e colour and so on. But if we tried to give such attributes to Brahman, we would end up bringing the Absolute to the material world, and then the Brahman would no longer be the Absolute. So one way of describing Brahman, if we really have to, is to describe him negatively: neti neti — not this, not this. Yet, Brahman is not a non-entity like the son of a barren woman or a sky lotus. It is beyond all categories, and all attempts to describe it are doomed to failure. We cannot speak about it, as the German philosopher Wittgenstein put it: Whereof we cannot speak, we must remain silent.

But, human nature is such that we cannot remain silent, so we try to describe the indescribable in whatever way we can. And when we try to describe Brahman thus, He becomes Ishvara, because now we see Him through maya— illusion. When Shankara says that all is one, and is the only reality, he does not imply that this world is unreal. All he says is it depends on how we look at this world. When blinded by maya, we see the world through it, the world appears as real to us, but when we tear apart the veil of maya, we realise our ignorance, and then the world becomes unreal to us. So the world is both real and unreal, depending upon how we view it. There is no contradiction here. Similarly, when we see Brahman through maya, He becomes Ishvara, Apara Brahman or lower Brahman. Now He could be represented in various forms, such as Rama, Krishna, Shiva, and we could call him Saguna Brahman. But when we realise the ultimate truth, we no longer need to objectify him, then He appears to us as Para Brahman. Now He becomes nirguna Brahman, the one who is beyond all properties and cannot be described in any category know to us.

But ultimately there is no difference at all between jiva (being) and Brahman — all is one. And when the jiva realises this, he has the right to say: Aham Brahma Asmi— I am Brahman.

But why is there so much hatred, misery, and unhappiness in the world? Shankara says it is only because of our ignorance (avidya) that we suffer. We see ourselves different from Brahman, once the duality creeps in, all our problems begin. We begin to say this is mine, this is mine. Forgetting that all this world is mithya (a myth), we begin to identify ourselves with our bodies, and begin to call all the sorrows of the physical world as our own. Shankara repeatedly asserts that the Absolute can be realised through knowledge, and knowledge alone; Karma and Upasana are important, but not as important as knowledge. They may help us in knowing Reality and they may prepare us for that knowledge, but ultimately it is knowledge alone, which by destroying ignorance, the root-cause of our miseries, can enable us to be one with the Absolute. Action and knowledge are contradictory and those who talk of combining knowledge with action are mistaken.

But does that mean that we ought to sit idle and not perform any action? To think thus would be to misunderstand Shankara totally. The life of Shankara himself was full of action, but it was action that was detached. There is a great difference when ordinary people perform an action, and when an enlightened person performs them.

Philosophy aside, as a great social and political reformer, Shankara united the entire country by establishing four mutts: Puri in the East, Dwarka in the West, Badrinath in the North, and Sringeri in the South. In the South he suppressed the worhip of Shiva as a dog, and the practice of human sacrifice by Kapalikas who worshiped Bairava.

He died in Kedarnath at the age of thirty-two leaving behind a rich legacy that is still relevant, and shall remain so.

<< 1 2