|
The Irish Druid’s Analysis of Śaṅkara's
Invention of Atman = Brahman Abstract The druid
examines the widely accepted Advaita Vedānta
doctrine of Ātman = Brahman as formulated by Śaṅkara (8th century CE). He demonstrates,
through philological and textual analysis, that the claim of absolute
identity between ātman (self) and brahman
(ultimate reality) is not explicitly stated in the early Upanishads. Drawing
on modern Sanskrit scholarship, particularly the works of Patrick Olivelle
and Joel Brereton, he argues that Śaṅkara's
assertion is a personal philosophical construct superimposed upon ambiguous
scriptural aphorims, subsequently institutionalized
as doctrinal truth. 1. Introduction Shankara’s
doctrine of non-duality (Advaita) in Vedānta,
especially the equation Ātman = Brahman, has
become one of the most influential interpretations of Hindu metaphysics.
While this claim is often cited as the central teaching of the Upanishads,
contemporary philological research reveals that its textual foundations are
uncertain. The druid’s essay critically examines the rare few Upanishadic
sutras (i.e. threads) traditionally marshalled in support of this claim and
highlights the dubious interpretative leaps made by Śaṅkara
to systematize his invention of ‘non-duality’ as the purported essence of
Vedic revelation. 2. The Ambiguity of Atman in Early Texts In early
Vedic and Upanishadic usage, ātman
carries multiple meanings: breath, body, individual person, essence, and in
later philosophical contexts, pure consciousness, being-consciousness-bliss.
This semantic fluidity is crucial for understanding the passages upon which Śaṅkara builds his doctrine. Without
presupposing ātman as an eternal witnessing
consciousness, no unequivocal equation with brahman emerges from the texts. 3. The Mahāvākyas
and Their Context 3.1 Tat Tvam Asi (Chāndogya Upaniṣad
6.8.7) Traditionally
rendered as "That Thou Art," this refrain underpins Advaita's claim
of individual-absolute identity. However, Olivelle and Brereton argue that tat
functions adverbially, translating more accurately as "In that way
are you, Śvetaketu." The passage
describes a shared vital essence in all beings, not an ontological oneness of
self and ultimate reality. Śaṅkara's
reading recasts this grammatical construction falsely into a metaphysical
identity statement. 3.2 Aham Brahmāsmi
(Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad
1.4.10) This
declaration, "I am Brahman," lacks a specified referent for the
pronoun "I." It may signify a cosmic self or an enlightened state,
not the empirical human subject. Śaṅkara
interprets it universally, assuming identity for all selves without textual
warrant. 3.3 Ayam Ātmā
Brahma (Māṇḍukya Upaniṣad 2) This is
the only statement potentially equating self and ultimate reality. Yet its
force depends entirely on inferring (and then defining) ātman
as pure consciousness. Given the term's semantic ambiguity, the claim of
ontological identity is interpretative, not explicit. 3.4 Prajñānam
Brahma (Aitareya Veda) While
consciousness (as indeed being and bliss) may be identified with brahman, the
text does not conflate individual subjectivity with the universal absolute in
the manner of Advaita. 4. Śaṅkara's
Philosophical Construction Faced
with scant, ambiguous scriptural materials, Śaṅkara
nevertheless produces a very dodgy philosophical synthesis: ·
Redefinition of terms: Ātman is restricted to pure witnessing
consciousness. ·
Projection of non-duality:
Grammatical and contextual readings are overridden to fit an ontology of
strict identity. ·
Doctrinal absolutism: The
resulting interpretation is presented as the definitive meaning of the
Upanishads, not as a personal philosophical innovation. This
method transforms a speculative leap of imagination into authoritative truth.
Later Advaita tradition canonized this interpretation, obscuring its
speculative and non-textual origins. 5. Modern Philological Perspectives Recent
scholarship challenges Advaita's hermeneutic assumptions: ·
Olivelle (1998) and Brereton (2006)
show that Tat Tvam Asi is grammatically
misread in Advaita exegesis. ·
The Mahāvākyas,
when read in context, suggest shared essence or participation in a cosmic
principle, not strict self-absolute identity. ·
No Upanishadic sutra provides direct, unambiguous
support for Ātman = Brahman as a
universal metaphysical claim. 6. Conclusion The
non-dualistic doctrine Ātman = Brahman,
central to Advaita Vedānta, cannot be
established as a direct teaching of the early Upanishads. It emerges instead
as a philosophical construction by Śaṅkara,
a personal fiction founded on selective and speculative reinterpretation of
ambiguous, apodictic sutras (-as-minims). By reimagining terms and overriding
grammar and context, Śaṅkara, as Brahmin
scholiast, crafted a powerful metaphysical vision subsequently presented as
scriptural truth. Modern scholarship exposes this as a creative doctrinal
development, indeed artifice, rather than a demonstrable or empirically
verifiable revelation. |