Keywords

I

The Śvetāśvatara Upanishad (1.1) begins with four fundamental questions of philosophical discourse: Is Brahman the cause? Whence are we born? By what do we live? Where do we dwell at the end? The first two questions are about the first or highest cause and the originating source, the existence, and the essence of the world , whereas the other two questions are about the ontological realms of life and death. These questions draw one’s attention toward the nature of the ultimate Reality and Truth and can be reframed as follows: Is Brahman the ultimate Reality? Is Brahman the ultimate Truth? Is Brahman the ultimate source of the existence of beings? What is the end of life? And what is death? And so on.

These questions seem to hold center stage within the Vedas and Upanishads and other philosophical texts of the Hindu tradition. This is why all major Upanishads, including the Śvetāśvatara, are seen to be dealing with these questions in one way or another.Footnote 1 Katha Upanishad, for instance, reveals that there appear to be two kinds of worlds: eternal and non-eternal. The eternal world is the world of the eternal (ultimate) Reality (that is, the non-dual conscious Entity), whereas the non-eternal world is filled with non-eternal objects.Footnote 2 Further, the two worlds are integrated with each other in such a way that the non-eternal world appears to be more real than the eternal world as the former is perceptible but the latter is not. Some questions seem to be contextually relevant: Is there a single feature of two worlds coexisting side by side? How does one know which world is real and which is not? What are the identifying features?

All of the Upanishads generally believe that there is only one reality that forms the eternal world in principle and can be known through paravidya; the so-called non-eternal world is unreal in a sense that it is just an appearance or manifestation that is subject to human knowledge through aparavidya. Paravidya is the non-sensory knowledge of the highest reality, Brahman, whereas aparavidya is the sensory knowledge of the physical or material world that is subject to evolution, devolution, and change over time. The only reality is Brahman and is always described as non-dual and eternal. Since what is real can also be said to be metaphysically true, the absolute truth is thus the truth about Brahman, the unmanifested.Footnote 3

The physical world we live in or are part of is just the manifestation of the unmanifested reality. This is what has also been emphasized by Isha Upanishad (5), according to which Atman, “stirs and it stirs not; moves and moves not; It is far and likewise near. It is inside of all this and it is outside of all this”. In Vivekachudamani, Adi Shankara very beautifully describes in one place how the human mind identifies through discrimination the nature of Brahman as real and the world as unreal;Footnote 4 and in another place, Brahman as the only Truth and the world as False.Footnote 5 In Kena Upanishad (1.4), this all-pervading reality (that is, Brahman) is the absolute intelligence and the synthesis of consciousness. The multiple realities seen in the world are real in the forms they appear to our senses; essentially, they are not real but behind their appearances as realities, in whatever form they have, is the highest reality (that is, Brahman, which may be called the two-faceted reality).

Similarly, according to the Mundaka Upanishad (1.1.6, 2.2.11), the eternal, imperishable, and omnipresent Brahman is the final cause, the source of all beings, and that universe is the supreme Brahman alone. This is what the verse reveals: ‘the eternal, the omnipresent (all-pervading), infinitesimal, that which is imperishable, that it is which the wise regard as the source of all beings’ (1.1.6). The philosophy of both Śvetāśvatara and Mundaka Upanishads answers the above four questions by saying that Brahman alone is the source of our existence and essence, this is what we live by, and this is where we dwell at the end. However, for both the Upanishads and Shankaradavita, the appearing world is metaphysically nothing but an illusion and therefore is unreal and false.

There is two-faceted Truth in the Upanishads just as there is two-faceted Reality in them. The knowledge of non-duality is true for the wise, and the knowledge of duality with multiple realities is true for the ignorant. The former, that is the higher knowledge, is the knowledge of the absolute, and the latter, the lower knowledge, is the knowledge of the phenomenal material world. Since the lower knowledge is perishable with the cessation of the physical world , the Upanishads do not consider it true knowledge; the true knowledge is the knowledge of the absolute reality: Brahman or Atman (Mundaka Upanishad, 1.1.4; see also Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, 2.3.1).

The Upanishadic philosophy of duality and non-duality, eternal and non-eternal, reality and appearance, and the highest truth and the lower truth, greatly inspired Schopenhauer to present the visible world as the representation of the Will, and the Will as thing-in-itself (somewhat Kantian but not like that of what Schopenhauer understood when he criticized Kant for believing thing-in-itself as a mind-independent entity), which “constitutes the inner, true, and indestructible nature of man” (Schopenhauer 1883, vol. 2, p. 412). The Upanishadic inspiration thus led Schopenhauer to write:

The same truth, again quite differently presented, is also a leading doctrine of the Vedas and Puranas, the doctrine of Mâyâ, by which really nothing else is understood than what Kant [009] calls the phenomenon in opposition to the thing in itself; for the work of Mâyâ is said to be just this visible world in which we are, a summoned enchantment, an inconstant appearance without true being, like an optical illusion or a dream, a veil which surrounds human consciousness, something of which it is equally false and true to say that it is and that it is not (Schopenhauer 1883, vol. 2, p. 9).

Schopenhauer correctly understood the Upanishads , in which the phenomenal world has been described as being simply like Maya , which itself is unreal like a dream or an illusion. And anything that is unreal but looks real cannot produce anything real. Maya is of that nature; the kind of world it produces is neither real nor true, but because of it or the presence of ignorance that creates a veil around human consciousness, the world of appearance looks real and true.

The philosophy of world as representation of the Will seems to have been advanced by Schopenhauer with similar lines of thought when he claims that the world objectively is merely a representation of the Will but subjectively is the Will in itself. The Will in itself is conscious of both oneself and the world as a representation of its thoughts, ideas, conceptions, and objects. This Schopenhauerian idea of the world as representation of the Will in itself is very similar to the Vedantic idea of the world as a representation of Brahman , the ultimate reality. In his own words,

…the ancient wisdom of the Indians declares that “it is Maya , the veil of deception, which covers the eyes of mortals, and causes them to see a world of which one cannot say either that it is or that it is not; for, it is like a dream, like the sunshine on the sand which the traveller from a distance takes to be water, or like a piece of rope on the ground which he regards as a snake.” … But what all these meant, and that of which they speak, is nothing else but what we are not considering, namely the world as representation subordinated to the principle of sufficient reason (Schopenhauer 1969, § 3, p. 8).

In another place, he writes,

Phenomenon means representation and nothing more. All representation, be it of whatever kind it may, all object, is phenomenon. But only the will is thing-in-itself ; as such it is not representation at all, but totogenere different therefrom. It is that of which all representation, all object, is the phenomenon, the visibility, the objectivity. It is the innermost essence, the kernel, of every particular thing and also of the whole. It appears in every blindly acting force of nature, and also in the deliberate conduct of man, and the great difference between the two concerns only the degree of the manifestation, not the inner nature of what is manifested (Schopenhauer 1969, § 21, p. 110).

Although there are some basic metaphysical differences between what Schopenhauer understands of the will as thing-in-itself and the Upanishadic idea of Brahman as an all-pervading reality , the world as representation is quite similar to the world as maya . This marks a close affinity between Schopenhauer’s philosophy and that of the Upanishads and Advaita Vedanta (Wicks 2014).

II

Schopenhauer seems to have preferred Upanishadic idealism over German idealism (Dasgupta 1933). In Upanishadic idealism, Brahman is the only reality and the world is merely an illusion or appearance. German idealism, which can be traced back to the critical philosophy of Immanuel Kant and is said to have been led by philosophers like Fichte , Schelling, Hegel (and Schopenhauer himself to some extent), was a movement of thoughts about the difference between things-in-themselves and appearances. Beach (1994, p. 1) for instance writes that Schelling, ‘elaborated the arguments and conclusions of his final, “positive philosophy.” This final position […] sought to revitalize the prevailing patterns of German idealism and modern thought as a whole…’ Although Schopenhauer criticized Kant for having failed to have a consistent theory of knowledge, his own philosophy of the sensory world as representation and the non-sensory world as the will is rooted in Kant’s distinction between the phenomenal and the noumenal.

Implicit in various forms of German idealism is the idea that the human mind is constitutive of reality; that is, the only things that are actually knowable are mental realities and we cannot have certain knowledge of what that matter or object metaphysically is in itself. Nor can we be sure about anything that can be said to have existed outside the mental world. This led philosophers of the German idealist tradition to hold the non-dualist view of reality that is quite similar to the view expressed by Upanishadic idealism . Barhydt and Fritzman (2013) have observed that

German Idealism maintains that mind is constitutive of reality; Indian Vedānta holds that everything is, in some sense, identical with Brahman; […] What German Idealism , Indian Vedānta, […] have in common is that all are nondualists. Not monists, exactly, but each rejects dualism and pluralism.

Despite this philosophical affinity, Upanishadic idealism differs from German idealism in some significant respects and that is why Schopenhauer finds the Upanishads so fascinating. Upanishadic idealism is metaphysically spiritual, monistic, and a form of pantheism when it claims that Brahman is the only non-dual reality and the physical world is merely an illusory manifestation of it. Subjectively and to enlightened minds, everything including the objective world is Brahman, and there exists nothing as mental or sensuous to be known as a world distinct from Brahman ; and there exists no world of appearance when the non-dual Brahman as all-pervading reality is realized. Objectively and to common minds, in contrast, the physical world is real and is subject to mental representation as it involves sensuous contact between the knower and the knowable.

German idealism in general seems to be lacking these aspects of spirituality and subjective realization of the ultimate reality , be it thing-in-itself or Geist (spirit), when it holds that the objects of the human mind/cognition are not things-in-themselves but mere appearances because for a thing to be real it must be an object of human mind. Since thing-in-itself cannot be caught by the mind, it is not something inclusive to the physical world; rather, it is believed to be mind-independent and beyond our sensuous experiences and is regarded as the primary cause of all our sensory experiences. This was the kind of transcendental idealism of Kant that in one way or another was advanced by his followers and successors, as he categorically writes (CpR/A369): ‘I understand by the transcendental idealism of all appearances the doctrine “that they are all together to be regarded as mere representations and not as things in themselves…”’ (Guyer & Wood, 1998, pp. 426).

The difference between Vedantic/Upanishadic idealism and German idealism is thus fundamental and can be summarized as being twofold: (1) Brahman is the ultimate reality and the physical world is caused by, or is simply a veil of, Maya that appears to be real but metaphysically is not. Thing-in-itself , on the other hand, is believed to be the reality as the primary cause of our mental experiences but exists independently of our cognitions and sensory experiences. Brahman does not cause the world, but it seems that thing-in-itself acts as a cause to our experience of mental effects that constitute our sensory world . (2) Brahman is not only the ultimate reality but also the ultimate knower, known and knowledge. When Brahman is realized, nothing as parallel reality exists then, whereas thing-in-itself is said to be unknown as it is epistemologically inaccessible by the mind as believed by the German idealists and Romanticists. But then, German idealism suffers from the metaphysical problem of trichotomy of thing-in-itself as the transcendental reality, the mind as the epistemic reality, and the sensory world of objects as mental representation or an appearance.

This basic difference between the Upanishads and German idealism helped Schopenhauer to become fascinated with the former and to some extent criticize the latter. Influenced by the Upanishadic form of idealism , Schopenhauer therefore holds that the Will does not cause our representations since the Will and representations are not two different realities but are one and the same.

Schopenhauer found the Upanishads compelling because of their intellectual contribution in distinguishing appearance from the absolute reality and in distinguishing the higher knowledge that reveals the absolute truth from the lower knowledge that seems to be revealing truth about the material world. This aroused Schopenhauer’s admiration for Upanishadic wisdom and helped him in formulating his own philosophy:

daich, wennesnichtzustolzklänge, behauptenmöchte, daßjeder von den einzelnen und abgerissenenAussprüchen, welche die Upanischadenausmachen, sichalsFolgesatzausdem von mirmitzutheilendenGedankenableitenließe, obgleichkeineswegsauchumgekehrtdieserschondortzufindenist (Schopenhauer, WWV, 1819[2016, p. 8]).Footnote 6

A little later, he admits,

Die direkteDarstellungfindenwir in den Veden, der Frucht der höchstenmenschlichenErkenntniß und Weisheit, deren Kern in den Upanischadenuns, als das größteGeschenk dieses Jahrhunderts (Schopenhauer, WWV, 1819 [2016, p. 277]).Footnote 7

Schopenhauer’s fascination with Upanishadic thought internally compelled him to surrender his life and death to the Upanishads in the following words:

Wieatmetdoch der Oupnekhatdurchweg den heiligen Geist der Veden !Wiewirddoch der, dem, durchfleißigesLesen, das Persisch-Latein dieses unvergleichlichenBuchesgeläufiggeworden, von jenem Geist imInnerstenergriffen! WieistdochjedeZeile so voll fester, bestimmter und durchgängigzusammenstimmenderBedeutung! Und ausjederSeitetretenunstiefe, ursprüngliche, erhabeneGedankenentgegen, währendeinhoherheiliger Ernst überdemGanzenschwebt.AllesathmethierIndischeLuft und ursprüngliches, naturverwandtesDaseyn… Esist die belohnendste und erhabensteLektüre, die (den Urtextausgenommen) auf der Welt möglichist: sieist der TrostmeinesLebensgewesen und wird der meinesSterbens sein.Footnote 8

Schopenhauer praised the wisdom of Indian minds and the philosophies of the Vedas and the Upanishads because he realized that his own philosophical thought exhibited a close resemblance to that of the Upanishads.

III

The Upanishads have set a benchmark on modern European philosophy, mainly of the Schopenhauerian tradition. Although Upanishadic wisdom did not reach the West until the mid-seventeenth century when a Persian translation of the Upanishads was made available to modern Europe, it was Schopenhauer and his philosophy which encouraged not only European indologists but also Western thinkers to explore the Vedas and the Upanishads to rediscover the ancient source of spirituality and Indic intellect and to extract the philosophical theories of reality and truth, life and death, and bondage and liberation and theories of karma and mysticism. Netland (2001, p. 102) has given a scholarly explanation for why Vedantic idealism was like an ideal to German idealists and Romanticists:

The deepest wisdom of India was held to be in the sacred writings known as the Upanishads, with their monistic tendencies identifying the atman, or soul, with Brahman , the one ultimate reality . Parallels between Vedanta Hinduism and German idealist philosophy, which viewed the defining reality as Geist (spirit), were observed. It was the monistic themes of the Upanishads –the belief that ultimately all reality is one unified whole and that this reality is fundamentally spiritual in nature, with the material world being in some respect illusory–that captured the German idealists. […], so now the spiritual idealism of Vedanta Hinduism offered Romanticists an ideal with which to critique the rationalism and materialism characterizing European culture.

There are scholars like Skirbekk and Gilje (2001) who find Indian philosophy unique in many ways; they believe that “Indian philosophy exhibits many characteristics that we do not find in western philosophy in the same form. Apparently, Indian philosophy does not distinguish between philosophy and religion as clearly as we are used to”. In fact, it was the Indic intellectual impact on the modern West that many philosophers like Schopenhauer regarded the self (Atman) as the source of the will and the world as its representation. This has been shown by his notebook where he copied a passage from Taitriya Upanishad (3.1.1), “That, whence all beings are produced….is Brahman” (Cross 2014, p. 3).

The Oupnek’hat (Latin translation of a collection of major Upanishads), mainly the Chhandogya Upanishad, helped Schopenhauer to have a framework for his own philosophy of Will and the world as its representation. He has openly affirmed in his writings that the philosophical tenets of the Upanishads have given a foundational basis to his own philosophical deliberations. But more than that was the kind of intellectual contribution that was made by Schopenhauer to the history of European philosophy, primarily his affection for the Vedas, the Upanishads and Buddhism that encouraged more Europeans to dwell on the study of ancient Indian texts. His quest for Upanishadic thought was so deeply intense that he could not stop himself from praising Indian minds as superior and ahead of the Christianity of his time: “The primitive wisdom of the human race will never be pushed aside there by the events of Galilee. On the contrary, Indian wisdom will flow back upon Europe and product a thorough change in our knowing and thinking” (Muller 1879).

German philosophers like Schelling, who was a contemporary of Schopenhauer and was greatly influenced by the Upanishads, also contributed much to describe the Upanishads. Like Schopenhauer, he helped the Europeans become familiar with the ancient wisdom of India. His most notable contribution was his encouragement to his student, Max Muller, to work on Sanskrit texts in order to let the Western world know the intellectual history of the Indian culture of spirituality and religion. Paul Duessen, another famous German indologist of the late nineteenth century, whose writings reflect the Schopenhauerian legacy of Upanishadic love, finds the ancient Indian philosophical tradition superior to the European tradition and ranked Vedantic philosophy as being equal to that of Plato and Kant :

On my journey through India I have noticed with satisfaction that in philosophy till now our brothers in the East have maintained a very good tradition, better perhaps, than the more active but less contemplative branches of the great Indo-Aryan family in Europe, where Empiricism, Realism, and their natural consequences, Materialism, grow from day to day more exuberantly, whilst metaphysics, the very centre and heart of serious philosophy, are supported only by a few ones who have learned to brave the spirit of the age. […] The system of the Vedanta , as founded on the Upanishads and Vedanta-sutras and accomplished by Sankara’s commentaries on them, –equal in rank to Plato and Kant–is one of the most valuable products of the genius of mankind in his researches of the eternal truth (Duessen 1995, Appendix i).

Sir William Jones and Sir Charles Wilkins were among those other orientalists and indologists from Europe who were keen on the Sanskrit language and its philosophical richness. Cannon (1971, p. 418) writes that William Jones was known ‘for his pioneering study of Sanskrit and his Jonesian System for transliterating Arabic, Persian, and Sanskrit into Roman orthography.’ They remarkably added their profound efforts to the Schopenhauerian trend to open the eyes of the Western scholars to realize the Truth and the Reality from a different perspective of spirituality and eternity. Needless to say, the Hindu philosophy of the Vedic and Upanishadic tradition made a paradigm shift in the history of European philosophy from eighteenth century onwards, mainly from the period of Schopenhauer (Torwesten 1991).

IV

It can be now be said with textual evidence and with an assertive note that Schopenhauer’s acquaintance with Indian philosophy through the Upanishads and Buddhist thought has played an important role in discourses between ancient India and modern Europe. And the philosophical connection that has been made in the writings of Schopenhauer is of great importance in the history of both Indian and German thought. Emphasizing this point, Stephen Cross has made a scholarly observation that Schopenhauer’s conception of the world as representation and as the will are the two pillars of his philosophy which may be seen “as a bridge by which the Eastern and Western traditions of philosophical thought may be brought into a closer and more creative relationship” (Cross 2014). This relationship and philosophic bond are now so strong that scholars from both the East and the West have had a reason to acknowledge the credentials of Schopenhauer, who cherished the Upanishads with great enthusiasm and curiosity.