The essence and function of religion and spirituality is to understand ourselves, to understand what it is that constitutes us, our aim in life and the possibilities inherent in our life. In understanding this goal, Advaita is, in my personal opinion, the most helpful among the streams of religion available to us. This is because it is the most logical and the most scientific. The views of Advaita can be supported both logically and also are not contradicted by science.
The two main truths of Advaita are:
These two truths give us the framework for creating an outlook on life which can both conform to science and logic and at the same time provide us spiritual comfort and gain.
There can be many interpretations of Advaita. This is because of differences in the details. Such differences have existed since the beginning, with schools like that of Nimbarka (Bheda-Abedavada) and Vallabha (Suddha Advaitavada) also being called Advaita. The main Advaita school however has always been that of Shankara (Abhedavada) and it is this school that is propounded in my book.
Hence, even while accepting the main ideas of Advaita, we may still advocate some changes to bring it in line with our modern knowledge and ethos. By changing a few details, while at the same time adhering to the two truths described above, we would still be very much within the school of Advaita, though we could consider it a fresh interpretation of Advaita. This freedom to interpret a philosophical system according to the needs of the present comes from Indian philosophical traditions themselves.
Accordingly, I have described a slightly different view of Advaita in my book than the traditional one. The two important ways in which I have differed from the Advaita of Sankaracharya is in the definition of souls and the rejection of the reincarnation theory. Besides this, two other salient points are that I have defined Advaita as having a firm realistic ontology (this is the natural starting point of Advaita but perhaps it has not been emphasized before) and also having my own conjecture on what happens at death (in place of reincarnation theory).
These changes however, are not done blindly but after a careful study of the Upanishads. A close study reveals that the Upanishads can well support such an interpretation, and indeed my ideas often seem more natural and in keeping with the spirit of the Upanishads than other interpretations. Sankaracharya’s commentary also often explicitly state the same ideas that I have put forward.
I have endeavored in the following pages to show how the sutras of the Upanishads are in full consonance with these ideas, and how they can be read and understood as a base for modern Advaita. The change in details do not cause any break in the general flow of the ideas of Advaita.
The abandoning the idea of an individual soul does not detract in any way from the general sense of Advaita philosophy. There is no compromise with the two main logical premises of Advaita philosophy, that of Brahman being the only reality ad of the world being an unreal existence. In fact, as I will point out, defining the soul as consciousness itself is more natural both for the Upanishadic sutras and with Sankaracharya’s commentary. It only comes into conflict with the sutras and Sankaracharya in the sections where reincarnation is discussed.
Instead, by taking out the idea of an independent soul and reincarnation from our understanding of Advaita philosophy, there is all round good. This modern advaitic thinking makes it a robust, scientific and logical theory which can meet all logical and scientific arguments thrown at it.
This contemporary view of Advaita also does not affect in any way the practice, goals and aims of Advaita philosophy. There is still very much same answer to all our queries, Brahman, and the same goal of our life, mystical union with Brahman. Modern Advaita can satisfy our spiritual and metaphysical doubts and provide us a spiritual aim in the same continuing tradition as in ancient India.
For most religions, the idea of a soul is a vital necessity. The soul here is by definition an independent entity which exists in our body independent of both our flesh and consciousness. It is the true master of both, and all religious teaching is geared towards this.
However, in Advaita there is no necessity of such an independent entity. This is because, in contrast to other religions, our existence here is considered a relative reality only, and nothing here has an independent existence. So there is no need to postulate a soul as an entity with a special power. In modern terms, the soul in Advaita is our individual consciousness only. This definition, of the soul as the individual consciousness itself, is to be found repeatedly in the Upanishads also.
The definition of the soul as an independent entity, however, is necessary in Advaita in one situation, to explain the special Hindu theory of what happens on death — Reincarnation. It is while explaining reincarnation that we find the upanishadic sutras dealing with the soul as an independent entity. For reincarnation to work, we of course need an independent entity, an entity which can exist independent of our consciousness and our body. This is necessary because only such an entity would be able to survive the death of our body and our consciousness and transcend them to take up another consciousness and body.
Because reincarnation is such an important part of the Hindu ethos, it is ultimately this definition of the soul which has stuck. Hindu teachings in general teach of an independent soul, called variously as ‘atman’ or ‘jiva’.
However, it is my contention that the overall import of the Upanishads is not such a definition and the definition of the soul as the individual consciousness itself can be very well substantiated by the Upanishads itself.
Perhaps also, the point, that defining the soul as an entity independent of the body–mind and also existing apart from the Brahman, led to a definition of three levels of existence, was not so clearly understood. Or perhaps, the ancient seers as also their commentators like Sankaracharya, did not feel the need to clearly differentiate between these two viewpoints, considering the difference to be unimportant. However, this is not so in the modern context, as defining a soul apart from consciousness contradicts our physiological, psychological and also other scientific knowledge like that of computers or evolution. Hence we need to clearly differentiate between these viewpoints.
Why is it necessary in a modern understanding of Advaita to define the soul as the individual consciousness, and conversely, to rule out the soul as an independent entity?
There are a number of reasons why it is difficult to accept the idea of an independent entity living in our bodies. I have already enumerated this in my book
The main objection is scientific. One of the most important functions of the soul in traditional religions was that it gave ‘life’ to us, it provided the animation to our mechanical bodies. But this is now not necessary, we know now how life has evolved and that life is self sustaining and does not need any input from outside. We also know now that our consciousness is also self sustaining, and this also does not need any input from outside. The functioning of our brain is also understood to a fair extent, enough so that we know that there is no entity which ‘does the function of seeing’, ‘hearing’, etc.
There are a number of logical problems also, like how the soul would connect to our body, whether trees and animals have soul, etc.
For all these reasons, which I have discussed in the book, it is far more scientific and logical to define the soul as consciousness itself.
We should now look at the second question,
Why is it necessary to have the soul as an independent entity?
In the context of Advaita, the answer is simple — reincarnation. Reincarnation is a part of the hindu ethos, and for reincarnation, a soul is vital. If we define the soul as consciousness alone, then reincarnation also will not work. Both are necessary for each other.
There are of course any number of problems with reincarnation theory also. This also I have enumerated in my book.
Reincarnation again is supported in a number of instances in the Upanishads. The same sections which support reincarnation also support the soul as an independent entity. But though the sections supporting reincarnation are by far the majority, there are also a number of instances where reincarnation is not stated as a necessity, and a careful reading of the sutras can show that reincarnation is not a vital part of the Upanishads.
Hence, if we do not accept reincarnation, we do not need anymore to have this idea of a separate soul. Or we can argue from the opposite side and say that once we do not believe in a separate soul, we cannot believe in reincarnation.
A modern Advaita can safely dispense with these two ideas while still sticking to the core of Advaita, and thus have a system of beliefs which can conform to the most vigorous logic and also to present science.
Two other ideas that I have discussed in my book in terms of a modern understanding of Advaita is a realistic ontology in place of an idealistic one, and a conjecture regarding what happens to us on death. This also I will discuss further in terms of the sutras.
In the following pages, I will place the relevant Upanishadic sutras along with my interpretations and explanations to show how my ideas are well supported by the Upanishads also. My explanations, my own commentary in a way, are placed in the following four sections:
1.The soul as individual consciousness
2.Rejection of reincarnation theory
3.Realistic metaphysics/ontology
Further notes on discussion:
For this discussion, I rely mainly on the translations by Swami Vireswarananda, Swami Gambhirananda and Swami Madhavananda brought out by the Advaita ashrama. These are as authorative translations of the Texts and have justified the confidence placed on them by scholars throughout the world.
I also intend to use sutras from the ten major Upanishads only, as I feel they provide enough material to support my interpretation. The Vedas are the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, Chandogya Upanishad, Isa, Mundaka, Mandukya, Katha, Taittriya, Aittriya and Prasna Upanishads. My (well thumbed) copies of these translations are:
- Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (with commentary of Sankaracharya): translated by Swami Madhavananda; Published by Advaita Ashrama (eighth impression, April 1993).
- Chandogya Upanishad (with commentary of Sankaracharya): translated by Swami Gambhirananda; Published by Advaita Ashrama (second edition, November 1992)
- Mandukya Upanishad (with Karika of Gaudapada and commentary of Sankaracharya); Translated by Swami Gambhirananda; Puvlished by Advaita Ashrama (First Edition, July 1979)
- Eight Upanishads (with commentary of Sankaracharya) Vol I: translated by Swami Gambhirananda; Published by Advaita Ashrama (second revised edition, January 1989, Reprint November 1991)
- Eight Upanishads (with commentary of Sankaracharya) Vol II: translated by Swami Gambhirananda; Published by Advaita Ashrama ( Ninth Impression November 1992)
I will deal directly with the sutras themselves in putting forward my opinion. Along with this, I will include some comments on Sankaracharya’s commentary. However, I have not gone into details on his commentary mainly because I wanted to concentrate on the Upanishads, and Upanishads alone. For the same reason I have not dealt with the Brahma Sutras or with Gaudipada’s Karika on the Mandukya Upanishad.
Since ancient times, the Upanishads have given rise to a lot of controversy. Different commentators have been able to interprete the Upanishads to support their own beliefs. Thus Upanishads are used to support the three broad categories of dualistic, qualified monoisitic and advaitic thought. Each of these categories again have many substreams and the same sutras have been used by different commentatotrs to support their own theories.
This is possible because the collection of Upanishads is not a harmonious whole. There are many different philosophies within the Upanishads and each commentator has used some of the sutras while disregarding the others or twisting them to wring out his own particular theory. Thus many parts of the Upanishads are in direct conflict with each other. This has been recognized since time immemorial.
The Upanishads also have several sections which are unpalatable for the modern mind. There are sections which define the caste system for example, and disallow the Vedas for women and lower castes. There are also several different tales about the origin of the universe which are highly fanciful and seemingly purposeless. Some other teachings, like the mind is in the heart, must necessarily be discarded in any contemporary reading of the Upanishads. There are many other teachings which serve no purpose in a philosophical work and must simply be accepted in their historical and cultural context (for example, there is a mantra for those who seek to injure their wife’s lover, you can follow this link if you are interested in this).
All this means that by necessity, we must do a selective reading of the Upanishads. No matter what philosophy we seek to derive from it, there will be some passages which are contrary to that teaching. Sankaracharya also had to face several problems with sutras which undoubtedly taught a dualistic or qualified monoistic teaching. Sankaracharya as a traditional commentator, was constrained by the fact that the Vedas were considered the word of god and so he could not disregard a single sutra, and had to twist them to bring them into conformity.
In a contemporary reading, we are under no such constraints. We well recognize that the Upanishads were written by humans and thus have the quirks and weaknesses that are normal in such endeavors. Yet it adds to the purity of our philosophical quest if we can find adequate support for contemporary Advaita within the Upanishads. In this context, when we find some sutras which seek to establish an independent jiva, we can well disregard them and instead look at the much larger sections which do not support such a theory, and instead repeatedly emphasize the two level existence. We can deal with the sutras in all their strength and weaknesses in a modern spirit.
With this goal in view, we can now try to examine the sutras.
In the following pages, I will place the relevant Upanishadic sutras along with my interpretations and explanations to show how my ideas are well supported by the Upanishads also. My explanations, my own commentary in a way, are placed in the following four sections:
1.The soul as individual consciousness
2.Rejection of reincarnation theory
3.Realistic metaphysics/ontology
This page has the following sub pages.
Very interesing reading. I too feel convinced about the theory of the soul being the primary consciouness. However how do you explain law of Causation(law of Karma and Law of Destiny) in the light of absence of reincarnation? Could you pl enlighten me on this aspect.
Your concern is right – that in the absence of reincarnation, law of Karma as it is traditionally accepted would not stand. My answer is, I do not accept all the traditional theories of karma and reincarnation. Reincarnation has many problems philosophically because it requires what is called ‘substance dualism’, that the soul should be able to exist even without any material basis, and yet interact with matter (in the brain). But if we reject reincarnation, the law of Karma also stands rejected, since it exists in conjunction with reincarnation. Hence on rejecting reincarcation, I am at the same time rejecting the law of Karma where it means the effects of Karma transcending from one birth to another. Instead I accept a limited form of Karma, of Karma affecting one in one’s own life, but not of transcending into the next life. This is not orthodox Hindu thinking, but my opinion is that we should reject a strictly orthodox view and instead take a modern interpretation of Hinduism, one that stands along with science. This is what I have attempted in my book.