Shaḿkara’s Philosophy

Shaḿkarácárya was a Shaeva Tántrika or a practitioner of Tantra who followed Shiva.

• This is why he did not go against Tantraváda or the doctrine of Tantra.

He believed in Nirguńa Brahma or the non-qualified Supreme Entity only.

His theories to some extent fall in line with the theories of the Baoddha Shuńyaváda or the Buddhist nihilists.

He did not believe in the existence of the physical world.

He accepted Guńánvita Máyáváda or the doctrine of qualified illusion.

Due to his influence, Buddhist Tantra disappeared.

In Hindu Tantra, gods and goddesses still remained.

Even today the common people worship the goddesses of Buddhist Tantra like Tárá, Manasá (the goddess of snakes) Shiitalá, Bárahii etc. out of devotion.

Shúnyaváda was very influential when Shrii Shaḿkarácárya preached.

Shrii Shaḿkarácárya accepted Uttára Miimáḿsá as later Miimáḿsá philosophy propounded by Shrii Vádaráyana Vyása.

• He discussed the following subjects with Buddhist philosophers.

The Shúńyavádiis said that the universe came out of nothing and will go into nothing, that everything is a dream.

Shaḿkara questioned this, saying that even if the universe is nothing or a dreamland, there should be someone who is dreaming.

• The Shúnyavádiis replied that there was no dreamer. They said that the universe is an illusion just as a rope mistaken for a snake is an illusion.
• Shaḿkara said that that could not be possible.
• The Shúnyavádiis replied that this could only be understood by Sádhaná.

If the universe is an illusion like mistaking a rope for a snake, there had to be something like a rope which could be mistaken for the universe.

Without a rope it would be impossible to mistake it for a snake. Besides this there must be a person to make the mistake. Similarly, there must be someone to experience the illusion of the universe.

This means that there must be some other entity to experience it.

Mádhyamika said that nothing does not mean actually nothing (Shúnya). What you call Brahma we call nothing. So the illusion of the universe is Brahma. That is, [What Brahma is to the Brahmavádiis, Shúnya or nothing is to the Shúnyavádins.]

Shaḿkara replied that this means that the one who sees and the object which is seen are both illusion. Where there is no one to see, who will mistake the rope for snake? The Shunyavadiis could not give any explanation for this.

The Kshanikavadiis – those who believed in the doctrine of transience – explanation of Shaḿkara’s questions was that the illusion is always Kśanika or transient.

Shaḿkara’s point was that he believed that Brahma was anádi and ananta but that Kśańa comes in a moment and disappears the very next moment. Thus where does the Kśanika entity come from? Something must exist between the span of creation and the span destruction.

The Kśanikavádiis replied that it is destroyed with the creation, but Shaḿkara replied that this shows that there is no existence. The Kśańikavádiis felt defeated but they still replied that existence was negligible. This was not a satisfactory explanation.

The scholars of the Pratyakśa Váhyavastuváda and Anumeya Váhyavastuváda argued for their philosophies but no one could withstand that questioning of Shamkaracarya, hence all the four sections of Buddhism were defeated by Shrii Shaḿkara.

On defeat, they made friends with Shrii Shaḿkara and accepted Kúlakuńd́alinii Tattva or the practice of raising the serpentine power in human beings, and as a result Baoddha Yogácára came into existence.

There are several defects in Shaḿkara’s philosophy.

The Defects of Shaḿkara’s Philosophy

According to Shaḿkara, the universe is based on a fixed object by the illusion of Máyá, which is called Brahma.

There is an illusion of a snake for a rope. But who has the illusion of a snake? One who already knows about snakes.

If there is an illusion of the universe for Brahma it means that the real universe is somewhere else. Thus the theory Brahma satyam jagatmithya is defective.

This is a wrong interpretation given by Shaḿkara. The Buddhists did not question it and hence it was accepted at the time.

Shaḿkara does not believe in jiiva and jagat. Thus the question arises, for what reason does the illusion exist?

[The eight mountains, the seven seas, the creation, Brahmá, the sun, and the god of death, neither you, nor I, nor this world the are all non-existent. Why should you lament for something non-existent?]

The universe has not been created. Hence there is no Saguńa Brahma or Qualified Supreme Entity.

Shaḿkara believed only in Nirguńa Brahma or the non-qualified Supreme entity.

• He said that the universe is like a dream and the dreamer is also Brahma, as he did not believe in jiiva.

When Brahma is Nirguńa how could Shaḿkara see, as seeing is a quality? But this was also forgotten by Shamkara.

Again, according to Shaḿkara’s philosophy what is seen and experienced is all due to the influence of Máyá. This means Máyá is also an entity which Advaetavada or monism cannot accept.

Shaḿkara’s philosophy believes in the necessity of sádhaná. But who will perform the Sádhaná when the existence of jiiva is not accepted?

When Brahma is anádi and ananta, why should Brahma be influenced by Máyá? Secondly, when the universe is created by the influence of Máyá, how is it that Brahma remains Nirguna?

Máyá is a greater force than Brahma as it influences Brahma!

In addition, Shaḿkara says that there is nothing exactly like Máyá as it is an illusion. A person in the desert sees water, houses, and trees etc. from a distance but there is actually nothing. In the absence of Jiṋána the person experiences an illusion. When there is Vikára or distortion in Brahma, how can the universe be an illusion?

Shaḿkara says where there is Brahma there is Máyá. Then the question arises, is Máyá nothing? If there is no Máyá, how can it influence Brahma?

To overcome this Shaḿkara says that it is not even nothing. It is inexplicable (anirvacaniiya). Again the question arises as to who created Máyá if Brahma did not create it. Then Máyá becomes Saguna Brahma.

Shaḿkara was able to defeat Buddhist philosophers only by a display of words.

The Máyá of Shaḿkara is not the Prakrti of Ananda Marga.

One of the great critics of Shaḿkara philosophy was Jayanta Bhatta, the propounder Nyáya Manjari philosophy.

Kápil Saḿkhya and Pátáiṋjala Yoga

The common features of these two philosophies include the following:

• Both believe in the existence of many Puruśas.
• Both believe that the universe is created by Prakrti for the satisfaction of these Puruśas.

This is not logical as no bhoga or satisfaction is possible without the existence of mind. Puruśas do not have mind and they cannot be satisfied by the creation of the universe by Prakrti.

• Both believe that Prakrti is not within Puruśa but is a separate Entity.

This is also illogical since Prakrti is only energy or the shakti of Puruśa, and like the dahika shakti or burning facility of agni or fire, it cannot be a separate entity. These philosophies are called Dvaetavádii or dualistic because they believe in two separate entities of Puruśa and Prakrti.

• In Sáḿkhya there is no god and thus it is called Niriishwaraváda or atheism, while Pátaiṋjala philosophy believes in God but does not believe in Brahma.

This is therefore called Seshvaraváda or theism.

• Idol worship is supported by both these philosophies.

Árya Samája

1. It believes that jiiva, jagat and Brahma are all anádi.

This only shows that jiiva and jagat do not need any further entity like Brahma and all the three alike are anádi.

This is unacceptable as this leaves no necessity for sádhaná or spiritual practice which is the Dharma or essential duty of every jiiva or human being. This also does not explain the reason for action and progress in the universe.

2. It believes in yajiṋas or sacrifices not as karma or action but as a for of worship.

Yajiṋa means karma but in Árya Samája it means offering to agni or fire in a particular form. There is no rational meaning in performing such Yajiṋas.

3. They also believe in pralaya or dissolution.

This is also irrational, since jiiva and jagat are anádi and as such there is no place for pralaya.

Marxism

It believes in the theoretical equality between human beings.

This is not possible in practice because no two individuals are alike.

This faith finds its field in the exploitation of poverty and hence it can only thrive in poverty-stricken areas.

• It has no tolerance for other religions or organizations.
• It exists on violence only.

Besides these, the following three groups belong to the Semitic [[faith]] – Muslims, Christians and Jews.