SANKARA

 

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZaaMUfqzAcxCf3P0pOHySfGZbQt2hBLl&fbclid=IwAR323hMhuSvbWh4im7cE9iG4U3lVR11JBUQeBrw6KZGBe3ys7LYpnwg9Zj0

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.

SANKARA

 

Sankara had mastered the Vedas, epics and puranas and synthesized out of it Advaita in an ingenious way. His quotations are prolific and logic watertight. It must be said that the position for a casual leader of these texts is confusing. But, Sankara had an accurate memory of all the passages and lays down his thesis impeccably. I do not think there is any other treatise as exhaustive and scholarly like Sankara’s. He takes on possible objections to his interpretation and deals with them in a very scientific way.

He seems to have taken the points of Buddhism as consistent with Vedanta, but refutes where it is at variance. He has been keen to find the basis of all that he says in Vedanta. In so doing, it looks laboured at some points, but he does the best language can cope with on a subject that is non-verbal and beyond sense experience.

 

Sankara

“It is on account of his strict adherence to the principle of transcendence that Sankara’s writings have been regarded as providing the classical formulation of the Indian wisdom. He alone could account for all the upanishadic texts. None of the pantheistic and theistic commentators who followed him were able to give satisfactory explanations of the negative texts which deny all empirical predicates of the Absolute.

There is little in his commentaries to connect him with Siva-worship. But he invokes Narayana, equatable with Visnu, at the beginning of his Gita commentary in what the sub-commentator Anandagiri calls an obeisance to his chosen deity (ista-devata). And part of the verse in which he does so appears in the course of his statement of the doctrine of the Paricaratra school of Vaishnavas in his commentary on Brahma Sutra II.ii.42. He there says: ‘There are parts ofthis (Paficaratra Vaishnava) doctrine which we do not deny. We do not deny that Narayana is the supreme Being, beyond the Unmanifest Principle, widely acknowledged to be the supreme Self, the Self of all.... Nor do we see anything wrong if anyone is inclined to worship the Lord (bhagavan) vehemently and onepointedly by visits to His temple and the rest, for adoration of the Lord is well-known to have been prescribed (as a preliminary discipline) in the Veda and Smrti’.”

“If truth shall kill them, let them die.” Immanuel Kant.

(Quoted by Mr. K.A.Krishnaswamy Iyer)

To position Sankara Advaita as the pivot looks like making Christ the centre of the world. I have been an admirer of Sankara and his absolutely breath-taking intellectual acumen and thorough analysis and summation of Vedanta as a coherent whole, which will not be evident to a casual peruser. Sankara was a genius and I place him along with Einstein. What Einstien was to physics, Sankara was to metaphysics. Still, we cannot say that Sankara or any interpreter of Sankara or even Vedanta as the sole source of truth or key to truth. That will be a dogma which we wish to dissociate from Advaita as elaborated by Sankara.

Advaita as a universal truth must have been discernible to anyone with a clear mind and a keen desire to know nothing but the truth. My desultory survey of diverse opinions across history and geography makes me bold (foolishly perhaps) to state this.

In Advaitic plane, Sankara as an individual, bhashyakara, lyricist, philosopher, was part of the myth of the world. He like any of us is indistinguishable from the only Satyam, called Brahman for convenience,

To give reality to Sankara, the bhashyakara, is to defy Advaita elucidated in the bhashya. Sankara was Brahman like you and me, all individuality being a flash in the pan.

 

Why does Sankara rely on scriptures?

There is no way to establish the reality of Atma by logic. Sankara must have based it on his personal gut feeling, but that will be suspect being based on an individual. So, he draws on scriptures. Scriptures contain the collective wisdom of many people. In tradition, they are held to be apourusheya and of authentic pramana. His aim was to re-establish the Vedic religion and he could not have discarded Veda and established advaita like Buddha established his philosophy. His idea was to reorient a tradition that was aflame though not ablaze. His near rejection of karma kanda, which is predominantly about sacrifice and worship, runs parallel to Buddhism, but he does not dismiss it. He assigns it a place if one is interested in transient fruits. To him, gnana is paramount. Gnana without karma is quite in order, but karma without gnana does not liberate one from the repetitive toils.

He fought against disbelief in god on one side and against overdoing adoration of an external god on the other. The path he has carved out is for only those who want liberation. Liberation is not any subjugation as in heaven. Heaven is possible, but is limited, not eternal. Nor is hell.

The toils are because of infatuation with passing things. To get rid of it, one must contemplate what is eternal. That calls for effort and enquiry.

 

Sankara freed himself from the world, he did not flee from it.

 

அத்வைதம்

அத்வைத சித்தாந்தத்தை உபதேசித்த பகவத்பாதர்கள் பல தெய்வங்கள் மீது உணர்ச்சி வசமானதும் த்வைத பாவம் கொண்டதுமான ஸ்லோகங்களையும் எழுதினார்கள். இது சரியா என்பது கேள்வி.

Mechanics என்ற பௌதிகத்தின் ஒரு பிரிவில் பல வர்ஷங்கள் ந்யுட்டனின் விதிகளே கையாளப்பட்டு வந்தன. ந்யுட்டனின் விதிகளைக் கொண்டு போடப்பட்ட பல கணக்குகளும் உலக நியதிக்கு உட்பட்டிருந்தன. பின்வந்த ஐன்ஸ்டைனின் விதிகள் ந்யுட்டனின் விதிகள் செல்லாவிடத்து கையாளப்பட்டன. ஐன்ஸ்டைனின் விதிகள் வந்ததால் ந்யுட்டனின் விதிகள் செல்லா என்று யாரும் கூறவில்லை. பொதுப்படையாக நம் அன்றாட வாழ்க்கையில் நாம் கையாளும் விஷயங்களில் ந்யுடன் விதிகள் செல்லுபடியாகும்.

அத்வைத சித்தாந்தத்தில் இது போன்ற ஒரு நிலையே. பக்தியால் உலகில் பல காரியங்களைக் கட்டாயம் சாதிக்கமுடியும். எல்லாக் காரியங்களையும் சாதிக்க முடியாது. ஞான யோகம் இதனாலேயே அவசியம். முழு ஞானத்தில் திளைத்தவன் மீண்டும் பக்தி யோகத்துக்கு வரமாட்டான். வரவேண்டிய அவசியமுமில்லை. ஆனால் முழு ஞானம் அடைந்தவன் என்பது ஒரு தத்வவாதியைக் குறிப்பதில்லை. ஒரு மருந்து கடைக்காரன் பல மருந்துகளைப் அலறுக்கும் கொடுப்பதால் அவனுக்குள்ள வியாதி தீராது. அவனே மருந்து சாப்பபிடவேண்டும்.

லோகோத்தாரணரான ஆதிசங்கரர் தத்வ விசாரத்தில் மேம்பட்ட நிலையை ஆராய்ந்தார். அதே சமயத்தில் அவை எல்லோருக்கும் உகந்தவை அல்ல என்பதையும் உணர்ந்தார். இதனாலேயே பக்தி மார்க்கம். லோகாசார்யராக அவர் வந்ததால் முன்பின் முரணுக்கு இடமில்லை. ஆச்சார்யார் ஒரு மாணவனுக்கு முழு பாடத்தையும் கற்றுக்கொடுத்துவிட்டுத் திரும்ப மற்றவனுக்கு அடியிலிருந்து எடுத்து சொல்லிக்கொடுப்பதைப் போன்றது இது.

மேலும் சங்கரர் பல விஷயங்களில் தன போக்கில் சென்றிருக்கிறார் என்பது குறிப்பிடத் தக்கது. இவை குறைகள் அல்ல. அவர் ஓர் உண்மை அத்வைதியே.

ஒரு பொருள் இருக்கிறதா இல்லையா என்ற சந்தேகத்துடன் தேடுவதால் பலன் ஏற்படாது. திருஸ்ய லோகத்தில் இவ்வுண்மை புலப்படாமல் போகலாம். ஆனால் அதிருச்யமாக உள்ள விஷயங்களில் இது தெளிவாகும். கடவுள் இருக்கிறாரா இல்லையா என்று தெளிவுபடாதவர் என்றும் ஒரு தெளிவு நிலைக்கு வரார். சரித்திர ஆராய்ச்சிகளும், விஞ்ஞான சாதனைகளும், நம் குறுகிய அறிவுக்கே உகந்த பகுத்தறிவு வாதமும் துணையாகக் கொண்ட agnosicsகளுக்கு முழு உண்மை இது போன்ற விஷயங்களில் மட்டுமே உள்ள நம்பிக்கையால் அறியமுடியாமற் போகிறது.

The Bhagavatpada , who preached Advaita philosophy, also wrote hymns in praise of several deities which are emotional and dualistic. Is this consistent?

In Mechanics, a branch of Physics, the laws of Newton were in force for a long time. Calculations based on them fitted into the worldly circumstances. Einstein’s laws which followed were applied in cases where Newton’s laws failed. However, they did not disprove Newton’s laws. In our day-to-day world applications of Newton’s laws hold true.

A similar situation prevails in the Advaita philosophy of Sankara also. Several things are possible in this world through Bhakti but not all. The path of knowledge is essential only because of this. The one who has attained gnana does not return to Bhakti; he has no necessity either. But any philosopher cannot be said to have attained this Gnana. A pharmacist who is selling medicines will not get cured of his own disease unless he takes medicine himself.

While teaching Differential Equations, our Mathematics teacher advised us to assume the formulas. It served the purpose and I was able to solve differential equations quite easily. But, if my ambition in Mathematics was greater, I must have learnt the formulas better.

In religion also several things we are called upon to believe. The derivations are beyond many of us. The effect is what is important.

 

Sankara is as relevant today as when he had to counter the agnostic movements that questioned Sanatana Dharma (SD) rather successfully. SD had degenerated into rituals then. Today we have science (or rather incomplete appreciation of science) that questions all theistic faith. SD has slipped into attachment to a physical god and place of reward with a cornucopia of delightful literature and descriptions that are mind-enslaving. Truth is liberating and devotion is a step towards liberation, not attachment of any kind. We can meet the attack of science only through the method of knowledge. The way of Sankara only holds promise.

 

Takeaway from Sankara:

Seek the Truth.

Knowledge, obtained through wise people, reason and experience, is the only path to Truth.

 

Sankara might be wrong because he is so absolutely logical, and life is not logical!

 

Sankara bids us to seek the truth. The path to truth is knowledge. The sources for knowledge are saying of the wise, reason and experience. Truth is bliss and freedom.

That is the essence of Sankara. The more I read him through his authentic works explained by paramgataas, the more does it fill my mind with clarity and awe about his candour and perspicacity. 

We have many works attributed to him and many myths. Each latches on to one or invents a new one.

Sankara's method was at a time when science as we know now was non-existent. Einstein at the start of the last century propounded his theory on top of an explosive scientific knowledge by thought experiments and mathematics and his views border on the metaphysical and mirror the Upanishads.

The truth of Einstein's theory is not vitiated by his personal life or actions incongruous with his theory. 

You have to size up a man as to harmony in thought, word and action when you have a worldly dealing with him. If you want to examine his views, you must adopt Sankara's methodology - What have the wise to say? Does it stand up to reason? Is it felt by me in some way? It may fail any one of these and you may give up. But, not based on some apocryphal, even if adopted to drive home a point, story. In this story, the point the writer conveys is not valid.

Is Sankara supreme or knowledge supreme? 

I think that Sankara would have answered ‘Knowledge.’

In trying to understand, if we have to go beyond Sankara, we have to. That is hypothetical. That is only to make the point that there is only one way to follow Sankara – the way of knowledge. We cannot say, ‘Sankara said so’, as some people would say, ‘Krishna said so.’ Whoever said, it must be based on knowledge. Across systems, testimonial knowledge is admissible, but it should not contradict direct knowledge. 

It helps if we can approach the subject from different viewpoints and vindicate our conclusion instead of only turning to Sruti, bhashyas, karikas, etc.

 

26/8/2000

Sankara was not the greatest Indian philosopher, he was the greatest because his philosophy was not just metaphysics. He combined spirituality with philosophy and expounded spirituality in its true form without claiming to be God Incarnate, Messiah or any bigotry.

 

8/9/2001

Intelligence leads to God-realisation. This is Sankara’s case. Others who try to refute him use only intelligence to do so. Thus they are indirectly upholding Sankara.

 

11/2/2002

Sankara unified and established worship of six deities. Ramanuja sowed the seeds of division by exalting the worship of one deity. Sankara was a philosopher par excellence, not compromising on Truth. Ramanuja was a social reformer with religious zeal.

 

Was Sankara a jnani or jivan-mukta?

My conviction is that resolution of this doubt is not relevant to attaining jnanam by a seeker.

A cognoscenti from this group once advised me pointedly that there are no ‘others’ in Advaita. Many of our doubts and confusion arise by bringing in ‘others’ in our pursuit of knowledge of Atman/Brahman (like ‘when I was in deep sleep, others experienced the world’, ‘whether Ramana acquired knowledge legitimately acc. to sravana-manan-nididhyasana, etc.). Sankara is part of ‘others’ when we scrutinise his credentials for being a jnani.

Jnani is not one who is in possession jnanam. Jnanam is just the characteristic we attribute in ignorance to a jnani if we find one.

Sankara, as the commentators refer to frequently, was a bhashyakara, who has explained coherently and authoritatively the substance of Vedanta which by itself is like a wilderness with gems strewn around amidst dead leaves (which we take to be adhyaropa). It is the brilliance of Sankara which has thrown powerful light on the core and real stuff of Vedanta. He was an exegete who simply amplified Sruti.

Sruti itself is apara vidya as the Upanishad says candidly, irrelevant to a realised person as Sankara would conclude.

Were the authors of Sruti (not accepting apourusheya vada in the traditional take) jnanis? If we can answer this convincingly, we would have answered about Sankara.

Spinoza hits the nail on the head when he says, “Evidently they (scriptures) were not ahead of the knowledge shared by the educated classes of their time.”

Sruti is a pointer to truth, does not itself contain truth. Sruti itself concedes that truth is one but the wise describe it in many ways.

A seeker is interested in truth, not in persons.