The attainment of moshka according to Shankara and Vivekananda with special reference to the significance of scripture (sruti) and experience (anubhava)
Advaita Vedanta, as systematized and expressed by Shankara (788-820), is widely represented in contemporary studies as positing a special experience (anubhava) to be the ultimately valid source of the knowledge of brahman (brahma jnana). According to these studies, Shankara only accorded a provisional validity to the knowledge gained by inquiry into the words of the sruti (Vedas), and did not see the latter as the unique source (pramĂ€na) of brahmajnĂ€na. The affirmations of the sruti, it is argued, need to be verified and confirmed by the knowledge gained through direct experience (anubhava), and the authority of the sruti therefore, is only secondary. My own study of the original commentaries of Shankara suggests, however, that these common contemporary interpretations grossly misrepresent his epistemology in failing to apprehend the meaning and significance which he ascribes to the sruti as the definitive source of the knowledge of brahman. It is clear that in relation to the gain of brahmajnĂ€na, Shankara saw all other sources of knowledge as being subordinate to the sruti, and supported his view by detailed and well-reasoned arguments. It is also clear that the approach to Shankara adopted by modern commentators
Rambachan, Anant Anand
Philosophy
The attainment of moshka according to Shankara and Vivekananda with special reference to the significance of scripture (sruti) and experience (anubhava). Advaita Vedanta, as systematized and expressed by Shankara (788-820), is widely represented in contemporary studies as positing a special experience (anubhava) to be the ultimately valid source of the knowledge of brahman (brahma jnana). According to these studies, Shankara only accorded a provisional validity to the knowledge gained by inquiry into the words of the sruti (Vedas), and did not see the latter as the unique source (pramĂ€na) of brahmajnĂ€na. The affirmations of the sruti, it is argued, need to be verified and confirmed by the knowledge gained through direct experience (anubhava), and the authority of the sruti therefore, is only secondary. My own study of the original commentaries of Shankara suggests, however, that these common contemporary interpretations grossly misrepresent his epistemology in failing to apprehend the meaning and significance which he ascribes to the sruti as the definitive source of the knowledge of brahman. It is clear that in relation to the gain of brahmajnĂ€na, Shankara saw all other sources of knowledge as being subordinate to the sruti, and supported his view by detailed and well-reasoned arguments. It is also clear that the approach to Shankara adopted by modern commentators
attainment accord special_reference significance scripture experience systematize express widely represent contemporary study posit special experience ultimately valid source knowledge according study accord provisional validity knowledge_gain inquiry word see latter unique source affirmation argue need verify confirm knowledge_gain direct experience authority therefore secondary study original commentary suggest however common contemporary interpretation misrepresent epistemology fail apprehend meaning_significance definitive source knowledge clear relation gain saw source knowledge subordinate support_view detail well argument also clear adopt modern commentator