Chapter 2.4(c) - Means to Mokṣa (according to Śaṅkara)

For the attainment of the liberation, various practices are seen to be accepted in the Indian philosophical tradition. For better understanding, nowadays these are known as jñāna-mārga, karma-mārga, bhakti-mārga and yoga-mārga. Even though these paths are separately indicated, one finds mutual connection among them. The particular name is given to the path in accordance with its prominence in the practice. The viewpoints of Śaṅkarācārya regarding these four paths are as follows:

Jñāna-mārga:

In the tradition of Kevala-advaita-vedānta-philosophy, the jñānamārga (path of knowledge) is instructed as the means to the liberation. It is taught in the form of the śravaṇa (hearing), manana (reflection) and nididhyāsana (contemplation) of the sentences in the Upaniṣads. The sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampannatā (endowment of four means) is regarded as a necessary prerequisite for the attainment of the knowledge. These four means are: discrimination between real and transient, dispassion of the enjoyments in this world and in the other world, possession of six good qualities, such as śama (control of mind), dama (control of senses) etc. and the desire of freedom. Śaṅkarācārya says that a person can be competent for the desire to know the Brahman and also for the knowledge of the Brahman, when he is endowed with these four means. The Brahma-jijñāsā (desire of knowing the Brahman) does not unconditionally expect the dharma-jijñāsā (desire of knowing the dharma) prior to it, but it absolutely expects the endowment of these four means.^[1] Secondly, with regard to the āśramas (orders of life), Śaṅkarācārya says that one, belonging to any āśrama, is eligible to attain the knowledge. But, the knowledge wherein all actions are abandoned can alone be the means to the liberation. One cannot attain the liberation by the knowledge in association with the actions.^[2] In the Brahma-sūtras (III.4.9.36-39), the anāśramins viz. the people who are not included in any of the āśramas are also said to be competent for knowledge. Here, Śaṅkarācārya asserts the illustrations of Raikva, Gārgī etc. who are anāśramins, but the knowers of the Brahman. ^[3]

One, who is eligible for the Brahma-vidyā, is expected to hear, to reflect on and to meditate upon the Upaniṣadic sentences related to the Brahman for their thorough comprehension. The śravaṇa, manana and nididhyāsana are considered to be ascending stages in attaining the knowledge. In the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (II.4.5), the Self is instructed to be heard, to be reflected on and to be deeply meditated upon, since all the things are known by the knowledge of the Self.^[4] Here, Śaṅkarācārya comments that one’s love for the Self is pre-eminent, so the Self should be realized. It should be heard at first from the ācāryas (teachers) and the śāstras (scriptures). Then, it should be reflected on with the help of the logic. And, after this, it should be meditated upon with determination. Thus, the Self can be experienced with the help of these three means, namely śravaṇa, manana and nididhyāsana. The unity of the jīva with the Brahman can be clearly known when these means are united. It cannot be known only through the practice of śravaṇa. Therefore, the practice of manana and nididhyāsana is also necessary.^[5] Furthermore, Ācārya mentions that the śravaṇa etc. are the direct means in attaining the absolute knowledge.^[6]

The necessity of repeating the śravaṇa etc. is stated in the Brahmasūtras. The śravaṇa etc. culminate into the Self-experience, when they are performed repeatedly.^[7] This repetition is necessary till the attainment of the Brahma-jñāna. However, the repetition is certainly not needed for one, who can realize the unity of the jīva with the Brahman by hearing the mahāvākya ‘tattvamasi’ once only. But, the people, having dull intellect, cannot understand the meaning of two entities tat and tvam at once, owing to the ajñāna (ignorance), saṃśaya (doubt) and viparyaya (reverse understanding). To know the meaning of the sentence, it is necessary to understand the meaning of the words in that sentence. So, in the case of these people, the repetition of the sentences in the scriptures and the study of the logic are appropriate, since this study aims at clear understanding of each word. The Self is partless, but various parts, such as gross body, senses etc. are imposed on the Self. By the virtue of the repetition, these parts are discarded one by one and the Self is known successively. Of course, this is not the absolute knowledge, but its prestep. The absolute knowledge, emerged once only, is capable of eradicating the ignorance. In this manner, Śaṅkarācārya accepts the necessity of repetition for one, who cannot realize the Brahman immediately. But, further he asserts that one should not be deviated from the true meaning of the sentence ‘tattvamasi’ and also encouraged to concentrate merely on the repetition. If one is appointed in mere repetition, there will arise the notion in the form of ‘I am eligible for this repetition’, ‘I must do this’ etc. This is opposite to the absolute knowledge, wherein the notion of agency is totally annihilated. So, one should not be allowed to ignore the true import of the mahāvākya by focusing merely upon the repetition.^[8]

The Śrutis or the Vedānta scriptures are considered to be the highest authority regarding the Brahman. Śaṅkarācārya proclaims that the scriptures Ṛgveda etc. are the valid means to realize the true nature of the Brahman. ^[9] Although the Brahman is a siddha-vastu viz. a thing that already exists, it is not an object of perception etc. So, the unity of the jīva with the Brahman can be known only through the scriptures.^[10] Further, considering the Smṛtis, Ācārya asserts that the Vedas are selfevident. The authority of the Vedas regarding their meaning is independent, just like the authority of the sun in the matter of rūpa. The Vedas are not created by a human-being, so they are flawless. On the other hand, the Smṛtis are produced through the human-memory. The human speech cannot be self-authoritative. It has the obstruction of the memory of the speaker. So, the Smṛtis do not have any scope, if they contradict to the Śrutis. Thus, according to Ācārya, the Smṛtis should be regarded authoritative only when they follow the Śrutis.^[11] Furthermore, Śaṅkarācārya always rejects the empty logic, which is not agreeable with the Vedas. In his opinion, the Brahman is realized by the conviction rising from the investigation of the Vedāntas entences and not by the other valid means of knowledge, like inference etc. So, the logic can be accepted only till it strengthens the sentences in the Vedānta and does not contradict them.^[12]

The Brahman, which is understood by the scriptures, can never be an object of the knowledge. So, its śāstrayonitva, i.e being knowable through the scriptures, remains questionable. Here, Śaṅkarācārya says that the scripture does not instruct the Brahman as an object. On the other hand, it removes the distinctions imagined on the Brahman through the avidyā. It indicates the Brahman as one’s innermost Self and thus, removes the distinction of knower, things to be known and knowledge.^[13] Further, the Brahman is undifferentiated, absolute and indescribable. So, it is instructed in the scriptures by negating the qualities imposed on it.^[14] The very purport of the instruction neti-neti (not this -not this) is to remove the abrahma-pratyayas (ideas of non-Brahman) and thereby to indicate the absolute nature of the Brahman. This method is explained by Śaṅkarācārya by illustrating a story of a fool man. Owing to some fault, that very man was told by someone that he was not a manuṣya (man). To confirm his manhood, the fool asked other one, ‘Who am I?’ Knowing his stupidity, the wise told the fool in sequence that he was not the motionless things and so on. And, at the end, he asserted him, ‘You are not non-man’ and kept calm. This is the very way of the instruction of neti-neti through which the scriptures negate the things other than the Self and make one know the adjunct-free nature of the Self.^[15]

The scriptures play an important role in the attainment of the Brahmajñāna. But, according to Śaṅkarācārya, these scriptures must be understood through the proper sampradāya (tradition of the ācāryas). Otherwise, they might be wrongly interpreted. As a result, a person, who interpretes the scriptures in a wrong way, would become deluded himself. And, he will delude the other people also, who hear the scriptures from him. Such a person, even though he knows all the scriptures, must be neglected just like a fool.^[16] Śaṅkarācārya has himself quoted some of the lines from the Gauḍapāda-kārikās under the title ‘the statement of the knower of the tradition’.^[17] Thus, he emphasizes that one should learn the Brahma-vidyā from the ācārya, who has correct understanding of the scriptures.^[18] Further, He strictly differentiates the Brahma-vidyā from the mere scriptural learning. He holds the view that one cannot attain the Brahman in the absence of the efforts, such as approaching the Guru etc. and also in the absence of the detachment, although he has acquired command over the assemblage of the words in the Upaniṣads. ^[19] He further advises one to avoid the conceit of scholarship, since such an egoistic person cannot understand the true meaning of the Vedas even after learning them for a long period.^[20] According to Śaṅkarācārya, the avagati (experience) is the culmination of the knowledge. The experience of the Brahman is the highest goal of a human-life, since it destroys the avidyā, the root-cause of the transmigration.^[21] In the commentary on the Bhagavad-gītā, he interpretes the word jñāna as the knowledge, gained through the scriptures and the ācārya; and the word vijñāna as the experience of that knowledge, heard from the scriptures and the ācārya.^[22] So, according to Śaṅkarācārya, one’s own experience is absolutely necessary for the attainment of the result of the knowledge, namely the liberation. And, in the state of liberation, there does not remain any relevance of the scriptures, since the scriptures work in the range of the avidyā. The scriptures proceed only on the assumption of the adhyāsa of the Self on the non-self and vice versa. The object of the scriptures is ajñānī (ignorant). The scriptures become futile, when the avidyā comes to an end by the virtue of the vidyā.^[23]

Everyone is not capable to concentrate on the absolute and endless Brahman because of the different capacities of the intellect, such as dull, medium and sharp.^[24] Hence, the Brahman is described as having various aspects for the sake of the upāsanās. While explaining the difference between the upāsanās and the knowledge of the non-dual Brahman, Śaṅkarācārya declares that both these are the mental modifications. But, the non-dual knowledge removes the notion of the difference among the instruments or the factors of an action like agent etc., action and its results. This idea of difference is imposed on the Self, which is intrinsically devoid of all the actions. But, in the upāsanās, the flow of similar modes of the mind is continued on some object, which is approved by the scriptures. Similarly, the interrupting mental modes that are different from that object are avoided. This is the difference between the non-dual knowledge and the upāsanās. The idea of differentiation still pertains to the upāsanās, but it is annihilated in the non-dual knowledge. The upāsanās are useful to the non-dual knowledge, since they illumine the Self by purifying the mind. Moreover, the upāsanās are easier, since these have the object to be concentrated on.^[25] The limit of the repetition of the upāsanās, which are meant for the true enlightenment, is the Selfrealization. It is like husking the paddy only till one gains the clean rice. When the result viz. the true enlightenment is attained, there cannot be the instruction of any effort. The knowledge of the unity of the jīva with the Brahman is beyond any injunction. Therefore, one, who attains such knowledge, cannot become the object of the scriptures.^[26]

Karma-mārga:

According to Śaṅkarācārya, the jñāna and the karma are contradictory to each other. It becomes obligatory for one to enjoy the results of the actions, when he performs them with the sense of the angentship and with the desire of the results.^[27] The agentship and the enjoyership are not intrinsic nature of the Self, but they are imposed on it due to the avidyā. These do not come under the sphere of the vidyā. So, there do not remain any actions after rising of the knowledge.^[28]

Considering this contradiction between the actions and the knowledge, Śaṅkarācārya proclaims that two different niṣṭhās (adherences) are spoken of by Bhagavān Śrīkṛṣṇa in the Bhagavad-gītā. These are the sāṅkhya-niṣṭhā viz. the jñāna-niṣṭhā and the karma-niṣṭhā. These niṣṭās are successively based on two distinct notions, namely sāṅkhya and yoga. The notion of sāṅkhya viz. the jñāna expects non-agentship and oneness, while the notion of karma expects agentship and multiplicity. Both these niṣṭhās cannot stay simultaneously in one and the same person. ^[29] So, different adhikārins (eligible people) of these niṣṭhās are mentioned. The jñānī (knower of the Brahman) is eligible for jñāna-niṣṭhā and the ajña (ignorant) is eligible for karmaniṣṭhā. One, who performs the actions with the notion of agency, cannot be established in the Brahman, because of the opposition of the actions with the knowledge.^[30] And, the karma-yoga (path of actions) is totally impossible for the knower of the Brahman owing to the annihilation of the false ignorance and thereby the notion of the agency in his case.^[31]

The actions, performed with the desire, do not help in generation of the vidyā. ^[32] But, the desireless actions support one in attaining the knowledge, by purifying his mind. These desireless actions or the actions devoted to the Īśvara are expected in the karma-yoga. ^[33] The sattvaśuddhi (purification of the mind) is a necessary pre-condition in rising of the vidyā. By giving the illustration of Indra and Virocana, Śaṅkarācārya asserts that one, whose sins have not destroyed yet, cannot comprehend the Brahman or wrongly comprehends it, even though he obtain the instructions of the Brahman. So, one’s mind must be purified through tapas (concentration) etc. either in this life or in the past lives for the sake of rising of the vidyā. ^[34] One, who is established in the jñāna, immediately obtains the liberation. On the other hand, the karma-yogī attains the purification of the mind first and then the jñāna. By the virtue of the jñāna, he gets established in the sarvakarmasannyāsa (renunciation of all the actions) and thus attains the liberation.^[35] In this way, unlike the knowledge, the desireless actions help one to attain the liberation indirectly. So, in the opinion of Śaṅkarācārya, the karma is said to be the cause of the liberation in a secondary sense.^[36]

The karma can be associated with the knowledge of the qualified Brahman, so it is not contradictory to the saguṇa-brahma-vidyā. But, according to Śaṅkarācārya, the actions are subsidiary even in comparison with the saguṇa-brahma-vidyā. ^[37] Further, he says that the karma associated with the saguṇa-vidyā is superior in comparison with the karma unassociated with the saguṇa-vidyā, just like the learned Brahmin is superior in comparison with the non-learned Brahmin. But, the karma unassociated with the vidyā is not totally negligible. Both these karmas, namely the karma associated with the vidyā and the karma unassociated with the vidyā, remove the obstable of the sin in the way to the Brahman and become the cause in the attainment of the Brahman. These karmas become supportive to the liberation, when they are performed with the purpose of attaining the liberation by the mumukṣu (one who desires the liberation) according to his competency in this life or in past lives before rising of the vidyā. These actions become useful to the proximate means of the absolute knowledge, such as śravaṇa etc. and thus indirectly help one to attain the liberation.^[38] The jñāna-karma-samuccaya, namely the association of the actions with saguṇa-vidyā too, becomes useful by removing the the obstacles in the way to the jñāna through making the saṃskāra (impression) on the mind, when it is undertaken without expecting the result of action.^[39] In this way, the vidyā expects the desireless karmas or the desireless jñāna-karma-samuccaya for its generation. But once it is produced, it gives its result viz. the liberation independently.^[40]

Further, in the opinion of Śaṅkarācārya, the sannyāsa (monastic life) wherein the renunciation of the household duties is expected, is helpful in attaining the knowledge. The rites regarding wife, son, wealth etc. are the object of avidyā and so, they do not become the means to attain the Self.^[41] The actions such as śama, dama etc., which are asserted for the monastic life, are seen to be directly connected with the vidyā. So, these are proximate means to the vidyā. On the contrary, the actions, such as sacrifice etc. are external means to the vidyā, since these are seen to be connected with the desire of the vidyā. ^[42] Therefore, Śaṅkarācārya opines that a person, who is desirous of the liberation, must accept the monastic life, even though he is ignorant.^[43] Here, it must be noted that Ācārya approves the monastic life for the ignorant only when he is capable to withdraw his attention from the worldly desires and longs for the freedom from the saṃsāra. If one is desirous of the external three worlds viz. this world, world of deities and world of manes, he can attain them through the means of son, rituals and the knowledge of qualified Brahman. It is not proper for such a person to reject the household duties and accept the monastic life.^[44]

The sarva-karma-sannyāsa means the complete renunciation of all the activities. The vidvān (knower of the Brahman) alone is capable of this sannyāsa. According to Śaṅkarācārya, this sannyāsa alone is asserted in the Vedas and not the sannyāsa, in which only the acceptance of external signs of the monasticism are seen, just like yajñopavīta (sacred thread), tridaṇḍa (three staves), kamaṇḍalu (water-pot) etc. A person, who has renounced all the activities along with their accessories and who has established in the Brahman is eligible for this monasticism. He is called paramahaṃsa and he is atyāśramī, i.e. one who has passed beyond all the āśramās. ^[45] Further, Ācārya says that the vidyā along with the establishment in sarva-karma-sannyāsa alone leads one to the liberation. The establishment in the Brahman suggests the total absorption in the Brahman, without doing any activities. It is not possible for a person belonging to the first three āśramas, since the pratyavāya (sin) is told in the scriptures, if he does not perform these actions. The sannyāsin is free from such actions owing to his renunciation of all the actions. His duty is to follow the rules such as śama, dama etc., which do not oppose the establishment in the Brahman, but support it.^[46] The jñānī always remains established in the Brahman. He transcends the sphere of the actions by the vidyā. Śaṅkarācārya proclaims that such a jñānī cannot be assigned in certain actions by anyone. He is not injuncted even by the scriptures, since the scriptures are produced through him. Anyone is not commanded by his own speech produced through his own consciousness. The wellversed master is not commanded by his ignorant servant.^[47] Some jñānīs are seen to be performing the actions just as before even after the acquision of the jñāna. In the Bhagavad-gītā, the purpose of these actions is said to be lokasaṅgraha (welfare of people). Here, Śaṅkarācārya asserts that one, who has started performing the actions, renounces them along with their accessories after the generation of true knowledge. He does not see any purpose in actions. But, if he cannot renounce these actions due to some reasons, he continues doing the actions without attachment in them and also in their results. He performs the actions for the welfare of the people, since he does not have his own purport in these actions. Although he proceeds with the actions, he does not perform any action in the real sense of term, since the actions have been burnt away by the fire of knowledge in his case.^[48]

In this way, the karma becomes useful for the ignorant, if it is performed without desire. And, thus it is treated as the path of the liberation. But, there does not remain the karma in the realm of the jñāna.

Bhakti-mārga:

Śaṅkarācārya has not described the bhakti-mārga (path of devotion) and the yoga-mārga (path of yoga) as independent paths in the commentaries. He explains these terms while commenting on the related topics, but there also he does not provide any minute information about the practice of these paths. He mentions the bhakti as a means to the liberation, but does not provide subtle details of this path.^[49] While practicing the upāsanā, the devotion on the object of the upāsanā is necessary. So, in the context of upāsanās, Śaṅkarācārya sometimes talks about the devotion. For instance, he says that the Brahman becomes gracious on those people, who fix the notion of the Brahman on the oṅkāra with devotion.^[50] Further, Ācārya asserts the necessity of the śraddhā (faith) also in understanding the object. The faith supports one to concentrate the mind on the intended object and thus the meaning of that object can be comprehended.^[51] At one place, he mentions the devotion, in the form of the worship of the God through one’s actions, as a means to aquire the eligibility of the jñāna-niṣṭhā (abidance in the knowledge).^[52] But, at the same time, he regards the parā-bhakti (supreme devotion) as the jñāna-niṣṭhā itself. In the Bhagavad-gītā (VII.16), four kinds of devotees are mentioned. They are ārta viz. one, who is suffering from the calamities, jijñāsu viz. one, who desires to know the nature of God, arthārthin viz. one, who desires the wealth and the jñānin viz. one, who knows the truth. In the viewpoint of Śaṅkarācārya, the forth kind of devotion, which is same as the firm abidance in the knowledge, is the supreme devotion in comparison with first three kinds of devotion.^[53]

Yoga-mārga:

In the Brahma-sūtras, the Yoga-philosophy is seen to be refuted along with the Sāṅkhya-philosophy, because these are not based on the Vedas. Here, Śaṅkarācārya comments that the liberation can be gained only through the knowledge of unity of the jīva with the Brahman. Both the Sāṅkhyas ystem and the Yogas ystem believe in duality. They reject the unitary knowledge of the Self, so one cannot obtain the liberation either by the Sāṅkhya-knowledge or by following the yoga-path that is independent of the Vedas. ^[54] Speaking of the yoga-practices, Ācārya asserts that the Yoga is stated in the Vedas as a means to the true knowledge.Various yoga-practices are described in the various Śrutis, such as the Śvetāśvatara Śruti etc.^[55] So, here Śaṅkarācārya accepts the portion of the Yoga, which agrees with the Vedic philosophy. Thus, even though he opposes both the Sāṅkhya and the Yoga philosophies, he accepts certain portions of these philosophies, which do not contradict with the Veda. ^[56]

The dhyāna (meditation) is an essential part of the yoga-practices. It is important for acquiring the knowledge. The concentration of the mind is a necessary factor in meditation. Śaṅkarācārya explains the concept of dhyāna in various contexts. He defines the meditation as the constant flow of mental modes on the object of meditation, such as deity etc. as instructed in the scriptures. This flow should not be interrupted by the different kind of modes.^[57] Here, the meditation on the qualified Brahman is expected. While explaining the Dyāna-yoga in the Bhagavadgītā, Śaṅkarācārya says that the dhyāna means thinking of the nature of the Self and yoga means concentrating only on the Self.^[58] At another place, he explains the term dhyāna as one-pointed thinking after withdrawing the senses from their respective objects and concentrating the mind on the innermost Self. By observing the examples used in the context of the meditation, such as meditation of crane, meditation of earth etc., it becomes clear that the uninterrupted flow of mental thoughts is expected in the meditation, just as the continuous flow of oil.^[59] Further, Ācārya mentions that the dhyāna-yoga is the approximate means to the true knowledge in comparison with the actions. The household duties are needed only till that point, whence one aquires the capability of dhyānayoga. The desireless actions become the means to the dhyāna-yoga by purifying the mind.^[60] Furthermore, in the Brahma-sūtras, the practishioner is not advised to follow any complicated rules regarding the meditation. On the other hand, he is told to choose the certain place etc. that becomes suitable for the concentration of the mind. Hereupon, Śaṅkarācārya comments that the descriptions of direction, place and time regarding the meditation are seen to be prescribed in some of the Śrutis, yet there is not any restriction in these details and this very fact is told with the affection of a friend by Ācārya Bādarāyaṇa.^[61] So, the concentration of the mind is the only necessary thing in the medition and not the observance of the complicated rules. In this way, Śaṅkarācārya explains the concept of dhyāna in various contexts.

So, to sum up, Śaṅkarācārya describes the jīva as a conscious entity delimited by a body. The connection of the body with the consciousness is of the nature of the superimposition. The creation and the measurement pertain to the body and not to the consciousness. The jīva experiences three states by possessing three bodies successively. But the jīva is not essentially different from the non-dual Self, which is indicated as the forth state. The seeming difference between the jīva and the Brahman appears on account of the delimiting adjuncts created by the avidyā and therefore it is not real. The jīva is intrinsically the Brahman alone.

While speaking of the jagat, Śaṅkarācārya asserts that the Brahman is the sole cause of the world. The world is not a real transformation of the Brahman, but it is an illusory appearance on the Brahman due to the avidyā. The world exists latently in its cause even before the creation. The world of names and forms is made up of five elements. In the Upaniṣads, the theories of creation are explained in different ways, but these texts do not contradict with each other regarding the cause of the creation viz. the Brahman. Śaṅkarācārya always proves the falsity of the world, but he admits its temporal existence for the sake of the empirical usage.

Śaṅkarācārya explains the essential characteristics of the Brahman, viz. Satya, Jñāna, ananta and Ānanda, which are stated in the Upaniṣads. He describes the Brahman as a source of the world as well. The Brahman or the Īśvara governs all the jīvas, being the innermost Self of all. The Īśvara is inactive by nature, but he motivates all the things on account of his māyā. He creates the world expecting the merits and the demerits of the creatures. The Brahman is regarded as para and apara considering the adjuncts. Various qualities are attributed to the para-Brahman for the sake of the upāsanās. The Brahman is nothing else but the Self of all, so it can never be rejected. In the Upaniṣads, the hṛdaya is proclaimed as the residing place of the Self. The omnipresent Brahman is instructed as delimited in the heart only for the sake of the meditation.

The mokṣa, according to Śaṅkarācārya, is a state of being the Brahman. The knowledge of the absolute Brahman is the only means to the liberation. The liberation is not a state to be newly attained, but it is the eternal state. Considering the possession and the non-possession of the body, Ācārya states two types of liberation. They are the jīvan-mukti and the videha-mukti. If one attains the liberation in the Brahma-loka, he is said to be a krama-mukta. In the commentaries, Śaṅkarācārya mainly speaks of the jñāna-mārga as a means to the liberation. He regards the Karma-yoga as a secondary aid for gaining the mokṣa. He explains the terms bhakti and yoga only when they come in certain contexts. He does not assert any details of these paths.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Ibid I.1.1.1

[2]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad] I.1.1 Preface; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Chāndogya Upaniṣad] II.23.1

[3]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] III.4.9.36

[4]:

[Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad] II.4.5

[5]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad] II.4.5; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Taittirīya Upaniṣad] I.11.4

[6]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Taittirīya Upaniṣad] I.11.4

[7]:

[Brahma-sūtra] IV.1.1.1

[8]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] IV.1.1.2

[9]:

Ibid I.1.3.3

[10]:

Ibid I.1.4.4; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] I.4.7.27; II.1.3.11; II.1.8.27

[11]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] II.1.1.1

[12]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] I.1.1.2; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] II.1.3.6, II.1.3.11

[13]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] I.1.4.4; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad] IV.4.20

[14]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad] III.8.12; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] III.2.6.22

[15]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Aitareya Upaniṣad] II.1.1 Preface

[16]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bhagavad-gītā] XIII.2; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bhagavad-gītā] XVIII.50; [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Aitareya Upaniṣad] II.1.1 Preface

[17]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] II.1.3.9; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bhagavad-gītā] XIII.13

[18]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Praśna Upaniṣad] I.1; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Chāndogya Upaniṣad] VI.1.2

[19]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad] I.1.5

[20]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Praśna Upaniṣad] IV.5

[21]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] I.1.1.1

[22]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bhagavad-gītā] III.41; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bhagavad-gītā] IX.1

[23]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] I.1.1.1 Upodghāta; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bhagavad-gītā] XIII.2

[24]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] III.2.7.33; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Gauḍapāda-kārikās] III.2

[25]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Chāndogya Upaniṣad] I.1.1 Preface; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] IV.1.6.7; [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bhagavad-gītā] XII.3

[26]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] IV.1.8.12

[27]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bhagavad-gītā] IV.14

[28]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] II.3.15.40

[29]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bhagavad-gītā] II.11 Preface; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bhagavad-gītā] III.3

[30]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad] I.2.12 See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Īśāvāsya Upaniṣad] IX Preface

[31]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bhagavad-gītā] V.1 Preface; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Īśāvāsya Upaniṣad] II; [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bhagavad-gītā] III.5

[32]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] IV.1.12.17

[33]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bhagavad-gītā] XIII.24

[34]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Kena Upaniṣad-Pada Bhāṣya] IV.8

[35]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bhagavad-gītā] V.27 Preface; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bhagavad-gītā] III.4;[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bhagavad-gītā] V.12; [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bhagavad-gītā] II.11 Preface;[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Kena Upaniṣad-Vākya Bhāṣya] I.1 Preface

[36]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] IV.1.12.16

[37]:

Ibid III.4.1.9

[38]:

Ibid IV.1.13.18

[39]:

KUŚB- VB I-1 Preface

[40]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] III.4.6.26; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bhagavad-gītā] III.4 Preface

[41]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad] II.4.1 Preface

[42]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] III.4.6.27

[43]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Aitareya Upaniṣad] I.1.1; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bhagavad-gītā] III.1 Preface

[44]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad] IV.4.22

[45]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Chāndogya Upaniṣad] II.23.1

[46]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] III.4.2.20

[47]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Aitareya Upaniṣad] I.1.1 Preface

[48]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bhagavad-gītā] IV.20 Preface; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bhagavad-gītā] III.20, III.25, IV.23 Preface

[49]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bhagavad-gītā] IX.13; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bhagavad-gītā] XVIII.65

[50]:

… [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Praśna Upaniṣad] V.2; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Praśna Upaniṣad] V.1

[51]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Chāndogya Upaniṣad] VI.12.2

[52]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bhagavad-gītā] XVIII.56

[53]:

[Bhagavad-gītā] VII.16 [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bhagavad-gītā] XVIII.55; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bhagavad-gītā] XVIII.54

[54]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] II.1.2.3

[55]:

Ibid II.1.2.3

[56]:

Ibid II.1.2.3

[57]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Chāndogya Upaniṣad] VII.6.1

[58]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bhagavad-gītā] XVIII.52

[59]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bhagavad-gītā] XIII.24; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] IV.1.6.8

[60]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bhagavad-gītā] VI.1 Preface; Ibid VI.1

[61]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] IV.1.7.11