Professional Documents
Culture Documents
13
Krishna in Advaita Vedanta:
The Supreme Brahman
in Human Form
Lance E. Nelson
I worship that great Light, the son of Nanda, the supreme Brahman in
human form, who removes the bondage of the world.
Madhusudana Sarasvati
310
311
312
This ontologically indeterminate mode of being, which belongs to all phenomenal existence, is characterized as sad-asad-anirvachaniya, inexpressible
as either real or unreal.
As long as one has not realized the ultimate truth, the world has empirical
reality (vyavaharika-satta). Within this empirical reality, external objects are
quite as real as the cognitions we have of them; they exist in their own right,
independent of the individual mind. The same is true of the world as a whole
and of Ishvara. When one jiva realizes its identity with Brahman, the activity of
the manifest universe is not thereby terminated. It continues on its ordinary
course, being experienced by other souls, directed as always by the personal
God.8 Ishvara, as creator and sustainer of the world, has at least as real an
independent existence as anything else. From the point of view of embodied
beings, Ishvara is in fact the most real of all conditioned entities, since he is
the source of all levels of empirical existence other than his own. Moreover,
Ishvara is eternal (nitya), having no beginning and no end, like the universe
Ishvara rules (BhG 3.19).
313
314
perceived as a higher level of truth. Ishvara may be God in all his glory from
the point of view of the world, but from the point of view of liberation he is, as
Ishvara (though not as Brahman), dependent on the world, just as the space
limited by pots and jars is, for its existence as such, dependent on those vessels.
When the pot is broken, so does the particular configuration of space it contained; when the world disappears for the one who has realized identity with
Brahman, so does God (BSSh 2.1.14). This kind of thinking does not quite place
Ishvara within the realm of maya,18 but it does seem to remove Deity from the
sphere of final truth in a way that a true theist could not tolerate. Advaitic theism emerges as, so to say, a kind of transtheism.
Advaitas view of the nature and status of God is of course very closely
related to its understanding of the liberating power of knowledge ( jnana), as
compared with loving devotion (bhakti) to a Deity. The classical Advaita tradition is emphatic that the only means to moksha is jnana. While Shankara
condones image worship and related expressions of bhakti spirituality as preparatory for advaitic knowledge, because they are a means to purification of
the mind (citta-shuddhi),19 in the end, for his samnyasin followers, he seeks to
undercut anything, including bhakti, that smacks of dualism. Speaking for
the benefit of ascetics on the brink of liberation, Shankara teaches (BhG 12.13)
that any attitude that posits difference between the Self and God (atmeshvarabheda) is a serious hindrance on the steep ascent to advaitic realization. Devotion may be useful for those whowhether because of caste, gender, family
obligations, or aptitudedo not possess the qualification (adhikara) for advaitic
discipline.20 Still, Shankara suggests, the very idea is repugnant to the elite
Advaitin world-renouncers who have become the very Self of God (ishvarasya
atma-bhutah).21
It must be remembered that Shankara was writing at a time when the great
bhakti revolution that originated in the South and swept eventually through
North India was just in its beginning stages. Far more important to him as
interlocutor and opponent was the then well-established orthodoxy of Vedic
ritualism, promoted by the teachers of the Purva Mimamsa.22 The vast bulk
of Shankaras polemical efforts were devoted to a refutation of their denial of
the validity of the advaitic path of knowledge and renunciation. Bhakti theism was by comparison a much less significant player in Shankaras religious
environment.
315
and likewise triumphed in the West and North. Bengal, where Madhusudana
(by most accounts) was born, was by this time a center of a great flourishing of
Krishnaite bhakti inspired by Chaitanya (14861533). Indeed, Madhusudana
was a younger contemporary of the great Bengal Vaishnava theologian Rupa
Gosvami (14801564) and, according to tradition, also of the equally important
Vaishnava acharya Vallabha (14811533), whom Madhusudana is said to have
met. Madhusudana, unlike Shankara, has a good deal to say about Krishna.
Considered one of the great expositors of classical Advaita and a major
figure in the tradition, Madhusudana is revered as a champion of nondualism
and a brilliant polemicist against Vaishnava Vedanta, particularly Madhvas
theistic dualism. His major worksincluding the Vedantakalpalatika, the Siddhantabindu, and his masterwork, the Advaitasiddhiare still regarded as
essential texts of Advaita scholarship.
It is intriguing, therefore, that Madhusudana is also known as a fervent
devotee of Krishna. This devotion he expresses in a number of well-known
devotional verses scattered through his works, particularly in passages of his
famous Bhagavad Gita Gudarthadipika (Light on the Hidden Meaning of the
Bhagavad Gita), his famous commentary on that text. A number of these verses
are included in the readings here. Madhusudana is, moreover, the author of
the only independent treatise on bhakti written by a major exponent of the
classical Advaita tradition. Titled the Bhaktirasayana (Elixir of Devotion), this
work expounds an advaitic theory of devotion and devotional sentiment (bhaktirasa) on the basis of the Bhagavata Purana, with the aid of abundant citations
therefrom.23
Theistically inclined readers of Madhusudana, however, will find little
to celebrate in this theologians descriptions of Krishna. True, Madhusudana,
like the Bengal Vaishnavas and the followers of Vallabha (and most likely under their influence), identifies the supreme Deity exclusively as Krishna,
whom he speaks of almost invariably as Bhagavan (the Blessed Lord), instead
of using the less devotionally charged term ishvara. Moreover, at least in the
Bhaktirasayana, he breaks with Advaita tradition to the extent of placing bhakti
on a par with jnana as a valid spiritual path.24 But he also revives Shankaras
habit of blurring the distinction between the para-brahman and the saguna
Deity. As in Shankara, Krishna in Madhusudanas commentary on the Gita
becomes primarily the avatara of the nirguna Brahman, of which he becomes
perhaps paradoxicallythe earthly voice. Often, in this authors paraphrasing
of the text, Krishna explicitly identifies himself as the nirguna. As we shall see,
Madhusudana in his Bhaktirasayana defines Bhagavan as the nondual Self, a
mass of perfect Being, Consciousness, and Bliss, the pure Existence which is
the substratum of all.25 Therefore, despite his striking declaration Beyond
Krishna, I do not know of any higher Reality,26 it is clear that his conception
of the Deity remains transtheistic.
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
abbreviations
AS
notes
1. See Yoshitsugu Sawai, The Faith of Ascetics and Lay Smartas: A Study of the
Sankaran Tradition of Sringeri (Vienna: Sammlung De Nobili, 1992).
2. See Wilhelm Halbfass, India and Europe: An Essay in Understanding (Albany:
State University of New York Press, 1988), 217262.
3. For purposes of limiting this discussion, I define Shankara as the author of the
major commentaries on the Brahmasutras, the Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita,
and the independent treatise the Upadeshasahasri. Proponents of the idea that
Shankara was a practitioner of bhakti as well as a nondualist commonly seek support
in the so-called minor works (prakaranas) and the many devotional hymns (stotras)
attributed to him. See, e.g., S. Radhakrishnan, The Brahma Sutra: The Philosophy of
the Spiritual Life (London: Allen and Unwin, 1960), 3738. Unfortunately, critical
scholarship suggests that these works were almost certainly not written by the great
Advaitin himself. Even as orthodox a Hindu scholar as the highly respected Maha-
325
mahopadhyaya Gopi Nath Kaviraj writes regarding the hymns: No doubt, most of
these stotras must have been written by the later Sankaracaryas but all of them
have been attributed to the first Sankaracarya. In reference to the treatises, he says:
It is difficult to decide about the authorship and genuineness of these works;
quoted and translated from the Hindi by A. P. Mishra,The Development and Place of
Bhakti in Sankara Vedanta (Allahabad: University of Allahabad, 1967), 128. Of the
prakaranas, Hacker, Ingalls, and Mayeda recognize only the Upadeshasahasri as
genuine; Karl H. Potter, Advaita Vedanta up to Sankara and His Pupils, Encyclopedia of
Indian Philosophies, vol. 3, edited by Karl H. Potter (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1981),
116, 32. For the attitude of Shankara the commentator toward bhakti, see his comments on BhG 13, briefly considered later.
For abbreviations used here for the titles of texts, see the list at the end of the
chapter.
4. The epigraph at the head of this chapter is the concluding benediction of GAD
14, p. 608.
5. Brahma satyam jagan mithya jivo brahmaiva na parah (traditional verse).
6. On the concept of liberation in Advaita, see Lance E. Nelson, Living Liberation in Sankara and Classical Advaita: Sharing the Holy Waiting of God, in Living
Liberation in Indian Thought, edited by Andrew O. Fort and Patricia Y. Mumme
(Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996), 1762. For a more complete
discussion of Advaita theology and its implications, see Lance E. Nelson, The
Dualism of Nondualism: Advaita Vedanta and the Irrelevance of Nature, in Purifying the Earthly Body of God: Religion and Ecology in Hindu India, edited by Lance E.
Nelson (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998), 6188.
7. See his commentary on Brhadaranyaka Upanisad 3.5.1. See also Eliot Deutsch,
Advaita Vedanta: A Philosophical Reconstruction (Honolulu: East-West Center Press,
1969), chap. 3.
8. Shankara is not a subjective idealist. For him, God and the world are much
more than mere creations of the mind. He takes pains to refute the views of the
Vijnanavada Buddhist idealists, who deny the existence of external objects independent of perception. Shankara does not see such subjectivism as a necessary consequence of the doctrine of maya (BSSh 2.2.2832). In post-Shankara Advaita, a kind of
subjective idealism called drishti-srishti-vada (the doctrine of creation through perception) was put forward by Prakashananda (twelfth century), but there is no doubt
that this view would have been rejected by Shankara.
9. Rudolph Otto, Mysticism East and West (New York: Macmillan, 1970), 123. Later
on the same page, Otto speaks of the aparavidya Shankara as a passionate theist.
Considering what will be said about Shankaras views below, I think this latter statement is something of an exaggeration. I do, however, agree with Ottos observation that
the great Advaitin stands sympathetically on the inside of the theistic tradition. He
transcends it by moving deeper, so to say, from within. See note 10.
10. Hackers study of Shankaras authentic works demonstrates that the latters
thinking on conventional religious matters, as well as that of his disciples, is consistently Vaishnava in tone and language; Paul Hacker, Relations of Early Advaitins
to Vaisnavism, in Philology and Confrontation: Paul Hacker on Traditional and Modern
Vedanta, edited by Wilhelm Halbfass (Albany: State University of New York Press,
326
1995), 3339. See also Sengaku Mayeda, A Thousand Teachings: The Upadesasahasri of
Sankara (Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press, 1979), 8 n. 13.
11. BSSh 3.2.9 describes Ishvara as eternally free of ignorance (nityanivrittavidya, p. 578). The description of God as eternally pure, enlightened, and
liberated (nitya-shuddha-buddha-mukta) is used so often as to become a kind of stock
phrase (see the translations of BSSh 2.1.14 and the introduction to BhGSh, translated below).
12. BSSh 2.1.34, 2.2.1, 2.3.1442, 3.2.3841. See Otto, Mysticism, 124126.
13. See note 4.
14. Sawai, Faith of Ascetics, 23, 6869.
15. See the introduction to BhGSh, translated below. Shankara seems to have
been unaware of the historically later idea that Krishna is the avatarin, the source of all
avataras. Ramanuja and Madhva, the two great South Indian Vaishnava theologians,
were likewise ignorant of this notion.
16. See G. A. Jacob, ed., The Vedantasara of Sadananda (Bombay: Tukaram Javaji,
1894), viiix; Otto, Mysticism, 127; Hacker, Relations of Early Advaitins, 3339, and
Distinctive Features of the Doctrine and Terminology of Sankara: Avidya, Namarupa,
Maya, Ishvara, in Halbfass, Philology and Confrontation,, 8596; Sengaku Mayeda, The
r
Authenticity of the Bhagavadgitabhasya Attributed to Sankara, Wiener Zeitschrift fu
d-und Ostasiens 9 (1965), 183185; Raimundo Panikkar, The Unknown Christ
die Kunde Su
of Hinduism, rev. ed. (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1981), 112, 114. Mayeda, Authenticity, for example, lists some fifteen instances of such usage in the BhGSh alone.
17. In this connection it is interesting that Shankaras frequent use of the word
ishvara, in comparison with the habit of later Advaitins, including his disciples, is one of
the criteria proposed by Hacker and Mayeda to identify which of the many works attributed to him are genuine (Mayeda, Authenticity, 183; Potter, Advaita, 115).
18. Note the several assertions in the readings that follow that Ishvara, or Narayana, is beyond, or different from, the unmanifest (avyakta) the imperishable
(akshara) prakriti maya (BSSh 2.1.14, 2.2.42; BhGSh benedictory verse). Regarding
developments in post-Shankara Advaita, Panikkar observes: His followers were so
keen to preserve the absolute purity and transcendence of Brahman and its total
uncontamination by the World that they placed Isvara in the realm of maya, since it is
he who is concerned with the creation of the world and hence gets involved in the
cosmic play. This leads either to a practical dualism (between a para and apara
brahman, between paramarthika and vyavaharika) or to an illusionistic conception of
Isvara (Unknown Christ, 151).
19. Like selfless action (BSSh 3.4.26). Shankara does acknowledge that bhaktiyoga can lead to the acquisition of knowledge ( jnana-prapti) by calling forth Gods
grace (mama prasadat), and hence indirectly to moksha (BhGSh 15.1), but even here,
knowledge is the key factor. See BhGSh 18.56.
20. It is relevant here that the founder of Advaita, while adventurous metaphysically, was extremely conservative socially. Indeed, it must be said that he was
an unapologetic caste and gender elitist. Sankara and the tradition following
him taught that, with certain rare exceptions, only members of the order of worldrenouncers, the samnyasins, could gain knowledge of Brahman and hence moksha.
Only male Brahmins, moreover, were eligible for samnyasa. The result was that the
327
audience for whom the teaching of the ultimate disappearance of God was intended
was extremely small. I have discussed this side of Shankaras thought in some detail in
my Theism for the Masses, Non-dualism for the Monastic Elite: A Fresh Look at
Sankaras Trans-theistic Spirituality, in The Struggle over the Past: Fundamentalism in
the Modern World, edited by William Shea (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America,
1993), 6177.
21. BhGSh 12.13. Anyone who seriously believes that Shankara was a bhakta
should read this passage carefully.
22. The Purva Mimamsa was the school of Hindu thought devoted to correct
interpretation of the ritual texts (karma-kanda) of the Veda. The most important
teachers of the Purva Mimamsa were Kumarila Bhatta and Prabhakara (seventh
century c.e.).
23. In terms of Advaitas understanding of bhakti, Madhusudanas main contribution was twofold. First, he attempted to reclaim bhakti as a valid expression of
the Advaita samnyasins spirituality. Thus, he taught that bhakti was possible even at
the pinnacle of advaitic realization, in the state of jivanmukti, or liberation in life.
Second, and this especially in his Bhaktirasayana, he sought to rehabilitate bhakti as a
valid spiritual paththe soteriological sufficiency of which was independent of the
way of knowledgefor those not qualified for (by caste, gender, etc.), or inclined
toward, the latter path. For a fuller exposition of Madhusudanas views on bhakti, see
my articles Bhakti-rasa for the Advaitin Renunciate: Madhusudana Sarasvatis Theory
of Devotional Sentiment, Religious Traditions 12 (1989), 116; Bhakti Preempted:
Madhusudana Sarasvati on Devotion for the Advaitin Renouncer, Journal of Vaishnava Studies 6 (winter 1998), 5374; The Ontology of Bhakti: Devotion as Paramapurusartha in Gaudiya Vaisnavism and Madhusudana Sarasvati, Journal of Indian
Philosophy 32 (August 2004), 345392.
24. See note 23.
25. BhRT 1.32, p. 77.
26. Krishnat param kim api tattvam aham na jane. A full translation of this
devotional verse is given below. It is found at AS 2.7, p. 750, and again at the end
of the GAD, p. 775. It is frequently quoted in the literature.
27. See Hackers comments on this passage, Relations of Early Advaitins, 35.
28. See note 11.
29. Tattvanyatvabhyam anirvachaniye, BSSh 2.1.14, p. 315.
30. Tabhyam anyah sarvajna isvarah, BSSh 2.1.14, p. 315.
31. Not to be confused with the later Bhagavata Purana, the Bhagavatas were
followers of an ancient Vaishnava tradition, evidenced in inscription as early as 100
b.c., as well as in the Bhagavad Gita and the Narayaniya section of the Mahabharata,
and having affinities with the Pancharatra sect, another early Vaishnava tradition.
Shankara here objects to certain tenets of Bhavagata theology, as he understands it,
but supports other aspects of their teaching.
32. I here consistently translate Bhagavan as Blessed Lord. The literal meaning
is possessed (-van) of fortune/glory/majesty (bhaga), i.e., the blessed, glorious, or
adorable one.
33. See the benedictory verse quoted by Shankara at the beginning of his commentary on the BhG, translated below.
328