Book Reviewed: A Study of The Vedanta in the Light of Brahmasutras by Shailaja Bapat

Interpretations of Vedanta sutras Vedanta is the philosophical portion of the Vedic literature that include principal Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, and Brahma Sutras. It describes the nature of reality, the self (Atman), Brahman (Ultimate Reality), and liberation (moksha). Author Badarayana composed Brahmasutras in coded aphoristic (sutra) form, it is interpreted to resolve apparent contradictions between the ritualistic system of Vedas, and the metaphysical ideas of Upanishads. It is a platform for the creativity and enunciation of Vedanta Philosophy. Brahmastra is coded in 555 sutras that allowed diverse interpretations of a major Hindu philosophical system. Major commentators like Adi Shankaracharya (Advaita), Ramanujacharya (Vishishtadvaita), Madhvacharya (Dvaita) and other Vedanta schools figured prominently in the development of a rich metaphysical thought. The text explicitly rejects non-Vedic philosophical systems (like Buddhism, Jainism, Samkhya Philosophy, because they are atheistic in their tone and teachings). It should be pointed that the Brahma Sutras believe in Vedic rituals (Karma Kanda), but knowledge of Brahman (jnana), as taught in the Upanishads is superior and liberating. In this book the author has reviewed various interpretations of Vedanta philosophy, and notes that Adi Shankaracharya established Brahman as the Ultimate Reality. She also considers him an extremist Vedantin, who excluded reality and its worldly relations in contrast to other commentators. It is also stated that he accepted Sruti literature, and excluded Tantra philosophical system, and his commentaries are “trustworthy” than other schools of the Vedanta. The author may have overstepped her responsibilities as a reviewer of the various commentaries of Vedanta schools. The fact that Adi Sahnakara’s challengers like Rāmānuja and Madhva accepted Visnu-centered Tantras. The exclusion of Tantra does not make Adi Shankara’s commentary “trustworthy.” We should consider the time the commentators lived and how Tantric traditions (Śaiva, Śākta, Vaishnava, and Buddhist Tantra) were becoming progressively stronger in Hindu life. Commentators of Vedanta had to consider them in their exegesis despite the exclusion of Tantric principles in Brahma Sūtra. This is the ecclesiastical and epistemological evolution. Both Vedānta and Tantra philosophical systems discuss ultimate reality. Śaṅkara may have been personally initiated into Śākta Tantra (Śrīvidyā), but focused his formal Vedānta exegesis on strictly Upanishads excluding Tantric beliefs. Śaṅkara’s Advaita may be summarized as: non-duality, world is illusory, self = Brahman, and knowledge leads to liberation. Madhva’s Dvaita is summarized as: Duality, world is real, self ≠ Brahman (always distinct), and pure devotion (Bhakti yoga) leads to liberation. The ontology of Śaṅkara hands us a philosophical route, and Madhva’s reality is a spiritual one where devotion and not pure knowledge to be united with Brahman. In a world dominated by Abrahamic faiths, Madhva’s existentialism is meaningful and appealing. This explains why this form of Hinduism is so successful outside India. The editor of the book could have re-reviewed this book. Part of making a book appealing and interesting to the reader is the discussion of material, and the second half is the presentation of the work. The author’s frequent use of quotations from Vedanta/Upanishads is intimidating to a general reader. I would have had a consultation with someone who had good writing skills to review and edit this work. Theoretical physics has arrived at the same conclusion of Advaita Vedanta about physical reality of the material world. According to Advaita, I am not a small consciousness in a vast universe, but I am of infinite consciousness in which this vast universe appears. Physics seems to conclude that it is not the stuff that makes the cosmos, but It’s made of information, patterns, and awareness. Without consciousness, no mathematics would be known, no physics would unfold, and no cosmos would appear. The mathematical truths (like 2 + 2 = 4) are independent of space, time, or physical context. This would hold true in any possible universe, no matter what physical laws govern. Mathematics seem to be the grammar of Māyā. Physicists have found parallels between the holographic principle and of Māyā (illusion) of Advaita Vedānta. The holographic principle of quantum gravity (especially string theory) suggests that all the information contained in a 3-dimensional volume of cosmos is actually encoded on its 2-dimensional boundary. In other words, the 3D “reality” we see is a projection or reflection of information stored in 2D, which is an illusion.