Adi Shankara

Adi Shankara, also known as Adi Shankaracharya, was an Indian Vedic scholar and teacher (acharya) who lived in the eighth century CE. In his writings, he synthesised the Advaita Vedanta teachings of his time and offered a harmonising reading of the sastras with liberating knowledge of the self at its core. His name is the source of the title Shankracharya, which is used by heads of amnaya monasteries. Over 300 publications, including comments (Bhaya), introductory topical expositions (Prakaraa grantha), and poetry, are credited to him because of his later popularity (Stotra). However, the majority of these are probably written by enthusiasts, pretenders, or experts who go by their own names. The Brahmasutrabhasya, his commentary on the Bhagavad Gita, and his commentaries on 10 Mukhya (principal) Upanishads are considered to be authentic. There have been doubts raised about Shankara’s claim to be the author of the Vivekacmai.

The topic has a chance of being asked as a UPSC Prelims History Question or as a Current Affairs Question.

Note: UPSC 2023 is approaching closer, supplement your preparation with the free Daily Video Analysis of The Hindu Newspaper by BYJU’S.

Adi Shankara UPSC Notes PDF –Download PDF Here

About Adi Shankaracharya

The major tenet of Shankara’s works is the identity of the Individual (Atman) and Brahman, which he uses to argue against the Mimamsa school of Hinduism and to defend the liberating knowledge of the Self, using the Upanishads as a separate source of knowledge. Despite Shankara’s criticisms, Shankara’s Advaita demonstrates Mahayana Buddhist influences. Hindu Vaishnavist opponents have even branded Shankara a “crypto-Buddhist,” a label that the Advaita Vedanta school rejects, stressing their divergent beliefs on Atman, Anatta, and Brahman. Although Shankara holds a unique position within the Advaita Vedanta tradition, his influence on Hindu intellectual thinking has been called into question. Shankara was eclipsed by Mandana-Misra until the 10th century, and he is not mentioned in concordant Hindu, Buddhist, or Jain sources until the 11th century. Only centuries after his passing, in the 14th century, when Sringeri matha began to gain support from the monarchs of the Vijayanagara Empire and changed its allegiance from Advaitic Agamic Saivism to Brahmanical Advaita orthodoxy, did the popular picture of Shankara begin to take shape. Hagiographies from the 14th to the 17th centuries glorified Adi Shankara as a ruler-renunciate who travelled on a Digvijaya (conquest of the four quarters) across the Indian subcontinent to spread his philosophy and win over his opponents in theological discussions. These hagiographies depict him as founding four mathas (monasteries), and Adi Shankara also came to be recognised as the founder of the Dashanami monastic order and the unifier of the Shanmata way of worship.

Dating Shankara’s Time

In Shankara’s actual life, there is very little trustworthy information. His known biographies, all of which were written some centuries after his lifetime, are rife with tall tales and unlikely occurrences. It is not clear to whom king “Vikramaditya” is referring when it is stated in the records of the Sringeri Matha that Shankara was born in the 14th year of his reign. Modern scholarship regards the Vikramaditya as originating from the Chalukya dynasty of Badami, most probably Vikramaditya II (733–746 CE), although some studies associate the name with Chandragupta II (4th century CE). The following dates have been suggested for Shankara:

• • 509 – 477 BCE: This dating is premised on documents kept by the Mahas, the leaders of Shankara’s key organisations. Four monasteries say that Adi Shankaracharya was born on these dates: 491 BCE in Dvaraka, 485 BCE in Jyotirmath, 484 BCE in Jagannatha Puri, and 483 BCE in Sringeri. Whereas Adi Shankara was born in Kali 2593 (509 BCE), according to the Kanchi Peetham.

• 44 – 12 BCE: Anandagiri, a commentator, claimed to have been born in Chidambaram in 44 BCE and to have passed away in 12 BCE.

• 6th century CE: Telang dated him to the sixth century CE. According to Sir R.G. Bhandarkar, his birth year was 680 CE.
• C. 700  – c. 750 CE: Scholarship from the late 20th and early 21st centuries places Shankara’s 32 year existence in the first part of the 8th century. The dates of Shankara, who is widely considered as one of India’s greatest philosophers, are in dispute, and “the best recent scholarship believes that he was born in 700 and died in 750 CE,” according to Indologist and Asian Religions historian John Koller.
• 788 – 820 CE: Scholars from the early 20th century made this suggestion, and it was generally recognised by experts like Max Muller, Macdonnell, Pathok, Deussen, and Radhakrishna. Swami Tapasyananda accepts the date 788 – 820 as one of the acceptable ones, but he raises certain concerns. Despite being widely used in 20th-century texts, the 788 – 820 CE dates have recently come under scrutiny.
• 805 – 897 CE: In addition to placing Shankara later than most people, Venkiteswara gives him a ninety-two year life expectancy and believes that he could not have completed all the tasks assigned to him.

According to widely accepted dates, Shankara was a scholar who lived in the first part of the eighth century CE.

Death

At Kedarnath, a Hindu pilgrimage site in the Himalayas in the northern Indian state of Uttarakhand, Adi Sankara is thought to have passed away at the age of 32. According to the texts, he was last seen by his followers going across the Himalayas till he could not be found, behind the Kedarnath shrine. His death has been attributed to various places in certain scriptures, including Kanchipuram (Tamil Nadu) and a spot in Kerala. In honour of Adi Shankara’s life and contributions, a statue of him has been erected beside Kedarnath Temple as part of the temple’s recovery from the 2013 flood. The 35 tonnes, 12 foot tall statue composed of chlorite schist was unveiled on November 5 by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Works of Adi Shankara

The Advaita Vedanta school of Hinduism is built on the writings of Adi Shankara, and according to Sengaku Mayeda, his teaching “has been the basis from which the primary currents of modern Indian thinking are derived.” His name is associated with around 300 texts, including poetry, original philosophical expositions (Prakaraa grantha), and comments (Bhaya) (Stotra). However, the majority of these are not Shankara’s original writings and are more than likely the creations of his followers or contemporaries whose names were also Shankaracharya. A thorough list of the writings credited to Adi Sankara, along with questions about their veracity for the majority, has been published by Piantelli.

Genuine Works

The methodical analyses and commentaries (Bhasyas) Shankara made on classical Indian scriptures are what made him most famous. The Brahmasutrabhasya (meaning, commentary on the Brahma Sutra), a key text of the Vedanta branch of Hinduism, is Shankara’s masterwork of commentary. Scholars also accept as authentic his commentary on ten Mukhya (principal) Upanishads, including Bhasya on the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, the Chandogya Upanishad, the Aitareya Upanishad, the Taittiriya Upanishad, the Kena Upanishad, the Isha Upanishad, the Katha Upanishad, the Mundaka Upanishad, the Prashn The commentary on Mandukya is essentially a commentary by Gaudapada on Madukya-Karikas. The Bhagavad Gita (part of his Prasthana Trayi Bhasya) commentary is one of Shankara’s other legitimate works. Scholars consider Shankara’s Vivarana (tertiary comments) on Vedavyasa’s commentary on the Yogasutras and those on the Apastamba Dharma-sutras (Adhyatama-patala-bhasya) to be his original writings.

The Daksinamurti Stotra, the Bhajagovinda Stotra, the Sivanandalahari, the Carpata-panjarika, the Visnu-satpadi, the Harimide, the Dasa-shloki, and the Krishna-staka are some of the stotra (poetic works) that are most likely to be genuine. Upadesasahasri, his most significant original philosophical work, was also written by Shankara. Seventy-six further original Prakaranas (monographs, treatises) are attributed to Shankara. Indian scholars from the modern age, including Belvalkar and Upadhyaya, recognise five and 39 works as authentic, respectively. Among Shankara’s stotras that are regarded as authentic are those that are devoted to Shiva (Shaivism) and Krishna (Vaishnavism), which are frequently regarded as two distinct sects within Hinduism. These stotra, according to scholars, aim for a single, all-encompassing conception of Vedanta and are fundamentally Advaitic rather than sectarian. The oldest surviving commentary is Shankara’s on the Brahma Sutras. But in that commentary, he makes reference to prior commentaries by Dravida, Bhartrprapancha, and others that are either lost or have not yet been discovered.

Philosophy and Practice

According to Nakamura, Shankara did not develop his own ideas but rather organised the works of other thinkers. The liberating understanding of the distinction between the Self (Atman) and Brahman is the main focus of Shankara’s writings. In this existence, moksha is reached through seeing that Atman and Brahman are one, as mediated by the Mahavakyas, particularly Tat Tvam Asi, “That you are”.

Systematiser of Advaita

The majority of the traits of Shankara’s philosophy, in Nakamura’s words, “were articulated by someone before Ankara,” when compared to the known teachings of the early Vedantins. The Advaita-vada that had previously existed before Shankara was “synthesised” by him. Nakamura claims that Adi Shankara gave the Buddhist elements in these writings a Vedantic character, synthesising and reinvigorating the Advaita theory after Buddhism’s rising influence on Vedanta reached its zenith in Gauapda’s works.

Koller asserts that in the eighth century, Shankara reformed Badarayana’s Vedanta tradition by systematising the foundation for Advaita Vedanta employing concepts from ancient Indian writings. Despite the fact that Mayeda believes Shankara to be a pivotal figure in the evolution of Vedanta, he also points out that it has only been since Deussens’s laudatory remarks that Shankara “has traditionally been recognised as the greatest philosopher of India.” Following Potter, who labels Shankara as a “speculative philosopher,” Mayeda adds that Shankara was primarily focused on moksha, “and not with the creation of a full system of philosophy or theology”. Although a systematic philosophy can be inferred from Samkara’s views, Lipner argues that Shankara’s “primary literary technique was commentarial and consequently perforce fragmented rather than procedurally systematic”. Although Shankara’s works and philosophy show greater similarities with Vaishnavism and the Yoga school of Hinduism, they most clearly express his Advaitin beliefs with a monistic perspective of spirituality, and his commentaries signify a shift from realism to idealism. Shankara has been described as being influenced by Shaivism and Shaktism.

Moksha – Liberating Knowledge of Brahman

The identity of the Self (Atman) and Brahman is the fundamental focus of Shankara’s writings. Shankara was particularly concerned with elucidating the liberating knowledge of the Self and defending the Upanishads as a stand-alone source of knowledge against the ritualistic Mima’sa school of Hinduism. According to Shankara, there is only one unchanging entity (Brahman) that is genuine, whereas there is no absolute reality for changing beings. Shankara’s main goal was to clarify how realising the identities of Atman and Brahman — mediated by the Mahavakyas, particularly Tat Tvam Asi, “That you are,” —allows one to achieve moksha in this lifetime. The achievement of Brahman, immortality, comes from a proper understanding of Atman and Brahman and results in moksha (freedom) from pain and the cycle of reincarnation known as samsara. This is declared by Shankara as follows:

“I am other than name, form and action.

My nature is ever free!

I am Self, the supreme unconditioned Brahman.

I am pure Awareness, always non-dual.” – Adi Shankara, Upadesasahasri

Pramanas – Means of Knowledge

However, Shankara’s thematic emphasis was on metaphysics and soteriology, and he took the pramanas, or “means to get knowledge, reasoning processes that equip one to gain trustworthy knowledge,” for granted. Shankara was aware of the means of knowing. Sengaku Mayeda claims that because Atman-Brahman is assumed to be self-evident (svapramanaka) and self-established (svatahsiddha), “in no place in his works does he give any systematic account of them,” and because “an investigation of the means of knowledge is of no use for the attainment of final release,” Shankara argues that jnana is founded on existing objects (vastutantra), not upon Vedic instruction (codanatantra), nor upon man (purusatantra) and that his arguments are “strikingly pragmatic and not utopian,” according to Mayeda.

According to Michael Comans (also known as Vasudevacharya), Shankara believed that perception and inference were the two most reliable epistemic methods and that when using these methods to gain knowledge allowed one to “gain what is beneficial and to avoid what is harmful,” there was no need for or benefit to turning to the scriptures. According to Shankara, the wisdom and witness found in the Vedas and Upanishads become significant in some metaphysical and ethical issues. As he advances his philosophical theses, Merrell-Wolff claims that Shankara recognises the Vedas and Upanishads as sources of knowledge. However, he never rests his case on the ancient writings; instead, he confirms each thesis, point by point, by using pramanas (means of knowledge) of rationale and experience. According to Hacker and Phillips, Shankara “doubtlessly the suggestion” his understanding of rules of reasoning and hierarchical emphasis on epistemic steps in Brahma-sutra-bhasya, an insight that blossoms in the works of his partner and disciple Padmapada.

Revelation versus Logic

In 1927, Stcherbatsky challenged Shankara for requiring the Madhyamika Buddhists to employ logic while turning to revelation for his own knowledge. An alternative viewpoint was provided by Sircar in 1933, who wrote: “Sankara acknowledges the usefulness of the law of contrariety and self-alienation from the viewpoint of idealist logic, and it has thus been feasible for him to reconcile appearances with reality.” According to a recent study, Shankara’s arguments regarding revelation concern apta vacana (sayings of the wise, based on words, testimony of past or present trustable experts). It is a component of the epistemic basis of both he and Advaita Vedanta. The Advaita Vedanta tradition believes such testimony to be epistemically valid and maintains that a human being only has access to a small portion of the facts and truths he needs to know due to his limited time and energy. Shankara regarded the Vedic and Upanishad teachings as apta vacana or a reliable source of knowledge. In his book Upadeshasahasri, he makes the case for the value of a mentor-disciple relationship in combining reason and revelation to achieve Moksha. According to Anantanand Rambachan and others, Shankara used a variety of logical techniques, reasoning methodologies, and other pramanas in addition to Vedic truths.

Anubhava

Before criticising it, Anantanand Rambachan explains the widely accepted belief regarding the function of anubhava in Shankara’s epistemology as follows:

“According to these [widely represented contemporary] studies, Shankara only accorded a provisional validity to the knowledge gained by inquiry into the words of the Śruti (Vedas) and did not see the latter as the unique source (pramana) of Brahmajnana. The affirmations of the Śruti, it is argued, need to be verified and confirmed by the knowledge gained through direct experience (anubhava) and the authority of the Śruti, therefore, is only secondary.”

Yoga and Contemplative Exercises

Although Shankara believed that the purity and stillness of the mind attained through yoga could be a help in acquiring moksha knowledge, such a yogic condition of the mind cannot by itself result in such knowledge. According to Shankara, research into the Upanishads’ teachings is the sole way to get knowledge of Brahman. According to Comans, Shankara’s method of yoga encourages the mind’s withdrawal from sense objects in a manner similar to Patanjali’s system, but it does not involve total thought repression; rather, it is a “meditative activity of withdrawal from the specific and identification with the universal, resulting to the introspection of one’s own as the most universal, namely, Consciousness.” Comans describes Shankara’s method of yoga practice as follows:

“The type of yoga which Sankara presents here is a method of merging, as it were, the particular (visesa) into the general (samanya). For example, diverse sounds are merged in the sense of hearing, which has greater generality insofar as the sense of hearing is the locus of all sounds. The sense of hearing is merged into the mind, whose nature consists of thinking about things, and the mind is in turn merged into the intellect, which Sankara then says is made into ‘mere cognition’ (vijnanamatra); that is, all particular cognitions resolve into their universal, which is cognition as such, thought without any particular object. And that in turn is merged into its universal, mere Consciousness (prajnafnaghana), upon which everything previously referred to ultimately depends.”

As well as the idea that the Shrutis teach liberation as something separate from the understanding of the oneness of the Self, Shankara opposed those forms of the yoga system that claim complete thought suppression results in liberation. What frees is knowledge and insights into the fundamental nature of things, according to Shankara. He emphasised the Upanisads as a necessary and sufficient method for obtaining Self-liberating knowledge, placing a lot of stress on their study. Sankara also underlined the importance of such knowledge and the duty of the guru (Acharya, teacher).

Samanvayat Tatparya Linga

In the first chapter of his Brahmasutra-Bhasya, Shankara warns against cherry-picking a sentence or verse out of sense from Vedic literature and states that paying attention to the Samanvayat Tatparya Linga, or six characteristics of the text under consideration, is necessary to correctly understand the Anvaya (theme or purport) of any treatise:

1. The common in Upakrama (introductory statement) and Upasamhara (conclusions)
2. Abhyasa (message repeated)
3. Apurvata (unique proposition or novelty
4. Phala (fruit or result derived)
5. Arthavada (explained meaning, praised point)
6. Yukti (verifiable reasoning)

This methodology has its roots in the theoretical writings of the Nyaya school of Hinduism, but Shankara further developed and applied it with his original exegetical method known as Anvaya-Vyatireka, which asserts that for real understanding one must “accept only meanings that are compatible with all characteristics” and “exclude meanings that are incompatible with any”.

Mahavyakas – Identity of Atman and Brahman

Moksha, or freedom from pain and rebirth and achieving immortality, is reached by separating from the body-mind complex, realising that one is really Atman, and learning who Atman and Brahman are. Shankara claimed that although the individual Atman and Brahman appear to be distinct at the level of empirical reality, this distinction is really an illusion, and at the greatest level of truth, they are actually the same. The Atman-Brahman, also known as Sat, is the true self. While the distinction between Atman and non-Atman is acknowledged to be self-evident, the shruti, particularly the Upanishadic declaration tat tvam asi, reveals the identities of Atman and Brahman.

Mahavyakas

The identities of Atman and Brahman are revealed in a significant number of Upanishadic utterances, claims Shankara. Four of those statements, known as the Mahavakyas in the Advaita Vedanta tradition, which are regarded literally in contrast to other claims, play a specific role in illuminating this identity. As follows:

• तत्त्वमसि, tat tvam asi, (Chandogya Upanishad). Traditionally rendered as “That Thou Art” (that you are), rightfully translated as “That’s how [thus] you are,” with tat in it’ original place from where it was copied to other verses, referring to “the very nature of all existence as permeated by [the finest essence]”
• अहं ब्रह्मास्मि, aham brahmasmi, (Brhadaranyaka Upanishad),”I am Brahman,” or “I am Divine.”
• प्रज्ञानं ब्रह्म, prajnanam brahma, (Aitareya Upanishad), “Prajnanam is Brahman.”
• अयमात्मा ब्रह्म, ayamatma brahma, (Mandukya Upanishad), “This Atman is Brahman.”

That You Are

The largest section of Shankara’s Upadesasahasri, chapter 18, “That Art Thou,” is dedicated to reflections on the identity revealed in Chandogya Upanishad’s “tat tvam asi,” “that thou art,” and the insight “I am ever-free, the existent” (sat). According to Shankara, this statement alludes to Sat, also known as Brahman, the True, the “Root of the World,” the real essence or root or genesis of all that exists. Sat is also known as existence, being, or existence, or the “Existent”. “Tvam” stands for one’s true self, also known as their pratyagatman or inner Self, who is “the direct Witness within everything,” “free from caste, family, and purifying procedures,” and who is ultimately who they are, their Atman. According to Shankara’s Upadesasahasri:

“Through such sentences as “Thou art That” one knows one’s own Atman, the Witness of all the internal organs.” Up.I.18.190: “Through such sentences as “[Thou art] the Existent” […] right knowledge concerning the inner Atman will become clearer.” Up.I.18.193-194: “In the sentence “Thou art That” […] [t]he word “That” means inner Atman.” – Up.I.174

The mistaken idea that Atman and Brahman are distinct entities is dispelled by the phrase “tat tvam asi”. The non-duality of atman and Brahman, according to Nakamura, “is a famous feature of Sankara’s thinking, yet it was previously taught by Sundarapandya” (c.600 CE or earlier). In his commentary on Brahma Sutra verse I.1.4, Shankara quotes Sundarapandya:

“When the metaphorical or false atman is non-existent, [the ideas of my] child, [my] body are sublated. Therefore, when it is realized that ‘I am the existent Brahman, atman’, how can any duty exist?”

Nakamura draws the conclusion that Shankar was not an original thinker but rather “a synthesiser of existing Advaita and the rejuvenator, as well as a defender, of old learning” from this and a vast number of other accordances.

Meditation on the Mahavyaka

Regarding the necessity of meditating on the Upanishadi mahavyaka, Shankara is undecided in the Upadesasahasri Shankara. In Up.II.3, he recommends parisamkhyana, which involves separating the Atman from everything that isn’t the Atman, such as sense objects and sense organs, as well as the pleasant and unpleasant things, merit and demerit associated with them. He claims that “right knowledge emerges at the time of hearing” and dismisses prasamcaksa or prasamkhyana meditation, which really is, a meditation on the meaning of the sentences. However, Shankara goes on to say that only Atman exists and that “all the Upanishads regarding Atman’s non-duality should be properly contemplated, must be contemplated”. How they [prasamcaksa or prasamkhyana versus parisamkhyana] vary from one another is unknown, according to Mayeda.

Mandana Misra, Shankara’s senior contemporary and the most well-known Advaitin up until the 10th century, promoted prasamkhyana. “According to Mandana, the mahavakyas are unable to achieve brahmajnana on their own. The Vedanta-vakyas express an ambiguous knowledge that can only become clear through intense meditation (prasamkhyana). The latter involves ongoing reflection on the meaning of the mahavakyas. Mandana Misra’s disciple Vcaspati Mira shared his views, and the Bhamati-school, which Vcaspati Mira formed, stands by their point of view. In contrast, the Vivarana school established by Prakasatman (around 1200 – 1300) firmly adheres to Shankara and contends that the mahavakyas are the primary reason for learning.

Renouncement of Ritualism

In his treatise Upadesasahasri, Shankara condemns ritual worship, such as offering sacrifices to Deva (God), since it presumes that the inner Self is distinct from the Brahman. According to Shankara, “he who understands the Brahman is one and he is another, does not know Brahman,” which is why the “doctrine of difference” is incorrect. The erroneous belief that Atman is distinct from Brahman is linked to the novice’s belief that

“…I am one [and] He is another; I am ignorant, experience pleasure and pain, am bound and a transmigrator [whereas] he is essentially different from me, the god not subject to transmigration. By worshipping Him with oblation, offerings, homage and the like through the [performance of] the actions prescribed for [my] class and stage of life, I wish to get out of the ocean of transmigratory existence. How am I he?” – Upadesasaharsi II.1.25

The idea of “I act,” which is transmitted by depending on sense-perception and the like, is contrasted with the realisation that one is “the Existent-Brahman,” which is transmitted by scriptural teachings. Shankara asserts that rather than knowledge of one’s acts, the phrase “Thou art That” “eliminates the fallacy of a hearer,” “thus by words as “Thou art That” one understands one’s own Atman, the testimony of all internal organs.” As a result of this awareness, performing rituals is forbidden because they conflict with the understanding of the identity of the atman with the highest atman. Shankara also contends that attaining Self-knowledge requires the purification of the mind through the practice of Yamas such as Ahimsa (non-harming, non-violence to others in body, mind, and thoughts) and Niyamas. According to Shankara, rituals and ceremonies like a yajna (a fire ceremony) can assist focus and prepare the mind for the path to Self-knowledge. Throughout Brahmacharya, he emphasises the importance of ethics like Akrodha and Yamas, claiming that a lack of ethics is what prevents pupils from acquiring knowledge.

Influences of Mahayana Buddhism

Given the distinctions between these two systems, opponents of Shankara’s Vedanta have even referred to him as a “crypto-Buddhist,” a label that is rejected by the Advaita Vedanta tradition. Shankara’s Vedanta shares similarities with Mahayana Buddhism. The beliefs of Atman and Brahman, according to Shankara, are a key distinction between Advaita and Mahayana Buddhism. Loy and Jayatilleke agree that there are further distinctions to be found.

Similarities and Influences

Despite Shankara’s critique of some Mahayana Buddhist schools, his philosophy shares a lot of ground with the Mahayana school he criticises.

“Shankara and his followers borrowed much of their dialectic form of criticism from the Buddhists. His Brahman was very much like the sunya of Nagarjuna […] The debts of Shankara to the self-luminosity of the Vijnanavada Buddhism can hardly be overestimated. There seems to be much truth in the accusations against Shankara by Vijnana Bhiksu and others that he was a hidden Buddhist himself. I am led to think that Shankara’s philosophy is largely a compound of Vijnanavada and Sunyavada Buddhism with the Upanisad notion of the permanence of self superadded.” – S.N. Dasgupta

Mudgal argues that because both Shankara’s Advaita and the Buddhist Madhyamaka conception of ultimate truth are transcendental, indescribable, non-dual, and only attained by a route negativa (neti neti), they are consistent with one another. Mudgal claims as a result that

“… the difference between Sunyavada (Mahayana) philosophy of Buddhism and Advaita philosophy of Hinduism may be a matter of emphasis, not of kind.”

Advaita has drawn criticism from certain Hindu academics for sharing non-theistic doctrines with Buddhism and its Maya. Adi Shankara was accused of being a Prachanna Bauddha, or “crypto-Buddhist,” and of weakening theistic Bhakti devotionalism by Ramanuja, the founder of Vishishtadvaita Vedanta. Around 800 CE, the non-Advaita scholar Bhaskara of the Bhedabheda Vedanta tradition criticised Shankara’s Advaita as being a school that is undermining the ritual obligations outlined in Vedic orthodoxy and of being “this horrible broken down Mayavada that has been recited by the Mahayana Buddhists”.

Differences

The Advaita Vedanta tradition rejects the label of “crypto-Buddhist,” emphasising their differing perspectives on Atman, Anatta, and Brahman. The ways that “freedom” is conceptualised vary. The freeing “blowing out” of craving, known as nirvana in Buddhism, is made possible by realising and accepting that there is no Self (anatman), the source of perception, craving, and delusion. The more often used phrase in Hinduism, moksha, refers to a similar freeing release from craving and ignorance that is made possible by realising and accepting that one’s inner Self is not an individual “ego-self” but rather a Universal Self.

Historical and Cultural Impact

Historical Context

The famous “Late classical Hinduism,” which lasted from 650 to 1100 CE, was the era in which Shankara flourished. Following the Gupta dynasty and King Harsha of the 7th century CE, there was a time of political unrest. In India, power was distributed more widely. With the emergence of several larger kingdoms with “innumerable vassal states” Feudal laws were used to govern the kingdoms. The defence of the larger kingdoms was necessary for the smaller ones. As shown in the Tantric Mandala, which might possibly show the king as the mandala’s centre, “the great ruler was remote, was exalted, and deified”.

Regionalization of religion and religious rivalry were also consequences of the collapse of centralised rule. Local cults and languages were strengthened, and “Brahmanic ceremonial Hinduism’s” impact was lessened. Shaivism, Vaisnavism, Bhakti, and Tantra, as well as rural and devotional movements, emerged at this time, however, “sectarian organisations were only at the beginning of their growth.” Buddhism, Jainism, Islam, and many branches of Hinduism were contending for followers as religious movements fought for legitimacy by the local lords. In the first 700 years of the first millennium CE, Buddhism in particular had begun to exert a significant effect on India’s spiritual traditions. However, following the eighth century, Buddhism began to decline in India.

Influence on Hinduism

In the Advaita Vedanta tradition, Shankara is held in a position of unparalleled eminence. He is portrayed as a conqueror who travelled all throughout India to support the revival of Vedic studies in hagiographies from the 14th to the 17th centuries. Frank Whaling claims that Advaita-leaning Hindus (as well as others) saw in Sankara the person who defended Hinduism against Buddhist (and Jains) attacks and assisted in driving Buddhism out of India. His doctrine and tradition have shaped Sant Mat lineages and are fundamental to Smartism. Tradition credits him with bringing together the various sects (Vaishnavism, Shaivism, and Saktism) by introducing the Pacyatana form of worship, which involves simultaneously worshipping Ganesha, Surya, Vishnu, Shiva, and Devi. By claiming that all deities are merely different manifestations of the same Brahman, the invisible Supreme Being, this tradition suggests that Advaita Vedanta is superior to all others. Koller asserts that Shankara and his contemporaries contributed significantly to our understanding of Buddhism and the ancient Vedic traditions. They also transformed the existing concepts, reforming Hinduism’s Vedanta tradition in particular, which became India’s most significant “spiritual tradition” for more than a 1000 years. Benedict Ashley gives Adi Shankara credit for fusing Atman and Brahman, two seemingly unrelated intellectual principles in Hinduism.

Critical Assessment

Shankara’s early influence in India has been contested by academics. According to Richard E. King, a scholar of Buddhism,

“Although it is common to find Western scholars and Hindus arguing that Sankaracarya was the most influential and important figure in the history of Hindu intellectual thought, this does not seem to be justified by the historical evidence.”

Prominence of Maṇḍana Misra (till 10th century)

Since Sankara is not cited in Buddhist or Jain sources for centuries, nor is he mentioned by other significant philosophers of the ninth and tenth centuries, Clark claims that Sankara was comparatively obscure during his lifetime and likely for several centuries later. Up until the 10th century, according to King and Roodurmun, Mandana-Misra, an earlier contemporary who was regarded as the principal spokesman of Advaita, eclipsed Shankara. An older contemporary of Shankara named Mandana Misra was a Mimamsa scholar and a student of Kumarila, but he also produced the Brahma-siddhi, a key text on Advaita that has persisted until the current day. For a few centuries, the Brahma-siddhi was the most important Vedantin, and the “theory of error” it outlined became the normative Advaita Vedanta theory of error. The Bhamati, a commentary on Shankara’s Brahma Sutra Bhashya, and the Brahmatattva-samiksa, a commentary on Mandana Mishra’s Brahma-siddhi were written by his student Vachaspati Mira, who is thought to have been an incarnation of Shankara to spread the Advaita viewpoint. His ideas, which combine those of Shankara and Mandana Misra, were largely influenced by Mandana Misra. The method used by the Bhamati school is ontological. It believes that avidya originates from the Jiva. It views yoga practise and meditation as the primary means of achieving liberation, with the study of the Vedas and reflection serving as supporting evidence.

By associating Maana Misra with Surevara (9th century), the later Advaita Vedanta tradition accepted Maana Misra as a disciple of Shankara, claiming that Shankara had won a public discussion in which Maana Misra had participated. “Almost of the later Advaitins were influenced by Mandana Misra and Bhaskara,” claims Satchidanandendra Sarasvati. He contends that only his student Suresvara, who has had little influence, accurately represents Shankara and that the majority of post-Shankara Advaita Vedanta actually departs from Shankara. According to this theory, Shankara’s well-known pupil Padmapada misinterpreted him while the Suresvara school managed his ideas.

Vaishnavite Vedanta (10th – 14th Century)

According to Hajime Nakamura, opinions resembling Shankara’s were present before him but did not hold sway over the Vedanta. Vedanta was a minor school of thought up until the 11th century, but it gained prominence when it was used as the foundation for other Hindu sects’ ideas. Early Vedanta academics came from affluent backgrounds and had formal education in traditional culture. They comprised a social elite that was “clearly separated from Hinduism’s broad practitioners and theologians.” Their ideas were “disseminated among a few carefully chosen academics”. The early Vedanta schools did not mention Vishnu or Shiva in their writings. After Shankara, “theologians of the various sects of Hinduism exploited Vedanta philosophy to a greater or lesser extent to construct the basis of their teachings,” and as a result, “its theoretical effect upon the entire Indian culture became final and definitive”. Examples include Ramanuja (11th century), who rejected Shankara’s ideas while uniting bhakti —”the major force in Hinduism’s religions” —with philosophical philosophy, and the Nath tradition.

Vijayanagara Empire and Vidyaranya (14th Century)

As Advaitins in the Vijayanagara Empire competed for royal court favour and strove to win over others to their sect, Advaita Vedanta’s status as the most significant Hindu darsana began to take shape in the Middle Ages. Only during this time were Shankara and Advaita Vedanta able to achieve historical fame and cultural influence. Much of Shankara’s biographies, including Vidyaranya’s frequently quoted Sankara-vijaya, were written and published in the 14th century and later. The Hindu Vijayanagara Empire of South India was recreated under the guidance of Vidyaranya, also knew to as Madhava, who served as a minister in the Vijayanagara Empire from 1380 to 1386 and was the 12th Jagadguru of the Sringeri Sarada Pitham. He may have done this in response to the destruction wrought by the Islamic Delhi Sultanate, but Visishtadvaita, which predominated in areas taken over by the Vijayanagara Empire, was also the objective of his efforts. Sects also vied for the royal court’s favour and attempted to persuade others to adopt their own sectarian structure. According to Paul Hacker and other academics, Vidyaranya and his brothers published substantial Advaitic comments on the Vedas and Dharma to increase public access to “the authoritative literature of the Aryan faith”.

Influential Advaitin Vidyaranya conjured up tales to transform Shankara, whose lofty theory didn’t lend itself to mass acceptance, into a “divine folk-hero who spread his message through his digvijaya (“universal victory”) all over India like a conquering hero”. Vidyaranya described Shankara’s teachings as the summit of all darsanas in his doxography Sarvadaranasagraha (“Summary of all viewpoints”), portraying the other darsanas as partial truths that converged in Shankara’s teachings, which were seen to be the most encompassing system. Given the threat they posed to Vidyaranya’s Advaita loyalty, the Vaishanava customs of Dvaita and Visishtadvaita were not categorised as Vedanta and were placed just above Buddhism and Jainism. It was “literally written out of the history of Indian thought” that Bhedabheda wasn’t even referenced. Due to the Sarvadar Anasasagraha’s impact, early Indologists believed that Advaita Vedanta provided the most correct reading of the Upanishads. And Vidyaranya created a matha, stating that Shankara himself had done so. The endorsement and meticulous efforts of Vidyaranya, who had the support of the king, helped establish Shankara as a rallying figure for moral principles, propagate the historical and cultural implication of Shankara’s Vedanta philosophies, and build monasteries (mathas) to increase the influence of culture of Advaita Vedanta and Shankara.

Neo-Vedanta (19th – 20th Century)

When neo-Vedantins as well as western Orientalists promoted Advaita Vedanta as “the connective theological thread that linked Hinduism into an unified religious tradition,” Shankara’s position was further cemented in the 19th and 20th centuries. Notwithstanding the fact that the majority of Hindus do not follow Advaita Vedanta, Shankara came to be seen as “an iconic depiction of Hindu religion and culture”.

Note: UPSC 2023 is approaching closer, keep yourself updated with the latest UPSC current affairs where we explain the important news in a simplified manner.

Note: You can make your current affairs revision robust using Free Monthly Magazines by BYJU’S.

Digvijaya (Conquests of Shankara)

There are at least fourteen distinct biographies of Adi Shankara that are currently available. These and other Shankara hagiographies were written in Sanskrit and other languages many hundreds to a thousand years after Shankara’s passing. The hagiographies are rife with stories and fiction that frequently contradict one another. The majority of these are known as the Ankara Vijaya, also known as “Shankara’s conquests” (digvijaya), while others go by the names Guruvijaya, Sankarabhyudaya, and Shankaracaryacarita. Sankaradigvijaya by Mdhava (17th century) and Sankaravijaya by Anandagiri are the two most frequently mentioned hagiographies, with the Brhat-Sankara-Vijaya by Citsukha being the oldest and only being available in fragments. The Cidvilasiya Sankara Vijaya (written in Cidvilasa between the 15th and 17th centuries) and the Keraiya Sakara Vijaya are two more noteworthy hagiographies (of the Kerala region, extant from c. the 17th century). Scholars have noted that Anandagiri’s Shankara hagiography, one of the most frequently cited Shankara biographies, contains stories and legends about historically distinct individuals who are all referred to as Sri Shankaracarya or simply as Shankara, but who are likely to be older scholars with names like Vidya-sankara, Sankara-misra, and Sankara-nanda. Some hagiographies were presumably produced by those who wanted to give their rites or theories a historical foundation.

Life

The earliest hagiographies claim that Shankara was born in the village of Kaladi, variously written Kalati or Karati, in the southern Indian state of Kerala. His parents were Nambudiri Brahmins. His parents were an elderly, childless couple who had dedicated their lives to helping the underprivileged. Their son was given the name Shankara, which means “bringer of prosperity”. When Shankara was a small child, his father passed away. Due to the passing of his father, Shankara’s upanayanam, or entrance into student life, had to be postponed and was eventually carried out by his mother. According to Shankara’s hagiography, he was drawn to the life of a Sannyasa (hermit) since he was a little child. His mother didn’t like it. The crocodile will kill him unless Shankara gets permission to become a Sannyasin, he cried out to his mother. After the mother gives her consent, Shankara is let free and departs for school. He travels to a Saivite sanctuary beside a river in a north-central Indian state, and there he accepts the position of student under Govinda Bhagavatpada. The facts of Shankara’s initial encounter with his Guru, including where they met and what transpired afterward, vary between the hagiographies. According to several scriptures, Govindapada and Shankara studied together in Omkareshwar, beside the Narmada River, and in Badari, along the Ganges River (Badrinath in the Himalayas).

The hagiographies differ in how they describe his travels, the people he encountered and engaged in dispute with, as well as many other aspects of his life. The majority mention that Shankara studied the Vedas, Upanishads, and Brahmasutra with Govindapada and that during his formative years, while he was still a student of his master, Shankara wrote several important works. As Govinda was himself taught by Gaudapada, Shankara learned the Gaudapadiya Karika with his instructor Govinda. The majority also refer to a gathering in Shastrartha (an early Indian custom of public philosophical debates attended by large number of people, often times with royalty) with scholars of the Mimamsa school of Hinduism, particularly Kumarila and Prabhakara, as well as Mandana and many Buddhists.

Digvijaya and Disciples

The majority of hagiographies depict Shankara as travelling widely within India, from Gujarat to Bengal, and engaging in open philosophical discussions with various orthodox schools of Hinduism as well as heterodox traditions like Buddhists, Jains, Arhatas, Saugatas, and Charvakas. Details and chronology of these discussions vary. Although this is questionable, the hagiographies attribute to him the founding of various Matha (monasteries). Four of Shankara’s Sannyasin schools, Bharati (Sringeri), Sarasvati (Kanchi), Tirtha, and Asramin, have carried on his tradition of the ten monastic orders that he founded while travelling around India (Dvaraka). Shankara also visited the monasteries in Giri, Puri, Vana, Aranya, Parvata, and Sagara, all of whose names can be linked to the Ashrama system in Hinduism and Vedic literature. Throughout his travels, Shankara had a number of scholars as disciples, including Padmapadacharya (also known as Sanandana, who is connected to the text Atma-bodha), Surevaracharya, Totakacharya, Hastamalakacharya, Chitsukha, Prthividhara, Chidvilasayati, Bodhendra, Brahmendra, Sadananda, and others who produced their own writings on Shankara.

Mathas and Smarta Tradition

The Dasanami Sampradaya of Hindu monasticism, as well as the Panchayatana puja and amata of the Smarta tradition, are all credited to Shankara as its founders.

Dashanami Sampradaya and Mathas

At least in the west, the main reputation of Advaita Vedanta is that of a philosophical system. However, there is a tradition of renunciation as well. Renunciation and philosophy are strongly related:

“Most of the notable authors in the advaita tradition were members of the sannyasa tradition, and both sides of the tradition share the same values, attitudes and metaphysics.”

In order to encourage Saiva-leaning mathas in the Vijayanagara Empire to follow Shankara’s teachings, the Vaishnavite was presented as an incarnation of Shiva in the 14th century. He is described as founding the Dasanami Sampradaya and uniting a portion of the Ekadandi monks under a ten-name umbrella organisation in hagiographies written starting in the 14th century. Other Hindu monastic and Ekadandi cultures persisted without joining the Dasanamis’ organisation. The Hindu monks of these 10 sects or names were allegedly organised by Adi Sankara under the auspices of four mahas (monasteries), with the main centres at Dvaraka in the west, Jagannatha Puri in the east, Sringeri in the south, and Badrikashrama in the north. One of his four primary disciples, who each carry on the Vedanta Sampradaya, served as the leader of each matha. Paul Hacker asserts that Vidyaranya (14th century), as part of his effort to spread Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta, may have constructed a matha and claimed that it was founded by Shankara himself. This would have been the beginning of the system. The sponsorship and methodical efforts of Vidyaranya, who had the support of the king, helped make Shankara into a rallying figure for moral principles, spread the historical and cultural impact of Shankara’s Vedanta philosophies, and found monasteries (mathas) to further the cultural impact of Shankara and Advaita Vedanta.

Smarta Tradition

One of the four main sampradayas of Hinduism, the Smartism sampradaya, traditionally regards Shankara as its greatest teacher and reformer. Alf Hiltebeitel claims that Shankara made the nondualist reading of the Upanishads the cornerstone of a resurrected smarta tradition:

“Practically, Shankara fostered a rapprochement between Advaita and smarta orthodoxy, which by his time had not only continued to defend the varnasramadharma theory as defining the path of karman, but had developed the practice of pancayatanapuja (“five-shrine worship”) as a solution to varied and conflicting devotional practices. Thus one could worship any one of five deities (Vishnu, Siva, Durga, Surya, Ganesa) as one’s istadevata (“deity of choice”).”

The Smarta tradition has a system of puja (worship) called panchayatana puja. Shiva, Vishnu, Devi, Surya, and an Ishta Devata like Kartikeya, Ganesha, or any other particular god of the devotee’s choice are the five deities worshipped in a quincunx pattern. The sixth deity in the mandala is occasionally the Ishta Devata. Skanda, also referred to as Kartikeya and Murugan, is added to the Shanmata system. The practise of panchayatana puja, credited to Adi Shankara, rose to prominence in mediaeval India. But according to archaeological data, this practise predates Adi Shankara’s birth by a very long time.

Films about Adi Shankara

Related Links: