Vivekananda on the Vedas (part 121)

September 23, 2002

Parts 1 to 120 were posted earlier. This is part 121. Your comments are welcome... Vivekananda Centre London

Earlier postings can be seen at http://www.vivekananda.btinternet.co.uk/veda.htm

SWAMI VIVEKANANDA ON THE VEDAS AND UPANISHADS

By Sister Gayatriprana

part 121

2. The Modern Custom Is to Identify the Word "Vedanta" with the School of Non-Dualism

All the schools of Hindu philosophy start from the Vedanta or Upanishads, but the monists took the name to themselves as a specialty, because they wanted to base the whole of their theology and philosophy upon the Vedanta and nothing else. In course of time, the Vedanta prevailed and all the various sects of India that now exist can be referred to one or other of its schools. Yet these schools are not unanimous in their opinions.(16)

Of late it has become the custom of most people to identify the word Vedanta with the Advaitic system of the Vedanta philosophy. We all know that Advaitism [non-dualism] is only one branch of the various philosophic systems that have been founded on the Upanishads. The followers of the Vishishtadvaitic [qualified non-dualism] system have as much reverence for the Upanishads as the followers of the Advaita , and the Vishishtadvaitists claim as much authority for the Vedanta as does the Advaitist. So do the Dualists; so does every other sect in India. But the word Vedantist has become identified in the popular mind with the word Advaitist, and perhaps with some reason; because, although we have the Vedas for our scriptures, we have Smritis and Puranas - subsequent writings - to illustrate the doctrine of the Vedas; these, of course, have not the same weight as the Vedas. And the law is that wherever these Puranas and Smritis differ from any part of the Shruti [canonical text], the Shruti must be followed and the Smriti rejected. Now, in the expositions of the great Advaitic philosopher, Shankara, and the school founded by him we find most of the authorities cited are from the Upanishads; very rarely is an authority cited from the Smritis except, perhaps, to elucidate a point which could hardly be found in the Shrutis. On the other hand, other schools take refuge more and more in the Smritis and less and less in the Shrutis; and as we go to the more and more Dualistic sects, we find a proportionate quantity of the Smritis quoted, which is out of all proportion to what we should expect from a Vedantist. It is, perhaps, because these gave such predominance to the Puranic authorities that the Advaitist came to be considered as the Vedantist par excellence, if I may say so.(17)

September 24, 2002

Dear Respected Sister:

I have started reading your monumental work. You have really done a great service to all of us by choosing such an important and delicate subject and more so, by dealing it with such a masterly and scholarly fashion. Please accept my heartfelt thanks and gratitude.

I am an Engineer by profession and have no training in Philosophy at all. Hence, I find it difficult to understand and assimilate your scholarly dissertation in its totality. But, I still enjoy reading (and struggling with) it. May Thakur, Sri Sri Ma and Swamiji himself grant you necessary support and energy not only to complete this great project, but also to take up much more challenging projects in future.

Do you, by chance, have a plan to publish this in a book form?

Finally, would you mind if I raise a small point with all humility. Although (as I have said), I am not a student of Philosophy, I had the rare privilege of attending the Sunday discourses of the Great Saint--- Most Revered Pujyapada Shrimat Swami Ranganathanandaji Maharaj at Hyderabad Sri Ramakrishna Math. Based on what little I have learnt from his great teachings, I would like to raise this small point for your kind consideration (although, I am certain that you know this point much more clearly than I do). Please do not misunderstand me, I don't pretend to be scholar by any means.

Point is: Should we translate the Sanskrit terms "Advaitavada/Advaitin" as "Monism/Monist."?

Pujyapada Maharaj-ji has objected to this type of coinage again and again. He said that "Monism" may, at best, be re-translated in Sanskrit as "Ekatva" and does not, therefore, convey the real significance of "A-dvita" which just negates the existence of any second entity. If one talks about "One" (i.e. Monism), then one cannot really stop thinking of two, three, four etc. in succession from logical point of view. Hence, "Monism" cannot express the idea of "A-dvaita" where one simply denies any possibility of existence of a second entity and remains silent about the existence of the "One" (i.e. all pervading Atman) which is omnipresent anyway. How can one talk about "Atman" without distancing oneself from It? To get rid of this logical riddle, Revered Maharaj-ji preferred the term "Non-dualism/Non-dualist" in English to express the meaning (at partially, if not completely) of "Advaitavada/Advaitin".

I am sure, all of you are definitely aware of the fact that the words or terminologies play a significant role in any technical dissertation. You may consider this point from that angle.

Once again, I thank you and your team members for this outstanding work.

May Swamiji bless you all.

TP Bagchi

bagchitp

-

Vivekananda Centre

list

Monday, September 23, 2002 1:55 PM

[sri Ramakrishna] Vivekananda on the Vedas (part 121)

Parts 1 to 120 were posted earlier. This is part 121. Your comments are welcome... Vivekananda Centre London

Earlier postings can be seen at http://www.vivekananda.btinternet.co.uk/veda.htm

SWAMI VIVEKANANDA ON THE VEDAS AND UPANISHADS

By Sister Gayatriprana

part 121

2. The Modern Custom Is to Identify the Word "Vedanta" with the School of Non-Dualism

All the schools of Hindu philosophy start from the Vedanta or Upanishads, but the monists took the name to themselves as a specialty, because they wanted to base the whole of their theology and philosophy upon the Vedanta and nothing else. In course of time, the Vedanta prevailed and all the various sects of India that now exist can be referred to one or other of its schools. Yet these schools are not unanimous in their opinions.(16)

Of late it has become the custom of most people to identify the word Vedanta with the Advaitic system of the Vedanta philosophy. We all know that Advaitism [non-dualism] is only one branch of the various philosophic systems that have been founded on the Upanishads. The followers of the Vishishtadvaitic [qualified non-dualism] system have as much reverence for the Upanishads as the followers of the Advaita , and the Vishishtadvaitists claim as much authority for the Vedanta as does the Advaitist. So do the Dualists; so does every other sect in India. But the word Vedantist has become identified in the popular mind with the word Advaitist, and perhaps with some reason; because, although we have the Vedas for our scriptures, we have Smritis and Puranas - subsequent writings - to illustrate the doctrine of the Vedas; these, of course, have not the same weight as the Vedas. And the law is that wherever these Puranas and Smritis differ from any part of the Shruti [canonical text], the Shruti must be followed and the Smriti rejected. Now, in the expositions of the great Advaitic philosopher, Shankara, and the school founded by him we find most of the authorities cited are from the Upanishads; very rarely is an authority cited from the Smritis except, perhaps, to elucidate a point which could hardly be found in the Shrutis. On the other hand, other schools take refuge more and more in the Smritis and less and less in the Shrutis; and as we go to the more and more Dualistic sects, we find a proportionate quantity of the Smritis quoted, which is out of all proportion to what we should expect from a Vedantist. It is, perhaps, because these gave such predominance to the Puranic authorities that the Advaitist came to be considered as the Vedantist par excellence, if I may say so.(17)Sri Ramakrishnaye NamahVivekananda Centre Londonhttp://www.vivekananda.co.uk