2024/03/13

Brahma Sutras - Wikipedia

Brahma Sutras - Wikipedia


Brahma Sutras

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Part of a series on
Hindu scriptures and texts
Vedas
Upanishads
Other scriptures
Related Hindu texts
Vedangas
Puranas
Itihasa
Sangam literature
Shastras and sutras
Timeline

The Brahma Sūtras (Sanskrit: ब्रह्मसूत्राणि), also known as the Vedanta Sutra (Sanskrit: वेदान्त सूत्र),[1][note 1] Shariraka Sutra,[note 2] and Bhikshu-sutra,[note 3] are a Sanskrit text which synthesizes and harmonizes Upanishadic ideas and practices. 

It is attributed to the sages Bādarāyaṇa and Vyāsa, but probably an accumulation of incremental additions and changes by various authors to an earlier work, completed in its surviving form in approx. 400–450 CE.[5][note 4] The oldest version may be composed between 500 BCE and 200 BCE,[6][7] with 200 BCE being the most likely date.[8]

The Brahma Sūtras consist of 555 aphoristic verses (sutras) in four chapters,[9] dealing with attaining knowledge of Brahman.[1][10] Assuming that the Upanishads are unfallible revelations describing the same metaphysical Reality, Brahman, which cannot be different for different people, the text attempts to synthesize and harmonize diverse and sometimes apparently conflicting vidyas ("knowledges") of, and upasanas (meditation, worship) on Brahman. 

It does so from a bhedabheda-perspective,[1] arguing, as John Koller states: "that Brahman and Atman are, in some respects, different, but, at the deepest level, non-different (advaita), being identical."[11] 

  • The first chapter unifies the different views of Brahman or Absolute Reality found in the Upanishads. 
  • The second chapter reviews and addresses the objections raised by the ideas of competing orthodox schools of Hindu philosophies such as Nyaya, Yoga, Vaisheshika and Mimamsa as well as heterodox schools such as Buddhism and Jainism.[12] 
  • The third chapter compares the vidyas and upasanas found in the Upanishads, deciding which are similar and can be combined, and which are different.[13] 
  • The last chapter states why such a knowledge is an important human need.[6]

The Brahma Sūtras is one of three most important texts in Vedanta along with the Principal Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita.[1][4][web 1] It has been influential to various schools of Indian philosophies, but interpreted differently by the non-dualistic Advaita Vedanta sub-school, the theistic Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita Vedanta sub-schools, as well as others.[web 1] Several commentaries on the Brahma Sūtras are lost to history or yet to be found; of the surviving ones, the most well studied commentaries on the Brahma Sūtras include the bhashya by Adi Shankara,[1] Ramanuja, Madhvacharya, Bhaskara and many others.[14]

Author and chronology[edit]

The Brahma Sūtras or Brahmasutra are attributed to Badarayana.[15] In some texts, Badarayana is also called Vyasa, which literally means "one who arranges".[15]

Badarayana was the Guru (teacher) of Jaimini, the latter credited with authoring Mimamsa Sutras of the Mimamsa school of Hindu philosophy.[15] This is likely, given that both Badarayana and Jaimini quote each other as they analyze each other's theories, Badarayana emphasizing knowledge while Jaimini emphasizes rituals, sometimes agreeing with each other, sometimes disagreeing, often anti-thesis of the other.[16]

The Brahma Sūtras text is dated to centuries that followed Buddha and Mahavira, because it mentions and critiques the ideas of Buddhism and Jainism in Chapter 2.[17] The text's relative chronology is also based on the fact that Badarayana quotes all major known orthodox Hindu schools of philosophy except Nyaya.[17][18] The exact century of its composition or completion in final form is unknown. 200 BCE seems to be the most likely date for its initial composition,[8] with scholars such as Lochtefeld suggesting that the text was composed sometime between 500 and 200 BCE,[6][7] while Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and Dasgupta independently suggest the 2nd century BCE as more likely.[19][20] Paul Deussen places it between 200 BCE and 400 CE.[19]

Hermann Jacobi in early 20th century suggested that Madhyamaka Buddhist concepts such as Sunyavada, acknowledged in the Brahma Sūtras, may be a late invention, and suggests that both Sunyavada and Brahma Sūtras may therefore have emerged between 200 and 450 CE.[19] Daniel Ingalls disagreed with Jacobi chronology in his 1954 paper, critiquing Jacobi's assumptions and interpretation of sutras 2.2.28-32 in dating the entire document, and stating that "the Brahma Sūtras could not have been composed later than the start of the common era".[21][22] According to Hajime Nakamura, the Brahma Sūtraswere likely complete in the current form between 400 and 450 CE.[5] The existence of earlier versions of the Brahma Sūtras, and multiple authors predating Badarayana, is supported by textual evidence.[23]

Some scholars, such as Sengaku Mayeda, state Brahma Sūtra that have survived into the modern times may be the work of multiple authors but those who lived after Badarayana, and that these authors composed the currently surviving Brahma Sūtras starting about 300 BCE through about 400-450 CE.[24][note 5] Nakamura states that the original version of Brahma Sūtras is likely very ancient and its inception coincides with the Kalpa Sutras period (1st-millennium BCE).[27]

Natalia Isaeva states, "on the whole, scholars are rather unanimous, considering the most probable date for Brahma Sūtras sometime between the 2nd-century BCE and the 2nd-century CE.[19]

Assigning a later date because of mention of concepts of Buddhism etc., is rejected by Madhvacharya in his work, Anuvyakhyana.[28] He explains the mention of different philosophies and their criticism in the Brahma Sutra as refutations of general ideas, which are eternal. And not specific schools of thought like Buddhism etc. So, there is no necessity to assign a later date.

Structure[edit]

The Brahma Sūtras consist of 555 aphorisms or sūtras, in four chapters (adhyāya), with each chapter divided into four parts (pāda).[9] Each part is further subdivided into sections called Adhikaraņas with sutras.[9] Some scholars, such as Francis Clooney, call the Adhikaraņas as "case studies" with a defined hermeneutic process.[29][30]

Sutras distribution in the Brahma Sūtras[31]
Section1st Pada2nd Pada3rd Pada4th PadaTotal
Adhyaya 131324328134
Adhyaya 237455322157
Adhyaya 327416652186
Adhyaya 41921162278
Total Sutras:555

Each Adhikaraņa of Brahma Sūtras has varying numbers of sutras, and most sections of the text are structured to address the following:[9][32][note 6]

  1. Sangati (सङ्गति): connection between sections, synthesis, or coming together of knowledge. Setting the context.
  2. Vishaya (विषय): subject, issue or topic
  3. Vismaya (विस्मय): doubt, uncertainty or perplexity. Also called Sandeha (संदेह)
  4. Purva-paksha (पूर्वपक्ष): prima facie view, or prior part and arguments
  5. Siddhanta (सिद्धान्त): theory and arguments presented, proposed doctrine, or conclusions

The Brahma Sūtras text has 189 Adhikaranas.[35][note 7] Each section (case study) in the text opens with the Mukhya (chief, main) sutra that states the purpose of that section, and the various sections of the Brahma Sūtras include Vishaya-Vakyas (cite the text sources and evidence they use).[9]

Sutras were meant to assist the memory of the student who had gone through long discussions with his guru, as memory aids or clues and maximum thoughts were compressed in a few words which were unambiguous, giving the essence of the arguments on the topic.[36] The Sutras of the text, states Adi Shankara in his commentary, are structured like a string that ties together the Vedanta texts like a garland of flowers.[9]

Contents[edit]

Sengaku Mayeda states that the Brahma Sūtras distills and consolidates the extensive teachings found in a variety of Upanishads of Hinduism, summarizing, arranging, unifying and systematizing the Upanishadic theories,[24] possibly "written from a Bhedābheda Vedāntic viewpoint."[37] The Vedic literature had grown into an enormous collection of ideas and practices, ranging from practical rituals (karma-kanda) to abstract philosophy (jnana-kanda),[24][38] with different and conflicting theories on metaphysical problems, diverse mutually contradicting unsystematized teachings on rituals and philosophies present in the Upanishads.[24][38] Traditions of textual interpretation developed. While Jaimini's Mimamsa-sutra focused on externalized rituals as the spiritual path, Badarayana's Brahma Sūtras, the only surviving work of several of such compendia, focused on internalized philosophy as the spiritual path.[24][38]

The opening sutra

अथातो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा
Then therefore the enquiry into Brahman

—Brahma sutra 1.1.1[39]
Original Sanskrit: Brahma sutra Bhasya Adi Shankara, Archive 2</ref>[40]

The text reviews and critiques most major orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy as well as all heterodox Indian philosophies such as Buddhism, with the exception of Samkhya and Yoga philosophies which it holds in high regards. It recurrently refers to them in all its four chapters, adding in sutras 2.1.3 and 4.2.21 that Yoga and Samkhya are similar.[41] The text cites and quotes from the ten Principal Upanishads often, particularly the Kaushitaki Upanishad and the Shvetashvatara Upanishad in several sutras. Additionally, it also mentions Upanishads that are now unknown and lost.[41] The contents of the text also acknowledge and analyze the various Vedic schools, and mentions the existence of multiple, diverging versions of the same underlying text.[42]

The sutras of the Brahma Sūtras are aphorisms, which Paul Deussen states to be "threads stretched out in weaving to form the basis of the web", and intelligible "when the woof is added" with a commentary.[43]

Chapter 1: What is Brahman?[edit]

The central theme of the first chapter is considered Samanvaya (Harmony), because it aims to distill, synchronize and bring into a harmonious whole the seemingly diverse and conflicting passages in various Sruti texts.[44][45] It consists of 134 sutras, with eleven Adhikaranas in the first Pada, seven Adhikaranas in second, fourteen Adhikaranas in third, and eight in the fourth Pada.[46] The different sub-schools of Vedanta have interpreted the sutras in the last Pada differently, and some count only seven Adhikaranas in the fourth Pada.[46]

Perception, Inference and Word

शब्द इतिचेन्नातः प्रभवात्प्रत्यक्षानुमानाभ्याम्
If it be said that a contradiction will result in regard to Word (Vedas), we say that it is not so because the origination of everything is from perception and inference.
Adi Shankara's commentary: "Perception means Sruti; for its validity it is not dependent on anything else; inference is Smriti".

—Brahma sutra 1.3.28[47]
Original Sanskrit: Brahma sutra Bhasya Adi Shankara, Archive 2</ref>

This Brahma Sūtras chapter asserts that all the Upanishads primarily aim and coherently describe the knowledge and meditation of Brahman, the ultimate reality.[48] Brahman is the source from which the world came into existence, in whom it inheres and to which it returns. The only source for the knowledge of this Brahman is the Sruti or the Upanishads.[49]

The first word (atha - now, then) of the first sutra has occasioned different interpretations. Ramanuja and Nimbarka argue that it refers to the position of knowledge of Brahman as coming "after the knowledge of karman and its fruits". Shankara takes it as referencing the "acquisition of the four requisite" qualities: "discrimination between eternal and non-eternal things, aversion to the enjoyment of the objects of sense here and in the next world, possession of self-restraint, tranquillity etc., and the desire to be absolutely free". Vallabha disagrees that one needs the four qualities before entering into an inquiry about Brahman, and interprets "atha" as merely initiating the beginning of a new topic.[50]

The sutras 1.1.5-11 address the Samkhya school's view that Brahman couldn't be the cause of the world, and that the Principle of the world is unconscious. The text refutes this claim by using scriptural references to establish that the Principle of the world is conscious and the Brahman itself. The remaining sutras in Pada 1.1 and all sutras in Padas 1.2 and 1.3 assert that Brahman is the primary focus of the Upanishads, is various aspects of empirical reality, quoting various verses in support, from Taittiriya Upanishad, Chandogya Upanishad, Kaushitaki Upanishad, Mundaka Upanishad, Katha Upanishad, Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and Prashna Upanishad.[51][52]

The first chapter in sutras 1.4.1-15 presents the Samkhya theories on Prakriti, and rejects its theories by demonstrating that they are inconsistent with and misinterpretations of the Katha, Brihadaranyaka, Shvetashvatara and Taittiriya Upanishad.[51] Sutras 1.4.23-27 argue, according to many schools, that Brahman is the efficient cause and the material cause of the world.[51] The last sutra of the first chapter extends the arguments that refutes Samkhya theories to the atomists' theories (the Vaisheshika school of Hindu philosophy).[51]

Chapter 2: Review of competing theories[edit]

Second chapter (Avirodha: non-conflict, non-contradiction): discusses and refutes the possible objections to Vedānta philosophy, and states that the central themes of Vedanta are consistent across the various Vedic texts.[9] The Brahma Sūtra states, examines and dismisses the refutations raised by other schools of thoughts, those now classified under Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism.[53] The second chapter consists of 157 sutras, with thirteen Adhikaranas in the first Pada, eight in second, seventeen Adhikaranas in third, and nine in the fourth Pada.[54] Whereas the entire first chapter is focused on demonstrating that the Samkhya doctrine that the world created by the unconscious pradhana is wrong, and that the Upanishads substantiate the conscious Brahman as the cause of the world, the second chapter is engaged in responding to objections against the doctrine of Brahman raised in other schools. The first Adhikarana argues that when a smriti (texts of speculative reasoning) conflicts with the sruti (the Vedas), only that which is supported by the Vedas must be affirmed.[55]

The second chapter of the Brahma Sūtra has been variously interpreted by various monist, theistic and other sub-schools of Vedanta.[48][56] The Advaita school for example, states Francis Clooney, asserts that the "identity of Atman and Brahman" based Advaita system is the coherent system while other systems conflict with the Upanishads, or are internally inconsistent, or incoherent with observed reality and cosmos.[48] The theistic sub-schools interpret the text to be stating that Atman is different from Brahman, and thereafter each explains how other systems conflict with the Upanishads or are incoherent.[56]

The Pada 2.1 opens with Adhikarana on Samkhya and Vaisheshika schools argument that Smritis should be a basis for examining the concept of Brahman, and their objections to the Vedanta theory of reflection. The Brahma Sūtras asserts in 2.1.13 through 2.1.20 that the subject and object are one in Brahman, which agrees with Samkhya that there is an identity in cause and effect, adding that the Brahman and the empirical world are therefore one.[57] The sutras 2.1.21 through 2.1.36 present the problem of evil, offering its own doctrine to address it, asserting that Brahman is neither unjust nor cruel, and that inequality and evil exists in the world because of will, choices and circumstances created by actions of living beings over time.[58]

The sutras in Pada 2.1 are variously interpreted by Advaita, Dvaita, Vishishtadvaita and other sub-schools of Vedanta.[58][58][59][60] The monist Advaita school holds that ignorance or Avidya (wrong knowledge) is the root of "problem of evil"; in contrast, dualistic Vedanta schools hold karma and samsara to be the root.[61][note 8]

The atomistic physico-theological theories of Vaisheshika and Samkhya school are the focus of the first seventeen sutras of Pada 2.2.[62] The theories of Buddhism are refuted in sutras 2.2.18 through 2.2.32,[note 9] while the theories of Jainism are analyzed by the text in sutras 2.2.33 through 2.2.36.[12][64]

The theories of other orthodox traditions are discussed in 2.2.37 through 2.2.45.[65] Ramanuja and Shankara disagree in their formulation as well as critique of then extant orthodox traditions, in their respective commentaries, but both agree that the theory on emergence of Pradyumna (intellect) in the competing orthodox system is the primary flaw.[66]

The first eight case studies in the third Pada of chapter 2 discuss whether the world has an origin or not, whether the universe is co-eternal with Brahman or is an effect of Brahman (interpreted as dualistic God in theistic sub-schools of Vedanta), and whether the universe returns into Brahman periodically.[67] The last nine Adhikaranas of the third Pada discuss the nature of soul, whether it is eternal, is soul an agent, soul's relationship to Brahman, and states its proof that the soul exists and is immortal.[68][69]

The last Pada of the second chapter extracts and summarizes the theories of human body, sensory organs, action organs and their relationship to Prana (vital breath) in the various Vedic Brahmanas and Upanishads.[70][71] The Brahma Sūtras states that the organs inside a living being are independent principles, in the seventh and eighth Adhikarana of the fourth Pada.[71][72] The various sub-schools of Vedanta interpret the sutras in the fourth Pada differently.[71]

Chapter 3: The means to spiritual knowledge[edit]

The Vedanta texts, state sutras 3.1.1-4 and 3.3.5-19 of Brahmasutra, describe different forms of meditation. These should be combined, merged into one and practiced, because there is nondifference of their basic import, that of Self, mind, knowledge and a state.[73][74]

Third chapter (Sādhana: the means): describes the process by which ultimate emancipation can be achieved. The topics discussed are diverse.[75] The third chapter is the longest and consists of 186 sutras, with six Adhikaranas in its first Pada, eight in second, thirty six in third, and fourteen Adhikaranas in the fourth Pada.[76]

The nature of liberating knowledge[edit]

The third chapter focuses on the yearning for knowledge of Brahman, and the means to attain it.[48] Dissatisfaction with mundane life and strengthening the wish for liberation is invoked, treating the theory of death and rebirth,[77] karma and importance of conduct and free will,[78] and the connection between Atman (Self, Soul) and the Brahman are discussed in sections 3.1 and 3.2 of the text.[48][79]

अपि संराधने प्रत्यक्षानुमानाभ्याम्
And (Brahman is apprehended) in perfect meditation also, according to perception (Sruti, Pratyakṣa) and inference (Smriti, Anumāṇa).

प्रकाशवच्चावैशेष्यं प्रकाशश्च कर्मण्यभ्यासात्
And as is the case of (physical) light and the like, there is the non-distinction (of two Selves), the light (Self) by its activity, on account of repeated declarations (in the Scripture).

अतोऽनन्तेन तथा हि लिङ्गम्
Therefore (the individual soul enters into unity) with the infinite (the highest Self), for thus (is the scriptural) indication.

— Brahma sutra 3.2.24 - 3.2.26, [80][81]

Sections 3.3 and 3.4 describe the need for self-study, reflection of texts read, meditation, etc.,[82] as steps while one makes progress and the role of sannyasa (monk, mendicant) in the pursuit of spiritual knowledge.[48]

Upasana (worship, meditation)[edit]

The third pada, states George Thibaut, opens a new section and theme in chapter 3 of the Brahma Sūtras, describing how "the individual soul is enabled by meditation on Brahman to obtain final release," and harmonising the different Upanishadic views on this.[83][84] The Upanishads describe many upasanas on Brahman, with considerable similarities, but also with differences, due to the variations in transmission in the different Vedic schools. The Brahma-sutra, in Adhikaranas of third and fourth pada, states Thibaut, assert that there is no contradiction in these teachings and that "the different Upanishads have to be viewed as teaching the same matter, and therefore the ideas must be combined in one meditation".[83]

सैव हि सत्यादयः
For the True are so on (in different texts), are one and the same knowledge.

— Brahma sutra 3.3.38, [85][86]

The most referred to texts in these sections are the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, the Chandogya Upanishad, the Kaushitaki Upanishad, the Katha Upanishad, and the non-Upanishadic parts of Shatapatha Brahmana and Aitereya Aranyaka.[83] The topic of meditation, state the Brahma-sutras, is the spiritual knowledge of Brahman; the object of this knowledge, states Thibaut, is "Brahman viewed as the inner Self of all".[87]

While upasana may be regarded as a kind of meditation, it is more than dhyana or sitting in meditation;[note 10] it is a continuous practice of "constant remembrance" of Brahman or the Divine throughout the day, as the culmination of a life of spiritual development.[88]

The Brahma Sutras, in addition to recommending meditation, suggest that rituals and rites are unnecessary because it is knowledge that achieves the purpose.[89]

And for this very reason there is no need of the lighting of the fire and so on.

— Brahma sutra 3.4.25, [89][90]

In sutras 3.4.26 and 3.4.27, the text adds that rituals, however, can spiritually prepare a mind, remove impurities within, empower calmness and distractions from sensory pursuits, and therefore assist in its ability to meditate and gain the ultimate knowledge.[91] The text also discusses, in sutras 3.4.28 to 3.4.31 whether there are restrictions on food (meat) one can ingest, during the spiritual journey. The sutras, translates Thibaut, derive from the Vedic texts that there is "a prohibition of doing harm to any living creature", however, the scriptures state, "only in danger of life, in cases of highest need, food of any kind is permitted to be eaten".[92][93]

The last three sutras of the chapter 3 assert that a person, pursuing means to spiritual knowledge, should seek a childlike state of innocence, a psychological state that is free of anger, self-centeredness, pride and arrogance.[94] The text declares that according to the Vedic literature knowledge is possible in this life, that one is one's own obstruction in this journey, that liberation and freedom is the fruit of knowledge.[95][96]

Chapter 4: The benefits of spiritual knowledge[edit]

Fourth chapter (Phala: the result): talks of the state that is achieved in final emancipation. This is the shortest chapter with 78 sutras and 38 adhikaranas.[75] The last chapter contains fourteen Adhikaranas in its first Pada, eleven in second, six in third, and seven Adhikaranas in the fourth.[97] The last chapter of the Brahma Sūtras discusses the need and fruits of self-knowledge, the state of freedom and liberation.[48]

The opening sutras of chapter 4 continue the discussion of meditation as means to knowledge, with sutra 4.1.3 summarizing it to be the state where the person accepts, "I am Brahman, not another being" (Adi Shankara), as "Thou indeed I am, O holy divinity, and I indeed thou art, O holy divinity" (Jabalas), and "God is to be contemplated as the Self" and the individual is as the body of God (Ramanuja).[98][99][100]

On the Soul's having attained the Highest light, there is manifestation of its real nature, as we infer from the word own.
The Self whose true nature has manifested itself is released; according to the promise (made by scripture).
The light into which the soul enters is the Self, owing to the subject-matter of the chapter.
The released soul abides in non-division from the highest Self (Brahman), because that is seen.

— Brahma sutra 4.4.1 - 4.4.4, [101][102]

The liberated soul, asserts the Brahma Sūtras, is of the nature of Brahman, with inner power and knowledge, free from evil, free from grief, free from suffering, one of bliss and "for such there is freedom in all worlds".[103][104]

Commentaries[edit]

Numerous commentaries have been written on the Brahma Sūtras text, but many such as that of Bodhayana,[note 11] Upavarsa,[note 12] and eighteen out of twenty one mentioned by Narayana in Madhvavijaya-bhava-prakashika are considered lost.[14] Of the surviving commentaries, the earliest extant one is by Adi Shankara.[14]

The diversity of Brahma Sūtras commentaries by various sub-schools of Hinduism (see table) attests to the central importance of the Upanishads, that the text summarizes.[14]

Foundational commentaries on Brahma Sūtras
ScholarImageCenturySchoolSampradayaTheme / Influence[14][108]
Ādi Śaṅkarācārya[109]
8th centuryAdvaita

(Brahmasūtrabhāṣya)

Dasanami SampradayaAbsolute monism

Smartism

Bhaskara,[110]
Yādavaprakāśa[111]
10th centuryBhedabhedaVaishnavism
Rāmāṉujācārya[112]
11th centuryVishishtadvaita

(Śrībhāṣya)

Sri (Lakshmi) SampradayaQualified non-dualism
Vaishnavism
Madhvācārya[113]
13th centuryDvaita

(Madhva bhāṣya)

Bramha (Madhva)/ Sadh SampradayaDualism

Vaishnavism

Nimbārkāchārya[114]
13th centuryDvaitadvaita

(Vedanta-Parijata-Saurabha)

Kumara SampradayaDifferential monism

Vaishnavism

Śrīkaṇṭhācārya Śivācārya[115]
13th centuryShiva-Vishishtadvaita / Shiva Advaita

(Srikantha-bhasya)

Shrouta Shaiva Siddhanta[116]Qualified non-dualism

Shaivism

Śrīpati Paṇḍitācārya[117]
14th centuryVisheshadvaita

(Śrīkarabhāṣya)

VeerashaivaDifferential monism

Shaivism

Vallabhācārya[118]
16th centuryShuddhadvaita

(Aṇubhāṣya)

Rudra Sampradaya

Pushtimarg

Pure non-dualism

Vaishnavism

Śuka[119]
16th centuryBhedavada

(Śukabhāṣya)

Revised dualism

Vaishnavism

Vijñāna-bhikṣu[120]
17th centuryĀtma Brahmaikya bhedavāda

(Vijñānāmrta-bhāsyam)

Indistinguishable non-dualism (Avibhaga Advaita)

Theistic-Sāṃkhya

Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa[121]
18th centuryAcintyabhedābheda

(Govinda-bhāṣya & Brahma-sūtra-kārikā-bhāṣya)

Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya Vaisnava SampradayaInconceivable oneness and difference

Vaishnavism

Rambhadracharya
20th century (1998)Viśiṣṭādvaita

(Śrī Rāghava Kṛpā Bhāṣyam)

Tulsi Peeth Ramanandi SampradayaQualified non-dualism

Vaishnavism

Bhadreshdas Swami
21st century (2017)Akshar Purushottam Darshan

(Brahmasūtra-Svāminārāyaṇa-Bhāṣyam)

Swaminarayan SampradayaFive eternal entities: Purushottam, Akshar, Maya, Ishvar, Jiva

Vaishnavism

Exegesis[edit]

The sutras in the text can be, and have been read in different ways.[44] Some commentators read each line separately, while others sometimes read two as one treating some sutras as contextually connected.[44] Creative readers have read the last word of a sutra as the starting word for the next, some treat a given verse as Purva-paksha (opposing viewpoint) while others read the same verse as Siddhanta (proposed doctrine, or conclusion).[44] For example, states Gregory Darling, Adi Shankara in his commentary on sutra 4.3.14 considers Saguna Brahman mentioned therein as Purva-paksha, but acknowledges that some scholars interpret this sutra as a Siddhanta.[44] Another example is Shanakra's interpretation of a set of sutras (2.3.19-28) as reflective of the Purva-paksha and Ramanuja's taking the same set of sutras to be reflective of the Siddhanta. Shankara argues that the description of the individual self (jiva) as atomic in size in these sutras marks the Purva-paksha, whereas Ramanuja takes it to be the Siddhanta. A point of disagreement between commentators concerns where to divide the text into Adhikaranas. Although there is a clear division of Adhyayas and Padas in the text, no division of Adhikaranas is universally affirmed, leading to disagreements about how the sutras in each Adhikaranas should be divided.[122]

Another aspect of the sutra text that leads to variance in exegeses is that words in the sutras can mean different things. In sutra 2.3.15, the word antarā is used, which would mean both "without" and "in the midst". Shankara, Ramanuja, and Nimbarka agree that the word means "in the midst", but Madhva argues that the word must mean "without". It is very likely that the interpretations given by Shankara, Ramanuja, Nimbarka, and Madhva did not originate out of nowhere, and their key elements most probably existed even before the Brahma Sūtras themselves were written. It is extremely difficult to determine which of the commentators' interpretations are actually faithful to the original, and there is a possibility that the author of the Brahma Sūtras did not have a philosophical system in mind that Shankara, Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Madhva, and their successors have expressed.[123]

Translations[edit]

The Brahma Sūtras has been translated into German by Paul Deussen, and in English by George Thibaut.[124] The Thibaut translation is, state De Bary and Embree, "probably the best complete translation in English".[124] Vinayak Sakaram Ghate of Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute has done a comparative analysis of the Brahma Sutra commentaries of Nimbarka, Ramanuja, Vallabha, Adi Shankara and Madhvacharya in detail and has written the conclusion that Nimbarka's and Ramanuja's balanced commentaries give the closest meaning of the Brahma Sutras taking into account of both kinds of Sutras, those which speak of oneness and those which speak of difference.[125][page needed]

Influence[edit]

The text is part of the Prasthanatrayi, or the three starting points for the Vedanta school of Hindu philosophy.[4] The Brahma Sūtras constitute the Nyāya prasthāna (न्याय प्रस्थान) or "starting point of reasoning canonical base", while the Principal Upanishads constitute the Sruti prasthāna or "starting point of heard scriptures", and the Bhagavad Gita constitutes the Smriti prasthāna or the "starting point of remembered canonical base".[4]

The nature and influence of Brahma Sūtras, states Paul Deussen, "stands to the Upanishad's in the same relation as the Christian Dogmatics to the New Testament: it investigates their teaching about God, the world, the soul, in its conditions of wandering and of deliverance, removes apparent contradictions of the doctrines, binds them systematically together, and is specially concerned to defend them against the attacks of the opponents".[126]

The Vedas, according to Vedanta, consists of two parts, states Deussen, which show "far reaching analogy with the Old and New Testaments", a Part of Works (karma-kanda) which includes the benedictory mantras, sacrifices and ceremonies like the Old Testament, and a Part of Knowledge (jnana-kanda) which focuses on metaphysical questions about the world, creator, soul, theology, morals and virtues like the New Testament.[126] The respective influence of the two documents, of the New Testament on Christianity, and the Brahma Sūtras on Hinduism has been very significant.[126] This analogy of influence has many common elements but, states Arvind Sharma, there are differences in the role and influence of New Testament in Christianity and the Brahma Sūtras in the Hindu traditions, because in Hinduism texts were never considered as closed, the means and the meaning of soteriology differed, and a diversity of ideas on duality and monism as well as God was accepted.[127]

The impact of Brahma Sūtras text on Vedanta, and in turn Hinduism, has been historic and central, states Nakamura:[128]

The prevalence of Vedanta thought is found not only in philosophical writings but also in various forms of (Hindu) literature, such as the epics, lyric poetry, drama and so forth. What is especially worthy of attention is that the Hindu religious sects, the common faith of the Indian populace, looked to Vedanta philosophy for the theoretical foundations for their theology. The influence of Vedanta is prominent in the sacred literatures of Hinduism, such as the various Puranas, Samhitas, Agamas and Tantras. Many commentaries on the fundamental scripture of Vedanta, the Brahma Sūtras, were written by the founders or leading scholars of the various sects of Hinduism, and they are transmitted to this day as documents indispensable in the respective sectarian traditions. The majority of the traditional and conservative scholars in India today, called Pandits, are students of Vedanta, and an overwhelming number belong to the lineage of Shankara – five sixths of all Pandits, according to some authorities.

— Hajime Nakamura (2004), A History of Early Vedānta Philosophy, Volume 2[128]

Frithjof Schuon states the role of Brahma Sūtras in Hinduism as follows,

The Vedanta contained in the Upanishads, then formulated in the 'Brahma Sūtras, and finally commented and explained by Shankara, is an invaluable key for discovering the deepest meaning of all the religious doctrines and for realizing that the Sanatana Dharma secretly penetrates all the forms of traditional spirituality.

— Frithjof Schuon (1975), One of the Great Lights of the World[129][130]

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ From Vedanta which literally means the "final aim of the Vedas".[2]
  2. ^ Shariraka means "that which lives in the body (Sharira), or the Self, Soul."[3] The name Sariraka Sutras is found, for example, in the works of Adi Shankara.[4]
  3. ^ Which literally means "Sutras for monks or mendicants".[4]
  4. ^ :[5] "...we can take it that 400–450 is the period during which the Brahma Sūtras was compiled in its extant form."
  5. ^ Belvalkar suggests that there once existed Brahma Sūtras style texts for all major Upanishads and Hindu texts, such as the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, the Chandogya Upanishad and the Bhagavad Gita.[25] The currently surviving version of Brahma Sūtras is a composite version, states Belvakar, with the oldest layer consisting of Chandogya-Brahmasutra; the second layer that consolidated various Brahma Sūtras into one document and added the Smritis-padas and Tarka-padas; and the third stratum of the text was chronologically added last, defending the Vedanta philosophy from the new theories from opposing heterodox schools of Indian philosophies.[25] About 15 sutras of the Brahma Sūtras may be very late insertions, states Belvalkar.[25] J. A. B. van Buitenen, wrote in 1956, that Belvakar theory is plausible, but difficult to prove.[26]
  6. ^ The earliest known roots of this methodology is described in Jaimini's texts on Purva-Mimamsa.[9][33][34]
  7. ^ The monist, theist and other sub-traditions of Vedanta count the number of Adhikaranas differently. For example, Ramanuja counts sutras 2.2.28 to 2.2.32 as two Adhikaranas, while others count it as one. Thus, the total number of Adhikaranas in the Brahma Sūtras text varies slightly from 189 in some Vedanta sub-schools. See page li in Thibaut's Introduction.[35]
  8. ^ Stephen Kaplan writes (abridged): "Avidya is the fundamental existential problem and the fundamental philosophical/theological problem within Advaita Vedanta. It is the cause of the evil that exists within the world. Remove ignorance and one will realize that atman is Brahman. It is also the crucial philosophical issue within Advaita thought. Advaita need not explain why a perfect deity was motivated to create the world, nor why an all-loving God created a world with evil. Ultimately, for Advaita, there is no creation, nor any God who creates the world. The highest truth is Brahman, one without a second, the true self, atman."[61]
  9. ^ The sutras 2.2.18 to 2.2.27 state and refute the 'persistence of subject and substance' theory, and sutras 2.2.28 to 2.2.32 state and refute the 'everything is void' theory of Buddhism. However, the arguments offered by monist and theistic sub-schools of Vedanta differ, particularly those of Shankara, Madhva and Ramanuja, with the latter two also refuting the arguments of Shankara in this section.[12] For a sutra by sutra analysis, by the three scholars, see Gregory Darling.[63]
  10. ^ Meditation (upasana) is defined by Shankara, states Klaus Witz, as "a continuous succession of comparable basic conceptions, beliefs, not interspersed with dissimilar ones, which proceeds according to the scriptures and relates to an object enjoined in the scriptures".[88] For Shankara, meditation seems to be akin to dhyana, as a practice of concentrating on an object of meditation, states Witz, a state of "absorption or immersion into essentially a single thought" and "concentrating on it, excluding conventional notions, till one if as completely identified with it as with one's body".[88]
  11. ^ Bodhayana's commentary on Brahma Sūtras, along with those of Tanka, Dramida, Bhartriprapanca, Bhartrimitra, Bhartrihari (5th-century[105]), Brahmadatta and Shrivatsanka are mentioned by 12th-century Ramanuja and 11th-century Yamunacharya's Siddhitraya, all of these commentaries likely much older than Adi Shankara's commentary.[14][106]
  12. ^ Upavarsa is a revered scholar whose commentary on Brahma Sūtras was possibly the earliest, and one who is revered by different and antagonistic sub-schools of Vedanta; he is mentioned by Shankara, Bhaskara and even by scholars of non-Vedanta schools of Hindu philosophies.[107]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Lochtefeld (2002), p. 124.
  2. ^ Deussen (2015), pp. 3–4.
  3. ^ Radhakrishna (1960), p. 22 with footnote 2.
  4. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Isaeva (1992), p. 35, with footnote 30.
  5. ^ Jump up to:a b c Nakamura (1989), p. 436.
  6. ^ Jump up to:a b c Lochtefeld (2002), p. 746.
  7. ^ Jump up to:a b Klostermaier (2010), p. 501.
  8. ^ Jump up to:a b Collinson & Wilkinson (1994), p. 48.
  9. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h Radhakrishna (1960), pp. 23–24.
  10. ^ Radhakrishna (1960), p. 21.
  11. ^ Koller (2013), p. 99.
  12. ^ Jump up to:a b c Darling (2007), pp. 161–164.
  13. ^ Sivananda (1977), pp. 465–467.
  14. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f Radhakrishna (1960), pp. 26–27.
  15. ^ Jump up to:a b c Radhakrishna (1960), p. 22 with footnote 3 and 4.
  16. ^ Paul Deussen, The System of the Vedanta: According to Badarayana's Brahma-Sutras and Shankara's Commentary thereon, Translator: Charles Johnston, ISBN 978-1519117786, page 20
  17. ^ Jump up to:a b Radhakrishna (1960), p. 22 with footnote 6.
  18. ^ Paul Deussen, The System of the Vedanta: According to Badarayana's Brahma-Sutras and Shankara's Commentary thereon, Translator: Charles Johnston, ISBN 978-1519117786, page 21
  19. ^ Jump up to:a b c d NV Isaeva (1992), Shankara and Indian Philosophy, State University of New York Press, ISBN 978-0-7914-1281-7, page 36
  20. ^ Radhakrishna (1960), p. 22 with footnotes 3 and 4.
  21. ^ Daniel Ingalls (1954), Sankara's Arguments Against the Buddhists, Philosophy East and West, Volume 3, Number 4, page 299
  22. ^ Gregory Darling (2007), An Evaluation of the Vedāntic Critique of Buddhism, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120803633, pages 6-7
  23. ^ Klostermaier (2007), p. 354.
  24. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Śaṅkarācārya; Sengaku Mayeda (2006), A Thousand Teachings: The Upadeśasāhasrī of Śaṅkara, State University of New York Press, ISBN 978-8120827714, page 12
  25. ^ Jump up to:a b c S. K. Belvalkar (1936), Dṛṣṭāntas in The Brahmasūtras, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, pages 30-31
  26. ^ J.A.B. van Buitenen (1956), Ramanuja's Vedārthasaṃgraha, Deccan College Postgraduate and Research Institute, OCLC 1541182, page 28
  27. ^ Klaus Witz (1998), The Supreme Wisdom of the Upaniṣads: An Introduction, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120815735, page 53 with footnote 118
  28. ^ "Sarvamoola Grantha — Acharya Srimadanandatirtha". anandamakaranda.in. Retrieved 2022-05-21.
  29. ^ Francis Clooney (1998), Scholasticism: Cross-Cultural and Comparative Perspectives (Editor: Jose Ignacio Cabezon), State University of New York Press, ISBN 978-0791437780, pages 178-179
  30. ^ Krishna Roy (2011), Phenomenology and Indian Philosophy (Editors: DP Chattopadhyaya, LE Embree and J Mohanty), State University of New York Press, ISBN 978-1438436586, page 293-294
  31. ^ S. K. Belvalkar (1936), Dṛṣṭāntas in The Brahmasūtras, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, pages 28-32
  32. ^ Gregory Darling (2007), An Evaluation of the Vedāntic Critique of Buddhism, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120803633, pages 7-8
  33. ^ Francis X Clooney (1997), What's a God? The Quest for the Right Understanding of devatā in Brāhmaṇical Ritual Theory (Mīmāṃsā), International Journal of Hindu Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2, pages 337-385
  34. ^ Peter M Scharf (1996), The Denotation of Generic Terms in Ancient Indian Philosophy: Grammar, Nyāya, and Mīmāṃsā, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series, Vol. 86, No. 3, pages i-x
  35. ^ Jump up to:a b George Thibaut, Vedanta Sutras Part 1, The Sacred Books of the East at Google Books, Volume 34 (Editor: Max Muller), Oxford University Press, pages xxxii-lxxvi
  36. ^ Sutras were memory clues
  37. ^ Andrew J. Nicholson, Bhedabheda Vedanta, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  38. ^ Jump up to:a b c Paul Deussen, The System of the Vedanta: According to Badarayana's Brahma-Sutras and Shankara's Commentary thereon, Translator: Charles Johnston, ISBN 978-1519117786, pages 19-25, 6-12
  39. ^ Radhakrishna (1960), p. 227.
  40. ^ George Adams (1993), The Structure and Meaning of Bādarāyaṇa's Brahma Sūtras, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120809314, page 38
  41. ^ Jump up to:a b Paul Deussen, The System of the Vedanta: According to Badarayana's Brahma Sūtras and Shankara's Commentary thereon, Translator: Charles Johnston, ISBN 978-1519117786, pages 22-23
  42. ^ Paul Deussen, The System of the Vedanta: According to Badarayana's Brahma-Sutras and Shankara's Commentary thereon, Translator: Charles Johnston, ISBN 978-1519117786, page 24
  43. ^ Paul Deussen, The System of the Vedanta: According to Badarayana's Brahma-Sutras and Shankara's Commentary thereon, Translator: Charles Johnston, ISBN 978-1519117786, page 26
  44. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Gregory Darling (2007), An Evaluation of the Vedāntic Critique of Buddhism, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120803633, page 8
  45. ^ Jose Pereira (1986), Bādarāyana: Creator of Systematic Theology, Religious Studies (Cambridge University Press), Volume 22, Issue 2, pages 193-204
  46. ^ Jump up to:a b George Thibaut, Vedanta Sutras Part 1, The Sacred Books of the East at Google Books, Volume 34 (Editor: Max Muller), Oxford University Press, pages xxxii-xlvi
  47. ^ Radhakrishna (1960), pp. 301–302 with footnotes.
  48. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g Francis X Clooney (1993), Theology After Vedanta: An Experiment in Comparative Theology, State University of New York Press, ISBN 978-0791413654, pages 68-71
  49. ^ Harshananda, Swami (2009), The Six Systems of Hindu Philosophy, A Primer, p.73
  50. ^ Ghate 1926, p. 58.
  51. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Paul Deussen, The System of the Vedanta: According to Badarayana's Brahma-Sutras and Shankara's Commentary thereon, Translator: Charles Johnston, ISBN 978-1519117786, pages 39-40
  52. ^ Brahma sutra Bhasya Adi Shankara, Archive 2
  53. ^ Harshananda, Swami (2009), The Six Systems of Hindu Philosophy, A Primer, p.75
  54. ^ George Thibaut, Vedanta Sutras Part 1, The Sacred Books of the East at Google Books, Volume 34 (Editor: Max Muller), Oxford University Press, pages xlvii-lix
  55. ^ Ghate 1926, p. 75.
  56. ^ Jump up to:a b Śaṅkarācārya; Sengaku Mayeda (2006), A Thousand Teachings: The Upadeśasāhasrī of Śaṅkara, State University of New York Press, ISBN 978-8120827714, pages 12-13
  57. ^ Radhakrishna (1960), pp. 345–354 with footnotes.
  58. ^ Jump up to:a b c Radhakrishna (1960), pp. 354–365 with footnotes.
  59. ^ S Biderman (1982), A 'Constitutive' God: An Indian Suggestion, Philosophy East and West, Vol. 32, No. 4, pages 425-437
  60. ^ AL Herman (1971), Indian Theodicy: Śaṁkara and Rāmānuja on Brahma Sūtra II. 1. 32-36, Philosophy East and West, Vol. 21, No. 3, pages 265-281
  61. ^ Jump up to:a b Stephen Kaplan (2007), Vidyā and Avidyā: Simultaneous and Coterminous?: A Holographic Model to Illuminate the Advaita Debate, Philosophy East and West, Volume 57, Number 2, pages 178-203
  62. ^ Radhakrishna (1960), pp. 366–377 with footnotes.
  63. ^ Gregory Darling (2007), An Evaluation of the Vedāntic Critique of Buddhism, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120803633, pages 165-368
  64. ^ Radhakrishna (1960), pp. 378–390 with footnotes.
  65. ^ Radhakrishna (1960), pp. 391–396 with footnotes.
  66. ^ George Thibaut, Vedanta Sutras Part 1, The Sacred Books of the East at Google Books, Volume 34 (Editor: Max Muller), Oxford University Press, page li
  67. ^ Radhakrishna (1960), pp. 397–403.
  68. ^ Radhakrishna (1960), pp. 403–422.
  69. ^ Paul Deussen (1993), The System of the Vedanta: According to Badarayana's Brahma-Sutras and Shankara's Commentary thereon, Translator: Charles Johnston, ISBN 978-1519117786, pages 285-354
  70. ^ George Thibaut, Vedanta Sutras Part 1, The Sacred Books of the East at Google Books, Volume 34 (Editor: Max Muller), Oxford University Press, pages lix
  71. ^ Jump up to:a b c George Thibaut, Vedanta Sutras Part 2, The Sacred Books of the East, Volume 38 (Editor: Max Muller), Oxford University Press, pages 74-100
  72. ^ Radhakrishna (1960), p. 429.
  73. ^ Klaus Witz (1998), The Supreme Wisdom of the Upaniṣads: An Introduction, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120815735, pages 210-212
  74. ^ Michael Comans (1993), The question of the importance of Samadhi in modern and classical Advaita Vedanta, Philosophy East & West, Volume 43, Number 1, pages 19-38
  75. ^ Jump up to:a b Harshananda, Swami (2009), The Six Systems of Hindu Philosophy, A Primer, p.77
  76. ^ George Thibaut, Vedanta Sutras Part 1, The Sacred Books of the East at Google Books, Volume 34 (Editor: Max Muller), Oxford University Press, pages lix-lxxvi
  77. ^ George Thibaut, Vedanta Sutras Part 2, The Sacred Books of the East, Volume 38 (Editor: Max Muller), Oxford University Press, pages 100-132
  78. ^ George Thibaut, Vedanta Sutras Part 2, The Sacred Books of the East, Volume 38 (Editor: Max Muller), Oxford University Press, pages 112-121
  79. ^ George Thibaut, Vedanta Sutras Part 2, The Sacred Books of the East, Volume 38 (Editor: Max Muller), Oxford University Press, pages 133-183
  80. ^ Radhakrishna (1960), pp. 457–460.
  81. ^ George Thibaut, Vedanta Sutras Part 2, The Sacred Books of the East, Volume 38 (Editor: Max Muller), Oxford University Press, pages 171-173
  82. ^ Klaus Witz (1998), The Supreme Wisdom of the Upaniṣads: An Introduction, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120815735, pages 209-216
  83. ^ Jump up to:a b c George Thibaut, Vedanta Sutras Part 1, The Sacred Books of the East at Google Books, Volume 34 (Editor: Max Muller), Oxford University Press, pages lxvi-lxxv
  84. ^ Francis X Clooney (1993), Theology After Vedanta: An Experiment in Comparative Theology, State University of New York Press, ISBN 978-0791413654, pages 70-72
  85. ^ George Thibaut, Vedanta Sutras Part 2, The Sacred Books of the East, Volume 38 (Editor: Max Muller), Oxford University Press, pages 245-246
  86. ^ Radhakrishna (1960), p. 490.
  87. ^ George Thibaut, Vedanta Sutras Part 1, The Sacred Books of the East at Google Books, Volume 34 (Editor: Max Muller), Oxford University Press, pages lxxii-lxxiii
  88. ^ Jump up to:a b c Klaus Witz (1998), The Supreme Wisdom of the Upaniṣads: An Introduction, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120815735, pages 198-200; See also, Radhakrishna 1960, pp. 528–529
  89. ^ Jump up to:a b George Thibaut, Vedanta Sutras Part 2, The Sacred Books of the East, Volume 38 (Editor: Max Muller), Oxford University Press, page 306
  90. ^ Radhakrishna (1960), p. 512.
  91. ^ George Thibaut, Vedanta Sutras Part 2, The Sacred Books of the East, Volume 38 (Editor: Max Muller), Oxford University Press, pages 307-309
  92. ^ George Thibaut, Vedanta Sutras Part 2, The Sacred Books of the East, Volume 38 (Editor: Max Muller), Oxford University Press, pages 309-312
  93. ^ Radhakrishna (1960), pp. 514–515.
  94. ^ Radhakrishna (1960), pp. 552–524.
  95. ^ George Thibaut, Vedanta Sutras Part 2, The Sacred Books of the East, Volume 38 (Editor: Max Muller), Oxford University Press, pages 325-330
  96. ^ Radhakrishna (1960), pp. 522–524.
  97. ^ George Thibaut, Vedanta Sutras Part 1, The Sacred Books of the East at Google Books, Volume 34 (Editor: Max Muller), Oxford University Press, pages lxxvi-lxxxv
  98. ^ Radhakrishna (1960), pp. 525–526.
  99. ^ George Thibaut, Vedanta Sutras Part 2, The Sacred Books of the East, Volume 38 (Editor: Max Muller), Oxford University Press, pages 337-340
  100. ^ Paul Deussen, The System of the Vedanta: According to Badarayana's Brahma-Sutras and Shankara's Commentary thereon, Translator: Charles Johnston, ISBN 978-1519117786, pages 401-417
  101. ^ George Thibaut, Vedanta Sutras Part 2, The Sacred Books of the East, Volume 38 (Editor: Max Muller), Oxford University Press, pages 405-408
  102. ^ Radhakrishna (1960), pp. 553–555.
  103. ^ Radhakrishna (1960), p. 445.
  104. ^ George Thibaut, Vedanta Sutras Part 2, The Sacred Books of the East, Volume 38 (Editor: Max Muller), Oxford University Press, pages 407-411
  105. ^ Hajime Nakamura (2004), A History of Early Vedānta Philosophy, Part 2, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120819634, page 25
  106. ^ Hajime Nakamura (2004), A History of Early Vedānta Philosophy, Part 2, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120819634, pages 5-6, 61-63
  107. ^ Hajime Nakamura (2004), A History of Early Vedānta Philosophy, Part 2, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120819634, pages 29-37, 46-48
  108. ^ Steven Katz (2000), Mysticism and Sacred Scripture, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0195097030, page 12
  109. ^ Radhakrishna (1960), pp. 28–39.
  110. ^ Radhakrishna (1960), pp. 39–45.
  111. ^ Radhakrishna (1960), pp. 45–46.
  112. ^ Radhakrishna (1960), pp. 47–60.
  113. ^ Radhakrishna (1960), pp. 61–66.
  114. ^ Radhakrishna (1960), pp. 78–82.
  115. ^ Radhakrishna (1960), pp. 66–78.
  116. ^ K Sivaraman (2001), Śaivism in Philosophical Perspective, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120817715, pages 33-36, 472-499
  117. ^ Radhakrishna (1960).
  118. ^ Radhakrishna (1960), pp. 88–93.
  119. ^ Radhakrishna (1960), pp. 93–94.
  120. ^ Radhakrishna (1960), pp. 94–96.
  121. ^ Radhakrishna (1960), pp. 97–102.
  122. ^ Ghate 1926, p. 46.
  123. ^ Ghate 1926, p. 51.
  124. ^ Jump up to:a b William Theodore De Bary and Ainslie Embree (2013), A Guide to Oriental Classics, Columbia University Press, ISBN 978-0231066754, page 97
  125. ^ Ghate 1926.
  126. ^ Jump up to:a b c Paul Deussen, The System of the Vedanta: According to Badarayana's Brahma-Sutras and Shankara's Commentary thereon, Translator: Charles Johnston, ISBN 978-1519117786, pages 20-21
  127. ^ Arvind Sharma (1995), The Philosophy of Religion and Advaita Vedanta, Penn State University Press, ISBN 978-0271028323, pages 62-71
  128. ^ Jump up to:a b Hajime Nakamura (2004), A History of Early Vedānta Philosophy, Part 2, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120819634, page 3
  129. ^ F Schuon (1975), One of the Great Lights of the World, in Spiritual Perspectives, Essays in Mysticism and Metaphysics (Editor: TMP Mahadevan), Arnold Heineman, ISBN , page 91
  130. ^ Klaus Witz (1998), The Supreme Wisdom of the Upaniṣads: An Introduction, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120815735, page 11

Sources[edit]

Printed sources
Web-sources
  1. ^ Jump up to:a b Vedanta Hindu Philosophy Encyclopædia Britannica (2013)

External links[edit]

Translations and transliteration
Commentaries
Posted by at

Philo Kalia “시무언 이용도 목사의 한국적 사랑의 예수 신비주의”

(3) Facebook



Philo Kalia

세 번째 글이다. 두 쪽의 분량이어야 하는데 편집자에게 간곡히 양해를 구해 네 쪽의 글을 싣게 되었다. 이 글을 자르지 마시고 꼭 전부 실어 달라고..... 

"한국적 예수 사랑의 신비주의" 혹은 ~
-------------------
한국신학의 별 ③
“시무언 이용도 목사의 한국적 사랑의 예수 신비주의”

이용도 목사(1901~1934)의 일기와 서간집은 심안(心眼)으로 읽어야 한다. 지(知)가 아니라 감(感)으로, 육안이 아니라 영안으로 읽어야 한다. 그러면 곧 그의 예수 체험과 예수 사랑에 감염되어 짧은 활동과 생애에 대한 안타까움과 동시에 외경과 감사가 퐁퐁퐁 솟아오를 것이다.
 
1. 예수

시무언 이용도는 ‘그리스도’라는 말을 여간해서 쓰지 않는다. 신앙의 초점은 ‘그리스도’라기보다는 ‘예수’다.
“예수다! 우리의 신앙의 초점은 예수다!
소망에도 예수요 인내에도 예수요
기도에도 예수요 찬송에도 예수다.
떠들어도 예수요 잠잠하여도 그저 예수뿐이다.
생시에도 예수! 꿈에도 예수! 그리고 잠꼬대에도 예수다!
먹어도 예수요 입어도 예수다!
그저 우리 생활의 중심 초점은 예수 뿐이다.
오~ 예수는 곧 우리 모든 것의 모든 것이요 또 우리의 생명이다.”(『서간집』, 118)

시무언은 왜 ‘그리스도’보다 ‘예수’를 불렀을까? ‘그리스도’는 예수에 대한 고백의 표현으로서 교회를 통해 하나님의 아들로서 교리화되고 추상화되어 인간이 감히 가까이 다가가지 못하게 만들기 때문이라고 말한다. “머리속에 교리와 신조만이 생명 없는 고목같이 앙상하게 뼈만 남았고, 저희들의 심령은 생명을 잃어 화석이 되었으니 저희 교리가 어찌 저희를 구원하며, 저희 몸이 교회를 출입한다고 하여 그 영이 어찌 무슨 힘과 기쁨을 얻을 수 있사오리까.”(『일기』, 1932. 12월 초)
1931년 3월 친애하는 자매에게 보낸 편지에서 시무언은 예수에게 미친 자매를 칭찬한다. “그대는 예수에게 미쳐 그를 웃고 그를 울며 그를 먹고 그를 마시며 마침내 현세의 사람이 아닐세라”(『서간집』, 40) 여기서 현세의 사람이 아니라는 것은 현세의 삶을 부정하고 내세의 삶을 산다는 뜻이 아니라 육의 삶을 떠나 영적 삶을 산다는 것이다. 영만이 생명을 살리는 힘이기 때문이다.
그리스도인이 배울 바는 성경의 문자나 교리적 지식이 아니라 외적으로 보아 아주 단순한 “예수의 생활 그것이다” 그러나 예수의 삶의 내적 내용은 아주 깊고 높다. 그리스도인은 예수의 내적 움직임, 영의 약동과 접해야 한다. “그 영과 나의 영광의 접촉으로부터 일어나는 사랑의 전광”이 나의 생활 전체에 영향을 주어야 한다.(『서간집』, 112) 시무언은 당시 교회의 영향력 없이 요란하게 쏟아놓는 빈말에 대하여 탄식하며 자신의 태도를 말한다. “나는 말하지 않고 그냥 살렵니다. ... 진리는 말할 바 아니요 살 바 장소임을 나는 압니다. 종교는 설교에 있지 않고 삶에 있지 않습니까.”(『서간집』, 81)

2. 신비주의

“이렇게 주님은 나에게 끌리시고, 나는 주님에게 끌리어, 하나를 이루는 것이었습니다(一化). 나는 주님의 사랑에 삼키운 바 되고, 주는 나의 신앙에 삼키운 바 되어, 결국 나는 주의 사랑 안에 있고, 주는 나의 신앙 안에 있게 되는 것이다. 아! 오묘하도소이다. 합일의 원리여! 오! 나의 눈아, 주를 바라보자, 일심(一心)으로 주만 바라보자.”(『일기』, 1931. 1. 27)
“그리스도의 마음이 내 마음이 되고 그 신이 나의 신이 되는”『서간집』, 67) 주님과 나의 일화(一化)의 원리, 나와 주님의 합일의 원리가 곧 신비주의의 핵심이다. 그러나 이 합일은 나의 신앙과 주님의 사랑이 상응하고 관통하여, 너와 나의 마음이 일심이 되고 어머니가 어린아이를 품에 안듯 주님의 품에 안기는 합일의 원리이다. 이용도의 신비주의는 십자가 신비주의와 사랑의 신비주의이다. 그는 십자가의 아름다움에 매료된다. “예수의 모든 아름다운 성격은 그의 십자가에 모두 집중되었습니다. 그 피에 모였습니다. 그것을 바라볼 때 그 신의 성품을 바라볼 때에 우리는 내 죄를 깨닫습니다.”『일기』, 1929. 11. 10) 십자가 사랑은 가난한 사람들과 고통 속에 있는 사람들에 대한 강한 자비, 그 표현인 눈물과 피(淚血)로 나타난다. 이용도의 신앙은 누혈(淚血)의 신앙이다. “눈물을 주소서. 피를 주소서”(『일기』, 1927. 12. 6) 다른 한편 이용도의 신비주의는 요한복음과 함께 아가서의 신랑과 신부의 사랑의 신비주의로 표현된다. “나는 주님의 신부요, 주는 나의 신랑이시다. 나는 나의 주님 외에 다른 사람이 있는 것을 기뻐하지 않습니다. 주의 말씀이 제일 좋고, 주의 얼굴이 가장 좋아요. ... 나는 주님의 품으로 들어가겠어요”(『일기』, 1930. 1. 19)
이용도의 신비주의는 자신이 지은 별명 “시무언(是無言)”속에서도 잘 나타난다. 시무언은 “말없이 옳다는 의미와 메시아 오시기를 기다려 일생을 성전에서 지내다가 마침내 만나 즐겨 하던 시므온을 그리워” 지었다고 설명한다.(『서간집』, 107) “예수는 신비적이요, 또 구체적이다.”(『일기』, 1929. 12. 3) 따라서 예수의 구원의 사랑을 표현하는 그의 문체 또한 문학적이며 시적이고 무엇보다 감각적이다. 이용도는 오감이 작용하는 귀, 눈, 입, 코, 손, 발이 다 주님의 것이 되길 원한다. “주의 눈이 나의 눈이요, 주의 귀가 나의 귀였느니라. 나의 눈은 내 자체에 있지 않고 주에게 있느니라. 그런고로 나는 주를 통해서만 보고, 주를 통하여서만 듣고, 주를 통하여서만 걷고, 동작하는 것이었습니다.”(『일기』, 1931. 1. 24). 성전의 시므온은 영적 오감, 특히 촉감을 통해 아기 예수를 성모로부터 자기 팔로 받아서 품에 안고 “내 눈이 주님의 구원을 보았습니다”하고 찬양한다. 신비주의란 얼마나 구체적이고 감각적인가! 영원한 생명 곧 하나님과 예수를 아는 것은 머리의 지(知)를 통해서 얻을 수 있는 것이 아니라 감(感)하여 얻는 것이다. “感하여 知하는 일이 가장 만물을 잘 아는 법이다. ... 영계를 아는 일, 하나님을 아는 일, 이는 두뇌의 연구로서 하는 것이 아니라 靈의 感으로 하는 것이다.”『일기』, 1931. 2.
“주의 사랑의 손이 그대를 만지시나니
주의 사랑의 입술이 그대를 접문(接吻, 입맞춤) 하시나니
오 자매여 즐거워하고 기뻐하라”(『서간집』, 302)

3. 하늘 사랑

“그대는 주야로 염염사지(念念思之)하여 주님의 사랑을 찾고 찾으라! 그리하여 저 깊은 사랑의 내전에까지 찾아 들어가라. 그곳은 한번 들어간 자 나올래야 나올 수 없는 애(愛“)의 지성소니라. 거기서 그대는 주의 정체를 포옹하리라.” “오직 주님의 사랑! 자기가 버림을 당하며 자기편의 불리를 보면서도 그래도 긍휼히 여기며 사랑할 수 있는 그 천적애(天的愛) 그 무한애(無限愛) 그 성애(聖愛)에 목욕하여서만 가련한 인간의 심령은 생기를 얻게 되는 것입니다.” 이용도의 이 “순전한 사랑, 티도 없고 흠도 없는 예수의 완전한 사랑! 완전할 자! 하늘의 사랑!”(『서간집』, 158, 164, 167)은 가난과 폐병과 식민지 생활에서 어릴 적부터 익힌 몸•마음의 자기비움(케노시스)에서 터득한 체험이다. “나는 또한 극빈한 가정에서 태어나서 기한(飢寒)의 고(苦)도 맛보았고 이 시대를 만나 감옥살이도 하여 보는 동안에 갖은 고생을 맛보았습니다.”(『서간집』, 166) “오! 주여 나는 무(無)요 공(空)이로소이다.”(『일기』, 1932. 1. 25)
시무언은 1930년과 31년 새해에 “고(苦)는 나의 선생, 빈(貧)은 나의 애처, 비(卑)는 나의 궁전, 자연은 나의 애인의 집으로 하고 거기서 주님으로 더불어 살리로다”라는 삶의 좌우명을 세운다. 이용도의 예수 사랑은 예수를 태우고 예루살렘을 입성했던 작은 나귀 새끼가 되는 것이며(『서간집』, 40) 임자이신 예수께서 놀리는 대로 노는 연(紙鳶)이 되는 것이다. 그래서 임자가 “오르게 하면 오르고, 내리게 하면 내리고, 좌로하면 좌로, 우로하면 우로, 퇴금 주는대로, 줄을 풀면 나가고, 감으면 오르고 하는 연이로소이다”(『일기』, 1931. 1. 24)라고 고백한다. 신앙이란 나의 생명이 예수의 생명으로 바꿈질이 일어나는 “생명의 역환(易換)”(『서간집』, 85)이다. 그래서 궁극적으로 ”내가 남을 사랑한다는 의식조차 없이 사랑하라. 내가 선을 행한다 의를 행한다 하는 계획조차 없이 사랑“(『서간집』, 168)하는 것이다. 마치 봄이 오면 없는 듯이 묻힌 잡풀들이 대지를 뚫고 자연스럽게, 그러나 활기차게 일어나는 생명들처럼 말이다. ”오! 생명이여 생명이여! 없는 듯이 묻히어 있는 작은 생명들이여!“(『일기』, 1927. 3. 9)

4. K-기독교. K-신학

이용도는 하나님과 인간과 관계를 어머니와 자녀의 모습으로 자주 묘사한다. 그의 영성은 여성의 마음과 동양적 영성에 물들어 있다. ”주님의 사랑의 유방을 잡으라“『일기』, 1932. 4. 18) ”나의 오늘이 있음은 오로지 나의 어머니의 기도와 염덕(念德)에 인함이다.“(『일기』, 1930. 5. 17) 어린 시절 아버지의 폭력성에 반해 어머니의 신앙으로 자란 영향도 깊을 것이다. 그의 장년 주일 공과에는 여성들이 주인공이다. 또한 우주만유의 본성으로서의 “유한 골짜기 물”은 이용도의 마음 속에 내재한 동양적 영성의 반영이다.
이러한 한국적 영성의 깊음으로부터 이용도는 핍절한 조선교회의 영들이 되살아나길 간절히 기도한다. ”아 이 조선교회의 영들을 살펴주소서....“(『서간집』, 183) 일찍이 이용도는 새 시대의 존재론의 핵심을 파악하고 있었다. ”19세기는 존재의 범주를 성생(成生)의 범주로, 절대 개념을 상대의 개념으로, 부동의 개념을 동(動)의 개념으로 바꾼 시대다.“ 21세기의 한국 기독교도 잘 수용하지 못하는 범주들이다. 이용도는 1929년 성탄절을 앞두고 조선 땅에 오시는 주님을 간절히 사모한다. 그 주님은 지구 정복에 굶주린 구라파의 제국주의와 자본주의의 전쟁욕, 권세욕, 소유욕이라는 삼마녀(三魔女)에 쩌든 기독교가 아니다. 거기에는 아기 예수가 태어날 한 칸의 작은 초라한 집도 없다. ”저 구라파 천지에는 당신이 유하실 곳이라고는 일간두옥(一間斗屋)도 남지 않았습니다. 오시옵소서, 그리스도여 발길을 돌려 이리로 오시옵소서, 아세아에서 당신의 처소를 잡으십시오.“(『일기』, 1929. 12. 21) 선교 50년도 안 되는 시점에서 이용도는 어떻게 서양의 기독교와 동양의 기독교를 확연히 구분할 수 있었을까, 정말 놀랍다. ”서양의 기독교는 동적(動的), 동양의 기독교는 정적(靜的), 서양의 기독교는 물(物,) 현세적, 형식적, 동양의 기독교는 영적, 내세적, 신비적, 내적, ... 서양인은 공관복음적, 동양인은 요한복음적, ... 동양이란 요한 발견적인 것이다.“(『저술집』, 209)

마지막으로 이용도에게 신앙인의 삶이란 ”참된 예술에 사는 것“(『저술집』, 231)이다. 유동식 교수는 이렇게 말한다. ”시무언 이용도는 예수 안에서 초월적인 하나님과 자신이 창조적으로 만나는 신앙의 예술가였다. 그곳에서 멋을 창조하고 멋을 살아갔다.“ 이용도의 문체는 문학적이고 시적이다. 그래서 감동을 준다. 그는 우리의 악기인 가야금을 사랑했다. 그는 많은 성극을 창작했으며 주일 학생을 위한 놀이의 대본도 창작했다. 신앙의 예술가 이용도에게는 인간만이 아니라 자연까지도 친구이다. “자연은 나의 친구, ... 하늘, 산, 흐르는 물, 공중의 별, 밤의 산과 들, 초목, 곤충, 새들 이는 다 자연에 속한 것으로 나의 친구가 되나니 나는 늘 이 친구를 보려 자연 속으로 들어 갑니다.”(『서간집』, 73)
“요란한 대로변 가시밭에 한송이 백합화, 고독한 야화”가 된 시무언 이용도 목사의 생애와 사상에 대한 글이 많지만 “한국적 사랑의 예수 신비주의”로 다시 떠올리고 싶다.








All reactions:45You, 강주영, 임덕수 and 42 others


임덕수

아. 시무언 이용도 목사님 감동입니다. 이런 훌륭한 목사님이 계셨다니.. 자랑스럽습니다. 많이 배우고 따라야할 분이시네요.
Posted by at
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)