Shankara’s Self Evaluation: Philosopher or Commentator?

Before we explore what other philosophers and academics have to say, it is perhaps befitting that we first try to find out what did Shankara had to say about himself. In my article, Shankara: Not The Founder of Advaita Vedanta But A Link in the Timeless Tradition I made the following important observations:

• That Shankara was not the founder of any system of philosophy. In fact, the Vedanta tradition does not recognize any human as the founder of this philosophy.
• The entire philosophy of Advaita Vedanta rests on the authority of shrutis/ revealed scriptures or the Upanishads as a means of knowledge and which is verified by the experience of all enlightened beings.
• Shankara, in his commentaries, mentions the names of several teachers that were part of his sampradaya/tradition, and who preceded him.

“Advaita Vedanta per se did not originate with the composition of the Brahma-sutra nor with the advent of Sankara. As a matter of fact, both Badarayana, the author of the Brahma-sutra, and Sankara, the author of the Sariraka-bhasya (commentary) on the Brahma-sutra, have referred to some ancient teachers and schools belonging to the Advaita tradition in their respective work(s) at more than one place, as will be seen hereinafter. Badarayana, for example, makes allusion (s) to teachers like, Asmarathya, Audulomi and Kasakrtsna’, etc., while Sankara, referring to “his” “Sampradaya” (i.e. tradition), quotes certain old teachers “with the reverence appropriate to the elders of a tradition one accepts”. The latter and his pupils make constant references to certain “Vrttikaras” (authors of sub-commentaries. on the Brahma-sutra), in their works, and specially to a “Sarirakamimamsa Vritti” (i.e., a sub-commentary on the Brahma-sutra), whose author is named as Upavarsa. Sankara considers this commentator as a member of his own tradition, and refers to him in reverence as “Bhagavan”. About ninety-nine such “vrtti-s” are referred to in the Sariraka-bhasya where Sankara even refutes some of them. The: references given above are so significant that it becomes imperative to survey the old Advaita tradition which may be called the “mystic” tradition, as in most cases not much is known about the teachers referred to above, apart from their names, and in some cases, their thoughts and works.” ^[1]

In my articles Difficulties in Finding the True Method of Advaita Vedanta of Shankaracharya – Part 1 and Difficulties in Finding the True Method of Advaita Vedanta of Shankaracharya – Part 2 : Pre-Shankara Schools I have discussed the names of several teachers of Vedanta who preceded Shankara and which conclusively go on to show that Shankara was not enunciating any new philosophy but only following a time-honoured tradition of teachers who knew the way to interpret the cryptic utterances of the Upanishads.

It is well known that Gaudapada has the universal reputation in the Vedantic world of having been the teacher of Shankara’s teacher. The Karikas he composed on the Mandukya Upanishad are even today still treated with the deepest respect by all Advaitins in the course of their formal study. Again, he is mentioned with honour in Sri Sankara’s commentary on the Brahma Sutras as a knower of the true tradition (sampradaya), in the passages, ‘And so a great knower of the tradition says’ (B.S.Bh.II.1.14) and ‘In this connection a great Teacher who know the true tradition about the meaning of the Upanishads has said…‘ (B.S.Bh.II.1.9).

Now, Gaudapada himself has referred with marks of respect to earlier knowers of the tradition, in the words, ‘By experts in the Upanishads’ (G.K.II.31) and ‘By sages thoroughly conversant with the Veda’ (G.K.II.35). And then Shankara has himself expressed his profound veneration for the true tradition at various places in Bhagavad Gita . For example,

“The contemptible “sage” who holds such a view thinks he is bringing out the true meaning of transmigratory experience and of liberation from it, and also the true meaning of the Veda as a whole. But in fact he is a “slayer of the Self”, confused himself and leading others into confusion. Because he is bereft of the true tradition for interpreting the Veda, he rejects what it teaches and reads into it what it does not teach. One who does not know the true tradition for interpreting the Veda is therefore to be ignored as an ignoramus, even if he be learned in all the sciences’ (Bh.G.Bh.XIII.2).

Elsewhere in the same work, he writes:

“But some persons, believing themselves to be very wise, say that the intellect cannot attain to the Self because the latter is formless, so that it is hard to become established in right metaphysical knowledge. True, indeed, it is hard for those who have no teacher and belong to no tradition, who have not heard the Upanishadic texts in the traditionally prescribed way, whose minds are wholly attached to external objects and who have not pursued the right path with diligence…” (Bh.G.Bh.XVIII.50).

We also find the following sentence in the Brhadaranyaka Commentary: ‘And in this connection one (i.e. Dravidacarya) who knew the true tradition used to recount a little story’ (Brhad.Bh.II.i.20). Thus, Shankara showed his profound respect for the true tradition.

All the above quotes show that Shankara undoubtedly was aware of a tradition that existed before him for correctly interpreting and teaching the truth of the revealed scriptures/Upanishads: he was nowhere considering himself to be a pioneer of any philosophy.

Secondly, let us consider the indubitable authority he considered the srutis/Upanishads to be as a means of knowledge of truth/Brahman, wherein he brushed aside any logical reasoning or system of philosophy advanced by any philosopher when it contradicted the reasoning of the Upanishads. In his Brahmasutra Bhashya, which is undoubtedly considered to be the original work of Shankara, in his commentary on the very first verse itself he states that

“Therefore starting with the presentation of a deliberation on Brahman, here is commenced an ascertainment of the meaning of the texts of the Upanishads with the help of reasoning not opposed to the Upanishads themselves, for the purpose of leading to emancipation (through knowledge)”

~ Bs. Bh. Verse 1.i.1, Translation by Swami Gambhirananda

The above quote very clearly shows the task that Shankara has cut out for himself in the commentaries. He is not giving any of his own reasoning, only following the reasoning that is implicit in the Upanishads. That Shankara gave such an eminent and primary importance to the Shrutis/Revealed Scriptures or the Upanishads rather than any personal philosophy is brought out in another very revealing commentary:

“For this further reason, one should not on the strength of mere logic challenge something that has to be known from the Vedas. For reasoning, that has no Vedic foundation and springs from the mere imagination of persons, lacks conclusiveness, For man’s conjecture has no limits. Thus it is seen that an argument discovered by adepts with great effort is falsified by other adepts; and an argument hit upon by the latter is proved to be hollow by still others. So nobody can rely on any argument as conclusive, for human intellect differs. If, however, the reasoning of somebody having wide fame, say for instance, Kapila or someone else, be relied on under the belief that this must be conclusive, even so it surely remains inconclusive, inasmuch as people, whose greatness is well recognized and who are the initiators of scriptures (or schools of thought)—for instance, Kapila, Kanada, and others—are seen to hold divergent views.”

~ Bs. Bh. Verse 2.i.11, Translation by Swami Gambhirananda

The above quote should conclusively lay to rest any notions entertained by anyone about the fact that Shankara was considering himself to be an original philosopher. He overrides all individual philosophers, no matter how legendary their status, by the simple observation that their systems of thought differ: ultimately according absolute authority only to the Vedas/Upanishads as a means for knowing the absolute truth.

This certainly does not mean that he is blindly venerating the Vedas. For, his further commentary on the same verse shows that the authority of the Vedas ultimately rests on true illuminative experience verified by all liberated beings and that it is the same for all of them. (Unlike the contradicting systems of philosophy of individual philosophers)

“For this extremely sublime subject-matter, concerned with the reality of the cause of the Universe and leading to the goal of liberation, cannot even be guessed without the help of the Vedas, And we said that It cannot be known either through perception, being devoid of form etc, or through inference etc., being devoid of the grounds of inference etc.

Besides, it is the accepted view of all who stand by liberation that freedom from bondage comes from true illumination. And that true enlightenment has no diversity, since its content is the thing-in-itself. That content of knowledge is said to be the most real since it ever remains the same; and in the world, the knowledge of that kind is said to be right knowledge, as for instance, the knowledge about fire that it is hot. This being the case, people should have no divergence when they have true knowledge, whereas the difference among people whose knowledge is based on reasoning is well known from their mutual opposition. For it is a patent fact of experience, that when a logician asserts, “This indeed is the true knowledge”, it is upset by somebody else. And what is established by the latter is disproved by still another. How can any knowledge, arising from reasoning, be correct, when its content has no fixity of form?”

Historical Precedents to Philosophical Advaita Concepts Attributed to Shankara

The foregoing discussions in this article would have undoubtedly helped the reader ascertain the following key points:

1. Shankara was just a link in the tradition rather than an individual or pioneer philosopher of Advaita
2. Shankara accorded absolute authority only to the Upanishads as a means of knowledge of truth, rather than to any logical system of philosophy which did not agree with the reasoning of the Upanishads.

However, some lingering doubts may still remain in the minds of the readers that even though Shankara was following a tradition, he may have injected some new concepts or vocabulary into his commentaries. To allay all such doubts, I am providing in a convenient tabular format the various concepts Shankara is commonly attributed to have introduced, but which have clear historical precedents, either in the Upanishads themselves, or in the writings of teachers who came before Shankara in the Advaita tradition as well as outside it.

For this task, I have almost wholly drawn from the very scholarly, voluminous and highly acclaimed research presented by Japanese scholar Hajime Nakamura in his book “A History of Early Vedanta Philosophy” ^[2]. Except for Gaudapada who authored Mandukya Karika and Bhartrhari, who authored Vakyapadiya , none of the works of pre-Shankara Vedanta philosophers mentioned in the table are extant today. The author, however, has very painstakingly collated the doctrines and sayings of these philosophers mentioned in works of later schools, and then, through a process of careful selection, comparison and studying comparatively these references, he has been able to clarify the general contours of the thought of pre-Shankara philosophers whose works, though sadly lost to us, still leave their footprints in the writings of later authors

The Mathas/Vedantic Monasteries Founded by Shankara Continue his Legacy

If we accept the fact that a great number of original philosophers appeared before Shankara and that his efforts were mainly directed to synthesizing their achievements, what is the reason for their works being lost and only Shankara’s works being transmitted to posterity? Here I would like to give one possible reason that could be the reason for Shankara’s lasting legacy. Shankara’s reverence today may be linked to institutional factors as much as his scholarly significance as a commentator.

“According to the unified opinion of various legends of India, Shankara travelled extensively throughout various parts of India, propagated Vedantic thought, and built many monasteries (mathas) [as I have already mentioned while discussing the Shankara Digvijayas.] These monasteries exist even today, and they form centres of Vedantic learning. Prior to Shankara, however, nothing is known about the monasteries of the Vedanta school. This is because according to the Laws of Manu, only those who have fulfilled the role of the householder can renounce and become recluses to concentrate on the truth of Brahman as taught in the Upanishads. Vedantic ideas were mainly transmitted by wandering monks. During the time of Bhavya (6th century), small monasteries were probably built and students of Vedanta maintained a community life to pursue their studies, but no description of their life remains to this day. This shows how insignificant this existence was. BAna (7th century) also briefly alludes to the communal life of Vedantic and other students, but he does not mention anything about a monastery exclusively for students of Vedanta.”^[5]

“Shankara, however, built great monasteries anew exclusively for the students of Vedanta. This is a fact worthy of our attention. In their way of life they approached very closely the life of the Buddhist practitioners (bhikku and bhikkuni) whom they criticized. The Vedantic students called themselves recluses (parivrajaka) as before and they were so called by others, but it was in name only. Instead of wandering through various places, they settled down in a given monastery, and though they may have travelled to other monasteries, it was a matter of changing residence rather than of wandering from place to place. It was only natural for those who practised religious austerities and received spiritual influence at monasteries founded by Shankara to revere and respect him. And the Vedanta school probably became influential in society after the time of Shankara. When we consider these historical facts, we can understand why Shankara’s works came to be specially revered, while the writings of other scholars before him came to be forgotten with the passage of time.”^[6]

Shankara as an Excellent Commentator, Though Not a Pioneer Philosopher

From the quotes and data presented in this article, we can undoubtedly make the following conclusions

1. Shankara proclaimed himself to be a theologian who clarified the true message of the Upanishads, and he did not set himself up to be the advocate of new views. He called himself ‘an Upanishadic scholar’ (Aupanisada, UpanisadvAdin) and never claimed a special role for himself.
2. He criticized others within the same Vedanta tradition as ‘people who call themselves Upanisad scholars’, and, in contrast believed himself to be an authentic Upanisad interpreter.
3. Shankara never took the initiative to coin new terminology nor advocated new theories; his standpoint is conservative, and he lived within the framework of traditional learning. His knowledge of Sanskrit was perfect.

“Shankara, therefore, was not an original philosopher who advocated a radically new theory; rather, he was a synthesizer of existing Advaita and the rejuvenator, as well as a defender, of ancient learning. It was due to his great efforts and contributions that the Vedanta school after him assumed a dominant position in the world of Indian philosophy, and in this sense his greatness is to be greatly recognized. And since the Brahma-sutra Bhashya and the commentaries he wrote on the older Upanishads were excellent works, concise and to the point^[3], his writings were revered exclusively at the expense of the works of other scholars before him. This was the reason that the actual condition of the early Vedanta school came to be obscured and neglected. As a commentator, he was unequalled.”^[4]

All this is not to undermine the enormous role Shannkara played as a scholar in the tradition of Advaita Vedanta. His works have helped in conserving the true method of Advaita Vedanta, which is so subtle that despite his colossal efforts, later teachers, philosophers, and commentators of his own school deviated from his teachings, setting up contradictory theories and again losing sight of the traditional method of teaching employed in the Upanishads. Thus, even till today, more than a thousand years later, his commentaries serve as the only gold standard for the modern seeker to understand the message of the Upanishads for attaining liberation.