Until the10th century Shankara was overshadowed by his older contemporaryMaṇḍana Miśra,[4][6] and there is no mention of him in concurrent Hindu,Buddhist orJain sources until the11th century.[7] The legendary Shankara was created in the14th century, centuries after his death, when Sringerimatha started to receive patronage from theemperors of theVijayanagara Empire[6][9][10][11] and shifted their allegiance fromAdvaiticAgamic Shaivism to Brahmanical Advaita orthodoxy.[12] Hagiographies dating from the 14th-17th centuries deified him as aruler-renunciate, travelling on adigvijaya (conquest of the four quarters)[13][14] across theIndian subcontinent to propagate his philosophy, defeating his opponents in theological debates.[15][16] These hagiographies portray him as founding fourmathas (monasteries), and Adi Shankara also came to be regarded as the organiser of theDashanami monastic order, and the unifier of theShanmata tradition of worship. The title ofShankaracharya, used by heads of certain monasteries in India, is derived from his name. Tradition also portrays him as the one who reconciled the varioussects (Vaishnavism,Shaivism, andShaktism) with the introduction of thePañcāyatana form ofworship, the simultaneous worship of five deities – Ganesha, Surya, Vishnu, Shiva and Devi, arguing that all deities were but different forms of the oneBrahman, the invisible Supreme Being.[17]
Owing to his later fame over 300 texts are attributed to him, including commentaries (Bhāṣya), introductory topical expositions (Prakaraṇa grantha) and poetry (Stotra).[18][19] However, most of these are likely to have been written by admirers, or pretenders, or scholars with an eponymous name.[20][21] Works known to have been written by Shankara himself are theBrahmasutrabhasya,[18] his commentaries on tenprincipal Upanishads,[18][20] his commentary on theBhagavad Gita,[22] and theUpadeśasāhasrī.[23][24] The authenticity of Shankara as the author ofVivekacūḍāmaṇi has been questioned and mostly rejected by scholarship.[25][26]
His authentic works present a harmonizing reading of theshastras, with liberating knowledge of the self at its core, synthesizing theAdvaita Vedanta teachings of his time.[27][web 1] The central concern of Shankara's writings was the liberating knowledge of the true identity ofjivatman (individual self) asĀtman-Brahman,[24][28] taking the Upanishads as an independent means of knowledge, beyond the ritually orientedMīmāṃsā-exegesis of the Vedas.[29][30][note 4][note 5] Shankara's Advaita showed influences fromMahayana Buddhism, despite Shankara's critiques;[31][32] and HinduVaishnava opponents have even accused Shankara of being a "crypto-Buddhist,"[33][34][35][note 6] a qualification which is rejected by the Advaita Vedanta tradition, highlighting their respective views onAtman,Anatta andBrahman.[36][note 7]
Dating
Several different dates have been proposed for Shankara.[37] While the Advaita tradition assigns him to the 5th century BCE, the scholarly-accepted dating places Shankara to be a scholar from the first half of the 8th century CE.[29][38]
Matha datings
509–477BCE: this dating is based on records of the heads of the Shankara's cardinal institutionsMaṭhas. The exact dates of birth of Adi Shankaracharya believed by four monasteries areDvārakā at 491 BCE,[note 8]Jyotirmath at 485 BCE,Jagannatha Puri at 484 BCE andSringeri at 483 BCE.[41] while according to theKanchipuram Peetham Adi Shankara was born in Kali 2593 (509 BCE).[42][note 9]
The records of theSringeri Matha state that Shankara was born in the 14th year of the reign of "Vikramaditya", but it is unclear to which king this name refers.[45] Though some researchers identify the name withChandragupta II (4th century CE), modern scholarship accepts the Vikramaditya as being from theChalukya dynasty of Badami, most likelyVikramaditya II (733–746 CE).[45]
Scholarly datings
788–820 CE: This was proposed by late 19th and early twentieth century scholars, following K.P. Tiele,[note 10] and was customarily accepted by scholars such asMax Müller, Macdonnel, Pathok, Deussen and Radhakrishna.[46][47] Though the 788–820 CE dates are widespread in 20th-century publications, recent scholarship has questioned the 788–820 CE dates.[48][note 11]
44–12BCE: the commentator Anandagiri believed he was born at Chidambaram in 44 BCE and died in 12 BCE.[52]
6th century CE: Telang placed him in this century. Sir R.G. Bhandarkar believed he was born in 680 CE.[52]
805–897 CE: Venkiteswara not only places Shankara later than most, but also had the opinion that it would not have been possible for him to have achieved all the works apportioned to him, and has him live ninety-two years.[52]
Adi Sankara Keerthi Sthampa Mandapam, Kalady, Kochi
Traditional views of Shankara
Shankara has an unparallelled status in the tradition ofAdvaita Vedanta. Hagiographies from the 14th-17th century portray him as a victor who travelled all over India to help restore the study of the Vedas.[53] According to Frank Whaling, some Hindus, particularly those who follow Advaita, view Shankara as someone who defended Hindu dharma in response to Buddhist and Jain challenges and contributed to the decline of Buddhism in India.[54] His teachings andtradition are central toSmartism and have influencedSant Mat lineages.[55] Tradition portrays him as the one who reconciled the various sects (Vaishnavism, Shaivism, and Saktism) with the introduction of thePañcāyatana form ofworship, the simultaneous worship of five deities – Ganesha, Surya, Vishnu, Shiva and Devi, arguing that all deities were but different forms of the oneBrahman, the invisible Supreme Being,[17] implying that Advaita Vedanta stood above all other traditions.[56]
Historical Shankara and (lack of) early influence (until 10th century)
Scholars have questioned Shankara's early influence in India.[9] The Buddhist scholarRichard E. King states,
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.[4]
According to numerous scholars, Shankara and other early Advaitins were probably Vaishnavites, or at least teaching in a Vaishnava-oriented milieu, and Shankara may have had aPancaratra background.[57][a]
According to Clark, "Sankara was relatively unknown during his life-time, and probably for several centuries after, as there is no mention of him in Buddhist or Jain sources for centuries; nor is he mentioned by other important philosophers of the ninth and tenth centuries."[7] According to King and Roodurmun, until the 10th century Shankara was overshadowed by his older contemporaryMandana-Misra, the latter considered to be the major representative of Advaita.[4][6]Maṇḍana Miśra, an older contemporary of Shankara,[3] was a Mīmāṃsā scholar and a follower ofKumarila, but also wrote a seminal text on Advaita that has survived into the modern era, theBrahma-siddhi.[58][59] The "theory of error" set forth in theBrahma-siddhi became the normative Advaita Vedanta theory of error,[60] and for a couple of centuries he was the most influential Vedantin.[61][6][note 13] His studentVachaspati Miśra, who is believed to have been an incarnation of Shankara to popularize the Advaita view,[62] wrote theBhamati, a commentary on Shankara'sBrahma Sutra Bhashya, and theBrahmatattva-samiksa, a commentary on Mandana Mishra'sBrahma-siddhi. His thought was mainly inspired by Mandana Miśra, and harmonises Shankara's thought with that of Mandana Miśra.[63][web 2] The Bhamati school takes an ontological approach. It sees theJiva as the source of avidya.[web 2] It sees yogic practice and contemplation as the main factor in the acquirement of liberation, while the study of the Vedas and reflection are additional factors.[64][65] The later Advaita Vedanta tradition incorporated Maṇḍana Miśra into the Shankara-fold, by identifying him withSureśvara (9th century),[66] believing that Maṇḍana Miśra became a disciple of Shankara after a public debate which Shankara won.[58][67]
According toSatchidanandendra Sarasvati, "almost all the later Advaitins were influenced by Mandana Misra andBhaskara."[68] He argues that most of post-Shankara Advaita Vedanta actually deviates from Shankara, and that only his student Suresvara, who's had little influence, represents Shankara correctly.[69] In this view, Shankara's influential student Padmapada misunderstood Shankara, while his views were manitained by the Suresvara school.[69][note 14]
Vaishnavite Vedanta (10th-14th century)
Hajime Nakamura states that prior to Shankara, views similar to his already existed, but did not occupy a dominant position within the Vedanta.[70] Until the 11th century, Vedanta itself was a peripheral school of thought;[71] Vedanta became a major influence when it was utilized by various sects of Hinduism to ground their doctrines.[72] The early Vedanta scholars were from the upper classes of society, well-educated in traditional culture. They formed a social elite, "sharply distinguished from the general practitioners and theologians of Hinduism."[73] Their teachings were "transmitted among a small number of selected intellectuals".[73] Works of the early Vedanta schools do not contain references to Vishnu or Shiva.[74] It was only after Shankara that "the theologians of the various sects of Hinduism utilized Vedanta philosophy to a greater or lesser degree to form the basis of their doctrines,"[75] whereby "its theoretical influence upon the whole of Indian society became final and definitive."[73] Examples areRamanuja (11th c.), who alignedbhakti, "the major force in the religions of Hinduism," with philosophical thought, meanwhile rejecting Shankara's views,[web 3] and theNath-tradition.[76]
Vijayanagara Empire and Vidyaranya (14th century) - creation of legendary (hagiographic) views
In medieval times, Advaita Vedanta position as most influential Hindudarsana started to take shape, as Advaitins in the Vijayanagara Empire competed for patronage from the royal court, and tried to convert others to their sect.[77] It is only during this period that the historical fame and cultural influence of Shankara and Advaita Vedanta was established.[9][11][78] Many of Shankara's biographies were created and published in and after the 14th century, such as Vidyaranya's widely citedŚankara-vijaya.Vidyaranya, also known as Madhava, who was the 12th Jagadguru of the Śringeri Śarada Pītham from 1380 to 1386[79] and a minister in the Vijayanagara Empire,[80] inspired the re-creation of the HinduVijayanagara Empire of South India. This may have been in response to the devastation caused by the IslamicDelhi Sultanate,[9][11][78][80] but his efforts were also targeted at Sri Vaishnava groups, especiallyVisishtadvaita, which was dominant in territories conquered by the Vijayanagara Empire.[81] Furthermore, sects competed for patronage from the royal court, and tried to convert others to their own sectarian system.[77] Vidyaranya and his brothers, note Paul Hacker and other scholars,[9][11] wrote extensive Advaitic commentaries on the Vedas and Dharma to make "the authoritative literature of the Aryan religion" more accessible.[82] Vidyaranya was an influential Advaitin, and he created legends to turn Shankara, whose elevated philosophy had no appeal to gain widespread popularity, into a "divine folk-hero who spread his teaching through hisdigvijaya ("universal conquest," see below) all over India like a victorious conqueror."[82][83] In hisdoxographySarvadarśanasaṅgraha ("Summary of all views") Vidyaranya presented Shankara's teachings as the summit of alldarsanas, presenting the otherdarsanas as partial truths which converged in Shankara's teachings, which was regarded to be the most inclusive system.[84][82] The Vaishanava traditions of Dvaita and Visishtadvaita were not classified as Vedanta, and placed just above Buddhism and Jainism, reflecting the threat they posed for Vidyaranya's Advaita allegiance.[85] Bhedabheda wasn't mentioned at all, "literally written out of the history of Indian philosophy."[86] Such was the influence of theSarvadarśanasaṅgraha, that early Indologists also regarded Advaita Vedanta as the most accurate interpretation of the Upanishads.[85] And Vidyaranya founded amatha, proclaiming that it was established by Shankara himself.[82][83] Vidyaranya enjoyed royal support,[80] and his sponsorship and methodical efforts helped establish Shankara as a rallying symbol of values, spread historical and cultural influence of Shankara's Vedānta philosophies, and establish monasteries (mathas) to expand the cultural influence of Shankara and Advaita Vedānta.[9]
Hagiographies:Digvijaya - "The conquests of Shankara" (14th-17th century)
Reliable information on Shankara's actual life is scanty.[2] His existing biographies are not historical accurate documents, but politically motivated hagiographies which were all written several centuries after his time and abound in legends and improbable events.[48]
There are at least fourteen different knownhagiographies of Adi Shankara's life.[38] These, as well as other hagiographical works on Shankara, were written many centuries to a thousand years after Shankara's death,[87] in Sanskrit and non-Sanskrit languages, and the hagiographies are filled with legends and fiction, often mutually contradictory.[38][note 15]
Many of these are called theŚankara Vijaya ('The conquests (digvijaya) of Shankara'), while some are calledGuruvijaya,Sankarabhyudaya andShankaracaryacarita. Of these, theBrhat-Sankara-Vijaya by Citsukha is the oldest hagiography but only available in excerpts, whileSankaradigvijaya by Mādhava (17th c.) andSankaravijaya by Anandagiri are the most cited.[2][38] Other significant hagiographies are theCidvilāsīya Śaṅkara Vijayaṃ (of Cidvilāsa, c. between the 15th and 17th centuries), and theKeraļīya Śaṅkara Vijayaṃ (of the Kerala region, extant from c. the 17th century).[88][89]
Scholars note that one of the most cited Shankara hagiographies, Anandagiri's, includes stories and legends about historically different people, but all bearing the same name of Sri Shankaracarya or also referred to as Shankara but likely meaning more ancient scholars with names such as Vidya-sankara, Sankara-misra and Sankara-nanda.[2] Some hagiographies are probably written by those who sought to create a historical basis for their rituals or theories.[2][87]
Early life
According to the oldest hagiographies, Shankara was born in the southern Indian state ofKerala, in a village namedKaladi[38][90] sometimes spelled as Kalati or Karati.[91][note 16] His parents were an aged, childless, couple who led a devout life of service to the poor. They named their child Shankara, meaning "giver of prosperity".[92] His father died while Shankara was very young.[38] Shankara'supanayanam, the initiation into student-life, had to be delayed due to the death of his father, and was then performed by his mother.[93]
Sannyasa
Shankara's hagiographies describe him as someone who was attracted to the life ofSannyasa (hermit) from early childhood. His mother disapproved. A story, found in every hagiography, describes Shankara at age eight going to a river with his mother,Sivataraka, to bathe, where he is caught by a crocodile.[94] Shankara calls out to his mother to give him permission to become aSannyasin (a religious ascetic), or else the crocodile will kill him. The mother agrees and Shankara is freed, and leaves his home for education. He reaches a Saivite sanctuary along a river in a north-central state of India, and becomes the disciple of a teacher namedGovinda Bhagavatpada.[94][95] The stories in various hagiographies diverge in details about the first meeting between Shankara and hisGuru, where they met, as well as what happened later.[94] Several texts suggest Shankara's schooling with Govindapada happened along the riverNarmada inOmkareshwar, but a few place it along the River Ganges in Kashi (Varanasi) as well as Badari (Badrinath in the Himalayas).[95]
The hagiographies vary in their description of where he went, who he met and debated and many other details of his life. Most mention Shankara studying theVedas,Upanishads andBrahmasutra with Govindapada, and Shankara authoring several key works in his youth, while he was studying with his teacher.[96] It is with his teacher Govinda, that Shankara studied Gaudapadiya Karika, as Govinda was himself taught by Gaudapada.[38] Most also mention a meeting with scholars of theMīmāṃsā school of Hinduism namely Kumarila and Prabhakara, as well as Mandana and various Buddhists, inShastrartha (an Indian tradition of public philosophical debates attended by large number of people, sometimes with royalty).[95]
Travels (Digvijaya) and disciples
Thereafter, the hagiographies about Shankara vary significantly. Different and widely inconsistent accounts of his life include diverse journeys, pilgrimages, public debates, installation of yantras and lingas, as well as the founding of monastic centers in north, east, west and south India.[2][95]
While the details and chronology vary, most hagiographies present Shankara as traveling widely within India, Gujarat to Bengal, and participating in public philosophical debates with different orthodox schools ofHindu philosophy, as well as heterodox traditions such as Buddhists, Jains, Arhatas, Saugatas, andCharvakas.[97][98][page needed][99][page needed] The hagiographies credit him with starting severalMatha (monasteries), but this is uncertain.[97] Ten monastic orders in different parts of India are generally attributed to Shankara's travel-inspiredSannyasin schools, each with Advaita notions, of which four have continued in his tradition: Bharati(Sringeri), Sarasvati(Kanchi), Tirtha and Asramin(Dvaraka).[100] Other monasteries that record Shankara's visit include Giri, Puri, Vana, Aranya, Parvata and Sagara – all names traceable to theAshrama system in Hinduism and Vedic literature.[100]
Shankara had a number of disciple scholars during his travels, includingPadmapadacharya (also called Sanandana, associated with the textAtma-bodha),Sureśvaracharya,Totakacharya,Hastamalakacharya, Chitsukha, Prthividhara, Chidvilasayati, Bodhendra, Brahmendra, Sadananda and others, who authored their own literature on Shankara and Advaita Vedanta.[97][101]
Death
According to hagiographies, supported by four maths, Adi Shankara died atKedarnath in the northern Indian state ofUttarakhand, a Hindu pilgrimage site in the Himalayas.[18][102] Texts say that he was last seen by his disciples behind the Kedarnath temple, walking in the Himalayas until he was not traced. Some texts locate his death in alternate locations such asKanchipuram (Tamil Nadu) and somewhere in the state of Kerala.[95] According to the hagiographies related to the monastery of Kanchi, Adi Sankara attains sidhi at Kanchi.[103]
Hagiographies: attribution of Mathas and Smarta tradition (14-17th century)
Advaita Vedanta is, at least in the west, primarily known as a philosophical system. But it is also a tradition ofrenunciation. Philosophy and renunciation are closely related:[web 4]
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.[web 4]
In the 14th century an elaborate legend was created, presenting Shankara as an incarnation ofShiva to facilitate the adoption of his teachings by previously Saiva-orientedmathas in the Vijayanagara Empire.[b] From the 14th century onwards, hagiographies began to present Shankara as an incarnation of Shiva, portraying him as establishing theDaśanāmi Sampradaya,[104] organizing a section of theEkadandi monks under an umbrella grouping of ten names.[web 4] Several other Hindu monastic and Ekadandi traditions, however, remained outside the organisation of the Dasanāmis.[105][106]
According to tradition, Adi Sankara organised the Hindu monks of these ten sects or names under fourMaṭhas (Sanskrit:मठ) (monasteries), with the headquarters atDvārakā in the West,Jagannatha Puri in the East,Sringeri in the South andBadrikashrama in the North.[web 4] Eachmatha was headed by one of his four main disciples, who each continues the Vedanta Sampradaya.
According to Paul Hacker, the system may have been initiated byVidyaranya (14th c.), who may have founded amatha, proclaiming that it was established by Shankara himself, as part of his campaign to propagate Shankara's Advaita Vedanta.[82][83] Vidyaranya enjoyed royal support,[80] and his sponsorship and methodical efforts helped establish Shankara as a rallying symbol of values, spread historical and cultural influence of Shankara's Vedānta philosophies, and establish monasteries (mathas) to expand the cultural influence of Shankara and Advaita Vedānta.[9]
Traditionally, Shankara is regarded as the greatest teacher[107][108] and reformer of theSmartismsampradaya, which is one of four majorsampradaya ofHinduism.[109][108] According toAlf Hiltebeitel, Shankara established the nondualist interpretation of the Upanishads as the touchstone of a revivedsmarta tradition:
Practically, Shankara fostered a rapprochement between Advaita andsmarta orthodoxy, which by his time had not only continued to defend thevarnasramadharma theory as defining the path ofkarman, but had developed the practice ofpancayatanapuja ("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'sistadevata ("deity of choice").[110]
Panchayatana puja (IASTPañcāyatana pūjā) is a system ofpuja (worship) in the Smarta tradition.[111] It consists of the worship of five deities set in aquincunx pattern,[112] the five deities beingShiva,Vishnu,Devi,Surya, and anIshta Devata such asKartikeya, orGanesha or any personal god of devotee's preference.[113][114] Sometimes the Ishta Devata is the sixth deity in the mandala.[111] while in theShanmata system,[115]Skanda, also known asKartikeya andMurugan, is added. Panchayatana puja is a practice that became popular in medieval India,[111] and has been attributed to Adi Shankara.[116] However, archaeological evidence suggests that this practice long predates the birth of Adi Shankara.[note 17]
Shankara's position was further established in the 19th and 20th-century, whenneo-Vedantins and westernOrientalists elevated Advaita Vedanta "as the connecting theological thread that united Hinduism into a single religious tradition."[118] Shankara became "an iconic representation of Hindu religion and culture," despite the fact that most Hindus do not adhere to Advaita Vedanta.[8]
21st century
A 108-foot statue of Adi Shankara was unveiled nearOmkareshwar Temple inMadhya Pradesh to commemorate his life and work on 21 September 2023.[119] Another 12-foot statue at Kedarnath was unveiled by Indian Prime MinisterNarendra Modi on 5 November 2019, is made of chlorite schist and weighs 35 tonnes.[120][121]
Adi Shankara is highly esteemed in contemporary Advaita Vedanta, and over 300 texts are attributed to his name, including commentaries (Bhāṣya), original philosophical expositions (Prakaraṇa grantha) and poetry (Stotra).[18][19] However, most of these are not authentic works of Shankara, and are likely to be written by his admirers, or scholars whose name was also Shankaracharya.[20][21] Piantelli has published a complete list of works attributed to Adi Sankara, along with issues of authenticity for most.[122]
Authentic works
Shankara is most known for his systematic reviews and commentaries (bhashyas) on ancient Indian texts. Shankara's masterpiece of commentary is theBrahmasutrabhashya (literally, commentary onBrahma Sutras). The Brahma Sutras are a fundamental text of theVedanta school of Hinduism.[18] Shankara refers to or cites some passages from works attributed to Gaudapada (the teacher of Shankara's teacher) in his commentaries, revealing a line of influence.[123]
Other authentic works of Shankara include commentaries on theBhagavad Gita (part of hisPrasthana Trayi Bhasya).[22] HisVivarana (tertiary notes) on the commentary by Vedavyasa onYogasutras as well as those on Apastamba Dharma-sũtras (Adhyatama-patala-bhasya) are accepted by scholars as authentic works of Shankara.[127][23] Among theStotra (poetic works), theDakshinamurti Stotra, theMohamudgara Stotra(Bhaja govindam), theShivanandalahari, theCarpata-panjarika, the Visnu-satpadi, theHarimide, theDasha-shloki, and theKrishna-staka are likely to be authentic.[127][128]
Shankara also authoredUpadesasahasri, his most important original philosophical work.[23][24][24] Of other originalPrakaranas (प्रकरण, monographs, treatise), seventy-six works are attributed to Shankara. Modern era Indian scholars such as Belvalkar as well as Upadhyaya accept five and thirty-nine works respectively as authentic.[129]
Murti of Shankara at theSAT Temple in Santa Cruz, California
Shankara's stotras considered authentic include those dedicated to Krishna (Vaishnavism) and one to Shiva (Shaivism) – often considered two different sects within Hinduism. Scholars suggest that thesestotra are not sectarian, but essentially Advaitic and reach for a unified universal view of Vedanta.[128]
Shankara's commentary on theBrahma Sutras is the oldest surviving. However, in that commentary, he mentions older commentaries like those of Dravida, Bhartrprapancha and others which are either lost or yet to be found.[130]
Works of doubtful authenticity or not authentic
Commentaries on Nrisimha-Purvatatapaniya and Shveshvatara Upanishads are attributed to Shankara, but their authenticity is highly doubtful.[20][126][131] Similarly, commentaries on several early and later Upanishads attributed to Shankara are rejected by scholars[132] to be his works, and are likely works of later scholars; these include: Kaushitaki Upanishad, Maitri Upanishad, Kaivalya Upanishad, Paramahamsa Upanishad, Sakatayana Upanishad, Mandala Brahmana Upanishad, Maha Narayana Upanishad, Gopalatapaniya Upanishad. However, in Brahmasutra-Bhasya, Shankara cites some of these Upanishads as he develops his arguments, but the historical notes left by his companions and disciples, along with major differences in style and the content of the commentaries on later Upanishad have led scholars to conclude that the commentaries on later Upanishads were not Shankara's work.[126]
The authenticity of Shankara being the author ofVivekacūḍāmaṇi[133] has been questioned,[25][26] though it is "so closely interwoven into the spiritual heritage of Shankara that any analysis of his perspective which fails to consider [this work] would be incomplete."[26][note 19] According to Grimes, "modern scholars tend to reject its authenticity as a work by Shankara," while "traditionalists tend to accept it."[134] Nevertheless, Grimes argues that "there is still a likelihood that Śaṅkara is the author of the Vivekacūḍāmaṇi,"[134] noting that "it differs in certain respects from his other works in that it addresses itself to a different audience and has a different emphasis and purpose."[135]
TheAparokshanubhuti andAtma bodha are also attributed to Shankara, as his original philosophical treatises, but this is doubtful. Paul Hacker has also expressed some reservations that the compendiumSarva-darsana-siddhanta Sangraha was completely authored by Shankara, because of difference in style and thematic inconsistencies in parts.[132] Similarly,Gayatri-bhasya is doubtful to be Shankara's work.[126] Other commentaries that are highly unlikely to be Shankara's work include those onUttaragita,Siva-gita,Brahma-gita,Lalita-shasranama,Suta-samhita andSandhya-bhasya. The commentary on the Tantric workLalita-trisati-bhasya attributed to Shankara is also unauthentic.[126]
Shankara is widely credited with commentaries on other scriptural works, such as theVishnu sahasranāma and theSānatsujātiya,[136] but both these are considered apocryphal by scholars who have expressed doubts.[126]Hastamalakiya-bhasya is also widely believed in India to be Shankara's work and it is included inSamata-edition of Shankara's works, but some scholars consider it to be the work of Shankara's student.[126]
I am Consciousness, I amBliss, I am Shiva, I am Shiva.[note 20]
Without hate, without infatuation, without craving, without greed; Neither arrogance, nor conceit, never jealous I am; Neitherdharma, norartha, neitherkama, normoksha am I; I am Consciousness, I am Bliss, I am Shiva, I am Shiva.
Without sins, without merits, without elation, without sorrow; Neither mantra, nor rituals, neither pilgrimage, nor Vedas; Neither the experiencer, nor experienced, nor the experience am I, I am Consciousness, I am Bliss, I am Shiva, I am Shiva.
Without fear, without death, without discrimination, without caste; Neither father, nor mother, never born I am; Neither kith, nor kin, neither teacher, nor student am I; I am Consciousness, I am Bliss, I am Shiva, I am Shiva.
Without form, without figure, without resemblance am I; Vitality of all senses, in everything I am; Neither attached, nor released am I; I am Consciousness, I am Bliss, I am Shiva, I am Shiva.
According to Koller, Shankara, and his contemporaries, made a significant contribution in understanding Buddhism and the ancient Vedic traditions, then transforming the extant ideas, particularly reforming the Vedanta tradition of Hinduism, making it India's most important "spiritual tradition" for more than a thousand years.[139][note 21] Benedict Ashley credits Adi Shankara for unifying two seemingly disparate philosophical doctrines in Hinduism, namelyAtman andBrahman.[140]
According to Nakamura, Shankara was not an original thinker, but systematised the works of preceding philosophers.[141] The central theme of Shankara's writings is the liberating knowledge of the identity of the Self (Ātman) andBrahman.[24][28]Moksha isattained in this life by recognizing the identity ofAtman andBrahman,[24] as mediated by theMahavakyas, especiallyTat Tvam Asi, "That you are."
Takht-i-Suleiman, Srinugger Srinagar," a photo by Samuel Bourne, 1860's* (BL) by tradition, this is the hill on which Shankaracharya meditated during his round of travels
Shankara lived in the time of the great "Late classical Hinduism",[142] which lasted from 650 till 1100 CE.[142] This era was one of political instability that followed theGupta dynasty andKing Harsha of the 7th century CE.[143] Power became decentralised in India. Several larger kingdoms emerged, with "countless vassal states".[144][note 22] The kingdoms were ruled via a feudal system. Smaller kingdoms were dependent on the protection of the larger kingdoms. "The great king was remote, was exalted and deified",[144] as reflected in theTantricMandala, which could also depict the king as the centre of the mandala.[145]
The disintegration of central power also led to regionalisation of religiosity and religious rivalry.[146][note 23] Local cults and languages were enhanced, and the influence of "Brahmanic ritualistic Hinduism"[146] was diminished.[146] Rural and devotional movements arose, along withShaivism,Vaisnavism,Bhakti andTantra,[146] though "sectarian groupings were only at the beginning of their development".[146] Religious movements had to compete for recognition by the local lords,[146] andBuddhism,Jainism,Islam and various traditions within Hinduism were competing for members.[147][148][149] Buddhism in particular had emerged as a powerful influence in India's spiritual traditions in the first 700 years of the 1st millennium CE,[143][150] but lost its position after the 8th century, and began to disappear in India.[146] This was reflected in the change of puja-ceremonies at the courts in the 8th century, where Hindu gods replaced the Buddha as the "supreme, imperial deity".[note 24]
Systematizer of Advaita
According to Nakamura, comparison of the known teachings of the early Vedantins and Shankara's thought shows that most of the characteristics of Shankara's thought "were advocated by someone before Śankara".[151] Shankara "was the person who synthesized theAdvaita-vāda which had previously existed before him".[151] According to Nakamura, after the growing influence of Buddhism on Vedānta, culminating in the works of Gauḍapāda, Adi Shankara gave a Vedantic character to the Buddhistic elements in these works,[152] synthesising and rejuvenating the doctrine of Advaita.[153]
According to Koller, using ideas in ancient Indian texts, Shankara systematized the foundation for AdvaitaVedānta in the 8th century, reformingBadarayana's Vedānta tradition.[24] According to Mayeda, Shankara represents a turning point in the development of Vedānta,[152] yet he also notices that it is only since Deussens's praise that Shankara "has usually been regarded as the greatest philosopher of India."[154] Mayeda further notes that Shankara was primarily concerned withmoksha, "and not with the establishment of a complete system of philosophy or theology,"[154] following Potter, who qualifies Shankara as a "speculative philosopher."[155] Lipner notes that Shankara's "main literary approach was commentarial and hence perforce disjointed rather than procedurally systematic [...] though a systematic philosophy can be derived from Samkara's thought."[156]
Shankara has been described as influenced by Shaivism and Shaktism, but his works and philosophy suggest greater overlap with Vaishnavism, influence ofYoga school of Hinduism, but most distinctly express his Advaitin convictions with a monistic view of spirituality,[24][38][157] and his commentaries mark a turn from realism to idealism.[158][159]
Moksha - liberating knowledge of Brahman
The central theme of Shankara's writings is the liberating knowledge of the true identity ofjivatman (individual self) asĀtman-Brahman.[24][28][note 25] One of Shankara's main concerns was establishing the Upanishads as an independent means of knowledge beyond the ritually orientedMīmāṃsā exegesis of the vedas.[30][29][note 4][note 5]
According to Shankara, the one unchanging entity (Brahman) alone is real, while changing entities do not have absolute existence. Shankara's primary objective was to explain howmoksha isattained in this life by recognizing the true identity ofjivatman asAtman-Brahman,[24] as mediated by theMahāvākyas, especiallyTat Tvam Asi, "That you are." Correct knowledge ofjivatman andAtman-Brahman is the attainment ofBrahman, immortality,[160] and leads tomoksha (liberation) from suffering[note 26] andsamsara, the cycle of rebirth.[161] This is stated 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.
Shankara recognized the means of knowledge,[162][note 27] but his thematic focus was uponmetaphysics andsoteriology, and he took for granted thepramanas,[165] that isepistemology or "means to gain knowledge, reasoning methods that empower one to gain reliable knowledge".[citation needed] According to Sengaku Mayeda, "in no place in his works [...] does he give any systematic account of them,"[165] takingAtman-Brahman to be self-evident (svapramanaka) and self-established (svatahsiddha), and "an investigation of the means of knowledge is of no use for the attainment of final release."[165] Mayeda notes that Shankara's arguments are "strikingly realistic and not idealistic," arguing thatjnana is based on existing things (vastutantra), and "not upon Vedic injunction (codanatantra) nor upon man (purusatantra).[165]
According to Michael Comans (aka Vasudevacharya), Shankara considered perception and inference as a primary most reliable epistemic means, and where these means to knowledge help one gain "what is beneficial and to avoid what is harmful", there is no need for or wisdom in referring to the scriptures.[166] In certain matters related to metaphysics and ethics, says Shankara, the testimony and wisdom in scriptures such as the Vedas and the Upanishads become important.[167]
Merrell-Wolff states that Shankara accepts Vedas and Upanishads as a source of knowledge as he develops his philosophical theses, yet he never rests his case on the ancient texts, rather proves each thesis, point by point using thepramanas (means of knowledge) of reason and experience.[168][169] Hacker and Phillips note that his insight into rules of reasoning and hierarchical emphasis on epistemic steps is "doubtlessly the suggestion" of Shankara in Brahma-sutra-bhasya, an insight that flowers in the works of his companion and disciple Padmapada.[170]
Logic versus revelation
Stcherbatsky in 1927 criticized Shankara for demanding the use of logic fromMadhyamika Buddhists, while himself resorting to revelation as a source of knowledge.[31][note 28] Sircar in 1933 offered a different perspective and stated, "Sankara recognizes the value of the law of contrariety and self-alienation from the standpoint of idealistic logic; and it has consequently been possible for him to integrate appearance with reality."[171]
Recent scholarship states that Shankara's arguments on revelation are aboutapta vacana (Sanskrit: आप्तवचन, sayings of the wise, relying on word, testimony of past or present reliable experts).[172][173] It is part of his and Advaita Vedanta's epistemological foundation.[172] The Advaita Vedanta tradition considers such testimony epistemically valid, asserting that a human being needs to know numerous facts, and with the limited time and energy available, he can learn only a fraction of those facts and truths directly.[174] Shankara considered the teachings in the Vedas and Upanishads asapta vacana and a valid source of knowledge.[172] He suggests the importance of teacher-disciple relationship on combining logic and revelation to attainmoksha in his textUpadeshasahasri.[175]Anantanand Rambachan and others state that Shankara did not rely exclusively on Vedic statements, but also used a range of logical methods and reasoning methodology and otherpramanas.[176][177]
Anubhava
Anantanand Rambachan summarizes the widely held view on the role ofanubhava in Shankara's epistemology as follows, before critiquing it:
According to these [widely represented contemporary] studies, Shankara only accorded a provisional validity to the knowledge gained by inquiry into the words of theŚruti (Vedas) and did not see the latter as the unique source (pramana) ofBrahmajnana. 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.[22]
Yoga and contemplative exercises
Shankara considered the purity and steadiness of mind achieved inYoga as an aid to gainingmoksha knowledge, but such yogic state of mind cannot in itself give rise to such knowledge.[178] To Shankara, that knowledge ofBrahman springs only from inquiry into the teachings of the Upanishads.[179] The method of yoga, encouraged in Shankara's teachings notes Comans, includes withdrawal of mind from sense objects as in Patanjali's system, but it is not complete thought suppression, instead it is a "meditative exercise of withdrawal from the particular and identification with the universal, leading to contemplation of oneself as the most universal, namely, Consciousness".[180] Describing Shankara's style of yogic practice, Comans writes:
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.[180]
Shankara rejected those yoga system variations that suggest complete thought suppression leads to liberation, as well the view that theShrutis teach liberation as something apart from the knowledge of the oneness of the Self. Knowledge alone and insights relating to true nature of things, taught Shankara, is what liberates. He placed great emphasis on the study of the Upanisads, emphasizing them as necessary and sufficient means to gain Self-liberating knowledge. Sankara also emphasized the need for and the role ofGuru (Acharya, teacher) for such knowledge.[180]
Samanvayat Tatparya Linga
Shankara cautioned against cherrypicking a phrase or verse out of context from Vedic literature, and remarks in the opening chapter of his Brahmasutra-Bhasya that theAnvaya (theme or purport) of any treatise can only be correctly understood if one attends to theSamanvayat Tatparya Linga, that is six characteristics of the text under consideration: (1) the common inUpakrama (introductory statement) andUpasamhara (conclusions); (2)Abhyasa (message repeated); (3)Apurvata (unique proposition or novelty); (4)Phala (fruit or result derived); (5)Arthavada (explained meaning, praised point) and (6)Yukti (verifiable reasoning).[181][182] While this methodology has roots in the theoretical works ofNyaya school of Hinduism, Shankara consolidated and applied it with his unique exegetical method calledAnvaya-Vyatireka, which states that for proper understanding one must "accept only meanings that are compatible with all characteristics" and "exclude meanings that are incompatible with any".[183][184]
TheMahāvākyas - the identity of Ātman and Brahman
Moksha, liberation from suffering and rebirth and attaining immortality, is attained by disidentification from the body-mind complex and gaining self-knowledge as being in essenceAtman, and attaining knowledge of the identity ofĀtman andBrahman.[161][160] According to Shankara, the individual Ātman and Brahman seem different at the empirical level of reality, but this difference is only an illusion, and at the highest level of reality they are really identical.[185] The real self isSat, "the Existent," that is,Ātman-Brahman.[186][187][note 29] Whereas the difference between Ātman and non-Ātman is deemed self-evident, knowledge of the identity of Ātman and Brahman is revealed by theshruti, especially the Upanishadic statementtat tvam asi.
Mahāvākyas
According to Shankara, a large number of Upanishadic statements reveal the identity ofĀtman andBrahman. In the Advaita Vedānta tradition, four of those statements, theMahāvākyas, which are taken literal, in contrast to other statements, have a special importance in revealing this identity.[188][189] They are:
तत्त्वमसि,tat tvam asi,Chandogya VI.8.7. Traditionally rendered as "That Thou Art" (that you are),[190][191][192] withtat in Ch.U.6.8.7 referring tosat, "the Existent"[193][194][195]); correctly translated as "That's how [thus] you are,"[190][192][196] withtat in Ch.U.6.12.3, it' original location from where it was copied to other verses,[190] referring to "the very nature of all existence as permeated by [the finest essence]"[197][198]
अयमात्मा ब्रह्म,ayamātmā brahma,Mandukya II, "This Atman is Brahman."
That you are
The longest chapter of Shankara'sUpadesasahasri, chapter 18, "That Art Thou," is devoted to considerations on the insight "I am ever-free, the existent" (sat), and the identity expressed inChandogya Upanishad 6.8.7 in themahavakya (great sentence) "tat tvam asi", "that thou art."[202][203] In this statement, according to Shankara,tat refers toSat,[203] "the Existent"[193][194][204][205] Existence, Being,[206] or Brahman,[207] the Real, the "Root of the world,"[203][note 32] the true essence or root or origin of everything that exists.[194][204][206] "Tvam" refers to one's real I,pratyagatman or inner Self,[208] the "direct Witness within everything,"[209] "free from caste, family, and purifying ceremonies,"[210] the essence,Atman, which the individual at the core is.[211][212] As Shankara states in theUpadesasahasri:
Up.I.174: "Through such sentences as "Thou art That" one knows one's ownAtman, the Witness of all the internal organs." Up.I.18.190: "Through such sentences as "[Thou art] the Existent" [...] right knowledge concerning the innerAtman will become clearer." Up.I.18.193-194: "In the sentence "Thou art That" [...] [t]he word "That" means innerAtman."[213]
The statement "tat tvam asi" sheds the false notion thatAtman is different fromBrahman.[214] According toNakamura, the non-duality ofatman andBrahman "is a famous characteristic of Sankara's thought, but it was already taught by Sundarapandya"[215] (c. 600 CE or earlier).[28] Shankara cites Sundarapandya in his comments toBrahma Sutra verse I.1.4:
When the metaphorical or falseatman is non-existent, [the ideas of my] child, [my] body are sublated. Therefore, when it is realized that 'I am the existentBrahman, atman', how can anyduty exist?[216]
From this, and a large number of other accordances, Nakamura concludes that Shankar was not an original thinker, but "a synthesizer of existing Advaita and the rejuvenator, as well as a defender, of ancient learning."[217]
Meditation on theMahāvākya
In theUpadesasahasri Shankara, Shankara is ambivalent on the need for meditation on the Upanishadicmahavyaka. He states that "right knowledge arises at the moment of hearing,"[218] and rejectsprasamcaksa orprasamkhyana meditation, that is, meditation on the meaning of the sentences, and in Up.II.3 recommendsparisamkhyana,[219] separatingAtman from everything that is notAtman, that is, the sense-objects and sense-organs, and the pleasant and unpleasant things and merit and demerit connected with them.[220] Yet, Shankara then concludes with declaring that onlyAtman exists, stating that "all the sentences of theUpanishads concerning non-duality ofAtman should be fully contemplated, should be contemplated."[221] As Mayeda states, "how they [prasamcaksa orprasamkhyana versusparisamkhyana] differ from each other is not known."[222]
Prasamkhyana was advocated by Mandana Misra,[223] the older contemporary of Shankara who was the most influential Advaitin until the 10th century.[61][6][note 13] "According to Mandana, themahavakyas are incapable, by themselves, of bringing aboutbrahmajnana. TheVedanta-vakyas convey an indirect knowledge which is made direct only by deep meditation (prasamkhyana). The latter is a continuous contemplation of the purport of themahavakyas.[224] Vācaspati Miśra, a student of Mandana Misra, agreed with Mandana Misra, and their stance is defended by the Bhamati-school, founded by Vācaspati Miśra.[225] In contrast, theVivarana school founded by Prakasatman (c. 1200–1300)[226] follows Shankara closely, arguing that themahavakyas are the direct cause of gaining knowledge.[227]
Renouncement of ritualism
Shankara, in his textUpadesasahasri, discourages ritual worship such as oblations toDeva (God), because that assumes the Self within is different from theBrahman.[note 4][note 5] The "doctrine of difference" is wrong, asserts Shankara, because, "he who knows the Brahman is one and he is another, does not know Brahman".[229][230] The false notion thatAtman is different fromBrahman[214] is connected with the novice's conviction that (Upadeshasahasri II.1.25)
...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?[231]
Recognizing oneself as "the Existent-Brahman," which is mediated by scriptural teachings, is contrasted with the notion of "I act," which is mediated by relying on sense-perception and the like.[232] According to Shankara, the statement "Thou art That" "remove[s] the delusion of a hearer,"[233] "so through sentences as "Thou art That" one knows one's ownAtman, the witness of all internal organs,"[234] and not from any actions.[235][note 33] With this realization, the performance of rituals is prohibited, "since [the use of] rituals and their requisites is contradictory to the realization of the identity [ofAtman] with the highestAtman."[237]
However, Shankara also asserts that Self-knowledge is realized when one's mind is purified by an ethical life that observesYamas such asAhimsa (non-injury, non-violence to others in body, mind and thoughts) andNiyamas. Rituals and rites such asyajna (a fire ritual), asserts Shankara, can help draw and prepare the mind for the journey to Self-knowledge.[238] He emphasizes the need for ethics such asAkrodha andYamas duringBrahmacharya, stating the lack of ethics as causes that prevent students from attaining knowledge.[238][239]
Īśvara
Shankara, while rejecting empirical reality due to his position of nonduality, still attributes value to the universe as it identifies withĪśvara. He sometimes blurs the distinction betweenĪśvara andBrahman, using various terms for both. However, he generally separatesĪśvara, associated with the universe and its attributes, from the absolute nondual Brahman. Drawing from the Upanishads, Shankara seesĪśvara as the universe's material and intelligent cause, emanating it through the power ofmaya, thereby making the universe sentient and self-aware. In relation to theMandukya Upanishad, Shankara compares the universe's unmanifest state toĪśvara in a deep dreamless cosmic state.[240]
Shankara's conception of Brahman as the cause of the world does not invoke creation in the literal sense butvivartta (manifoldness without transformation), distinct fromsatkaryavada (actual transformation). Shankara argues that insentient matter cannot act purposefully and rejects any actual transformation of Brahman.[241]
Shankara's Vedanta shows similarities withMahayana Buddhism; opponents have even accused Shankara of being a "crypto-Buddhist,"[34][33][35][note 6] a qualification which is rejected by the Advaita Vedanta tradition, given the differences between these two schools. According to Shankara, a major difference between Advaita and Mahayana Buddhism are their views on Atman and Brahman.[36] According to both Loy and Jayatilleke, more differences can be discerned.[242][243] Suthren Hirst and others have also noted that Shankara's advaita may stem from a Vaishnavite advaita tradition.[244]
Similarities and influences
Despite Shankara's criticism of certain schools of Mahayana Buddhism, Shankara's philosophy shows strong similarities with the Mahayana Buddhist philosophy which he attacks.[31] According to S.N. Dasgupta,
Shankara and his followers borrowed much of their dialectic form of criticism from the Buddhists. HisBrahman was very much like thesunya 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 byVijnana Bhiksu and others that he was a hidden Buddhist himself. I am led to think that Shankara's philosophy is largely a compound ofVijnanavada andSunyavada Buddhism with the Upanisad notion of the permanence of self superadded.[32]
According to Mudgal, Shankara's Advaita and the Buddhist Madhyamaka view of ultimate reality are compatible because they are both transcendental, indescribable, non-dual and only arrived at through avia negativa (neti neti). Mudgal concludes therefore that
... the difference betweenSunyavada (Mahayana) philosophy of Buddhism andAdvaita philosophy of Hinduism may be a matter of emphasis, not of kind.[245]
Some Hindu scholars criticized Advaita for itsMaya and non-theistic doctrinal similarities with Buddhism.[246][247]Ramanuja, the founder of Vishishtadvaita Vedānta, accused Adi Shankara of being aPrachanna Bauddha, that is, a "crypto-Buddhist",[33][34] and someone who was undermining theisticBhakti devotionalism.[247] The non-Advaita scholarBhaskara of the Bhedabheda Vedānta tradition, similarly around 800 CE, accused Shankara's Advaita as "this despicable broken down Mayavada that has been chanted by the Mahayana Buddhists", and a school that is undermining the ritual duties set in Vedic orthodoxy.[247]
Differences
The qualification of "crypto-Buddhist" is rejected by the Advaita Vedanta tradition, highlighting their respective views onAtman,Anatta andBrahman.[36][note 7] There are differences in the conceptual means of "liberation."Nirvana, a term more often used in Buddhism, is the liberating 'blowing out' of craving, aided by the realization and acceptance that there is no Self (anatman) as the center of perception, craving, and delusion.Moksha, a term more common in Hinduism, is the similar liberating release from craving and ignorance, yet aided by the realization and acceptance that one's inner Self is not a personal 'ego-self', but a Universal Self.[242][248]
Films
Shankaracharya (1927), Indian silent film about Shankara by Kali Prasad Ghosh.[249]
Jagadguru Shrimad Shankaracharya (1928), Indian silent film by Parshwanath Yeshwant Altekar.[249]
Jagadguru Shankaracharya (1955), Indian Hindi film by Sheikh Fattelal.[249]
On 15 August 2013,Jagadguru Adi Shankara was released in an Indian Telugu-language biographical film written and directed by J. K. Bharavi and was later dubbed in Kannada with the same title, by Upendra giving narration for the Kannada dubbed version
^abModern scholarship places Shankara in the earlier part of the 8th century CE (c. 700–750).(Koller 2013, p. 99,Comans 2000, p. 163,Mayeda 2015) Earlier generations of scholars proposed 788–820 CE.(Comans 2000, p. 163,Mayeda 2015 The cardinal Advaita matha's assign his dates as early as 509–477 BCE.
^Adi means "first", to distinguish him from other Shankaras.
^He is also known as Shankara Bhagavatpada (Śaṅkara Bhagavatpāda), Shankara Bhagavatpadacharya (Śaṅkara Bhagavatpādācārya) orShankaracharya, sometimes spelled Sankaracharya.
^abcShankara, himself, had renounced all religious ritual acts.[228] For an example of Shankara's reasoning "why rites and ritual actions should be given up", see Karl Potter on p. 220; Elsewhere, Shankara'sBhasya on various Upanishads repeat "give up rituals and rites", see for exampleShankara's Bhasya on Brihadaranyaka Upanishad pp. 348–350, 754–757
^abcCompareMookerji 2011 onSvādhyāya (Vedic learning).Mookerji (2011, pp. 29–31) notes that the Rigveda, and Sayana's commentary, contain passages criticizing as fruitless mere recitation of theŖik (words) without understanding their inner meaning or essence, the knowledge ofdharma andParabrahman.Mookerji (2011, pp. 29, 34) concludes that in the Rigvedic education of the mantras "the contemplation and comprehension oftheir meaning was considered as more important and vital to education than their mere mechanical repetition and correct pronunciation."Mookerji (2011, p. 35) refers to Sayana as stating that "the mastery of texts,akshara-praptī, is followed byartha-bodha, perception of their meaning." (Artha may also mean "goal, purpose or essence," depending on the context. See:Sanskrit English Dictionary University of Cologne, Germany (2009); Karl Potter (1998), Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, Volume 4,ISBN81-208-0310-8, Motilal Banarsidass, pp 610 (note 17).) According toMookerji (2011, p. 36), "the realization ofTruth" and the knowledge ofparamatman as revealed to therishis is the real aim of Vedic learning, and not the mere recitation of texts.
^abKing (1995, p. 183): "It is well-known that Sankara was criticized by later (rival) Vedantins as a crypto-Buddhist (pracchana bauddha).
KN Jayatilleke (2010), Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge,ISBN978-81-208-0619-1, p. 246–249, from note 385 onwards
Steven Collins (1994), Religion and Practical Reason (Editors: Frank Reynolds, David Tracy), State Univ of New York Press,ISBN978-0-7914-2217-5, p. 64: "Central to Buddhist soteriology is the doctrine of not-self (Pali: anattā, Sanskrit: anātman, the opposed doctrine ofĀtman is central to Brahmanical thought). Put very briefly, this is the [Buddhist] doctrine that human beings have no soul, no self, no unchanging essence."
John C. Plott et al. (2000), Global History of Philosophy: The Axial Age, Volume 1, Motilal Banarsidass,ISBN978-81-208-0158-5, p. 63: "The Buddhist schools reject any Ātman concept. As we have already observed, this is the basic and ineradicable distinction between Hinduism and Buddhism".
^Arun Kumar Upadhyay: "The copper-plate of King Sudhanwa, said to have been issued to Sankara and now in the possession of Government on behalf of Dwärká Mutt, bears the date as Yudhisthira Saka 2663, Åsvin Sukla 15. This gives us 476 B.C. as the relevant year of his death. The copper-plate seems to have been issued to Sankara right towards the end of his career. King Sudhanwa is referred to not only by Jinavijaya but also by biographers like Madhava and Sadánanda."[39] Citsukha's Brhat-Sankara Vijaya also gives us the year of 2663 of Yudhi. Saka i.e., 476 B.C. as the year of Sankara's passing away.[40]
^The successive heads of the Kanchi and all other major Hindu Advaita tradition monasteries have been calledShankaracharya leading to some confusion, discrepancies and scholarly disputes. The chronology stated in Kanchi Matha texts recognizes five major Shankaras: Adi, Kripa, Ujjvala, Muka and Abhinava. According to the Kanchi Matha tradition, it is "Abhinava Shankara" that western scholarship recognizes as the Advaita scholar Shankara, while the monastery continues to recognize its 509 BCE chronology.[42][43] Also, as per astronomical details given in books Shankara Satpatha, Shankara Vijaya, Brihat Shakara Vijaya and Prachina Shankara Vijaya, it is believed that Shankaracharya was born in 509 BCE.[citation needed] According to Kanhi Peetham, having established his divine mission, the incomparable Sankara attained his BrahmTbhava (identity with Brahman) at Kanchi, in the precincts of Sri Kamakshi, in his 32nd year, in 2625 Kali, in the cyclic year Raktakshi, corresponding to 476 B.C.[44]
^Tiele based this dating on Yajnesvara Sastri's treatiseAryavidya-sudhakar ("The Moon of Noble Knowledge"), who in turn cited Bhatta Nilakantha's workSankara-mandara-saurabha ("The fragrance of Sankara's paradise tree").[46]
^The date 788–820 is also among those considered acceptable bySwami Tapasyananda, though he raises a number of questions.[49]
^Koller 2013, p. 99: "the best recent scholarship argues that he was born in 700 and died in 750 CE."
^abKing 2002, p. 128: "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."
^Potter (2006, pp. 6–7): "...these modern interpreters are implying that most Advaitins after Samkara's time are confused and basically mistaken, and that 99% of the extant classical interpretive literature on Samkara's philosophy is off the mark. This is clearly a remarkably radical conclusion. Yet, there is good reason to think that it may well be true.
^The hagiographies of Shankara mirror the pattern of synthesizing facts, fiction and legends as with other ancient and medieval era Indian scholars. Some hagiographic poems depict Shankara as a reincarnation of deityShiva, much like other Indian scholars are revered as reincarnation of other deities; for example, Mandana-misra is depicted as an embodiment of deityBrahma, Citsukha of deityVaruna, Anandagiri ofAgni, among others. SeeIsaeva (1993, pp. 69–72).
^This may be present dayKalady in central Kerala. The house he was born in is still maintained asMelpazhur Mana.
^Many Panchayatana mandalas and temples have been uncovered that are from theGupta Empire period, and one Panchayatana set from the village of Nand (about 24 kilometers fromAjmer) has been dated to belong to theKushan Empire era (pre-300 CE).[117] The Kushan period set includes Shiva, Vishnu, Surya, Brahma and one deity whose identity is unclear.[117] According to James Harle, major Hindu temples from 1st millennium CE embed thepancayatana architecture very commonly, fromOdisha toKarnataka toKashmir; and the temples containing fusion deities such asHarihara (half Shiva, half Vishnu) are set in Panchayatana worship style.[112]
^Kena Upanishad has two commentaries that are attributed to Shankara – Kenopnishad Vakyabhasya and Kenopnishad Padabhasya; scholars contest whether both are authentic, several suggesting that the Vakyabhasya is unlikely to be authentic.[125]
^Swami Vivekananda translatesShivoham, Shivoham as "I am he, I am he".[137]
^This includes also the dualistic Vaishna bhakti traditions, which have also commented on the Upanishads and the Brahma Sutras, but take a different stance.
^Inden (1998, p. 67): "Before the eighth century, the Buddha was accorded the position of universal deity and ceremonies by which a king attained to imperial status were elaborate donative ceremonies entailing gifts to Buddhist monks and the installation of a symbolic Buddha in a stupa ... This pattern changed in the eighth century. The Buddha was replaced as the supreme, imperial deity by one of the Hindu gods (except under the Palas of eastern India, the Buddha's homeland) ... Previously the Buddha had been accorded imperial-style worship (puja). Now as one of the Hindu gods replaced the Buddha at the imperial centre and pinnacle of the cosmo-political system, the image or symbol of the Hindu god comes to be housed in a monumental temple and given increasingly elaborate imperial-style puja worship."
^Brahman is not to be confused with the personalised godheadBrahma.
^The suffering created by the workings of the mind entangled with physical reality
^Mayeda refers to statements from Shankara regarding epistemology (pramana-janya) in section 1.18.133 of Upadesasahasri, and section 1.1.4 of Brahmasutra-bhasya.[163][164] NB: some manuscripts list Upadesasahasri verse 1.18.133 as 2.18.133, while Mayeda lists it as 1.18.133, because of interchanged chapter numbering. See Upadesa Sahasri: A Thousand Teachings, S Jagadananda (Translator, 1949),ISBN978-81-7120-059-7, Verse 2.8.133, p. 258; Karl H Potter (2014), The Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, Volume 3, Princeton University Press,ISBN978-0-691-61486-1, p. 249
^Shcherbatsky 1927, pp. 44–45: "Shankara accuses them of disregarding all logic and refuses to enter in a controversy with them. The position of Shankara is interesting because, at heart, he is in full agreement with the Madhyamikas, at least in the main lines, since both maintain the reality of the One-without-a-second, and the mirage of the manifold. But Shankara, as an ardent hater of Buddhism, would never confess that. He therefore treats the Madhyamika with great contempt [...] on the charge that the Madhyamika denies the possibility of cognizing the Absolute by logical methods (pramana).Vachaspati Mishra in theBhamati rightly interprets this point as referring to the opinion of the Madhyamikas that logic is incapable to solve the question about what existence or non-existence really are. This opinion Shankara himself, as is well known, shares. He does not accept the authority of logic as a means of cognizing the Absolute, but he deems it a privilege of the Vedantin to fare without logic, since he has Revelation to fall back upon. From all his opponents, he requires strict logical methods."
Shankara,Upadesasahasri I.18.3: "I am ever-free, the existent" (Sat). I.18.6: "The two [contradictory] notions "I am the Existent-Brahman" and "I act," haveAtman as their witness. It is considered more reasonable to give up only [that one] of the two [notions] which arises from ignorance. I.18.7: "The notion, "I am the Existent," arises from right means of knowledge [while] the other notion has its origin in fallacious means of knowledge."[252]
Sivananda 1993, p. 219: "Brahman (the Absolute) is alone real; this world is unreal; and the Jiva or individual soul is non-different from Brahman."
Deutsch 1973, p. 54: "[the] essential status [of the individual human person] is that of unqualified reality, of identity with the Absolute [...] the self (jiva) is only misperceived: the self is really Brahman."
Koller 2013, pp. 100–101: "Atman, which is identical to Brahman, is ultimately the only reality and [...] the appearance of plurality is entirely the work of ignorance [...] the self is ultimately of the nature of Atman/Brahman [...] Brahman alone is ultimately real."
Bowker 2000: "There is only Brahman, which is necessarily undifferentiated. It follows that there cannot even be a difference, or duality, between the human subject, or self, and Brahman, for Brahman must be that very self (since Brahman is the reality underlying all appearance). The goal of human life and wisdom must, therefore, be the realization that the self (ātman) is Brahman."
Menon 2012: "The experiencing self (jīva) and the transcendental self of the Universe (ātman) are in reality identical (both are Brahman), though the individual self seems different as space within a container seems different from space as such. These cardinal doctrines are represented in the anonymous verse "brahma satyam jagan mithya; jīvo brahmaiva na aparah" (Brahman is alone True, and this world of plurality is an error; the individual self is not different from Brahman)."
Hacker (1995, p. 88) notes that Shankara uses two groups of words to denote 'atman': "One group - principallyjiva,vijnanatman, andsarira - expresses the illusory aspect of the soul [...] But in addition there are the two expressionsatman andpratyagatman. These also designate the individual soul, but in its real aspect."Mayeda (1992, pp. 11, 14) uses the wordpratyagatman;Sivananda (1993, p. 219),Deutsch (1973, p. 54), andMenon (2012) use the termjiva when referring to the identity ofatman andBrahman.
^While the Vedanta tradition equatessat ("the Existent") with Brahman, the Chandogya Upanishad itself does not refer to Brahman.[194][192]Deutsch & Dalvi (2004, p. 8): "Although the text does not use the termbrahman, the Vedanta tradition is that the Existent (sat) referred to is no other than Brahman."
^Up.I.18.219: "The renunciation of all actions becomes the means for discriminating the meaning of the word "Thou" since there is an [Upanisadic] teaching, "Having become calm, self-controlled [..., one seesAtman there in oneself]" (Bhr. Up. IV, 4, 23)."[236]
Mayeda 1992, p. 4: "But his doctrine is far removed from Saivism and Saktism. It can be ascertained from his works that he had some faith in, or was favorable to, Vaishnavism.[13]" P.8 note 13 refers to Nakamura,Vedanta Tetsugaku no Hatten p.531, and Paul Hacker (1965),Relations of early Advaitins to Vaishnavism.
Clark 2006, p. 148: "Sankara, despite being projected as an incarnation of Siva in the hagiographies, was almost certainly a vaisnava, as were his immediate disciples."
Clark 2006, p. 167: "... it may be that he is best described as a refomed Pancaratrin or Bhagavata, Sankara-Bhagavat or Sankara-Bhagavatpada indeed being one of the names he uses to describe himself."
Clark 2006, p. 169: "It is apparent that Sankara was a vaisnava who seems to have been significantly informed by Pancaratra—as were Ramanuja and Madhva—yet Sankara’s hagiographers project him as an ‘orthodox’ (Vedic) saiva."
Nelson 2007, p. 313: "Indeed, as Hacker has shown, there is good evidence that Shankara and his early followers came from strong Vaishnava backgrounds."
See also J.G. Suthren Hirst (2005),Samkara's Advaita Vedanta:
Suthren Hirst 2005, p. 28: "In this respect, it is telling that Samkara uses Visnu’s relation to his image in a range of contexts, for example, to illustrate the use of Om in meditating on brahman, yet never mentions the lingam, the equivalent aniconic form of Siva. He refers specifically to the salagrama, the small round polished stone from the river Gandaki in which Visnu is worshipped. He also appears to sanction the temple-going and other activities of worship practised by Bhagavata Vaisnavas, though he disagrees with the Pañcaratra theology he discusses alongside this (BSBh 2.2.42–45). No such approbation is given of Saiva practices, the discussion of their theology being much briefer and linked with the refutation of Vaisesika and similar views (BSBh 2.2.37). In addition, his references to release by stages (kramamukti) have a Vaisnava background traceable to the earlier commentator on the Brahma sutras. These factors suggest at least familiarity with a Vaisnava milieu, which we will need to take into account in understanding his thought."
Suthren Hirst 2005, p. 130: "... the very frequency of Samkara’s references to Visnu and his images cannot be ignored, though their context has to be carefully considered. Other Vaisnava clues are linked with quotations from the Katha Upanisad on the highest place of Visnu, moderate criticism of the Vaisnava Bhagavatas (unclearly distinguished from Pañcaratras) and expansion of passages in the Gita, itself a Vaisnava text. In the following, then, I am not arguing that Samkara is explicating Advaita for a specific Vaisnava community. Rather, I am suggesting that he draws on familiarity with a Vaisnava environment to help his pupils realize the truth of non-duality, a truth to which he himself may well have been drawn from a similar starting point."
^Clark 2006, p. 169: "It is apparent that Sankara was a vaisnava who seems to have been significantly informed by Pancaratra—as were Ramanuja and Madhva—yet Sankara’s hagiographers project him as an ‘orthodox’ (Vedic) saiva. In the following chapter, it is proposed that Sankara’s early hagiographies projected him as a Saiva in the image of their Viayanagara patrons who, beginning in the mid-fourteenth century, patronised what was essentially a ‘reformed’, ‘orthodox’ saiva tradition that included advaita saa matha-s and Vedic scholarship
^Per Durst-Andersen and Elsebeth F. Lange (2010), Mentality and Thought: North, South, East and West, CBS Press,ISBN978-87-630-0231-8, p. 68
^Frank Whaling (1979),Sankara and Buddhism, Journal of Indian Philosophy Vol. 7, No. 1 (MARCH 1979), pp. 1-42: "Hindus of the Advaita persuasion (and others too) have seen in Sankara the one who restored the Hindudharma against the attacks of the Buddhists (and Jains) and in the process helped to drive Buddhism out of India."
^Ron Geaves (March 2002).From Totapuri to Maharaji: Reflections on a Lineage (Parampara). 27th Spalding Symposium on Indian Religions, Oxford.
^abcdCynthia Talbot (2001),Precolonial India in Practice: Society, Region, and Identity in Medieval Andhra, Oxford University Press,ISBN978-0-19-513661-6, pp. 185–187, 199–201
^M Piantelly, Sankara e la Renascita del Brahmanesimo, Indian Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Apr. 1977), pp. 429–435
^Shunmugam, Mathias Yuvan (2022).The Contribution of Nishkama Karma in the Philosophies of Shankara, Ramanuja, and Madhva on Social Cohesion (Thesis). pp. 96–98.ProQuest2901484519.
^Franklin Merrell-Wolff (1995), Transformations in Consciousness: The Metaphysics and Epistemology, State University of New York Press,ISBN978-0-7914-2675-3, pp. 242–260
^Will Durant (1976), Our Oriental Heritage: The Story of Civilization, Simon & Schuster,ISBN978-0-671-54800-1, Chapter XIX, Section VI
^Stephen Phillips (2000) in Roy W. Perrett (Editor), Epistemology: Indian Philosophy, Volume 1, Routledge,ISBN978-0-8153-3609-9, pp. 224–228 with notes 8, 13 and 63
^Mahendranath Sircar (1933),Reality in Indian Thought, The Philosophical Review, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 249–271
^abcArvind Sharma (2008), The Philosophy of Religion and Advaita Vedanta, Penn State Press,ISBN978-0-271-02832-3, pp. 70–71
^Isaeva 1993, pp. 57–58: "Shankara directly identifies this awakened atman with Brahman and the higher knowledge. And Brahman, reminds the Advaitist, is known only from the Upanishadic sayings".
^Dalal, Neil (2021),"Śaṅkara", in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.),The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2021 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved28 October 2023
^Dasti, Matthew R.; Bryant, Edwin F. (2014).Free will, agency, and selfhood in Indian philosophy. New York (N.Y.): Oxford university press. pp. 192–193.ISBN978-0-19-992275-8.
^abDavid Loy (1982), Enlightenment in Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta: Are Nirvana and Moksha the Same?, International Philosophical Quarterly, 23(1), pp. 65–74
^KN Jayatilleke (2010), Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge,ISBN978-81-208-0619-1, pp. 246–249, from note 385 onwards
^Mudgal, S.G. (1975), Advaita of Shankara: A Reappraisal, New Delhi: Motilal Banarasidass, p. 4
^Julius Lipner (1986), The Face of Truth: A Study of Meaning and Metaphysics in the Vedantic Theology of Rāmānuja, State University of New York Press,ISBN978-0887060397, pp. 120–123
^Thomas McFaul (2006), The Future of Peace and Justice in the Global Village: The Role of the World Religions in the Twenty-first Century, Praeger,ISBN978-0-275-99313-9, p. 39
Bader, Jonathan (2001),Conquest of the Four Quarters. TYraditional Accounts of the Life of Shankara, Australian National University
Bhatawadekar, Sai (2013), "The Tvat Tam Asi Formula and Schopenhauer's 'Deductive Leap'", in Fuechtner, Veronika; Rhiel, Mary (eds.),Imagining Germany Imagining Asia: Essays in Asian-German Studies, Boydell & Brewer
Feuerstein, Georg (1978).Handboek voor Yoga (Dutch translation; English title "Textbook of Yoga"). Ankh-Hermes.
Goodding, Robert A. (2013), "A Theologian in a South Indian Kingdom: The Historical Context of the Jivanmuktiviveka of Vidyaranya", in Lindquist, Steven E. (ed.),Religion and Identity in South Asia and Beyond: Essays in Honor of Patrick Olivelle, Anthem Press
Grimes, John (2004), "Introduction",The Vivekacudamani of Sankaracarya Bhagavatpada: An Introduction and Translation, Ashgate,ISBN978-0-7546-3395-2
Hacker, Paul (1995), Halbfass, Wilhelm (ed.),Philology and Confrontation: Paul Hacker on Traditional and Modern Vedanta, SUNY Press,ISBN978-0-7914-2582-4
Halbfass, W (1983).Studies in Kumarila and Sankara, Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik, Monographic 9. Reinbeck.
Halbfass, Wilhelm (1990).Tradition and Reflection: Explorations in Indian Thought. State University of New York Press.ISBN978-0-7914-0362-4.
Inden, Ronald (1998), "Ritual, Authority, And Cycle Time in Hindu Kingship", in J.F. Richards (ed.),Kingship and Authority in South Asia, New Delhi: Oxford University Press
Isaeva, Natalia (1993).Shankara and Indian Philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press (SUNY).ISBN978-0-7914-1281-7. Some editions spell the author Isayeva.
Isayeva, Natalia (1993).Shankara and Indian Philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press (SUNY).ISBN978-0-7914-1282-4.
Keshava Menon, Y. (1976).The Mind of Adi Shankaracharya.
King, Richard (1995),Early Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism: The Mahayana Context of the Gaudapadiya-Karika, SUNY Press
Koller, John (2007). "Shankara". In Meister, Chad; Copan, Paul (eds.).The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Religion. Routledge.ISBN978-1-134-18001-1.
Koller, John (2012), "Shankara", in Meister, Chad; Copan, Paul (eds.),Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Religion, Routledge,ISBN978-0-415-78294-4
Koller, John M. (2013), "Shankara", in Meister, Chad; Copan, Paul (eds.),Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Religion, Routledge
Kruijf, Johannes de; Sahoo, Ajaya (2014),Indian Transnationalism Online: New Perspectives on Diaspora, Ashgate Publishing,ISBN978-1-4724-1913-2
Kulke, Hermann; Rothermund, Dietmar (1998),A History of India, Routledge
Lipner, Julius (2000), "The Self of Being and the Being of Self: Samkara on "That You Are" (Tat Tvam Asi)", in Malkovsky, Bradley J. (ed.),New Perspectives on Advaita Vedānta, BRILL
McRae, John (2003),Seeing Through Zen. Encounter, Transformation, and Genealogy in Chinese Chan Buddhism, The University Press Group Ltd,ISBN978-0-520-23798-8
Menon, Sangeetha (2012),Advaita Vedanta, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Michaels, Axel (2004).Hinduism. Past and present. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Nakamura, Hajime (1999),Indian Buddhism: A Survey with Bibliographical Notes, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass
Nakamura, Hajime (2004) [1950],A History of Early Vedanta Philosophy. Part Two, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers (Reprint of Shoki No Vedanta Tetsugaku, Iwanami Shoten, Tokyo)
Nelson, Lance (2007). "Krishna in Advaita Vedanta: The Supreme Brahman in Human Form". In Bryant, Edwin (ed.).Krishna - A Sourcebook. Oxford University Press.
Nowicka, Olga (2016), "Conquering the World, Subduing the Minds: Śaṅkara's digvijaya in the Local Context",Cracow Indological Studies,XVIII (18):145–166,doi:10.12797/CIS.18.2016.18.07
Potter, Karl (2008),Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies Vol. III: Advaita Vedānta up to Śaṃkara and his pupils, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers,ISBN978-81-208-0310-7
Rambachan, Anantanand (1991).Accomplishing the Accomplished: The Vedas as a Source of Valid Knowledge in Sankara. University of Hawaii Press.ISBN978-0-8248-1358-1.
Rambachan, Anantanand (2006),The Advaita Worldview: God, World, and Humanity, State University of New York Press,ISBN978-0791468524
Roodurmun, Pulasth Soobah (2002).Bhāmatī and Vivaraṇa Schools of Advaita Vedānta: A Critical Approach. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.
Sivananda, Swami (1993),All About Hinduism, The Divine Life Society
Sivaraman, K. (1973),Śaivism in Philosophical Perspective: A Study of the Formative Concepts, Problems, and Methods of Śaiva Siddhānta, Motilall Banarsidass
Stoker, Valerie (2016),Polemics and Patronage in the City of Victory: Vyasatirtha, Hindu Sectarianism, and the Sixteenth-Century Vijayanagara Court, University of California Press
Suthren Hirst, J. G. (2005),Śaṃkara's Advaita Vedānta: A Way of Teaching, Routledge,ISBN978-1-134-25441-5
Tola, Fernando (1989). "On the Date of Maṇḍana Miśra and Śaṅkara and Their Doctrinal Relation".Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.70 (1/4):37–46.ISSN0378-1143.JSTOR41693459.
Fort, Andrew O. (1998).Jivanmukti in Transformation: Embodied Liberation in Advaita and Neo-Vedanta. SUNY Press.ISBN978-0-791-43904-3.
Fuller, C. J. (2004).The Camphor Flame: Popular Hinduism and Society in India. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.ISBN978-0-691-12048-5.
Hirst, J. S. (2005). "A Questioning Approach: Learning from Shankara's Pedagogic Techniques".Contemporary Education Dialogue.2 (2):137–169.doi:10.1177/097318490500200202.
Ingalls, Daniel H. H. (1954). "Śaṁkara's Arguments against the Buddhists".Philosophy East and West.3 (4):291–306.doi:10.2307/1397287.JSTOR1397287.
Nakamura, Hajime (1990) [1950].A History of Early Vedanta Philosophy. Part One. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. (Reprint)
Navone, J. J. (1956). "Sankara and the Vedic Tradition".Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.17 (2):248–255.doi:10.2307/2104222.JSTOR2104222.
Olivelle, Patrick (1992).The Samnyasa Upanisads. Oxford University Press.ISBN978-0195070453.
Pandey, S. L. (2000). "Pre-Sankara Advaita". In Chattopadhyana (ed.).History of Science, Philosophy and Culture in Indian Civilization. Vol. II Part 2: Advaita Vedanta. Delhi: Centre for Studies in Civilizations.
_by_tradition%2c_this_is_the_hill_on_which_Shankaracharya_meditated_during_his_round_of_travels.jpg)
