The Hidden Lives of Brahman: Sankara's Vedanta through His Upanisad Commentaries, in Light of Contemporary Practice

Notes

 Notes Preface 1. I rely here on Hajime Nakamura’s (1983, esp. 87–88) dating of Śaṅkara’s life at c. 700–750 CE. There is no doubt that Śaṅkara’s emphasis on brahman’s transcendence strongly influences later thinkers who identify with the label “advaita vedānta.” I nevertheless discuss in the conclusion my reservations about applying this label directly to Śaṅkara’s teaching. 2. As reflected in these notes, most formative for this study are Saccidānandendra Sarasvatī, Paul Hacker, Hajime Nakamura, Natalia Isayeva, John Grimes, and Bradley Malkovsky. Suthren Hirst (2005, 4–8) surveys the key issues dealt with by these and other influential vedānta scholars. 3. See, for example, Kripal’s (1995) references to the vedānta of the Rāmakṛṣṇa Mission. 4. Mickey 2007, 228–39, surveys Eliade’s use of this term; its appropriation by more recent scholars of Confucianism, Daoism, and Islam and performance studies scholar Nicolas Nuñez; and its independent use by philosopher Gaston Bachelard. 5. See especially the manifesto of Tambiah (1970, 360–65), addressed by Tambiah 1976, Wuthnow 1989, Messick 1993, Ray 1994, and Kantorowicz 1997. Others have highlighted the oral dimension of texts: see Graham 1987, Timm et al. 1992, Smith 1993, and Holdrege 1996. 6. Most influential were Samuel Heilman’s (1983) study of Talmud study groups in America and Israel, and Philip Lutgendorf’s (1991) study of the recitation, oral commentary, and performance of the Hindu vernacular epic Rāmcaritmānas. Drawing extensively on the work of Turner, Geertz, and Goffman, Heilman discusses the dynamic histories of the various groups he studied in terms of six aspects: social drama, cultural performance, interactional drama, word play, fellowship , and religion. This framework repeatedly oriented me as I observed the settings depicted in chapters 1, 3, 6 and 9, although the structure of this book more closely parallels those of Lutgendorf’s. Eck (1982) and Narayanan’s (1994) interweaving of ethnography and historical analysis, dealing more with devotional traditions, also provided useful models. 7. See Olivelle 1986–2004; Jamison 1991, 1996, forthcoming; and Mahony 1998, which more readably integrates the insights of de Nicolás (1976), who builds on W. Norman Brown (1978). 354 notes for preface and chapter 1 8. See especially Marcaurelle 2000, 29–40, 105–30. 9. See especially Suthren Hirst 2005, 92, 94, 95, 97, 99, 108, 118, 125, 127, 129; she notes that Ramachandran (1969) and Alston (1980) also avoid overstating Śaṅkara rejection of the world. 10. See Fort (1998, 31–46), Malkovsky’s (2001, 289–371) and Rambachan (2006); while initially critical of Śaṅkara negative attitude towards the world (5), Rambachan’s statements in chapter 5 (especially 78–81) closely correspond to Śaṅkara’s approach as represented in this book. 11. See both his early study (1974) of Rāmānuja and his recent, more comparative work (1994). Chapter 1 1. Kar 2006 provides the most recent evidence that this approach is still vibrantly alive among Indian scholars, though even some of these note the importance of ritual context (123–28). See also Suthren Hirst’s (1990, 89–90) statements regarding authors who assume this view. 2. Preface to The Greatness of Shringeri (1998). 3. Cenkner 1983, 5–6 discusses “ācārya” and other terms for teachers in pre-modern sources. Hacker 1995, 29–30 surmises the probable historical connection between Śaṅkara and Śṛṅgeri. 4. Hacker’s (1995, 48–50) list of Śaṅkara’s unquestionably authentic works includes the UMSbh, BGbh, and US; the upāniṣad commentaries, except the Śvetāśvatara; and possibly the GKbh. See also Suthren Hirst’s (2005, 19–22) overview of the authenticity issue; like her I focus on the more historically reliable evidence of the authentic works while acknowledging that hagiographic sources reinforce the importance of Śaṅkara’s role as teacher (3–4, 13–17). 5. See text for note 16 regarding important exceptions to this neglect. 6. For updates on my own projects in this area, see www.csus.edu/sringeri. 7. Rambachan (1991, 1–14) surveys scholars who misinterpret the pivotal role of vedic sources in of Śaṅkara’s worldview, who also tend to view brahman primarily as an abstract entity. 8. brahma-śabdo bṛhad-vastu-mātrāspado ‘viśeṣito (BUbh 5.1.1: 954) 9. Gonda’s (1950) discusses exhaustively the connotations of the term mentioned in this paragraph. 10. Mahony builds on the work of Brown (1978) and...