Reply to Nicholas Gier

Abstract

I must thank Professor Gier both for his kindness toward me in his response and his invitation for me to write a full-fledged essay on the topics that our exchange has raised. While I have not written on Gandhi's thought as such, much of what I have to say on Gier's book is influenced by the research and arguments I put forward in my Ethics and the History of Indian Philosophy (Motilal Banarsidass, 2007) and my forthcoming translation and commentary, originally titled The Moral Philosophy of Pata?jali's Yoga S?tra, to be published as Pata?jali's Yoga S?tra (Penguin). Gier's closing comment not only serves as an invitation?and challenge?to me to system atically defend my views on these topics but also encapsulates what might be the locus of disagreement between Gier and myself. He suggests that it is I who have foisted a syllogistic argument onto the task of interpreting Gandhi's thought, whereas my original complaint was that I thought that this was the only way to make sense of Gier's arguments. If Gier were not offering such a disjunctive syllogism, the extended and recurrent criticisms of Jain and Advaita interpretations do nothing to positively make the case for a Buddhist interpretation of Gandhi and are gratuitous within the structure of his presentation. But let us take some of Gier's responses to me in order. Gier appears to be lieve that the fact that he notes Gandhi's devotion to R?ma and his Vaisnava background (which I did not mention in my review) shows that he was sensitive to theistic in his analysis. My complaint was that he did not fully con sider reading Gandhi in terms of Visist?dvaita?a very specific school of Ved?nta, and not synonymous with theistic as such. Moreover, that Gier noted Gandhi's devotionalism is hardly evidence that he considered theistic seriously. Even Sahkara in his commentary on the Brahma S?tra betrays a devo tion to R?ma and an affinity for Vaisnava religious practices (see his Brahma S?tra Bh?sya, l.ii.7), but this hardly means that Sa?kara advanced theistic Ved?nta. Gier claims that his reference to an article that recognizes the Neo-Ved?nta leanings of Gandhi refutes my claim that he conflates with Advaita Ved?nta. My claim was not that Gier never makes a distinction between different types of Ved?nta, but that he is not careful in his talk of Ved?nta given that the only form that he seriously considers is Advaita and that he refers to it simply as Ved?nta.1