Pearson Edexcel Level 3 Advanced GCE in Religious Studies – Anthology
201
the question of c ausation, for the effec ts into whic h we suppose that causes are
transformed are ac tually superimposed and so neither real nor unreal.
Phenomena are only illusorily independent of Brahman and so the essential
unity of Brahman is unaffec ted by the multiplic ity of individual phenomena, just as
the waves appear multiple as they rise from the surfac e of the oc ean, into whic h
they subside, and in no way affec t its unity. The image of the oc ean also illustrates
the point that Sankara’s thought is not just negative. He denies the absolute reality
of the world in order t o affirm t he sole realit y of Brahman, wit h whic h in it s
essential nature atman is ident ic al. However, t he individual self, t he jiva, is a
combination of reality and appearance – real in so far as it is atman or Brahman,
but illusory in so far as it is limited and finite. In this c ontext Sankara makes use of
the Upanisadic utteranc e ‘you are that’ (tat tvam asi), demonstrating that their
ident it y is reac hed by removing t he inc ompat ible element s of individualit y and
transcendence to reveal the pure consciousness whic h is the ground of the atman
as of Brahman. Sankara is more guarded in his approach to other characterisations
of Brahman and is very reluc tant to make any positive statements about it whic h
might be regarded as limit ing it s absolut eness. In his major works at least he
avoids using t he well-known formulation of later Advaita that Brahman is being,
consciousness and bliss (sat, cit, ananda), even when c ommenting on the
Upanisadic definition of Brahman as truth, knowledge, and infinity (Tait. Up.2.1) on
whic h the formula is based; instead he there elaborates a theory of indic ation
whereby suc h statements point to Brahman rather than define it. Indeed, he is
obviously in sympat hy wit h t he dec larat ion t hat Brahman is ‘not like t his nor like
that’ (BAU 2.3.6). The unqualified Brahman is prec isely that transc endent state of
being about whic h nothing c an be affirmed. However, Brahman is not just an
abstract concept but the goal of spiritual quest, moksa. Release is achieved with
t he arrival of t rue knowledge, the intuition that oneself and Brahman are in truth
ident ic al. T his saving knowledge dest roys t he karma of past lives and a state of
embodied release is attained.
Admired as Sankara is as a philosopher, philosopher was not in fac t his prime
c onc ern but the tool with whic h to ac hieve moksa, for himself and ot hers. His
treatment of the problem of where avidya resides illust rat es t his, for it is
philosophic ally inc omplet e and psyc hologic ally effec t ive. All Sankara’s exposit ion is
aimed not so muc h at logic al c onsistenc y as at persuasion, although Advaita is
indeed c onsist ent , sinc e all relat ions and c ont radic t ions disappear in moksa.
However, his overall religious purpose is most c learly seen in his organisat ion of an
order of samnyasin and foundation of teac hing institutions (mathas) at the four
c orners of India t o propagat e his doc t rine. T he order, whic h may well again reflec t
Buddhist influenc e, is now represented by ten groups, three reserved for Brahmans
and the rest open to the four varnas, although Sankara himself affirms that only
Brahmans c an bec ome samnyasins. T hese orders are Saiva in afflic t ion and
Sankara himself is oft en c onsidered a Saiva, whic h seems implausible in view of his
low est imat e of Isvara; more probably it is in implic it c ont rast with the devout
Vaisnavism of his lat er ant agonist Ramanuja. But of his essent ially religious st anc e
there c an be no doubt.
...