Shankaracharya and Ramana Maharshi (study)

by Maithili Vitthal Joshi | 2018 | 63,961 words

This page relates ‘Conclusion’ of the comparative study of the philosophies of Shankaracharya (representing the Vedic tradition and Vedanta philosophy) and Ramana Maharshi (representing modern era). For Shankara (Achreya) his commentaries on the ten major Upanishads are studied, while for Ramana Maharshi his Ulladu Narpadu (the forty verses on Reality) is taken into consideration.

Chapter 4 - Conclusion

Both Śaṅkarācārya (8th century A.D.) and Ramaṇa Maharṣi (20th century A.D.) are not new system-builders, but the great exponents of the Kevala-advaita-Vedānta-philosophy. In this dissertation, the views of these philosophers regarding the four concepts, namely jīva, jagat, Brahman and mokṣa have been discussed over. The comparative analysis of their views can be put forth as follows:

While describing the nature of jīva, Śaṅkarācārya and Ramaṇa Maharṣi focus upon the association of the Self with the non-self or the body. According to them, this association is nothing else but the ignorance and it is not real. In the dialogues, Ramaṇa Maharṣi frequently uses the word ‘I-thought’ for the jīva. The jīva is seen to be connected not only with the gross body but also with the subtle and the causal bodies. Therefore, the study of the three states, viz. waking, dream and deep sleep is necessary to understand the concept of jīva thoroughly. There is no disagreement between Śaṅkarācārya and Ramaṇa Maharṣi regarding the basic features and the objectives of three states. But, it is found that Śaṅkarācārya tends to show the difference between the waking and the dream, whereas Ramaṇa Maharṣi mostly stresses on the non-difference between these two states. Śaṅkarācārya has remained silent about the way of experience that takes place in the deep sleep. But, Ramaṇa Maharṣi speaks on it. In his opinion, the extremely subtle jīva experiences the happy prajñānātmā or the Self through the modes of māyā in the deep sleep. So, he accepts the existence of relative knowledge in the state of deep sleep also. Śaṅkarācārya and Ramaṇa Maharṣi always insist that the jīva is none but the Brahman in its essence. The difference between them is asserted owing to the delimiting adjuncts. The concepts of jīva and Īśvara are also distinguished considering the aggregate and the individual adjuncts, but this difference does not exist from the standpoint of the absolute Self. In the later Śāṅkara-tradition, two views have been explored regarding the number of jīva. Ramaṇa Maharṣi too, thinks over both these views, namely Eka-jīva-vāda and Aneka-jīva-vāda. In some dialogues, he approves the doctrine of one jīva. However, it must be noted here that Maharṣi does not intend to build up a theory of one jīva. Even he does not assert this view to one who is not yet able to grasp it. In his opinion, only a highly mature aspirant is eligible to accept this view. It is a certain stage in the method of Self-enquiry that one has to concentrate on the problem of his own individuality neglecting all other differences. And, furthermore, Maharṣi often declares the non-existence of the jīva from the standpoint of the transcendental level. So, from that level, it becomes immaterial whether the jīva is one or many.

The Jagat, according to Śaṅkarācārya and Ramaṇa Maharṣi, cannot stay different from the Brahman in the states of creation, sustainment and dissolution. The Brahman is the material as well as the efficient cause of the world. Both these speculators proclaim that though the process of the creation is described using multiple ways in the Śrutis, the sole purpose of this description is the Brahman. Śaṅkarācārya discusses the creation of the world from the five subtle elements. Ramaṇa Maharṣi mentions the two ways of explaining the creation: Sṛṣṭi-dṛṣṭi-vāda or the krama-sṛṣṭi and Dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda or the yugapat-sṛṣṭi. He rarely explains the sequence of creation, but mostly shows faults in such theories. He supports the view of Dṛṣti-sṛṣṭi, which holds that the creation is contemporaneous with its perception. The manomayatva of the world is one of the essential features of Maharṣi’s philosophy. He does not consider the empirical objects different from the mental thoughts. He explains the mind as a reflected light of the Self, in which the appearance of Īśvara, jagat and jīva takes place. Though he often discusses the mind on a cosmic plane, he instructs one to concentrate on the individual mind. He lays great emphasis on explaining how the world appears to the individual. He often sets forth the analogies of the dream and the deep sleep to prove the dependence of the world on the mind. Śaṅkarācārya does not speak about the manomayatva of the world in his commentaries, except in the commentary on the Gauḍapāda-kārikās. Both Śaṅkarācārya and Ramaṇa Maharṣī declare the falsity of the world from the standpoint of the absolute Brahman. Even if so, it is the fact that one perceives the world in day to day life. So, both these philosophers make use of the concepts, like māyā and śakti to explain the worldly usages or the empirical dealings. Both of them agree on the point that the world cannot be sublated in the real sense of term before the dawn of the jñāna. But, Ramaṇa Maharṣi generally does not show any difference between the waking world and the dream world. He regards the waking appearance too, not to be different from the mind. On the contrary, Śaṅkarācārya differntiates the waking-experience from the dream-experience, by saying that the waking-creation has definite nature before the attainment of the jñāna.

The Brahman is describied by Śaṅkarācārya and Ramaṇa Maharṣi using both the ways, namely svarūpa-lakṣaṇa and taṭastha-lakṣana. There is no fundamental difference in these descriptions. Both these philosophers explain the essential characteristics of the Brahman, such as Existence, Consciousness and Bliss. They define the Brahman as the sole source of the world as well. In the context of the world, both of them accept the term Īśvara also.They assert the same thing that the Īśvara is inactive by nature, still he motivates the world. Further, they proclaim that the concept of Īśvara too, depends on the delimiting adjuncts. However, the point to be noted here is that Ramaṇa Maharṣi often considers the Īśvara as a mere mental concept, if the Īśvara is seen to be apart from the Self. Both Śaṅkarācārya and Ramaṇa Maharṣi always remind one the Upaniṣadic truth that the Brahman is the Self itself, which is one’s own nature. The Self is self-established and it can never be denied by anyone. Ramaṇa Maharṣi frequently mentions the Self as pure I, the source of the I-thought and all other thoughts. He often insists one to concentrate on the Self rather than the concepts like Brahman and Īśvara, since the Self is the most intimate entity to everyone. In the Upaniṣads, the abode of the Self is declared as hṛdaya. Śaṅkarācārya mostly explains the heart as a lump of flesh having a shape of a lotus. According to the particular contexts, he interpretes the heart-space as the supreme Self or the unmaifested. He interpretes the heart as the intellect as well. He notes that the heart is instructed as the residing place of the Brahman in the Upaniṣads for the sake of upāsaṇa. Ramaṇa Maharṣi explains the concept of the heart quite in a different way. He locates the heart on the right side of the chest in respect of the body and further declares that it is different from the physical heart. Its shape resembles with a lily-bud. It is the source of the prāṇa and the mind. However, the final opinion of Maharṣi regarding the heart is that the heart is none but the Self itself. He describes the heart for the purpose of investigating the Self and not for meditating upon it. According to him, one can know the heart only after total annihilation of all the thoughts and one can attain the liberation only in the heart. He considers the heart as the centre of all. In support of his view regarding the heart, he puts forth some textual evidences also. But, his own experience is the main basis of all his explanations. Such a description about the spiritual heart is not found in the commentaries of Śaṅkarācārya. He does not mention the exact place of the heart in the body. He surely says that the Brahman resides in the intellect, placed in the heart-space. But, he does not explicitly assert that the heart-centre is the source of all the thoughts. At some places, he mentions the heart as a lump of flesh. Here, it seems that he might be expecting the physical heart and not the spiritual one. In short, his interpretation of the heart depends on the contexts and it does not exactly resemble with that of Ramaṇa Maharṣi.

The mokṣa is considered as a supreme goal in the Indian tradition. Śaṅkarācārya and Ramaṇa Maharṣi proclaim the same thing that the liberation means the firm abidance in the Self, which is one’s own nature. It is an eternal state and not a new attainment. In this supreme state of the Self, there does not remain even a thought of bondage and liberation. The ignorance, which is not a natural characteristic of the Self, is the obstacle in the way to the liberation and it can be removed only by attaining the jñāna, i.e. the knowledge of the absolute Brahman. The ignorance never arises again, once it is destroyed by the knowledge. This unitary experience of the Self transcends the sphere of the relative knowledge. About the annihilation of the ignorance, Ramaṇa Maharṣi says that the ignorance is destroyed by the Ātmavṛtti, which also finally gets merged into the pure Consciousness. But, such a description of the elimination of the ajñāna is not found in the commentarial literature of Śaṅkarācārya. Further, considering the possession of the body of the liberated one, Śaṅkarācārya accepts two types of liberation, viz. jīvan-mukti and Videha-mukti. Ramaṇa Maharṣi too, approves both these types. In addition to this, he mentions the third type i.e. the ubhayātmikā mukti or the liberation with and without form. But, he mainly emphasizes that these types are stated only in the viewpoint of the spectators, who assume the body of the liberated one. In the state of liberation, no distinction can be found due to the destruction of the individuality. Further, Ramaṇa Maharṣi does not elaborately describe the krama-mukti, like Śaṅkarācārya. But both of them assert that one attains the sadyomukti (immediate liberation), only through the knowledge of the absolute Brahman. On the other hand, one achieves the krama-mukti, through the knowledge of the qualified Brahman and he attains the liberation in the Brahma-loka. Additionally, Ramaṇa Maharṣi mentions the attainment of the liberation at the time of death. These jīvas attain the absolute knowledge not while living as in the case of jīvanmukta and also not in the Brahma-loka as in the case of kramamukta, but at the time of death. Thus, both Śaṅkarācārya and Ramaṇa Maharṣi explain the types of liberation. But, it must be noted here that both of them do not accept any kind of distinction or gradation either in the absolute knowledge or in the very state of liberation.

Indian philosophical tradition accepts various paths for the attainment of the liberation, such as jñāna, karma, bhakti and yoga. Both Śaṅkarācārya and Ramaṇa Maharṣi discuss these terms in their exposition. However, these discussions occur more frequently in the dialogues of Ramaṇa Maharṣi. While writing the commentaries, Śaṅkarācārya expects the adhikārin of the jñāna-mārga in front of him. He discusses the jñāna-mārga through the practice of śravaṇa, manana and nididhyāsana of the Upaniṣadic sentences. Ramaṇa Maharṣi too, mentions the traditional opinions regarding the śravaṇa etc. in some of his dialogues. He does not oppose them, but connects them to the Selfenquiry. The Self-enquiry is a method of investigating the source of the individuality and it is the most approved path by Maharṣi. Almost in every dialogue, Ramaṇa Maharṣi turns one’s attention to the I-thought or the individualty and makes one concentrate to find out the truth of one’s individuality. In the commentaries of Śaṅkarācārya, one finds some lines resembling with the sentences used by Ramaṇa Maharṣi while encouraging one for the enquiry.[1] But, in the commentaries, such a method is certainly not elaborated by Śaṅkarācārya. Further, Śaṅkarācārya accepts the Śrutis as the highest authority, but opposes mere scriptural discussions. According to him, the knowledge means that which culminates into the avagati viz. the experience. Ramaṇa Maharṣi too, accepts the importance of the scriptures in attaining the knowledge, but he opposes mere intellectual polemics seen in those treatises. He always encourages one to experience the Self neglecting all such polemics. Further, in the opinion of both Śaṅkarācārya and Ramaṇa Maharṣi, the jñāna and the karma are mutually contradictory. There does not remain any karma in the realm of the jñāna. But, the karma-yoga, wherein the desireless actions are expected, becomes helpful in the attainment of the jñāna through the purification of the mind. Śaṅkarācārya asserts that the complete renunciation of the actions, which can be done only by the jñānī, is the true sannyāsa. He approves the forth āśrama viz. the monastic life for the ignorant one only when he is capable for this life. Here, Ramaṇa Maharṣi is of the same view. Śaṅkarācārya does not describe the path of bhakti and yoga fully in the commentaries, but he explains these terms and the related terms wherever it is necessary in the context. Ramaṇa Maharṣi too, is not inclined to teach these paths to the aspirants. He has explained these paths, mainly because he had questions about them from the devotees. In the opinion of Śaṅkarācārya, the devotion is a necessary means to aquire the abidance in the jñāna, but the supreme devotion is the jñāna-niṣṭhā itself. Ramaṇa Maharṣi also asserts the same. He often approves only two paths, namely the path of Self-enquiry and the path of bhakti. In his view, these methods cannot be differentiated totally. Speaking of the yoga-practices, Śaṅkarācārya accepts the portion of the Yoga-philosophy that does not contradict with the Vedas. He considers the dhyāna-yoga as an approximate means to the jñāna. Ramaṇa Maharṣi expresses his views regarding aṣṭāṅga-yoga, haṭha-yoga and kuṇḍalinī-yoga in some of the dialogues. However, he mostly affirms the supremacy of the Self-enquiry over all these yogapractices.

In this manner, there is no disagreement between Śaṅkarācārya and Ramaṇa Maharṣi regarding the fundamental principles of Kevalaadavaita-vedānta-philosophy. Both of them proclaim the ultimate reality of the Brahman, falsity of the jagat and intrinsic identity between jīva and Brahman. However, at various times, their way of exposition differs from each other. This is mainly because of the surrounding environment, their own perspectives towards the subject-matter and the task undertaken by them. After the careful observation of the philosophy of both these speculators, it can be easily seen that Śaṅkarācārya mostly deals with the theory rather than the practice in his commentaries. On the contrary, Ramaṇa Maharṣi always insists on the practice rather than the complicated theoretical discussions. Śaṅkarācārya was a reformer of the Indian dharma. He had to debate with other opponents and establish his position. This may be the reason why Śaṅkarācārya relied mostly upon the theory unlike Ramaṇa Maharṣi. On the other hand, Ramaṇa Maharṣi did not have such an aim of refuting the opponents’ views in the debates. He engaged in awakening the people around him. He himself attained the Self-experience without learning any theories explained in the traditional scriptures. Therefore, it can be said that he mainly emphasized the practical path instead of the theoretical exposition.

Śaṅkarācārya learned the Vedas and the darśanas in a traditional manner. In his time, there were prevailing the controversies among various thoughts. The scholars of various streams were strongly holding and propagating their own point of views. The need of that time was to solve the confusion of these thoughts and to stabilize the Vedic philosophy in a rational way. Śaṅkarācārya accepted this mission. He established the Kevala-advaita-vedānta-philosophy on the firm foundation of the Śrutis. In the debates, he refuted all the thoughts that go against the Śrutis. His main concern was to prevent the wrong interpretation of the Śrutis and thus to save people from the misfortune of non-attainment of the liberation.[2] He wrote the commentaries on the prasthānatrayī and therein organized the ideas of non-dualism. While writing a bhāṣya (commentary), one has to follow a specific method. A bhāṣyakāra (commentator) explains each and every word of the selected text and also justify own words. He cannot ignore a particular frame of that text while expounding his own theory. He has to explain the subjects in that text in such a great skill that they must not contradict but support his own doctrine. Śaṅkarācārya did this in such a worderful and admirable expertise that any philosopher, even his opponent, cannot neglect his commentaries.

Ramaṇa Maharṣi did not learn any scriptures in a traditional manner. The experience of ahaṃ-sfuraṇa at his young age changed his life. This Self-experience and the method of Self-enquiry through which he attained the experience became the common thread in all his teachings. He mainly taught through silence, but instructed the devotees using words also. He read the philosophical treatises after his experience. He quoted the scriptural statements in many of his dialogues. Similarly, he explained the subjects from the philosophical texts composed in the languages other than Sanskrit also. He also discussed various sentences of anscient and contemporary sages. However, his main focus is seen to be upon his own experience throughout his dialogues. The need of the modern period is to teach the essence of Vedānta philosophy to the people who have learnt in a modern educational system. Otherwise, they cannot understand the Upaniṣadic lore hidden mainly in the argumentative treatises in Sanskrit. This need was fulfilled by Ramaṇa Maharṣi in a very successful manner. He took tremendous efforts to turn one’s attention to the innermost Self, the essence of the Upaniṣadic philosophy.

In this way, Śaṅkarācārya mainly concentrated on building a strong theoretical foundation of the Kevala-advaita-vedānta-philosophy on the basis of the Vedas in his commentaries. He did not mention each and every detail of the jñāna-mārga in the commentaries. He definitely regarded the experience as the culmination of the knowledge. But, it was necessary for him to quote the Śrutis and to make use of the logic also, to defend his position and to refute other doctrines. On the contrary, Ramaṇa Maharṣi encouraged the people around him for the practice of Self-enquiry. The theoretical basis of this practice is certainly the thought of Kevala-advaita. But, he mostly avoided the long and complicated theoretical discussions, such as the theories of creation and so on, which are not directly necessary for the spiritual practice. He explained the theories only till that point wherefrom the aspirant could turn his attention to the practice. This was not the case of Śaṅkarācārya. He had to discuss all the subjects occurred in the prasthāna-trayī while writing the commentaries. Secondly, there is a big time gap between Śaṅkarācārya (8th century A. D.) and Ramaṇa Maharṣi (20th century A. D.). Meanwhile, in the tradition of Kevala-advaita-vedānta-philosophy, many subdoctrines were developed on the subjects that were left quite unclear by Śaṅkarācārya, for example avaccheda-vāda, pratibimba-vāda, ābhāsavāda etc. An impact of such later speculations is found on some of the dialogues of Ramaṇa Maharṣi also. He mainly discusses the principles of Dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda and eka-jīva-vāda that were later developments. But, his purpose is not to establish these doctrines against Sṛṣṭi-dṛṣṭi-vāda and Aneka-jīva-vāda. Ramaṇa Maharṣi uses them as the tools in the Selfenquiry. These doctrines become helpful to the Self-enquiry by making one concentrate comparatively more quickly on one’s inner consciousness neglecting the external phenomena.[3] Furthermore, Ramaṇa Maharṣi has not discussed minute details of these theories. The criterion of the acceptance of these theories in the practice is the adhikāra (eligibility), as stated by Maharṣi himself. And, in the non-dual state of the Reality, there do not remain either jīva or jagat, so all the theories regarding them become futile in that very state.

Further, Ramaṇa Maharṣi accepts that the duality of the subject and the object is not different from the mind. He denies the external world apart from one’s thoughts and frequently uses the dream analogy in support of his view. This kind of philosophical exposition is found in the Gauḍapāda-kārikās. [4] So, in this context, it can be said that the teachings of Ramaṇa Maharṣi resemble more with the sayings of Gauḍpādācārya. To some extent, this kind of exposition also resembles with the Vijñānavāda of Buddhism. But, the basic difference is that the philosophy of Kevala-advaita accepts the permanent Self as the basis of the mind or the thoughts. And, Ramaṇa Maharṣi has mentioned this difference in one of the dialogues.[5] In the commentary on the Brahma-sūtras, Śaṅkarācārya too, has criticized the Vijñāna-vāda on various grounds.[6] Further, unlike Gauḍapādācārya, Śaṅkarācārya has differentiated the waking-creation from the mental-creation in his commentaries, except in the commentary on the Gauḍapādakārikās. [7] It can be said here that this is the very difference of the way of expression between Śaṅkarācārya and Ramaṇa Maharṣi as well. The point must be noted here that although Śaṅkarācārya considers the reality of the waking-world in comparison with the dream, he does not regard the waking-world as the ultimate truth. He always emphasizes that the Brahman is the ultimate truth and the waking-world is unreal from the standpoint of the Brahman. So, the acceptance of the empirical plane does not harm the basic principle of non-dualism.

In short, both Śaṅkarācārya and Ramaṇa Maharṣi ultimately establish the same thing, namely the Kevala-advaita. Considering this non-duality of the Supreme Self, in which Śaṅkarācārya and Ramaṇa Maharṣi themselves have permanently established, Maharṣi declares his identity with Śaṅkarācārya in the invocatory verse composed by himself at the beginning of his translation of the auxiliary text ‘Ātmabodha’ written by Śaṅkarācārya.[8]

Thus, in this dissertation, the thoughts of both Śaṅkarācārya and Ramaṇa Maharṣi regarding the four concepts, viz. jīva, jagat, Brahman and mokṣa have been described. The practical side of the philosophy of Kevala-advaita has been considered as well. An attempt has been made here to present the characteristics of the philosophical exposition of both these enlightened speculators. It has been mainly observed that both Śaṅkarācārya and Ramaṇa Maharṣi agree on the fundamental doctrines of the philosophy of absolute monism. But, it seems that Śaṅkarācārya mostly takes into consideration the empirical plane in his commentaries. On the other hand, Ramaṇa Maharṣi mostly speaks from the standpoint of the transcendental plane. Śaṅkarācārya concentrates mainly upon the theoretical exposition, whereas the teachings of Ramaṇa Maharṣi are centred round the spiritual practice i.e. the Self-enquiry.

As stated in the introduction, the major commentaries of Śaṅkarācārya on the prasthānatrayī have been considered for this thesis. But, the influence of some of the independent treatises as well as the strotras, which are traditionally ascribed to Śaṅkarācārya, is clearly seen on the dialogues of Ramaṇa Maharṣi. So, the philosophical literature of Ramaṇa Maharṣi can be compared with these other works of Śaṅkarācārya, obviously after examining their authenticity. Further, the philosophy of Ramaṇa Maharṣi is based on the path of Self-enquiry through which he himself attained the liberation. The basics of this path can be searched in the earlier treatises of the Kevala-advaita-vedāntaphilosophy to know the exact position of this path in the tradition. Additionally, Ramaṇa Maharṣi clearly states that the final emancipation can be attained only in the heart-centre and not in the sahasrāra. So, it is interesting as well as important to know whether any other philosophical texts, especially the texts on the yoga-practices, speak explicitly on this topic. This is the scope of further study through which the philosophical principles of Śaṅkarācārya and Ramaṇa Maharṣi can be understood even in a deeper sense. And, the present study of the philosophy of both these philosophers will certainly be useful in this journey. The influence of Kevala-advaita-vedānta-philosophy on the Indian philosophical tradition is noteworthy. The present dissertation will help to see the position of this philosophy in the literature of Śaṅkarācārya and Ramaṇa Maharṣi.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] IV.1.2.3; [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bhagavad-gītā] XIII.2

[2]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] I.1.1.1

[3]:

In this regard, Mahadevan T. M. P. (1959: 59) writes, “Here, again, we must note

[4]:

[Gauḍapāda-kārikās] III.29 Ibid III.31

[5]:

“To introvert the mind is the prime thing. The Buddhists consider the flow of ‘I’ thought to be Liberation;whereas we say that such flow proceeds from its underlying substratum -the only -Reality.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 126

[6]:

See -[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] II.2.5.28-32

[7]:

Radhakrishnan (2010: 424) observes, “While Śaṃkara insists that the two worlds, mental and material, are not of the same kind or order, though they are in essence

[8]:

“Can Shankara, the enlightener of the Self, be different from one’s own Self? Who but he, does this day, abiding as the inmost Self in me, speak this in the Tamil language?” Adaptations and Translations, Atma-bodha, The Collected Works of Sri Ramana Maharsi, Part II, p. 198

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: