Rethinking Neo-Vedānta: Swami Vivekananda and the Selective Historiography of Advaita Vedānta1

12 Pages·2017·0.23 MB·English

by  James Madaio

religions
Article
Rethinking Neo-Veda¯nta: Swami Vivekananda and
1
the Selective Historiography of Advaita Veda¯nta
JamesMadaio
OrientalInstitute,CzechAcademyofSciences,PodVodárenskouveˇží4,Prague18208,CzechRepublic;
[email protected]
AcademicEditor:FrancisX.Clooney,S.J.
Received:10April2017;Accepted:16May2017;Published:24May2017
Abstract: Thispaperproblematizestheprevalentmodelofstudyingthe“Neo-Veda¯nta”ofSwami
Vivekananda (1863–1902) principally in terms of an influx of Western ideas and nationalism.
In particular, I demonstrate how scholarly constructions of “Neo-Veda¯nta” consistently appeal
toahighculture,staticizedunderstandingof“traditional”AdvaitaVeda¯ntaasthealterityforlocating
Vivekananda’s“neo”ornewteachings. Indoingso,suchstudiesignorethediversemedievaland
earlymoderndevelopmentsinadvaiticandAdvaitaVeda¯ntictraditionswhichwerewell-knownto
Vivekanandaandother“Neo-Veda¯ntins”. Redressingthisdiscursiveimbalance,Iproposethatclose
attentiontothewayinwhichSwamiVivekanandadrewfromIndictextsopensupawiderframefor
understandingtheswamiandthegenealogyofhiscosmopolitantheology.
Keywords: SwamiVivekananda;Neo-Veda¯nta;AdvaitaVeda¯nta;Advaita;modernHinduism
1. Introduction
ReconsideringthestudyofSwamiVivekananda(1863–1902),perhapsthemostinfluentialarchitect
ofglobalHinduism,isinstructiveforsheddinglightoncertainproblematictrendsintheanalysisof
precolonialandcolonialperiodadvaitarelatedmovements. Italsocallsreflexiveattentiontotheway
inwhichinterpretationsofVivekananda’slifeandteachingscanoftenbeimplicatedinwhatH.White
callsthe“practicalpast”(White2014);thatis,readingsofthepastthatareideologicallypursuedinthe
serviceofthepresent. Widelyconsideredanationalhero,andcitedasaninspirationbyPrimeMinister
NarendraModi,Vivekanandaisincreasingly,albeitselectivelyandanachronistically,appropriated
intotherhetoricandmediascapesofthepoliticalrightinIndia;inturn,hehasalsobecomethesubject
oftheleft’sintellectualcritique. ThelegacyofVivekananda,linkedwithnotionsofHindunationalism
andmuscularHinduism,is,inthatway,alocusofcontemporarydisputesthatcanbeasmuchabout
thetrajectoryofIndia’sfutureasanauthenticunderstandingofthepast.
The concern of the present paper, however, is not with how contemporary politics or a priori
suppositions influence the unfurling of historical narratives (or, for that matter, with broader
postmodernistcritiquesofhistory);rather,theaimistode-stabilizethepredominantexplanatorymodel
atthebasisofnumerousdepictionsoftheswamiinscholarlyliterature.2 Thiswidespread,interpretative
approachlocatestheetiologyanddevelopmentofVivekananda’stheologicalinnovativenessinterms
ofcolonialperiodnationalismand,inparticular,Westerninfluence. Vivekananda’sthoughtemerges
1 VersionsofthispaperweredeliveredataDANAMpanelatthenationalmeetingoftheAmericanAcademyofReligion
(Madaio2013)in2013andattheOxfordCentreforHinduStudies(Madaio2014)in2014.Thispaper,andmyargumenthere
pertainingtoissuesofhistoriographyandneglectedtextgenres,wasalsopartlysummarizedinaRISA-Ldiscussionthread
(Madaio2015).
2 PertinenthereisA.Nicholson’s(Nicholson2010)path-clearingworkontherolethatprecolonialdoxographies(sam.graha)
playedintheconfigurationofmodernHinduism.
Religions2017,8,101;doi:10.3390/rel8060101 www.mdpi.com/journal/religions
Religions2017,8,101 2of12
fromthistypeofinquiryasaneclecticderivativeofthecolonialencounter. Whatiskeyforourinterests
hereishowthisassessmentisrepeatedlyreinforcedbyappealingtoearlierIndologicalscholarship
thatportrayedVivekananda’s“Neo-Veda¯ntic”theologyasarupturefrom“traditional”or“classical”
Hinduism,particularlythe“orthodox”AdvaitaVeda¯ntaoftheeighthcenturyS´am. kara.
Whiletherearecertainlyinsightstobegainedfromscholarshipcarriedoutwithinthehorizon
oftheaboveapproach, suchareadingdoes, however, entirelyomitfromconsiderationtheological
developments in medieval and early modern Indic traditions.3 This is remarkable because Swami
Vivekananda, not unlike other “Neo-Veda¯ntic” figures, repeatedly references pre-colonial Indian
philosophicalworks.4 Vivekananda’sorientationtowardIndicsourcesisevident,forexample,inaletter
toAlasingaPerumal: “Intranslating... paynoattention... totheorientalists... Explainaccording
tooursagesandnotaccordingtoso-calledEuropeanscholars”(Vivekananda[1942] 2008,pp. 268–69).
Vivekanandahadagreatdealofadmirationfornon-Indianscholars,butthisremarkiscertainlyasign
thatherejectedwholesalepurchaseofWesternexegesisandideas.
In the discussion that follows, I argue that scholarly interest in historical origins and certain
highcultureformsof“traditional”AdvaitaVeda¯ntaunderrepresentsthemultivocalityanddiversity
ofadvaitictheology. Anditispreciselytheunderrepresentedperiodsandtextgenreswhichwere
key sources for “Neo-Veda¯ntins”, such as Vivekananda. In my view, the failure to take seriously
developments in medieval and early modern advaitic traditions is paralleled by an inadequate
recognitionofthewaysinwhichcolonialperiodHindusrecalibratedtheaptperformanceoftheir
inherited tradition in relation to the exigencies of their colonialized and, increasingly, globalized
world.5 Unfortunately,spacehereallowsforonlyaninitialdiscussionofconceptualandhistoricallinks
betweenVivekanandaandhisprecolonialpredecessors.Myintention,inthatway,istolaygroundwork
forfuturestudiestoexaminehowcategoriesandwaysofthinking,derivedfrompre-colonialadvaitic
andAdvaitaVeda¯nticsources,werecriticallyandcreativelyemployedbyVivekanandainconversation
withhisglobalcosmopolitanmilieu.
2. Mid-TwentiethCenturyIndologyandtheQuestforOrigins
Themid-twentiethcenturydisciplinarytrendof(mostlyEuropean)Indologytended,notunlike
itspredecessors,towardtheinvestigationofclassicaltexts,oftenprivilegingthestatusoffoundational
works, commentaries and recensions. With regard to the study of Advaita Veda¯nta, this type
of Indology focused on analysis of the earliest period of the tradition, particularly the quest for
the historical S´am. kara.6 The Indologist-theologian P. Hacker, for example, argued on behalf of
amethodologyforadjudicatingwhich,outofthemanyworksattributedtoS´am. kara,wereactually
composedbythehistorical,thatis,a¯diorfirst,S´am. karaoftheeighthcentury(Hacker1947).7
3 TheremarksofR.Inden(Inden2000,pp.3,25)areàpropos:“postcolonialscholarshipseemstohavereinscribedamajor
divideincolonialistdiscourse,thedividebetweenthetraditional...andmodern... Ithasshiftedpeople’sattentionaway
fromthepracticesandinstitutionsofthepastbeforetheadventofcolonialism,andontoafancifulremotepastthatseemsto
havelittletodowiththeireverydaylife... ”
4 Paradoxically,theneedtotakeserioussuchsources,andtheirtransmissionintothecolonialperiod,isassignificantalacuna
asitisobvious. IfVivekananda’sowncitationswerenotenough,evenacursoryexaminationoftheeducationaland
publishingactivitiesoftheRamakrishnaMission—orother“Neo-Veda¯ntic”groups,suchastheChinmayaMissionorthe
DivineLifeSociety(tosaynothingoftheteachingsoftheS´am.kara¯ca¯ryasattheso-called“traditional”ma.thas)—reveals
anoverwhelmingemphasisonprecolonialsources,includinghymns,hagiographies,independentworks,aswellastexts
suchastheYoga-Va¯sis..tha,A¯s..ta¯vakrag¯ıta¯,Avadhu¯ta-G¯ıta¯,Adhya¯tma-Ra¯ma¯yan.a(particularlytheUttaraka¯n.d.a),andsoon.Indeed,
thepublicationsofsuchorganizationsprovideausefulmapfordetectingtheadvaitic,yogicandnarrativetraditionsthatnot
onlyhelpedtobuildtheirrespectiveoutlooksbutwhichwerebroadlypopularontheeveofcolonialism.
5 HelpfulhereisTalalAsad’s(Asad1996)accountofadiscursivetradition,albeitputforthinamuchdifferentcontext.
6 Theissueisacomplicatedone,butIintendhereIndologicalscholarshipaftertheorientalistperiod. Medievalveda¯ntic
traditionswereindeedinfluentialinshapingtheunderstandingofHinduismandIndianphilosophyamongorientalist
scholarssuchasH.T.Colebrooke,E.B.Cowell,MaxMüller,AlbrechtWeber,RichardGarbe,P.Deussen,A.E.Gough,
amongothers.
7 Hacker’sapproachincludedconsiderationofwhetheratexthadbeenquotedbyS´am.kara’simmediatedisciplesaswell
asthemannerofattributionincolophons. Withregardtothelatter,ifaworkwasattributedtothemoreambiguous
Religions2017,8,101 3of12
TheconclusionsreachedbyscholarssuchasP.Hacker,S.Mayeda(Mayeda1965a;Mayeda1965b),
among others, identified the works of the historical S´am. kara as limited to commentaries on the
Brahma-Su¯tra,earlyUpanis.ads,andtheBhagavad-G¯ıta¯,aswellastheindependentworkUpades´asa¯hasr¯ı.
As important as these findings are, they have functioned, at least in the Western academy,
asakindofprecedentforwhatcountsas“authentic”AdvaitaVeda¯nta.Inthatway,themid-twentieth
century Indological concern for philosophically reconstructing early Advaita Veda¯nta, as well as
the historical biography and authentic works of S´am. kara, brought about a perhaps unintended
consequence: later Advaita Veda¯ntic works, particularly texts attributed to S´am. kara but of later
authorship,arealltoooftenjudgedagainstthe“authenticity”oftheS´am. karitecommentarialcorpus.
Thisjudgement,infact,carrieswithitthesubtlesensethatsuchtexts—andtheirsoteriologicaland
hermeneuticalmodalities—areinauthenticbeyondtheissueofauthorship. Indeed,scholarlytrends
arenotobjectiveenterprisesbutindexesofvaluethatconstructframesofreferenceviaexplanatory,
historiographicalmodels.
ThepenuriousstateofscholarlyknowledgeaboutAdvaitaVeda¯ntinsaftertheS´am. kariteperiod
callsintoquestionwhatthereferencepointsarefordrawingoutdifferenceandchangeinatradition
thatspansatleastfourteencenturies.Manyworksofpost-S´am. kariteAdvaitaVeda¯ntins,infact,remain
littleexplored. Thisis, perhaps, partlywhyscholarstoooftenconcretizeastaticschool, conflated
withthehistoricalS´am. kara,asthealterityforNeo-Veda¯nticborrowingsandinventions. Thisframe
ofreference,whichoverlooksmedievalandearlymoderndevelopments,islargelyindebtedtothe
problematic model proposed by the aforementioned P. Hacker which distinguished “traditional”
fromso-calledNeo-Hinduism/Veda¯nta(Hacker1995,pp. 227ff.). Hackerinfluentiallyarguedthat
Neo-Veda¯nta was a nationalistic movement dependent on the “assimilation” of Western ideals.8
The category “Neo-Veda¯nta”, in that way, entered mainstream academic discourse as a pejorative
term—indiscriminatelyusedinreferencetoanumberofdifferentHinduthinkerswhoheldvariant
theologicalviews—andconnotingasenseofinauthenticitybecause“continuitywiththepasthasbeen
broken”(Hacker1995,p. 232).
WhatisimportanttothepresentdiscussionisthatHacker’sunderstandingstillconstructsthe
rangeofvisionforthemajorityofcontemporaryscholarlyaccounts. Thishorizon,inotherwords,
isprovidedbythetwo-trackmethodofanalyzingVivekanandaintermsofWesterninfluenceand/or
contrastinghiswesternized“eclecticism”toavaguelydefined“orthodoxy”typicallyassociatedwith
thehistoricalS´am. karaoftheeighthcentury. AlthoughBimalKrishnaMatilaldidnotmentionHacker
byname,itisobviousthatitispreciselythisbifurcationhehadinmindwhenheinsightfullycomments
that“... theIndologist’sfrequentconstructionofa‘neo-Hinduism’,distinctanddistinguishedfrom
‘traditionalHinduism’bytheinfluxofWesternideasandideology... is... tobetakenwithapinch
ofsalt. Thetraditionwasself-conscious. Ithasbeeninterpretingandre-interpretingitselfoverthe
ages. Itishardlyanewphenomenon. ThemythistiedupwiththeIndologist’sromanticsearchfor
a classical, pure form of Hinduism ... and is little better than a dream ... ” (Matilal 2002, p. 40).
InlightofMatilal’sassessment,whenHackerclaimsthat“continuitywiththepasthasbeenbroken”,
weareindeedwisetointerrogatewhatversionofthepastisinplay.
“S´am.kara¯ca¯rya”,whichwasalsothetitleheldbythepontiffs,ormahants,oftheritual-learninginstitutions(ma.thas)linked
toS´am.kara,itwasconsideredlessauthenticthanthemorereverentialtitleusedforS´am.karabyhiscontemporaries(suchas
Bhagavat,Bhagavatpa¯da,andBhagavatpu¯jyapa¯da).WhileHacker’sconclusionshaveshapedsubsequentEuropeanand
NorthAtlanticscholarship,mostIndianscholarsareeitherunawareof,orhaveignored,Hacker’spublications.Interestingly,
Hacker’sapproachappears,infact,tobeindebtedtoearlierworkbySva¯m¯ıSaccida¯nandendra(SuthrenHirst2005,pp.4–5).
Saccida¯nandendra,notably,setouttodistinguishthemethodofthe(historical)S´am.kara,whowrotethefoundational
veda¯nticcommentaries,fromlateradditionsand,onhisaccount,misrepresentations.
8 Ielaborateelsewhere(Madaio,forthcoming)onHacker’stheologicalpremisesandinclusivism.
Religions2017,8,101 4of12
3. TheProblematicAlterityof“Neo-Veda¯nta”
Hacker’spopularizer,theprodigiousIndologistW.Halbfass,notedthelimitationsofHacker’s
modelbutwasalsolargelyresponsibleforreifyinghiscategories. InhismagisterialIndiaandEurope,
HalbfasspointsoutthatVivekanandawas“... acquaintedwiththeYogava¯sis..thaandAs..ta¯vakrag¯ıta¯,
Veda¯ntatextsoutsideofS´an˙kara’s‘orthodox’tradition”(Halbfass1988,p. 229).9 Althoughhedid
not, unfortunately, develop the point, Halbfass was certainly right to draw attention to medieval
advaitic texts, but he also imposes a notion of orthodoxy that does not hold up.10 For example,
Vidya¯ran.ya, the fourteenth century S´am. kara¯ca¯rya at S´r.n˙geri, a figure that Vivekananda lavishly
praised(Vivekananda[1926] 1958,p. 330),shapedthesoteriologicalprojectofhisJ¯ıvanmuktiviveka
(JMV)aroundthe(Laghu-)Yoga-Va¯sis..tha,aworkinfluencedbytheadvaitaofKashmiriS´aivism.Afterthe
Yoga-Va¯sis..tha’srisetoprominenceasanauthoritativesourcetextintheAdvaitaVeda¯ntictexttradition
inthefourteenthcentury,theworkwasauthoritativelyutilized,orcommentedon,bylaterimportant
Advaita Veda¯ntins, such as Praka¯s´a¯nanda (fl. 1505), Ma¯dhava Sarasvat¯ı (fl. 1515), Madhusu¯dana
Sarasvat¯ı(fl. 1570),Maha¯deva¯nandaSarasvat¯ı(fl. 1645)andsoon. Oneislefttowonder,then,the
relationshipofthesefiguresto“orthodox”AdvaitaVeda¯nta(andwhat“orthodox”meansfortraditions
withoutafixedcanonorcreed).
Notably,Hacker’sandHalbfass’srelianceonthehistoricalS´am. karaasthebackdropfordrawing
out the newness of Neo-Veda¯nta, while overlooking medieval and early modern developments,
exemplifies the explanatory framework of the majority of scholarly approaches (Bharati 1970;
Rambachan 1994; Sil 1997; Hatcher 1999; De Michelis 2005). For example, consider N. Sil’s
characterization of Vivekananda’s theology: “Unfortunately, his [Vivekananda’s] success as
a Vedantist in the West owed to his distortion of the traditional Advaita system as expounded
byShankaracharya...Vivekananda’semphasisonthesuper-consciousstate,thatis,nirvikalpasama¯dhi,
hasnoimprimaturfromtheUpanis.ads,theprimarysourceofVedanta”(Sil1997,pp. 156–57,bold
my emphasis). By casting Vivekananda’s teachings on non-conceptual absorptive concentration
(nirvikalpasama¯dhi)asaninauthenticdeviationfrom“thetraditionalAdvaitasystem”,Sildiscreditsor
ignoresscripturaldevelopmentsnotonlyduringthemedievalperiod,suchasthesam. nya¯sicandyogic
Upanis.adsdrawnonauthoritativelyby“traditional”AdvaitaVeda¯ntins,butalsothepolyvalentvoices
ofmedievalAdvaitaVeda¯ntictheologians.11 Indeed,whatAdvaitaVeda¯ntinsofdifferentsamprada¯yic
allegiancesshareisnotauniformtheology—whetherintermsofphilosophicalpositions,praxeology,
pedagogicalstrategiesorhermeneuticalpractices—butrather,common“architecturalelements”.12
9 SincethetextsthatHalbfassmentionsdidnotoriginateinVeda¯ntatraditions(samprada¯yas),itwouldbemoreaccuratetocall
them“advaita”textsratherthan“veda¯nta”texts.Inthatway,itispossibletospeakofsanskriticandvernacularadvaitictexts
(whichareeitherexplicitlynon-dualisticorpermitanon-dualisticreading)and“AdvaitaVeda¯nta”textswhichoriginate
withinsamprada¯yasthatclaimanAdvaitaVeda¯nticlineage.This,then,avoidstheobfuscatingtendencytosubsumeadvaitic
butnon-veda¯nticworksundera“Veda¯nta”or“AdvaitaVeda¯nta”umbrella.
10 “He [Vivekananda] is not willing or able to see how far he has removed himself from the position of S´an˙kara ... ”
(Halbfass1988,p.242).Itisimportanttonote,however,thatHalbfassomitsfromconsiderationnotonlythemedieval
worksattributedtoS´am.karabutalsothewell-knownhagiographiesabouthim.ThehistoricalS´am.kara,whoisthesubject
ofIndologicalarticles,has,ofcourse,verylittletodowithS´am.karaasheisunderstoodontheground.Whatmightbecalled
the“hagiographicalS´am.kara”,inheritedbyNeo-Veda¯ntins,andcertainlywell-knownatAdvaitaVeda¯nticma.thas,entails
aclusterofarchetypesfromabroadrangeoftraditions:theparadigmaticbrahmin-sma¯rta,themodelascetic-renouncer,
andthegoddessworshippingta¯ntrika.S´am.karawasalsowell-knownasayogicsiddha,composerofstotrasand,ofcourse,
asavirtuosodebater.Itshouldbenotedthatthereachofthe“hagiographicalS´am.kara”wouldnothavebeenlimitedto
thesectarianspacesofpatronizedpan.d.itacircles,certainsma¯rtabrahmincommunities,orhouseholderswithallegianceto
S´am.karitema.thas,butalso,thediverseandinerrant,das´ana¯m¯ırenouncers.Imustdeferpursuingtheimplicationsofthis
issueforalaterpublication.
11 Sil, while apparently operating under the premise that the germination of a tradition is more authentic than later
developments,citesapaperbyM.Comans(Comans1993)toprovehispoint.Ironically,Comans,inthelasttwopagesof
thatpaper,providesafewexamplesindicatingtheimportanceofsama¯dhiinAdvaitaVeda¯nticworksduringthemedieval
period.ItisalsoworthpointingoutthattheworksthatComanscites(notunliketheJMV)haveallbeenpublishedbythe
RamakrishnaMission.
12 IadapthereL.McCreaandP.Patil’s“texttradition”model(McCreaandPatil2010,pp.3–7),originallyemployedintheir
treatmentofthelateeighthcenturyBuddhistphilosopherJña¯nas´r¯ımitra.
Religions2017,8,101 5of12
Suchstructuralcommonalitiesincludelineagesofteachersandtheirworks,aswellasaparadigmatic
understandingofauthoritativescripturalgenres. Thisframeworkallowsforinnovativetheological
engagements such as the appropriation of new scriptural corpora—which, in fact, need not be of
“veda¯ntic”originorfromthehighestcategoryofscripture(i.e.,s´ruti)toserveasauthoritative,asthe
utilizationoftheYoga-Va¯sis..thaandBha¯gavata-Pura¯n.aby(earlyandlate)medievalAdvaitaVeda¯ntins
makeplain.
Returning to Sil’s assessment, we might ask how Vivekananda’s teaching on nirvikalpa
sama¯dhi would look in the context of, say, the “yogic advaita” (Fort 1988) of the JMV which
not only holds meditational yoga as essential to both realizing non-duality and securing it post
realization but also identifies nirvikalpa sama¯dhi with the highest stage of liberation-while-living
(j¯ıvanmukti)(JMV4.1.57inGoodding2002).TheJMV,infact,drawsrepeatedlyontheYoga-S´a¯straasan
authoritativetextand,atthebehestofthefictiveinterlocutor(pu¯rvapaks.in),inclusivelyarguesthatthe
sama¯dhitaughtintheYoga-S´a¯straleadstotherealizationofpureconsciousnessora¯tman(JMV3.10.1–8
inGoodding2002). Infact,thesoteriologicalutilizationofyoga,and,inparticular,stagesofsama¯dhi,
extendsacrossarangeofmedievalAdvaitaVeda¯nticworks,includingpopularindependenttreatises
(prakaran.a)attributedtoS´am. karasuchasVivekacu¯d.a¯man.i(VCM)andAparoks.a¯nubhu¯ti. Forexample,
VCM, a work frequently drawn on by Vivekananda, as well as at “traditional” Advaita Veda¯ntic
ritual-learninginstitutions(ma.thas),butlargelyignoredinscholarlydiscussion13,conceivesofnirvikalpa
sama¯dhiasthepremiermethodofSelf-realizationoverandabovethewell-knownveda¯nticdiscipline
oflistening,reflectionanddeepcontemplation(VCM362-365inComans1993,p. 31). Thediversity
ofAdvaitaVeda¯nticinterestinyoga,infact,extendsevenbeyondtheabsorptivemeditativepractices
ofPatañjaliandtheyogicdisciplinespertainingtothepra¯n.a-mindnexustaughtintheYoga-Va¯sis..tha.
Inthesixteenthandseventeenthcenturies, forexample, certainNa¯thandha.thayogictexts, which
areamenabletoanadvaiticreading,werealsoviewedasauthoritativeonyogabyAdvaitaVeda¯ntins
(Bouy1994).
ThediachronicintegrationofyogawithAdvaitaVeda¯nta,anditsflourishinginthelatemedieval
andearlymodernperiod,has,however,eludedrecentpublicationsonthehistoryofyoga. Following
theapproachofSilandothers,E.DeMichelis’saccountofVivekananda’s“revisitationofyogahistory”,
forexample,interpretsthedevelopmentofVivekananda’stheologyintermsofWesterninfluences
andincontradistinctiontoavaguenotionof“classicalHinduapproaches”(DeMichelis2005,p. 3).
WhenpointingoutVivekananda’s“... attemptstointegratetheAdvaitatradition... intohisyoga
framework” (De Michelis 2005, p. 169), De Michelis neglects to mention this is not typologically
innovative. There are, indeed, important Western and theosophical elements in Vivekananda’s
approach;however,toelidemedievalandearlymodernadvaiticandAdvaitaVeda¯nticworksfrom
thediscussionpresentsaratherone-sidedaccount.
Other issues that have been identified as the fault line between “traditional” and “neo”
(Advaita)Veda¯ntaincludeVivekananda’sdecentralizationofscriptureandhisconcomitantvalorization
of experience. Although I cannot unpack these arguments here, it is worth underscoring
that such comparisons repeatedly conflate Advaita Veda¯nta with the eighth century S´am. kara.
The picture, of course, is more nuanced when post-S´am. karite traditions, which were well-known
to Vivekananda, are taken into consideration. For example, is the VCM’s ambivalence toward
scripture(VCM59inMadhavananda1921) and its explicit declaration that experience (anubhu¯ti) is
aprama¯n.a,ormeansofknowing(VCM474inMadhavananda1921),akindofNeo-Veda¯nticmysticism?
IstheintegrationofAdvaitaVeda¯ntawithS´a¯ktatantrismamongSouthernAdvaitaVeda¯nticma.thas
after the seventeenth century (Fisher 2012) a type of Neo-Veda¯ntic eclecticism? How “new” are
Neo-Veda¯ntic models of Hinduism in light of what M. Müller, in 1899, called “a certain freedom
13 A.Rambachan,forexample,relegatesVCMtoafootnote:“... his[i.e.,Vivekananda’s]understandingofS´am.karawas
influencedbyquestionableworkslikeVivekacu¯d.a¯man.i... ”(Rambachan1994,pp.139–40,f.8,emphasismine).Oneisleftto
ask:questionabletowhom?
Religions2017,8,101 6of12
ofthought”(Müller1899,p. 108)inmedievaldoxographicaldepictions?14 Whenthegreatsixteenth
centuryAdvaitaVeda¯ntinAppayyaD¯ıks.ita(Ramesan1972),inhisCaturmatasa¯rasam. graha,payshomage
notonlytoS´am. karabutalsotoMadhva,Ra¯ma¯nujaandS´r¯ıKan.t.ha—isthisNeo-Veda¯nticecumenism?
4. NeglectedTraditionsandGenres
Thecontinuingpersistenceofanover-generalized“traditional”versus“neo”frameworkisdue,
in part, to a selective historiography of the Advaita Veda¯ntic text tradition. Just as periodization
involveshiddentheoriesandvaluejudgements,thescholarlyprivilegingofsometextgenresover
othersispartofalonghistoryofover-emphasizingnotonlytheS´am. kariteperiodbutalsoaspecialist
scholarorpan.d.itainformedimageofAdvaitaVeda¯nta. Thereare,however,otherpatternsofpraxis,
theologicaltexturesandtextgenreswhichdonotconformtoeitherthesystematicexegesis(m¯ıma¯m. sa¯)
orlogical-dialectical(nya¯ya)moldemphasizedinthemajorityofscholarlystudies.
The dismissive treatment of Advaita Veda¯ntic hagiographies, which are often viewed as
pseudo-history for the informed scholar to debunk, is an issue that is indeed caught up in the
Indological notion of a philosophically “pure” Advaita Veda¯nta. Regardless of the fact that the
hagiographiesofS´am. karalikelyemergedduringorafterthefourteenthcentury,notunlikethema.thas
intheircurrentinstitutionalform(Clark2006),theyhaveshapedthelivedtraditionofAdvaitaVeda¯nta
ontheground. TheoutlinesofthemultiplehagiographiclivesofS´am. karaserveasanorganizingand
orientingnarrativestructureforinternal“histories”ofthetradition.
Theoverlookingofmedievalprakaran.asandhagiographiesissimilarlyrelatedtotheignoring
of the vast array of Advaita Veda¯ntic stotras or devotional hymns (and hagiographies, such as the
S´am. kara-dig-vijaya,includestotrasinnarrativizedcontexts). Vivekanandawas,infact,familiarwith
works from those genres and the theological articulations within them which challenge scholarly
depictionsofanAdvaitaVeda¯ntaunconcernedwithexperienceandethics. Eventhoughthestotrasare
perhapsthemostpervasivegenreofSanskritliterature(Raghavan1969),theisticdevotion(orbhakti),and
thepracticalroleitplaysinpost-S´am. kariteAdvaitaVeda¯ntictraditions,hasbarelyprovokedscholarly
interest.15 Asthebliss-ladenstotras(Gussner1976)bearwitness,therhetoricofexperienceanddevotion,
wasnotnewlyintegratedwithAdvaitaVeda¯nticcommitmentsinthecolonialperiod. The“Advaitic
theism”(Sheridan1986)oftheBha¯gavata-Pura¯n.a(c. 10thcentury),forexample,wasauthoritativenot
only for the Gosva¯mis of Vrindavan but also among Advaita Veda¯ntins from Karnataka to Orissa.
Notably, as early as the fourteenth century, the Bha¯gavata-Pura¯n.a was drawn on authoritatively by
Vidya¯ran.yaandwaslaterthesourcetextofaninfluentialcommentarybyS´r¯ıdhara(c.fifteenthcentury),
anunderstudiedrenunciatelinkedtotheAdvaitaVeda¯nticma.thaatPuri(Sheridan1994)andafigureto
whom,incidentally,SwamiVivekanandarefers(Vivekananda[1942] 2008,p. 54).TheBha¯gavata-Pura¯n.a
was also formative to the theology of the mid-sixteenth century Advaita Veda¯ntin Madhusu¯dana
Sarasvat¯ıwhoarguedonbehalfofacompleteandindependentpathtoliberationbymeansofbhakti
(Gupta1966;Nelson1988). Also of interest here is the utilization of the S´a¯n.d.ilya and Na¯rada Bhakti
Su¯trasinAdvaitaVeda¯nticlineagesintheseventeenthcentury—suchasintheworkoftheAdvaita
Veda¯ntin Na¯ra¯yan.a T¯ırtha (Mis´ra 1967; Venkatkrishnan 2015)—an issue of particular interest since
14 M.Müller(Müller1899,p.108),whohadhimselfmetVivekananda,arguesthattheAdvaitaVeda¯ntinMadhusu¯danaSarasvat¯ı
aswellastheBheda¯bhedaVeda¯ntinVijña¯nabhiks.u“... arebentonshowingthatthereisbehindthediversityofVeda¯nta,
Sa¯m.khya,andNya¯yaoneandthesametruth,thoughdifferentlyexpressed;thatphilosophers,infact,maybemany,buttruth
isone”.Vivekanandawas,indeed,familiarwiththecommentariesofVijña¯nabhiks.u(e.g.,Vivekananda[1942] 2008,p.270)
andonefindsithardtoimaginehewasunawareofMadhusu¯danawhoseGu¯d.a¯rtha-d¯ıpika¯wouldlaterberenderedinto
EnglishbytheprolifictranslatorSwamiGambhirananda,the11thPresidentoftheRamakrishnaMission.Withregardto
Madhusu¯danaSarasvat¯ı’sPrastha¯nabheda,J.Hanneder,forexample,notedthework“... addressestheissueofintegrating
variousreligiousandphilosophicalsystemswithintheframeworkofVedismandwouldthereforeholdasaforerunnerfor
amodernconceptionofHinduism”(Hanneder1999,p.575).SeetheexcellentaforementionedworkbyNicholson(2010)on
medievaldoxographieswhichincisivelydevelopsthewiderimplicationsinvolved.
15 H.Stainton(Stainton2013,p.44)rightlypointsoutthat“... thestotrasattributedtoS´an˙kararepresentasignificantweakness
inthescholarlyunderstandingofIndia’sreligioushistory”.
Religions2017,8,101 7of12
SwamiVivekanandautilizesboththeS´a¯n.d.ilyaandNa¯radaBhaktiSu¯trasassourcesforhiswell-known
BhaktiYogalectures.
The development and democratization of advaitic ideals in vernacular works is also
an understudied, but relevant, issue. Distinguishing between “classical” Advaita Veda¯nta and
“AdvaitaintheVernaculars”,R.Balasubramanian,forexample,notesthat“itiswrongtothinkthatthe
developmentofAdvaitahasstoppedbythesixteenthcenturyA.D.Oneshouldreadthewritingsofthe
mystic-philosophersofthedifferentregionstoseethedevelopmentofAdvaiticthought,tounderstand
thenewapplicationsofAdvaiticprinciples,andtoappreciatetheliberalizationofAdvaiticdiscipline”
(Balasubramanian2000,p. xlix).16 Regionalandpan-Indianarticulationsofnon-dualisticthoughtare
certainlyimplicatedinanumberofcurrentsofcolonialperiodHindureligiosity. Pointinginprecisely
thisdirection,M.Lederle(Lederle1976,pp. 261ff.),forexample,arguedagainstP.Hacker’sclaimthat
thecolonialperiodteacherandpoliticianBa¯lGan˙ga¯dharT.ilak(1856–1920)derivedhisnon-dualistic
approachtoethicsfromArthurSchopenhauer.17 LederlenotedthatT.ilakwasalsodirectlyinfluenced
by the advaitic informed ethics evident in the work of the influential thirteenth century Va¯rkar¯ı
saint Jña¯nes´var, legendarily known for having opposed the caste system and for writing the first
commentary on the Bhagavad-G¯ıta¯ in a vernacular language.18 Not unlike T.ilak, Vivekananda’s
citationssimilarlyindicatefamiliaritywithregionalsaints;forexample,arguingthatitis“vain... to
attemptthelinesofactionthatforeignsocietieshaveengrafteduponus”(Vivekananda1932a,p. 219),
he cites the model of exemplary precolonial “reformers”, including the nirgun.¯ı poets Da¯du¯ Daya¯l
andKabir. Vivekananda,indeed,explicitlyunderstoodKabir’steachingas“attemptingtoraisethe
lowerclassesofIndia”(Vivekananda1932a,p. 290).19 VivekanandaalsoadvisedAlasingaPerumal
topursueresearchon“thelivesandworksofTulsiDâs,Kabir,Nânak,andofthesaintsofSouthern
India” (Vivekananda1936,p. 89).20 Indeed, Vivekananda’s theological approach can be profitably
understoodasakindofvernacularadvaita. Forexample,whileVivekanandadrawsontheinclusivistic
and legitimating categories of S´am. karite Veda¯nta, his teaching, delivered to a broad and varied
audience,isnotlimitedtothe“classical”textsofthattraditionnorisitepistemologicallycircumscribed
bytheprama¯n.asystemandthehorizonofvarn.a¯s´ramadharma.21
16 MythankstoR.BalasubramanianforconversationsonthisandotherissuesinKaladi,Keralain2010.Alsorelevanthereis
M.Allen’s(Allen2013)positioningoftheworkofNis´calda¯s(1791–1863),andaplethoraofunderstudiedtextsinHindi,
aspartofwhathecalls“GreaterAdvaitaVeda¯nta”.
17 HackeralsoinfluentiallyclaimedthatVivekanandahadliftedanon-dualistic,SchopenhauerianethicsfromP.Deussen.
T.Green(Green2012),however,arguesthatVivekanandaformulatedhisapproachbeforecomingintocontactwithDeussen.
18 Jña¯nes´varwaslikelyinfluencedbytheNa¯thtraditioninMaharashtra,asevincedinhisadvaiticAnubhava¯mr.t(Chitre1996).
Movements linked to the understudied Maharashtrian Na¯th tradition were formative to a stream of contemporarily
popular “advaita” associated with the teacher, and Bombay merchant, Nisargadatta Maharaj (1897–1981). Similarly,
the Avadhu¯ta G¯ıta¯, a popular text among colonial period advaita related groups, and a work cited by Vivekananda
(e.g.,Vivekananda1927,p.70),isalsorelatedtothebroadNa¯thtradition(Rigopoulos1998).
19 VivekanandaalsoreferstoaHindiworkentitledVica¯r-Sa¯garwrittenbyNis´calda¯s,aDa¯du¯panthifromtheregionofHaryana.
VivekanandaboldlyassertsthatNis´calda¯s’stext“... hasmoreinfluenceinIndiathananythathasbeenwritteninany
languagewithinthelastthreecenturies”(Vivekananda[1942] 2008,pp.154,160).Whatisinterestingtonotehereisthat
Nis´calda¯s,inanumberofself-disclosures,wasreflexiveinhiswritingaboutsocialcircumstancesthatlimitaccesstosalvific
knowledge,suchascastediscriminationandlanguagebarriers,whichhefacedfirst-hand(Pahlajrai2009).
20 SwamiS´ivananda(1887–1963),founderoftheDivineLifeSociety,whotraceshisfamiliallineagetothegreatAdvaita
Veda¯ntinpolymathAppayyaD¯ıks.ita,wouldlaterpublishtwovolumes,in1941and1947respectively,onthelivesofsaints.
WhilehedidnotlimithisaccounttoIndianorHindusaints,S´ivananda’sworkishelpfulforreconstructingthekindof
vernaculartraditionsinheritedbyso-calledNeo-Veda¯ntins. WhilededicatingconsiderableinktoSouthIndiansaints,
S´ivanandacouldalsomaketheemphaticclaimthattheseventeenthcenturyMaharashtrianRa¯mda¯s,well-knownforhis
advaiticworkDa¯sbodh,“wasoneofthegreatestsaintsoftheworld”(S´ivananda2009,p.195).
21 Thereare,ofcourse,Sanskriticadvaitictexts,whichdidnotemergewithinveda¯nticsamprada¯yas,thatprovideamodelfor
thiskindofapproach,suchastheYoga-Va¯sis..tha,whichinfluencednotonlySwamiVivekananda(e.g.,Gupta1974,p.978)
butalsoSwamiRamaTirtha(1873–1906)(Tirtha1951,p.79,130)andSwamiS´ivananda(S´ivananda1963).
Religions2017,8,101 8of12
5. TheTransmissionofAdvaiticPhilosophyintotheColonialPeriod
TheabsenceofanycontextualizingdiscussionofmedievalandearlymodernadvaiticandAdvaita
Veda¯ntictraditionsinmanyscholarlypresentationscanleavetheimpressionthatadvaitictheology
wasresurrectedfromanancientpastintheserviceofnationalism,therebylayingthefoundationfor
contemporaryHindutvapolitics(e.g.,Sharma2013). Oneoftheproblemswiththiskindofdepiction
isthatadvaitictraditionswerenot“fossilised”artefactsunearthedbytheRoyalAsiaticSociety,asif
Egyptiancoffintexts,butthrivingonthesubcontinentbeforeandafter,say,thenavalBattleofSwally
off the coast of Gujarat in 1612.22 Indeed, it was in the medieval and early modern periods that
the intellectual production of Advaita Veda¯ntic traditions amassed an “ ... enormous quantity of
modernSanskritliterature”(Shastri1912, p. 7). InhisrecentsocialhistoryofAdvaitaVeda¯nta, C.
Minkowski,forexample,pointsoutthatfromthesixteenthcenturytothecolonialperiod“Advaitin
sannya¯sinsandhouseholdersoccupiedpositionsofprominenceintheliterateinstitutionsandpublic
spacesofBanaras”(Minkoswki2011, p. 218). Notably, outofthesevendominantpan.d.itafamilies
inVa¯ra¯n.as¯ıontheeveofcolonialism,allexceptoneheldAdvaitaVeda¯ntincommitments. Inother
words,“theintellectualsceneinBanaras”wasdominatedbyAdvaitaVeda¯ntasomuchsothatitcan
beconsidered“theestablishmentpositioninthecity”(Minkoswki2011,p. 218). Further,H.P.Shastri
hasnoted: “In1791,theBenaresSanskritCollegewasestablishedandtheDakshin.¯ıBra¯hman.aswere
its principal professors. Even at the present moment, the Dakshin.¯ı element preponderates in the
staff of that College” (Shastri 1912, p. 12). These “Dakshin.¯ı Bra¯hman.as” (or brahmins “from the
southern country,” i.e., the Deccan) are, indeed, the brahmin pan.d.ita families, of overwhelmingly
AdvaitaVeda¯ntinallegiances,mentionedabove.
ImportantinthiscontextistheAnglo-SanskritprofessoratBenaresSanskritCollege,Pramadadas
Mitra. Mitra, although not a brahmin (nor a traditional pan.d.ita), hailed from a wealthy merchant
family and was a major intellectual figure at the College and in the city. Well-versed in Advaita
Veda¯ntic traditions, he was connected to the pan.d.ita community and also an associate of Swami
Vivekananda. The letters sent from Vivekananda to Mitra document their close relationship and
Vivekananda’s eventual, but indeed explicit, break from the perceived parochialism of Mitra’s
traditionalism (Jitatmananda 1982). They also record a number of Vivekananda’s queries, such
asthoserelatedtoconcordancesacrossIndiantraditions,textsonSanskritgrammar,andcomments
onarangeofphilosophical–theologicalissues. Vivekananda’squestionsincludethoseaboutAdvaita
Veda¯nta’s relationship to the Prajña¯pa¯ramita¯ Su¯tras of Maha¯ya¯na Buddhism and how, for example,
the nirva¯n.a of the Avadhu¯ta-G¯ıta¯, and important advaita text, tallies with the moks.a of the Advaita
Veda¯nticBrahma-Su¯tra(Vivekananda[1942] 2008,pp. 7–11). Suchcuriosityrevealsaninquisitiveand
complexindividualgrapplingwiththediversityofIndicsourcesinordertoverifyandrefinehisown
theologicalunderstanding.
It can be safely asserted that Vivekananda deepened his awareness of advaitic and Advaita
Veda¯ntictraditionsinmultifariousformsduringhisrenunciatetravelsacrossthesubcontinentafterthe
deathofRamakrishna,includingmultiplevisitstoKa¯s´¯ıwherehestayedatthehouseofPramadadas
Mitra. This, of course, includes, broadly speaking, yogic traditions, such as the one Vivekananda
encounteredduringhisbrieftutelageunderthe“Rajayogin”23(Vivekananda1926,p. 202)Pavhari
Baba,wholivedforsometimeinacaveinGirnar,Gujarat,aregion,Vivekanandanotes,thatwas
“sanctifiedbythestayofthegreatAvadhutaGuruDattâtreya”(Vivekananda1932b,p.235).Scholarship
to date, however, has largely overlooked the ways in which Vivekananda was informed by Indic
sources. Indeed, rarely discussed in articles on Vivekananda is his study of Sanskrit and broader
22 J.Sharma(CNN-IBN2013),forexample,problematicallysuggeststhat“substantialportionsofhis[i.e.,Vivekananda’s]
work... areacalltoadead,fossilisedtradition”.
23 Elsewhere, Vivekananda notes that Pavhari Baba’s “Raja Yoga”, which apparently indicates a mediational yoga that
culminatesinsama¯dhi,alsoincludessomesortofposturalpractice:“IhadheardthatPavhariBabaknewthescienceof
Hatha-Yoga”(Vivekananda1927,p.240).
Religions2017,8,101 9of12
Indianphilosophicalworks,whetherduringthenascentperiodoftheRamakrishnaMission,atthe
makeshiftma.thaatBaranagar,orundertheguidanceofIndianscholars.24 Importantly,Vivekananda’s
corpusindicatessignificantfamiliaritywiththeneglectedtextgenresdiscussedabovethatfalloutside
specialistpracticesofpan.d.itacirclesorthearcaneintellectualityofsectariandialectics.
6. SwamiVivekanandaasCosmopolitanTheologian
What is important to keep in mind, however, is that Vivekananda’s “Neo-Veda¯nta” was not
apassiveprojectofassimilationbutratheracriticalandconstructiveone.NotunlikeChristianthinkers
whohavereshapedandreframedtheirreceivedtraditioninrelationtopoliticaleconomicexigencies,
modernscience,religiouspluralism,feminism,post-humanism,etc.,Vivekanandacanbefruitfully
regarded as a kind of cosmopolitan theologian. His cosmopolitanism is evident in, for example,
hiswillingnesstoimbibeandengagemultipleintellectualvistas. “Mymotto”,hedeclares,“istolearn
whatevergoodthingsImaycomeacrossanywhere”(Vivekananda1926,p. 203). Thus,ratherthan
advocatingasimplisticreturntoapuregoldenage,Vivekanandafreelyadoptswhatheconsidersas
positiveinforeigncultureswhilealsoproffering“internal”criticismsofcertainelementsofIndian
societyandreligiosity. Hisapproach,however,isundergirdedbyasenseofrootednessthatengages
other worldviews while remaining committed to certain theological premises and non-negotiable
positions. Inotherwords,Vivekanandaimplicitlysituateshimselfinastreamofinheritedtradition,
uponwhichhebringstobearanadvaitichermeneuticsshapedbyareverentialloyaltytoabelovedguru
andhisnascentsamprada¯ya. AndsowhilehedrawsfromWesternmodesandmodels,hedoessoonly
toacertaindegree,asindicatedinhiscritiquesofChristiandoctrinesandthephilosophicalviewsof
thelikesofCharlesDarwin,HerbertSpencerandevenPaulDeussen. Inthisway,Vivekanandacarried
outanagentialandactiveprocessofHinduphilosophicaltheologywithinaglobalintellectualforum.25
InthecontextofthecolonialoccupationofIndia,Vivekanandaarticulatedwaysinwhichanadvaitic
theologicalframeworkcouldspeaktobothcontemporaryandprolepticconcerns. Incarryingoutsuch
anagenda,healsoinitiatedadifferentkindofdiscoursefromthatofRamakrishna,theilliteratepriest
and Ka¯l¯ı devotee at Dakshineswar. And it would indeed be the discourse of Vivekananda, which
accommodatedthegloballydominantphilosophicalandscientificcurrentsofhisday,thatwouldcome
totypifyagenerationofIndianthinkersthatsucceededhim.
7. Conclusions
Inmakingaprovisionalgestureatthehistoricaltransmissionofideas,thispaperdoesnotargue
thatVivekanandalackedinnovationorthathewassomehowuninfluencedbybhadraloksensibilitiesor
theglobalepistemeofhiscolonializedmilieu. Idoargue,however,thatthecurrentunderstanding
ofVivekananda’sinnovations,andhisepistemicdiscontinuitywithprecursorHindutraditions,is
proportional to the limited consideration of the diverse (and, in particular, post-“classical”) Indic
traditions he critically and creatively engaged. Indeed, there remains much work to be done in
thinkingthroughthewayinwhich“Neo-Veda¯ntic”figuressuchasVivekanandawereinformedby,
and repurposed, precolonial Indic sources. A closer examination of neglected periods and genres
reveals,infact,theologicalcurrentsthatprefigure,andareechoedin,importantaspectsofSwami
Vivekananda’s“neo”theologicalperspective.
24 Suchscholarsinclude,PramadadasMitra,PanditShankarPandurangofPorbandar,PanditNarayanDas,andPandit
SunderlalOjhaofKhetri. Thebiographyofthesefigures,andtheexactnatureoftheirrelationshipwithVivekananda,
remainsanissueyettobeadequatelydocumented.
25 Given the nature of Vivekananda’s “collected works”, it is also not a theology that is most fruitfully approached
throughalensofsystematicity,consideringthatmuchofVivekananda’scorpusconsistsoftalksanddialogues,many
ofwhichwerepedagogicalencounters,situationallytailoredtoabroadrangeofaudiencesofdifferenteducationaland
culturalbackgrounds.
Religions2017,8,101 10of12
If we take a balanced approach to the cumulative tradition of Advaita Veda¯nta: that is,
not privileging certain periods over others, not imposing evaluative judgements on high and low
points of “philosophical” flourishing, and not marginalizing certain text genres over others—and
combine this with more serious consideration of developments and practices related to the lived
traditionofAdvaitaVeda¯ntaontheground—thenade-essentialized,polyvalentandtheologically
expansiveAdvaitaVeda¯ntaemerges. Fromthisvantagepoint,whichissensitivetotheappropriation
ofadvaiticbutnon-veda¯ntictraditionsandtheirvariedhistoricalandlinguisticcontexts,essentialistic
anddichotomousclassifications,suchastraditionalandneo,orthodoxyanddistortion,orblanket
claimsaboutruptureswiththepast,areseenforwhattheyare: neitherparticularlymeaningfulnor
helpful. Itiswithinthespacethatthisrecognitionaffords,thatscholarshiponSwamiVivekananda,
akeycosmopolitantheologianofthenineteenthcentury,andapioneerofcross-culturalpedagogy,
canmovebeyondossifiedcategoriesandcomparisons.
ConflictsofInterest:Theauthordeclaresnoconflictofinterest.
References
Allen,MichaelS.2013.TheOceanofInquiry:ANeglectedClassicofLateAdvaitaVeda¯nta.Ph.D.dissertation,
HarvardUniversity,Cambridge,MA,USA.
Asad,Talal.1996.TheIdeaofanAnthropologyofIslam.InTheSocialPhilosophyofErnestGellner.EditedbyJohn
A.HallandIanJarvie.Amsterdam:Rodopi,pp.381–403.
Balasubramanian,Rajangam.2000.Introduction.InHistoryofScience,PhilosophyandCultureinIndiancivilization:
Volume II Part 2 Advaita Veda¯nta. Edited by Rajangam Balasubramanian. Delhi: Centre for Studies
inCivilizations.
Bharati,Agehananda.1970.TheHinduRenaissanceanditsApologeticPatterns.TheJournalofAsianStudies29:
267–87.[CrossRef]
Bouy,Christian.1994.LesNa¯tha-YoginEtLesUpanis.ads.Paris:DiffusiondeBoccard.
Chitre,Dilip.1996.ShriJnandev’sAnubhavamrut:TheImmortalExperienceofBeing.NewDelhi:SahityaAkademi.
Clark,Matthew.2006.TheDas´ana¯m¯ı-sam.nya¯s¯ıs:TheIntegrationofAsceticLineagesintoAnOrder.Leiden:Brill.
CNN-IBN. 2013. Vivekananda Was the Father of Political Hinduism: Jyotirmaya Sharma. Available online:
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/vivekananda-was-the-father-of-political-hinduism-jyotirmaya-sharma/
379625-40.html(accessedon1October2013).
Comans,Michael.1993.TheQuestionoftheImportanceofSama¯dhiinModernandClassicalAdvaitaVeda¯nta.
PhilosophyEastandWest43:49–71.[CrossRef]
DeMichelis,Elizabeth.2005.AHistoryofModernYoga:PatañjaliandWesternEsotericism.London:Continuum.
Fisher,Elaine.2012.“JustLikeKa¯lida¯sa”:TheS´aktaIntellectualsofSeventeenth-centurySouthIndia.Journalof
HinduStudies5:172–92.[CrossRef]
Fort, Andrew O. 1988. J¯ıvanmukti in Transformation: Embodied Liberation in Advaita and Neo-Veda¯nta. Albany:
StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.
Goodding,Robert. 2002. TheTreatiseonLiberation-in-LifeCriticalEditionandAnnotatedTranslationofthe
J¯ıvanmuktivivekaofVidya¯ran.ya.Ph.D.dissertation,UniversityofTexasatAustin,Austin,TX,USA.
Green,ThomasJohn.2012.Veda¯ntaandSecularReligionintheWorksofF.MaxMüllerandSwamiVivekananda.
Ph.D.dissertation,UniversityofCambridge,Cambridge,UK.
Gupta,Sanjukta.1966.StudiesinthePhilosophyofMadhusu¯danaSaraswat¯ı.Calcutta:SanskritPustakBhandar.
Gupta, Mahendranath. 1974. The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna. Translated by Swami Nikhilananda. Madras:
SriRamakrishnaMath.
Gussner,RobertE.1976. AStylometricStudyoftheAuthorshipofSeventeenSanskritHymnsAttributedto
S´an˙kara.JournaloftheAmericanOrientalSociety96:259–67.[CrossRef]
Hacker,Paul.1947.S´an˙kara¯ca¯ryaandS´an˙kara¯ca¯ryabhagavatpa¯da.NewIndianAntiquary9:1–12.
Hacker,Paul.1995.PhilologyandConfrontation.EditedbyWilhelmHalbfass.Albany:StateUniversityofNewYork
Press.
Halbfass,Wilhelm.1988.IndiaandEurope:AnEssayinUnderstanding.Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.