PHILOSOPHY

Sankara and Non-dualism in Indian philosophy

Paul Creswell, Member, on 23 January 2001

`Brahman is all- this universe and every creature. To be liberated is to live in Brahman, the undivided reality.' Brahman is one without a second, as the scriptures bear witness.'

Sankara

There is little doubt even amongst modern scholars that the most brilliant and influential of the early medieval commentators on the major Hindu scriptures Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita and Brahma sutras etc. was Sankara. He was at the forefront of a great Hindu revival and did much in his very brief life to restore the fundamental teachings of the Vedic tradition at a time when India was in spiritual decline. His mission was to reconcile the schism between the theistic (astika) and non-theistic (nastika) schools of Indian philosophy. He also placed great emphasis on the experiential necessity for every individual to realise the essential unity of Pure Intelligence (Purusha) as being identical with the pure Self (Atman).He was born around the year 688 CE of Brahman parents, at Kaladi a small village of Western Malabar, in southern India. By the age of ten he was already an academic prodigy and became a devoted disciple of Gaudapada, a great Hindu thinker. Sankara's non-dualistic or Advaita-system made the important distinction between pure truth and pragmatic truth, the former which cannot be stated discursively, but can be directly experienced in the act of liberation (moksha), and ordinary knowledge, which concerns everyday existence, primarily through the five senses. This distinction between levels is an important device for Sankara in providing a consistent interpretation of revelation (Sruti) and goes a long way to reconcile the apparent tensions and contradictions found in the Upanishads and elsewhere; e.g. whether God is a non-personal or a personal lord (Ishvara).Another problem relates to the possibility of monism. If there is but one absolute substance (Purusha), it is still necessary to account for the appearance of multiplicity. For Sankara the answer is due to the illusory nature of phenomenal existence since it is always subject to change. Thus he concluded there must be two realities that ultimately constitute the totality of life (Brahman); one is absolute, eternal and non-changing and the other dualistic which is responsible for the relative and changing fields of existence. They are in effect two sides of the same coin; one Absolute the other Relative. `Knowledge', according to Shankara, `is structured in Consciousness' and `is always different in different states of consciousness'. In this regard Sankara accepted the supreme authority of the Vedas or Pure Knowledge which is synonymous with Pure Consciousness. The world as Sankara sees it, which presents itself to consciousness is itself a projection. Our modes of cognition, waking, dreaming and sleeping are what give rise to the sense of multiplicity before us and at the same time we lose the sense of Wholeness i.e. we don't see the wood for the trees. This projection or adhyasa applies equally to our sense of being an individual. We wrongly attribute individuality to selves. In this, the intellect makes the mistake of confusing the empirical self or individual ego (ahamkara) as being the true cosmic Self (Atman). Objectively the world is maya or illusion; and subjectively it is the result of ignorance or avidya. It only through the practice of deep meditation (Yoga) and other spiritual techniques that the mistake is corrected and the bonds of ignorance are destroyed. As a result the physical nervous system becomes sufficiently refined or cultivated to support the subjective experience of both the self-established cosmic Self within the ordinary sense of I or ego. Like the individual wave that recognises itself as identical with the unbounded ocean. Sankara, like Decartes was unable to doubt his own existence and convincingly argued Decartes famous statement in reverse declaring `I am therefore I think!'

Paul Creswell