Aleksandar Uskokov

This study examines the relationship between language and liberation in early Advaita Vedānta, focusing on Śaṅkara (early eighth century ce) as a key figure. Challenging modern portrayals of Śaṅkara as a mystic, the work presents him as a “theologian of liberation” who argued that the liberation from embodiment as the highest human good (paraṁ śreyas) is attained not through ritual or meditation, but through immediate intellectual understanding of Upaniṣadic identity statements. The analysis attributes the development of this soteriological model to Śaṅkara’s intervention against Vedic theologians who viewed scripture as prescriptive rather than informative. Śaṅkara’s focus on the identity statements would eventually lead to the appearance of the idea of mahā-vākyas or “great statements” such as tat tvam asi, “You are That.” While often attributed to Śaṅkara, the formal mahā-vākya doctrine was systematized by Sarvajñātman in the tenth century ce using Mīmāṁsā models of language hierarchy.

In this article, I focus on the idea of mahā-vākya in the theology of Jīva Gosvāmin. I show how Jīva drew on two distinct understandings of mahā-vākya, those of Mīmāṁsā and Advaita Vedānta, to claim that: (1) the whole Veda, including the Itihāsa-Purāṇa corpus, was one large mahā-vākya; (2) a quarter verse from the Bhāgavata was a mahā-vākya; (3) the praṇava Oṁ was a mahā-vākya. I argue that Jīva used the notion of mahā-vākya to show that all the Vedas, epics, and Purāṇas denote Kṛṣṇa through the fact that the single most important scriptural statement, ‘Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Lord’ of Bhāgavata Purāṇa 1.3.28, has Kṛṣṇa as its reference. I conclude that mahā-vākya for Jīva was just a tool that he used for the purpose of canon formation in which the central role would belong to the Bhāgavata.

This article interprets the religious epistemology of the Caitanya Vaiṣṇava theologian Jīva Gosvāmin, specifically his division of perception in ‘learned’ and ‘ignorant’, to argue that ‘learned’ perception is supersensible cognitive experience shaped by learning and language. The article goes on to show that the contemporary scholarship on religious experience can learn an important lesson from Jīva’s epistemology, namely that the social construction of categories that shape religious experience need not involve ontological agnosticism with respect to the existence of objects presented in it.

The Brahma-sutra, attributed to Badaraya (ca. 400 CE), is the canonical book of Vedanta, the philosophical tradition which became the doctrinal backbone of modern Hinduism. As an explanation of the Upanishads, it is principally concerned with the ideas of Brahman, the great ground of Being, and of the highest good. The Philosophy of the Brahma-sutra is the first introduction to concentrate on the text and its ideas, rather than its reception and interpretation in the different schools of Vedanta. Covering the epistemology, ontology, theory of causality and psychology of the Brahma-sutra, and its characteristic theodicy, it also: · Provides a comprehensive account of its doctrine of meditation · Elaborates on its nature and attainment, while carefully considering the wider religious context of Ancient India in which the work is situated · Draws the contours of Brahma-sutra's intellectual biography and reception history. By contextualizing the Brahma-sutra's teachings against the background of its main collocutors, it elucidates how the work gave rise to widely divergent ontologies and notions of practice. For both the undergraduate student and the specialist this is an illuminating and necessary introduction to one of Indian philosophy's most important works.

There is a widespread belief in Hinduism that Vyāsa, the alleged editor of the Vedas and author of the Mahābhārata, is identical with Bādarāyaṇa, the author of the Brahma-sūtra. The identification of these two mythic characters, however, originated between 800–980 CE, after the likes of Śaṅkara, Padmapāda, and Bhāskara, but before Vācaspati Miśra, Prakāśātman, Sarvajñātman, and Yāmuna. The purpose of this paper is to understand how and why such identification took place. The argument developed here is that the Bādarāyaṇa-Vyāsa identity was invented by the author of or community behind the Bhāgavata Purāṇa as part of a complex of self-representation strategies. The Bhāgavata intentionally makes itself a work of Vedānta, indeed the Brahma-sūtra itself, over which it builds a new soteriology that is centered on the idea of bhakti. Two factors in particular stand out in light of the Bhāgavata’s Vedāntic background: Vyāsa’s paradigmatic character as the preserver of old dharma and the innovator, visionary, of new soteriologies; and the image of Vyāsa’s son Śuka as the model ascetic and ideal candidate for the new soteriological vision, through whom the Bhāgavata community chose to represent itself.