SOURCE: "The Modem Relevance of Shankara" in Shankara's Universal Philosophy of Religion, Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 1987, pp. 130-46.

[In the following essay, Masih discusses Sankara in several contexts including comparative religion, psychology, and modern philosophy in exploring his relevancy to the modern world.]

The most important commitment of Shankara was to find out the way out of human miseries involved in earthly existence. Ontologically he established that the supreme reality is Brahman, which is eternal, unchangeable and untouched by the vicissitudes of any existents. After giving an ontological reason and defence of non-dual Brahman he proceeded to offer his epistemological explanation for the identity of knowing and being. The important contention is that the knower of Brahman himself becomes Brahman. The advaitic analysis of perception is that perception is possible when the vrttis assume the shape and form of the objects cognized. Similarly by knowing Brahman, the knower himself becomes what he intuits of what Brahman is. Of course, this gnosis has to be occasioned by the moral and yogic discipline. Further, by knowing Brahman everything else is known, since it is the ground of every existent (jivas and the things of the world). The very search of the Upanishadic seers was kasmin nu vyjnate sarvam idam vijnatam bhavati, and thereby by knowing Brahman and becoming Brhaman, one leaves behind the vale of miseries and enters into the bliss of Brahman.

Of course there is the difficulty in explaining the relationship between the phenomenal and noumenal entities. If Brahman remains wholly unaffected by worldly things, then how are the two related? The two are wholly unrelated according to analogia entis of Thomas Aquinas, Paul Tillich and also according to Shankara. However, Thomas Aquinas and Paul Tillich do not take recourse to illusionism. They hold that somehow through analogical (Aquinas) or symbolical ways (Tillich), we can reach very dimly the unconditioned Transcendent God. Paul Tillich is aware of the problem and ultimately comes to realise that the Transcendent Reality is 'God above God' which is not a place which one can reach. It is without the safety of words and concepts, without a name, a church, a cult or theology.' Why this neti, neti of every analogy and symbol?

The reason is that in having the gnosis of the Transcendent Brahman, one leaves behind the empirical world, the categories of thought and language. Consequently no talk about Brahman is possible; 'whereof one cannot speak, one should be silent'. But this is very significant 'silence', for one has to seek it with one's utmost diligence and seriousness. The discipline is once again physicolethical and religious.

Shankara resorts to the doctrine of Ajnana or maya to explain the relationship with the empirical and the transcendent reality of Brahman. Shankara is fully aware of the difficulties in describing the nature of maya. He calls it indescribable (sadasad vilaksana). Its falsity is realised by working in, through and beyond it. When once one reaches the state of Brahma-realisation, one finds the utter irrelevance of the world, the scriptural learning and the ladder of mahavakyas. Once the seeker understands the purport of mahavakyas, he would recognize them as nonsensical as Wittgenstein would say. But climbing on, over and beyond the ladder of Ve-dantic propositions is not an easy task. It is a difficult task, but all ultimate achievements are as difficult as they are rare. The superiority of Indian gnosis lies in the fact that the pathways have been fully marked and mapped out for us.

According to Shankara as also for Jainism and Buddhism, one has to use yogic and ethical technique along with knowledge imparted to by a competent Guru in order to have Brahma-realisation. One does not find any such technique elsewhere. But does one find Brahman? At the analogous stage of Gunasthana in Jainism, one does not get any opportunity of uttering anything whatsoever. Thus here too one passes into silence. But to bring home the lesson of Brahma-realisation, Shankara refers to three paradigm cases of Brahma-like experience, namely, nirvikalpaka pratyaksa (indefinite, vague, blur-like initial perception), susupti (dreamless sleep) and turiya (a yogic experience). Ramanuja has criticized all these paradigm cases, and to my knowledge very correctly. The initial stage of perception is not without differences, but has incipient differences not yet parted into articulate relation, as was held by F. H. Bradley. The state of susupti is also not a state without dreams, but a state of forgotten dreams on awakening, as Sigmund Freud has amply demonstrated. Of course, turiya is a matter of yogic experience and discipline, as such beyond the purview of ordinary discourse. Keeping to the stand of Ramanuja, in relation to ordinary language and its syntax, there can be no mental state corresponding to a case of pure cit. There is an analogous case of a sensum in relation to which no objective fact can be ostensibly demonstrated. Is it then an objection with regard to the theory of Brahman? No. If Brahma-realisation is a fact then certainly it cannot be factually demonstrated in terms of ordinary experience and language. It is a place without speech; it is a state of silence. Any talk about Brahman will end in metaphysical heresy, an avyakrta as Lord Buddha has pointed out.

Brahman is a matter of enlightenment, realisation and intuition. This has to be mediated through ethico-yogic discipline along with metaphysico-theistic discipline. Of course, for Shankara all these disciplines of yoga, morality and devotion are inseparable, as the Gita too has upheld. Morality for Shankara may be described as striving for perfection by realising a state of desirelessness and egolessness. But this desideratum of moral ideal can be reached by the Vedantic instruction of nitya-anitya-vastuviveka, sadhana-sampat etc. and later on through sravana-manana-nididhyasana. In this context, one finds that Shankara does not mention theistic worship as a means of Brahma-realisation. Shankara does not mention God, for he is trying to bring home the importance of Brahma-realisation through Vedantic discipline as distiniguished from theistic worship. But does not the distinction of nitya-anitya objects, indirectly refer to the different degrees of reality, including the highest phenomenal existence of Ishvara? Again, does not the teaching of shama-dama-sadhana-sampat refer to Ishvara-worship through which alone niskama karma and self-control are possible? But apart from this, we have already seen that Shankara accepts the path of devotion as a powerful aid in Brahma-realisation. The reason is that Gita teaches that desirelessness in the form of niskama karma is possible only when duties are performed as offerings to the Lord. This is very akin to what Kant had suggested that one should perform one's duties as God's command. The difference is that Kant regards morality as autonomous. Hence, the doctrine of treating duties as God's command remains extraneous to the main teaching of Kant. In contrast, the Gita teaches morality as an in-built element in its theism.

Relativity of Deities

For Shankara, Brahman alone is real and all other deities are phenomenal, dependent and contingent. Therefore, they are not ultimately real. As dependent on Brahman they may be said to be relatively real. Again, Yogasutras regard upasana (Isavara-pranidhana) as an aid for the success of yogic sadhana. Similarly, following the Gita, Shankara regards the worship of Ishvara as an aid for securing Brahma-jnana. But Shankara significantly observes that the worship of Ishvara has many other ends besides the attainment of B-jnana. Whilst commenting on B.G.B., IV.I1, Shankara observes that theistic worship is not directly related to B-jnana. Following the Gita it can be said that worshippers seek various kinds of fruits, and, the Lord grants their wishes if they worship their respective deities with full devotion. Some seek B-jnana, others seek the gift of niskama karma, and still others who are renunciate and Vedantajnanin seek moksa. Besides, the Gita teaches that even the worshippers of the highest deity, namely, the Lord Krishna worship Him at times tamasically (XVII.4). This kind of worship will not lead to B-jnana in any case. Further, Shankara does not hold Ishvara to be ultimately realy (Vs., 1.1.24; 11.1.2.21; III.3.1). Consequently, Ishvara-worship has not been taken by Shan-kara as an infallible means of attaining B-jnana. From this it does not follow that theism is not an important part of Shankara's Advaitism. In the last resort for Shankara all deities from the lowest to the highest have to be left behind and discarded on attaining Brahma. This means that there is an hierarchy of deities.

Certainly Shankara follows the Gita and Gaudapada in their teaching of the hierarchy of gods. Gaudapada teaches the relativity and grades of different deities in championing the worship of Om, consisting of the four alphabets of a, u, m and the amatra. 'a' stands for Visva, 'u' for Taijasa and 'm' for Prajna. The worship of the three kinds of deities prepares the seeker for the final stage of amatra, that is, the state in which all the deities disappear in Brahma-jnana. The worship of Visva gives worldly success to his worshippers, but these worshippers remain fettered to the existence of Samsara. The worshippers of Taijasa get the urge for higher knowledge attaining which leads to a state in which all persons are treated alike, including enemies and friends (MKB., 1.10). But the worship of Prajna (Ishvara) stands highest in the order of worship, involving dualism. But every form of dualism belongs to the realm of impirical reality. Ishvara worship can lead to heavenly bliss and beatitude. However, the heavenly abode is temporary and one has to get back to the worldly existence after the store of merits has been exhausted. For having eternal deliverance one must obtain B-jnana. The worship of Ishvara prepares one for B-jnana for Ishvara enables a worshipper to conquer his possions and desires, and, mitigate the influence of ignorance, for the Lord is the controller of maya. But in the end it is meditation on amatra, which alone leads to Brealisation.

It is not open to every one to worship any kind of deity. What kind of deity a worshipper will choose depends on the kind of person he is. In other words, it depends on the samskaras, and in the language of C. G. Jung, on one's typology, mental functioning and constitution. Three kinds of samskara have been mentioned, namely, sattvika, rajasika and tamasika. Sattvika people worship the gods, rajasika the demi-gods and the tamasika worship the spirits and ghosts (B.G., XVII.4). Thus the kind of deity corresponds to the typology of the seeker, because the two are attuned to each other. Whe an appropriate object of worship attuned to the mentality of the worshipper is presented then it clicks life and light in him, gives him energy and strength to him for the task in which he is involved. If, on the other hand, the deity does not correspond to his mental proclivities, then the worshipper remains cold to it. Nay, more. Even the highest deity will be used in accordance with the samskara of the worshipper. For example, a worshipper of Krishna or Christ may use his religion for worldly benefit if his samskara is tamasika. Thus each religion can be used in the way in which its worshippers are psychologically constituted.

Hence, there must be different religions and deities corresponding to different kinds of persons are (psychologically constituted). In vain, we teach the universality of any theistic worship either of Rama or Krishna or Christ. No theistic religion has the monopoly of religious truth. Each person is condemned to his own samskaras, which work as his fate. But each dualistic worship is valid since it alone click life and light, peace and pistis to its votaries. Thus each form of theism is valid, and yet cannot claim precedence over all the rest. In the end every form of dualistic worship has to serve as an aid for B-jnana. Therefore, each form of theism is both true empirically and yet false transcendentally. Accepting spiritual fatalism of samskaras, called the doctrine of pre-destination and election by Ajivikism, Christianity and Islam, there is hardly any room for quarrel between the different votaries of various religions.

Shankara teaches that each form of dualistic worship is ultimately false. So each is infected with the spirit of its transcendence, pointing the way to Brahma-realisation, were every form of theism terminates. In the language of the Gita, the lower forms of worship end in the worship of the absolute Lord (B.G., VII.21-23). Shankara goes one step further, for according to him, even the worship of Lord Krishna must be transcended at the final stage of Brahma-realisation. In B-jnana alone, all differences cease, and there is no room for discord:

"There a father becomes not a father; a mother, not a mother; the worlds, not the worlds; the gods, not the gods;.…" (Brhadaranyaka U., IV.3.22).

In this connection Shankara states thus:

"… the aim of the Shastra is to discard all distinctions fictitiously created by Nescience." (Vs., 1.1.4, p. 32).

This is the absolute standard and there can be nothing higher. We go beyond the world into the region of 'silence', according to Shankara, Buddhism and Wittgenstein. We can reach this stage by systematically denying the lower forms of theistic worship. Each God has to be worshipped and yet finally denied in our upward march towards the ascent of differenceless Brahman. Hence, according to the Gita, Gaudapada and Shankara, the hierarchical arrangement of different deities explains the inherent principle of self-transcendence, iconoclasm, atheistic and protestant principle in each form of dualistic worship. Even Paul Tillich could not give any better rationale of the protestant principle. Wittgenstein was not thinking about different religions, but he also admitted that even the highest kind of scientific knowledge is stilled in the speechless silence about God, Who is wholly indescribable. Indeed Shankara seems supreme in his absolute iconoclasm of lower deities. This works wonderfully in relation to the Indian scene, of today.

The highest form of theism is of the devotional kind. Each devotee gives himself wholly without any reserve to the service of the Lord. The Lord in turn remains the sole refuge and reality of His devotees. Yet with all its beauty and grandeur a Shivite will persecute a Vaisnava, and a Vaisnava in turn will look down upon other votaries of different gods. Hence, even the highest form of theism cannot but give way to discord and dissension. This is seen in the conflict between the Roman Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, between the Muslims and Christians in Lebanon, between the votaries of various forms of theism in India.

Whichever be the form of theism, there is always the dualism of the worshipper and his God. This dualism leads to idolatry and discord. It leads to discord: a Christian would say that Jesus is Ishvara, a Vaisnava would say Krishna or Visnu is Ishvara and so on. Each and every monotheist is worshipping one and the same God, yet they all differ because of different names and forms, leading to religious strife and bloodshed.

Are Ishvara, Visnu, Krishna, Christ, Shiva one and the same name of God? In one sense it is so, since they ultimately refer to the same underlying referent behind these names of Gods. But in another sense they fail to refer to the same underlying reality. For instance, Krishna and Christ are different pictures, with their different stories, eliciting different commitments of their respective adherents. But they are both symbols, participating in and pointing to Brahman, which transcends all symbols. Following Paul Tillich we can say that no symbol can take the place of the Unconditioned Brahman. If we fail to treat the symbols as but symbols of the absolute Brahman, we commit idolatry. We have to reach 'God beyond God'. In the language of Shankara, even the highest religious symbol must be left behind like the ladder which has to be left behind on reaching Brahman from which there is no further possibility of returning to the miserable existence of earthly life. This is as much applicable to Christianity as to Hindu Theism.

Jesus said, 'I and my father are one', and the again, 'My father is greater than myself'. Colossian 1.15 says that Christ is the visible image of the invisible God, and, that 'nobody has seen God and can ever see Him' (1 Timothy VI. 16). The conclusion is that we can apprehend or intuit the invisible, qualityless Being-itself or Brahman through the symbol of Jesus. But it would be an idolatry not to recognize Jesus as but representation only, of Brahman. Thus, every form of theism has to break through its idolatry in its forward march towards Brahman. How is it to be achieved?

Wittgenstein has stated that in every form of theism, the most important thing is the picture. He clearly states that this picture does not point to anything which exists. In the language of Paul Tillich, Being-itself is beyond essence (thought, idea and existence; and, for Nagarjuna, it is Shunyata. But we mortals draw picture, as the sage Nagasena had to do for king Milinda in relation to exhibiting the form of Nirvana. We know that beauty does not exist, only beautiful things exist. Yet for the articulation of beauty, the picture of Venus has been painted. Botticelli, Veronese, Titian, Boucher, Raoux and so on have all painted 'Venus'. Of course, it would be irrelevant to say that any one of them is the true Venus. Venus is not the existing Miss Universe. Yet one can say that some of them bring out the delineation of feminine beauty more sharply than others. In the same way, we draw a picture of Brahman which is the ground of all beings. In the light of our advancing knowledge, finer susceptibilities and ever deepening-growing-widening sensitiveness to our spiritual dimension of life, we keep on improving upon our symbols or pictures. Like Leonardo, we keep on improving the painting of the mysterious Mona Lisa. Take the case of Yahwe.

For the Jews Yahwe was at first only a tribal God of storm and thunder. Then later on He became a God of gods. It was prohibited to have any image of him for fear of idolatry. But He could be appeased through animal sacrifice. This picture was later on chiselled into a God who desires mercy and a contrite heart, and not the sweet savour of sacrifice. Finally, Yahwe came to stand for a loving and forgiving God who transforms the life of a sinner through the redemptive death of Jesus Christ.

Hence the name remains but the picture gets chiselled and refined through the ages as a result of growing spiritual sensitiveness of the worshippers. This refinement by discarding the older picture is the negative way of analogia entis, the atheistic principle of Paul Tillich; neti, neti of the Upanishads and Shankara and the negativating dialectic or Bradley and Nagarjuna. But how far should we keep on refining the picture? There is no limit. Shankara would say that Brahman is the absolute limit beyond which we cannot go. Nagarjuna would say that even the indescribable Brahman described substantively must not be set up as the limit. Shunyata the way of dialectic negation is the only safe limit. Should we listen to Shankara or Nagarjuna?

We transcend the empirical thought in reaching the goal of Brahman or Shunyata. The 'yes' and 'no' are the two extremes of the final limit between which our thought oscillates, and, in this oscillation the seeker plumbs one's depth. Saying anything beyond this is to commit the metaphysical heresy, to which Lord Buddha has drawn our attention. But is this the counsel of despair? No.

The drawing of a picture of something which does not exist and yet is the most real thing which underlies all that exists, has very great value for the Indians. According to this insight of Shankara and Paul Tillich, no theistic form can calm the sole monopoly of religious truth. Each form of theism has only relative truth and stands in need of being supplemented by the relative insights of the same reality contained in other theistic forms. Hence, this thought of Shankara calls forth for a true dialogue amongst all forms of theism in the hope that each religion will cross-fertilize the thoughts of every other forms of theism. This mutual dialogue and cross-fertilization will make each form of theism refine its own picture of what it considers to be the Most Holy. The result?

Religions will outgrow their mutual hate and arrogance. This is possible when each form of dualistic worship will recognize its limitation and also the supreme need to reach the sphere of the silence of Brahman where all discords and differences cease to be effective. In this supreme state of Silence, a Muslim will not be a Muslim, a Hindu will not be a Hindu, a Christian will not continue to be a Christian. All names, forms and labels will disappear, all different pots called 'you' and 'me' will get broken, all differences will melt into a grand harmony. This is a general conclusion. But more.

In every form of dualistic worship, difference will tend to be slurred over. A Christian pervaded with the spirit of Shankara will not recognize the difference of race, culture, regions, language and denominations. It is not an easy thing to achieve in practice. Southern Christians of Kerala observe caste (differences to Brahmins and Shudras) in church worship. They have separate churches of worship and even separate cemeteries. Again, in spite of one Church of North India, Anglicans and churches belonging to other denominations continue to have their own mode of worship. Similarly, Malayalis and Adivasis have their own separate mode of worship and priests. If the Christians cannot become one then how can they then expect to promote national integration and the unity of all religions? But let us come to Hinduism from where we have picked the absolute principle of differencelessness into which all religious dialogues end.

Can a Hindu clinging the Atman-principle of Shankara accept caste and sects? It will not do to say that the case observances will automatically cease in B-jnana, for no B-jnana will ever dawn till we begin to show and feel strongly that caste is ultimately false, like all other differences. First, it is based on a single Rgvedic hymn of Purusha-sukta (Rv., 90). Secondly, it has been criticized at its inception by no less a person than Lord Buddha.²

1. Lord Buddha observed that people belonging to different castes have the same biological, anatomical and physiological characteristics. So why differentiate between the people when as human beings they belong to the same species of living beings?
2. By birth there is no Brahman and Shudra: only one's works determine one's vocation and social order.
3. Spiritually speaking, there is the same uniform law of righteousness and the same kind of punishment on its violation.
4. It is the economic status which makes one person the master and the other as his servant.
5. Caste is not a universal order, for even in Lord Buddha's time in Kamboja (present Afghanistan) there was no caste.

From the very nature of the case, caste is indefensible for a Brahma-seeker. A Brahma-jnani, if he offers his leavings to an outcaste, then it is really an offering to his universal Atman (Ch. U., V.24.4). Again, a Brahmajnani makes on difference between a Brahmin and an outcaste (Gita, V.13). Besides, for a jivanmukta there is no difference between his father and others, between a god and a candala (Brhad. U., IV.3.22). Finally, Brahman, Itself has no caste. (Mund. U., I.1.6).

True, Shankara himself observed caste, but he belonged to AD 788-820 when there was no Darwin, and no Industrial Revolution and the economic order of the present time. He was a product of his age. But does the doctrine of B-jnana support his observance of caste? Shankara denied the right of a Shudra for B-jnana, for according to his statement Vedic learning is a necessary preparation for B-jnana and a Shudra is debarred from the studies of the Vedas. But does Shankara subscribe to the efficacy of Vedic Karmakanda? Shankara does not see any good in the performance of Vedic Karmakanda. Hence, really Shankara's Advaitism does not support caste. If we follow the spirit and not the letter, then caste will appear as inconsistent with Shankara's Advaitism.

Therefore, a Brahman-seeker must outgrow caste-distinction in the interest of B-jnana and for promoting national integration and for the preservation of Hinduism in its purest form for the spiritual good of India and the world. Further, the doctrine of differenceless Brahman has another practical consequence on the Indian scene in relation to different sects in Hinduism and the misuse of religion.

According to the Gita (XVII.4) men belong to different types and mentality, according to their gunas and samskara. In accordance with their typology, men worship the kind of deity open to their mental proclivities. Further, in accordance with their devotion to their respective deities, they get their reward. However, keeping to the hierarchical order involved in the worship of Om, one has to rise from the lower to the highest deity till he reaches a stage where all deities disappear. Hence, there must be various religions and sects even in the same religion. Thus every theistic religion has to practise tolerance of different religions and sects.

But apart from this there is a great danger of the misuse of religion. Ordinarily, the worship of Ishvara is for the sattvika people. But even the tamasika people can pretend to worship Ishvara, and if they do so, they can do that only tamasically. Here the highest Lord will come to be worshipped for worldly gain and pleasures. Whereas, according to Shankara, Ishvara should be worshipped properly only for the sake of realising B-jnana where all differences of caste and creed are swallowed up. No doubt the tamasika worshipper of Ishvara will get worldly prosperity and power (Gita, VII.21) but is does not mean that it is either good for him or for the country. Shankara teaches constant vigilance in promoting the spiritual health of the people. By trivializing the worship of Ishvara, there will be chaos in the country, as we find it today.

Shankara's philosophy of a world religion is good enough even now, since it is supported by the modern thinkers like Paul Tillich and Luding Wittgenstein. But times have changed and even the great thought of Shankara requires restatement in the changed climate of thought and world-view. Shankara was the ripened fruit of the spiritual quest enshrined in the four-fold pillars of karma-samsara-jnana-mukti. The Indian people believed in them by practising austerities and sannyasa. This is supported by the Greek report about the Indians about 300 BC.³ Do the modern Indians believe in them? Take the case of the doctrine of sarvamukti (salvation for all).

The doctrine of sarvamukti is implicit in the universal teaching of deliverance in the Upanishads. Even in the Advaitism Vacaspati it is implicit, and, Appaya Diksita explicitly taught this and so did Radhakrishnan in 1932. Again, in the doctrine of Bodhisattvas, the ideal of sarvamukti is quite explicit. The result? Nirvana for the vast majority is as distant a dream as it was in the days of Lord Buddha. Further, a jivanmukta was supposed to be a beacon-light who will draw the whole world towards himself.

'Whatever a great man does, the same is done by others also. Whatever standard he sets, the world follows.' (Gita, 111.21).

Unfortunately the society has not been drawn towards the jivanmukta. The people praise a jivanmukta; even idolise him, but they do not follow him. There is hardly a Brahmavid today, and hardly a follower of Buddha tries to become a Buddha today. Why?

First, Shankara in Bhaja Govindam shows that mental equipose is a rare achievement for even a gifted seeker. What to speak for the masses? But the truth is that the modern Indians do not look upon the world as a vale of miseries. They do not want mukti, though the way has been clearly laid down. The moderners do not want the extinction of their egos. They desire the expansion and enrichment of their ego-consciousness. What about the society in which a man lives?

Certainly the ancients were ignorant of the societal changes and their dynamics. The advaitins believed in the preservation and conservation of the society based on the system of caste. They were conservatives in our political terms. Even Shankara and Ramanuja accepted the doctrine of caste without realising its divisive and exploitative functions. Certainly, the system of caste has preserved the Hindu society. But today we need progress much more than the preservation of an old and tattered society. As Shankara did not believe in progress, so he has no progiamme of social service.

For Shankara, the empirical world was illusory and essentially miserable. Hence, for Shankara the world did not require any improvement. As such Shankara had no programme of alleviating social ills and human miseries. In contrast, the moderners regard the world as essentially real. They want the improvement in the human conditions of living. As Shankara did not pay much attention to Nature and its possible use for reducing drudgeries, so he did not recommend the conquest of nature with a view to improving socio-economic conditions of man. Of course the time was not ripe for the conquest of nature. Science in the form of a cooperative effort of man backed by social resources, and regulated by its rigorous methodology, had not arisen. Only now with the help of science and its technology it is possible for man to conquer nature. Would Shankara at the present time in our modern context recommend the doctrine of karma-sannyasa? In my opinion the views of Shankara would change considerably. But this is anybody's guess. Shankara has said this much that the world has phenomenal reality, and as long as individuals do not obtain B-jnana, they have to treat the world as real with its demands. Only he would add, 'Dedicate the fruits of scientific pursuit to the Lord.'

Would Shankara recommend Karma-Jnana-Samuccayavada of Mandana and Ramanuja? Of course, this samuccayavada is quite opposed to the principle of B-jnana leading to the realisation and enjoyment of differenceless Brahman. Further, 'karma' for Mandana and Ramanuja meant only the Vedic ritual and sacrifice. And this kind of karma is not likely to contribute to social well-being. Further, the doctrine of lokasamgraha simply meant the conservation of the society on the basis of caste. Hence, Karma-Jnana-Samuccayavada would not serve the purposes of the moderners. Whatever be the emendations in Advaitism, Shankara certainly would recommend science and technology as offerings to the Lord. Science and technology, nay, even the conquest of nature are not enough. Their pursuit must be spiritualised. The words of Maitreyi are true even now.

What should I do with that through which I may not be immortal? (BU., 11.4.3).

The path of spiritual ascent is never straight. Any advance in spiritual progress is always threatened with back-sliding. Man's life oscillates between engagement with the world and withdrawal from it. Spiritual progress is a matter of dialectical process as Nagarjuna has demonstrated for us. The present crisis on the Indian scene is a grim reminder of the fall of man from what he was at the time of Lord Buddha, Lord Mahavira and Shankara. In our spiritual pilgrimage there is no place where we can rest for ever. There may be resting places, but there can be no final goal. This is the meaning of neti, neti.

Some Implications of Shankara's Advaitism

In the light of what has been stated by Shankara, Paul Tillich and Wittgenstein, some very significant conclusions can be drawn. Let us take up a very popular question, Does God exist?

God as understood as Brahman or Being-itself is beyond maya, beyond existence and human thought. As such He cannot be said to exist. Only a sensible, finite thing is said to exist. But Brahman or Being-itself is not unreal or fictitious. It is the ground of all that exists. Ishvara or the God of theistic worship is a picture or syrnibol of Brahman, participating in and pointing to the reality of Brahman. However, even a symbol is psychologically, phenomenally and practically real as long as B-jnana has not dawned. God, even as a symbol has to be worshipped.

Further, a picture of Brahman in the form of Rama, Krishna and Christ is associated with stories called mythologies. For instance, Ishvara is said to be the creator of the world and the determiner of human destiny in accordance with the past karmas of each jiva. In the same way Lord Krishna and Christ are associated with the story of saving sinners. These stories, according to R. B. Braithwaite, have empirical meaning. But can Jesus or Buddha even with the stories be said to exist?

A series of symbols strung up into stories is called mythology. If a mythology is woven round a historical figure like Jesus or Lord Buddha, then their respective votaries take both the stories and them as existing beings. But to the extent these historical figures existed, they cannot be spiritually significant for us. As historical persons, they are dead and gone. However, as eschatological figures they continue to be efficacious in the lives of their worshippers. Hence, as deities they cannot be said to exist. But they are real in the sense that they are effective in transforming the lives of their votaries. Take another instance of world-creation. Has Ishvara actually created the universe?

'Creation' is only an analogical concept. For knowing how the world has come into being, one has to consult the scientists, astronomers etc. Hence, the religious doctrine of 'world-creation' is not a scientific doctrine. It is analogical, symbolical and pictorial. For theistic believers, it has only an existential meaning. Since God has created the world, he will sustain His creatures in the face of threat of non-existence. But what about the claims of the Christian fundamentalists concerning the Bible?

The fundamentalists believe that the Bible is an exact replica of the original which is in heaven. This language is only mythological. In the language of Shankara and Wittgenstein, even the advaitic philosophy and scripture are mayika ladders which have to be set aside after one has realised the ultimate truth through them. But this teaching is fraught with danger if we do not fully understand this doctrine of Shankara.

Of course, according to Shankara, Ishvara is only mayika and has to be finally denied on the attainment of B-jnana. Hence, the half-educated people may think that the worship of Ishvara is fictitious and superstitious. Such people may declare that religion is an opiate of the masses, and is an illusion. But, according to Paul Tillich, even the mythology of one kind concerning God has to be set aside in favour of another mythology. Man cannot live without God, without some attendant mythology. What these people seek to deny is not the God of theistic worship, but the tamasika use of religion. And the misuse of religion is quite discernible when we use it fanatically for gaining political gains. For this reason the advaitic thinkers did not like to teach their philosophy except to those persons who were fit for this kind of jnana. This teaching was imparted only to those persons who were morally disciplined and psychologically prepared for B-jnana.

Shankara knew well that even Ishvara could be worshipped tamasically, and not for the purpose of obtaining moksa. For this reason Shankara preferred his doctrine of sravana-manana-nidi-dhyasana to the expedient of theistic worship for obtaining release. Shankara fully subscribed to the doctrine of bhakti, but he saw the danger of it. Shankara as such has remained the most devoted worshipper of Ishvara and yet at the same time the greatest critic of theism. Theistic worship without being informed by the advaitic principle of differenceless Brahman is fraught with dangers. Instead of bringing peace, it is likely to end in hate, strife and constant tension.

Notes

¹The Courage To Be, p. 182.

²Majjhima Nikaya, Hindi tr. by Rahula Sankrtyayana. Sutta-Nipata, Chullavagga, pp. 72-79, Vasettha Sutta in Mahavagga, pp. 58-173.

³ J. W. McCrindle, Ancient India, pp. 168-70.