Revitalizing Vedāntic Epistemology - Conception of Depth Epistemology in S. L. Pandey, R. D. Ranade, And A. C. Mukerji: Elements, Typology and Some Problems

Abstract

A dominant mark of many philosophers in contemporary India, has been an engagement with ŚāṁkaraVedānta. It was not uncommon, for thinkers, in the pre and early post-independence years, to have either been an interpreter of the Vedāntic tradition or to have developed one’s philosophical ideas in a manner which brought them under the loose rubric of neo-Vedānta. The term ‘depth epistemology’ was coined by Prof. Sangam Lal Pandey, an academic philosopher of post-independent India and an unparalleledVedāntin, in an attemptto pinpoint the quintessential feature of Allahabad School of Philosophy. The conception as per him, is the differentia of a number of academic philosophers stationed at University of Allahabad, and thus could be seen as the differentia of what he terms as Allahabad School of Philosophy. However, in other writings of Pandey, and from the tenets stipulated by him for the notion of depth epistemology, it gets sufficiently clear that the conception could be located in a number of classical Indian and Western philosophical traditions; prominently in those who adhere to a strict dichotomy between subject and object of knowledge, such as ŚāṁkaraVedānta and Kant, to cite a few instances. In the lines that follow I propose to do the following: (i) to re-read the literature of S. L. Pandey on his conception of depth epistemology, so as to make sense of the term, (ii) to re-assess the epistemic position of eminent philosopher and mystic R. D. Ranade, so as to understand his variant of depth epistemology, (iii) to re-read some of the writings of A. C. Mukerji - whose originality of synthesis between the idealist traditions of India and the West, demand a distinct slot in contemporary Indian philosophy – thus underscoring a different variant of depth epistemology, (iv) to stress depth epistemology as an endeavour to revitalize theVedāntic view of knowledge and (v) to register some problematic issues with the notion of depth epistemology.