Advaita and Neoplatonism. A Critical Study in Comparative Philosophy

272 Pages·1961·1.429 MB·English

by  Frits Staal

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