The Philosophy of Sri Sankaracharya: Advaita Vedanta

Sri Sankaracharya was questionably the greatest of the Indian philosophers as his ideas have often come to represent the standard type of Hindu thought. Tradition states Sankara as being born in the seventh century A.D. in a village called Kaladi in Kerala, South India. It is believed that in his early years, he was impressed with the mystery of life, and received an early vision of holiness eventually driving him to pursue the path of a sanyasi, against his mother’s will. His primary contribution was the non-dualistic Advaita system which he developed by means of commentaries on the ancient texts. His various works include the Brahmasutrabhasya, his commentary on the Brahmasutras, the Gitabhasya, commentary on the Bhagavad Gita, the Upadesashasri, and his various commentaries on the several Upanishads. Sankara also founded four monasteries, the chief one at Sringeri, the other ones being at Puri, Dwarka and at Badrinath. He is said to have died at the age of thirty-two at Kedarnath in the Himalayas.
The sixth and the seventh centuries saw the rise of popular Hinduism. Buddhism was declining and Jainism was at its peak in the South. Religious bhaktas and devotees were popularizing the path of devotion to God. The Mimamsa faith, with its exaggerated emphasis on karma and the Vedic rites, was gaining support as a reaction against the ascetic tendencies of Buddhism and the devotional ones of theism. During this period, Sankara felt impelled to attempt a spiritual direction by conceiving a lifestyle, interwoven in philosophy and religion, which promised the people fulfillment in life better than any of the other systems. It is important to mention that Sri Sankaracharya was more a religious teacher than a philosopher. It could be stated that he felt commissioned by a higher authority, had a "calling" in Western terms, to help the individual realize the eternal Brahman and attain liberation.
Sankara presents his theories couched in a logical form which would lead one to believe that they could be proven by direct scientific reasoning. This is not possible, however, for Indian philosophy speaks from the points of view of two truths: from the point of view of Ultimate Reality and from the point of view of conventional reality. We, as ignorant beginners, must start from the beginning-- the conventional reality, in which I am not equal to God (of course!). Sankara, however, can only completely offer his ideas from the point of view of Ultimate Reality, in which I (the individual soul, or Atman) am equal to God (Brahman). He addresses questions and objections from the conventional point of view, but he displays inability in presenting a path for one to walk from ignorance to enlightenment that can be understood from this point of view, because there is a transition from one state (ignorance) to another (enlightenment) which can in no way be described to one who is ignorant in terms other than those such as "transition", "revelation", etc. This is inherent in the system-- so from the outset, one must undertake this rigorous mental program with a good dose of faith in the teacher.
Sankara's teachings lead one to an understanding that Atman equals Brahman, in which Brahman is God and the Universe, and Atman (for purposes of explanation) is the individual. In short, Everything is Brahman, and so I am non-different from this all-inclusive Ultimate Reality. Understanding this, he says, is achieving liberation.
Well, what does one have to do to understand this? First, one must be a high-caste Brahmin who has reached a certain stage in learning and has approached a teacher in the "prescribed manner"(Upadesasahasri, p.21 1). One must also have certain prerequisites: "discrimination between the eternal and non-eternal, dispassion from the fruits" of action, a perfect control over mind, body, etc., and a "hankering for liberation" (Brahmasutrabhasya, p.9). These prerequisites seem to imply that one has lived a variety of lives and has reached, through compliance with the system of merit and demerit that constitutes samsara, the point at which this system must be discarded. The requirements aside, one must renounce action, which produces karma and thus binds one to the transmigratory state; one must recognize that knowledge is the means to liberation, as is continually described in the Vedas, according to Sankara.
Transmigration is caused by nescience (or ignorance)-- when one falsely supposes disparity from Brahman. In this state, superimposition, one attaches himself to the body, the mind, the intellect, this life, etc. promoting the false idea, ‘I am an agent, I act'. Superimposition leads one naturally to action, because it supposes attachment, but one must renounce action to help end the misunderstanding; to do this one must have faith. This superimposition of the self on the Atman is instinctive, according to Sankara; it is a "natural human behavior", which validates it as a starting point (Brahmasutrabhasya, p. 1). The way to correct this misunderstanding is through understanding that Atman equals Brahman, which Sankara says is to be understood by study of the srutis, the scriptures revealed by God or manifested through the power of God, such as the Upanisads and the Brahma Sutra. These srutis deal with things from the Ultimate perspective, although they also describe various karmic and daily activities (which Sankara dismisses as of secondary importance). The repetitive nature of the srutis and of Sankara's work, as well as the Ultimate point of view, stress the revelatory nature of this process of enlightenment.
Ultimately, one will know that Atman’s equivalence to Brahman and so be liberated. But moksha exists not as a state to be achieved, for Brahman is changeless, omnipotent, and all-pervading, and so one cannot just add oneself in -- unless -- one is already part of Brahman. Indeed, to realize that Atman equals Brahman is to realize that Atman has always been equal to Brahman, and so one has always had moksha, it must just be activated, so to speak, by understanding. This is the "realization" or "transition" which cannot be adequately described from the point of view of ignorance.
A valid, and perhaps the best way, to more fully understand Sankara's ideas is by looking closely at his writing. Much of his writing seems repetitive --this is a part of the teaching method he condones --so to take a small portion and further augment with explanation and elucidate it is should be an acceptable way to examine his theories. One can take for example Chapter Seven of his Upadesasahasri- (The Thousand Teachings), entitled "Located In the Intellect." This chapter, which follows, describes specifically the error in the superimposition of the Atman on the intellect, but it can be seen to address the whole of his theory when examined more closely:

1.Everything located in the intellect is always seen by Me in every case [of cognition]. Therefore, I am the highest Brahman; I am all-knowing and all-pervading.

Here Sankara states openly that everything seen in --or by-- the intellect is seen by Brahman. He also gives a standard definition of Brahman: all knowing and all-pervading. Taking for granted that Atman equals Brahman, he is here saying that Atman is the only true cognizer, or knower that to believe that the intellect itself is the witness is false.
He further addresses this concept in verse 2:

2.Just as [I] am the Witness of the movements in My own intellect, so am I [also the Witness of the movements] in others' [intellects]. I can neither be rejected nor accepted. Therefore, I am indeed the highest [Atman].

All Atmans are equal to Brahman, and so all are the same; to differentiate from one person's Atman to that of the next is false, as it implies a false identification of the Atman as personal. The idea that Atman can neither be rejected nor accepted is fundamental, for how does one deny that which is one's self, that which grants one the ability to affirm or deny at all? The idea of Atman as witness implies a separation from the intellect-- Atman provides the intellect with its idea of consciousness, but is not limited to that specific consciousness; it is the eternal, ultimate consciousness -- the One which is All. It seems Sankara here uses the words Brahman and Atman interchangeably -- but this is a demonstration of why one should feel free to do so: they are the same.

5.The object of knowledge in the intellect exists when the intellect exists-, otherwise it does not exist. Since the Seer is always seer, duality does not exist.

This first sentence brings into play a bigger question: what exactly is knowing after all? In this line one could say Sankara means simply that if my intellect does not exist to know a thing, then that thing does not exist within my knowledge. But knowledge of anything by the intellect is pure fancy; Atman is the true knower, and a knowing by the intellect must then be an attempt to explain in limited ideas and concepts an unlimited phenomenon, which is cognition by the Atman. So knowledge as we know it is false, because our conception of the knower is false. Only when the intellect knows itself as Atman, and thus falls away, is true knowledge possible-- knowledge of Brahman.
Sankara speaks to this superimposition in the second sentence by maintaining that since it is the Atman (the true "Seer") shining through the intellect (our false idea of the "seer") that makes cognition possible, there can be no duality between the two.

6.Just as the intellect, from absence of discriminating knowledge, holds that the highest [Atman] does not exist, just so when there is discriminating knowledge, nothing but the highest [Atman] exists, not even [the intellect] itself

This last verse succinctly defines superimposition and enlightenment. One suffering from superimposition thinks that consciousness lies in the intellect; this is due to a lack of discriminating knowledge, or being in a state of ignorance. But when one gains understanding, through studying the Vedas, one realizes that Atman is equal to Brahman, and that this fact precludes the existence of all else -- that such things as the intellect are solely misinterpretations due to ignorance of the influence of the Atman.
Sankara's work is confusing when taken as a purely philosophical treatise he ignores points which empirical thought demands be addressed and he switches back and forth from two vastly different points of view. This can be very confusing, but well understood when one keeps in mind that these seeming discrepancies lead to a definite end --liberation-- for those who can follow the path he presents.
This functional attitude would never be in keeping with a purely explicative theory, and the seemingly unclear process he has set out for us becomes further clarified when one remembers that he is speaking to an extremely selective group of people who want to escape the misery of transmigratory existence. It is clear that within the conceptualization of the universe Sankara presents, his methods are valid, and are indeed singularly effective to the end he has in mind: moksha.