SANKARA

 

Will Durant summarises crisply the philosophy of Sankara, which many Indian critics interpret wrongly.

“Sankara establishes the source of his philosophy at a remote and subtle point never quite clearly visioned again until a thousand years later. Immanuel Kant wrote his Critique of Pure Reason. How, he asks, is knowledge possible? Apparently, all our knowledge comes from the senses, and reveals not the external itself, but our sensory adaptation-perhaps transformation of that reality. By sense, then, we can never quite know the "real"; we can know it only in the garb of space, time and cause which may be a web created by our organs of sense and understanding, designed or evolved to catch and hold that fluent and elusive reality whose existence we can surmise, but whose character we never objectively describe; our way of perceiving will forever be inextricable mingled with the thing perceived.

This is not the airy subjectivism of the solipsist who thinks that he can destroy the world by going to sleep. The world exists, but it is Maya-not delusion, but phenomenon, an appearance created partly by our thought. Our incapacity to perceive things except through the film of space and time, or to think of them except in terms of cause and change, is an innate limitation, an ajnana or ignorance whence we see a multiplicity of objects and a flux of change. In truth there is only one Being, and change is 'a mere name' for the superficial fluctuations of forms. Behind the Maya or Veil of change and things, to be reached not by sensation or intellect but only by the insight and intuition of the trained spirits, is the one universal reality, Brahman.”

 

"The doctrine advocated by Sankara is, from a purely philosophical point of view, and apart from all theological considerations, the most important and interesting one which has arisen on Indian soil; neither those forms of the Vedanta which diverge from the view represented by Sahkara, nor any of the non-Vedahtic systems can be compared with the so-called orthodox Vedanta in boldness, depths and subtlety of speculation"

Thibaut

 

Swami Sarvapriyananda said this in a talk. His guru asked him to read Sankara Bhashya. He expressed his apprehension that it would be difficult to follow Sankara. The guru told him that of all bhashyakaras (exegesists), Sankara was the easiest to follow.

Swami Paramarthananda said in a disourse, ‘Sankara does not say so elaborately as I do. He is very precise and crisp.’

(Source Advaita Grantha Kosa Sangraha, courtesy Mr. Hishi Riyo)

‘Western people can hardly imagine a personality like that of Sankaracarya. We contemplate with wonder and delight the devotion of Francis of Assisi, the intellect of Abelard, the virile force and freedom of Martin Luther and the Politica} efficiency of Ignatius Loyola ; but who could imagine gy these united in one person ?”

—Miss Margaret Noble, Sister Nivedita, of America.

«What shall we say, then, of the Master Sankara ? Is he not the guardian of the sacred waters, who, by his commentaries, has hemmed about, against all impurities of Time’s jealousy, first the mountain-tarns of the Upanisads, then the serene forest Jake of the Bhagavad Gitt, and last the deep reservoir of the Sutras, adding from the generous riches of his wisdom, lively fountains and lakelets of his own, the Crest-jewel, the Awarkening and Discernment.”

—Charles Johnson, an Englishman.

“The system of the Vedanta as founded on the Upanisads and the Vedinta-sitras, and accompanied by Sankara’s commentaries on them equalin rank to Plato and Kant—is one of the most valuable products of the genius of mankind in his researches of the eternal truth......The conclusion is, that the Jiva, being neither a 29 part nor a different thing, nor a variation of Brahman, must be the Paramitman, fully and totally himself, a conclusion made equally inthe Vedanta by Sankara, by the Platonic Plotinus and the Kantian Schopenhaur. But Sankara, in his conclusions, goes, perhaps more fully than any of them.

—Paul Deussen, Professor of Philosophy in the University of Kiel, Germany.

“It may be admitted that if the impossiple task of reconciling the contradictions of the ++Upanisads and rendering them to a harmonious and consistant whole is to be attempted at all, §ankara’s system is about the only one that could do it.”

—Colonel Jacob.

“The philosophy of Sankara would, on the whole, stand nearer to the teaching of the Upanishads than the Sutras of Badarayana. The task of reducing the teaching of the whole of the Upanisads to a system consistent and free from contradiction is an intrinsically impossible one. But the task being given, we are quite ready to admit that Sankara’s system is most probably the best that can be devised, We must admit without hesitation that Sankara's doctrine faithfully represents the prevailing teachings of the Upanishads in one point at least, viz., that the soul or the self of the sage, whatever its original relation to Brahman may be, is, in the end completely merged and indistinguishably lost in the Universal Self.”’

—Dr. Thibaut.

“As a matter of fact, the Brahma Sutras, being based directly and exclusively on the Upanishads, can in no way be divergent from them; only their brevity, rendering them a trifle obscure when they are isolated from any commentary, might provide some excuse for those who maintain that they find in them something besides an authoritative and competent interpretation of the traditional doctrine. _....Sankaracharya has deduced and developed more completely the essential contents of the Upanishads. His authority can only be questioned by those who are ignorant of the true spirit of the orthodox Hindu tradition and whose opinion is consequently valueless. In a general way, therefore, it is his commentary that we shall follow in preference to others.””

Rene Guenon of France.