Table Of Content

Advaita and Neoplatonism A Critical Study in Comparative Philosophy J.F. Staal bron J.F. Staal,AdvaitaandNeoplatonism.ACriticalStudyinComparativePhilosophy. University of Madras, Madras 1961 Zie voor verantwoording: http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/staa009adva01_01/colofon.htm © 2008 dbnl / J.F. Staal v Foreword This is a study in comparative philosophy. The systems selected for comparison are Advaita and Neoplatonism. The author of this work, Dr. J.F. Staal, came from Holland as a Government of India scholar in 1954 and worked in the University DepartmentofPhilosophyforthreeyears,registeringhimselfasacandidateforthe DegreeofDoctorofPhilosophy.Thepresentpublicationconstitutesthethesiswhich he wrote in part fulfilment of the conditions for the degree which was awarded to him. The present study does not conform to the usual type of comparative philosophy which contents itself with comparing two or more systems as object-philosophies. Dr. Staal, as a Westerner, approaches Advaita through a comparable tradition in the West - the tradition of impersonalism - which is to be found in Neoplatonism. And, his approach, further still, is from the standpoint of existentialismcum phenomenology which is a dominant contemporary trend in that part of Europe whence he hails. The experience he gained in British and American Universities subsequent to his stay in India, he says, has somewhat changed his perspective. The pages of this work will speak eloquently to the great change which India has evidently made in his outlook. ThetreatmentofthemetaphysicsofAdvaitafromthephenomenologicalstandpoint attempted here is quite interesting. It does not follow the usual sequence of topics that is almost the rule in the Advaita classics. Dr. Staal avoids what he regards as the epistemological bias of later Advaita. Although references to post-Śaṅkara writings are not absent, the main sources on which this study relies are the works of Śaṅkara. After sketching J.F.Staal,AdvaitaandNeoplatonism vi theprincipaldoctrinesof Advaita,Dr.Staalturnsto a comparison of thesewiththe teachings of Plotinus and his followers. Here, what he does is to select only such topics as would be helpful in an understanding of Śaṅkara's Advaita. This is a justifiableprocedurebecausetheauthor'sprincipalaimis,asheobserves,tostudy Advaita. While the similarities between the two systems are pointed out, their dissimilaritiesarealsodiscussed.Dr.Staalshowsthatthesedifferencesresultfrom the different traditions from which Advaita and Neoplatonism arose and to which theybelong,respectively.RegardingthequestionofthepossibleinfluenceofIndian thought on Neoplatonism, Dr. Staal contents himself with appending a note summarising the discussions of other scholars. It is regretted that there are several printing mistakes. A list of corrections of the major ones is added at the end. Madras, December 15, 1961 T.M.P.MAHADEVAN J.F.Staal,AdvaitaandNeoplatonism vii Preface There are several kinds of books that could be written about a philosophy which has developed in a culture different from one's own. One book might let the texts speak for themselves. Another might look for answers to questions in which the author is interested. The present book finds neither approach entirely satisfactory. Misunderstandings occur despite extensive knowledge and in spite of sound philosophic outlook. These arise because categories within which philosophies operatecanbebasicallydifferentfromeachother.Thereforethemaindifficultylies in understanding unfamiliar categories and this may call for a re-orientation. The information required can be gathered neither from texts alone, nor from one's own philosophicbackground.Itshouldbeobtainedbyconstantlycheckingtheconcepts met against solutions that appear natural in one's own tradition. Such a study is philosophic for it tends to increase the awareness of one's own background and drawsattentiontootherframeworksofthought.Inadditionbasicmisunderstandings which often appear in the course of study are avoided from the beginning. Advaita is studied here in this spirit. While a textual study presupposes little more than a sound philological basis, a philosophic study can only be made from a particular philosophical point of view. Advaita will be studied from the point of view of contemporary Western philosophy, with some emphasis on existentialism and phenomenology.Suchanundertakingunavoidablyconstitutesakindofcomparative philosophy. The first part deals with philosophical implications of a comparative study of Advaita. It leads to general considerations of method but also meets with unexpected problems. Western philosophy reacts in a characteristic way to the problemsofAdvaita,sothatAdvaitaisfirststudiedasanaspectofWesternthought. ThisispossiblebecausetheNeoplatonictraditionprovidesarelativelyappropriate framework of categories. In Western philosophy Advaita is therefore naturally regarded as a kind of Neoplatonism. J.F.Staal,AdvaitaandNeoplatonism viii ThesecondpartappliestheresultsofthefirsttoAdvaitaitself.Principallyitaimsto analyse the assumptions which are made in Advaita explicitly as well as implicitly. It turns out that the results of an analysis using modern philosophical tools are sometimesdifferentfromthoseprovidedbyatraditionalphilologicalanalysis,though both are of course compatible. ThethirdpartmakesacomparativestudyofAdvaitaandNeoplatonism.Sincethere are similarities as well as dissimilarities the issue arises as to which are the more significant. This can be decided only by evaluation in the light of philosophic assumptions,sothatonceagaintheroleplayedbytheobserverhastobeexamined. An Appendix discusses evidence for the historical influence of Indian thought on Neoplatonism. This book was firstsubmittedas a thesisfor the Degree of Doctorof Philosophyof the University of Madras in 1957. After four years I find myself in basic agreement with most of my views. Though I should have preferred a different presentation I have only made minor corrections, mainly affecting style and bibliography. Had I opportunitytore-writethebookIwouldtakemoreforgrantedandbelessconcerned with the phenomenological and existentialist phases in contemporary Western philosophy.Ishouldspendlesstimeonthemethodsbymeansofwhichresultsare reachedandmoretimeontheresultsthemselves.Thismighthaveproducedamore readablebook.Butas theassumptionswhichInowtakeforgrantedstillconstitute unsolvedproblems,thenewbookmighthavebeenmoreaccessiblebutlessuseful. There may be no easier road than the long way I painstakingly travelled. Asforphenomenologyandexistentialism,theyearsIspentinBritishandAmerican Universities have somewhat changed my perspective. Although I have continued toobservethattheEnglishspeakingcountries(includingIndia)andthecontinental European countries appear to compete in neglecting each other's philosophies, I nolongerregardexistentialismandphenomenologyastheonlytrueheirstoclassical Westernphilosophy.Onemajorconviction,implicitinthethesis,hasgraduallygrown stronger:aseriousstudyofIndiansystemsofthoughtmightwellhelptoovercome the impasses reached in the mutually exclusive schools of contemporary Western philosophy. J.F.Staal,AdvaitaandNeoplatonism ix Thepleasanttaskremainstothankthosepersonsandinstitutionsthathaveassisted me in many different ways. I am deeply indebted to the Governments of India and of the Netherlands. Both (the former through its Reciprocal Scholarships Scheme) enabled me to live and study in India for three years. I hope that this book will give some idea of my Indian experiences, which have been a constant source of inspiration ever since. I am greatly indebted to the University of Madras for having permitted me to work in the University and to submit the thesis upon which the present work is based. Mygratitudegoesinthefirstplacetomyteacherandguide,Dr.T.M.P.Mahadevan, ProfessorofPhilosophyandHeadoftheDepartmentofPhilosophyoftheUniversity of Madras. He helped me in every conceivable way. He not only taught me the doctrines of Advaita, but showed me by his example how an Advaitin thinks and lives. It is a pleasant duty to acknowledge my debt to Dr. V. Raghavan, Professor of SanskritandHeadoftheDepartmentofSanskritoftheUniversityofMadras,whom I often approached with questions and who always supplied me immediately and unhesitatingly with a wealth of information and references. I should also like to thank Mr. S. Sankarasubrahmanya Ayyar, B.A.,of the Kuppuswami Sastri Research Institute,Mylapore, who with great enthusiasm and perseverance acquainted me both with the principles of Sanskrit and with the techniques of Pāṇini. It is a privilege to be able to express my gratitude to His Holiness Abhinava Vidyā Tīrtha Svāmigal, present Śaṅkarācārya of the Śṛṅgeri Maṭha, for his kindness and interest in my work. By living in his proximity and by speaking with him I came to understand more than texts could provide. Ishouldhavelikedtothankpersonallymyfirstteacherinphilosophy,Dr.H.J.Pos, ProfessorofPhilosophyintheUniversityofAmsterdam.Hispersonalinterestinmy workandhisbrilliantexpositionsofGreekthoughtfromThalestoPlotinuswerevery muchaliveinmymindwhenIreceivedinIndiatheannouncementofhisunexpected death. J.F.Staal,AdvaitaandNeoplatonism x With pleasure I acknowledge my indebtedness to numerous Indian friends, in particular to Miss Sita T. Chari, to the Rev. Dr. R. Panikker and to my wife, who have made valuable observations on earlier versions of this work. IamverygratefultotheUniversityGrantsCommissionwhichhascontributedtothe expensesofthepresentpublication,andtomembersoftheDepartmentofPhilosophy of the University of Madras who have assisted me in correcting the proofs. London-Philadelphia,August, 1961. J.F. STAAL J.F.Staal,AdvaitaandNeoplatonism 1 Part I Character and Methodology of Comparative Philosophy - with Special Reference to Advaita and Neoplatonism 1. Introduction A Western student of Advaita cannot approach his subject in the same way as a philosophywhichbelongstohisowntradition.Nobodyisentirelyfreetothinkashe wishes,forfirstreactionsarepartlydeterminedbyaphilosophicalbackground.The relationtoone'sownbackgrounddeterminesthedirectiononeshouldtakeinorder to reach a system of thought like Advaita. So the simplest kind of comparative philosophycomesintobeing:thatbetweenone'sownviewofone'sownphilosophic backgroundandthephilosophywhichistheobjectofstudy.Comparativephilosophy therefore cannot be avoided when a system like Advaita is studied outside its own tradition. Comparative philosophy however is not a technique, a tool, of which the origin is irrelevant and which has no history like a machine: it is a phenomenon which originated in Western civilization and it has to be understood as such. Though it came into being with the book of Paul Masson-Oursel,Laphilosophiecomparée, in 1923, its manifestation was foreshadowed in various ways and is characteristic of European culture. In order to see what comparative philosophy means and can mean, it becomes desirable to consider its background. 2. Thebackgroundofcomparativephilosophy Comparative philosophy has been preceded in Europe by two other fields of comparativestudies,comparativelinguisticsandthecomparativestudyofreligions. The relation between these three clarifies much of their respective structures, methods, achievements and aims. Both disciplines arose mainly out of studies in Indian languages end civilisation, It was mainly the study of Sanskrit as an J.F.Staal,AdvaitaandNeoplatonism 2 Indo-Europeanlanguagewhichledtocomparativelinguistics.Inthisfieldobjective standards enable us to pass judgments which may be universally accepted by scholars as ‘objectively true.’ Likewise,thestudyofavarietyofreligiousdevelopments,partlyIndian,ledinEurope tothecomparativestudyofreligions.Herethematerialiscompletelydifferentfrom thatoftheprecedingcase:thecontentsofareligionrepresentabsolutetruthforthe adherents,whereasthestudentofdifferentreligionshasatthesametimeeitherhis ownreligion,orconceptionswhichhebelievestotaketheplaceofareligion.Inthis context the problem of truth arises and two attitudes become possible: (1) the ‘phenomenologicalattitude’,whichleavesoutthequestionoftruth;thisisembodied in the ‘phenomenology of religion’; (2) what may be called the ‘missionary attitude’ (though its propounders need not be missionaries, nor have any desire to make propagandafortheirownreligion),whichtakesasitsstartingpointtheacceptance of the truth of one's own religion. Advantages and disadvantages of both attitudes areobvious:thefirstmethodismorereliableandmakesamorescientificimpression, but it is poor in that it is restricted to the studies of forms and manifestations (‘phenomena’inthepre-phenomenologicalsense)andcannothaveaccesstowhat is most essential to the religious human being: religious belief, faith, experience or conviction, each with its presumed transforming power. Apart from this, the first method may unconsciously depend upon what is accepted as truth according to one'sownreligion.Thesecondmethodisatanyrateatthesamelevelasthereligion studied, but it is subjective. Inthecomparativestudyofphilosophythecomplicationsaregreater.Whereasthe comparativestudyofreligionshasnopretentionofbeingitselfareligion,comparative philosophyis,accordingtotheterm,philosophy.Thismakesthesubjectdependent upontheconceptofphilosophy,itselfoneofthemajorproblemsofphilosophy.Ifit is denied that the subject is an aspect or part of philosophy, the situation becomes easier, the question of truth can be left out and it seems that a purely descriptive phenomenologicalmethodwouldbesufficient.But,apartfromtheinevitabledanger caused by the influences of unconscious prejudices, a new question arises: what is the significance of comparative philosophy? J.F.Staal,AdvaitaandNeoplatonism 3 Beingawareofthefactthatanimportantpartoftheexistingliteratureofcomparative philosophy would accept the above mentioned view, although these questions are generally neither asked, nor answered, we reject it, as it seems that the subject would lose its significance by removal of the truth value. Comparative philosophy would become of no philosophical and of little scholarly interest. If comparative philosophy is philosophy, the problem of truth arises in all its mysteriousness.Themoresoasthereisanimportantdifferencebetweenreligious and philosophical concepts of truth. In the former case there was a conviction on thepartofthestudentregardinghisownreligion,whereasinthecaseofphilosophy therecannotbesuchaconviction;therecanonlybeopen-mindednessandfreedom. It will be necessary to study the implications of comparative philosophy regarded as philosophy. In the special case of Indian thought, there are additional difficulties for here the European definitions and concepts of ‘religion’ and ‘philosophy’ are not adequate. According to Indian tradition philosophy and religion are not separate, as they are in European tradition. Therefore two fields of comparative studies have come into being in Europe: comparative philosophy and the comparative study of religions. ThesetwohavethereforetocolloboratewhenIndianphenomenaarestudied.This justifies the above comparison. 3. Comparativephilosophyasphilosophy When comparative philosophy is studied by Europeans it becomes a twentieth centuryEuropeanphenomenon.Asanaspectofphilosophyitisnotfreetochoose anarbitrarymodeofthoughttowhichitwouldliketobelong.Itisbynatureconnected withmodernEuropeanphilosophy,whetherthisrelationisatthemomentmanifest or hidden. The consequences thereof seem to be grave. Should the philosophical problems whichplayanessentialpartincomparativephilosophy,suchastheproblemoftruth, be determined by modern European philosophy? But this merely means that comparativephilosophyisphilosophy;thatitisnotatool;andthatitisnotirrelevant who deals with it. It is clear that this leads J.F.Staal,AdvaitaandNeoplatonism