Book Title: World of Philosophy
Author(s): Christopher Key Chapple, Intaj Malek, Dilip Charan, Sunanda Shastri, Prashant Dave
Publisher: Shanti Prakashan
View full book text
________________
identity statement at the other. It can be regarded as an 'intermediary case' in the words of Wittgenstein.
The meaning that a conceptual identity statement carries is said to be impartite. That is, knowledge conveyed by such a statement is not differentiated into subject and object that is inevitable in case of knowledge conveyed by a statement like "This is pot" or "I am happy". Hence the statement "Atman is Brahman" is said to express impartite meaning (akhandartha). Knowledge conveyed by a non-identity statement like "This is a pot" or "I am happy" is differentiated into subject and object. Hence such statements are said to express partite meaning (khandartha).
Most of the criticisms that are leveled against philosophical logical analysis or critico-constructive analysis of the Advaitins's view that Atman is Brahman are rooted in certain presuppositions two of which I intend to put forward here. One is that linguistic philosophy and philosophy of language are one and the same. This is not correct, as the former is a philosophical method whereas the latter is an area of philosophical pursuit. I shall not dilate on this except saying that Samkara whose views are reconstructed linguistically has a philosophy of language to his credit. The second is that the mahavakyas like "Tat tvam asi" or "Atman is Brahman" are not meant to be intellect-deep, but further and farthest deep. By the attempt to understand and construct the traditional doctrines and arguments in the current philosophical idiom, one does not intend to fix it at intellect deep. We intend to put it there where it should properly be. But one cannot neglect and bypass the domain of the intellect. One has to pass through the domain of the intellect, not to get stuck there and to go beyond. (In the Vedantic terminology 'go' and 'know' logically mean the same.) In the West, philosopher F.H. Bradley came to the conclusion that the intellect must commit suicide to apprehend Reality. But there is no question and scope of suicide in Advaita. The Advaitin wants to transcend the intellect with the help of the intellect, as there is no bypass or short cut. The Bhagavadgita is clear in this regard:
evam buddheh param buddhva samstabhya atmanam atmanaḤ
(Knowing That which is superior to intellect and disciplining the lower with the higher intellectḤ) One must expatiate in detail the reasons provided by the faculty of reason only to find that they are not adequate to render knowledge of the ultimate reality. The idea of ultimate reality, it might be clarified, is not foisted from outside by, nor is a figment of the imagination of the philosopher. The present way of understanding the idea is not an imposition, nor grafting made by the present writer. There are some scholars who appear to think that when they use the current logico-linguistic idiom, they are not imposing or grafting, but when others use the same, they are imposing or grafting distorting the philosophical view under reappraisal.
229
