This question occurs repeatedly in all public discussions of Hindu Philosophy. In fact we can rephrase the question in a more general form as follows. Since the great teachers like Sankara, Ramanuja and others differ in their interpretations of the scriptures, which of them do we follow? Is there a possibility of integration of all these interpretations?
Sankara & Ramanuja, the two great propagators of the two major schools of Hindu Philosophy, differ only in one point. In interpreting the Upanishads, to which of the statements shall we give importance or dominance?To the statements that are obviously absolutist? Or to those that are obviously non-absolutist? Sankara supports the former viewpoint and Ramanuja upholds the latter. This difference in interpretation by these two great teachers has generated a succession of philosophical literature by later thinkers and writers and the body of literature on both sides is voluminous. For us ordinary seekers of God, this difference between Sankara and Ramanuja should not matter. For, said in technical terms, Sankara says that there is ultimately no distinction between God, Souls and Matter because souls and matter are nothing but divine, though in the phenomenal world they appear different. Ramanuja says that the phenomenal difference persisits in the ultimate also though in a subtle way. Now for us in the phenomenal world, what does it matter whether this phenomenal difference persists in the ultimate or not? Let us cross the bridge when it comes! As far as the phenomenal world is concerned, both Sankara and Ramanuja and all other Masters of the other schools of Hindu philosophy agree that we have to purify our minds through Karma and Bhakti, we have to eradicate, in the first instance, all our undesirable vAsanAs, we have to surrender even our will to God, and work in this world in a totally unselfish manner. Thus the teaching of the great Masters coincide in terms of what we have to do in the real world. In fact this is why Hindu religion is one in spite of all the differences in the interpretations of the scriptures. We may say that the so-called Reality is probably multi-dimensional (or even infinite-dimensional), but our phenomenal world and our minds are one-dimensional and though the different Masters differ in their descriptions of the infinite-dimensional reality, the one-dimensional projection from any of their descriptions happens to be the same and this is what should matter to us.
Let each of us follow therefore the One Master whom one's ancestors have followed. To ty to adjudicate between Sankara and Ramanuja either on the academic plane or on the ritualistic plane will be far more than a lifetime task and it is not worth it. To try to integrate the two viewpoints on the academic plane will be well-nigh impossible because if that were possible the two Masters themselves (or any two distinguished descendents of the two paramparas) would have done it. The sage Ramakrishna has, with his characteristic authenticity on such matters, given the verdict that it is a question of your own evolution and taste and that we should not attempt to discard one in favour of the other. As far as our daily chores are concerned follow the teachings of both and as far as the logic on the intellectual plane is concerned follow the One Master who is your Master by your tradition and ancestry, for otherwise you will get lost like the grammarian whose grammar could not save him while he was sinking!
Sankara & Ramanuja, the two great propagators of the two major schools of Hindu Philosophy, differ only in one point. In interpreting the Upanishads, to which of the statements shall we give importance or dominance?To the statements that are obviously absolutist? Or to those that are obviously non-absolutist? Sankara supports the former viewpoint and Ramanuja upholds the latter. This difference in interpretation by these two great teachers has generated a succession of philosophical literature by later thinkers and writers and the body of literature on both sides is voluminous. For us ordinary seekers of God, this difference between Sankara and Ramanuja should not matter. For, said in technical terms, Sankara says that there is ultimately no distinction between God, Souls and Matter because souls and matter are nothing but divine, though in the phenomenal world they appear different. Ramanuja says that the phenomenal difference persisits in the ultimate also though in a subtle way. Now for us in the phenomenal world, what does it matter whether this phenomenal difference persists in the ultimate or not? Let us cross the bridge when it comes! As far as the phenomenal world is concerned, both Sankara and Ramanuja and all other Masters of the other schools of Hindu philosophy agree that we have to purify our minds through Karma and Bhakti, we have to eradicate, in the first instance, all our undesirable vAsanAs, we have to surrender even our will to God, and work in this world in a totally unselfish manner. Thus the teaching of the great Masters coincide in terms of what we have to do in the real world. In fact this is why Hindu religion is one in spite of all the differences in the interpretations of the scriptures. We may say that the so-called Reality is probably multi-dimensional (or even infinite-dimensional), but our phenomenal world and our minds are one-dimensional and though the different Masters differ in their descriptions of the infinite-dimensional reality, the one-dimensional projection from any of their descriptions happens to be the same and this is what should matter to us.
Let each of us follow therefore the One Master whom one's ancestors have followed. To ty to adjudicate between Sankara and Ramanuja either on the academic plane or on the ritualistic plane will be far more than a lifetime task and it is not worth it. To try to integrate the two viewpoints on the academic plane will be well-nigh impossible because if that were possible the two Masters themselves (or any two distinguished descendents of the two paramparas) would have done it. The sage Ramakrishna has, with his characteristic authenticity on such matters, given the verdict that it is a question of your own evolution and taste and that we should not attempt to discard one in favour of the other. As far as our daily chores are concerned follow the teachings of both and as far as the logic on the intellectual plane is concerned follow the One Master who is your Master by your tradition and ancestry, for otherwise you will get lost like the grammarian whose grammar could not save him while he was sinking!
No comments:
Post a Comment