|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sentative of Aquinas' thought, most original, most traditional, most brilliant. It is in part an act of resistance to such habitual choices and evaluations that one retrieves the whole of the Text by the circuitous route of reading Advaita first. It may even turn out to be a reading which goes against the consensus of Aquinas scholars as to what counts most in Aquinasa resistance practiced not merely for the sake of novelty, but in order to uncover possibilities hidden by centuries of familiarity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let us begin by examining two examples in which parts of the Summa Theologiae are read differently after the study of Advaita. My first example uses ST I.13.4 in comparison with UMS III.3.11-13 and Amalananda's comment thereon (already considered in Chapter 3). I have chosen them because both texts address the problem of theological language, and together pose an interesting set of similarities and differences about how one can speak of what is not adequately captured in words. By contrast, my second example raises the issue of how one might handle a possible case of incomparability: the Passion of Christ as treated in ST III.46-49. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Rereading Summa Theologiae I.13.4 after UMS III.3.11-13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a. Setting the Comparison |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In Chapter 3 we examined UMS III.3.11-13 as part of our project of tracing the development of an exegetically rooted discourse about Brahman in the UMS Text. UMS III.3, we saw, is devoted to the question of how one is to use in meditation different texts from different upanisadic traditions which may speak of Brahman in the same way; in that pada the Advaitins develop the practical strategy of coordination (upasamhara). The Advaitins presupposed that the upanisads, which are a series of texts-for-meditation, all refer to the same Brahman; they asked whether the information given about Brahman in each text was pertinent only when that text is being used in meditation, or whether it was permissibleindeed requiredthat one carry over from one text to another certain qualifications of Brahman. Sankara's response was that those qualifications which pertain to the essence of Brahmanthat it is true, existent, blissful, etc.are everywhere relevant, while others qualify Brahman only for |
|
|
|
|
|