Early Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism: The Mahayana Context of the Gaudapadiya-Karika

178 Pages·1995·42.8 MB·English

by  Richard King

Sri Garib Das Oriental Series No. 234
Early Advaita Vedanta
II.
and Buddhism
i
The Mahayana Context of the
~ Gau4apadiya-karika
~
l
Richard King
~
Sri Satguru Publications
A Division of
Indian Books Centre
Delhi, India
i_il~
r~}:
1
,.,·.·.
For my mother, Lillian Richardson,
~:.. .t ···:· and Juli
Published by :
Sri Satguru Publications
A Division of:
Indian Books Centre
Indological and Oriental Publishers
40/5, Shakti Nagar,
Deihi-1l0007
(INDIA)
© 1995 State University of New York
All rights reserved. No part of this work covered by the Copy-rights
hereon may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means
Graphics, Electronics or Mechanical including photocopying, m i'cro
fiche reading without written permission from the publishers.
ISBN 81-7030-558-6 ~.
First Indian Edition: Delhi, 1997
.....
The publication of this book in India is made by permission of State
University of New York Press.
Published by Sunil Gupta for Sri Satguru Publications a division of
Indian Books Centre, 40/S, Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110 007, India and printed
at Mudran Bharti, Delhi-110 009
Contents
xi
Acknowledgments
xii
Abbreviations
1
Introduction
Recent Work on the Gau<Japildiya-karika 3
Outline of the Monograph 11
1. The Date .and Authorship of the Gau4apiidiya-karika 15
15
The Identity and Date of Gauc,lapada
21
Authoi:ship of the Gau4apadlya,-kari#til
The Relationship Between Ilk First and Second
21
PrakaraQ.as
31
The Relationship of GK JI~ Ill, and IV
The GautJapadfya-karikii artd Bhavaviveka 35
The Author of the Fourth Pr'akara'fJa and Buddhist
43
Scholasticism
45
Conclusion
t
2. The Vedantic Heritage of the Gau4apadlya-karika 51
The Three Foundations (Prasthanatraya) of the
51
Vedanta-Darsana
The Upan~adic Heritage of the Gau4apiidfya-karikii 52
Cosmogonic Speculation in the Upani~ads 56
58
Psychology in the Upani~ads
61
The Four States of Experience
65
The MaQ.c;liikya Upani~ad
The Bbagavadgltii and the Gau4apiidiya-karika 68
70 The Yogacara Phenomenology of Perception 158
The Brahmasutra
Doctrines of the Brahmasutra 72 EThxep eNrioenn-cVeesr iidni ctahlei tGy K(V aitathya) of Waking and Dream 168
3. The Abhidharma Context of Non-Origination (Ajativada) 87 Maya in the Gauc;lapadiya-karika 175
The Non-Origination of Dharmas-Absolutism and the The Meaning of the Term 'Asparfoyoga' 179
Svabhava Debate in Buddhism 87
The Sarvastivada Abhidharma 91 6. Gau<,lapadian Inclusivism and the Mahaya::ia
183
Buddhist Tradition
The Nature of Sarp.skrta and Asarp.skrta Dharmas 98
The Sautrantika Position: Asarriskrta-Nairarmya 104 The GauQapadian Conception of Buddhism 184
The Unique Particularity of Dharmas-A Mahayana Critique 108 The Theory of Non-Conflict (Avirodhavada) in the GK 194
The Non-arising (Anutpada) and Immutability of Dharmas 110 Inclusivism in the Gau<,lapadiya-karika 196
The Bhavavivekan Response to the Vedantic
4. Non-Origination in the Gau<tapadfya-karika: Early Inclusivism of the GK 199
Vedantic Ontology and Madhyamaka Buddhism 119
Mahayana Buddhism and the Fourth PrafwrarJa of the GK 119 7. Athbes oTlautthisamga tiang tahreb hGa KT eaxntsd the Mahayana: 205
The Two Truths in the Mahayana Tradition:
The Nature of Sarp.vrti 120 The Tathagatagarbha Texts 206
The Two Truths in the Gaw,iapadiy-akarika 124 The Systematization of Indian Tathagatagarbha:
Foundations of Non-Origination: The Paradox of Change 126 The Ratnagotravibhagasastra 217
Nagarjuna's Refutation of Absolutism (Svabhavavada) A Question of Hermeneutics: Is There a 222
and the Gau<tapildian Response 131 Mahayana Absolutism?
Emptiness (Sunyata) and Non-dualism (Advaita) 133 TTaibtheatagnat aMgaarhbahyaa annad Two Types of Emptiness in 227
ANdovna-iOtar iPgeinrsaptieocnti vaensd Emptiness: The Madhyarnaka and 137 The Gau<f,apadfya-kllrika and Tathagatagarbha Buddhism 231
235
5. Asparfa-yoga in the Gau<tapadfya-karika 141 Conclusions
Aspar5ayoga as a Meditative Technique 144 -;~ Appendix: A Runmng Translation of the Gaut/apadfya-karika 243
259
The Four States of Experience in the Notes
Agama-Prakarat).a (GK I) 146 Bibliography 317
Meditation on the Phoneme OM 147 Index 331
Aspar5ayoga as a Description of the Ultimate State 148 Index of Verses 339
The Attainment of Gnosis Ofiana) in the GK 149
Asparsayoga: The GauQapadian Phenomenology
153
of Perception
Non-contact (Asparfa) and Representation-Only
(Vijfiapti-matra) 154
Acknowledgments
3-"
This monograph is a revised version of my Ph.D. thesis, The
Gauqapadfyakarika: A Philosophical Analysis of the Mahayana
Buddhist Context of Early Advaita Vedanta (University of Lancaster,
England, 1992). I would like to take this opportunity to thank a number
of people who have helped, both directly and indirectly, in the
production of this book. First, Dr. David Smith of the University of
Lancaster for his many helpful comments, particularly on the Vedanta
tradition and the translation of the kilrikas; Dr. Andrew Rawlinson for
early encouragement whenfitst2ttempting to make sense ofNagarjuna
and the Prajiiaparamita, and tt> Dr. Daniel M2.riau of the University of
Hull for first introducing me to the world of Indian philosophy as an
undergraduate. I would also like to thank Jeremy Carrette for his close
friendship, support, and intellectual stimulation. These acknowledg
ments would not be complete without mentioning my partner, Juli
Stewart, for her constant love and encouragement. Not only did this
involve financially supporting me for a year while researching in
London, but also for showing me the importance of grounding philo
sophical insights in the world of everyday experience. This work is a
testimony to her continued love and support.
Chapter I will appear as "Early Advaita Vedanta: The Date and
Authorship of the Gauqapadiyakilrika" in the lndo-lranian]ournal
(forthcoming). Chapter 5 is a revised and expanded version of material
originally published as ''Asparsayoga: Meditation and Epistemology in
the Gauef,apadiyakilrikil" in the journal of Indian Philosophy 20
(March 1992), pp. 89-131. Most of the discussion pertaining to the
Yogacara school, however, has not been published before. Chapters 4
and 6 contain some revised material ~hich was originally publislfed
as '' Sunyatil and Ajiiti: Absolutism and the Philosophies of Nagarjuna
and Gau<,tapada" in]ournal of Indian Philosophy 17 (Dec 1989), pp.
385-405.
Abbreviations Introduction
BBBBCGGMMKMMNRTSSUUUKSGKSoAUH MB N Vf V B Kahk h BBBBCGGAMMMNMRTriirhaabraaa;;aai:ahhuu;iiaithhddnhsl1anaccnma<ihhvmdd;,,adad-Ik.fyyaaaigMasa:huoarraba.poipaakasrgmmhaaittmtayir;;yrdidatdma11aaatyahirv riyykk-yay aUaayavaaaaUasa -kakknihpkvipkbbmoaadiaiaaaha r h;dfnrtanddraUUaaihaiikk~iap1pd gkriayaoy~;a aaaaaab-aoaannf , -dk h oks idif oVaaaa a~ f~Srt1fs raaaitC tu;ikrsdSdyrkiaruaa aabadns bV,n u vdaokotaaarnefartfard dttr kBatraNh ii lcthkubraoaaat ug irv V tayoaeraafvdj usi Svuntouebak ra Sdana vdlah'lrkuaa racarya atoSifpbtthhda tniSidhefparhonrtuaodiai xsan has SsntacmtincttkTt pi ~v .act daklvl arwlayhinaaionoaaieTrdpnstakencsriyoertulsht"a raoeiayesbsreiaet'r e, flkp.s eu al a yn y awir ihid.OnIsot osnaef nte nhe Medroaugtetna r,ede lchxnr , el mai uoinwokttegxhmtaanhscan ns i aani yaih.Gsksmedtsiys s g Lta pn eoD d sewoewauuvn htm mem,Tteonftc i oiiuvhst eul lohjdesutolrpio"ewpahiwd eailes iss tfhperdbtte uar oyhreigSaho ile roopp s ad sdoalal tknmeyhtapdefehsinn ir ,nee beryekfr te"ihromrhdrrmaa m ati astosspgwt a-"rr poempaaiomtaktoueod o pmondasvnfai i =eetnsrd iidbctebdmht nesdhi edio tteid e eeko'ehhoraflu 'te ndatfnte odhedestlahev-c, e i onaeet"wireewrsbevontlccee tlh ,veha tntouh o faaaaylroainotdnap uu i~nc rocfrdntydmptiyha et foh eh t aIhhti ra"eshosuastoni toal piynsf seifadrattasolf sp t u i dittseino ntnrrahreaidceiasd omosnf n"nehmierd san l t os bselt icthnacapi-h elgnohntoathuaeohteshriotogoums t cttie hhaBht u ut lt e' iotwpadheit'lgfrac msivhsoeiSeonah onntnoweevnsauithotr g c ipi ne tkatnoamnctuf ishhlkiufstrdco ioototoeaek awstiur elpsnhrttrr ssmisdmiiiyo,amm.seutcn nt y h r.snuTdt pao c seka ritsdFi teohtcnfon aioe ehy oo ce'ftdfd aad'if e r f t
commentary on the Brahmasutra. The GK's commentator is either
ignorant of Buddhist terminology and doctrines, or naively careless in
his aOttfe mcoputrss et,o t"hceosve etrw uop c" otnhceeipr taiopnpse aorfa nScaen kinar ath aisr eV ceadraicnatitcu rteesx.t .N o
scholar of any repute would actually purport to follow either as I have
othuattl iins ecdlo tsheerm to. tHhoew aecvtuear,l hinis tmoyri coapli sniitounat,i oitn .is O thnee wmoonrdee lrisb esroaml emtiomdeesl
teox pwoshiatito ne xotfe natn Ithnde iavne rpsehsi lopsaospshede r door wmne retoly uas c oalrlee ctthioen soyfs tseamyiantgics
frreodmac tdoirfsf,e erednitto rpse, rcioodmsp iolef rtsh, ea nadu tthhoinr'kse rtse ahcahvien gb eceanre ienrv. oHlvoewd imn atnhye
transmission of a text from its original author(s) to us today? This poses
3
Introduction
2 Early Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism
Consequently, there has been a lack of interest in the Gaut/,apadiya
a further problem for the scholar dealing with an ancient religious text,
karika, a text which remains the only major example of a pre-Sailkarite
i.e. to what extent do scholars impose a level of doctrinal unanimity
formulation of Advaita.
and systematization upon what may be composite material? Such
hermeneutical problems in the final aaalysis tend to be unresolvable
in the absence of any substantial historical information. Consequently,
Recent Work on the Gaut!-apildiya-kilrikil
we cannot know for sure what historical and personal circumstances
lead to the composition of the Gaut/,apadfya-karika or its commentary.
There have been little more than a handful of works exclusively
An awareness of this fact, however, should temper any over-confident
devoted to an appraisal of Gam;lapadian thought. Surendranath Dasgupta
conclusions on these issues. I
devotes a mere nine pages to the GK, despite spending over three
In our enthusiasm to understand and label the doctrines of various
I hundred pages on the Saitkarite school of Vedanta in his five volume
philosophers it is easy to fall into overly ~implistic categories. No system work, The Hisfory of Indian Philosophy.1 In 1981, volume III of the
of thought can be completely autonomous and it is important to
Encyclopaedia of Indian Philosophies, a 635 page study devoted to
recognize that in India, as much as anywhere else, the dynamic interplay
''Advaita Vedanta up to Sarilkara and his pupils;' was published with
between differing religious and philosophical traditions is a major factor
only twelve pages devoted to an examination of "Gauc;lapada."2 Until
in the development of any given system of thought.
the 1980s, only four books and one unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
In the early stages of any new movement, there must be some
had been written in the West which dealt specifically with the
interaction with what may later become an opposing tradition. This
GaucJapluliya-karika as its central topic. 3 More recently there have been
much is clear from an analysis of the major texts of Indian philosophy.
signs that this situation is being rectified with a number of new works
This reflects the fact that darsanas are structured in opposition to rival
appearing on the subject.
points of view or perspectives. It is a common feature of phiiosophical The first work to incorporate a critical edition (in roman script),
silstras to find the views of an opponent put forward first, the purva
· an English translation, and a brief commentary on the text was
pak~in, and then refuted on the way to one's final position (siddhanta). Vidhushekara Bhattacharya's (1943), 1be Agama5astra of Gauef,apada
In the early stages of a developing philosophy there is little or no option
(University of Calcutta Press). Bhattacharya's thesis is that the text of
but to adopt some of the concepts and linguistic forms current at the
the GK is composite in nature, comprising of four separate works, all
time. This combined with the "new insight" forms the basis for the of which have been heavily influenced by Buddhism, especially the
new religious or philosophical movement. It should not be surprising
fourth prakaratJa. Bhattacharya's commentary is not so much an
then to find much evidence of Buddhist influence upon the Gau4a
explanation of the karikas as a collection of mainly Buddhist references,
padiya-karika, which is an example of a philosophica~ school (i.e. cited to support his thesis of Buddhist influence on the karikas. The
Advaita Vedanta) in an eady stage of formation. What has surprised
sheer weight of evidence provided by Bhattacharya should be enough
many, however, is the extent of the Buddhist influence upon what is
to convince even the most partisan reader of the GK's reliance upon
clearly a Vedantic text. Buddhist philosophical texts. Little time is spent, however, discussing
As the only available example of an uncompromising Advafta-vada
. the complexity of the Buddhist and Vedantic philosophical traditions.
before the Sankara school, the Gauc/apadiya-karika is of unparalleled
The book lacks any attempt at a critical appraisal of the GK in its own
importance for an understanding of the roots of Advaita Vedanta, the
terms and from within the Vedantic tradition with which it aligns itself,
school which since Sankara's time has been the predominant orthodox
despite the Buddhist· terminology. There is no detailed exposition or
interpretation of sruti. Surprisingly, little work has been carried out
discussion of the philosophy of the text itself, nor is any attempt made
on the Gau4apadiya-karika. Most scholars who have looked at the
to place the GK in historical perspective. Nevertheless, Bhattacharya's
text have done so as a means to an end, that is in order to gain a better
work is a pioneering and innovative study.
understanding of the thought of Sankara, considered the major figure,
It was only a matter of time before Bhattacharya's view of the
if not the "founding father," of Advaita Vedanta. In general, there
Buddhist content of the GK came under attack. This-situation occurred
appears to have been an undue emphasis placed upon the works of
with the appearance of T. M. P. Mahadevan's (1952). Gauqapada: A
Sankara as representative of the ''quintessence of Advaita philosophy.''
4 Early Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism Introduction 5
Study in Early Advaita (University of Madras Press). Mahadevan' s study "Doctrinally there is no difference whatsoever between what is taught
is written largely as a response to the arguments of Bhattacharya. Thus, by Gau<;lapida in the Karika and what is expounded by Sankara in his
Mahadevan argues on behalf of the Vedanta tradition that the GK is in extensive works."5
fact a unitary text written by Gau<;lapada, identified as Sankara's para R. D. Karmarkar's (1953), The Gauqapildakarika (Govt. Oriental
maguru. Much of the text is devoted to refuting Bhattacharya's claim Series Class B, No. 9, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona),
of the Buddhist content of the GK. Of course, Mahadevan does not deny was also written to counter Bhattacharya's thesis of Buddhist influence
that the GK is influenced by Buddhist arguments; his point, however, upon the karikas. His study provides a Sanskrit edition, translation,
is that Gam;lapada's ideas are firmly established within the Upani$ads and explanatory commentary on the text. Karmarkar's entire thesis is
themselves and are a rebuttal of Buddhist views. Thus, Mahadevan written as a response to Bhattacharya and involves the citation of
argues, one need not look toward Buddhist texts to find the fundamental Vedintic and Brahmanical sources to counter the Buddhist citations
sources of Gau<;lapadian thought. In general, Mahadevan has provided found in Bhattacharya's study. Gauc;lapada, Karmarkar suggests, is the
us with a good, balanced summary of the traditional Vedantic concep author of the entire text; he is a thorough-going Vedantin with an
tion of the Gau4apadfya-karika. The book also contains a reasonably interest in Buddhist ideas. The GK, however, is written with the
accurate exposition of the philosophical views contained within the intention of establishing Ved:lntic ideas and constrasting them with
text. The problem with Mahadevan's study, however, is that it is too prevailing (mostly Buddhist) views. Karmarkar, like Mahadevan, is an
concerned with supporting the traditional Vedantic view, at times to upholder of Vcdantic orthodoxy. His work is useful as something of
the detriment of objective scholarly acumen. Mahadevan denies that a corrective to the exclusively Buddhist interests of Bhattacharya. No
the GK is substantially influenced by Buddhism (although he accepts attempt is made, however, to confront the underlying philosophical
that the form of the GK's arguments are often taken from Buddhist problem involved in an examination of Gau<;lapadian thought, namely
sources), but Mahadevan's own conception of Buddhism is ill-informed the question of the actual nature of Buddhist and Vedantic philosophy.
and today appears rather dated. Virtually no time is spent discussing What do the cardinal philosophical texts of the two traditions actually
and explaining Buddhist philosophical ideas on their own terms, and say and how are we to understand their relationship in the light of their
when Buddhism is mentioned, it is invariably misunderstood and mutual occurrence in the GK? Throwing rival citations at one another,
dismissed out of hand. For instance, in a discussion of the Buddha's while useful in establishing something of the philosophical and textual
silence Mahadevan suggests that: sources of the GK, will not answer these fundamental questions.
In more recent times a number of studies have been written which
Two ways of understanding their [Buddhist] statements are possible, the attempt to deal with these issues more fully. Caterina Conio's (1971),
absolutistic and the nihilistic. The absolutistic interpretation is that silence The Philosophy of the MiltJ.c/U.kya Karika (Arun Press, Varanasi), is an
is the genuine teaching about the ultimate Reality, because the Absolute attempt to provide a systematic analysis of Gauc,iap:ldian thought, but
is beyond the scope of speech and thought. This is indistinguishable from again no real time is devoted to a consideration of the philosophical
the Upanisadic conception; and Mahayanism received from the Upanisads. heritage on which the GK is dependent. Conio provides some inter
The other interpretation is that since nothing is real, the Buddha and what esting discussion of the authenticity of the Sankara bha~ya on the GK,
he said are also unreal. This is the logic of nihilism carried to its con that she seems to accept as authentic, 6 and incorporates the interpre
clusion. Nihilism itself is sunya. 4 tations of other commentaries on the text (Kiiranarayaoa, Madhva,
Puru~ottama). In general, however, the study fails to be wide-ranging
This statement shows no awareness of the subtlety of Buddhist enough to make any real impact and makes no substantial improvement
thought, the complexity of Buddhist discussion of the Buddha's silence, in our understanding of tP.e nature of the GK's philosophy and its
or of the Buddhist claim to be following a_ middle path between
relationship to Buddhism.
absolutism and nihilism. Mahadevan is also guilty of interpreting the Sangamlal Pandey's (1974), Pre-Samkara Advaita Philosophy
GK through Sankarite eyes, thus detracting from the originality of the (Allahabad: Darshan Pith), provides a further example of an Indian
text and over-simplifying the relationship between Sankara and the scholar thoroughly versed in the Brahmanical background of the GK
author(s) of the GK. As a result, we find the author suggesting that: but sadly deficient in his understanding of the B11ddhist tradition.
Introduction 7
6 Early Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism
Pandey provides some useful and insightful discussion of the argues, is that the discussion of the non-origination of the atman in
Brahmanical sources of early Advaita and the Vedantic precursors of GK I, II, and III presupposes the development of this doctrine with
Gauc;lapada. His discussion, however, shows no real grasp of the regard to the dharmas which are the focus of discussion in GK IV (p.
questions of multiple authorship and his polemical attitude towards 105). He points to the philosophical and hermeneutical problems which
the Buddhist schools and their potential influence on the GK marrs the Sailkarite commentator has with the term "dharma" and suggests
an already ill-informed discussion about the nature of Buddhism and that the author of the GK was initially interested in Mahayana Buddhist
its relationship to the GK. ideas but then gradually became more Vedantic in orientation. The
With Alexander Hixon's (1976), Mahayana Buddhist influence on development of Gam;lapada's thought, therefore, can be chronologically
the Gauqa school of Advaya Vedanta (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, seen in the composition of the third, second, and first prakaratJas.
University of Columbia), one finds the first real attempt to discuss the Our discussion of the date and authorship of the GK occurs in the first
relationship of the GK with Mahayana Buddhist philosophy. Hixon chapter and so we shall consider Vetter's views more fully therein.
suggests that the GK is a composite text (with GK IV being the earliest Vetter, howevei; has presumed too much. His argument merely points
of the four prakaranas), representing a number of historical stages of to the Gauc;lapadian reliance upon the Mahayana non-origination of
development of a Bengali school of Advaya Vedanta in existence before dharmas. This in itself does not entail that the fourth prakaratJ,a,
the time of Sailkara. The author.has something of a piecemeal approach which discusses this doctrine, was necessarily the earliest composition.
to the text, dividing it up into eleven fragments. 7 This is textual criticism Despite the detailed discussion of the text, there are many aspects
taken to an extreme degree. Such an analysis is dependent not only upon and features of Gam;lapadian thought that Vetter does not consider. His
a shrewd understanding of the differences between Vedantic and discussion of the Mahayana Buddhist background of the GK is minimal
Mahayana Buddhist philosophy, but also upon the somewhat shaky and it is not made clear to what extent the author is indebted to
methodological premise that the use of a different technical term points Mahayana doctrines other than ajativada, nor on what grounds
to separate authorship. 8 Hixon also differentiates between many Gam;lapada and his Buddhist sources can be philosophically differ
fragments on the basis of the degree to which they display "Vedantic" entiated. It is perhaps asking too much for this to be achieved in a single
or. "Buddhist" orientation. This differentation requires a thorough article. Nevertheless, Vetter does not follow up his textual analysis with
going analysis of both traditions-something that Hixon neither carries further studies of Gam;lapadian thought and philosophical sources.
out nor displays in his own discussion of the karikas. Consequently Vetter does, however, progress from his philological analysis of the GK
the discussion of Mahayana influence upon the GK is superficial, overly to a study of the influence of the Gauqapadiya-karika on the ' .1.rly
simplistic, and far too definitive in its conclusions. Hixon does, however, thought of Sailkara (1979, Studien zur Lehre und Entwicklung Sankaras,
provide a useful review of the major scholarly work on the GK up to Wien, esp. pp. 27-74). Sadly though, further consideration of the
that point, aligning himself with what he calls the "liberal" tradition sources and origins of the GK itself are not forthcoming.
of interpretation represented by Surendranath Dasgupta, Vidhuskekhara Colin Cole's (1982), Aspariayoga: The MiltJ4ukya-Karika of
Bhattacharya, and T. R. V. Murti. Hixon's own work, however, is rather Gautf,apada, aims at providing a definitive exposition of Gam;lapadian
too dependent upon the work of Bhattacharya and provides little in i thought. No discussion is made of textual questions concerning the date
the way of an improvement of our understanding of the nature of the , I and authorship of the text, which Cole treats as a single text. Cole's
GK. A running discussion is provided of each karikas, but the author I exposition of Gauc;lapadian philosophy, however, is hampered by an
does not deal with Mahayana Buddhist ideas in sufficient dept_h to inadequate and insufficient consideration of Buddhist philosophy. Thus,
establish the precise philosophical relationship of the GK to them.
Tilmann Vetter's article "Die Gam;lapadiya-karikas: Zur Entstehung The arguments which Gauc;lapada uses in his explanation are reminiscent
und zur Bedeutung Von (A )dvaita'' in Wiener Zeitschrift .fur die Kunde I of Buddhist Vijiianavada theory. But he is not a ''subjective idealist.'' Rather
Sud-Und Ostasiens 22 (1978, pp. 95-131), remains the best textual study he is an ''.Absolute Idealist" in that he posits a·basis for all experience.9
of the GK to date. Vetter suggests, in agreement with Hixon, that
historically the GK was composed in reverse order, GK IV being the Vijiianavada, at least in the form .that the author(s) of the GK
earliest of the prakaranas and GK I the latest. The reason for this, Vetter would have been aware of it, was not a form of subjective idealism as
Introduction 9
8 Early Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism
where the anta/1karaYJ.a projects itself outward, thereby tabJng on the
Cole implies, nor is it wholly unproblematic to describe Gauc;lapada form (V1:tti) of the object, but it is debatable as to how far this has
as an "Absolute Idealist." This will become clearer in chapter 5, where improved our understanding of Gauc;lapadian thought (although it may
I shall argue that neither the Yogacara school which preceded the GK, help the westerner, interested in modem holographic theory, to
nor the Vedantic text itself, can be simplistically described as "ideal appreciate the text more). Kaplan, however, consistently fails to note
istic.'' Failure to discuss the nature of (what Cole calls) '' Vijiianaviida'' that the traditional Indian epistemology of the outward-going
thought leaves the GK floating in a philosophical vacuum, giving the antal!karaYJ.a is a realist view of perception. This is not the view of
reader no conception of the text's place in the history oflndian thought. perception outlined in the GK, although it is the theory which
Cole's work also shows little awareness of the differences between the predominated in the Sailkarite school of Vedanta. Indeed the realist
doctrines of the GK and those of the later Advaita tradition.10 No attempt epistemologies of the classical Advaita Vedanta school ignore the
is made to place the GK in historical or philosophical context. The fundamental features of Gam;lapadian epistemology, which do not tend
reader, therefore, is left floundering if he or she wishes to grasp the towards epistemological realism.
relevance of the GK and its place in Indian philosophical thought. Andrew 0. Fort (1990), The Self and its States: A States of Con
Stephen Kaplan's (1987) Hermeneutics, Holography, and Indian sciousness Doctrine in Advaita Vedanta (Motilal Banarsidass) pro
Idealism provides us with the first work to acknowledge the inherent vides us with a good literal translation of the Mar_u;/:ukya Upani$ad,
limitations of the use of the Western philosophical term "idealism" chapter one of the Gat«fapadiya-karikil, and Sankara's(?) commentary
when discussing Indian philosophical texts such as the GK. Recent work upon both (with Sanskrit text).13 The scope of Fort's book is not the
in Yogacara studies in the West has drawn attention to this particularly Gauqapildfya-karikil as such, but an analysis of the development of
the Vedantic doctrine of the four states of experience (catw;pad) from
knotty problem,11 and it was only a matter of time before such
. the early Upani$ads to the thought of contemporary Advaitins in India.
considerations would carry over into the philosophical analysis of
The study also includes a brief comparison of the doctrine with the
Hindu philosophical schools. Karl Potter first expressed reservations
modern western movement known as "transpersonal psychology."
about the validity of describing the philosophy expounded in the GK
Fort's work is an example of sound textual analysis characterized by
as "idealistic,''12 and Kaplan continues this reappraisal of the GK by
a careful delineation and explanation of Advaita terms coupled with
providing what he describes as a "phenomenological interpretation" a keen awareness of their historical context. Fort rightly emphasizes
of the text. Kaplan, to his credit, does not deny that the GK upholds the importance of the notion of an unchanging substratum as the
a non-dualistic ontological position. He does, however, suggest that subjacent ground for the fluctuating states of mind of waking, dreaming,
many of the karikas expound a "phenomenological" theory of and deep sleep. Turiya, as such, is the pure consciousness which
perception. Thus, when the GK states that the mind "does not touch simultaneously supports and transcends the other three states.
an external object" (GK IV.26) it is not putting forward an idealistic From the point of view of an analysis of Gam;lapadian thought,
doctrine (that the world is the creation of the mind), rather it is stating however, a number of criticisms must be noted. Fort, while acknow
the fact that the mind deals with the experience or appearance of ledging the differences between Gam;lapada and Sankara with regard
objects and not objn"ts in themselves. Such an analysis is innovative to the relationship of the waking and dream states, fails to discuss the
and agrees in many respects with my own analysis of the text, which underlying reasons for this. Like Kaplan, there is an insufficient
also draws attention to the problem of "idealism" (see chapter 5). acknowledgment of the underlying epistemological differences between
Kaplan, however, spends no time considering the Buddhist the two thinkers. The book provides a good historical discussion of
philosophical background to Gauc;lapadian thought, and much of the the notion of tun)'a, but token gestures to the place of the Yoga and
discussion is taken up with a comparison of the Gauc;Iapadian theory Buddhist schools in the development of this concept provide no real
of perception with modern holographic theories of mind. The insight into their possible influences upon the notion of turfya. It
commonalities between these two widely disparate fields seem to center should be noted, however, that Fort does not intend to provide a
around an epistemology where the mind projects itself outward in definitive examination of the GK and as such there is no discussion
perception. In this sense, holographic epistemological theory certainly of the second, third or fourth prakaraYJ.aS, all of which ignore the
has some sort of similarity with certain Indian theories of projection