[Replug from April 2018] Adi Shankaracharya The Wikipedia entry for Adi Shankara introduces him as “an early 8th century Indian philosopher and theologian who consolidated the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta”. It is reflective of the modern understanding of his life and achievements. Therefore, it is patently untrue.
The 8th century claim has, of course, been contested by the very mathas he established but there are even more significant things that would be called ‘problematic’. Adi Shankara was not a mere philosopher, though debating was his favourite method of teaching and he was certainly not a theologian, for he was not speculating on the nature of God. Advaita proclaims the unity of Atman and Nirguna Brahman, which has no attributes. How can we hope to describe that which has no attributes? As Shankara himself writes,
akhande sacchidanande nirvikalpaikarupini
sthite advitiya bhave asmin katham puja vidhiyate How can worship be offered to the indivisible, the truth-consciousness-bliss, unthinkable in form, on whom the Universe rests?
In an age in which action is glorified and virtually every obituary reads that the dead person was a ‘karmayogi’, Shankara strikes a discordant note with his emphasis on knowledge (jnana) as opposed to action (karma), which he declares as the source of bondage. But if karma is the source of bondage, then where does a man turn to acquire jnana, for even learning involves an action of some kind. The negative effects of any karma, as declared by Bhagwan himself in the Gita, can be neutralized by acting without desire. This, in itself, is a long journey for most of us and arriving at the state where the outcome of work does not disturb the equanimity of the mind is when we can ask our relatives to confer the title of karmayogi on us, not before that. Karma-yoga is the first step, necessary as it may be but not terribly consequential unless we then proceed to acquire knowledge and devotion. Shankara thus bursts the bubble of karmayogis by reminding them of the distinction originally spelled out in the Gita but often glossed over by human optimism.
Of course, there is phenomenal philosophical content in his works, especially in Vivekacudamani, written in the form of a dialogue between student and teacher. However, Advaita Vedanta is not a “doctrine” that makes you feel better about the inevitability of death by striking a deal with a prophet. It is rather a grim announcement that if knowledge has not liberated you from the limits of nature, you’ve been wasting time acquiring it. A distinction is thus made between para and apara vidya - higher and lower knowledge. But how is it still different from a doctrine, like the one that guarantees a passport to heaven if you believe in the greatness of a not-so-great man? At the same time, no teaching can be of any value if it is free-for-all mumbo-jumbo. This conflict is resolved by a triangular mapping of your spiritual coordinates through shruti (Vedas), yukti (reasoning) and anubhava (experience). Any dissonance between the three would point to an error.
I suppose that the Wikipedia and the generation that swears by it may be forgiven their ignorance on Shankara. Understanding Shankara is not the same as reading about him or even reading all his works. He can only be described by the very method that he prescribed - neti-neti: not this, not this. The path to Shankara is the path to oneself. It is in turning the gaze inward, in the awakening of the third eye, in withdrawing the senses from the objects and turning them inwards - the path of Nivritti. Perhaps the best way to describe him is to quote him:
aham nirvikalpo nirakara rupo
vibhur vyapya sarvatra sarvendriyanam
sada me samatvam na muktir na bandhah
chidananda rupah shivoham shivohamI am beyond thought and form
I am in all things, everywhere, in all senses
I am impartial to all, neither attached nor detached
The embodiment of blissful consciousness, I am Shiva, I am Shiva.