Hari OM
'Text-days' are for delving into the words and theory of Advaita Vedanta.
In having left off last week with a statement regarding a 'valid means of Knowledge' and pointing to Vedanta, what is to be gleaned from other schools of philosophy to ratify such an utterance?
taikRka[a< tu jIvezaE vaCyavetaE ivdubuRxa>,
lúyaE c sa'!Oyyaega_ya< vedaNtErEKyta tyae>.25.
Taarkikaanaam tu jiiveshau vaachyaavetau vidurbudhaaH,
Lakshyau cha saankhya-yogaabhyaam vedaantair-aikyataa tayoH ||25||
Wise people know that the logicians accept only the literal meanings of the individual and the Lord/Truth, the Sankhya and the Yoga the implied meanings, and the Vedantins, the identity of both.
Given we are dealing with Sanskrit literature here, it is not surprising that the schools of philosophy referred to are also within that tradition. It is worth noting that Western philosophy falls into one or other of the categories anyway, so the following does not exclude the world at large.
In India, there are six main schools of philosophy which arise from the Vedas and view them as their base reference. The Vedas, as a source, is not disputed as being 'valid'. However, as is the case of all faith structures, there come forth a variety of readings or interpretations of what the contents may be indicating. The six schools established as,
Nyaaya (sometimes called Tarka)
Vaisheshika
Saankhya
Yoga
Puurva Miimaamsaa
Uttara Miimaamsaa (aka Vedanta)
Briefly termed, Nyaaya (expounded by Jaimini) deals with the 'problem of knowledge' - logic - how to think. Proof comes about by their formula as illustrated by the following example:–
The hill is fiery.
For it smokes.
Whatever smokes is fiery.
The hill is smoking.
Therefore it is fiery.
Vaisheshika, (expounded by Kanada), might be termed 'naturalistic'. It deals with the physical nature of the world and the discussion of atoms (yes - before their 'discovery' by Western science!) This is referred to as 'literal' or 'vaachaarthya'. Both these systems hail the individual as a valid being and that the Lord is Omnipotent, Omniscient and must necessarily exist separately as in individual element Himself. The individual soul always remains so. There is no union to the Great Soul upon death, according to these philosophies.
Saankhya (Kapila) and Yoga (Patanjali) accept the nature of the subtle body and its connection to nature - that there is a unity within the wholeness of nature… BUT, in the case of Saankhya, (which takes its basis from the Upanishadic portion of the Vedas), the ultimate realisation is 'no god'. (It is, therefore, atheistic. It is about a century older than the rise of Prince Gautama, who followed its teachings but took them further and from these he became known as the Buddha.) Yoga also teaches that the body is the temple of the spirit and should be treated accordingly. Both these philosophies, accepting that there is more than just literal existence, follow the 'indicated' or 'lakshyaartha' meaning of existence.
The difference between Puurva (Kumarila Bhatta) and Uttara (Adi Shankaraachaarya) is that Puurva expounds the rites and rituals as contained within the Vedas as being the best way to practice Dharma, while Uttara favours the Upanishadic transformational and transcendental - yet it also accepts the need of the individual to have 'anchors' and therefore does not deny the seeker any of the other philosophical approaches. Indeed it seeks to bring them together as one.
Hence, the reference in our study verse today of Vedantins understanding that we are more than the sum of our physical expression, that creation cannot arise from nothing so therefore there must be something, and that whilst rite and rituals can stabilise our focus, they are a means not the end to enquiry into the True Self.
