There is a certain kind of liberal Hindu thought that dissociates itself from the “narrow bigoted nature” of Hindu religious thought that has made its fanatical appearance in the last few years. Advocates of the liberal strain describe themselves as Hindus of a more progressive nature and display a veneer of sophistication in presenting their narrative.
The progressive nature, they contend, stems from certain sublime philosophical thoughts, rooted in the scriptures like the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita. They present a discourse based on the interpretations of these scriptures provided by saintly figures at different points of time. These saintly figures are eulogised as the greatest philosophers with a keen sense of logic and vision who, they claim, represent the ‘puritanical yet progressive,’ and intellectual face of Hinduism. One such figure that liberal Hindus would like to project is Adi Shanakaracharya, whose philosophy of Advaita Vedanta, they say, has profound insights to offer.
Sanitising Shankaracharya
At a recently concluded two-day Brahmana Maha Sammelana (Brahmin convention) held in Bengaluru on January 18 and 19, speakers gave addresses on the saints of the Brahmanical fold and their contributions. One of them, Pavagada Prakash Rao, spoke on Adi Shankara and his contributions. He specifically emphasised Shankara’s contribution, expanding on the Kannada word koduge. Justice Krishna Dixit of the Karnataka High Court, who presided over the Maha Sammelana, also spoke of Brahmins birthing the doctrine of Advaita, a doctrine that is associated with Adi Shankara.
Prakash Rao went to the extent of drawing parallels between Shankara’s doctrine and that of modern science. There are many others in his company who would not hesitate to say the same. Some modern hagiographic accounts hail Shankara for the “humanistic values” of his philosophy.
A similar glorified account can be seen in former diplomat Pavan Varma’s book Adi Shankaracharya: Hinduism's Greatest Thinker and Prema Nandakumar’s Adi Shankara: Finite to Infinite. Most of the secondary literature anchor their accounts on the traditional hagiography called Shankara Digvijaya written by Madhava-Vidyaranya. Digvijaya refers to conquest of the four quarters, not militarily, but by virtue, wisdom, and the knowledge of the absolute.
Pavan Varma, like Prakash Rao at the Sammelana, doesn’t shy away from extolling Shankara’s contribution (koduge) when he says that Shankara, as a thinker, “gave to the world and to humanity as a whole, a vision of the absolute and the universe,” and he “has few equals in society in the history of ideas of the human race”.
Such literature presents a very sophisticated view of his doctrine, portraying it as a world philosophy that is relevant for all times. What is hidden from the general readers of Shankara is the open sympathy and support he has shown for sectarian views of the ancient treatises on Dharma. It is surprising how, in spite of it, these modern scholars can read humanism in his philosophy.
This lesser known reactionary aspect of Shankara should inject a note of criticism in his followers, instead of being overawed by an adulatory account of his doctrine.
Law-codes to uphold Varnashrama Dharma
Ironically, referring to the Dharmashastras in his address, Justice Dixit stated that “love and respect” should be extended to all communities including non-Brahmins. This, however, is not how Shankara appealed to Dharmashastras, and this can be seen in the following exposition.
The extant literature on Dharma are available in two forms, or three if one also includes elaborate commentaries. They are Dharmasutras, works that are collections of sutras (aphorisms) and Dharmashastras, also known as smritis, which are treatises like Manusmriti on the religious and social codes embodying the duties and responsibilities as members of family and society.
The difference between the two lies in how they are presented. Sutras are pithy aphorisms in prose that require an explanation by a teacher. The word sutra literally means thread — Dharmasutras are aphorisms connected by the teacher’s explanation that serves as a linking thread. On the other hand, Dharmashastras are instructions composed in verse form.
The whole corpus of Dharma texts like sutras, smritis, and their commentaries are often collectively known as Dharmashastras. In all these, the law-codes command a strict adherence to the Varnashrama Dharma, that is, the duties of different castes at different stages of life.
The Dharmashastras are sectarian and partial to the three dominant castes, referred to as Dvijas (twice born), who are conferred certain privileges. They also propagate extremely negative views on the fourth caste, the Shudras, stating that the only duty of Shudras is to serve dominant castes.
A sectarian beneath the sophistication
Shankara’s philosophy of Advaita Vedanta is one of non-dualism. In its abstract form, it denies the general perception of the world as being plural in nature. The reality, according to Shankara, is One — an all pervasive absolute Brahman. It is the realisation of this unity of Atma (the individual self) with Brahman (absolute conscious principle) that leads to freedom. In theoretical terms, it denies all matters of practical concern, including caste and law codes, which are transactional in nature and hence steeped in error. In short, our experience of the world is itself an illusion or maya, according to Shankara.
The oneness that Shankara expounded as a conscious principle is merely an empty commentary with abstruse expressions for erudite Sanskrit scholars to revel in. The philosophical hollowness of his exposition has been analysed in detail in this article. Beneath the veneer of scholarly sophistication lies his ugly sectarian view.
Elite scholars, like to give an impression of themselves as liberal Hindus, and so project Shankara as an icon of oneness, whose philosophy of Advaita Vedanta, they claim, has profound insights to offer. The Sanskrit scholars with eloquence can go on expatiating on Shankara literature. Cities like Bengaluru offer them much space for such discourse and they try their best to dissociate themselves from Hindutva extremism. Though they may not overtly display bigotry, covertly, the voice of the Brahmanical cultural supremacy underlies such scholarly discourses.
Admirers disregard Shankara’s sectarian views
Though Advaita Vedanta is his professed philosophy, Shankara draws upon the Dharmashastras and is in complete agreement with the law codes enjoined in these treatises. This is in complete variance with his professed philosophy — one for which the elite modern scholars greatly admire him. It is regrettable that in their admiration, they fail to notice this variance, be it intentionally to suppress this fact about Shankara or out of ignorance.
One would, therefore, be curious to know these scholars’ response to some of his regressive and reactionary views.
His commentary on the Vedanta sutras, which is considered to be his magnum opus, Shankara has made several references to the Dharma treatises in different contexts. Vedanta means the “end of the Vedas” and denotes the positional significance of the Upanishads, which comes after the Samhita, Brahmana, and Aranyaka in the Vedas. Upanishads are discourses on the philosophical aspects of god, the universe, and the self. Vedanta sutra is a body of work composed by Badarayana in the form of aphorisms that explain the essence of Upanishads.
In his commentary on sutra II.i.1, Shankara enthusiastically supports the Vedic text that declares “whatever has been spoken by Manu is a curative medicine”. A glaringly regressive take can be found in the commentary on the sutras I.iii.36 and I.iii.38. In his commentary (on I.iii.36), Shankara cites Manusmriti (X.126) in denying the purificatory rites for Shudras thus: “The Shudra belongs to the fourth caste and has but a single birth” (Manusmriti X.4).
His most regressive and reactionary view on Shudras is revealed in his commentary on the sutra I.iii.38, which is on how they should be prohibited from hearing the Vedas. The Gotama Dharma sutra XII.4 that Shankara refers to here, says, “Then should [the Shudra] happen to hear the Vedas, the expiation consists in his ears being filled with [molten] lead and lac”. He also cites Vasistha Dharmasutra: “He who is a Shudra is a walking crematorium. Hence one should not read in the neighbourhood of a Shudra.” Such brutal and barbaric expiations prescribed continue to be cited, like the chopping of the tongue of Shudras if they utter the Vedas and cutting of the bodies to pieces if they commit it to memory.
In projecting Shankara as a liberal face of Hinduism and philosopher par-excellence, these advocates and admirers tend to disregard his open embrace of the brutal sectarian views of the Dharmashastras.
There is another point. Shankara completely and openly marginalises the role of reason and experience in his discourse. For example, in his commentary on the Vedanta sutra (II.i.11), he says that what one logician establishes as knowledge by reason is demolished by a second logician. What is established by the latter is again demolished by a third. On the basis of such sophistry, he questions how knowledge arising from reasoning can be correct. Again in the Katha Upanishad (1-II-9), he writes that knowledge of the Self cannot be attained through argumentation. In these passages, he lays emphasis on faith in scriptures. For Shankara, reason is subservient to the scriptures. Reason, therefore, has to be deployed only within the framework of the scriptures and not as an independent means of knowledge.
In spite of his open rejection of reason as a means of knowledge, it is surprising how the Hindu cultural chauvinists present Shankara before the readers as a philosopher with a keen sense of logic. Such marginalisation of reason goes well with the obscurantist views of the Dharma treatises that he so wholeheartedly supports.
SK Arun Murthi taught philosophy in the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences at the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research at Mohali in Punjab.
Views expressed are the author’s own.