|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cating with a broader, public audienceDeussen's notion of the exotericbut inferior by comparison with the more nuanced knowledge produced in a thinking that is independent of texts and rites.
37 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the context of this preference for an alternative to theological thinking, philosophy comes to the fore, and so Sankara is thought to be at his best when he expounds a rarified doctrine of nondualism, Advaita as a kind of profound rational insight. His polemic against mere words and mere rites is taken at face value, narrowly and out of context, and used as a basis for the conclusion that he is adequately understood when his higher, speculative discourse is highlighted and studied exclusively.38 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Today, if we may presume a more balanced and favorable attitude toward theology, we can understand more properly and fruitfully the relationship between the theological and philosophical domains of knowing. If we take seriously the temporal relationships among these ways of knowing, one may move from one to the other in either direction. One may first engage deeply in sacred texts, and later construct arguments and inquire into the foundations of knowledge that support what one reads; or, one may begin with the articulation of a rational discourse, and at a later point submit it to the demands of sacred texts, perhaps to ground it religiously, perhaps simply to illustrate and explain it. Advaita represents the former of these approaches, while modern readers have tended to interpret it according to the latter. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A third motive for the portrayal of Sankara as philosopher lies essentially in the desire to make his thought accessible to an audience which does not share his faith commitment to the upanisads as revelatory and authoritative scriptures. Reason is seen as the bridge which makes cross-cultural, cross-religious communication and understanding possible. Deutsch focuses on this intelligible bridge: "In reconstructing Advaita, we intend to focus on philosophical analysis at the expense of scriptural exegesis. We want to find in Advaita that which is philosophically meaningful to a Westerner and to articulate this content in universal philosophical terms . . . A reconstruction of Advaita |
|
|
|
|
|