SARA GRANT’S INTERPRETATION OF ŚAŃKARA’S VIEW ON RELATION

SARA GRANT’S INTERPRETATION OF ŚAŃKARA’S VIEW ON RELATION

1.      Introduction

Sara Grant was a nun belonging to the congregation of Society of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. She was introduced to Śańkara’s philosophy by Richard De Smet a renowned Jesuit scholar in Indian philosophy. In fact, the book that I have referred to was taken up by Sara Grant with the suggestion of De Smet. In her writings, she has tried to present Śańkara to the world in as objectively as possible. From her writings, we realize that she has done a thorough study of Śańkara. Her findings in a way are a proof of De Smet’s interpretation of Śańkara. She by her studies in Śańkara supports De Smet’s interpretation of Śańkara on relation.   She has also made her own valuable contributions in the study of Śańkara’s philosophy. While De Smet wanted to make Śańkara popular among the Christian and the common people in general, Sara Grant tried to find the deep implications of Śańkara’s philosophy delving mostly in the original texts of Śańkara with regard to Relation.  

In the text “Śańkarācārya’s Concept of Relation” Sara Grant uses the method of lexicology in order to study the concept of Relation in the writings of Śańkara. The text basically tries to analyze the relational terms used by Śańkara in some of his works. The sources Sara Grant refers to are basically three in number they are Bhagavatgitābhāşya, Brahmasūtrabhāşya and Upadeśasāhasrī. After analyzing the relational words she concludes that there is very strong evidence that Śańkara did speak of Relation between Brahman and Jagat/Jiva. However, it is not very clear as to what type of relation Śańkara implied in his writings. But reading through Sara Grant’s interpretations one realizes that, what Śańkara tries to propose is that of tādātmya that is the absolute identity with the Brahman.

            Some of the most prominent words that Sara Grant analyzes are sambandha, samyoga, samvāya, svarūpa and tādātmya. According to the interpretation of some vedantins, Śańkara seems to have spoken of the Absolute identity (tādātymya) only, wherein the Jiva loses its identity after the attainment of moksa. Sara Grant tries to show that Śańkara also spoke of other kinds of relations and that, use of relational words in his writings show that he used different relational words in diverse ways so much so, that it is very difficult to guess in what sense he used those relational words

2.       Relation in Indian Philosophy

            There has never been a detailed and a systematic study among the Indian philosophical schools on the issue of Relation. However, in the west many philosophers have undertaken detailed study on the issue; for instance, we have David. The topic of Relation though not studied explicitly has always been hinted upon in some way or the other by the Indian thinkers. Thus, it is not a strange topic among the Indian schools. In the west by and large the problem of Relation had been dealt with from the epistemological point of view, whereas, in Indian schools the problem was looked at from metaphysical point of view. Indian schools were concerned about whether the Relations are Real. [1]

All the possible basic approaches to the question of Relation could be formulated as follows:

a.       Identity, difference and relation are all equally real;

b.      All are equally unreal

c.       Both relata are real but the relation between them is false;

d.      All- identity, difference and the relation are equally false.[2]

3.                  Śańkara and Relation

Śańkara was not trying to establish a philosophical system; rather he wanted to teach a way of salvation through knowledge. However, he used metaphysical arguments to support the testimony of Śruti and constantly refer to the sambandha or relation existing between Ãtman-Brahman and the Upadhis or Nāmrūpa which constitutes the individuality of each existent (being) and of the entire created universe.[3] Actually many people[4] have misinterpreted Śańkara with regard to his theory of Relation. Actually for Śańkara, the question of the relation between Atman-Brahman and the world was clearly legitimate. According to him, the relation that we have with Brahman is that of identity (tādātmya). Śańkara never denied the relation between Brahman and the world, in fact he affirmed it.[5] Though Śańkara affirms the relation between Brahman and the world it is not as easy to understand what the nature of relation exactly is. For instance Śańkara’ followers[6] do not agree among themselves on the issue of relation.

For Śańkara world is not “unreal” in the sense of pure illusion or non-existence: though not real in the absolute sense in which Brahman is real, and wholly dependent upon Brahman for its existence, it nevertheless has objective reality as a manifestation of Brahman. If it were absolutely non-existent, like the son of the barren woman, Śańkara would say its relation is unreal; however, this is not the case. Therefore the issue of relation imposes itself as an important topic which requires a solution. [7]

4.      Key Terms

To understand Śańkara more clearly, we need to investigate the relational terms he used in his writings. In fact, this is what Sara Grant does in order to understand Śańkara’s position on relation. It is said that there is no class of words which can escape relations. E.g. The noun “Son” (is directly related to father or mother.) “Knowledge” (indirectly related to the object known). We see this phenomenon even in the pronouns, verbs, adjectives, numbers, and prepositions. In fact, we can hardly construct any proposition without relationship aspect creeping in. Śańkara was aware of this fact and so did not deny Relation.[8]

Since it is practically impossible a task to investigate in detail all the words Śańkara used, we will consider only his use of generic sambandha and the relational words listed by Monier Williams as Philosophical i.e., samyoga, samvāya, svarāpa and of course tādātmya. The analysis is based on the three texts of Śańkara, the Bhagavatgitābhāşya, Brahmasūtrabhāşya and Upadeśasāhasrī.[9]

5.                  Relational Terms Used by Śańkara

	Sambandha	Samyoga	Samavāya	Svarūpa
Bhagavatgitābhāşya	50	30	9	48
Brahmasūtrabhāşya	230	90	22	150
Upadeśasāhasrī.	15	4	1	23
TOTAL	295	124	32	221

5.1              Sambandha:

The word sambandha has a very wide application. In fact it is said that Śańkara uses this word as a generic term embracing samyoga, samavāya and tādātmya as specific kind of relation in Brahmasūtrabhāşya.[10] Śańkara does not give a precise definition of sambandha anywhere; however, it is quite clear that it had a similar connotation as that of “Relation” in English. This word occurs 230 times in Brahmasūtrabhāşya that is an average of one for every two pages. Thus it is an important term in the writings of Śańkara.

5.2  Samyoga:

Samyoga basically refers to the physical relation. The literal meaning of the word is actually conjunction. In Bhagavatgitābhāşya, Śańkara gives the traditional definition of both samyoga and samavāya. The union of Kşetra (the body as knower) and Kşetrajńa (the jiva as knower)- cannot certainly be a relation of contact (samyoga) of each other’s parts, as between a rope and a vessel, in as much as kşetrajna is like the space without parts. Nor can it be of the nature of samavāya or inseperable inherence, like that between the threads and the cloth, in as much as it cannot be admitted that kşetra and kşetrajna are related to each other as cause and effect. The question of relation here is that of superimposition.[11]

In some parts of Bhagavatgitābhāşya, samyoga is used of the union of man and woman, the contact of the senses with their objects. Śańkara does not confine samyoga to physical objects only.  Though he criticizes the Nyāyā- Vaiśeşika schools for attempting to explain the causal relation between the creator and the created in terms of samyoga and samavāya, He fully accepts samyoga relation within the sphere of vyavaharika/phenomenal experience. [12]

5.3   Samavāya:

The word samavāya literally means inherence that is intimate or inseparable relation. Śańkara does not use this word much. He uses this word only in the cases where he criticizes the vaisesika system or occasionally in the mouth of the opponent. This word appears only 33 times in all the 3 texts combined.[13] On the basis of the analysis of the text we realize that Śańkara did not use this term to describe the relation between the Brahman and Jiva/Jagat.

5.4 Svarūpa

Though lot of words are proposed to explain the meaning of this term like- own form or shape, peculiarity, character, nature etc., Monier Williams, says that it really does not have a clear cut meaning. According to him “svarūpa is like samyoga and samavāya a philosophical term. Its precise philosophical sense is left to the enquirer’s imagination or individual research.”[14]

5.5  Tādātymya

            The common dictionary definition of tādātymya is simply sameness or identity of nature or character with. This word does not occur at all in the Bhagavatgitābhāşya, however it is found twice in the Upadeśasāhasrī and 16 times in the Brahmasūtrabhāşya. One of the closest meanings of the term tādātymya is Absolute Identity. This term is used often by the vedantins to explain the union of the Jiva with the Brahman. In this type of unity the identity of the Jiva is completely lost in Brahman. Thus a Jiva after having attained mokśa become one with Brahman. However close study of the word reveals that dictionary meaning is inaccurate and insufficient. [15]

6.      Śańkara’s Position on Relation as interpreted by Sara Grant in gist

“It is clear that Śańkara’s doctrine is no ordinary theory of causation but is limited to the relation between the world and the power i.e., Brahman; it is not a theory about the particular process of causation which appears within the illusion.”[16] Śańkara was aware of the essentially relational character of the phenomenal universe. This is why his discussion on relation is limited almost entirely to elucidation of the Upanisadic statements regarding Brahman as ground and cause of the universe and refuting the theories of rival schools. Śańkara feels that “Question of relation confined solely to the vyavahārika sphere could be settled by the pramanas of pratyaksa and anumāna and were not of immediate concern to one primarily concerned with Brahmajijñāsā.”[17]thus, though he was concerned about the relation he was not bothered about the phenomenal relations as much as issues concerned with the relations in the ultimate sense that is the relation between Brahman and the Jiva/Jagat.

            Shankara’s position on Relation could be mathematically expressed in the equation-

Atman-Brahman – Jiva/Jagat = Atman-Brahman.

Jiva/Jagat – Atman-Brahman = 0[18]

Therefore while a real (not logical) or internal relation on the part of Ātman-Brahman is absolutely excluded, there is a real internal relation of dependence on the part of Jiva/Jagat vis-à-vis Atman-Brahman.[19] Śańkara himself was content to leave the matter there, feeling no obligation to offer a metaphysical justification for his theory of relation. He says in Brahmasūtrabhāşya that the relation the vedantins assume between the Lord and the world is that of tādātymya.[20]

For Śańkara it is not the primary purpose of Śruti to instruct people about the nature of the Jiva since one can learn about that, through other pramānas. It is concerned he says, only to give people knowledge of the highest Brahman which otherwise is inaccessible to man. He is open to other pramānas on the issue of relation of creatures to Brahman. Therefore it seems quite evident that “he would not refuse to reconsider the possibility of the permanent existence of the individual self if he could be summoned back to do so, and was willing to accept the interpretation of his concept of relation given here.”[21]

“Śańkara is radical non-dualist. For him, the whole universe down to the tiniest molecule is penetrated through and through by the bliss of Brahman. For him, in every agent he is the Agent.”[22]  Sara Grant feels that “the radical non-dualism of Śańkara alone does full justice to both the immanence of the creator and his absolute transcendence.” [23] for Śańkara nirguna Brahman (God as he is in Himself, devoid of all qualities is the absolutely transcendent ground of all creatures, it is He himself who makes possible the free play of their powers. Therefore, for him it would be absurd to say that Brahman limits man’s initiative of freedom: He is its necessary condition. [24]With regard to man’s freedom he would say, “The free act of man is wholly man’s, yet wholly God’s a-dvaita, non-dual.”[25] In all these Śańkara would say that such convictions should not be based on any logical arguments rather on experience. For Śańkara the supreme Reality is essentially Subject, not object, and therefore, most truly to be known from within as the Self of one’ own self (though ultimately there is neither without not within.[26]

7.      Conclusion

Śańkara is one of the great Hindu Mystic, Theologian and a Philosopher. He is one of the most important personalities in the Hindu tradition. He has many groups of followers and most of them have interpreted him in different ways. He is not very popular among the common Hindus because the common people follow “Popular Hinduism” and his contribution is basically intellectual which does not appeal the common Hindus. Though he not well known he is one of the most important figures in Indian philosophy because he has contributed a lot in the field of Hindu theology and philosophy.

Richard De Smet one of the great scholars in Indian Philosophy studied Śańkara in detail and has interpreted him in a new light. He has tried to interpret him from his Christian background. In his attempt he has also been criticized by many for Christianizing Śańkara. Though criticisms stand, we cannot deny the fact that he has done a great contribution to the world especially in the field of inter-religious dialogue through his new interpretation of Śańkara. Sara Grant one of the close followers of De Smet has done a lexicology of the writings of Śańkara and she gives us the facts about Śańkara’s theory of relation. Sara Grant’s findings show us how Śańkara used different relational words to describe the relation of Brahman and the world. From her exegetical studies we could conclude that, though it is not very clear as to how Brahman is related to the world (form Śańkara’s writings), Śańkara does not deny the fact that there is a very strong relation between Brahman and the world. This relation is explained by Śańkara by his use of different relational terms (sambandha).

Sara Grant’s basic aim in enquiring about the relation in Śańkara was to prove to the world that Śańkara did speak of relation and that too in diverse ways. Sara Grant’s findings are a proof that Śańkara was open to the concept of relation unlike some of his followers who claim that there is no relation from the part of Brahman and that the relation is one sided i.e., vivartavada. Sara Grant’s findings show us that Śańkara was open to other ways of interpreting sambandha/relation between Brahman and the world.

Bibliography

Grant, Sara. Śańkarācārya’s Concept of Relation. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass                                  Publishers Private Limited, 1999.

---

[1] Sara Grant, Śańkarācārya’s Concept of Relation (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publoshers Private Limited, 1999) 82.

[2] Sara Grant, Śańkarācārya’s Concept of Relation, 82.

[3] Sara Grant, Śańkarācārya’s Concept of Relation, 87.

[4] Even great philosophers like Radhakrishnan is said to have misinterpreted Śańkara’s theory of relation.

                [5] Sara Grant, Śańkarācārya’s Concept of Relation, 88.

                [6] Four groups of vedantins, each of these groups claim to be true followers of Śańkara.

                [7] Sara Grant, Śańkarācārya’s Concept of Relation, 88.

                [8] Sara Grant, Śańkarācārya’s Concept of Relation, 88-89.

                [9] Sara Grant, Śańkarācārya’s Concept of Relation, 90.

                [10] Sara Grant, Śańkarācārya’s Concept of Relation, 91.

                [11] Sara Grant, Śańkarācārya’s Concept of Relation, 100.

                [12] Sara Grant, Śańkarācārya’s Concept of Relation, 102.

                [13] Sara Grant, Śańkarācārya’s Concept of Relation, 102-103.

                [14] Sara Grant, Śańkarācārya’s Concept of Relation, 104.

                [15] Sara Grant, Śańkarācārya’s Concept of Relation, 130.

                [16] Sara Grant, Śańkarācārya’s Concept of Relation, 155.

                [17] Sara Grant, Śańkarācārya’s Concept of Relation, 156.

                [18] Sara Grant, Śańkarācārya’s Concept of Relation, 156.

                [19] Sara Grant, Śańkarācārya’s Concept of Relation, 156.

                [20] Sara Grant, Śańkarācārya’s Concept of Relation, 157.

                [21] Sara Grant, Śańkarācārya’s Concept of Relation, 191.

                [22] Sara Grant, Śańkarācārya’s Concept of Relation, 192.

                [23] Sara Grant, Śańkarācārya’s Concept of Relation, 192.

                [24] Sara Grant, Śańkarācārya’s Concept of Relation, 192-193.

                [25] Sara Grant, Śańkarācārya’s Concept of Relation, 193.

                [26] Sara Grant, Śańkarācārya’s Concept of Relation, 194.