How is Shankaracharya’s path to be seen in the inclusive understanding of dharma?

Answer Podcast

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
What is that yogi? So, if you consider inclusive path, then is Shankaracharya to be appreciated also? Yes.
Shankaracharya came again at a particular point in history. And he served a particular purpose. So, we have to see again, as I said, every religious thought system, it comes in a particular context.
It changes over history. And then how it is present now. We have to see it.
So, after Buddhism came in India, Buddhism actually from the around the 5th century BC when it emerged, till around 6th, 7th century AD, Buddhism was very prominent in India. So, many countries, many states, many kingdoms were actually Buddhist. So, there was a rejection of the Vedas and quite aggressive rejection of the Vedas.
And while Buddha himself, you could say he was non-theistic. He just didn’t talk about God. But subsequent Buddhist thinkers, many of them were aggressively atheistic.
So, then Shankaracharya came around 7th century and he focused on countering the Buddha’s rejection of the Vedas. And within the Vedas, there are many different teachings. So, he wanted to unify the followers of the Vedas under one rubric, under one banner.
And that’s why he focused on the impersonalist teachings within the Vedas. And that way he helped people to become united. So, his unifying the followers of the Vedas, consolidating them, that helped to get people back into the fold of the Vedas.
Subsequently, of course, Islam also came. Islam was highly iconoclastic. So, by that time Buddhism had also become very iconoclastic.
Very icon-centered. They had images of Buddha everywhere. So, because of both, Buddhism went down in India.
So, Shankaracharya came at a particular point and he stressed particular teachings, particular aspect of the Vedas, Vedic teachings for unifying people under the Vedic rubric. So, there is a master plan going on. After Shankaracharya came Ramacharya.
So, Shankaracharya if you see, he always symbolizes one. Everything is one. Ramacharya came and his philosophy was, yes, there is oneness, but vishishtha.
There is qualified oneness. There is not absolute oneness. Then, if we consider a pendulum, the pendulum goes to one extreme, there is oneness.
And then it goes to the other extreme, there is, Ramacharya said this, there is actually qualified oneness. Then Madhacharya came and said, where is oneness? He said, there is Gaita. He said that Jiva and Jagat are separate.
Jiva and Jagdish are separate. Jiva and Jiva are separate. Jagat and Jagat are also separate.
So, he talked about pancham bhed, five kinds of differences. So, he said, so he took the pendulum to the other opposite side, that is Vahitavada. And then Chaitanya Mahaprabhu came.
Chaitanya Mahaprabhu said, yes, there is Jiva and there is Jagdish. And there is an ecstatic relationship of love between them. So, if you see Buddha, he symbolizes shunyam.
The reality, ultimately, is God is Jiva. Shankaracharya symbolized one, depicted, everything is one. Madhacharya is depicted as everything is two, Vahitavada.
Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, hands up, ecstatic two. There is two, but they are united in love. So, there is a historical progression in the revelation.
So, now, if what was spoken at one particular point in history, at a particular context, if that is absolutized, then it becomes a problem. So, Shankaracharya’s teachings are based on the Vedas. They focus on one aspect of the Vedas.
But when that aspect, which was highlighted at a particular time, is highlighted beyond its time and is made absolute at that time, and absolute at all times, I mean, at the highest and later times, then it becomes a problem.