engleski

Discussion on Śrotavya, Mantavya and Nididhyāsitavya in the Early Vedānta

This paper presents and compares different interpretations of the passage from Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad 2.4.5/4.5.6, according to which one should hear about the Self, reflect, and meditate on it. In his commentary, Śaṅkara cites the view, in sub-commentaries attributed to Bhartṛprapañca, according to which this cognitive process is divided into three parts. Furthermore, different parts of the Upaniṣad are responsible for each stage of the process. According to this view, the third part, which states that one should meditate on the Self, is a vidhi, i.e., an injunction for mental action that leads to knowledge. This paper shows why this is unacceptable for Śaṅkara and his followers, why the cognitive process can neither be separated nor enjoined. The paper shows that this discussion in Advaita Vedānta is primarily hermeneutical because in fact, in the background, it is a discussion of the hierarchy of importance of the texts of the Vedic canon ; The Upaniṣad must be a valid means of cognition, and thus more important than Brāhmaṇas, which contain injunctions for action.

Śaṅkara ; Advaita Vedānta ; knowledge ; injunction ; action

nije evidentirano