SANE ECONOMICS AND FUSIONISM

SANE ECONOMICS AND FUSIONISM

McShane, Philip J. Sane Economics and Fusionism. Canada: Axial Publishing, 2010. ISBN 978-  0-9780945-2-2. Pp. 120. png.

Philip McShane is Professor Emeritus at Mount St. Vincent University, Canada. His previous works for Axial Press include Economics for Everyone; Pastkeynes Pastmodern Economics; Beyond Establishment Economics (with Bruce Anderson); Music That Is Soundless; A Brief History of Tongue; Lack in the Beingstalk.

            Sane Economics and Fusionism presents how the present Economics is infested with serious flaws in the field of understanding the basics of Economics. This misunderstanding has caused drastic economic meltdowns in recent times and an unimaginable disparity between the rich and the poor. In this book, McShane proposes Lonergan’s Economics as the solution for the current Economic crises which he believes is the consequence of misunderstanding of certain basic concepts of Economics like Credit, Value and Function of Money, consumer goods, Normal and Abnormal Consumer Goods etc. The new Economics which McShane proposes is based on the Economics initiated by Bernard Lonergan which tries to strengthen the foundations of Economics and also to correct the mistaken notions in the field of current Economics. On a whole the New Economics aims at globally caring Economics.

            The book is divided into two parts. The first part (Sane Economics) consists of five chapters and the second part (Fusionism) have five chapters too. As the name of the Headings suggests, the first part deals with the important terms which McShane tries to clarify. Here McShane clarifies the importance of re-drawing the map of the Economics, Implementing Lonergan’s Economics and imaging International Credit. McShane begins the first chapter of his book on a witty note by narrating a joke which he believes sums up, his effort in proposing Lonergan’s Economics. The joke is narrated of a Van-man, trying to feed a horse and a Drunk-man seeing this event, remarks: You will never do it. On being asked for clarification by the Van-man as to why he was laughing, the Drunk-man replies: “You’ll never get that big horse into that little bag”. (17) McShane admits that Lonergan’s effort in trying to suggest a change in the present Economics appears to many, as insignificant and almost impossible a task. However, McShane is quite optimistic in propagating this new theory, so that at least these humble and seemingly insignificant beginnings bear some fruit in the future. He is so optimistic that he goes even to the extent of claiming that: “This new proposal asks merely for creativity, for an interdisciplinary theory that at first will be denounced as absurd, then will be admitted to be true but obvious and insignificant, and perhaps finally be regarded as so important that its adversaries will claim that they themselves discovered it”. (30)  Lonergan himself was very optimistic about his venture and emphasized the vitality of human team work that would eventually result in a common human well being.

            Chapter two further elucidates the crucial terminologies that are essential in understanding the New Economics proposed by Lonergan. It explains how the banks function, or rather how it should function and the importance of the banker in being independent agent rather being controlled by the politicians, businessmen etc., The banker’s function says McShane, is “essentially a critical checking admonitory one”. (28) McShane also takes the aid of a great Economist Schumpeter who proposed a new way of banking and credit. The objective of this chapter seems to draw attention to the need for a global functional effort if we are to shift to a new culture of global decency. “This shift involves a heterarchy of levels from village bankers to ministers of finance and to a world bank. If we do not have strong foundation the subtle idiocy of treating money not as a promise but as a commodity will continue in its casino frenzy”. (32) Thus, the new doctrine emphatically demands for a radical paradigm shift in the field of Economics.

            In the third chapter McShane presents how Lonergan proposes a norm of enquiry i.e., “generalized empirical method, a method that operates on a combination of both the data of sense and the data of consciousness.” (35) This norm as remarked by McShane is “incomprehensible to present culture of either Economic studies or Economic practice.” (35) In this method the operations of the subject is considered in the study of object and vice versa. However, this seems to be lacking in the present Economics. Chapter four questions, whether each of the readers of the text want a Sane Economics. The emphasis is on ‘YOU’. This chapter is an invitation to all the readers to join in this seemingly insignificant movement in trying to bring about a Sane Economy. Keeping in mind the background of Sane Economics, issues of credit and creditworthiness are elaborated. Here, McShane points out the things that are not seriously thought about in our present culture. He also stresses on the word “THINK”. McShane feels that present generation does not give sufficient importance to ‘thinking.’ He remarks, “We are looking for beginnings of a re-adaptation of the whole existing structure that makes a new beginning that effectively organizes free men without breaking their freedom. So we descend to familiar things in a quite an unfamiliar fashion”. (47-48) McShane further explains the meaning of credit, real and random economic variables, taking measure of money, freeing liberty, beyond religious failures, edging towards a later global stage.

            In Chapter five, McShane presents Lonergan’s Economics as a massive potential shift of Economics towards being an authentic science of credit, profit and production. The application of Lonergan’s text would result in a “push for a cultural ethos in which success is measured self-attentively, by local and global achievements in tuning into the normative concomitance of monetary flow with the creative production of better global life-styles.” (56-57) McShane with Lonergan fantasizes “a high civilization of minimal finance with abundant sustenance and leisure, grounded in a nano- technology of provision.” (57) Chapter six is entitled, Functional Collaboration for Dummies. Here he visions a normal global Science by 3000 A.D i.e., and Omni-disciplinary Science. Some of the clues that Lonergan’s standard model suggests are: “Aggreformism, Linguistic feedback and The Ineffability of Human Desire.” (65)

In chapter seven McShane, again reiterates the notion of a caring global sub-community (3000 A.D) with a standard model of global care. “Within that community of global care there is to be a growing core consensus, bringing forth gently and slowly pure formulations.” (68) That community is to work in a metaphorical tower, the tower of Able. In chapter eight, McShane elucidates on the topic of Spirit’s appetites and Lonerganism. He dreams of the “THEN” state of mature global Science (3000 A.D). Chapter nine deals with the topic, Proximate Emergence of Functional Collaboration, here, the chapter shows the way as to how to come out from Mess to Self-mastery. The way he proposes is the way, reading through formulation of a theory. Another important Lonerganian concept that McShane suggests here, is the intellectual conversion. He speaks of the importance of being open to receive the changes that come our way. He fantasizes of theoretic consciousness embracing the Universe. This is actually Lonergan’s vision. The final chapter of McShane’s book is entitled, From Florida (1970) to Fusionism (2010). Here the defect of Florida of past is exposed. What was missing in Florida was to grasp the paradigm shift initiated by Lonergan in his two works Insight and the Gregorionum article of 1969. However, he is of the opinion that there has been very little change in people’s mentality.

The book as such is well written. It has precise footnotes and very enlightening cross references to various works of Lonergan as well as some other relevant books. This book evidently is the fruit of a well researched author, one who is thorough with the subject. The book however is quite difficult to read and ordinary people would need background knowledge of Lonergan and also Economics in order to draw benefit from it. This book suggests a very revolutionary way of looking at the Economics of today. It proposes clarification of the elemental terms in Economics and working towards a new and globally caring Economy. The most consoling aspect of this book is that it suggests a remedy for the current Economic crisis.

By Narzary Nobin

           

Need For a Vision Among the Youth of Today

Need for a vision among the youth of today

“Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show dis-respect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.” Socrates c. (470-399 B.C)

            Why does someone begin an article with such a quote which was cited by someone centuries ago? Yes! This might surely be the initial reaction of some of the readers. Whatever may be the reactions of my readers, let me confess one thing: i.e., this quote disturbed me the moment I heard it, and I feel the disturbance till today. This is why when the Kwilamwila parish youth requested me to write an article for the parish magazine I thought of drawing a reflection on the above quote. Why am I so disturbed by this quote? Is it because no one makes such remarks about youth anymore? Or is it because the words of this ancient Greek thinker has become more commonly used today than ever? Probably the rationale behind me beginning my little article with Socrates’ quote is, his words are heard all over the world even today. At this moment I am tempted to remark: The youth have not changed much from the time of Socrates. “Youth” have been criticized from the very beginning of the development of the society and even today such words are not uncommon among the elders. Well, is it not shocking, that someone should criticize the youth hundreds of years ago? I believe at that time there were no much scientific developments as now. Any way, let us accept the fact that youth have been looked at with contempt from centuries past.  

            Many of my readers might still be confused as to what my conclusion will be. Obviously, my intention in writing these few lines is not to join this ancient thinker in criticizing the youth of today,  rather my intention is, to present the words of Socrates as a challenge for the youth of today. My question is: As responsible youth of 21^st century, will you allow the elders of today to make such a sarcastic comment on you? Or will you decide today to do something and pledge, “I will never allow anyone to pass such a degrading comment on me.” Let this be the attitude of whoever is reading this article. Let us decide here and now that life is not all about drifting away with the currents of the world like Relativism, Hedonism, Atheism, Scepticism etc., rather it is about working hard and doing something with our lives.

            A youth is defined as someone, who has a “zest for life, is enthusiastic, generous and full of joy, develops the talents and potential given by God, capable of responsible freedom, creative and optimistic by nature.” Indeed, youth are full of life and energy. They are ever ready to do anything and capable of lot of good works; but they also need certain orientation in their endeavors. A youth is like a river full of energy and potentialities that require certain amount of guidance and channelizing in order to be of best use to the society. This is where the role of the parents and the educators come in; there is a need for guidance and help for the youth of today. They have lot of energy and power but they need to be channelized. It is never a waste to invest on the youth. In fact someone very rightly commented, “To invest on the youth is to invest on the future.” But as youth, we too need to put an effort to be ‘SOMEONE’ in the world. Many of the youth of today does not seem to know what they want to do with their lives, and still worse- they to not know who they are and where they stand. Many of our youth, sadly, live in “fool’s paradise.” At this moment I am reminded of a short story:

Once two drunkards were walking along a public road knocking each other on the way. One of them asked the other- where are we? The other replied- ‘I don’t know.’ Both of them went along and bumped against an Army General. The angry General questioned the two men- Do you know who I am? Drunkards- “We don’t know where we are and he doesn’t know who he is.” Many of us are like the drunkards happy in our own world living in a fool’s paradise not open enough to come out of our world of spiritual and intellectual poverty.

            As youth, we need to use our God given intelligence and start being responsible and develop our talents and potentialities. Let us use our talents to do something useful for the society and the world. We should not allow any one to comment: “He slept beneath the moon, he basked beneath the sun and lived a life of going to do and died with nothing done.” Dear Friends, let us do something with our lives and do something useful. You might be aware of the following lines which are described as the saddest words in life:

Ø  “It might have been…”

Ø  “It should have…”

Ø  “I could have…”

Ø  “If only I had given a little extra…”

Let us hope that none of us fall into the misfortune of having to utter the saddest words of one’s life. This is why we need to start doing something with our lives. Sometimes I dread imagining  about the future of our youth because many of us still need to ask the basic questions of life or rather we have not yet taken life seriously enough or challenged ourselves sufficiently. If I ask some one, what do you do? (Nwng ma kalamw?) Most probably I will get the answer: “Gwdao swrao lwi.” Or if I ask someone what will you do in the future? (kalmasi ma kalamgwn?) It’s most likely that I will get the answer: “Nainwswi” (let’s see…). Some may consider this as the sign of humility, but I see it as lack of goal in one’s life. This is why we the youth of today we need to ask the basic question of life: “what do I want to do with my life?” Only when we ask Questions can we look for Answers. Many of us have the talent to find the Answer, considering the facts that we all are talented in one field or the other, but the main problem is we do not have “Questions.” Thus we end up doing Nothing. I personally remember many of my friends who were extremely gifted, be it in the field of studies, athletics, music etc., but some of them have landed up doing Nothing.

The path to success is not easy we all know, but the life of “Failure,” or “Defeat” is neither easy to accept, because one will feel the pinch of not working hard enough only later on in life, when you can do nothing about your past. That is why let us not allow our laziness and love for easy-life dominate us when we are young and capable of building our future. The elders of Kwilamwila parish, looking at the youth of our parish should be able to say, “The youth of our parish are very responsible, they are well mannered and well qualified, we have a bright future.” However, let us not take things lightly because it is not so easy to live an upright life in today’s world, let us do our best and allow God to do the rest. By our selves we are frail and helpless but with the help of God we will be able to do all things and say like St. Paul: “I can do all things in him who strengthens me.” Phil 4:3. Let us learn to have vision for our life do our best in achieving these goals and allow God to always guide every step we take so that our efforts may bear fruit and when storms of discouragement, failure and laziness assail us we may with humility cling on to God and be the persons we are called to be: God’s loving children.

By Nobin Narzary

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.