Sanskaras System - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided text from "Sankaras 'System'" by Tilmann Vetter, focusing on the key arguments and analyses presented:

The article critically examines Paul Deussen's interpretation of Shankaracharya's philosophy as a coherent "System." Vetter argues that Deussen's attempt to unify Shankaracharya's teachings by categorizing them into "higher" and "lower" theology, and "highest truth" and "worldly activity" standpoints in cosmology and psychology, is flawed.

Deussen's System and Vetter's Objections:

Deussen's Unification: Deussen proposed that the "higher theology" (para vidya) combined with the "highest truth standpoint" in cosmology and psychology formed the esoteric doctrine. The "lower theology" (apara vidya) paired with the "worldly activity standpoint" constituted the exoteric doctrine.
Vetter's Counterarguments:
- Inconsistency in World Reality: Vetter points out a crucial divergence: Shankaracharya's higher theology generally presupposes the reality of the world, while the highest truth standpoint in cosmology denies the world.
- Nature of Higher Theology: While the higher theology sometimes uses negative descriptions of Brahman (like "neti neti"), this is to highlight the inadequacy of language, not to deny the world itself. More often, the higher theology uses positive predicates for Brahman (e.g., inner light, seer, all-pervading), which require the world as a concept of correspondence. This simpler relationship, between a subject and an object, doesn't necessitate the "worldly activity standpoint."
- Misinterpretation of Negations: Expressions like "nirvisesha" (without characteristics) or "nirguna" (without qualities) are often used in contexts where Brahman is also described positively (as light, inner, etc.). Thus, these terms don't automatically imply a purely negative theology or a denial of the world.

Consequences of Deussen's Synthesis and Vetter's Alternative:

Unwanted Consequences: Vetter traces the negative impact of Deussen's synthesis to Helmuth von Glasenapp's "Stufenweg zum Göttlichen," which interpreted this division as a two-stage path to salvation. This made the belief in the world's unreality a prerequisite for salvation, which Vetter argues contradicts most of Shankaracharya's statements on bondage and liberation.
Vetter's Core Focus: Bondage and Liberation: Vetter posits that bondage (bandha) and liberation (moksha) are the central tenets of Shankaracharya's teaching. He proposes understanding Shankaracharya's system by starting from these concepts.
Knowledge as the Key: Bondage and liberation, for Shankaracharya, are a matter of ignorance (avidya) and knowledge (vidya). The liberating knowledge is rooted in his positive higher theology.
The "Light" Analogy: The most important characteristic of the subject (Brahman) is its nature as a "light" (jyoti). This light permeates everything, enabling individual life and consciousness. Ignorance arises from misidentifying the self with the body and senses, creating a continuum of false notions and leading to rebirth.
Liberation as Removal of Projections: Liberating knowledge is not about realizing Brahman itself (which is impossible due to its subjective nature), but about removing false identifications and projections (adhyāsa) onto the Self. It's about cleaning the existing light, not igniting it.
The Role of Reflection: While Brahman itself cannot be an object of knowledge, its reflection (ābhāsa) in the intellect (buddhi) or the heart can be. This reflection allows for a mediated "knowing." The Upanishadic statements that call for "knowing the Self" utilize this reflection to point towards the Self.
Paradoxical Role of the Reflection: The same reflection that causes bondage (as a false self-identification) also becomes the cause of liberation. It also forms the basis of positive higher theology and the talk of light and reflection. The fact that humans can "know" is a sign that the Self is consciousness.

Re-evaluating Exoteric and Esoteric Distinctions:

Vetter revisits Deussen's distinction from the perspective of bondage and liberation:

Common Feature: "Ignorance" (Avidya): In theology, psychology, and cosmology, the transition from exoteric to esoteric is often marked by an improper use of the term "ignorance." This "ignorance" isn't what directly leads to liberation, but rather an additional concern for those who treat phenomena as real. By explaining phenomena's relation to Brahman or their existence as products of ignorance, one can sidestep associated problems.
Lower Theology: Meditation on religious attributes (in lower theology) is termed "ignorance" and "projection" because it involves identifying with concepts, even though it doesn't lead to liberation. These attributes are seen as upādhis (accidents) projected by ignorance to avoid attributing limitations to Brahman.
Psychology: The self is formed by the reflection of the light in the organs, leading to false self-identification. However, this reflection also enables recognition of the true Self. To avoid positing an independent individual soul, it is considered a product of ignorance, like a mirror image.
Cosmology: The diverse world can be explained through polemics but is deemed a product of ignorance when difficulties arise. This is particularly evident in arguments against Buddhist epistemology, where the reality of the world is defended to preserve the reality of Brahman/Atman.
Polemic against Sāmkhya: The world is derived from spiritual Brahman, not material prakṛti. However, speculations about Brahman's creative powers and the world resting latently within it can endanger the ultimate, unadulterated nature of Brahman. This is why the Bhedābhedavāda (the doctrine of "both different and not different") is seen as hostile, as it acknowledges the implications of such "both/and" descriptions, which Shankaracharya, in his polemics, sometimes rejects for a more absolute Advaita. In these instances, the world is dismissed as a product of ignorance.
Logic vs. Peace: Shankaracharya chooses the logically consistent approach (reducing the world to ignorance) over the "both/and" or non-purely negative "neither/nor" approaches, aligning with Gaudapada. This is because logical clarity brings peace, which is paramount for Brahman, making world-negating speculation more important than world-explaining speculation.

Conclusion:

Vetter concludes that Deussen's unification of higher theology and cosmology into a single esoteric science is incorrect. Shankaracharya is not just a teacher of salvation but also a theologian defending a tradition. While he seeks “escapes” due to the central importance of bondage and liberation, these escapes are framed with the sovereign detachment of one unaffected by the world, viewing it like a play. The author emphasizes that Shankaracharya's core doctrine lies in the interplay of bondage and liberation, grounded in positive higher theology and the removal of projections, rather than a complete denial of the world.