SOURCE: "Biography of Sankara and His Main Works" in Shankara and Indian Philosophy, State University of New York Press, 1993, pp. 69-104.

[Below, Isayeva surveys the various hagiographies of Sankara's life, outlines the three categories of his writings, and discusses the difficulty scholars have encountered in authenticating some of his work.]

1. Sankara's Life

We know both too much and too little about Sankara's life. The hagiographical tradition of Vedanta overflows with descriptions of wonderful signs and prophecies, fantastic occurrences and brilliant aphorisms that accompanied literally every day and hour of the Advaitist's earthly existence. Meanwhile, the reliable data are quite scanty and difficult to single out from the colorful mass of contradictory evidence.

There are several accepted biographies of Sankara, but some of them are still unpublished. The only source of this genre available to me was a present-day compilation by V.S. Radhakrishna Sastri, entitled Sri-Sankaravijaya-makaranda,¹ and therefore I also made extensive use of the previously mentioned book by Mario Piantelli, where tales from various hagiographies are brought together. In the last chapter of his work Piantelli gives a short synopsis of the extant biographies of the Advaitist, making use not only of Sanskrit sources, but also of manuscripts in other Indian languages.

Probably the earliest of all Sankara's biographies is the one traditionally ascribed to Citsukha. Like other works of this kind, it includes in its title the word vijaya, that is, victory, conquest, and is called Brhatsankara-vijaya (The conquest of great Sankara), or, sometimes, Guru-sankara-vijaya (The conquest of teacher Sankara). The author declares himself to be a native of Kerala; he says that he comes from the same part of the country as Sankara and so was able to preserve the evidence even about the early childhood of the great teacher.

The most authoritative and the most widely-cited hagiography of Sankara belongs to Anandagiri. While Citsukha's work is sometimes regarded as doubtful (some scholars cannot exclude the possibility of a later forging), Pracina-sankara-vijaya (The collection of tales about Sankara's conquest) by Anandagiri is quite an accepted and reliable source, which is well-attributed and dates back to the 14th century. However, as some scholars have noticed, the biography of Sankara in this text is supplemented by evidence of the events, that had taken place in the monastery of Kanci under the priors, or jagadgurus, bearing the same name of Sri Sankaracarya.

Another popular biography was composed by the Vedantin Vyasacali; it is entitled Vyasacali-sankara-vijaya. Though the tradition relates it to the Sankara who is of interest for us now, one must note that its hero is often called either Vidyasankara, or Sankara-nanda; therefore, there is a definite possibility of confusion between the founder of Advaita and a certain Sankarananda who flourished in Kashmir about the 11th century. Incidentally, the same nickname was used also with reference to Sankaramisra—a renowned commentator of the Vaisesika school.

Finally, among the most well-known hagiographies of Sankara, one usually mentions Sanksepa-sankara-vyaya (A short rendering of Sankara's conquest), which is ascribed to the Advaitist Madhavacarya, sometimes considered to be a brother of the celebrated Sayana Madhava, the author of the compendium Sarva-darsana-sangraha. The composer of the biography is often identified with the sage Vidyaranya, who wrote one of the simplest and most intelligible manuals of Advaita metaphysics—the treatise Pancadasi (Fifteen chapters). Based on this evidence, the biography should be probably dated back to the fourteenth century. Nevertheless, quite recently compelling arguments were offered that Sanksepa-sankara-vijaya was composed in the second part of the 17th century, perhaps even later, and was primarily the fruit of protracted disputes between Vedantic monasteries. In the opinion of the Indian scholar W. R. Antarkar,² this hagiography is nothing more than a moderately skillful forgery, made in Smgeri monastery and destined to substantiate its claims on certain rites connected with Sankara's life. Indeed, this hagiography, which is attributed to Madhavacarya-Vidyaranya, contains almost no new material, mostly following the earlier sources. Its original value is not great, but it still remains a much-cited and convenient synopsis of many legends related to the Advaitist's life.

Mario Piantelli mentions another interesting biography—Sankara-vijaya-vilasa (An exquisite/rendering/of Sankara's conquest). Its authorship is ascribed to one of Sankara's minor disciples; his name is supposed to be Cidvilasayati. However, this text probably owes its existence to the dispute between two South Indian monasteries. The hagiography is composed in the form of a dialogue between one of a Sankara's pupils and a certain Vijnakanda, but the greater part of its material is borrowed from Brhat-sankara-vijaya.

Some of the less-known biographies probably also deserve at least a brief mention. Among them one should note Govindanatha's text, published at the end of the last century and entitled Keraliya-sankara-vijaya (Sankara's victories in Kerala); it mainly relates to the local Kerala tradition of Sankara's biographies. There is an unpublished manuscript, containing the poem "Sankara-bhyudaya" (The rise of Sankara), and written in the 17th century by a religious poet Rajacudamani Diksita. A celebrated Vedantist Sadananda, the author of a popular treatise Vedantasara (the essence of Vedanta), composed at the end of the fifteenth century, is supposed to be the author of the hagiography Sankaradigvijaya-sara (The essence of Sankara's conquest of the world). In the monography by M. Piantelli are also enumerated some of the later biographies of Sankara, manuscripts of which are kept in the libraries of Madras, Kanci and other places.³

In what way do the celebrated hagiographers depict the life of the great Vedantin? First of all, descriptions of his destiny start with events that took place well before his birth. As previously mentioned, Sankara is most often regarded as an earthly incarnation of Siva, and so, as befits an avatara of God, his birth is preceded by miraculous signs. Siva, who is sitting atop the Kailasa mountain together with his heavenly consort, gives the other gods a solemn promise to descend to the earth in order to reinstate the shattered foundations of true knowledge—that is, of Vedanta. It is interesting that many of the well-known Vedantists were also regarded as incarnations of various gods: Mandanamisra was considered an embodiment of Brahma; Sadananda, of Visnu; Citsukha, of Varuna; and Anandagiri, of Agni.

According to an old legend, in a small village in Kerala, at the extreme south of India, there once lived a Brahman, whose name was Vidyadhiraja; he came of the family of Nambutiri, which was famous for its wealth and learning. The only son of Vidyadhiraja, Sivaguru, or in other versions Curnin, from his early youth was distinguished by his inclination towards asceticism and a secluded way of life. All of his father's eloquence was needed to persuade the youth to postpone sacred vows and marry a suitable girl. Sivataraka (some hagiographers call her Aryamba), daughter of a learned Brahman from a neighboring village, became his wife. As one can judge from the highly significant names, the young couple enjoyed the special protection of Siva himself (Sivaguru means, of course, the teacher Siva, while Sivataraka means either Siva's eye, or Siva's falling star).

In spite of a virtuous life and unswerving performance of all rites, the couple remained childless for a long time. After many years they finally decided to go to Trichur, where there was an important Saivite sanctuary, Vrsadrinath, known as a popular place of pilgrimage. They wanted to ask the gods' blessing for a child. It was there that Sivaguru saw in a dream an old man who offered him a choice between a hundred quite happy and successful sons—and just one son, destined to become a great sage but condemned also to a short and severe life. According to Vyasacali-sankara-vijaya, Sivataraka also saw Siva in a dream; the god was not disguised but was revealed to her in all the brilliance of his glory, riding the bull Nandi. He openly declared to the woman that her son was destined to become a great Vedanta teacher. After husband and wife had awakened and told each other their dreams, they suddenly heard the voice of Siva, who exclaimed: "I will myself be born as your son!"

The birth of the wonderful child was accompanied by heavenly music and singing, the sweet fragrance of flowers and unusual meekness of savage beasts. The body of the newborn child was dazzling in its brilliance; on top of his head one could clearly discern a crescent, the sign of Siva; on his palm there was a mark left by the god's trident; while on his breast, by the heart, there was an image of a coiled cobra; finally, on his forehead one could see a trace of the third eye.⁴ The hagiographies also give astrological data, that make it possible to know something about the time of his birth, though they relate mainly to month, day and time of day, rather than to a specific (even if legendary) year. The very name Sankara means auspicious, merciful; it is one of the most sacred and revered of Siva's names.

Just as wonderful, according to the biographies, was the early childhood of the future teacher. According to one of the legends, Sankara's mother once returned home to find a large cobra, coiled around his neck; while she was still looking at it, stunned by the horrible sight, the cobra turned into a necklace of sacred flowers and fruits. It is said that while he was only one year old, the child could already speak and read Sanskrit. According to the hagiographies, once some children were arguing with each other about the number of seeds inside a large melon. Young Sankara said that the number of the seeds would correspond to the number of gods who had created the universe. And how great was the wonder of everybody present, when, having cut the melon, they found inside only one seed! The most detailed account of Sankara's childhood, including some less-known tales, can be found in Sanksepa-sankara-vijaya.

Soon before Sankara was to celebrate his fifth year, his father Sivaguru was dead (this is probably why the adherents of Dvaita-Vedanta often refer to Sankara as the son of the widow). Soon the boy was invested with a sacred thread and so could start the study of the Vedas, as well as the arts and sciences based on the Vedas. (They are usually called Vedanga, that is, the limbs of Veda, or the parts of Veda.) Sankara soon surpassed by his learning all the local Brahmanic teachers; he was often asked for advice and spiritual guidance not only by his neighbors but also by the nearby villagers. As befits the true hero of a hagiography, Sankara from early childhood felt an irresistible inclination towards the life of a hermit (sannyasin), but the entreaties of his mother held him back from taking sacred vows.

When he was almost eight, an unusual occurrence took place which is unanimously related by all of his biographers. The problem was that it was time for his earthly life to end. It was then that, according to the hagiographies, under Sivataraka's very eyes her son was suddenly caught by an enormous crocodile that dragged its prey to the river. Sankara managed to cry out to his mother, telling her that a promise to become a sannyasin would be the same as a new birth and would, therefore, save him from this violent evil or bad death (durmarana), which was considered in India to be one of the greatest misfortunes and even sins. So Sivataraka finally agreed that her son would become a hermit, the crocodile released its victim, and Sankara's life span was doubled (by some accounts, multiplied four fold). On the same day Sankara left his native home, having promised, though, to return before his mother's death, in order to console her and then to perform her funeral rites.

The young hermit went to the north. He walked until he finally reached the banks of the Narmada River, where at that time were many Saivite sanctuaries. Having looked into one of the caves situated under the shade of the sacred trees, Sankara saw a group of sannyasins surrounding an imposing old man, who was deeply engrossed in meditation. He folded his hands respectfully, approached the old man, and, having stretched before him on the ground, exclaimed: "I bow down before revered Govinda, my teacher!" Govinda asked the boy to introduce himself and then greeted him fervently as a long-promised disciple, a future great sage and an earthly incarnation of Siva. In later hagiographies, however, such as the compilation of V.S. Radhakrishna Sastri, the emphasis is different: Sankara hastens to introduce himself to Govinda as the great Siva, who only temporarily assumed a human form.⁵ In any case, Govinda was not bewildered by these speeches of the child; it seems he had been waiting for Sankara for quite a long time, having been forewarned by Gaudapada. Thus began the discipleship of the young sannyasin under the guidance of Govinda.

Different hagiographies describe Sankara's stay on the banks of the river in slightly different ways. According to Brhat-sankara-vijaya, the period of discipleship under Govinda continued for two years, but there are other estimates. Regardless of lengths this time was extremely productive, since it was at the feet of Govinda that Sankara became acquainted with the foundations of Advaita. It was probably at this time that he composed many of his Saivite hymns, some philosophical treatises and the Commentary on Brhadaranyakopanisad. It goes without saying that it was during this period that Govinda first showed Sankara the Mandukya-karika of Gaudapada, which served as a basis for a deferential commentary by the pupil.

As to Sankara's main work, his Commentary on the Brahmasutra, its creation has inspired a special legend. According to Sanksepa-sankara-vijaya, while Sankara was staying with Govinda for his second year, suddenly a great flood came. After severe rains the waters of the Narmada inundated the villages in the area and finally rose up to the very entrance of the cave, where the teacher and his disciples were engrossed in meditation. Having seen what had happened, Sankara pronounced a special incantation (a mantra 'on the drawing of the waters') and put his begging bowl on the threshold. The torrents of water immediately rushed into the small bowl and soon disappeared there, while the river again resumed its natural course. It was then that Govinda remembered Badarayana's famous prophecy, according to which the best commentary on his text would be written by somebody who would succeed in taming the wild river.

Having received the blessing of Govinda, Sankara, according to Vedantic tradition, managed to compose in four years commentaries on all the works of the 'triple canon', that is, on the Brahmasutra, on Bhagavadgita, as well as on the principle Upanisads.

Hagiographical legends tell us about the young Sankara's journey to the sacred mountain Kailasa, where for the first time he personally encountered Siva in the form of Daksinamurti, or as the giver of true knowledge. It was at that time that Sankara performed a pilgrimage to Benares. On the banks of the Ganga river—in Benares, as well as in the ancient sanctuary of Badarinatha—he stayed until he received tidings of his mother's grave illness.

Returning home, Sankara found his mother on her deathbed. According to Brhat-sankara-viaya and Sanksepa-sankara-vijaya, Sivataraka entreated her son to console her and dispel her fears. It is said that Sankara tried at first to acquaint her with the essence of Advaita, but the image of an illusive world, based on an impersonal atman, only frightened the poor woman still more. And so, the young ascetic, having forgotten for the time being his higher philosophy, chanted hymns devoted to Siva and Visnu; this chanting helped his mother to meet her death with greater calm and courage. Finally, though his sannyasin vows did not in principle allow for following the usual ritual practice, which ordinarily befitted the only son (a sannyasin was considered to be beyond any worldly and family ties), Sankara performed all the necessary funeral rites.

Soon after his mother's death, Sankara had to endure another blow: his teacher Govinda was also dying. According to most of the hagiographies, Sankara came to say farewell to his teacher, accompanied by his own first disciple, Padmapada.⁶ Much later, on one of the Narmada islands, where Sankara had paid his last respects to Govinda, a temple was erected which became an important center of Hindu pilgrimage. From the Narmada, according to Vedantic tradition, Sankara started for the famous city of Prayaga, accompanied by Padmapada and several other disciples, including Citsukha.

It was in Prayaga, in the words of the hagiographers, that Sankara's meeting with the most noted Mimamsakas—Kumarila and Prabhakara took place. One might mention here that the biography of Kumarila has survived to these days only owing to some episodes inserted in the traditional biographies of Sankara. According to these sources, Kumarila was born in a Brahmanic family of South India and from his early youth decided to dedicate all his efforts to the struggle against the 'heretical' doctrines of the Jainas and the Buddhists.⁷ By the time of their meeting with Sankara, Kumarila and his pupil Prabhakara (so he is presented in most of the Advaitist's hagiographies) could boast of many victories during public philosophical disputes. Their opponents during these popular contests were mainly the 'heretics', the enemies of Brahmanic orthodoxy,⁸ but generally any philosopher and any errant preacher could take part in the dispute. The opponents might belong to different schools or to one and the same school—what really counted was good memory, cleverness and skill in verbal wrangling. Actually the image of oral disputes presented by the biographies does not differ greatly from the descriptions of philosophical contests held at the courts of the kings, descriptions amply provided by Brhadaranyakopanisad and Kausitakopanisad.

It goes without saying that in the hagiographies where Sankara is the main hero he invariably defeats all his opponents. It is believed that after one such dispute Sankara acquired a new pupil—none other than Prabhakara's son, Prthividhara (and according to some hagiographies even Prabhakara himself, and—not long before his death, having repented his former views—Kumarila).

More plausible, though, was an Advaita conversion of another well-known Mimamsaka—Mandanamisra. The episode of Mandanamisra's dispute with Sankara (Sankara-mandana-samvada) was described extensively in Brhat-sankara-vijaya and Sanksepa-sankara-vyaya. Unlike Sankara, according to the hagiographies, Mandanamisra was not a sannyasin, but a learned and pious householder (grhastha), who had reached the heights of wisdom due to his unswerving obedience to ritual injunctions. Sankara came to his house just at the time when Mandanamisra was occupied with preparations for the yearly ceremony of memorial sacrifice. With his impertinent remarks and direct ridicule, the young ascetic forced Mandanamisra to engage in a dispute with him, having set the condition that in case of defeat, the adversary would leave his household and become an errant mendicant. According to legend, the contest between Sankara and Mandanamisra continued for fifteen days without any intermission. It is related that after it was over, the Advaitist had acquired a new disciple.⁹ As mentioned above, Vedantic tradition identifies Mandanamisra (who, of course, had to assume a new name at his initiation) with one of Sankara's followers—Suresvara.

The hagiographers differ in their efforts to give a precise determination of the time spent by Sankara in Benares, though his visit to the sacred city is not disputed. Varanasi, or Kasi, as it is most often called in Sankara's biographies, the city of a thousand temples, had for a long time drawn many pilgrims—or simply travellers—from all over India. It was there that the preaching of the Advaitist expanded greatly; among his listeners and opponents were not only orthodox-minded Hinduists, but also Buddhists and Jainas.

In Benares, Sankara resided with his disciples in one of the most famous ghattas, that is, the sanctuaries used for performing funeral rites on the banks of the Ganga River. This ghatta is known by the name Manikarnika, or, the earring/of Siva/. According to legend, it was the very first piece of earth fished out of the primeval waters by the trident of the God. Sitting in this ghatta, Sankara received alms, taught pious Hindus and converted 'heretics'. The Advaitin's image still occupies the most honorable place in the neighboring temple of Visvanatha.

However, the story of Sankara's stay in Benares would not be complete if one were to omit a popular tale about a candala which was probably composed with Buddhist influence. It is said that once a candala, that is, a person of mixed varna—a son of a sudra and a brahman woman (in orthodox belief, the most miserable and despised being)—was encountered by Sankara and his disciples on one of the narrow streets of the city. The Advaitist, afraid of the ritually impure touch of the wretched man, ordered him to clear the way and let them pass. He got quite an unexpected rebuke. Directly referring to Advaita tenets about the unity of atman, the candala boldly defended the idea of the original equality of all living beings. According to the same legend, Sankara bowed down to the candala and, having acknowledged his blunder, composed on the spot a poem about the higher atman that shines forth equally both in a dvija Brahman and in an untouchable candala.

After Benares, Sankara continued his travels. The hagiographies relate that he not only indefatigably preached Advaita, but also founded Vedantic monasteries (matha) in various parts of India, organized after the Buddhist pattern. Most of the biographers are of the opinion that the main monasteries, which were founded by Sankara when he was about thirty, were established in the following order: Dvaraka, Badarinatha, Puri, Srngeri and Kanci. Sometimes, though, this sequence varies; and usually the list of monasteries is supplemented by other mathas in various combinations.

It is generally believed that Sankara assigned the sannyasins, who shared Advaita notions, to ten monastic orders—according to the number of main monasteries—and instructed each order to stay in the place prepared for it.¹⁰ At present, only four associations of Sankara's followers remain truly monastic in character; they are the monastic orders of Bharati, Sarasvati, Tirtha and Asramin. All the rest have become more or less secular organizations.

According to the hagiographies, Sankara died in his thirty-third year, surrounded by his numerous followers and disciples. Even today several Hindu monasteries contest the honor of being regarded as the place of the teacher's last repose. According to Pracina-sankaravijaya, Sankara died in Kanci, while the compilers of some of the biographies give preference to the sanctuary of Kedaranatha. Sanksepa-sankara-vijaya relates that Sankara actually did not die at all, but, having climbed the mountain Kailasa, assumed his original divine form. The Advaitist's demise is dealt with in the same spirit in Sankara-vijaya-vilasa, the text that seems most prone to relating absolutely fantastic events.

Of course, it is no simple task to gain an understanding of the peculiar intertwining of fantasies and reality that characterizes the accounts of Sankara's life. Let us make at least a preliminary effort, singling out some reasonably reliable facts from the whole conglomerate of colorful legends.

First of all, the question that naturally arises concerns the exact dating of his life. It is fairly understandable that hagiographies provide us mostly with astrological data. If one were to rely on the material of Brhatsankara-vijaya, Sankara was born in the year Nandana, or the twenty-sixth year of the sixty-year cycle, in the lunar month Vaisakha (corresponding to May-June), under the Zodiac sign of the Archer. Sanksepa-sankaravijaya confirms these data, specifying that this notable event took place on a Monday, and determining the phases of the moon. According to M. Piantelli,¹¹ these astrological characteristics correspond to only two possible dates: AD 568 and 805. Relative dating of the year and day of Sankara's birth are accepted by all the biographies composed within the sphere of influence of the monastery of Kanci, though some extant South Indian versions of Sankara's biography offer a different date.

According to the same Brhat-sankara-vijaya, the Advaitist's death falls on the month Vrsabha (April-May), or, possibly, Pausa (December-January) of the year Raktaksin, or the 58th year of the sixty-year cycle. So if one believes the hagiographies, Sankara died, probably, in his thirty-third year: either in 600 or in 837 year AD.¹²

As for the Western tradition, for quite a long time scholars adhered to a definite dating. In 1877 a German scholar, Prof. K. P. Tiele, in his essays on ancient religions suggested as a probable date of Sankara's life an interval between 788 and 820. He based his estimate on the evidence of a later Vedantin, Yajnesvara Sastri, who cites in his treatise Aryavidya-sudhakar (The moon of noble knowledge) an earlier work by Bhatta Nilakantha, entitled Sankara-mandara-saurabha (The fragrance of Sankara's paradise tree).¹³ Somewhat later, an Indian scholar, K. Pathak, found corroboration for these data in a treatise by an anonymous mediaeval author.¹⁴ One must note that in principle the reliability of these source is not much higher than that of the hagiographical materials. Still, the date 788-820 was accepted as a serious working hypothesis by such prominent Indologists as F. Max Müller, A. Macdonell, A. B. Keith, M. Winternitz.¹⁵ Later this dating became generally accepted by their followers.

Nevertheless, after some time many serious scholars agreed that the dating of Sankara's life needed closer definition, and that its limits should be set farther back in the post. Similar views were advocated by Indian scholars K. Telang,¹⁶ T. Chintamani¹⁷ and S. Kuppuswami Sastri.¹⁸ Also inclined to an earlier dating is a well-known Japanese Indologist, Hajime Nakamura.¹⁹ An Italian scholar, G. Tucci, reminds us of a similar opinion from French historian, P. De-miéville²⁰; to his mind, the former date should be reconsidered and set back at least 45-50 years. D. Ingalls also prefers to place Sankara in the first half of the eighth century.²¹

Quite recently much attention has been paid to Sankara's mention of or indirect reference to his opponents—both predecessors and contemporaries. It is regarded as definite that in Sankara's works one can find traces of his polemics with the Buddhists Dinnaga (ca. the end of the fifth century) and Dharmakirti (the beginning of the seventh century),²² a Mimamsaka Kumarila,²³ There are also references to Bhartrhari and Gaudapada. That means that the earliest limit of Sankara's activity cannot be set earlier than AD 650. On the other hand, the latest limit is usually determined by the commentary of Vacaspatimisra on Sankara's work. One of Vacaspatimisra's writings is definitely dated ca. AD 840; and it is generally accepted that he is at least one generation younger than Sankara—that is, the date should be placed about AD 800.

In trying to pin down the dates of the Advaitist's life, it proved useful to take into account indirect evidence, provided by Jaina and Buddhist sources. However, as noted by the Indian scholar K. Kunjunni Raja, judging by the material of Tattva-sangraha (a collection of the essence of various teachings) by Santaraksita (AD 705-62) and the commentary by Kamalasila (713-63), Sankara's teaching had not yet become important and well-known at the time of these Buddhist authors.²⁴ It looks as if early pre-Sankara Vedanta was not yet regarded by the 'heretical' teachers as a serious system of opposing thought. As for Sankara's own name, it was not even mentioned in contemporary Jaina and Buddhist works.

So the hopes of giving more precise dates for Sankara's life and activity through the use of his adversaries' works proved to be mostly premature. One has to agree with Hajime Nakamura, who wrote that "the scholarly tradition of Sankara became influential only in the context of later social development.²⁵ Still, starting from AD 900, Vedanta becomes an object of severe criticism, for instance, in Jaina sources (one is reminded of Yasastilaka of Somadeva, who was a Digambara), while the only system worthy of attention from the standpoint of the Jainas was Sankara's school.²⁶

Summing up the efforts of the scholars to clarify the chronology of Sankara's life, one must admit that—in spite of all their skill and even subtlety—they did not attain any noticeable progress. And when, for example, a prominent Japanese scholar, Sengaku Mayeda, who specializes in Sankara's work and has published many critical editions of his writings, regards as most likely the interval between 700 and 750 AD, he still has reservations, specifying that other points of view on this matter are also justified to some extent.²⁷ Indeed, a Dutch scholar, Tilmann Vetter, who painstakingly summed up not only the data from Sanskrit sources, but also the existing critical literature, had no option but to return to a fairly long period from AD 650 to 800.²⁸ At this rather vague interval we must stop for the time being.

As for the famous digvijaya of Sankara, or, the conquest of the parts of the world, there is really no grounds for any doubt as to the victorious journey of the Advaitist throughout the country. Sankara was undoubtedly not only a philosopher and an astute theoretician, he was also one of the most prominent religious figures and a gifted preacher, spreading his own teaching. One glimpses this both in the hagiographies, where the teacher invariably defeats his adversaries, and in the echoes of lively disputes and contests that are recorded in his own works. Sankara's main opponents were the Buddhists. Though the decline of Buddhism started long before Sankara, his active preaching, directed against this heterodox teaching, certainly contributed to the gradual forcing out of the 'heretics'. But, as observed by F. Whaling, "Sankara not merely refuted the Buddhists negatively, he also played his part in the Hindu renaissance which was loosening the popular hold of Buddhists over the people."²⁹

Another moment is quite worthy of attention. If one maintains the thesis of the direct impact of Buddhism on Sankara, this impact would be doubtless perceptible primarily in the sphere of practical religion. Sankara succeeded in reforming or, to be more precise, in constructing all over again, the monastic organization of Hinduism, in many respects taking as a model the Buddhists sangha, or religious community. The hagiographies enumerate ten Hindu monasteries foun-ded by Sankara, as well as ten monastic orders of sannyasins. Four of these monasteries—Srngeri, Kanci, Dvaraka and Puri—still retain their full significance. Even now the organizational structure of Southern Hinduism, which had been the main object of Sankara's care, is regarded as more firm and solid than its Northern counterpart. The ascetics who are supposed to follow Sankara's creed are called dasanamin, that is, having ten names—in memory of the ten former monastic orders. Meanwhile, all other sannyasins are usually defined as dandin or ekadandin (from danda, or the sacred staff of an ascetic). On the whole, in the words of F. Whaling, "Sankara introduced Buddhist principles of organisation and lifelong asceticism into Hindu monastic life, and provided for the first time some sort of guiding authority to lay down and preach right principles of philosophy and religion.³⁰

Hinduism is also much indebted to the influence of Buddhist religious practice, assimilated through Sankara's mediation, for its rejection of bloody sacrifices, as well as of some extreme Saktist practices. According to the living Hindu tradition, it was Sankara, for instance, who brought to an end the practice of worship of the dog-headed Siva in one of the most popular centers of pilgrimage, the city of Ujjayini. (This strange form of worship was based upon one of the lesser known myths of the victory of Siva, who had assumed the form of the dog Khandoba, over a mighty Asura Manimalla; this form of worship presumed and allowed for the corresponding 'doggish' behavior of the adept). Travelling over Kamarupa (present Assam), Sankara introduced into more sensible limits the Tantric ritual practice of the 'left hand', the practice that was mainly based on magic and erotic excesses.

What is not, however, reflected adequately in critical literature, is the problem of the relationship between Sankara's Vedanta and Kashmir Saivism. Meanwhile, the correspondence between some notions of the Saivite Pratyabhijna-darsana (from pratyabhijna, lit.: recognition, which is understood here as a method of sudden realization of God) and Advaita ideas deserves some deliberation—or at least a preliminary analysis.³¹ In some respects this similarity can be explained by their respective theoretical and philosophical roots: the history of preparation and development presupposed a slight shading of the Buddhist concepts of Vijnanavada and Sunyavada, superimposed over the traditional Saivite background. In the teaching of Somananda (end of the ninth century) emphasis is placed on the knower or knowing subject (pramatr), who is identified with Siva and, simultaneously, with the inner Self, or atman of the adept; the inner luminosity (prakasa) or vibration (spanda, vimarsa) of atman creates the visible universe. Somananda's pupils, Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta (beginning of the eleventh century, maintained, in contrast to Sankara, that the differentiation of energies or potencies, responsible for the creation of the world, is really contained within atman and so cannot be held as illusory. Still, the correspondence of images and terminological preferences seems too striking for mere coincidence. Since Kashmir (in particular, one of the temples, dedicated to the Goddess Sarasvati, the temple Sarvajnapitha) is repeatedly mentioned among the places visited by Sankara during his travels over the country, one might at least presume the possibility of his influence upon the development of local philosophical and religious schools, a process that drew attention after the ninth century.

To make the picture complete, however, one cannot overlook the opinion of Paul Hacker, according to which Sankara was really a Visnuite, and the later legends concerning his alleged Saivite inclinations can be traced back to one of his biographers, Madhava (or Vidyaranya). Hacker tried to substantiate this—completely original—point of view in one of his articles.³² To my mind, though, his arguments are far from conclusive; they cannot explain satisfactorily Sankara's critique of the Visnuite doctrine of Pancaratra in his Commentary on Brahmasutra; or the emergence of the notion of maya, which is so important for the whole concept of Advaita; or, finally, the authorship of Saivite hymns, which is ascribed to him by orthodox tradition. Probably Hacker was somewhat misled in this respect by his subconscious strivings to bring Sankara's teaching a bit closer to his own Christian convictions, which, of course, are more easily comparable with the image of the benevolent and merciful Visnu.

As mentioned above, Sankara's death gave rise to two Hindu traditions. The hagiographies, gravitating towards the still flourishing monastery of Kanci, and going back to Pracina-sankara-vijaya of Anandagiri, maintain that the Advaitist died in Kanci. In memory of his death a statue was erected, which is now situated in the temple of Kamaksi. Another great monastery connected with Sankara's name—the monastery of Smgeri³³—supports quite a different version of the legend. It is based on the evidence of the hagiographies, the common source of which is Sanksepa-sankara-vijaya by Madhava. According to these sources, Sankara died near the sanctuary of Kedaranatha (quite close to the temple complex of Badarinatha in the Himalayas). Even today one can see in Kedaranatha the ruins of the monument which is supposed to have been constructed where Sankara died.

The rivalry between the monasteries of Kanci and Srngeri continues to play an important part in present-day religious and cultural life of the Hindu community. Some Indologists, interested in Sankara and educated within the framework of traditional Hindu learning, were, sometimes quite involuntarily, drawn into the history of petty jealousies and mutual grievances. For instance, a well-known Vedanta scholar, Prof. T. M. P. Mahadevan, agreed to supervise the publishing of a rather colorful and also rather muddled volume dedicated to the sixty-eighth prior of the monastery of Kanci—Candrasekharendra Sarasvati, who included in this collection an autobiographical essay.³⁴ It is interesting to note that, according to established tradition, the heads of Kanci and Srngeri maths always bear the honorary title of Sankaracarya, or, the teacher Sankara.

2. Works of Sankara: Reliability of Attribution and Compositional Peculiarities

During his rather short life Sankara managed to write an enormous number of varied works. Even if one were to exclude the writings whose attribution to Sankara is somewhat doubtful, the scale of his creative activity is still amazing. Indian tradition ascribes to him the authorship of more than 400 extant Vedantic works.

Following the proposal of S. K. Belvalkar,³⁵ for the sake of convenient examination Sankara's works are usually divided into three parts, according to genre characteristics. The first category embraces the commentaries; among them are the bhasya, or the most authoritative, 'primary' interpretation of basic texts, as well as the vivarana and the tika, representing, as a rule, sub-commentaries on commentaries. These sub-commentaries are supposed to interpret both basic texts and their primary explanations. The second group of texts includes mostly hymns, poems, metric incantations and praises of the gods (stotra, stava and stuti); while the third group consists of independent compositions, treatises and compendia.

Let us now touch upon one of the most controversial problems of present-day Sankara studies—the problem of which works can be attributed to the Advaitist, This question was seriously raised for the first time by Paul Hacker. In one of his earlier articles he writes about the corpus of works which has survived under Sankara's name: [T]he variety of contents makes it highly improbable that all these works should have been composed by one and the same person. So it was inevitable that the majority of historians should have taken the position that all those writings were provisionally to be regarded as spurious, with the only exception of Sankara's main work, the Brahmasutrabhasya, and that in the case of all the other commentaries and independent treatises the question of the authorship required investigation.³⁶ Having clearly formulated the problem, Hacker also laid down three main principles or methods of investigation for determining the attribution of certain works of Sankara. These principles laid a sound foundation for the later analysis of specific works by the Advaitist; such analysis was made by the German scholar himself, as well as by many of his followers.

First of all, Hacker suggested that one should pay more attention to the colophons of the manuscripts, where the author (allegedly, Sankara) appears under different names and is bestowed with different titles. In the opinon of the scholar, the name (or rather, the title) Sankaracarya does not provide confirmation of such authorship—if only because, as mentioned above, "the teacher Sankara" was the title conferred on every head preceptor of the monasteries of Smgeri and Kanci. A more reliable attribution is secured by another popular title—Bhagavat, or Lord, which turns up in reference to Sankara in the versions Bhagavatpada and Bhagavatpujyapada, usually superseding the proper name.

The second investigative method makes use of evidence from the immediate disciples of Sankara—primarily Padmapada, Suresvara and Totaka. With slightly more caution one might also use the references to Sankara found in the works by Anandajnana and Vacaspatimisra. This method should also take into account the distinguishing between the texts belonging to Sankaracarya (and so attributed less reliably), and those allegedly written by Sankara—Bhagavatpada or Bhagavatpujyapada. But the evidence stemming from the nearest environment to the Advaitist is rather reliable in itself; in most cases, argues Hacker, one can safely depend upon it, while judging the authoritativeness of one or the other work.

And finally, the third principle consists in analysis of the content, as well as of the special terminology of the work in question. In other words, if a text had been written by Sankara, its notions should not contradict the general conception represented in his Commentary on Brahmasutra. Accordingly, the terms used in the text should correspond to the early stage of Advaita development, and not to its later interpretations. In his own articles Hacker sets an example of minute philological analysis of some of Sankara's works, paying meticulous attention to the terms avidya, maya and namarupa.³⁷

How do these principles actually function in relation to the three groups of texts representing the creative activity of Sankara?

In the first group, as already noted, the authorship of the Commentary on Brahmasutra is absolutely beyond doubt. This confidence is explained not only by the fact that the authenticity of the work is guaranteed by the evidence of Padmapada; one must also take into account that Brahma-sutra-bhasya provides, so to speak, the point of reference for all other works, as well as for the very image of the Advaitist, who remained in the memory of subsequent generations primarily as bhasyakara or, the author of the commentary. Hacker himself regards as completely proved Sankara's authorship of the commentaries on the ten principle Upanisads: Isa, Aitareya, Katha, Kena, Chandogya, Taittiriya, Prasna, Brhadaranyaka, Mandukya (which is traditionally united with Gaudapada's Karika) and Mundaka. Somewhat less reliable is Sankara's authorship for the bhasya on Svetasvataropanisad. Making use of Hacker's method, Sengaku Mayeda demonstrated the authenticity of the Commentary on the Bhagavadgita, traditionally ascribed to Sankara.³⁸ So the most modern philological methods confirm the correctness of the usual belief that Sankara actually composed the commentaries to all parts of the prasthana-traya, or the triple canon of Vedanta.

Hacker also regards as belonging to Sankara a sub-commentary on Yoga-sutra-bhasya by Vedavyasa, that is the work Yoga-sutra-bhasya-vivarana, as well as a short commentary on one of the parts of Dharmasutra by Apastamba, called Adhyatma-patala-vivarana (Sub-commentary on the chapter about inner atman).³⁹ Without going into detail about the argument, I can only say that these two texts are beyond the scope of the present book. Their acceptance as authentic texts by Sankara would have led to the postulation of a separate, pre-Advaitic period of his creative activity.

It is not difficult to realize that the question of Sankara's authorship of the second group of texts cannot be solved by the analysis of their content and table of categories. Of course, the Advaitist's metric works—from erotic, tantric poems to Saivite hymns—do not contain strict philosophical terminology or logical argumentation. That is why the most reliable method of sorting out Sankara's poems from the enormous mass of religious and mystic poetry of the mediaeval period is the evidence from his disciples and followers. And the Vedantins are of the opinion that Sankara was the author of the poetical cycles Daksina-murti-stotra (Praise of the benevolent Siva), Gurvastakam (Eight poems to the teacher), Bhaja-govinda-stotra (Praise of KrsnaGovinda⁴⁰ and Sivanandalahari (Wave of the bliss of Siva).⁴¹ Less dependable is Sankara's authorship of other cycles and single poems. However, he is usually considered the author of the cycle Bhavanyastakam (Eight verses to Bhavani, or divine Mother), of the hymn Annapurna-stotra (Praise to the giver of food), of the cycle Visnu-sat-padi (Six verses for Visnu), the poem Ganga-stotra (Praise to Ganga river), Devya paradha-ksamapana-stotra (Praise of the Goddess-Mother for the forgiveness of sins), Vedasara-Sivastotra (Praise of Siva as the essence of Veda), the cycle Sivanamalyastakam (Eight lines in the name of Siva), Sivaparadha-ksamapana-stotra (Praise of Siva for the forgiveness of sins), Kaupina-pancakam (Five verses about the loin-cloth of an ascetic), Dvadasamanjarika-stotra (Praise in twelve garlands or stanzas), as well as the author of an often-cited but probably spurious cycle Nirvana-satkam (Six verses on liberation).⁴²

One must say that, in spite of the absence of reliable methods to prove the authenticity of all these works, in spite of some vagueness of criteria applied to poetical works by Sankara, still his inclination towards versification, and his skill in attiring religious thoughts with artistic images never raised any doubts. True, at first sight it might appear that poetry transforms only one of the layers of Sankara's thought—and certainly not its summit, but rather the steps leading to it. It might seem that only the lower tier of Advaita, its theistic foundation, is adorned and decorated by Saivite, sometimes even Sakta (and if one is to believe the tradition, also Visnuite) images, and is strengthened by the passionate striving of mystics and the adept's aspiration to be united with God which bypasses ritual injunctions and logical argumentation.

To my mind, though—and it was already observed by Rudolf Otto—the theistic background does loom through all of Sankara's creative activity, that is, also through the texture of the most subtle and abstract of his works.⁴³ This observation by Otto was later wholeheartedly supported by Paul Hacker⁴⁴; the latter's interest in theistic substructures of Vedanta is in many respects explained by his own proselytic aspirations as well as his clear understanding that for Christian missionaries in India it was much easier to deal with purely religious beliefs of the native people than with a consistent but entirely alien religious and philosophical system. Nevertheless, the observation itself is not devoid of wit and precision. From a formal standpoint it is important for us now that it lends weight to the conviction that the religious and poetical works of Sankara are really authentic (of course, only in the cases when this poetic creativity does not contradict—at least, directly—the philosophical concepts of the Advaitist). One should not overlook the aspect of content: actually, poetry and theology were not dislodged to the periphery of important philosophical essence, but rather continued their own indirect, latent relations with this essence. More evidence in favor of this approach is the history of Advaita development, which naturally included creative activity of poets and grammarians.

Only the third group of Sankara's work is now left for investigation. It consists of independent writings that are not connected with any 'basic' texts. Sankara's authorship for the philosophical treatise Upadesasahasri (Thousand teachings) is firmly established. The authenticity of attribution was reliably demonstrated both for its metrical (Padya-bandha) part and for the prosaic (Gadya-bandha) one, represented in the critical edition of Sengaku Mayeda (Tokyo, 1973). Far less probable is Sankara's authorship of other short treatises: Vivekacudamani (Pearl of distinction), Atma-bodha (The awakening of atman), Aparo-ksanubhuti (Not invisible realization) and Sata-sloki (A hundred slokas). Hacker expressed some doubts concerning the attribution of the compendium Sarva-darsana-sid-dhanta—-sangraha (A collection of the essence of all schools), which is traditionally ascribed to Sankara.⁴⁵ Keeping in mind the different levels of authenticity of these works, one can still use them during the course of investigation, since most often their notions do not contradict the whole of Sankara's system.

A complete list of all works belonging or ascribed to Sankara, quite convenient and specially marked according to the probability of his authorship, can be found in the previously mentioned monograph by M. Pian-telli.⁴⁶

Having examined the main works by Sankara from the standpoint of their formal attribution, we will return now to their contents. One should immediately note that the threefold division of the whole corpus of his works has a solid foundation; and the most extensive group of texts, which comes first (the commentaries), is at the same time the most important one.

A specific trait of philosophizing characteristic of traditional Indian systems—a trait which reminds one of European scholastics—is a discourse that unfolds in the form of interpretation of an original basic text. Just as in the mediaeval religious and philosophical tradition of the West, an indispensable base of philosophical investigation was provided by sacred scripture (in India it is the revelation of the Sruti) and sacred tradition (in India, the smrti), and the latter includes the systematic and 'orientating' sutras of the founders of the main darsanas. All other knowledge was considered to be directly derived from these initial postulates. It is only natural that the most adequate form of inference, that is, of some development of this 'root' (mula) philosophical content was represented by a commentary. That is why philosophical commentary became the most important and principal genre of theoretical activity, and the evolution of any philosophical school presupposed not only the creation of new interpretations of basic texts, but also the writing of sub-commentaries on popular works by authoritative commentators.

The poetical works of Sankara cannot be examined directly within the context of a philosophical investigation, but still they open up some new vistas; they provide some foreshortening or shifting sense, which contributes to the widening of perspective. As for independent works of the Advaitist, they are actually far less original or free than his commentaries. Essentially, the part played by the treatises and compendia belonging or ascribed to Sankara is limited by their auxiliary or propaedeutical functions: they form an introduction to complex religious and philosophical problems, the subtleties of which are traced in the multi-layered interpretations of the basic aphorisms belonging to the initial core of Vedanta. In the words of Sengaku Mayeda, "The study of Sankara has mostly centered around his chief work, the Brahmasutrabhasya, and his commentaries on the Upanisads. In comparison with these great works the Upadesasahasri is a minor one … / However,/in my opinion, there is no better introduction to Sankara's philosophy than the Upades-asahasri, especially its Prose Part.⁴⁷

And what is this Commentary on Brahmasutra that is to be chiefly taken into account while investigating Sankara's views? On the one hand, Sankara's Commentary is undoubtedly the most prominent work based on Badarayana's text; and on the other, it occupies a central place in all of the Advaitist's work.

Compositionally, the Commentary is conceived as continuous dialogue, where the objections of an imaginary opponent (they are usually defined as purva-paksa, or prima facie statements, literally, something conceived at first sight) alternate with the answers of the Advaitist himself, who uses as arguments the sayings of the Upanisads, as well as the Sutras of Badarayana. One must say that Sankara sometimes takes liberties with Badarayana's aphorisms, allowing himself certain strained interpretations; from time to time he even gives two equally possible interpretations of one and the same sutra. Granted the great respect that the Advaitist had for Badarayana, it is quite obvious that the text of Brahmasutra is used only as a sort of canvas to be embroidered with the patterns of his own concepts. Special methods here are evidently subordinated to the general task, and the overall impression is one of the profound inner integrity of the system, the core of which is represented by sruti sayings. Sankara's Advaita did not simply appeal to the authority of sacred scripture, as was usually done in other orthodox schools of Indian philosophy. It tried to include the texts of the Upanisads into the very fabric of its philosophical constructions, while simultaneously demonstrating the inner unity and absence of contradictions in the whole corpus of these texts.

Defending his views, Sankara tries to anticipate all possible questions and objections of his opponents. (This pattern was quite characteristic of Indian philosophical literature in general.) Sometimes the Advaitist offers supplementary arguments on behalf of his imaginary opponents, independently drawing logically unavoidable conclusions. Sometimes the pressing of an argument is nothing but a compositional device, designed to create an opportunity to stop for a while and clarify an obscure point—or just to change the course of the reasoning. Of course, the main goal here is not any conflict with real adversaries. It is quite clear that we are dealing rather with a special 'polemic genre' of religious and philosophical investigation where the alleged standpoint of a 'heretic', an 'alien' or even of someone 'sincerely confused' (as in the Sutras of Badarayana) is just a pretext for the development of Sankara's own thought.

Formally, the complementary arguments of the second turn, often simply carrying on the tenets of the opponent in quite an unexpected direction, are called uttarapaksa, or later view, subsequent examination. As a rule, they should be followed by the final conclusion of the author, that is, by siddhanta (final end of an argument, settled opinion).

Tradition distinguishes three methods of philosophical dispute, which presuppose the analysis of the opponent's arguments and subsequent logical conclusion. They are vada, jalpa and vitanda. It is assumed that within the framework of the first method a disputant is really interested in finding the truth. The second method is applied to every case of sophistic polemics, where the essential point is to defeat the adversary by any possible means. The situation is more intricate when one is dealing with a discussion defined by the term vitanda; however, it was this device that appears to have been particularly prevalent in Advaita polemics.

Already the Naiyayikas, who were disputing with the Buddhists, reproached their opponents for their polemic methods, when the opponent's views had been reduced to absurdity, and the Buddhists were idly picking at the arguments or assertions of the others without attempting to prove their own side of the question.⁴⁸ Since, from the Madhyamikas' point of view, the essence of their main notion—that of Sunya, or, emptiness—could not be grasped in words, this method of polemics was considered to be wholly appropriate. This discrepancy between critical argumentation and inner substantiation of one's own teaching can be regarded as the specific trait of the vitanda dispute. Echoes of such an approach are easily traced in Advaita—if only because the higher reality, according to Sankara, was essentially non-verbal and ineffable, but also self-evident, self-luminous (svayam-prakasa); its realization presupposed some important turn in the course of the discussion. And even a later Vedantin, the follower of Ramanuja, Venkatanatha (thirteenth and early fourteenth century) said that the method of vitanda was quite acceptable both for those desiring only victory (vijigitsu), and for those devoid of passions (vitaraga), that is, for conscientious, sober polemists.⁴⁹

The objections of Sankara's adversaries—especially numerous in the second, polemical, adhyaya of his Commentary on Brahmasutra—are not uniform in their character. As long as Sankara argues with the adherents of the orthodox systems, it is often quite enough for him to demonstrate that his opponents' view differ from sruti revelation. Moreover, sometimes he even succeeds in presenting the main notions of other orthodox schools as more or less apt approaches to the ideas of Advaita. Sankara maintains, for instance, that a correct understanding and development of Samkhya concepts is bound to reveal its inner affinity with Vedanta (Brahma-sutra-bhasya, II.2.10).

However, the most irreconcilable adversaries of Sankara are, without doubt, the followers of the materialist Lokayata system, as well as the adherents of two 'heretical' schools—the Buddhists and the Jainas—who did not accept the Vedic foundation. It is known that Lokayata flatly denied the validity of the evidence of authority, while the Buddhists and the Jainas, who had their own sacred texts, still maintained that a reference to authority occupied a subordinate place among other sources of valid knowledge and should be substantiated by arguments based on inference and perception. Such an attitude naturally called for an alteration in the ways and means of the polemics. Using the arguments that were especially popular with his rivals, Sankara pursues the discussion mainly with the help of logic and ordinary common sense. In accordance with the rules of traditional Indian philosophical dispute, Sankara tries to beat them at their own game. His 'rational' critique concentrates primarily on ontological problems; it should probably regarded as a corroboration of the view that for him the 'heretical' teachings and Lokayata were undoubtedly consistent and internally coherent systems, where gnoseological and ethical aspects are wholly dependent on their ontological foundation.

Still, the discussion, and even the exposition, presented after the pattern of the vitanda method, presupposes a more complex play with an imaginary or real opponent. In my opinion, all of Sankara's polemics, representing an integral part of his commentaries as well as the whole of Sankara's approach to his own system, can be logically divided into two levels.

It has to be borne in mind that in spite of his impeccable skill in reasoning, Sankara attributed to this method only relative value. The limits of logical inference, together with those of ritual practice and ordinary experience, are set within the frame of aparavidya, or profane, phenomenal knowledge. This aspect of Sankara's dispute is intended for the layman—unlearned but also unprejudiced—a kind of a hypothetical newcomer. It is to this class of polemical arguments that Sankara resorts in those parts of his commentaries, the compendia and treatises, specially devoted to the refutation of the views of the Lokayatikas, the Jainas and the Buddhists.

However, this kind of a critique represents only the lower layer of a real polemics. The actual sense of the Advaitist's arguments would remain hidden, and the reader would be misled, if one did not look simultaneously for the answer that can be figured out during the course of the polemics. After all, an argument offered on the level of aparavidya (or, as it is often called in Advaita, an argument from the standpoint of wordly practice, vyavaharika) may contain insignificant cavils and quibbles; many similar objections, on closer examination, prove to be valid against Sankara's own Advaita. And that is only natural, since the main goal of these arguments is to disarm an opponent, to defeat him in a dispute. They are to be taken for what they are worth: while judging their value, one should keep in mind the context of the polemics.

In contrast to that, the higher level of knowledge (arguments from the higher truth, or, paramarthika) reflects essential divergencies of rival systems. For Sankara it also presupposes a constant appeal to sruti, as well as the construction of a coherent picture of reality. To some extent, continuous discussion with other philosophical and religious schools is characteristic of all theoretical works of the Advaitist; it is implied in various passages of his works, even when the opponents are not directly named and defined.

As will be shown below, such a two-level structure of philosophical polemics correlates with Sankara's notion of the two groups of sruti sayings, that is, the vyavaharika (from the point of view of phenomenal practice) and the paramarthika (from the point of view of ultimate truth). Both groups, each in its own peculiar way, mediate between a specific, personal consciousness and the ultimate spiritual reality (Atman-Brahman), and contribute to the gradual approach to this new level of existence.

Notes

¹ Vaidya V.S. Radhakrishna Sastri, Sri-sankara-vijayamakaranda, Tiruchy, 1978.

² Vide: W.R. Antarkar, "Sanksepa Sankara Jaya of Madhavacarya or Sankara Digvijaya of Sri Vidyaranyamuni," Journal of the University of Bombay, vol. 41, no. 77, November, 1972.

³ Vide: M. Piantelli, Sankara e la rinascita del brahmanesimo, pp. 217-24, especially pp. 223-224.

⁴ All these signs directly correspond to the accepted iconography of Siva. For instance, the crescent that adorns his headdress on almost all pictures symbolizes the cup with the drink of immortality (amrta). The trident is supposed to emphasize that Siva rules over three worlds (triloka)—the nether world, the earthly world and the heavenly world; or that he is the lord of the three times—past, present and future; and that he appears in the three states of consciousness—the waking state, the dreams and the deep sleep state. The cobra is the sign of eternal renewing and, simultaneously, the sign which bars the way to anyone who would be bold enough to approach Siva without first renouncing his own personality. The third eye of Siva, which burns by its blaze all the objects of the ordinary world, signifies absolute seeing, the vision that surpasses the difference between subject and object (which are in their turn represented, respectively, by the left and the right eyes of the god).

⁵ Moreover, in the same Sri-sankara-vijaya-makaranda Sankara boldly engages in self-praise during the whole of the chapter, telling Govinda:

I am the pure Siva, defined as the beginning,
as truth and bliss;
If someone were to say that my essence is not
   that of the
beginning and bliss, it is not so,
for I am immutable, imperishable.
Ahamanandasatyadilaksanah kevalah Sivah/
anandadirupam yattannahamacalo 'vyayah//14//.
V. C. Radhakrishna Sastri,
Sri-sankara-viaya-makaranda, X. 14.

⁶ In Brhat-sankara-vijaya and Pracina-sankara-vijaya we meet the first and the most beloved of Sankara's pupils under a different name; these texts tell of the Brahman Sanandana, the native of Ahobala. As for his other, more famous name, its appearance is explained by a popular legend. The story goes as follows: some years after the first meeting of Sankara and Sanandana, when the Advaitist was in Benares together with his pupils, he asked them to go and fetch his clothes that were drying on the other bank of the Ganga. While other pupils deliberated on the most suitable way to cross the river, Sanandana, without thinking twice about it, rushed across the Ganga, hurrying to fulfil the wish of his teacher. Like Saint Peter, he literally walked over the water. However, he was far more resolute and certainly more modest than the Apostle—he did not even notice the miracle. Nevertheless, the miracle did not pass unnoticed by the eyewitnesses, and Sanandana got his nickname—Padmapada, that is, having lotus feet. Padmapada received his initiation directly from Sankara, and it is believed that it was for him that the teacher composed his treatise Atma-bodha, The awakening of atman.

⁷ It is said that, having disguised himself as a Buddhist monk, Kumarila even got his instruction from celebrated Buddhist teachers, so that the could get a clear notion of the ideas of his opponents. This kind of ruse proved to be somewhat risky: according to the hagiographies, Kumarila lost one eye, in a Buddhist monastery and only divine intercession helped save his life.

⁸ It is said in Brhat-sankara-sijaya and Sankara-vijayavilasa that Kumarila's victories over the 'heretics' indirectly contributed to the death of his former teacher, the Buddhist Sugata; after that, Kumarila had no option but to commit a ritual suicide.

⁹ According to popular legend, after the defeat of Mandanamisra, his wife (as the incarnation of Sarasvati, the spouse of Brahma) decided to dispute with Sankara. Her questions concerned mainly the sphere of human love, and Sankara could answer them only after a month of delay during which he gained the necessary experience by temporarily entering the dead body of the king Amaruka. One might note that the legend provides an indirect explanation for the origin ot Tantric and Sakta works by Sankara, as well as his erotic poems.

¹⁰ The monastery in Dvaraka corresponds to the monastic order of Asramin; that of Badarinatha, to the order of Giri; the Puri monastery, to the order of Aranya; the Srngeri monastery, to the order of Bharati; and the Kanci monastery, to the order of Sarasvati. To five other monasteries were assigned the monastic orders of Tirtha, Puri, Vana, Parvata and Sagara. As one can judge by the very names, the order of Asramin was supposed to abide to monastic shelters, or asramas; the orders of Aranya and Vana were to stay in the forests; the monks belonging to the orders of Giri and Parvata, in the mountains; those of the Sagara order, on the seashore; those of the Puri order, in the cities; and the monks of the Tirtha order had to remain in the centers of pilgrimage.

¹¹ Vide: M. Piantelli, Sankara e la rinascita del brahmanesimo, pp. 12-13.

¹² M. Piantelli, Sankara e la rinascita del brahmanesimo, pp. 103-4.

¹³ Vide: T. R. Chintamani, "The Date of Samkara", Journal of Oriental Research, Madras, vol. 3, pp. 39 ff.

¹⁴ K. B. Pathak, "The. Date of Samkaracarya", Indian Antiquary, vol. 2, Bombay, p. 175.

¹⁵ Vide, for instance: F. Max Muller, Three Lectures on the Vedanta Philosophy, London, 1894; A. B. Keith, The Karma-Mimamsa, London, 1921; M. Winternitz, Geschichte der indischen Literatur, vol. II, Leipzig, 1913; and also, with some reservations, S. Dasgupta, A History of Indian Philosophy, vols. 1-2.

¹⁶ K. T. Telang, "The Date of Samkaracarya", New Indian Antiquary, vol. 13, p. 95 ff.

¹⁷ T. R. Chintamani, The Date of Samkara, pp. 39-56.

¹⁸ S. Kuppuswami Sastri, Introduction to Brahmasiddhi, Madras, 1937, p. Iviii.

¹⁹ A synopsis of the initial Japanese version of the work by Hajime Nakamura A History of Early Vedanta Philosophy (Hajime Nakamura. Shoki no Vedanta Tetsugaku, Tokyo, 1950) was made by G: Morichini. Vide: G. Morichini, "History of Early Vedanta", East and West, IsMEO, Rome, 1960, pp. 33-39. Lately, however, a revised edition of Nakamura's book was published in English: H. Nakamura, A History of Early Vedanta Philosophy, Delhi, 1983.

²⁰ Vide: G. Tucci, Minor Buddhist Texts, part 2, IsMEO, Rome, 1958, p. 8.

²¹ D. H. H. Ingalls, "Samkara's Arguments against the Buddhists", Philosophy East and West, vol. 3, January 1954, no. 4, p. 292, note 2.

²² Vide: K. B. Pathak, "Bhartrhari and Kumarila", Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. 18, p. 213.

²³ Vide: V. Bhattacharya, "Samkara and Dinnaga", Indian Historical Quarterly, vol. 6, p. 169.

²⁴ K. Kunjunni Raja, "On the Date of Samkaracarya and Allied Problems", Adyar Library Bulletin, vol. 24, parts 3-4, 1960, p. 139.

²⁵ Hajime Nakamura, "Bhaskara, the Vedantin, in Buddhist Literature", Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Golden Jubilee Volume, vols. 48-49, Poona, p. 122.

²⁶ Hajime Nakamura, "Vedanta as Noticed in Mediaeval Jain Literature", Indological Studies in Honor of W. Norman Brown. New Haven, 1962, p. 192.

²⁷ Vide: Sengaku Mayeda, Samkara's UpadeSasahasri, critically edited with introduction and indices, Tokyo, 1973.

²⁸ Vide: Tilmann Vetter, Studien zur Lehre und Entwicklung Sankaras, Wien, 1979, pp. 11-12. From critical studies Vetter uses mainly the above mentioned works by K. Kunjunni Raja, T. Chintamani and Hajime Nakamura, though he also pays attention to the articles by E. Frauwallner and the book on Dharmakirti, written by E. Steinkellner, that do not directly deal with Sankara.

²⁹ F. Whaling, Sankara and Buddhism, p. 35.

³⁰ F. Whaling, Sankara and Buddhism, p. 30.

³¹ Two other schools of Kashmir Saivism—kramadarsana and kula-darsana—reveal less common traits with Advaita, though the Kula school incorporates the idea of Jivanmukti (liberation in life), which is characteristic also of Sankara's school. About this vide: Lilian Silburn, La Maharthamanjari de Mahesvarananda, avec des extraits du Parimala, Paris, 1968, pp. 14, 22; Lilian Silburn, Le Vijnana Bhaïrava, Paris, 1961.

³² P. Hacker, "Relations of Early Advaitins to Vaisnavism", Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde Sud-und Ostasiens, no. 9, 1965, pp. 147-54.

³³ Incidentally, a present-day Indian pandit, interested in the life and activity of Sankara—H. Krishna Sastri—maintains that the monastery of Srngeri was formerly a Saivite place of worship, which only later, owing to Sankara's efforts, acquired an Advaita bias. In his words, "this explains perhaps why in the Advaita Math of Sringeri there is still a greater bias towards Shaivism and Shaiva worship than towards Vaishnavism and Krishna worship, though the founder, the great Shankaracharya was no respect of creeds nor of any distinction between Siva and Vishnu." The Traditional Age of Sri Sankaracharya and the Maths, A. Nataraja Aiyer and S. Lakshminarasimha Sastri, Madras, 1962, p. 83.

³⁴" Vide: T. M. P. Mahadevan, "The Sage of Kanci", Preceptors of Advaita, edited by T. M. P. Mahadevan, Madras, 1968, pp. 469-548.

³⁵ Vide: S. K. Belvalkar, Sri Gopal Basu Mallik Lectures on Vedanta Philosophy, Part 1, Poona, 1929, pp. 222 ff.

³⁶ These are the lines from P. Hacker's article "Sankaracarya and Sankarabhagavatpada: Preliminary Remarks Concerning the Authorship Problem", published in New Indian Antiquary, (vol. 9, nos. 4-6, 1947, pp. 1-12). However, the text had so many printing errors that the author had to revise it completely for the collection of his works. Vide: P. Hacker, Kleine Schriften. Hrsg. von L. Schmithausen. Wiesbaden, 1978, pp. 41-58 (here the reference is to S. 42).

³⁷ Vide, for instance: P. Hacker, "Eigentumlichkeiten der Lehre und Terminologie Sankaras: Avidya, Namarupa, Maya, Isvara", Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, no. 100, 1950, pp. 246-286.

³⁸ On this vide: Sengaku Mayeda, "The Authenticity of the Bhagavadgitabhasya Ascribed to Sankara", Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde Sud-und Ostasiens, part IX, 1965, pp. 155-94. See also: P. Hacker, "Sankaracarya and Sankarabhagavatpada", Kleine Schriften, p. 49.

³⁹ Vide: P. Hacker, "Sankara der Yogin und Sankara der Advaitin. Einige Beobachtungen."—Beitrage zur Geistesgeschichte Indiens. Festschrift fur Erich Frauwallner. Hrsg. von Oberhammer. Wiener Zeit-schrift fur die Kunde Süd-und Ostasiens. parts XII-XIII, 1968-1969, pp. 119-148.

⁴⁰ A popular name for the Bhaja-govinda cycle of poems is Carpata-manjarika-stotra (The praise of the palm, where the garland of verses lies); sometimes the hymns of Bhaja-govinda are called Dvadasa-manjarika-stotra, since this cycle, like another of the same time, has twelve (dvadasa) stanzas.

⁴¹ Vide, for instance: T. M. P. Mahadevan, The Hymns of Sankara, Delhi, 1980; and also S. K. Belvalkar, Sri Gopal Basu Mallik Lectures on Vedanta Philosophy, pp. 222 f

⁴² Vide the Supplement to the book: Atmabodhah: Self-knowledge of Sri Sankaracarya, Madras, 1978, pp. 233-310.

⁴³ Vide: Rudolf Otto, Westostliche Mystik. Vergleich und Unterscheidung zur Wesensdeutung, München, 1971, S. 119-160.

⁴⁴ About that vide: P. Hacker, "Eigentumlichkeiten der Lehre und Terminologie Sankaras", p. 247; P. Hacker, "Sankara der Yogin und Sankara der Advaitin", p. 121;, as well as the special review by P. Hacker of the 3rd edition of R. Otto's book Westostliche Mystik: P. Hacker, "Westostliche Mystik" (review), Zeitschrift fur Missionswissenschaft und Religionswissenschaft, no. 58, 1974, S. 40-43. A similar point of view is supported by R. De Smet (a doctoral thesis "Theological method of Sankara", published in English, Rome, 1953) and Madeleine Biardeau (M. Biardeau, "Quelques reflexions sur l'apophatisme de Sankara", Indo-Iranian Journal, 1959, pp. 81-101). Among more recent publications, conceived more or less on the same lines one might mention Wilhelm Halbfass, Studies in Kumarila and Sankara, Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik, Monographie 9, Reinbek, 1983.

⁴⁵ Vide: P. Hacker, "Sankaracarya and Sankarabhagavatpada", Kleine Schriften, pp. 55-58.

⁴⁶ Vide: M. Piantelli, Sankara e la rinascita del brahmanesimo, Appendice al capitolo terzo, pp. i-xiii.

⁴⁷ Sengaku Mayeda, Introduction to Sankara's Upadesasahasri, p. xi.

⁴⁸ See, for example, critical observations of a Naiyayika Vatsyayana: Nyaya-sutra, 1.2.44.

⁴⁹ Vide: Venkatanatha, Nyaya-parisuddhi, Chowkambha Sanskrit Series, Benares, 1931, p. 166. About vitanda see also Bimal Krishna Matilal, Foreword, to P. Granoff, Philosophy and Argument, pp. x-xii.