The Philosopher and the Law Giver: Adi Sankaracharya and Manu

In his commentary on the Vedanta sutra (also known as Brahma Sutra), we find Adi Sankaracharya doing something extremely peculiar for a philosopher. He quotes the authority of the law giver Manu (to whom is attributed the Manu Smriti) as decisive proof both in substantiating his own philosophical position and in refuting rival views. So, for intance, when refuting the Sankhya philosophy (whose founder was Kapila), Sankaracharya writes:

Manu himself, where he glorifies the seeing of the one Self in everything ('he who equally sees the Self in all beings and all beings in the Self, he as a sacrificer to the Self attains self-luminousness,i.e. becomes Brahman, Manu Smriti XII, 91), implicitly blames the doctrine of Kapila...All which proves that the system of Kapila contradicts the Veda, and the doctrine of Manu who follows the Veda, by its hypothesis of a plurality of Selfs also, not only by the assumption of an independent pradhâna.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe34/sbe34140.htm

--------

This is astonishing because Manu is not a philosopher at all. Yet Adi Sankaracharya thinks that it is all right to leave the validity of a philosophical view at the mercy of what the law giver thinks of it. In this connection, i would like to quote Mahamahopadhyay P.V. Kane once again:

In his 'History of Dharmasastras' vol. 1, pg 145, Kane writes:

Sankaracharya, in his Vedanta bhasya, quotes Manu Smriti very frequently...In his bhasya on the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad he quotes Manu dozens of times...He looks upon the Manu Smriti as one of the authorities on which the author of the Vedanta Sutra relies.

in continuing our analysis, it is necessary to be clear on on point: what is it that unites Adi Sankaracharya the philosopher and Manu the law giver?

The question is important. Manu is just a law giver and yet one finds him taking an interest in philosophy. Of course this interest is secondary and is solely for the purpose of defending the existence of the ideal society he visualises. But Adi Sankaracharya is a philosopher. His primary interest is the defence of a particular philosophical position. So then what is the significance of Sankaracharya's uninhibited admiration for the law giver Manu? There seem to be two reasons for why we find the philosopher kowtowing to the law giver.

First, as has been seen, in Adi Sankaracharya's view sudras are not entitled to the highest philosophical wisdom. So, since Manu is of also of the same opinion, Adi Sankaracharya is presumably interested in Manu's sociology since he thinks only this can ensure his philosophical position on the matter with the material security (backing of the orthodoxy and the assorted political and religous representatives of the law givers) it needs.

Secondly, we find Manu denouncing logic and logicians in strong terms (in the Manu Smriti). So when we find Adi Sankaracharya also taking the same position on logic we can understand why the interests of the foremost representative of Advaita and of Manu converge.


In his famous commentary to the Vedanta sutra, the well known Advaitin Adi Sankaracharya writes (from Adi Sankaracharya's commentary to the Vedanta sutra ii.1.11). (In what follows, words in square brackets are mine-Rashmun):

"As the thoughts of man are altogether unfettered, reasoning which disregards the holy texts and rests on individual opinion only has no proper foundation. We see how arguments, which some clever men had excogitated with great pains, are shown by people still more ingenious to be fallacious, and how the arguments of the latter again are refuted in their turn by other men; so that on account of the diversity of men's opinions, it is impossible to accept mere reasoning as having a sure foundation. Nor can we get over this difficulty by accepting as well-founded the reasoning of some person of recognized mental eminence, may he now be Kapila[founder of Sankhya philosophy] or anybody else; since we observe that even men of undoubtedly mental eminence,such as Kapila, Kanada[founder of Indian atomism] and othe founders of philosophical schools have contradicted one another. "


In other words--if we are to believe Adi Sankaracharya-- reason as a source of knowledge should be considered inherently unreliable, because philosophers relying on reason alone are known to differ amongst themselves. What one proves on the strength of reason alone is after all disproved by another on the strength of reason again.So it is best to surrender reason in favor of faith in the holy texts.

One may as well argue that since one swordsman proves himself better than another, swordsmanship as a technique of fighting is by nature useless: one fights best only when one surrenders the sword, or fights unarmed.

In continuing his denunciation of logic, Adi Sankaracharya writes:

The true nature of the cause of the world on which final emancipation depends cannot, on account of its excessive abstruseness, even be thought of without the help of the holy texts; for, as already remarked, it cannot become the object of perception, because it does not possess qualities such as form and the like, and as it is devoid of characteristic signs, it does not lend itself to inference and the other means of right knowledge.--Or else (if we adopt another explanation of the word 'avimoksha') all those who teach the final release of the soul are agreed that it results from perfect knowledge. Perfect knowledge has the characteristic mark of uniformity, because it depends on accomplished actually existing things; for whatever thing is permanently of one and the same nature is acknowledged to be a true or real thing, and knowledge conversant about such is called perfect knowledge; as, for instance, the knowledge embodied in the proposition, 'fire is hot.' Now, it is clear that in the case of perfect knowledge a mutual conflict of men's opinions is impossible. But that cognitions founded on reasoning do conflict is generally known; for we continually observe that what one logician endeavours to establish as perfect knowledge is demolished by another, who, in his turn, is treated alike by a third.

How therefore can knowledge, which is founded on reasoning, and whose object is not something permanently uniform, be perfect knowledge?--Nor can it be said that he who maintains the pradhâna to be the cause of the world (i.e. the Sânkhya) is the best of all reasoners, and accepted as such by all philosophers; which would enable us to accept his opinion as perfect knowledge.--Nor can we collect at a given moment and on a given spot all the logicians of the past, present, and future time, so as to settle (by their agreement) that their opinion regarding some uniform object is to be considered perfect knowledge. The Veda, on the other hand, which is eternal and the source of knowledge, may be allowed to have for its object firmly established things, and hence the perfection of that knowledge which is founded on the Veda cannot be denied by any of the logicians of the past, present, or future. We have thus established the perfection of this our knowledge which reposes on the Upanishads, and as apart from it perfect knowledge is impossible, its disregard would lead to 'absence of final release' of the transmigrating souls. Our final position therefore is, that on the ground of Scripture and of reasoning subordinate to Scripture, the intelligent Brahman is to be considered the cause and substance of the world.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe34/sbe34150.htm

Apart from the old refrain that logic is useless because logicians are known to differ among themselves, what Adi Sankaracharya essentially argues for is an implicit faith in the holy texts. It is of course futile reminding Sankaracharya that there are creeds other than the one he belongs to, that each of these creeds have their own holy texts and that such texts do not necessarily agree to justify his general assumption that what is revealed in the holy text contains the most indisputable and uniformly valid knowledge on the basis of which alone liberation can be attained. For Adi Sankaracharya all this is completely irrelevant. There is for him only one holy text and that is the Veda. Moreover, the Veda can be interpreted in only one way, namely that of his own choice.

To us, Adi Sankaracharya's assumptions appear extremely audacious. But not so for Sankaracharya. Is it because he knows that the representatives of the law givers are there to tackle those that may question the assumptions (not in our time, but in his)?

Adi Sankaracharya apparently knows that rational or logical considerations cannot be a strong point either of his metaphysics, or of his sociology (in which the supremacy of the dvijas are taken for granted by him and in which sudras are not entitled to the highest philosophical wisdom). Intelligently enough, he never claims this. He claims, in contrast, that the former draws sanction from the scriptures and the latter from the law codes. Therefore an absolute faith in the authoritativeness of the two is the minimum precondition for the acceptance of his view in totality. Thus, in defence of his faith, he finds it obligatory to silence the pretension of reason to have any efficacy of its own. Thus the inner needs of his view lead Sankaracharya to defend faith against reason.

At the same time, one should also note the real service he renders to the law givers, as a philosopher. Howsoever gratifying his kowtowing to Manu Smriti may be, this is not the kind of service the law giver needs from philosophers like Sankaracharya for the same or similar boosting can be given to the law givers by other spokesmen of the vested interests. There is something more that the law giver needs that can be given by the philosopher alone: this is the general theoretical denunciation of reason itself.

When law givers condemn reason it is because of sheer political consideration-- their condemnation of logic and reason is without any support by philosophical considerations. Besides, much to the annoyance of the law givers, there are Indian philosophers who defend rationalism. Their defence of reason has to be theoretically answered or rejected. Such a task is beyond the scope of the law givers and has to be undertaken by philosophers.

But who among the philosophers can oblige the law givers with a theoretical defence of faith against reason? Obviously only those for whom such a defence of faith against reason suits their own philosophical interests. In other words, philosophers like Adi Sankaracharya. Driven by the basic need to uphold their metaphysics, philosophers like Sankaracharya are obliged to condemn reason and experience, and in effect rationalise the irrational approach to truth.

Therefore the main consideration for the law givers is not whether philosophers like Adi Sankaracharya crudely extoll whatever the law givers say. If they do, it is well and good. But even if they don't, from the law givers' point of view, it is not that significant provided they keep busy defending faith against reason--a service that the law givers can expect from the philosophes alone.

Much to the gratification of the law givers, Adi Sankaracharya does his best in rendering this service also to the law givers. He argues his best to prove that it is philosophically foolish to have any trust in reason as against faith in scriptures.

In the service rendered by Adi Sankaracharya to the law givers, two aspects have to be distinguished--extra-philosophical and philosophical. The former consists in his uninhibted boosting of the law givers and the main point of the latter is the denunciation of reason in defence of faith. To oblige the law givers he even goes to the extent of inventing theoretical considerations to show that free thinking or uninhibited reasoning is intrinsically falacious, and hence not to be trusted. Of course, he would not do this if it did not also suit his own philosophical purpose. But the point is that it also suits the social and political purposes of the law givers. This explains why the viewpoint of philosophical idealism (which Sankaracharya represents) receives a great deal of political boosting.

From what has been discussed about the law giver Manu and the philosopher Adi Sankaracharya, it is obvious that their intention, if fully implemented, would have meant an absolute stifling of free thinking, a complete blackout of science in India, and essentially an end to all progress. For the sake of science and progress, some brave people would have been needed in the country who would be willing to flout the mandates of the law givers and their theoretical apologists--philosophers like Adi Sankaracharya. Who in Indian philosophy actually dare to do this?

One must first mention the plain speaking materialists i.e. the Lokayatas or Charvakas. They openly flout the dictates of the law givers as bluntly as Adi Sankaracharya shows his servile admiration for them. Naturally they have to face the consequences for this. Branded as veritable devils and captious reasoners, they are sought to be driven out of social intercourse and their writings are withdrawn from circulation--perhaps deliberately destroyed. The very name Lokayata or Charvaka becomes in Indian philosophy a mark of monstrosity, vulgarity, and impiety. There may be even something in the Mahabharata story of burning them alive.

But the Charvakas are not the only defenders of rationalism in Indian philosophy. There are others--like the founders of logic and atomism--whose contribution to Indian rationalism is philosophically more important. Significantly, they find it safe to work only under the cover of subterfuge. Though sharing a great deal with the Lokayatas, they prefer to dissociate themselves from the Lokayatas formally. In accordance with the basic demands of the law givers they even profess an apparent piety for the scriptures and law books, though with the subtle hint that this veneration for scripture is not to be taken seriously.

How the founding fathers of logic and atomism try to save their philosophy from the stern demands of the law givers who are virulently opposed to logic and reason and whose views are boosted by their apologists like Adi Sankaracharya will be explained elsewhere.