhākara of Yajñeśvara Cimana (Pande 2011, 45). John Grimes, in his recent work, proves that there is a unanimous consensus between the modern scholarship that Śaṅkara lived between 788–820 AD (VC 2004, 6).
- 26.
- 27.
For conceptual clarifications on Advaita Vedānta see Appendix I.
- 28.
Sarva-vedānta-siddhānta-gocaraṁ tam agocaram; govindaṁ paramānandaṁ sadguruṁ praṇato’smyaham.—VC: 1.
- 29.
Śāstraṁ yuktir deśikoktiḥ pramāṇaṁ c’āntas-siddhā sv’ānubhūtiḥ pramāṇam.—VC: 474.
- 30.
Nirguṇamapi sat Brahma…saguṇam upāsanārtham upadiśyate, BSB I. 2. 4. In Advaita, the Brahman of upāsana is determinate, known as Iśvara. Iśvara is Brahman endowed with the imperfect empirical attributes for the sake of worship.
- 31.
Hitam idam upadeśam ādriyantāṁ vihita-nirasta-samasta-citta-doṣāḥ; bhava-sukha-viratāḥ praśānta-cittāḥ śruti-rasikā yatayo mumukṣavo ye—VC: 580; VC (1932, 213).
- 32.
Saṁsār’ādhvani tāpa-bhānu-Kiraṇa-prodbhūta-dāhavyathā-khinnānāṁ jala-kāṅṣayā marubhuvi bhrāntyā paribhrāmyatām; atyāsanna-sudh’āmbudhiṁ sukhakaraṁ brahm’ādvayaṁdarśayatyeṣa śaṁkara-bhārātī vijayate nirvāṇa-sandāyinī.—VC: 580.
- 33.
The early society at the time of Śaṅkara believed that it was necessary for the male Brahmins to read the scriptures. Therefore, unlike others, they were required to learn the language of gods; for better insight, see VC: 579.
- 34.
Labdhvā kathaṁcit nara-janma durlabhaṁ tatr’āpi puṁstvaṁ śruti-pāra-darśanam; yastvātma-muktau na yateta mūḍhadhīḥ sa hyātmahā svaṁ vinihanty asad-grahāt.—VC: 4.
- 35.
Itaḥ ko’nvasti mūḍhātmā yas tu svārthe pramādyati; durlabhaṁ mānuṣaṁ dehaṁ prāpya tatr’āpi pauruṣam—VC: 5. Also see, in reference to persons who can attain yogārūḍha.
- 36.
It is pertinent that while reading the text, the context and the intention behind the author for addressing to the male Brahmins need to be kept in mind. However, in understanding the text presently, these contexts lose their relevance and is applicable to the larger audiences. This point is further elaborated under the heading, “challenges and limitations”.
- 37.
Medhāvī puruṣo vidvānūhāpohavicakṣaṇaḥ; adhikāry ātma-vidyāyām ukta-lakṣaṇa-lakṣitiaḥ (An intelligent and learned man skilled in arguing in favour of the scriptures and in refuting counter-arguments against them—one who has got the above characteristics is the fit recipient of the knowledge of the Atman).—VC: 16; see also VC: 8–15.
- 38.
MāUB III. 2. 9; BSB IV. 4. 7.
- 39.
All other Vedāntic traditions, except Advaita follow vaiṣnavisam and extol devotion (bhakti).
- 40.
Brahma satyaṁ jagan-mithyā evaṁ rūpo viniścayaḥ—VC: 20.
- 41.
so’ayaṁ nity’ānitya vastu-vivekaḥ samudāhṛtaḥ—VC: 20b.
- 42.
Ity’ācāryasya śiṣyasya saṁvāden’ātma-lakṣaṇam; nirūpitaṁ mumukṣūṇāṁ sukha-bodh’opapattaye.—VC: 578.
- 43.
Buddhir vinaṣtāgalitā pravṛttiḥ brahm’ātmanor ekatay’ādhigatyā; idaṁ na jāne’apy’ anidaṁ na jāne kim vā kiyad vā sukham asty’ apāram.—VC: 481.
- 44.
The dialogue between the guru and śiṣya in VC begins upon the surrender of the śiṣya, who beseeches the guru in the words: “…save me, fallen as I am into this sea of birth and death, with a straight forward glance of thine eye…” (VC: 35), and “Save me from death, afflicted as I am by the unquenchable fire of this world-forest, and shaken violently by the winds of an untoward lot.” (VC: 36).
- 45.
Ko nāma bandhaḥ katham eṣa āgataḥ kathaṁ pratiṣṭḥā’sya kathaṁ vimoksaḥ;ko’asau anātmā paramaḥ ka ātmā tayor vivekaḥ katham etad ucyatām.—VC: 49.
- 46.
Madhusūdana Sarasvati (1500 AD), who is the author of Advaita Siddhi, was the first ever Advaita Master to introduce the idea of bhakti into the tradition of Advaita. The concept of bhakti had never been accessible in Advaita doctrine since Śaṅkara’s foundation of the school. The Advaita teaching of the Brahman, as the absolute and abstract principle is the most fundamental aspect of Indian philosophy. Brahman is the only reality. The history of Indian Religions comprises the notion of Brahman as the trunk, and the two doctrines of bhakti and tantrism as its branches and leaves. The bhakti tradition found in Mahābhārata, Ramāyaṇa, Purāṇa literature is different from Śaṅkara’s self-reliant meditation. In the popular bhakti tradition, there is a personified relationship between a god and bhakta, whereas in Śaṅkara god is a personified transcendent (Hino 2010, 101–102).
- 47.
As discussed earlier under the head 1. 5. 2, authors such as Michael Comans, Mayeda, A.J. Alston, D.H.H. Ingal, Nakamura, Robert E. Gussner, and Belvalkar are some of the modern scholars who have raised objections against the authorship of Śaṅkara on VC.
- 48.
In one of his articles, Francis Clooney describes VC as a “pedagogical masterpiece exclusively for male brahmins”(Clooney 2001, 73–99). Roger Marcaurelle, in his book called “Freedom through Inner Renunciation”, (Marcaurelle 2002, 5–13) has adequately documented the entire issue of male dominance in VC. The scholars seem to be making hasty conclusions without taking into consideration the existing situation of the times. Some other scholars are very quick to defend Advaita based on the meaning of the word “vipratā”, which supposed to be translated as “masculinity” or “strength of character” (VC, Grimes (tr.) 2004, 58). Nevertheless, the fact is that understanding the meaning of the word “vipratā” in no way changes the male domination that was existent during the time of Śaṅkara, to which even Śaṅkara had to adhere into. While being truthful to the historicity, one can choose to understand this problem with an open mind. To clarify this predicament further, it is important to note that the literary style and the audiences addressed play a key role in the preservation of any literature. Therefore, one cannot rule out the fact that Śaṅkara’s leniency in his writings towards the male dominated Brāhmanical and patriarchal society, was a ploy to enjoy their sympathy towards his text and philosophy. In order that it is preserved for the generations to come, he must have formulated his writing in such a way that it escapes the wrath of the dominant force of the society (For a glimpse of socio-political and religious conditions of the time: See, Victor 2008, 32–33).
- 49.
One may do well to recall that in majority of ancient religions the issue of male dominance was the central topic of concern. We witness a number of instances where sacred books, or the interpretations on them are burnt into ashes publicly due to the inclusion of any idea that does not see eye to eye with the dominant forces of the society. The authors of current age tend to be more cautious about what they think, and how they formulate them into words, and wait patiently for the appropriate moment to see the germination of their idea in the minds of the public. Despite the prevalence of dominant voice in favour of Brahmanism, Śaṅkara argues the concept of non-dualism to its logical end in his text, Maniśapañcakam (Maniśapañcakam narrates how Śaṅkara was intimidated by a śūdra by name Cāṇḍāla on the issue of discrimination. In the Maniśapañcakam Śaṅkara concedes to the claim of śūdra declares that the non-discrimination is the heart of Advaitic philosophy. For details see, MP: 2009, 1–40. If these proofs are not sufficient, Śaṅkara clearly deals with this issue in his undisputed text, US in the following words: If he (disciple) says, “I am the son of a Brāhmaṇa belonging to such and such lineage, I was a student or a householder, and am now a wondering monk anxious to cross the ocean of transmigratory existence…”, the teacher should say, “My child…your body will be eaten up…burnt to as:hes on this side of the river, you cannot cross the other side” (US: 10–11). It is obvious that the above verse is referring to the danger of clinging to the body when we examine the following verses: “Because by your statement, ‘I am the son of a Brāhmaṇa belonging to such and such lineage etc.’ you identified with the Self devoid of birth, lineage and purificatory ceremonies, the body possessed them that are different (from the Self)” (US: 14–15). Thus the above lines clarify that the liberation is devoid of birth, lineage and the purificatory ceremonies, for the individual self is already liberated. Arvind Sharma in his review to Anantanand Rambachan quotes P.V. Kane, according to whom Śaṅkara is even careful to point out (BS I. 3. 38) that the Śūdras have no adhikāra for Brahmavidyā is based on the study of śruti. Śaṅkara does not deny any way that the Śūdras have the knowledge of the self, as he refers to Vidura and Dharmavyādha who were possessed of the knowledge of Brahman due to the effects of their former lives and states that they would have attained Brahmajñāna by learning Mahābhārata and Purāṇas (Sharma 1993, 738). Yet the scholarship of present age have failed consistently to deal with such problems, and are very quick to surrender to the spurious arguments that Śaṅkara’s writings were oriented towards the Brāhmanical males. Śaṅkara’s declaration of Brahman in the following śloka as not being limited by caste, creed, family and lineage, might be a of some help to understand that he did not deliberately intend the male domination: Jāti-nīti-kula-gotra-dūragaṁ Nāma-rūpa-guṇa-doṣa-varjitam; deśa-kāla-viṣay’ātivarti yad Brahma tat tvam asi bhāvay’ātmani (“That which is beyond caste and creed, family and lineage; devoid of name and form, merit and demerit; transcending space, time and sense-objects—that Brahman art thou, meditate on this in thy mind”.—VC: 254).
- 50.
A list of select verses on which this study is predominantly focused is given in the Appendix II.
- 51.
This is a new contribution to this study. The present author coins this term in order to signify the 15 steps of meditative practice that Śaṅkara prescribed in the state of Savikalpaka Samādhi. These 15 steps, namely asaṅga-mārga, signify human effort in remaining unattached to the worldly distractions. These 15 steps are the essential tools required for traversing from Savikalpaka Samādhi to Nirvikalpaka Samādhi.
References
A. Abbreviations of Original Sources
i. Primary Sources
VC: Vivekacūḍāmaṇi of Śaṅkarācārya. 2005. Swāmī Mādhavānanda (tr.). Kolkata: Advaita Ashrama.
VC: Vivekacūḍāmaṇi of Śrī Śaṅkarācārya. 1991. Swāmī Turīyānanda (tr.). Madras: Sri Ramakrishna Math.
ii. Other Original Sources
AB: Ᾱtma-bodha of Śrī Śaṅkarācārya. 1947. Swami Nikhilānanda (tr.). Madras: Sri Ramakrishna Math.
APK: Aparokṣānubhūti of Srī Śaṅkarācārya. 2009. Swami Vimuktānanda (tr.). Kolkata: Advaita Ashrama.
BS: Brahma Sūtras According to Srī Śaṅkara. 2008. Swami Vireswarananda (tr.). Kolkata: Advaita Ashrama.
BSB: Brahma Sūtra Bhāṣya of Śaṅkarācārya. 2009. Swāmi Gambīrānanda (tr.). Kolkata: Advaita Ashrama.
ChUB: Chāndogya Upaniṣad with the Commentary of Śaṅkarācārya. 2009. Swami Gambhīrānanda (tr.). Kolkata: Advaita Ashrama.
CWS: Complete Works of Srī Śaṅkarācārya. 1910. vol. 1, 6, 8, 14. Srirangam: Sri, Vani Vilas Press.
DDV: Dṛg-Dṛśya-Viveka: An Inquiry into the Nature of the ‘Seer’ and the ‘Seen’. 2006. Swāmī Nikhilānanda (tr.). Kolkata: Advaita Ashrama.
MāUB: The Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad with Gauḍapād’s Kārikā and Śaṅkara’s Commentary. 2009. Nikhilananda Swami (tr.). Kolkata: Advaita Ashrama.
MP: Shankaracharya and an Untouchable: An Exposition of Manisha Panchakam. 2009. Swami Ranganathananda (tr. & ed.). Kolkata: Advaita Ashrama.
PK: Pañcīkaraṇam of Śrī Śaṅkarācārya. (2009). Swami Bodhasarananda (tr.). Kolkata: Advaita Ashrama.
SD: Śaṅkara Digvijaya by Madhava—Vidyaraṇya. 2009. Swami Tapasyananda (tr.). Madras: Sri Ramakrishna Math.
SSS: The Śrutisārasamuddharaṇam of Toṭakācārya. 1996. Michael Comans (tr.). Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.
The Upaniṣads: A New Translation. 2008. Swami Nikhilananda (ed.) Vol. I–IV. Kolkata: Advaita Ashrama.
US: A Thousand Teachings: The Upadeśasāhasrī of Śaṅkara. 2006. Sengaku Mayeda (tr. and ed.). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.
US: Upadeśa Sāhasrī of Sri Śaṅkarācārya. 2006. Swami Jagadānanda (tr.). Madras: Sri Ramakrishna Math.
VC: The Crest Jewel of Wisdom (Viveka-Cudamani). 1997. A.J. Alston (tr.). London: Shanit Sadan.
VC: The Vivekacūḍāmaṇi of Śaṅkarācārya Bhagavatpāda; An Introduction and Translation by John Grimes. 2004. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.
VC: Vivekacūḍāmaṇi or Crest-Jewel of Wisdom of Śrī Śaṁkarācārya. 1932. Mohini M. Chatterji (tr.). Madras: The Theosophical Publishing House.
YSV: Śaṅkara on the Yoga Sūtras: A Full Translation of the Newly Discovered Text. 2006. Trevor Leggett (tr.). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.
B. Other References
Beaney, Michael. 2014. Analysis. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analysis/.
Bhaskaranada, Swami. 2009. Journey from Many to One: Essentials of Advaita Vedānta. Chennai: Sri Ramakrishna Math.
Clooney, Francis X. 2001. To be Heard and Done, But Never Quite Seen. In The Human Condition, ed. Robert C. Neville, 73–99. New York: Suny Press.
Cole, Colin A. 2004. Asparśa-Yoga. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers P. Ltd.
Comans, Michael. 2000. The Method of Early Vedanta; A Study of Gauḍapāda, Śaṅkara, Sureśvara and Padmapāda. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited.
Deussen, Paul. 2003. The System of the Vedānta. Delhi: Low Price Publications.
Dvivedi, M.N. 1988. The Imitation of Śaṅkara. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications.
Edgar, Andrew. 2006. Habermas: The Key Concepts. New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
Follesdal, Dagfinn. 1994. Hermeneutics and the Hypothetico-Deductive Method. In Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, ed. Michael Martin and Lee C. McIntyre, 233–246. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Forsthoefel, Thomas A. 2002. Retrieving the Vivekacūḍāmaṇi: The Poles of Religious Knowing. Philosophy East & West 52 (3): 311–325.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 2008. Philosophical Hermeneutics, ed. David E. Linge. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Grimes, John. 1996. A Conscise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Gussner, Robert E. 1977. Śaṅkara’s Crest Jewel of Discrimination: A Stylometric Approach to the Question of Authorship. Journal of Indian Philosophy 4 (3–4): 265–278.
Habermas, Jurgen. 1968. Knowledge and Human Interests. Boston: Beacon Press.
Hino, Shoun. 2010. The Beginnings of Bhakti’s Influence on Advaita Doctrine: The Teachings of Madhusūdana Sarasvatī. In Indian Philosophy and Text Science, ed. Toshihiro Wada, 101–114. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.
Hirst, J.G. Suthren. 2005. Śaṅkara’s Advaita Vedanta. New York: Routledge Curzon.
Ingalls, Daniel H.H. 1953. The Study of Śaṅkarācārya. In Annals of the Bhandarkar Orientals Research Institute, XXXIII, ed. Karmarkar and R.N. Dandekar, 12–32. Pune: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.
Isayeva, Natalia. 1993. Shankara and Indian Philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Law, David R. 2012. The Historical-Critical Method: A Guide for the Perplexed. New York: Bloomsbury T & T Clark.
Madugula, I.S. 2006. The Ᾱcārya Śaṅkara of Kāladī. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.
Mayeda, S. 1965. The Authenticity of the Upadesa Sahasri. JAOS. 2: 178–196.
Mayeda, S. 1966. Śaṅkara’s Upadeśasāhasrī: Its Present Form. Journal of the Oriental Institute XV (3–4): 252.
Marcaurelle, Roger. 2002. Freedom Through Inner Renunciation: Śaṅkara’s Philosophy in a New Light. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications.
Nakamura, Hajime. 1983. A History of Early Vedanta Philosophy. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Press.
Nola, Robert, and Gurol Irzik. 2005. Philosophy, Science, Education and Culture. Dordrecht: Springer.
Palmer, R.E. 1969. Hermeneutics: Interpretation Theory in Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger and Gadamer. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Pande, Govind Chandra. 2011. Life and Thought of Śaṅkarācārya. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.
Potter, Karl H. 2008. Advaita Vedānta up to Śaṃkara and his Pupils. In Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, vol. III. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.
Prior, Joseph G. 1999. The Historical Critical Method in Catholic Exegesis. Rome: Gregorian University Press.
Rambachan, Anantanand. 1991. Accomplishing the Accomplished: The Vedas as a Source of Valid Knowledge in Śaṅkara. Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press.
Roodurmun, Pulasth Soobah. 2002. Bhāmatī and Vivaraṇa Schools of Advaita Vedānta: A Critical Approach. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.
Rzepa, Teresa, and Ryszard Stachowski. 1993. Roots of the Methodology of Polish Psychology. In Polish Scientific Philosophy: The Lvov-Warsaw School, Francesco Coniglione and others, Amsterdam: Rodopi Editions B.V., 233–250.
Sahasrabudhe, M.T. 1968. A Survey of the Pre-Śaṅkara Advaita Vedānta. Poona: University of Poona.
Sarasvati, Sri Chandrasekharendra. 1988. Adi Śaṅkara-His Life and Times. Bombay.
Sharma, Arvind. 1993. Accomplishing the Accomplished: The Vedas as a Source of Valid Knowledge in Śaṅkara by Anantanand Rambachan. Philosophy East and West 43 (4): 737–744.
Sharma, Chandradhar. 2009. A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.
Victor, P. George. 2008. Life and Teachings of Ᾱdi Śaṅkarācārya. New Delhi: D. K. Printworld (P) Ltd.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Menezes, W. (2017). A Prolegomenon on the Vivekacūḍāmaṇi. In: Exploring Ātman from the Perspective of the Vivekacūḍāmaṇi. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62761-8_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62761-8_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-62760-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-62761-8
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)