BY V. SUBRAHMANYA IYER

‘Do not sit quiet, nor renounce action. If thou art ignorant, do thou perform action…..If thou art wise and knowest the truth, do thou perform action’…..Shankara.

Shankara, whom a modern European philosopher considers as ‘one of the greatest philosophers of all times and countries,’ and of whom another eminent western scholar, well known in India also, says, ‘Shankara is thus a figure for whom it is difficult to find a parallel, as, indeed, to furnish comparisons, we have been compelled to resort to imagination, a philosopher of the highest rank, who, not content with the world of thought, went forth into the world of men,’ does not need much introduction. Nevertheless, he is not so well known in Europe and America as in the land of his birth, and the scene of his labours. Much has been said, not only in Sanskrit and modern Indian languages, but, even in English, French and German, about him as metaphysician, theologian, reformer and polemic writer. But almost everyone of the authors has laid emphasis on the literary aspect chiefly. They all ignore the other features of this teacher’s life. They seem to hold that he is purely a man of ‘thought’ and no more than a visionary in matters of ‘action’ of practical value, and that his doctrine of the ‘illusoriness’ of the apparent world unfits his followers for grappling with the stern realities around them. The late Mr. Tilak and those of his way of thinking appear even to trace India’s misfortunes partly to the deleterious consequences of this doctrine, inasmuch as it is supposed to engender and nourish a spirit of pessimism, passivity, indifference and callousness.

The best interpretation of Shankara’s philosophy is that furnished by his own life which illustrates how action (Karma) and Thought (Jnana) are "inseparable," and that Jnana (thought, wisdom or philosophy) does not "in the least" imply inaction Nor does "mithyatwa" (illusoriness) justify indifference to life, or callousness. All the same it is true that a great many have misunderstood him, because of the conflicting interpretations. Nay, the mistake has been perpetuated by some. But he never sought any cave or temple or monastery for refuge or retirement or mystic realization, as so many Yogis, Sadhus and Sannyasis do. He was ‘ever’ moving about the whole continent of India, ‘organising’ and ‘teaching,’ with a view to helping all men to realise the underlying oneness or ‘unity.’ And it was this restless ‘activity’ that probably led to his very premature demise.

Again, by the doctrine of "mithyatwa," i.e., illusoriness of appearances, he proved the truth of the irrefutability of the Reality of the One in All, which alone, he held, would help to bring about the practical realisation of "Unity and Harmony" among mankind.

Now, what appears to have made the critics take a one-sided view of Shankara and infer that his followers lack in fitness for the struggle for existence is not merely the philosophical doctrine of "mithyatwa" but also the confusion caused by some of his followers in their interpretations of the asceticism of Sannyasa Ashrama. And since Shankara himself belonged to the order (Sannyasa Ashrama), the impression seems to have gained ground that he disregarded ‘the world of action, agents and results,’ and that he could not be a desirable guide to men of the modern world of action.

It is asked why this philosopher, who talks so big of absolute ‘oneness’, does not lift even his little finger to encourage freedom in eating and drinking or inter-marriage between different races and communities, and pull down such other walls as divide man from man. His acquiescence in some of the old-world notions of caste has tended only to foster the growth of the social evils which have marred India’s history and prevented her from keeping herself abreast of the progressive nations of today. It is also contended that his failure to throw open the Vedas to men of all castes and creeds is irreconcilable with his doctrine of Unity. To these charges it is no satisfactory reply, it is held to say, that the problems which appear to have now attained such importance as to be made the tests of ‘greatness,’ were not of much consequence in Shankara’s days over a thousand years ago. For, as Shankara himself puts it: ‘What may be considered right of good action at one time or place may be considered otherwise at other times or places or occasions.’–S. B. 31, 25. And that would only mean that he could not think ahead of his time.

In the first place, though such reforms do conduce in a way to human satisfaction, yet history has not proved that they in themselves make for the good of mankind in general. Shankara’s test of human progress evidently appears to be based on a higher idea of unification of interests than that of a concord secured by facilitating merely the gratification of the sex and the palate, or by gulling the simple-minded folk into the belief that human happiness could be attained by a uniform ‘labeling’ of men as followers of this or that religious school or scripture. The history of our own times has proved that discord is becoming rife even among men of such reformed religions or philosophies. Nor could he be satisfied with seeking remedies for a few social maladies. He strove to get at the root of all evil and find a cure, ‘if possible,’ for ‘all’ the ills to which human beings are heirs everywhere. And the role of a reformer of a few evils of his own times could not satisfy his ambition. For, his motto in life was, as Vidyaranya points out,–

‘May ‘all’ be happy, may ‘all’ enjoy perfect health,

may ‘all’ find the highest good in their heart,

may ‘none’ come to any grief.’

And it must be specially noted that Shankara sought for a remedy in ‘this’ world, not in other worlds after death.

His attitude towards ‘Philosophy’ is often confounded with his attitude to ‘Religion.’ Religion is no doubt a valuable factor in life. But Shankara, who held that ‘the world should disown him. who considers the world as different from his self’, could not think of a religious fold exclusively for himself and his followers. He did not seek to add one more to the already long and still growing list of such differentiations or denominations. He did value every religion ‘from this standpoint also’ to the extent to which it served this object. Religion is one of the best incentives to ‘action’ without feeling the disappointments in immediate return or reward, Accordingly he addressed himself first to the task of solving the great problem of universal suffering, in doing which he would not be satisfied with imaginary or fanciful hypotheses or dogmas ‘however pleasing or satisfactory for the time being.’ He pursued a characteristicai1y disinterested enquiry in the light of ‘fact’ and ‘truth’, Religion value so long as it is combined with a disinterested search after ‘Truth,’ and, the moment it is divorced from it and wedded to dogmas, it proves in due course ineffectual, nay sometimes even positively harmful ‘to society at large,’ however great be the peace and satisfaction that it may bring to the ‘individual.’

He has therefore had, in the history of the world, the ‘unique’ distinction of having been known as an establisher or reformer, not of any one particular sect or creed but a supporter of ‘all’ such faiths ‘of his day’ as were compatible, even partly, with a search after Truth, for which reason he is known as ‘Sanmathasthapanacharya’ (supporter of six religions), Persons of any colour, creed, caste, age or sex, nay any human being, is according to him, ‘qualified to seek Truth’ and ‘to attain it at the end.’

That Shankara did not believe in calling any particular religious cult his own, and that this was his ‘deliberate’ view is evident from the ‘singular’ fact that he and his followers, to this day, have never thought of a proselytising campaign. Shankara’s highest knowledge and bliss being open to ‘all’ beings alike, he had no cult which demands a ‘change’ of names, or scriptures, or robes or marks or beads or seals, or ceremonies, or modes of cropping the head, or shaving or growing the beard, or eating or drinking, or of other observances and appearances. The one and the only thing required, according to him, is a sincere pursuit of ‘Truth’ which could be attained by ‘any’ human being of ‘any creed,’ provided he perseveres in seeking that light.

How then did Shankara himself apply this principle to his own life? He held that ‘when one realises the Truth, one is one’s own master.’ He himself associated with the lowest of untouchables, and accepted one of them as his master. He set at naught the ceremonial rules in regard to the obsequies performed at his mother’s death. When he went to Mandana’s house, he broke the religious rules of the Sannyasa order. In ignoring thus the old restrictions, in other words, in effecting changes, all that he did was to stick to his fundamental principle of keeping his eye on the basic Truth of Oneness. As the knower of Truth could exercise perfect freedom, he is said to be an ‘Ativa-nashramin,’ (one beyond the rules of caste and Ashrama). But all such freedom is permissible only to those that possess ‘J nana or wisdom’, but not to children or child-like men who are guided by instinct more than by wisdom or Truth.

To what extent any human effort, social, religious, political, ethical, or any other, approaches the ‘actually ascertained,’–not the dogmatic, the mystical or the hypothetical–Truth, to that extent would mankind in general attain happiness. Shankara does welcome every reform, provided it is for the good of mankind. Shankara’s special effort as philosopher was therefore to set before the world the marks of Truth so that men may know the True from the False.

He who cares not to ask for the ‘meaning’ and the ‘characteristics’ of ‘Truth’ before everything else seeks in vain to understand this teacher. To him who thinks that whatever he ‘believes,’ or whatever ‘pleases’ or satisfies him, is Truth, not what ‘after enquiry’ is ‘proved’ to be Truth, Shankara’s philosophy ‘cannot’ be a guide in practical life. He who knows this universal Truth is at liberty to choose for himself, whatever line of action he thinks necessary or right, as Lord Krishna also says in the Gita, XVIII, 63.

If the tests of the ‘worth’ of such teachers be not based upon an application of the principle of ‘Truth’ to life in any field whatsoever of the world’s activities, religious, ethical, scientific or political, Shankara would have no claim for being called a teacher or Guru.

Next, this Indian thinker’s attitude towards asceticism has been much misunderstood. Though it is generally admitted that the ‘Sannyasa Ashram’ is but a ‘course of discipline’ leading to ‘Sannyasa’, yet these have been indiscriminately used as synonymous terms, But later Vedantic writers observe a distinction.

Though he himself belonged to the Sannyasa Ashrama (order), yet he denounced those that nominally belonged to the order and knew notning of ‘Sannyasa’, "Men wear yellow clothes, shave their heads and beards merely for the sake of their stomach (living)."

The distinction between ‘Sannyasa ‘ and ‘Sannyasa Ashrama’ is thus clearly set forth in the Gita:

‘Who attends to all acts whatever, without attaching himself to the result is the Sannyasni, the Yogin, not he who gives up the worship of the household fire, nor he who renounces action."

The question now is whether Sannyasa Ashrama or Sannyasa, as understood by Sankara, are obstacles to one’s discharging the responsible duties of life as efficiently as others. It is generally believed that the disciplines of Sannyasa Ashrama are indispensable for God-realisation. But besides serving as a means for the attainment of Sannyasa, God-or Truth, this Ashrama is of the utmost value in helping one to achieve great objects in the world, such as that of working for the welfare of mankind and in rendering other selfless service as setting ethical examples. It is said in the ‘Sannyasa Paddathi’ of Rudra Deva:

‘He who enters the Ashrama declares that he does, so that he may render service to the world and that he may teach the Dharma.’

In the two former cases the ascetic life helps to concentrate one’s energies and thoughts in full on objects of spiritual or ‘public’ (temporal) interest, inasmuch as it frees one from the fetters of private or domestic concerns or self-seeking diversions. The Ashramite is best qualified to be a public teacher of religion or philosophy for no one else can so effectively impress the public. And they who wish to enter upon ‘enquiry’ into God or Truth, and are in need of a teacher, cannot evidently distinguish one with such knowledge unless there be some external marks, It is said:

‘These eyes of fresh can never see the knowledge of the knower of Brahman’. (Suta Samhita).

And specially a beginner can see no more than the outside. The best course would therefore be for him to seek for a Guru ‘among’ men of the Sannyasa ‘Order’ which has recognisable ‘external’ marks.

"In all acts whatever, whether of commission or omission, there is nothing ‘save absence of attachment,’ to distinguish the fool from the man of wisdom." (Vasishtha).

"Even the gods feel puzzled while trying to follow in the footsteps of those who realize themselves in all beings and who are always devoted to the welfare of ‘all.’ (Mahabharatha).

Next, what was Shankara’s view of ‘Sannyasa’ itself? After passing through Sannyasa Ashrama, or by means of other disciplines, without going into the Ashrama, if one attains ‘internal’ Sannyasa, i.e., Sannyasa in spirit, one can perform one’s duties in life ‘best,’ as Shankara has repeatedly pointed out in his commentaries. It is this frame of mind that is characterised by non-attachment’, which, Sannyasa means, and which is most needed and is of the utmost help in doing what would be of the greatest benefit to the world, including even such acts as those of fighting on the battle- field. Men of ‘true’ Sannyasa are those that are ready even to go to war, like Arjuna or Drona, if necessary and just. What is more, one possessing ‘Sannyasa’ is at perfect liberty to choose whatever activities will benefit mankind in general.

Shankara, the philosopher, was thus, as some other events of his life show, not less great as a ‘man of action’ than as a ‘man of thought’. No estimate of his can be complete or true, which does not take into account both these aspects.

As for the effect that a belief in "mithyatwa" (unreality) is said to produce in actual life, here are a few statements:

Being firmly ‘convinced of the unreality’ of the world, wise men, without experience of pain, are ‘engaged’ in ‘wordly concerns’ proper to them. –Vidyaranya.

‘One may be engaged in the practice of Yoga, or in the activities of the world of pleasure, or in the duties of social life. Only if such person’s heart finds its delight in Brahman, rely upon it, the person has attained the goal.–Shankara.

A knower of Truth (of the non-reality of the world), may freely engage in worldly concerns, e.g., even ruling over a country. –Vidyaranya.

(Vidyaranya is quoted here especially because he was an absolute ‘advaitin’ and at the same time one of the most successful Ministers of a great Empire.)

Further, like ‘all’ ordinary beings, even the Jnanis who are convinced of the illusory (Mithyatwa) nature of the world were and are found in all walks of life, in all grades, or kinds of society. Confining ourselves to historical facts, we may find Jnanis among rulers of royal blood, like Janaka and Aswapathi, or administrators of plebian origin like Vidyaranya and Gouri Shankara, who were the builders of medieval empires rod makers of modern States. It is needless to refer to Jnanis who were hunters, traders, palanquin-bearers and so forth.

To quote again here from the European author referred to above:

‘Many of the finest scholars and most influential men among the followers of Shankara…..are also graduates of the English Universities in India, and are prominent as lawyers and administrators.’

To sum up Shankara’s teaching on this subject:

‘Philosophy’ aims at revealing the final Truth ‘of all existence.’ And from a knowledge of this Truth, to quote his own words,

"He, the Knower of Truth or Brahman, helps ‘everyone’ to rise above all grief." "He regards the pleasure and pain of ‘all’ creatures equally with his own (i. e., realises that they would affect them just as they affect himself), by knowing the value of ‘Unity.’"

And, what is more, with this knowledge:

"one is able to decide rightly on the spot in matters demanding ‘prompt attention.’ He does not take the side of a friend and the like. He habitually ‘renounces all such actions’ as are calculated to secure objects for one’s own self whether of this world or of the next."

According to Shankara, who follows the teachings of Sri Krishna:

"Thus has Jnana (Philosophical Truth or wisdom), more secret than all that is secret, been declared to these by me. ‘Reflect’ thou over it and ‘act’ as thou pleasest."

Nowhere has Shankara or his divine teacher, Lord Sri Krishna, said ‘Philosophise, look upon the world as illusion and be quiet, sink into Yogic Samadhi, or go to sleep. From the point of view of Action, may we not ask: Which philosophic or religious teacher, Socrates or Plato, Kant or Descartes, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed or Confucius, ever traveled over an area as large as that between the Himalayas and Rameswaram, and between Dwarka and Jagannath,–1800 miles each way–with a view not only to teach, but also to found institutions to help ‘all’ mankind to realise their ‘indivisible’ and ‘eternal’ ‘oneness’, the Highest Truth?

What by his own life Shankara taught is the supreme necessity for ‘action,’ but combined with ‘thought.’ When the two are divorced, men become either day-dreamers or run for refuge to caves and monasteries, or turn slaves, rushing after action, without any thought of its consequences. Often India appears to be suffering from the effects of this divorce.

The late Mr. Tilak seems to have taken a one-sided view of Shankara. What Shankara taught was ‘the most practical’ of philosophies. In the words of a great Western thinker Gibbon what India needs is not only ‘A heart to resolve and a hand to execute’ but also ‘A head to contrive.’

Shankara emphasises, above all, the Gita lesson ‘Buddhi Nasat Pranasyati’.

(From loss of Judgment or Wisdom, he is ruined.)

BACK