Medhātithi reduces Manu’s descriptions of the householder as support and source of the āśramas to his performance of the five great sacrifices. Patrick Olivelle characterizes Medhātithi’s interpretation as “radical,” but a strong preliminary case might be made in its favor. Nonetheless, there are a number of reasons to resist Medhātithi’s interpretation. The more plausible interpretation of these passages is also the most straightforward. The householder is the support of the other three āśramas because he is economically productive. He (...) is the source of the āśramas because he has children. The householder is the best of the āśrama, in turn, because the broad benefits that he produces by these means, in particular, are so essentially important. Descriptions of the householder as source and support of the āśramas appear in a wide range of texts. In most of these contexts, they play a central role in justifying the status of the householder. At the same time, these claims often betray the same kind of ambiguity that Medhātithi notes. The fact that Manu counts these descriptions as distinct reasons for the householder’s superiority does not imply that other texts say the same thing. His precedent, however, is worth keeping in mind when interpreting parallel passages in other contexts. (shrink)

Three doctrines have often been identified in the context of Hindu civilization as its distinctive markers: the doctrine of the varṇas (or the doctrine of the four classes), the doctrine of āśramas (or the doctrine of the four stages of life), and the doctrine of the puruṣārthas (or the doctrine of the four goals of life). The study of the last of these has been comparatively neglected and the doctrine has even been dubbed a myth (Krishna 1996, 189-205). The (...) purpose of this article is twofold: to establish the cogency of the doctrine of the puruṣārthas in the face of such criticism and to indicate the directions in which the doctrine could be developed further. (shrink)

This paper discusses the phenomenon of Kāpil Maṭh (Madhupur, India), a Sāṃkhyayoga āśrama founded in the early twentieth century by the charismatic Bengali scholar-monk Swāmi Hariharānanda Ᾱraṇya (1869–1947). While referring to Hariharānanda’s writings I will consider the idea of the re-establishment of an extinct spiritual lineage. I shall specify the criteria for identity of this revived Sāṃkhyayoga tradition by explaining why and on what assumptions the modern reinterpretation of this school can be perceived as continuation of the thought of Patañjali (...) and Īśvarakṛṣṇa. The starting point is, however, the question whether it is possible at all to re-establish a philosophical tradition which had once broken down and disappeared for centuries. In this context, one ought to ponder if it is likely to revitalise the same line of thinking, viewing, philosophy-making and practice in accordance with the theoretical exposition of the right insight achieved by an accomplished teacher, a master, the founder of a “new”revived tradition declared to maintain a particular school identity. Moreover, I refer to a monograph of Knut A. Jacobsen (2018) devoted to the tradition of Kāpil Maṭh interpreted as a typical product of the nineteenth-century Bengali renaissance. (shrink)

Although some of the writings of Swāmi Hariharānanda Ᾱraṇya (1869-1947), such as Yoga Philosophy of Patañjali, are well known and have been discussed among scholars specializing in Indian philosophy, he is not commonly recognized as a great modern yoga teacher and as the founder of a living tradition, unlike some other Bengali figures of his time such as Swāmi Vivekānanda (1863-1902) or Śri Aurobindo (1972-1950). Apparently, the fact that he established Kāpil Maṭh, an āśrama dedicated to the legendary sage Kāpila, (...) whose members wish to cultivate the strict ancient model of renunciation (saṃnyāsa), did not give him due fame. According to Hariharānanda Ᾱraṇya it was Kāpila, dated to the 7th century BCE, who was the first to attain liberating knowledge (mokṣa) and establish the worldview of both Sāṃkhya and Yoga. Therefore, both philosophical schools are perceived by Hariharānanda as being embedded in one integrated tradition and their followers are labelled as Sāṃkhyayogins (Jacobsen, 2018: 2-41). In this chapter I am going to present Hariharānanda Ᾱraṇya as a unique spiritual seeker who managed to re-establish Sāṃkhyayoga as a living tradition, thus, initiating a new phase of its development, which may be called ‘neo-classical.’ I aim to consider what it actually means to re-establish a philosophical school that was regarded as extinct for centuries. In the first section of my paper, I will briefly summarise the characteristics of Hariharānanda. This will be followed by the answer to a major question: What makes Kāpil Maṭh really ‘Sāṃkhyan’? In the subsequent sections, I will present some comparative ideas and Buddhist inspirations of Hariharānanda Ᾱraṇya, and discuss the hybrid identity of the reinterpreted Sāṃkhyayoga theory and practice cultivated by the founder of Kāpil Maṭh and his followers. (shrink)

Vasiṣṭha claims both that all four _āśramas_ are equal and that the householder is the best of the four _āśramas_. This apparent contradiction would be resolved if either of these claims could be dismissed. Vasiṣṭha's claim that the four _āśramas_ are equal seems entailed, however, by his endorsement of the original formulation of the _āśrama_ system. His claim that the householder is superior, in turn, seems supported by the surplus of arguments that he offers in favor of the householder. Patrick (...) Olivelle takes Vasiṣṭha to advance this surplus of arguments for the householder only to bolster the more modest claim that the householder is _equal_—and therefore not inferior—to the celibate _āśramas_. If this right, then Vasiṣṭha's claim that the householder is superior might be understood in the same way. If the balance of evidence weighs in favor of one claim or the other, however, it seems to weigh in favor of the superiority of the householder, rather than the equality of the _āśramas_. An alternative interpretation takes Vasiṣṭha to evaluate the householder in relation to two distinct metrics. The four _āśramas_ are equal, he says, in their ability to attain the highest heaven. The householder is superior to the other three _āśramas_, however, in his unmatched contributions to the general welfare. (shrink)

The chapter is divided into five sections. Firstly, I shall briefly describe the phenomenon of Kāpil Maṭh, a Sāṃkhya-Yoga āśrama founded in the early twentieth century by a charismatic Bengali scholar-monk Swāmi Hariharānanda Ᾱraṇya (1869–1947); while referring to Hariharānanda’s writings I will also consider the idea of the re-establishment of an extinct philosophical school. Secondly, I shall specify the method of analysis I apply while addressing the question raised in the title of my chapter and discuss some relevant Sanskrit and (...) Pāli sources. Thirdly, I intend to focus on Aśvaghoṣa’s record in reconstructing the Buddha’s argument against the self. Then I shall offer a possible defence of the self reinterpreted in Buddhist terms and formulated, so to say, ‘on behalf’ of the revived Sāṃkhya-Yoga school. Finally, I will conclude by explaining why and on what assumptions Sāṃkhya can benefit from Buddhist critiques. (shrink)

This paper aims to establish the meaning of Dharma as the principle of self-denial and emptiness. Dharma, a key concept in the religious thought of India, has the literal meaning of "supporter.” Something that supports something else does not exist for itself. Just as the truth supporting the universe is Dharma, so the four pillars supporting the roof of the house to prevent it from collapsing are also Dharma. The four pillars supporting the house do not exist for themselves, but (...) create an empty space in the house. In this respect, the essence of Dharma is self-denial, self-sacrifice. The traditional ascetic practices and religions in India is referred to as sanatana dharma, and the core is the complete extinction of I-ness. When individual consciousness is completely lost, mokṣa is achieved. The moment the eternal truth is achieved, the individual consciousness becomes zero, and this position can be likened to the center where the x- and y-axes meet in the coordinates of mathematics. Just as the center in the coordinates of mathematics is a place where the value of the x-axis is zero and the value of the y-axis is zero, the center of the universe, that is, nirvāṇa is achieved when individual consciousness is completely lost. Dharma is the path of becoming nothing to reach the zero point, and the process of self-denial is bound to entail pain. The pain involving voluntary self-denial can be rather a positive nourishment for the realization of Dharma. In fact, we can say that the core of the Hindu ethics of Aśrama-dharma and Varṇa-dharma is voluntary renunciation for the complete extinction of individual consciousness and renunciation concerning that which is possible. (shrink)

The question I pose in this paper is simple but crucial: Why did Aśvaghoṣa present Brahmanism as the backdrop for the emergence of Buddhism? In both his epic poems, he presents Brahmanism as the obvious and natural condition of society and kings, in the same way that it is depicted in the Brahmanical writings themselves. It has become increasingly clear that Brahmanical texts present ideologically motivated programs for social engineering rather than accurate descriptions of social reality. If social reality did (...) not obligate Aśvaghoṣa to adopt this posture, then why did Aśvaghoṣa buy into this ideological position of Brahmanism? Why did he not describe the social reality underlying Buddhism in a way similar to Aśoka? While attempting to explore these questions, I will analyze Aśvaghoṣa’s arguments against some central theological positions of Brahmanism: First, there is the theological argument that a person must turn to asceticism only after he has raised a family and performed his other religious obligations spelt out in the trivarga and the āśrama system. Second, there is the issue of kāma, both within the trivarga and within the common conception of a householder’s life. The paper will attempt to analyze the way Aśvaghoṣa in his two epic poems deals with these two areas, one more strictly theological and the other dealing with themes of sex, eroticism, and conjugal love, all of which present obstacles to the Buddhist path of liberation that runs through the celibate monastery. (shrink)

There are good reasons to think that Brahmanism initially belonged to a geographically limited area, with its heartland in the middle and western parts of the Gangetic plain. It was in this region that Brahmanism was at that time the culture of a largely hereditary class of priests, the brahmins, who derived their livelihood and special position in society from their close association with the local rulers. This situation changed. The most plausible hypothesis as to the reasons of this change (...) sees a link with the political unification of northern India, begun by the Nandas and continued by the Mauryas. Both the Nandas and the Mauryas had their home base in the region called Magadha and had no particular interest in brahmins and their sacrificial tradition. As a result Brahmanism as an institution was under threat; it either had to face disappearance, or reinvent itself. It did the latter. Brahmanism underwent a transformation that enabled it to survive and ultimately flourish in changed circumstances. This paper will argue that the Mahābhārata can be looked upon as an element in this Brahminical project. Far from being a mere collection of stories and general good advice, it was an instrument in the hands of a group of people who were determined to change the world in ways that suited them, and who to a considerable extent succeeded in doing so during the centuries that lay ahead. (shrink)