•

RENUNCIATION IN ADVAITA VEDANTA

/

..

PERSONAL AND SOCIAL DIMENSIONS

OF

'RENUNCIATION IN"ADVAITA VEDANTA

By

.KAPIL NATH TIWARI, B.A., M.A.:' PH .D.

A Thesis

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies

in Partial Fulfilment of the' Requiremen\:s

for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

McMaster UniversityI

(January) 1975

i

..

•

•

,©-,KAPIL HATH TIWARI - ',,",

1977 I,\

•

DOC'l'OR OF PHILOSOPHY (1975)(Religious Sciences)

McMaster University,Hamilton, Ontario

TITLE: Personal and Social Dimensions of Renunciation inAdvaita Vedanta

AUTHOR: Kapil Nath Tiwari, B.A.

M.A.

Ph.D.

SUPERVISOR: Professor J .G. Arapura

NUMBER OF PAGES: viii, 211

(

u

(Allahabad University)

(~lahabad University)

(Banares Hindu University)

1I

5cppe and Contents

The aim of this dissertatiop is to present a systematic exposition of

) -~unciation (Samnyasa) as a philosophico-religious category within Indian

" -tradition with special,reference to Advaita Vedanta bf Sarnkaracarya.

This study dealing with the implications of renunciation in its personal and

social dimensions is so all-embracing as to touch a1most every popular

spiritual conviction of the Indian mind and it overlaps almost every province

of Indian philosophy. I have tried to justify this category as a spiritual

technique systematically worked out and developed by Advaitins particularly

~

Samkara with a view to classifying and.systematizing values in terms of the

different forms which renunciation and its object may ~e found to assume.

This dissertation also highlights ~ot only lives of the enlightened persons,

but also principles of human behaviour in the Indian tradition ~plicitly

,clarifying therby such conceF~as dharma (socio-religious duties), the

good life, obligation and responsibility etc.

In elucidating these concepts within the Advaitic ideal of renunciation,

we are driven to conclude that this theory is not confined to the spiritual

dimension of iife representing the concept of MoJcsa (Release or Freedom)

but is also the ground upon Which a coherent and positive social philosophy

can be raised. The attempt seems worth making in view of profoundII

misunderstandings pertaining to the spirit of Indian philosophy in this respect..especially Advaita VedAnta: The AuthOr believes that Advaita vedan,ta, seemingly

the most unworldly, is itself capable of generating social thought of a

positive kind. The principle of renunciation is central to providin'1 social..iii

order not irrelevant to such a task. This investi~tion seemed to

me to be of special significance especially in the context of the present

situation when renunciation has acquired an Dnage of moral irresponsibility

"and henc~as fallen into disrepute. To such critics I humbly give a

Berkeleyian reply: "in such things we ought to think with the learned

and speak wi til the vulgar.", and contrariwise -- not quoting Berkeley

we must avoid thinking with the vulgar but speak with the learned.

This effort is to think with the great acarya (samkara) and some of

his eminent followers with a view to clearing up misunderstandings about

the matter prevailing among those who have not had the opportunity or

even patience to examine ~e renunciation questio~~. from the holistic

perspective which those learned teachers have sought to incul\ate.

"I

1~;"I'

WI',"

rj'-,I~

/,

fI-II

..,'

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

For the debts I have incurred in completing this dissertation,

I acknowledge my respectful gratitude to my supervisor, ~rofessor J.G. Arapura

who made me aware of the importance and positive aspect of this work. Despite

his extremely busy time, he read through the chapters of my dissertation

submitted to him from time to time and helped me with his valuable

suggestions.and comments. It is impossible for me to adequately express

my indebtedness to him whose judgments and encouragements will always

remain a source of inspiratiull to this author./'

)

GratefuJ acknowledgement is made to Professor T.R.V. Murti, ex-

Professor of Indian Philosophy at McMaster University, for his valuable/'

comments on some of the issues of this dissertation. ~-,. Sivaraman

read some of th~ chapters of my thesis and always encouraged me ~roughout

the preparation of this manuscript. I gratefully acknowledge his help.

Thanks are also due to Professor A. Shalom of the Philosophy Department for

some of hi~ critical reactions to an early draf~of the present thesis.

I am thankful to McMaster University for offering me fellowship

•to conduct my research in the Department of Religious Sciences. My studies

under Professor George Grant and Professor H. Mol were very stimulating and

Iishould record my thanks to them. In the midst of preparing this manuscript,

the author was given the opportunity to spend a year (1971-72) doing research

in India where ~e came ip contact with several Professors who helpetl him

directly or indirectly. While it is Unpossible to list the names of all,

v

he cannot fail to mention Professors N.K. Devaraja, A.L. Basham, D.O. Vadekar

and R.K. Tripathi.

A more recent debt is to my distinquished colleague Professor

Lloyd G. Geering, Head of the Department of Religious Studies at the

Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. His help, advice and

encouragement have always been a source of inspiration to this author.

(

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION

Nature, Scope and Limitation••....•.•..............•.....•..•.... lThe Me thod ......• :;-..•..............•.........•..•.......... ',' .... 8Life and Work of Samkara...................•....•........•...... 10Later Work on Advai ta Vedanta ..•........•..•........••.......... 13The Central Theme of Advai ta Vedanta ......•.•.......•.•.••...... 14

CHAPTER o:m: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Introduction .......•.......•...•....•........•.................. 16Nature of Renunciation ...................•..••......... , 18The Vedas ..... , ...•.•.•••..•......••.....••.••.....•............ 24

\T"le Upan i ~ads ..........•...•.......•....•...•................... 31Renunciation in its Institutional Setting ...•...•..•............ 37The Various Motifs of Renunciation .•........•...•....•.......... 41

CHAPTER TWO: TYPOLOGY OF RENUNCIATION

Nature and Importance of the smrti in the context ofRenunciation•...•....•..................•................ 58

Renunciation in the Manabharata ; 67

Renunciation in Jain~sIE"""""""""""'" (,I, 73Renunciation in the Ajivakas ......•............................ 80Renunciation Among the Theistic Sects .•...•.•.•..............•.• 85Renunciation in Buddhism...•...••........•..•••.......... , 90

CHAPTER THREE: METAPHYSICAL FOUNDATION OF RENUNCIATION

Problem of Self-Knowledge ..•...•.•.•.....•.•.•...'............•.. 96xaya, Brahman and samnyasa ............•.••...•................. lOSlCarma, J'nana and Samnyasa ............•••...•...••.............. 122

CHAPTER FOUR: PERSONAL DIMENSION OF RENUNCIATION

Meaning and Significance •.•.....•.....•.•.....•.. '0' •••••••••••• 129Personal and Devotional Con tras ted •...•..••.•..•..•.•.......... 134The Dissolution of the Mind (Manona~a)•....•.......•........... 138The Obliteration of Latent Desires (Vasanaxsaya) ..........•.... 141Jlvan-mukti or Deliverance in this Life:••• : ..•.•..•........... 145Status of Ethics in the Life of JIvan-mukta •..••.•••••.••.•••.. 154Authority Bearing TestLmony to JTvan:mukti-. 5(Svarupasiddhip:ttayojanam) .•..••.•••••.•••••••..•••..... 1 a

vii

."

Page

CHAPTER FIVE: SOCIAL DIMENSION OF RENUNCIATION

Problems and Controvers ies ••......•..........••..•....... 160Reality, Renunciation and Commitment ..•.....••••••.•...•• 163Institutionalization of Renunciation ......•.............. 169Rm1unciat~on 3S the Basis of Hindu Society: A• Study of Four As'rarnas \71SaIDkara and the Foundlnq of the Mathas .....•......•....•• 180.

CONCLUSION •..•.....•....••..•••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 191

BI~CX:;RAPHY

Major Sources ................•....•.•••..••.••.••..••...• 202Some MaJor Secondary Sources ..•..•..•..•..•........••...• 203Some Secondary Sources ......••....•....••.•.....•.......• 207Per iodica1 s ..................•.....••.••..••••••......... 209

viii

.'

"

;

j:

(.~11!\

.;,

-I

1~ "

" 0

" J<.;J

;,\~J,

• 1t.;-.. t,

lki -

t:'I;;-f

\ ..,

f'\ .'l

{~l'I"

'-- r". f, .U..

<.;-

"~

..0'

f~I.

t...~[

r

IN1RODUCTION

Naturf', Scopp and L1mlt,at lon

This study on the phllosophico-rellgious cateqory of Renunc1atlon.-(in ~krit S~asa) 1n lts personal and social d~enslons grew out

of my keen desire to dwell u~0n the essentials of Indian spirit and culture

after previou~ly studying some fundamental features of contemporary Western

philosophy, lyinq largely and perhaps significantly in the interested

behavloural patterns of the individual and society. What I have in mind

in the preaent d1ssertation 15 not "another" interpretation of Indian

philosophical sys~ems particularly the Advaita Vedanta but first and

foremost a kind of reco~struction, the centrallty and significance of

which cent~~ around L~e prlnciple of Renunciation, giving rise to the personal

. .dimension of llfe representing the concept of Freedom (moKsa) but at the

same time containing a background for a social philosophy, which we have called

the social dimension of Renunciation. The attempt seem! worth maKlng in

view of the divergencies that have marked the interpretations of the Vedantic

thought in this respect in our time.

".

Much has been written about the Advaita Vedanta of S~kara but vast

controversies still remain concerning the significance of Renunciation

especially in its social sphere, for which we can hoLd n~responsible except

the subtle metaphysical structure of the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta itself

1

2

as it 1S largely concerned with the problem of Ultimate Reality, i.e. Nirguna-,

Brahman with its implied belief in the doctrines of maya and karma-Sarnnya9a

(Action-renunciation) having its basis in J:nana (metaphysical knowledge) for

the realization of Brahman. It is on th~s account that Samkara was criticized

by a numb~r of later thinkers for advocating the principle of samnyasa

(Renunciation) at ~e cost of the Hindu social structure based on the karma-

~ (Action-theory) and puru~artha (u1timate ends of life), which have the1r

roots in the idea~ of lokasamgraha (world-solidarity) throughout the Indian

Ii ' d" 1re glOUS tra ltlon.

o Whatever may be the central thrust of the Advaita vedanta,an analys1s

and descript10n of the religious trends of the society in which Samkara

~ormulated his thesis on Vedantic lines and of his organizatlon of the rnathas

(religious institutions) along with his extensive journeys throughout the

country as the apostle of the Vedanta, preaching it not only among the elite..but th&'masses, give strong indications of social relevance of his philosophy_

.In the present enquiry an effort is being made to show the possibilities Of

understanding not only the individual freedom but the meaning and function

lAmong the opponents, Ramanuja, oayanand Sarasvat~'and B.G. Tilakcould be mentioned. See K. Satchidananda Murty, The Indian Spirlt (Waltair:Andhra University Press, 1965). Rahula Sankrityayana and M.N. Roy who areapparently MarXists oppose Renunciation but to my mind, they have notthemselves deviated much frotn t.he Hindu tradition. See M.N. Roy, ~Orientations and also. Beyond Communism (Calcutta: Renaissance Publishers,n~d.).

3

,of society as well within the framework of Renunciation, fully taking into

account the scepticism regarding its credibility.2 But here it must be borne

in mind that a justification of the social dimension of the Advaita Vedanta

has to proceed along the lines of its metaphysical conviction with regard

to Ultimate Being which makes everything else significant ..

It is unfortunate t~at not much work has been done to explore the•

social dimension) of Samkara's Ved~ta, although there is no dearth of writing

on the mftaphysical aspect of it. The nature and characteristics of

Renunciation in Advaita Vedanta and the analysis of hypothesis involved in

greater details, as brought out in the present inquiry, ha~made the author

2Many scholars find this attitude as "world and life negating".See Albert Schweitzer, Indian Though and Its DevelOpment (Bombay, 1960)S.J. Samartha, The Hindu View of History, Classical and Modern (Banglore,1959) and B.G. Gokhale. Indian Thought Through the Ages: A Study of SomeDominant Conce~ (Bombay, 1961).

31 believe that a positive world philosophy orientated towards aconstructive action theory can be fully in accord with the Vedantic metaphysics <

of Brahman and Freedom, perhaps in fact, be even drawn from it. In actualfact, we find the explanation of that potentiality has been achieved onlyexceptionally rather than in rule. The reason why the Advaita has notflourished as a common philosophy -- the inadequacy of the Vedanta ispartially right but to blame the theory itself is not justified.

To act positively on the basis of a positive ethics or philosophyof action would be ea9i~ for the generality of mankind ~an to base one'spositive action on sheer freedom. To this extent the Vedanta may not haveacted as a sufficient impulsion to accomplish all the positive things thatwe have come today to eXpect from philosophy.

4

aware of its social aspect in harmony with Indian spiritual tradition.

The limitation of,this study which it must be pointed out here,

is that no attempt is made to present either a textual exposition or a

Isystematic explanation of Samkara's doctrine as such, or any part of the

Advaita philosophy, although the Advaita Vedanta has been directly or indirectly

taken to be the ground of consideration throughout. Rather an effort is

being made to perceive the meaning of Renunciation implied in Indian

philosophical writings, in modern term5. The author is aware of the

cample~ty of the p-~oblem and also of the danger he is exposed to in carrying

:.the problem too far, afield as that might result in some distortion of the

techings of the great acaryas. In such matters, however, one is always

to be guided by the' maxims "Let Understanding be the Law", and "Life be the

Goal" •

There are ascetic trends in the Roman Catholic Monasticism and in the

this - worldly renunciation of Protestantism but they could not be brought into

the purview of this study, although the author is aware of their importance.

The reason for omitting them is the limitation of the scope of this under-

taking as already indicated. The typologies of Renunciation outside the

Indian spiritual world are extremely useful in understanding the present

problem in general but they are so rather for a comparative'study than for a

work such as this which has express limitations. But the fact that the

4It is noteworthy that most of the contemporary leaders who had greatimpact on Indian society directly or indirectly belonged to the ascetic traditionof the Advaita vedinta. See Lloyd I. RUdolph and Susanne Roeber Rudolph, TheModernity of Tradition (Chicacpo and London: The university of Chicago Press,1967), pp. 216-244. .

5

problem and its significance have been noted, and these could engross our

attention for some later task. On the Buddhistic ~ide, we could not achieve

much either except the occasional references to it whenever and wherever

they have been found relevant to the theme of the present work. The ascetic

element in Jainism and its orientations to life in contradistinction to those

of the tBrahmanic' and tBuddhistic' is really a vast subject and was, therefore,

deliberately excluded, except partially, from the present undertaking in the hope

of a future opportunity.

In defining and understanding the nature of renunciation within its

personal and social frameworks, the writerts purpose throughout is twofold.,Firstly, I will investigate those passages of the Prasthana-traya (the

Upani~ads, the Bhagavad-Glta and the Vedanta-sutras) which predominantly, .

support the monistic doctrine of Samkara with clear implications for samnyasa,

..,­which I have found, at the metaphysical level, indentical with Juana and

therefore realization of Brahman. There has also been a concern equally

important to refute the claims of the ritualistic Mrm;mS~ (Karma-MImamsa)with which no compromise could be possible at the level of ultimate spiritual

experienc~, viz. self-realization. It has been done with the Advaitic

conviction, that, however important the doctrine of karma may be, which

according to the ritualistic MImamsakas is the sole and central thesis of the

Veda, it cannot explicate Brahman whose realization is the ultimate aim of

the Advaita Vedanta.,

There is a dominant tendency on the part of 5aJhk.ara

I"to lean more towards darsana (Philosophy) than dharma (Religion), not by

abne<]ating the role of dharma but by making it subservient to the philosophical

6

understanding of the structure of Reality.S The significance of this aspect

of the problem has been thoroughly examined by presenting a detailed discussion

on (a) Various Motifs of Renunciation, (b) Typologies of Renunciation,

(c) the metaphysical foundations of Renunciation and (d) the Personal

Dimension of Renunciation.

secondly, I will examine the social dimension of renunciation which

has been worked out from tne following points of view: (a) the ultimate goal

of Advaitic philosophy as representing a system of hopefulness. This is

predominantly rooted in the Vedantic structure of Reality in contradistinction

to the nihilistic implications of Buddhism. To quo~Professor M. Hiriyanna:

The ascendency at one stage belonged conspicuously toBuddhism, and it seemed as if it had once for all gainedthe upper hand. But finally the vedanta triumphed •..The Vedanta may accordingly be taken to represent theconsummation of Indian thought and in it we may trulylook for the highest type of Indian ideal ... On the

SThe sole task of darsan for·the Advaita is understanding andrealization of Brahman in its indeterminate form (Nirguqa Brahman). Butthe goal that philosophy aims at cannot be accomplised without the re~igious

weans which in general represent the way in which we react to the ultimateproblems of existence. These means must correspond to the result of self­real~zat1Qn. This correspondence between the philosophical goal and religiousmeans cannot take place in a socio-ethical vacuum. Renunciation in theAdvaita Vedanta is specifically a religious means which after accomplishingits spiritual task at the plane of Jriana assumes a very positive nature andprofoundly enriches the socjal dimension. It is important to extricate theVedantic method and understand its significance.

•