Pratyabhijna and Shankara’s Advaita (comparative study)
by Ranjni M. | 2013 | 54,094 words
This page relates ‘Importance of Knowledge in Liberation� of study dealing with Pratyabhijna and Shankara’s Advaita. This thesis presents a comparative analysis of two non-dualistic philosophies, Pratyabhijna from Kashmir and Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta from Kerala, highlighting their socio-cultural backgrounds and philosophical similarities..
Go directly to: Footnotes.
5. Importance of Knowledge in Liberation
In ʰٲⲹñ and Advaita, knowledge is considered as the highest means for the attainment of Ѵǰṣa. There are several sentences in 貹Ծṣa and in its ṣy proclaiming the importance of knowledge in liberation.
[The following] are some instances:
vidyayāṛtaśnute |[2] etc.
Śṅk firmly believes and propounds that jñānādeva tu kaivalyam[3] ( the liberation is only through the knowledge). He advocates that (ignorance) only is the obstacle to liberation, it has no other obstacle and so only knowledge can remove the obstacles.[4] In Taittirīyopaniṣadṣy Śṅk says that liberation is not the result of Karma,[5] but it can be attained only through the knowledge of Brahman.[6] In both Advaita ձԳٲ and ʰٲⲹñ, the name of the systems itself is highlighting the importance of knowledge. Advaita ձԳٲ means the ultimate non-dual knowledge and ʰٲⲹñ means the recognition or realization. Like Śṅk, Utpala and Abhinavagupta have profusely stated that only ignorance is the cause of bondage and only knowledge is the cause of liberation.[7]
Ѵǰṣa, the realization or recognition, itself is a higher level of knowledge in both systems. Both systems conceive that knowledge is self-luminous and the very nature of the ultimate reality. ʰٲⲹñ holds that Knowledge is a self-established fact and it is an indication of the living beings.[8] The only longing positively accepted by both systems is the longing for the knowledge (ᾱñ). The individual self, who has a desire for liberation, should have some knowledge of the subject, in the beginning. So knowledge becomes common in all types of means for liberation, as they are known in various names. There is no differentiation between the way and the goal. Here the observation of William M. Indich is suited to both systems.
He says,
“The higher knowledge is the knowledge of ultimate reality which doesn’t have a subject object distinction. The essence of the subjective knower is realized to be identical with the essence of the objective world. In this state the knowledge and reality or the epistemology and the metaphysics united with each other and it will become a state of non-duality.�[9]
Thus it is very clear that in both systems knowledge has a significant position as the goal and as the way to it.
Footnotes and references:
[1]:
[2]:
Wood, Thomas E., The Maṇḍūkya 貹Ծṣa and the Āgama Śāstra, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 1992, p. 152f.
[3]:
BUSB, 3.2.3.
[4]:
[5]:
[6]:
[7]:
[8]: