SOURCE: "Approaches to the Study of Sankara" in Meditation in Sankara's Vedanta, Aditya Prakashan, 1990, pp. 7-24.

[Below, Bader outlines various schools of Sankara scholarship, noting their strengths and weaknesses.]

In 1952 Professor [Daniel H. H.] Ingalls called attention to the need for new efforts in the application of historical methods to the study of Sankara.¹ He suggested that the philosophical analysis of Sankara's thought could not proceed much further without the assistance of historical study. At this very time two other scholars, [Paul] Hacker and [Hajime] Nakamura, were engaged in research which was to give new direction to the study of Sankara.

Prior to the publication of several important papers by the late Paul Hacker, there was much uncertainty as to which of the several hundred compositions traditionally ascribed to Sankara could be regarded as genuine. The one notable exception is the Brahmasutra commentary which is, by definition, the work of Sankara. This commentary (bhasya) represents his magnum opus and serves as the measure against which other works attributed to him may be placed. Ingalls, for instance, had accepted only three other works, based on the testimony of Sankara's direct disciples. The existence of Suresvara's expositions (varttika-s) is certainly strong evidence that two of Sankara's Upanisad commentaries, the Taittiriya and Brhadaranyaka, are genuine. Likewise, in his Naiskarmyasiddhi, Suresvara's numerous citations of the Upadesasahasri suggest the authenticity of this independent treatise of Sankara's. But clearly, other criteria are needed here.

The first breakthrough in establishing further criteria came with Hacker's discovery of a significant pattern occurring in the colophons of Sankara's compositions.² Those works likely to be genuine (by comparison with the Brahmasutra-bhasya), he found, tended to be ascribed to Sankara-Bhagavat. On the other hand, those whose authorship seemed doubtful were usually attributed to Sankaracarya.³ The very designation 'Sankaracarya' can indeed be a source of some confusion. For this title may apply equally to any of the pontiffs of the five monastic centres traditionally regarded as having been established by Sankara.

Hacker next devised a more substantial methodology based on a careful analysis of Sankara's use of certain technical terms.⁴ He discovered Sankara's understanding of avidya, namarupa, maya, and isvara to be quite distinct from that of his followers. Accordingly, an examination of these terms becomes the focal point in a procedure which Hacker believes to work as "a sieve with a mesh wide enough to let pass spurious works and close enough to retain or admit even variations or development among authentic ones".⁵ Hacker's conclusion is that only one independent treatise, the Upadesasahasri, can properly be attributed to Sankara. The rest of his genuine compositions consist wholly of commentaries. These include his bhasya-s on the Brahmasutra, the Bhagavadgita, and ten Upanisads: Brhadaranyaka, Chandogya, Isa, Kena, Katha, Taittiriya, Aitareya, Mundaka, Mandukya (including the Gaudapadiya-karika), and Prasna. Hacker also recognizes the commentaries on the Yogasutrabhasya of Vyasa and the Adhyatmapatala of the Apastambadharmasutra. Sengaku Mayeda has demonstrated the validity of Hacker's methodology in the course of several precise studies.⁶ Each of these offers a convincing proof of the authenticity of one particular bhasya. Another of Hacker's concerns was to chart the stages of development in Sankara's thought. He identified Sankara's earlier works as the YV, MKBh, TUBh, USP chapter 19, and USP chapter 17.⁷ These findings represent the first stage in the establishment of a probable chronology. Further research in this area has been carried out by Tilmann Vetter.⁸

Both Ingalls and Hajime Nakamura have utilised Bhaskara's commentary on the Brahmasutra as the key to distinguishing Sankara's thought from that of earlier Vedantins. Bhaskara's commentary appears to have been written in the period immediately following Sankara's death, circa A.D. 750.⁹ What is remarkable about this work is its striking similarity to Sankara's bhasya. This is despite substantial differences in the viewpoints of the two commentators. Indeed Bhaskara is sharply critical of Sankara. Ingalls cites an appropriate illustration in Bhaskara's remark on Sankara's concept of liberation: "Some of us would rather be jackals in the forest than have your kind of release".¹⁰ In view of such marked antipathy, it seems highly unlikely that Bhaskara would imitate Sankara. Yet there are numerous occasions where nearly identical passages occur in both commentaries. This would suggest that both are relying on an earlier interpreter. Ingalls calls this as yet unidentified Vedantin the "Proto-commen-tator".¹¹ It appears that Bhaskara's criticism is concentrated on those very points where Sankara tends to differ from the Proto-commentator. From his reading of the Brahmasutra-s and a close examination of the two commentaries, Nakamura concludes that where the two differ, Bhaskara's is probably closer to the original meaning of the sutra-s.¹² Whether Bhaskara's comment actually tallies with the "original" meaning of the Brahmasutra, or merely represents an earlier interpretation of the work,¹³ it does provide a strong indication of the points at which Sankara has developed his own line of thought.

Ingalls has enumerated three fundamental approaches to Sankara's work: the traditional, the historical, and the philosophical.¹⁴ Most of the available material on Sankara is philosophically oriented. More often than not, the approach is that of comparative philosophy. Sankara's work has been compared with a wide range of philosophers—both ancient and modern—including Plato, Plotinus, St. Thomas Aquinas, Meister Eckhart, Kant, Fichte, and Bradley. Sankara's thought has often served to initiate discussion on the part of contemporary philosophers who regard some of his concerns as vital philosophical issues. So many scholars have worked in this area that it is difficult to single out particular names for mention. A glance through Karl Potter's bibliography would suffice to provide some indication of the range of research involved.¹⁵

Some of the more recent work on Sankara has followed an historical approach. Among the most notable scholars here are Hacker, Nakamura, Ingalls, and [Tilmann] Vetter. In spite of the substantial contribution of these scholars, there remain some serious drawbacks in the application of historical methods to the study of Sankara. The identification of his authentic works may tend to stifle interest in some important texts. The Vivekacudamani, for instance, can now be discounted as a genuine composition of Sankara's. Yet within the Advaita school this text is highly respected and is accepted as an integral part of the tradition. For the scholar, this text presents a wealth of significant philosophical material. It contains what is perhaps the most extensive discussion to be found on the five kosa-s, a characteristic metaphysical doctrine of Vedanta.¹⁶ While the historian and philosopher may be tempted to simply reject the Vivekacudamani as a "spurious" work, one studying the traditional approach has little choice but to examine it closely. This medieval text which is not only philosophically coherent, but profound in its interpretation of Vedanta, cannot be so lightly dismissed. The question of authorship takes its place here as just one of several issues the text raises.¹⁷ Another shortcoming found in some historical studies is the tendency to fragment an otherwise unified text. The Yogasutra is one work that has suffered at the hands of several different assailants. Staal has shown how mutually contradictory the various attempts at the dissection of this text have been.¹⁸ Sankara's work may also meet a similar fate. In the course of his careful study, which attempts to chart the development of Sankara's thought, Tilmann Vetter finds that the chronological order in which the prose chapters of the Upadesasahasri were written differs from the sequence in which they appear in the various recensions of the text. He argues that the material in the first chapter represents a later trend of thought than that of the second chapter.¹⁹ It is probably not Vetter's intention to fragment the USG. His findings, however, could be all too easily stretched towards the conclusion that this text is nothing more than a batch of unrelated short compositions.

Surely the project of tracing the development of Sankara's thought does have its own valid sphere of application. But it is essential that we do not lose sight of the fact that such a methodology represents only one approach among many. Even if we do accept Vetter's conclusions, there is no reason why the USG cannot still be regarded as a coherent text. Indeed it is well recognised within the Advaita tradition that the work's three chapters have been intentionally arranged so as to correspond to the threefold process of sravana-manananididhyasana. Whether Sankara actually composed the three prakarana-s with this in mind, or whether the arrangement was the later work of his disciples, it is clear that the USG can stand as a unified work.

Just as an exclusively historical perspective has its limitations, so too does the purely philosophical approach. To begin with, there is not much justification for the assumption that Sankara was first and foremost a philosopher. On the contrary,

He concentrates on what he considers the heart of the matter, the teaching that is necessary for moksa … His followers, while deeply attracted by this attitude, were forced to construct a metaphysical system that is in all respects logically coherent.²⁰

This is not to say that metaphysics were unimportant for Sankara. It is simply that he did not see the development of a metaphysical system as an end in itself. The point is that liberation (moksa) is at the very apex of Sankara's metaphysical thought. He maintains that release from the rounds of transmigration is the direct result of the intuitive knowledge (anubhava) of Brahman. This ultimate reality is expressed in the mahavakya "Thou art that", indicating the essential unity of the Self with Brahman. Where Sankara's emphasis on liberation is regarded primarily as a religious concern, it is not surprising to find that the subject is overlooked in favour of his discussion of more concrete philosophical issues. His role as an exegete is also glossed over by many of his philosophically oriented admirers. This is ostensibly to forestall the possibility that Sankara's work be denigrated as mere scholasticism or theology, neither of which are very fashionable in the eyes of contemporary philosophers.

In order to properly investigate Sankara's teachings on liberation it is necessary to take into account the traditional approach. Unfortunately this has often been the exclusive domain of apologists whose appearance on the academic stage serves neither to illuminate the profundity of Sankara's thought, nor to reflect the Advaitin's way of life. Strictly speaking, this approach is for the practitioner, not the academic. Before embarking on the traditional path, the aspirant must have first demonstrated to the teacher that he has no taste for the pleasures of worldly life, his only desire being that of attaining liberation. The practice consists in the threefold discipline alluded to above. In brief, this involves (1) hearing the traditional teachings as imparted by the guru, (2) reflecting deeply on the meaning of what has been heard until it is firmly grasped by the intellect, and (3) utilising the insights of the intellect in a special sort of meditation whose aim is to remove all trace of the ignorance which obscures the true nature of the Self. Clearly, this method is suitable only for the dedicated and true believer. Still, there is no good reason for ignoring this approach in the course of one's study. On the contrary, an examination of Sankara's work which takes into account the perspective of the practitioner may well cast further light on the motives underlying the formulation of his Advaita doctrine.

Bearing in mind all these considerations, there seems good reason to follow the lead of Ingalls in acknowledging the value in all three approaches. In this study, however, particular emphasis will be placed on the traditional mode. It is hoped that a focus on the practical side of Sankara's teachings will provide access to some areas of his thought which have thus far been explored by few outside the fold of his followers.

In addition to these broader questions of methodology, there remains the problem of determining how Sankara himself is to be understood. In India he is defined largely in terms of the traditional accounts of his life. These sources portray him as a divine figure, an incarnation of Siva who has descended to earth in order to restore the true teachings of Hinduism in the face of encroachments by Buddhism and other "heterodox" cults. He is aided in this task by his supernormal powers which enable him to fly through the air, assume other bodies, and predict the future. His life story is that of a prodigy who masters all branches of learning in his childhood and fulfills his entire mission in the brief span of thirty-two years. This mythical perspective is in obvious contrast to the sort of perceptions arising from a critical approach, be it historical, psychological, or sociological. Yet as Eliade, Lévi-Strauss, and others have shown, there is no need to assume that mythical thought is any less rigorous than scientific thought. To dismiss these mythical accounts as a series of stories concocted to impress Sankara's greatness upon credulous minds, is as simple-minded as the criticism this attitude intends. Neither is the notion that myth involves a valid mode of thought meant to suggest that it represents a crude or primitive forerunner to modern science. Rather, the point is, that in addressing itself to recognizable areas of concern—the social, religious, or philosophical—mythical thought functions on the basis of assumptions and perspectives which are simply different from those of critical scholarship.

The myth of Sankara might be seen, in part, as a response to the problem of individuality. Louis Dumont has drawn attention to the fact that the individual represents something of an anomaly in Indian society. His contention is that the renouncer stands out as the only real individual in a society which defines the particular man solely on the basis of his relationship to the group by virtue of his family and caste affiliations.²¹ The renouncer (samny asin) surrenders his caste identity, leaving the world behind in his quest for liberation. This marks him as an individual and sets him apart from society as a whole. Though he probably has a guru and may even take up residence in an asrama, his spiritual practice remains his own responsibility. He is entirely on his own. His unique position in the society, or rather the fact that he is not bound to it, leaves him free to question all. As a result, he becomes, according to Dumont, the primary innovator in Indian thought and society.

That the renouncer is uncomfortable with the fact of his own individuality is, in Dumont's estimation, shown by his efforts to eliminate or transcend it. But how, in turn, does the society overcome its anxiety about the samnyasin? If he is truly outside the society is he not a threat to its stability? A scriptural justification of his position would be one obvious solution. The samnyasin's role and duties are indeed prescribed in a number of sources, such as Manu's authoritative Dharmasastra.²² But perhaps this alone is not enough. At least on the more popular level, the realm of myth and the supernatural seems to provide an appropriate context into which the renouncer may be fitted. In his field-study of a multi-caste village, M. N. Srinivas provides a good indication of just how the man-in-the-world perceives the samnyasin:

He was holy, and he could rise above the demands of the body … they could subsist on the leaves of some plants and fresh air, cure diseases normally incurable, convert base metals into gold and even make themselves invisible. The appearance of a sanyasi, his gestures, talk, food, etc. were reported in such a way as to suggest the existence of supernatural powers. I wondered how individuals who were as keenly intelligent and hard-headed as the villagers could suspend their disbelief so willingly …²³

This would suggest that the householder chooses to identify the renouncer with the supernatural. It may be that the threat posed by the samnyasin is not so much because he is outside the society, but rather that he is out of context. By slotting him back into place, a sense of order is restored. In this light, it is not surprising to find that Sankara, one of the foremost among samnyasin-s, has become the key figure in a mythical drama.

In India, the realm of myth exhibits some striking similarities to the social order. This is particularly apparent in the complex but highly organized hierarchy of the various divine and supernatural forces. This pattern is clearly manifest in the myth of Sankara. Here the leading role is assigned to Siva, Lord of ascetics, in whose honour Sankara has been named. Brahma incarnates as Sankara's chief rival and eventual disciple, Mandanamisra. Sarasvati, naturally enough, becomes Mandana's wife, Ubhaya-Bharati. Three Vedic deities, Aruna, Vayu, and Agni, take birth as the other leading disciples of Sankara: Padmapada, Hastamalaka, and Totaka.²⁴ It is in terms of this familiar and orderly context that Sankara's life is portrayed in the traditional biographies.

While these accounts strive to remove, or at least modify, Sankara's individuality, most critical studies seem to take the very opposite approach. In its most extreme form, this attitude culminates in what Barbara Doherty has recognized as a European "myth" of Sankara.²⁵ For the origins of this myth, one need look no further than the 19th century Indologists. In particular, it was Paul Deussen who most clearly proclaimed Sankara as the Indian philosopher—a south Asian equivalent of Plato, Kant, or Schopenhauer. Yet even those scholars who are far less lavish in singing Sankara's praises, tend to see him in terms of the individual, the philosopher. Accordingly, he is expected to be consistent, systematic, and original. Where these qualities are lacking, he is soundly criticized. When, for instance, he appears to blithely explain away a serious philosophical issue, one critic cannot resist castigating his "refuse disposal" of problems.²⁶ One manner of coping with the inconsistencies in Sankara's work is to reorganize them into a pattern which will demonstrate the evolutionary development of his thought. The creation of such a chronological chart lends a sense of order and clarity to what otherwise might seem an unwieldly mass of material, full of contradiction. But is this too not a kind of myth making?

Looking at the nature of mythical discourse from the Structuralist point of view, this assumption does not appear quite so far-fetched. According to Lévi-Strauss, the purpose of myth is "to provide a logical model capable of overcoming a contradiction".²⁷ This is precisely the intention of those who would discover a chronological structure in Sankara's work. However, as Lévi-Strauss points out, the quality of a real contradiction is such that it cannot be resolved. As a result, mythical discourse "grows spiral-wise until the intellectual impulse which has originated it is exhausted".²⁸ In other words, so long as the contradictions represent a significant problem, the myth will continue to be retold in a series of ever-changing versions. A similar situation presents itself in the striking variations one meets in the different accounts of Sankara's evolution.

Madeleine Biardeau prefaces her observations on Sankara's development with an appropriate note of caution:

Il y a peut-etre un danger á vouloir trop systématiser la pensée d'un auteur et á percevoir des relations entre différents aspects de son oeuvre qui se présentent comme indépendants parce qu'ils répondent á des problémes différents.²⁹

Nevertheless, she decides to press on with her analysis on the assumption that in a coherent philosophy the basic postulates are implicit throughout. The focal point of her study is the theory of definition. Biardeau contends that prior to establishing such a theory Sankara is reluctant to apply any definition to Brahman, and only speaks of Brahman in such negative terms as 'not this, not this'.³⁰ She cites as examples GBh and BUBh, both of which are primarily apophatic in their description of Brahman. In BSBh and TUBh, on the other hand, Sankara has not only formulated a theory of definition, but is willing to discuss the nature of Brahman in positive terms. This would suggest that GBh and BUBh comprise an earlier set of works, while BSBh and TUBh are later. Of the latter set, Biardeau is inclined to take TUBh as the later composition.

Hacker's chronology reverses the position of two of these works.³¹ He places TUBh in an earlier group, and GBh in a later one. This is on the basis of his examination of the tensions he finds between the illusionistic and realistic tendencies that run through Sankara's work. Vetter also utilises this distinction but links it to a movement away from the negative methodology of the earlier (illusionistic) works, such as MKBh, to a more positive (realistic) view which entails the recognition of the Self as pure consciousness.³² This also seems to parallel Biardeau's assertions. Yet the two differ insofar as she suggests that BSBh 4.1.3-5 is a later development than BSBh 1.1.4, while Vetter does not separate the two. Although Ingalls has not proposed a chronology, he does remark that BUBh is a "far more original work" than the BSBh.³³ This stems from his observation that in the BSBh Sankara is, for the most part, careful to follow tradition. In the BUBh, on the other hand, he deliberately challenges the positions of earlier Vedantins on numerous occasions. If, as is usually assumed, the BSBh is the work which established Sankara's reputation, then Ingalls' comments would imply that the BUBh is a later work. This is in contrast to Biardeau who takes the BUBh as being earlier.

An attempt to explain any author's work, especially that of a traditional metaphysician, in terms of an evolutionary development of his thought has its obvious shortcomings.³⁴ First of all, the differing perspectives from which each of these studies on Sankara is undertaken seems to be a major factor in determining what conclusions are obtained. There is the additional problem that Sankara, as Biardeau herself has noted, may well have written a particular work in direct response to certain specific issues. This would result in differences in his works which cannot be explained merely in terms of development. Nevertheless, each of these critical studies happens to represent an important piece of scholarship, offering valuable insights into Sankara's thought. In pointing to the dynamic tensions, the logical contradictions, and the unresolved questions in his work, they raise issues which encourage further study of his thought. Some traditionalists, on the other hand, in seeking to minimize the contrasts in Sankara's nature, portray him as a rather dull and pedantic character who would inspire very little in the way of vital discussion.

One might well argue that all the material about Sankara could be taken as mythical discourse. Like the traditional accounts, the application of critical methods may be seen as efforts in creating a sense of order in the face of the contradictions inherent in Sankara's life and work. Both perspectives, in turn, may perpetuate their own particular sets of contradictions. In the myths, for example, Sankara appears as the model samnyasin who renounces all earthly attachments. Yet he maintains a strong bond with his mother and breaks with tradition in performing her funeral rites. Although upholding the vow of celibacy from the time of his childhood, he revivifies the body of a dead king and proceeds to indulge himself in the pleasures of his wives and mistresses in order to master the amatory arts (kamasastra). Both the traditional accounts and the critical studies involve a restructuring, a reconstruction of the pattern of Sankara's life. Neither is in itself sufficient to provide a comprehensive understanding of his thought. Yet both may be equally helpful, or distracting, in the search for an approach to the study of Sankara.

In the context of this study, Sankara is not seen as an original thinker, but rather one who sought to reinterpret the message of the Upanisads in terms of what is perhaps their boldest metaphysical doctrine. Yajnavalkya and other early Vedantins had expressed the notion of a non-dualistic absolute reality, a quality-less Brahman. Sankara's contribution lay in his determination to demonstrate that this was the underlying truth which unified the diverse teachings of the Upanisads. His bhasya on the Brahmasutra-s established a precedent which no later commentator could afford to ignore, however much he might disagree with Sankara's position. In addition to his role as an exegete, Sankara was very much involved in the transmission of Vedanta teachings. This is demonstrated by the large number of practical treatises which are traditionally ascribed to him. Even if only one among these, the Upadesasahasri, is authentic, there is still available to us sufficient evidence of his teaching methods.

Aside from the influence Sankara's thought has had upon his direct disciples and the Advaita school as a whole, his teachings have gradually been infused into the mainstream of Indian culture. Even the unlettered man may have at least a rough idea of Sankara's message. His place in society is therefore quite different than that of, say, Kant or Bradley. While we are not really accustomed to regarding profound metaphysical speculation as a cultural achievement, it is precisely on this basis that Sankara's thought commends itself to us. It would, of course, be foolish to approach Sankara in the hope that his work will reveal to us the nature of the Indian psyche. Rather, it is in Sankara that we find expression of some of its most noble aspirations.

Notes

¹ "The Study of Samkaracarya", p. 5.

² Paul Hacker, "Sankaracarya and Sankarabhagavatpada. Preliminary Remarks Concerning the Authorship Problem", New Indian Antiquary, 9 (1947), 175-186. A corrected version of this article appears in Paul Hacker: Kleine Schriften, ed. Lambert Schmithausen, Wiesbaden, 1978, pp. 41-58.

³ The honorific acarya, generally denotes a teacher or spiritual preceptor. The title 'Bhagavat' has a connotation something like that of 'Most Reverend'. Sankara is also referred to by his disciples as 'Bhagavatpada' (lit. 'whose feet are holy') or 'Bhagavat-pujya-pada' ('whose feet are to be worshipped').

⁴ Paul Hacker, "Eigentumlichkeiten der Lehre und Terminologie Sankaras", Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenldndischen Gesellschaft, 100 (1950), pp. 246-286.

⁵ Hacker, "Sankara der Yogin", p. 147.

⁶ In his articles which examine the authenticity of the GBh, KenaBh, MKBh, and US, Mayeda considers the existence of sub-commentaries as a further criterion. See bibliography for details.

⁷ "Sankara der Yogin", p. 135. See table of abbreviations above.

⁸ Tilmann Vetter, Studien zur Lehre und Entwicklung Sankaras (Publications of the De Nobili Research Library; Vienna, 1979).

⁹ Until fairly recently it was generally accepted that Sankara's dates were A.D. 788-820. Nakamura has argued that the dates should be pushed back to 700-750 (Hajime Nakamura, An History of Early Vedanta Philosophy, Pt. 1, Delhi, 1983, p. 87. The original Japanese publication was 1950-56). Ingalls and Karl Potter have largely accepted Nakamura's dates; but there are other scholars who do not. Vetter, for example, maintains that we cannot at present ascribe more precise dates than 650-800 (Studien, p. 11).

¹⁰ Ingalls, "The Study of Samkaracarya", p. 8.

¹¹Ibid., p. 10. But Ingalls' conclusions have been questioned by Klaus Rüping, Studien zur Fruhge-schichte der Vedanta-Philosophie. Teil 1: Philologische Untersuchungen zu den Brahmasutra-Kommentaren des Sankara und des Bhaskara, Wiesbaden, 1977, pp. 25; 65 ff.

¹²A History of Early Vedanta, p. 459.

¹³ An adherent of Advaita Vedanta would argue that Sankara has rediscovered the "original" meaning of the sutra-s. It might also be questioned that the Protocommentator is necessarily representative of the earliest interpretation of the sutra-s.

¹⁴ "The Study of Samkaracarya" p. 4.

¹⁵Bibliography of Indian Philosophies (The Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, vol. I, Delhi, 1974), p. 111 ff

¹⁶ The kosa-s, described in Taittiriya Upanisad 2.1 ff., are sheaths which are said to encase the Self in layers of increasing degrees of subtlety.

¹⁷ In India, it is now common practice to refer to 'Adi-Sankaraacarya', literally 'the original Sankara', in order to distinguish him from the numerous later Sankaracaryas. While Adi-Sankaracarya no doubt holds a very special place in the Indian tradition, the other Sankaracaryas are held in no less esteem. In the eyes of the traditionalists, there may not be much difference between Sankara's own works and those which he has inspired or prompted others to write. In the literature of India there are numerous instances where a work is "dictated" by a divine personage. We are inclined to regard with a fair degree of scepticism the belief that one and the same man could have written some three hundred works, many of which express widely diverging views. Yet this is not necessarily a problem in the eyes of the traditionally-minded. The fact that he was so prolific in his short lifetime and could give expression to so broad a spectrum of religious orientations, is taken as further proof of his divine power. Nowadays traditional scholars present two arguments justifying the ascription of such diverse works to Sankara. The most common of these is that Sankara, in his compassion for the ordinary man, wrote works suited to various levels of comprehension. T. M. P. Mahadevan proposes another explanation: he suggests that in order to spread the message of Advaita, Sankara utilised the terminology of other schools in order to appeal to their adherents. This would account for the fact that the Daksinamurti-stotra, to cite one example, is written in the language of Kashmiri Saivism (T. M. P. Mahadevan, Sankaracharya, New Delhi, 1968, p. 38).

¹⁸. Frits Staal, Exploring Mysticism (Harmondsworth, 1975), p. 90 ff.

¹⁹ According to Vetter, USG II is quite close chronologically to MKBh, which was probably Sankara's first Advaita composition, and must be placed before USG I (Studien, p. 75). In his critical edition of the US, Mayeda makes it clear that in the many editions of the text which he has consulted, the only variable is whether the prose part or the metrical part is placed first. Otherwise the arrangement of the prakarana-s is consistent in all the recensions. According to Mayeda, the eighteen prakarana-s of the metrical portion have merely been arranged in a "mechanical way", but the three chapters of the prose section are "very closely related to one another and constitute the whole which is complete in both content and form" (Sankara's Upadesasahasri, ed. Sengaku Mayeda, Tokyo, 1973, p. 65 ff.).

²⁰ Daniel H. H. Ingalls, "Samkara on the Question: Whose is Avidya", PEW, 3 (1953), p. 72.

²¹ Louis Dumont, "World Renunciation in Indian Religions", in Contributions to Indian Sociology, IV (1960), p. 42.

²² See 6.33 ff. Sankara seems particularly partial to the authority of this dharmasastra.

²³ M. N. Srinivas, The Remembered Village (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1980), p. 162. This study was made in 1948, at a time when the village of Rampura had not yet been subjected to very extensive urban influence. There would most probably be more scepticism expressed there nowadays. Still, it is likely that the attitudes Srinivas describes remain fairly widespread, at least in the rural areas.

²⁴ These details occur in the Sankara-dig-vijaya, which is by far the most popular of the Sankara hagiographies. The particulars of the Sanskrit text are: Vidyaranya, Srimacchankara-digvijaya. Advaita-rajyalaksmitika-ntargata-viSesa-vibhaa-tippanibhis tatha Dhanpati-suri-krtadindimakhya-tikaya ca sametah, ed. Mahadeva Cimanaji Apte [Poona:] AnandaSrama Press, 1891. The publishers of the text incorrectly attribute the work to Vidyaranya and have altered the title. According to the colophons the author is simply Madhava, and the work is entitled, Samksepa-Sankara-jaya. There is also an English translation: The Traditional Life of Sri Sankaracarya by Madhava-Vidyaranya, tr. Swami Tapa-syananda (Madras: Sri Ramakrishna Math, 1978). I am currently working on a study of the Sankara hagiographies.

²⁵ Barbara Doherty, "The path to liberation: Sankara, metaphysician, mystic and teacher", unpublished Ph. D. thesis, Fordham University, New York, 1979. In looking at the myth of Sankara, she raises an important issue which, so far, has not been given sufficient attention. The crux of Doherty's argument is that the myth of Sankara was created largely by the lavish praise accorded him by F. Max Muller and Paul Deussen. These great Indologists were influenced on the one hand by the philosophical climate created by Kant and Schopenhauer, and on the other by Swami Vivekananda. Both of these influences, she holds, "brought the philosophy of Identity into a spotlight. Sankara who had recapitulated the thought of the Upanisads in this principle seemed the Indian exponent. He thus gained an aggrandizement not rightfully his" (p.24). Doherty does not seem to be aware that Sankara's place as a preeminent exponent of Vedanta was already long since established in India. But she is fully justified in maintaining that Muller and Deussen did much to inflate Sankara's reputation in the West. As she correctly points out, these nineteenth century scholars failed to acknowledge that Sankara's was not necessarily the original, nor the only, perspective on Vedanta. While Doherty has examined the European contributions to the myth of Sankara, she has neglected its Indian origins. This leads her to form a rather peculiar understanding of Sankara: "Several centuries after his death, he rose to great popularity through a series of related historical circumstances of the 19th century" (p.251). Fortunately, the Indian myth-makers did not have to await a cue from Europe. They began their creative activities long before the advent of the German Indologists.

²⁶ This comment of Tilmann Vetter's is refuted at some length by Paul Hacker ("Notes on the Mandukyopanisad and Sankara's Agamasastravivarana", in India Maior, ed J. Ensink and P. Caeffke, Leiden, 1972, p. 116n.). Vetter's remark apparently stems from the fact that he takes Sankara to be an individual philosopher. Hacker points out the problem this attitude entails: "The drastic imagery of Dr. Vetter's 'refuse disposal' would be quite to the point if S had been a solitary thinker of the kind that arose in the West about the time of Descartes. In India, however, what recommended a thinker's a-chievement was not novelty but conformity with tradition".

²⁷ Claude Lévi-Strauss, "The Structural Study of Myth", in Structural Anthropology, translated by C. Jacobson and B. G. Schoepf (London, 1968), p. 229.

²⁸Ibid.

²⁹ "There is, perhaps, a danger in wishing to oversystematise the thought of an author and to perceive relationships between different aspects of his work which appear as being independent because they respond to different problems"; Madeleine Biardeau, "Quelques Réflexions sur l'Apophatisme de Sankara", IIJ, 3 (1959), p. 87.

³⁰Ibid., p. 100.

³¹ "Sankara der Yogin", p. 135.

³²Studien, p. 42 ff; 95 ff.

³³ "Samkara's Arguments against the Buddhists", PEW, 3 (1954), p.295.

³⁴ Wilhelm Halbfass comments that "It is important to keep in mind that [the] construction of Sankara's development remains inevitably hypothetical. We have no factual biographical framework to which we could relate doctrinal variations; the framework itself has to be construed out of such variations. This is further complicated by the fact that Sankara's writings do not simply present us with "doctrines", but also with complex and ambiguous patterns of relating one basic teaching or intent to a great variety of approaches and expressions … it requires extreme caution to identify "inconsistencies" and "contradictions" which would be illegitimate in Sankara's own horizon and which would provide reliable, unambiguous clues for actual changes in his thought and for a development from earlier to later positions (Studies in Kumarila and Sankara, Reinbek, 1983, p.39).

Abbreviations

AiU = Aitareya Upanisad

ALB = Adyar Library Bulletin

Bh = bhasya

BU = Brhadaranyaka Upanisad

BS = Brahmasutra

BSBh = Brahmasutra-bhasya

ChU = Chandogya Upanisad

GBh = Bhagavadgita-bhasya

IIJ = Indo-Iranian Journal

JIP = Journal of Indian Philosophy

KaU = Katha Upanisad

MaU = Mandukya Upanisad

MK = Mandukya-karika of Gaudapada

MuU = Mundaka Upanisad

NS = Naiskarmyasiddhi of SureSvara

PEW = Philosophy East and West

PU = Prasna Upanisad

TU = Taittiriya Upanisad

US = Upadesasahasri

USG = Upadesasahasri, gadyabandha (prose portion)

USP = Upadesasahasri, padyabandha (metrical portion)

WZKSO= Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Sud- und Ostasiens

YS = Yogasutra

YSBh = Yogasutra-bhasya of Vyasa

YV = Yogasutra-bhasya-vivarana attributed to Sankara