Advaita and Neoplatonism

A Critical Study in Comparative Philosophy

[p. 231]

Conclusion

Although there are many other philosophical problems connected with Advaita and Neoplatonism, the main and characteristic trends of thought in both systems have been considered here. Undoubtedly both philosophies have much in common and many of their differences result from the different traditions from which each arose and to which each belongs. The main trend of thought of each of these philosophies is the secondary trend in the other. The main Neoplatonic theme is that there is a hierarchy of being, at the summit of which is the One, the most perfect and highly evaluated entity. In Plotinus there is also a tendency which stresses the perfection of the One to such a degree that the rest of the universe is nothing in comparison with it. In Advaita, on the other hand, the main tendency is to absolutely and uncompromisingly deny the reality of anything apart from the absolute Brahman. Here the complementary tendency is the acceptance of a vyāvahārika realm, which is, as avidyā itself, neither real nor unreal but anirvacanīya. It actually plays a very important role both in the theory and practice of Advaita. Therefore Neoplatonism is the more world-negating and Advaita the more worldaffirming of the two.

The historical success of Advaita lies more in its acceptance of the vyāvahārika realm including all philosophical and religious views as well as ritual and social practices, than in its teaching the non-dual Absolute with which the soul is essentially and eternally identical. This practical and synthesizing tendency of Advaita also explains its present claim of being a philosophy opposed to no other system of thought and therefore in the present age a solution for conflicting world views.

However below the surface of this universalistic outlook the purely philosophical genius of Śaṅkara continues to live. He conceived the idea of the nirguṇa brahman, which is our own self but which cannot be reached by any active effort. It can only be suddenly realized as eternally existing with the disappearance of avidyā which is responsible for our belief in our own and in a divine personality. To the West this doctrine implies in the first

[p. 232]

place impersonalism. But impersonalism existed in Western thought in many forms. Among these Neoplatonism was the most highly developed and came closest to Advaita. This impersonalist tradition was a recurrent reaction against the characteristic personalism of the West which rejected and condemned the former repeatedly. This personalism, together with its kindred anthropocentrism (even Christianity is at least as anthropocentric as it is theocentric), tended consistenly to evaluate the personal more highly than the impersonal. Such personalism is misunderstood when it is subordinated as an aspect, level, or possibility within an impersonalist synthesis. What is most unintelligible to the impersonalist is precisely that the idea of the personal excludes the possibility of a superior impersonal above it. Both personalism and impersonalism consider real what they evaluate most highly.

A modern form of Neoplatonism in the West is the reaction against religious personalism, expressed as the loss of belief in a personal God. According to many contemporary Westerners the monotheistic personal God contradicts much that is valued as rationalism and progress. In the West this amounts to atheism, while in India it would be consistent with Advaita. This explains the spread of Advaita and especially of Buddhism in Western countries. In these Western adaptations attention is confined to the pāramārthika realm, since the vyāvahārika realm is more closely connected with purely Indian developments. But such adaptations are bound to fail unless it is realized that in Advaita not only is the divine personality devaluated, but also the human personality. If Western atheism implies the absence of belief in both human and divine personalities it can go along with Advaita. But if the divine personality is rejected, while the human personality is retained, the result is inconsistent with Advaita.

Thus the West will be disappointed if it expects to lose itself and its personal difficulties in Advaitic impersonalism. On the contrary, Advaita will show the West its true self. It teaches again the old Greek admonition: Gnōthi seautón, Know thyself. With Advaita the West may also learn that self-knowledge is more important and essential than any karman.

In a simple conversation one of the most representative Advaitins of this century, the 34th Jagadguru of the Śṛṅgeri Pīṭha, Chandraśekhara Bhāratī Swāmigal, has told the West that it need

[p. 233]

not adopt Advaita, but realize self-knowledge, the most profound aim of Advaita itself.

‘Why must it be’, impatiently demanded an earnest American tourist, ‘that you will not convert other peoples to Hinduism? You have such a beautiful religion, and yet you keep so many struggling souls out of it. If you say “yes” I will be the first to become a Hindu’.

‘But why’, came the counter-question, ‘do you want to change your religion? What is wrong with Christianity?’

Taken aback, but not daunted, the tourist said, ‘I cannot say what is wrong, but it has not given me satisfaction’.

‘Indeed, it is unfortunate’, was the reply, ‘but tell me honestly whether you have given it a real chance. Have you fully understood the religion of Christ and lived according to it? Have you been a true Christian and yet found the religion wanting?’

‘I am afraid I cannot say that, Sir’.

‘Then we advise you to go and be a true Christian first; live truly by the word of the Lord, and even if then you feel unfulfilled, it will be time to consider what should be done’.¹

The self-knowledge which the Ācārya recommends need not only apply in a religious context but has a universal philosophical connotation. Advaita encourages us to understand ourselves. If studied in a comparative spirit it increases the awareness of one's own habits of thought and thereby paves the way for an adequate understanding of other types of thought.

1 Dialogues of the guru, Chap. I. Also quoted in Mahadevan, Outlines of Hinduism 296-7.