|
|
|
|
|
|
|
extension to the upanisads of Mimamsa modes of exegesis. Consequently, it is best approached by studying its inscribed Mimamsa discourse; only in that context, and thereafter, should we note how it is distinguished from Mimamsa by certain claims about Brahman and the relationship of knowledge, texts and action. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a corollary of this decision to describe Advaita primarily as Uttara Mimamsa, I refer to Advaita as "theology," as faith seeking understanding, a salvation-centered explication of the world generated out of an exegesis of sacred texts which seeks to commit the listening (reading) community to specific ritual and ethical practices. These features make the appellation "theology" more appropriate than alternatives such as "philosophy," "mysticism,'' "ontology," etc., even if an outstanding feature of theology, its focus on the "study of God," is absent from Advaita. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is so, one must add, even if "theology" has rarely been a term of approbation in the past several centuries. Although the commentarial, theological aspect of Advaita has not been an important object of modern research, scholars have always acknowledged its existence. A century ago Deussen recognized the centrality of the Vedic Scriptures in Sankara's Advaita and he elaborated an explanatory schema which made room for both an exoteric (scripturally based, theological) and an esoteric (philosophical) approach to each of the areas of inquiry he identified: theology, eschatology, cosmology and psychology.
32 Modern scholars such as Nakamura have stressed the profoundly scriptural texture of Advaita, and argued that "the Vedanta is the unique school which tries reverently to follow the Upanisads as a whole."33 Modi, the best modern critic of Badarayana and Sankara, argues persuasively that the Vedanta of Badarayana grew out of a particular exegetical effort to interpret and arrange Vedic knowledgeand that Sankara was a somewhat capable heir to this tradition.34 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nevertheless, in making the commentarial side of Advaita central and in describing Advaita as primarily theological, I distinguish my work from the mainstream of modern approaches to Advaita, which have used an almost entirely philosophical |
|
|
|
|
|