by Sridevi Rao
Sankara must have been familiar with these teachings when he arrived at the cave where Govindapada sat in samadhi.
Many are the legends that describe the dramatic events that led to Sankara being accepted by Govindapada as pupil. Some narrate that he circumambulated the cave thrice, then beseeched Govindapada to accept him as disciple. "Who are you?" demanded the sage. Sankara gave him his name and background. "Who are you?" repeated the sage and this time Sankara answered that he was the manifestation of the very Self as Sankara — a truly non-dualistic reply that brought Govindapada out of his cave. Then there are the legends that say that Govindapada had been foretold of Sankara's arrival by Sage Vyasa and had been waiting for the momentous occasion.
The stories are at best apocryphal.
Govindapada initiated Sankara into sanyasa, transmitted to him the teachings of Advaita and guided his spiritual progress through the next three or four years. For Sankara, those years were a time of tremendous spiritual growth, deepening understanding and Realisation. He articulated these insights in a series of poems including Narmadastaka,-Pratassmarana, Sadhana-Pancaka, Yati-Pancaka, Vakyavrttii, Viveka-cudamani, Dasa-sloki, and the philosophical treatises Atmanatma-viveka, Ekadasottarasata-vakya-grantha, Pancikarna and Balabodhini.
Supremely happy about his pupil's progress, Govindapada acknowledged Sankara's spiritual maturity and his direct Realisation of the Absolute by giving him permission to write a commentary on the Brahmasutras. A philosophical work of no mean complexity, it would require no less than an enlightened sage to write a commentary on the Brahmasutras. Sankara had the spiritual stature to write that commentary, and also to be a master himself. He would, from now on, be known as Sankaracharya. He was twelve years old.
The epoch of Sankara, one of stupendous achievement and unparalleled religious zeal, was about to begin.
CHAPTER THREE
The Philosopher
* * *
Taking leave of his teacher, Sankara proceeded to Kasi, the epicentre of religious India. Kasi was, even then, a chaotic city, a high-energy melting pot of diverse religious and sectarian practices, learning and scholarship, trade and business, cultural and secular activities. It was a city of monks and masters, ritualists and ascetics, bhaktas and pandits, in a volatile mix of orthodoxy and heterodoxy. It was, in short, the ideal setting for the mammoth endeavour that Sankara would immediately undertake.
The twelve-year-old Sankara settled down near the Manikarnika Ghat. Scholars and historians tell us that the next four years were a period of tremendous literary activity for Sankara. At some point he is said to have travelled to the Himalayas, to Badrinath and restored the worship of Badrinarayana at the temple there. This was the time when he wrote the major works that put forth his philosophy with dazzling clarity. Other than these literary outputs, there are no other incidents or episodes reported to have taken place at this time.
Here then is our picture of Sankara between the ages of twelve and sixteen. Fresh from his training under Govindapada, where he had come to a great Realisation, he seems to have withdrawn into the life of a recluse, absorbed in his inner life; for a while he lived in complete solitude, in the remote regions of the Upper Himalayas.
It was not as if he spent his days lost in contemplation, either. Intellectually and creatively, this was probably the richest period of his life. He related his own direct Realisation to the truths contained in the scriptures and fashioned a philosophical system that was breathtaking in its scope and content.
In later years, Sankara would rely on his own powers of analytical reasoning to refute the philosophies of other religions and sects. But now, he drew exclusively from the scriptures to establish his philosophy of Advaita. And in this he had a clear-cut purpose, which was to refurbish the Vedic texts to which he owed complete allegiance. The texts were riddled with contradictions, and had therefore become open to misinterpretations that resulted in bizarre ritualistic excesses. Sankara saw it as his mission to reinterpret the scriptures in the light of his own Realisation, and provide an elegant framework from which their truths would ring out triumphantly, in one resoundingly clear voice.
He delved into the intricate semantics, the elaborate prosody, the dense aphorisms and the apparently self-contradictory pronouncements of the scriptures, extracted the overt and embedded truths from them and meticulously developed an integral system that would serenely accept all manner of religious practice, yet remain inviolable in the pristine revelation at its core.
In this effort, Sankara differed greatly from his equally illustrious predecessor, Gautama Buddha, who did not draw from the scriptures (with which he, too, must have been deeply familiar) in his teachings. Was it the conditioning of Sankara's orthodox Brahmin upbringing and traditional education that prompted him to give primacy to the scriptures over the realised truth of his direct personal experience? Actually, Sankara was even here following the injunction of the scriptures. He believed, as the Upanishads declared, that complete Realisation and deep spiritual insight is facilitated by three instruments of knowledge or pramanas. The first pramana is shruti, or the revelations contained in the scriptures. As the Upanishads express it:
The Self, my dear, how is it to be seen? It has to be heard about first; it should be heard about from those who have studied the scriptures.
The mahavakyas of the scriptures, especially, could lead one to sudden and spontaneous Realisation:
Prajnami brahma — Brahman is pure consciousness
Ayamatma brahma — This Atman is Brahman
Tat tvam asi — You are that
Aham brahmasmi — I am Brahman
The second pramana is yukti, or reasoning. The mind seeks explanations and reasoning, and when that is fully satisfied, deep faith is born. This deep faith spurs the mind on the spiritual quest; longing for ultimate knowledge, completely subsumed in the inner quest, the mind suddenly comes to Realisation. This direct personal experience is the greatest and final pramana — Svanubhuti. Therefore, for Sankara, the scriptures are important; an elegant philosophical system that can stand logical scrutiny is important. But above all, is ultimate knowledge that comes only with direct experience.
Lord Siva
And so, at the heart of Sankara's spiritual vision was the direct and luminous revelation of Brahman as the Self of all the world and all beings. It was embodied in a philosophical system that knit heterogeneous strands from his traditional, social and religious milieu and heritage, and brought the diverse sects of the time into one common fold.
Literally, Advaita means 'non-dual' or 'not-two'. The term seeks to describe the nature of ultimate reality. It seeks to articulate an answer to the spiritual quest: ultimately, what is the universe, who am I?
Our True Self or True Nature, according to Advaita, is Brahman. Ultimately, Brahman is who we truly are. Brahman is the I of Who am I. Dualistic philosophies have a theory of creation, attributing it to a divine power, Brahman, that creates matter and life alike — the I, or Atman, is separate from this Divine Creator. Advaita, however, proclaims the I, the Atman, to be Brahman — ' Aham Brahmasmi, I am Brahman', is its central tenet. The phenomenal world — of beings and non-beings, matter and energy — is not apart from Brahman. The phenomenal world and Brahman are not-two. Neither does the phenomenal world, ultimately, become one with Brahman — it is Brahman.
Brahman is eternal, unmoving. It is without attributes. It neither acts, nor causes action — to use a philosophical term which led to Sankara's famed conceptualisation of maya, it is not even the 'first cause'; very simply, creation is not a function of Brahman.
Since Brahman alone is real, the phenomenal world, from the standpoint of Brahman, is unreal or an illusion. This is a core teaching of Advaita, reflected in the Upanishadic lines:
Brahma satyam, jagan mithya
Jivo Brahmaiva na parah.
To transliterate:
Brahman alone is real;
The world is illusory;
The Self and Br
ahman are not separate.
Sankara was not the first to arrive at this truth. Non-dualism, as a direct personal Realisation, makes up a great part of the mystical outpourings in the later Upanishads, and was Sankara's spiritual heritage from a great lineage of teachers who had themselves realised it directly.
A symbolic representation of a Jain holy place. Carved marble panel, nineteenth century
Non-dualism is at the core of religions like Jainism and Buddhism, which predate Sankara by over a millennium.
Sankara's pre-eminent position as a proponent of Advaita comes from the fact that, from the Advaitic standpoint, he spun off from the scriptures a comprehensive philosophy that includes every aspect of both worldly and transcendental experience. The scriptures speak in two voices: one of dualism (which allows for the worship of Brahman, the divine creator, in the anthropomorphic forms of a plethora of gods and goddesses) and the other of the absolute monism of Advaita, which, strictly speaking, recognises no god other than the Self.
Sankara reconciled this virtual doublespeak of the scriptures by a multilayered approach to the spiritual life. While he upheld the absolute and sole reality of Brahman, he did not dismiss the experience of the phenomenal, empirical world or even the multiplicity of gods in the scriptures. Rather, he sought to create a spiritual framework within which all of human experience would have its place.
Sankara's philosophical framework was essentially made up of three levels of reality. On the first level, paramarthika satta, is Absolute or ultimate reality or Brahman. This Brahman is the Self of all things; it is ever pure, free and perfect. Not subject to time, space and causation, it exists as (Absolute truth), chit (Absolute consciousness) and ananda (Absolute bliss).
On the second level, vyavaharika satta, is the empirical world of beings and non-beings, things and objects. It is subject to time, space and causation. The jiva or soul too, belongs to this level of reality. On the third level, pratibhasika satta (which arises from the second level), is apparent reality. This is the psychic realm of the mind, where things that have no empirical reality can still influence or trouble the mind.
How do these three levels of reality come about? If creation is not a function of Brahman that does not act, how does the phenomenal world come to be? To explain this, Sankara introduced the cornerstone of his philosophy: maya. In Vedic times, the term maya was used to denote the power of magic with which a god could make human beings believe in what turns out to be an illusion. In the Upanishads, this was extended to mean the powerful force that creates the cosmic illusion that the phenomenal world is real. For the Advaitins, maya is thus that cosmic force that presents the infinite Brahman or Self as the finite phenomenal world. Maya is reflected at the individual level by human ignorance (avidya) of the true divine nature of the self, which man has mistaken for the empirical ego but which is in reality identical with Brahman.
Through maya also comes into being Isvara, the empirical counterpart of Brahman. Worship of Isvara, therefore, is the empirical equivalent of worship of Brahman. The levels of reality thus make space for a higher and lower Brahman: the nirguna Brahman, which is without attributes, and saguna Brahman, the lower Brahman or Isvara of the empirical world with idealised attributes, which can be worshipped through the multiplicity of gods and goddesses.
This framework made it possible for Sankara to bring the predominant and populist Smartha-Puranic religion of the day under the Vedantic umbrella. It also made possible a multilayered approach to ultimate Realisation that incorporated all popular modes of worship and spiritual practice.
After clearly defining the nature of reality at its many levels, Sankara's philosophy turns to its implication on the religious life and addresses the question: what is the path to liberation? Is it one of pravrtilakshana dharma (pursuit of moral and social good) or nivrittilakshana dharma (withdrawal from the material world)?
For Sankara, liberation comes with the removal of avidya. (Sankara sometimes used the terms maya and avidya interchangeably.) Due to ignorance, or avidya, we think of ourselves as separate from Brahman. When this avidya drops, then who or what we really are is revealed to us. We do not become anything, we do not move at all from any one point to another, we simply discover what we really are. In that instant of Realisation, the phenomenal world and all that we ultimately are not become negated or not real.
Brahman can only be known or intuited. There is no real way to liberation, no path and no practice because all practice belongs to the realm of action. Action belongs to the empirical world; it implies a movement from one state to another; it makes becoming possible. Liberation, however, is not to become Brahman (which implies that self and Brahman are at some point separate, dual) but to know oneself as Brahman. The person who has thus realised Brahman then becomes established in jnana (ultimate knowledge).
While the intuition of the Absolute comes suddenly and spontaneously, Sankara maintained, there are certain states of mind — the not-acting, not-thinking state that dhyana (meditation) leads to — that are more conducive to the arising of Self-knowledge. These states of mind can be cultivated, but the journey on this path of jnana (knowledge) — jnana marga — is an arduous one and suitable only for renunciates.
The scriptures, and especially the Bhagvad Gita, talk of the three ways or margas to liberation as being that of bhakti (devotional worship), karma (work or duty) and jnana. Yet, the Advaitic ideal of non-action, which makes the all-important distinction between knowing and acting and therefore upholds jnana marga, seems to negate bhakti or karman as a means to liberation.
But Sankara does find a place for these disciplines within his framework. The disinterested or detached performance of one's duties (karman), meditation (dhyana), and devotional worship (bhakti) are all actions that help purity the mind and ignite a desire to know the Self.
Sankara saw true bhakti as selfless devotion and complete surrender of the empirical self to Brahman, its goal being the ultimate Realisation of the god that is worshipped as none other than the Self. Bhakti towards dualistic gods and goddesses would not, strictly speaking, find a place in the Advaitic tradition, but Sankara accepted it as a rudimentary beginning along the path of liberation. Dualistic bhakti would lead to mukti, or well-being in the relative world, while bhakti that is a total self-surrender to Brahman that is the Self leads to moksha or Absolute well-being. Dualistic bhakti, he said, would inevitably lead one to the non-dual bhakti of total self-surrender. Sankara therefore saw a process that begins with desire-less action and the purification of the mind with single-pointed devotion, and culminates in the 'action-less action' of meditation, which prepares the mind so that Self-knowledge may arise.
However, karman and bhakti are relevant only as long as one remains in avidya or ignorance. Once there is Self-knowledge, nothing applies. The liberated jnani (or jivanmukti) transcends all dharmas prescribed by the scriptures, but in his actions reflects all the good qualities of detachment and compassion advocated by them.
Sankara's philosophical system is, thus, at once radical and orthodox. It was the work of pure genius — and would be the springboard from which he would launch his unifying and reformist mission.
CHAPTER FOUR
The Sage and The Son
* * *
Sankara developed his elaborate yet minutely fine-tuned philosophy of Vedanta through commentaries (bhashyas) on the scriptures. It is generally believed that he completed his major works by the time he was sixteen. However, it is unclear in what order the works were written.
The major works fall into three broad categories: the commentaries on the Upanishads, which contain the first glimmerings of intuitive knowledge and direct experience; a commentary on the Brahmasutras, which supported the revelations in the Upanishads with reason and logic to form a philosophical tradition called Vedanta; and a commentary on the Bhagvad Gita, which dealt with the practical implications of Vedic knowledge and philosophy.
Together, the commentaries established a system t
hat was comprehensive and complete, covering every aspect of transcendental and spiritual/religious experience.
The most important of them is his commentary on the Brahmasutras. Called the Brahmasutrabhashya, this magnum opus by Sankara is considered the most sacred, complete and definitive work of Advaitic literature.
The Brahmasutras are generally believed to have been written by Badarayana, sometime between 600 and 200 BC. They systemised the philosophy of the later Upanishads into the form known as Vedanta. The later Upanishads had moved away from the idea of a pantheon of gods and goddesses, and put forth the idea of a single cosmic principle — the Brahman — as the true Self of all sentient beings, indeed as the matrix of the phenomenal world. It was, in fact, not just an idea but also the expression of the direct experience of the seers and mystics who composed the verses of the later Upanishads.
The Vedanta developed in the Brahmasutras picked up and continued this theme, interpreting it in the light of the views of great thinkers like Badari, Jaimini, Asmarathya, Atreya, Kasakrtsna and Auduloni. The personal vision of the seers was stated in abstract conceptual terms and backed by logical arguments to form a complex, sophisticated philosophical system.
The Brahmasutras discussed intricate ideas that were reinterpreted by Sankara in the Brahmasutrabhashya and that formed the core of his philosophy of Advaita.
Other than the major works, Sankara is also said to have written a series of commentaries on lesser known scriptures, and composed a few stotras (hymns) during this period. A large number of works, including hymns and minor philosophical treatises, are believed to have been composed by him in the next sixteen years that he spent travelling across the length and breadth of the subcontinent. The authenticity of all these works as those of Sankara has, however, been disputed by scholars and historians down the ages. At best, it may be that parts of the works were written by Sankara; many of them may well have been written by disciples and then attributed to Sankara.
