How "Neo" is Swami Vivekananda's Vedānta? A Response to Anantanand Rambachan

Introduction

The Limits of Scripture: Vivekananda's Reinterpretation of the Vedas by Anantanand Rambachan (1994) has been a pathbreaking work for initiating a critical examination of Swami Vivekananda's epistemological teachings. Rambachan challenges the trend adopted by some modern commentators to equate the teachings of Śaṅkara and Vivekananda. He observes that they overlook the "[f]undamental differences" between the two and present the latter "merely as a reviver of the Advaita of Śaṅkara."¹ Opposing the trend, Rambachan follows Paul Hacker in projecting Vivekananda as a proponent of "neo-Hinduism"² as distinct from the traditional Hinduism.³ He argues that while Śaṅkara regards the Vedas as a "unique and self-valid source"⁴ of Self-knowledge, Vivekananda denies that the Vedas can confer the direct knowledge of the Self and proposes the state of samādhi as the direct means that can be attained alternatively through any of the four yogas of Jñāna, Bhakti, Karma, and Rāja. Importantly, Rambachan argues that the reason Vivekananda did not accept the Vedas to be a "self-valid" source of Self-knowledge was because of his desire to reconcile Hinduism with the intellectual discourse of his time, which was skeptical toward the traditional notions of scriptural authority and encouraged scientific scrutiny of religious teachings. However, Rambachan concludes that Vivekananda's "reconstruction of the basis of knowledge in Advaita is far from successful" as "it presents innumerable problems, leaves many questions unanswered, and, on several crucial issues, contradicts fundamental Advaita propositions."⁵

Given his argument that Vivekananda's teachings are fraught with problems, Rambachan poses a "challenge" to "the direct heirs of Vivekananda's legacy" and others "who have come under his influence, to provide a consistent and coherent account of the synthesis that he attempted." He further appeals to the scholars "who argue for a continuity between neo-Vedānta and its classical roots and who see no deviation between Vivekananda and Śaṅkara" to address the "significant divergences" between Vivekananda and Śaṅkara "that have been established in" his study.⁶ It is to be noted that by alluding to the label of "neo-Vedānta" used by Paul Hacker to discredit the teachings of modern Vedāntins such as Vivekananda, Rambachan questions the authenticity and credibility of Vivekananda's teachings. As it will be shown, Rambachan, like Hacker, also attributes political motives to Vivekananda's "reinterpretation" of Vedānta.

The over two-decades-old work of Rambachan continues to be cited by several scholars in support of the "Neo-Vedānta" thesis. Particularly, scholars cite the work to argue that Vivekananda inauthentically deviated from the 'traditional' understanding of the epistemological role of the Vedas due to the influence of the colonial Indian circumstances and Western ideas. For instance, in his review of Rambachan's work, Harold Coward concludes that Vivekananda's "uncritical embracing of samādhi" in response to "the nineteenth-century challenge of science" "has left Hinduism with a flawed legacy that needs critical reexamination."⁷ Elizabeth De Michelis, who writes that Vivekananda's "understanding of (Neo-)Vedānta" was based on the teachings he absorbed from a "Western cultic entourage,"⁸ bases many of her arguments on Rambachan's observations. Similarly, Travis Webster opines that Vivekananda's concept of "'superconscious' experience" originated in the "situations of British India,"⁹ while Karl Baier argues that Vivekananda's teaching was "influenced by the European Enlightenment and the empiricism of modern European natural science."¹⁰

In contrast to the above-mentioned scholars, James Madaio argues against locating the "development of Vivekananda's theological innovativeness in terms of colonial-period nationalism and, in particular, Western influence."¹¹ He points out that Rambachan among other scholars adopts "Hacker's and Halbfass's" "explanatory framework" of relying "on the historical Śaṃkara as the backdrop for drawing out the newness of Neo-Vedānta, while overlooking medieval and early modern developments."¹² While Madaio questions the "Neo-Vedānta" thesis by pointing out the precedents of Vivekananda's samādhi-based epistemology in traditional Advaitic texts such as the Vivekacūḍāma...