Advaita and Neoplatonism

A Critical Study in Comparative Philosophy

[p. 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 operate can be basically different from each other. Therefore the main difficulty lies 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 philosophic background. It should be obtained by constantly checking the concepts 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 draws attention to other frameworks of thought. In addition basic misunderstandings 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. Such an undertaking unavoidably constitutes a kind of comparative 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 problems of Advaita, so that Advaita is first studied as an aspect of Western thought. This is possible because the Neoplatonic tradition provides a relatively appropriate framework of categories. In Western philosophy Advaita is therefore naturally regarded as a kind of Neoplatonism.

[p. viii]

The second part applies the results of the first to Advaita itself. Principally it aims to 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 sometimes different from those provided by a traditional philological analysis, though both are of course compatible.

The third part makes a comparative study of Advaita and Neoplatonism. Since there 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, so that once again the role played by the observer has to be examined.

An Appendix discusses evidence for the historical influence of Indian thought on Neoplatonism.

This book was first submitted as a thesis for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy of 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 opportunity to re-write the book I would take more for granted and be less concerned with the phenomenological and existentialist phases in contemporary Western philosophy. I should spend less time on the methods by means of which results are reached and more time on the results themselves. This might have produced a more readable book. But as the assumptions which I now take for granted still constitute unsolved problems, the new book might have been more accessible but less useful. There may be no easier road than the long way I painstakingly travelled.

As for phenomenology and existentialism, the years I spent in British and American Universities have somewhat changed my perspective. Although I have continued to observe that the English speaking countries (including India) and the continental European countries appear to compete in neglecting each other's philosophies, I no longer regard existentialism and phenomenology as the only true heirs to classical Western philosophy. One major conviction, implicit in the thesis, has gradually grown stronger: a serious study of Indian systems of thought might well help to overcome the impasses reached in the mutually exclusive schools of contemporary Western philosophy.

[p. ix]

The pleasant task remains to thank those persons and institutions that have assisted 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.

My gratitude goes in the first place to my teacher and guide, Dr. T.M.P. Mahadevan, Professor of Philosophy and Head of the Department of Philosophy of the University 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 Sanskrit and Head of the Department of Sanskrit of the University of Madras, 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.

I should have liked to thank personally my first teacher in philosophy, Dr. H.J. Pos, Professor of Philosophy in the University of Amsterdam. His personal interest in my work and his brilliant expositions of Greek thought from Thales to Plotinus were very much alive in my mind when I received in India the announcement of his unexpected death.

[p. 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.

I am very grateful to the University Grants Commission which has contributed to the expenses of the present publication, and to members of the Department of Philosophy of the University of Madras who have assisted me in correcting the proofs.

London-Philadelphia, August, 1961.

J.F. STAAL