Vedanta philosophy is the philosophy which claims to be the exposition of the philosophy taught in the Upani@sads and summarized in the _Brahma-sutras_ of Badaraya@na. The Upani@sads form the last part of the Veda literature, and its philosophy is therefore also called sometimes the Uttara-Mima@msa or the Mimamsa (decision) of the later part of the Vedas as distinguished from the Mima@msa of the previous part of the Vedas and the Brahma@nas as incorporated in the _Purvamima@msa sutras_ of Jaimini. Though these _Brahma-sutras_ were differently interpreted by different exponents, the views expressed in the earliest commentary on them now available, written by S'a@nkaracarya, have attained wonderful celebrity, both on account of the subtle and deep ideas it contains, and also on account of the association of the illustrious personality of S'a@nkara. So great is the influence of the philosophy propounded by S'a@nkara and elaborated by his illustrious followers, that whenever we speak of the Vedanta philosophy we mean the philosophy that was propounded by S'a@nkara. If other expositions are intended the names of the exponents have to be mentioned (e.g. Ramanuja-mata, Vallabha-mata, etc.), In this chapter we shall limit ourselves to the exposition of the Vedanta philosophy as elaborated by S'a@nkara and his followers. In S'a@nkara's work (the commentaries on the _Brahma-sutra_ and the ten Upani@sads) many ideas have been briefly incorporated which as found in S'a@nkara do not appear to be sufficiently clear, but are more intelligible as elaborated by his followers. It is therefore better to take up the Vedanta system, not as we find it in S'a@nkara, but as elaborated by his followers, all of whom openly declare that they are true to their master's philosophy.
For the other Hindu systems of thought, the sutras (_Jaimini sutra, Nyaya sutra,_ etc.) are the only original treatises, and no foundation other than these is available. In the case of the Vedanta however the original source is the Upani@sads, and the sutras are but an extremely condensed summary in a systematic form. S'a@nkara did not claim to be the inventor or expounder of an original system, but interpreted the sutras and the Upani@sads in order to show that there existed a connected and systematic philosophy in the Upani@sads which was also enunciated in the sutras of Badaraya@na. The Upani@sads were a part of the Vedas and were thus regarded as infallible by the Hindus. If S'a@nkara could only show that his exposition of them was the right one, then his philosophy being founded upon the highest authority would be accepted by all Hindus. The most formidable opponents in the way of accomplishing his task were the Mima@msists, who held that the Vedas did not preach any philosophy, for whatever there was in the Vedas was to be interpreted as issuing commands to us for performing this or that action. They held that if the Upani@sads spoke of Brahman and demonstrated the nature of its pure essence, these were mere exaggerations intended to put the commandment of performing some kind of worship of Brahman into a more attractive form. S'a@nkara could not deny that the purport of the Vedas as found in the Brahma@nas was explicitly of a mandatory nature as declared by the Mima@msa, but he sought to prove that such could not be the purport of the Upani@sads, which spoke of the truest and the highest knowledge of the Absolute by which the wise could attain salvation. He said that in the karmak@n@da--the (sacrificial injunctions) Brahma@nas of the Vedas--the purport of the Vedas was certainly of a mandatory nature, as it was intended for ordinary people who were anxious for this or that pleasure, and were never actuated by any desire of knowing the absolute truth, but the Upani@sads, which were intended for the wise who had controlled their senses and become disinclined to all earthly joys, demonstrated the one Absolute, Unchangeable, Brahman as the only Truth of the universe. The two parts of the Vedas were intended for two classes of persons. S'a@nkara thus did not begin by formulating a philosophy of his own by logical and psychological analysis, induction, and deduction. He tried to show by textual comparison of the different Upani@sads, and by reference to the content of passages in the Upani@sads, that they were concerned in demonstrating the nature of Brahman (as he understood it) as their ultimate end. He had thus to show that the uncontradicted testimony of all the Upani@sads was in favour of the view which he held. He had to explain all doubtful and apparently conflicting texts, and also to show that none of the texts referred to the doctrines of mahat, prak@rti, etc. of the Sa@mkhya. He had also to interpret the few scattered ideas about physics, cosmology, eschatology, etc. that are found in the Upani@sads consistently with the Brahman philosophy. In order to show that the philosophy of the Upani@sads as he expounded it was a consistent system, he had to remove all the objections that his opponents could make regarding the Brahman philosophy, to criticize the philosophies of all other schools, to prove them to be self-contradictory, and to show that any interpretation of the Upani@sads, other than that which he gave, was inconsistent and wrong. This he did not only in his bhasya on the _Brahma-sutras_ but also in his commentaries on the Upani@sads. Logic with him had a subordinate place, as its main value for us was the aid which it lent to consistent interpretations of the purport of the Upani@sad texts, and to persuading the mind to accept the uncontradicted testimony of the Upani@sads as the absolute truth. His disciples followed him in all, and moreover showed in great detail that the Brahman philosophy was never contradicted either in perceptual experience or in rational thought, and that all the realistic categories which Nyaya and other systems had put forth were self-contradictory and erroneous. They also supplemented his philosophy by constructing a Vedanta epistemology, and by rethinking elaborately the relation of the maya, the Brahman, and the world of appearance and other relevant topics. Many problems of great philosophical interest which had been left out or slightly touched by S'a@nkara were discussed fully by his followers. But it should always be remembered that philosophical reasonings and criticisms are always to be taken as but aids for convincing our intellect and strengthening our faith in the truth revealed in the Upani@sads. The true work of logic is to adapt the mind to accept them. Logic used for upsetting the instructions of the Upani@sads is logic gone astray. Many lives of S'a@nkaracarya were written in Sanskrit such as the _S'a@nkaradigvijaya_, _S'a@nkara-vijaya-vilasa_, _S'a@nkara-jaya_, etc. It is regarded as almost certain that he was born between 700 and 800 A.D. in the Malabar country in the Deccan. His father S'ivaguru was a Yajurvedi Brahmin of the Taittiriya branch. Many miracles are related of S'a@nkara, and he is believed to have been the incarnation of S'iva. He turned ascetic in his eighth year and became the disciple of Govinda, a renowned sage then residing in a mountain cell on the banks of the Narbuda. He then came over to Benares and thence went to Badarikas'rama. It is said that he wrote his illustrious bha@sya on the _Brahma-sutra_ in his twelfth year. Later on he also wrote his commentaries on ten Upani@sads. He returned to Benares, and from this time forth he decided to travel all over India in order to defeat the adherents of other schools of thought in open debate. It is said that he first went to meet Kumarila, but Kumarila was then at the point of death, and he advised him to meet Kumarila's disciple. He defeated Ma@n@dana and converted him into an ascetic follower of his own. He then travelled in various places, and defeating his opponents everywhere he established his Vedanta philosophy, which from that time forth acquired a dominant influence in moulding the religious life of India.
S'a@nkara carried on the work of his teacher Gaudapada and by writing commentaries on the ten Upani@sads and the _Brahma-sutras_ tried to prove, that the absolutist creed was the one which was intended to be preached in the Upani@sads and the _Brahma-sutras_ [Footnote ref 577]. Throughout his commentary on the _Brahma-sutras_, there is ample evidence that he was contending against some other rival interpretations of a dualistic tendency which held that the Upani@sads partly favoured the Sa@mkhya cosmologyof the existence of prak@rti. That these were actual textual interpretations of the _Brahma-sutras_ is proved by the fact that S'a@nkara in some places tries to show that these textual constructions were faulty [Footnote ref 578]. In one place he says that others (referring according to Vacaspati to the Mima@msa) and some of us (referring probably to those who interpreted the sutras and the Upani@sads from the Vedanta point of view) think that the soul is permanent. It is to refute all those who were opposed to the right doctrine of perceiving everything as the unity of the self (_atmaikatva_) that this S'ariraka commentary of mine is being attempted [Footnote ref 579]. Ramanuja, in the introductory portion of his bha@sya on the _Brahma-sutra,_ says that the views of Bodhayana who wrote an elaborate commentary on the _Brahma-sutra_ were summarized by previous teachers, and that he was following this Bodhayana bha@sya in writing his commentary. In the _Vedarthasa@mgraha_ of Ramanuja mention is made of Bodhayana, Tanka, Guhadeva, Kapardin, Bharuci as Vedantic authorities, and Dravi@dacaryya is referred to as the "bha@syakara" commentator. In Chandogya III. x. 4, where the Upani@sad cosmology appeared to be different from the _Vi@s@nupurana_ cosmology, S'a@nkara refers to an explanation offered on the point by one whom he calls "acaryya" (_atrokta@h pariharah acaryyaih_) and Anandagiri says that "acaryya" there refers to Dravi@dacaryya. This Dravi@dacaryya is known to us from Ramanuja's statement as being a commentator of the dualistic school, and we have evidence here that he had written a commentary on the Chandogya Upani@sad.
A study of the extant commentaries on the _Brahma-sutras_ of Badaraya@na by the adherents of different schools of thought leaves us convinced that these sutras were regarded by all as condensations of the teachings of the Upani@sads. The differences of opinion were with regard to the meaning of these sutras and the Upani@sad texts to which references were made by them in each particular case. The _Brahma-sutra_ is divided into four adhyayas or books, and each of these is divided into four chapters or padas. Each of these contains a number of topics of discussion (_adhikara@na_) which are composed of a number of sutras, which raise the point at issue, the points that lead to doubt and uncertainty, and the considerations that should lead one to favoura particular conclusion. As explained by S'a@nkara, most of these sutras except the first four and the first two chapters of the second book are devoted to the textual interpretations of the Upani@sad passages. S'a@nkara's method of explaining the absolutist Vedanta creed does not consist in proving the Vedanta to be a consistent system of metaphysics, complete in all parts, but in so interpreting the Upani@sad texts as to show that they all agree in holding the Brahman to be the self and that alone to be the only truth. In Chapter I of Book II S'a@nkara tries to answer some of the objections that may be made from the Sa@mkhya point of view against his absolutist creed and to show that some apparent difficulties of the absolutist doctrine did not present any real difficulty. In Chapter II of Book II he tries to refute the Sa@mkhya, Yoga, Nyaya-Vais'e@sika, the Buddhist, Jaina, Bhagavata and S'aiva systems of thought. These two chapters and his commentaries on the first four sutras contain the main points of his system. The rest of the work is mainly occupied in showing that the conclusion of the sutras was always in strict agreement with the Upani@sad doctrines. Reason with S'a@nkara never occupied the premier position; its value was considered only secondary, only so far as it helped one to the right understanding of the revealed scriptures, the Upani@sads. The ultimate truth cannot be known by reason alone. What one debater shows to be reasonable a more expert debater shows to be false, and what he shows to be right is again proved to be false by another debater. So there is no final certainty to which we can arrive by logic and argument alone. The ultimate truth can thus only be found in the Upani@sads; reason, discrimination and judgment are all to be used only with a view to the discovery of the real purport of the Upani@sads. From his own position S'a@nkara was not thus bound to vindicate the position of the Vedanta as a thoroughly rational system of metaphysics. For its truth did not depend on its rationality but on the authority of the Upani@sads. But what was true could not contradict experience. If therefore S'a@nkara's interpretation of the Upani@sads was true, then it would not contradict experience. S'a@nkara was therefore bound to show that his interpretation was rational and did not contradict experience. If he could show that his interpretation was the only interpretation that was faithful to the Upani@sads, and that its apparent contradictions with experience could in some way be explained, he considered that he had nothing more to do. He was not writing a philosophy in the modern sense of the term, but giving us the whole truth as taught and revealed in the Upani@sads and not simply a system spun by a clever thinker, which may erroneously appear to be quite reasonable, Ultimate validity does not belong to reason but to the scriptures.
He started with the premise that whatever may be the reason it is a fact that all experience starts and moves in an error which identifies the self with the body, the senses, or the objects of the senses. All cognitive acts presuppose this illusory identification, for without it the pure self can never behave as a phenomenal knower or perceiver, and without such a perceiver there would be no cognitive act. S'a@nkara does not try to prove philosophically the existence of the pure self as distinct from all other things, for he is satisfied in showing that the Upani@sads describe the pure self unattached to any kind of impurity as the ultimate truth. This with him is a matter to which no exception can be taken, for it is so revealed in the Upani@sads. This point being granted, the next point is that our experience is always based upon an identification of the self with the body, the senses, etc. and the imposition of all phenomenal qualities of pleasure, pain, etc. upon the self; and this with S'a@nkara is a beginningless illusion. All this had been said by Gau@dapada. S'a@nkara accepted Gau@dapada's conclusions, but did not develop his dialectic for a positive proof of his thesis. He made use of the dialectic only for the refutation of other systems of thought. This being done he thought that he had nothing more to do than to show that his idea was in agreement with the teachings of the Upani@sads. He showed that the Upani@sads held that the pure self as pure being, pure intelligence and pure bliss was the ultimate truth. This being accepted the world as it appears could not be real. It must be a mere magic show of illusion or maya. S'a@nkara never tries to prove that the world is maya, but accepts it as indisputable. For, if the self is what is ultimately real, the necessary conclusion is that all else is mere illusion or maya. He had thus to quarrel on one side with the Mima@msa realists and on the other with the Sa@mkhya realists, both of whom accepted the validity of the scriptures, but interpreted them in their own way. The Mima@msists held that everything that is said in the Vedas is to be interpreted as requiring us to perform particular kinds of action, or to desist from doing certain other kinds. This would mean that the Upani@sads being a part of the Veda should also be interpreted as containing injunctions for the performance of certain kinds of actions. The description of Brahman in the Upani@sads does not therefore represent a simple statement of the nature of Brahman, but it implies that the Brahman should be meditated upon as possessing the particular nature described there, i.e. Brahman should be meditated upon as being an entity which possesses a nature which is identical with our self; such a procedure would then lead to beneficial results to the man who so meditates. S'a@nkara could not agree to such a view. For his main point was that the Upani@sads revealed the highest truth as the Brahman. No meditation or worship or action of any kind was required; but one reached absolute wisdom and emancipation when the truth dawned on him that the Brahman or self was the ultimate reality. The teachings of the other parts of the Vedas, the karmaka@n@da (those dealing with the injunctions relating to the performance of duties and actions), were intended for inferior types of aspirants, whereas the teachings of the Upani@sads, the jnanaka@n@da (those which declare the nature of ultimate truth and reality), were intended only for superior aspirants who had transcended the limits of sacrificial duties and actions, and who had no desire for any earthly blessing or for any heavenly joy. Throughout his commentary on the _Bhagavadgita_ S'a@nkara tried to demonstrate that those who should follow the injunctions of the Veda and perform Vedic deeds, such as sacrifices, etc., belonged to a lower order. So long as they remained in that order they had no right to follow the higher teachings of the Upani@sads. They were but karmins (performers of scriptural duties). When they succeeded in purging their minds of all desires which led them to the performance of the Vedic injunctions, the field of karmamarga (the path of duties), and wanted to know the truth alone, they entered the jnanamarga (the way of wisdom) and had no duties to perform. The study of Vedanta was thus reserved for advanced persons who were no longer inclined to the ordinary joys of life but wanted complete emancipation. The qualifications necessary for a man intending to study the Vedanta are (1) discerning knowledge about what is eternal and what is transitory (_nityanityavastuviveka_), (2) disinclination to the enjoyment of the pleasures of this world or of the after world (_ihamutraphalabhogaviraga_), (3) attainment of peace, self-restraint, renunciation, patience, deep concentration and faith (_s'amadamadisadhanasampat_) and desire for salvation (_mumuk@sutva_). The person who had these qualifications should study the Upani@sads, and as soon as he became convinced of the truth about the identity of the self and the Brahman he attained emancipation. When once a man realized that the self alone was the reality and all else was maya, all injunctions ceased to have any force with him. Thus, the path of duties (_karma_) and the path of wisdom (_jnana_) were intended for different classes of persons or adhikarins. There could be no joint performance of Vedic duties and the seeking of the highest truth as taught in the Upani@sads (_jnana-karma-samuccayabhava@h_). As against the dualists he tried to show that the Upani@sads never favoured any kind of dualistic interpretations. The main difference between the Vedanta as expounded by Gau@dapada and as explained by S'a@nkara consists in this, that S'a@nkara tried as best he could to dissociate the distinctive Buddhist traits found in the exposition of the former and to formulate the philosophy as a direct interpretation of the older Upani@sad texts. In this he achieved remarkable success. He was no doubt regarded by some as a hidden Buddhist (_pracchanna Bauddha_), but his influence on Hindu thought and religion became so great that he was regarded in later times as being almost a divine person or an incarnation. His immediate disciples, the disciples of his disciples, and those who adhered to his doctrine in the succeeding generations, tried to build a rational basis for his system in a much stronger way than S'a@nkara did. Our treatment of S'a@nkara's philosophy has been based on the interpretations of Vedanta thought, as offered by these followers of S'a@nkara. These interpretations are nowhere in conflict with S'a@nkara's doctrines, but the questions and problems which S'a@nkara did not raise have been raised and discussed by his followers, and without these one could not treat Vedanta as a complete and coherent system of metaphysics. As these will be discussed in the later sections, we may close this with a short description of some of the main features of the Vedanta thought as explained by S'a@nkara.
Brahman according to S'a@nkara is "the cause from which (proceeds) the origin or subsistence and dissolution of this world which is extended in names and forms, which includes many agents and enjoyers, which contains the fruit of works specially determined according to space, time, and cause, a world which is formed after an arrangement inconceivable even by the (imagination of the) mind [Footnote ref 580]." The reasons that S'a@nkara adduces for the existence of Brahman may be considered to be threefold: (1) The world must have been produced as the modification of something, but in the Upani@sads all other things have been spoken of as having been originated from something other than Brahman, so Brahman is the cause from which the world has sprung into being, but we could not think that Brahman itself originated from something else, for then we should have a _regressus ad infinitum_ (_anavastha_). (2) The world is so orderly that it could not have come forth from a non-intelligent source. The intelligent source then from which this world has come into being is Brahman.
(3) This Brahman is the immediate consciousness (_sak@si_) which shines as the self, as well as through the objects of cognition which the self knows. It is thus the essence of us all, the self, and hence it remains undenied even when one tries to deny it, for even in the denial it shows itself forth. It is the self of us all and is hence ever present to us in all our cognitions.
Brahman according to S'a@nkara is the identity of pure intelligence, pure being, and pure blessedness. Brahman is the self of us all. So long as we are in our ordinary waking life, we are identifying the self with thousands of illusory things, with all that we call "I" or mine, but when in dreamless sleep we are absolutely without any touch of these phenomenal notions the nature of our true state as pure blessedness is partially realized. The individual self as it appears is but an appearance only, while the real truth is the true self which is one for all, as pure intelligence, pure blessedness, and pure being.
All creation is illusory maya. But accepting it as maya, it may be conceived that God (Is'vara) created the world as a mere sport; from the true point of view there is no Is'vara who creates the world, but in the sense in which the world exists, and we all exist as separate individuals, we can affirm the existence of Is'vara, as engaged in creating and maintaining the world. In reality all creation is illusory and so the creator also is illusory. Brahman, the self, is at once the material cause (upadana-kara@na) as well as the efficient cause (nimitta-kara@na) of the world.
There is no difference between the cause and the effect, and the effect is but an illusory imposition on the cause--a mere illusion of name and form. We may mould clay into plates and jugs and call them by so many different names, but it cannot be admitted that they are by that fact anything more than clay; their transformations as plates and jugs are only appearances of name and form (_namarupa_). This world, inasmuch as it is but an effect imposed upon the Brahman, is only phenomenally existent (_vyavaharika_) as mere objects of name and form (_namarupa_), but the cause, the Brahman, is alone the true reality(_paramarthika_) [Footnote ref 581].