BANGALORE: The quintessence of Adi Shankaracharya’s advaita philosophy is: “Brahman satyam jagat mithya. Jivo brahmaiva naparah.” (source: Vivekachudamani) ‘Brahman is the only truth, the spatio-temporal world is an illusion, and there is ultimately no difference between Brahman and atman (individual self).’
This world is merely an appearance (Maya). Maya is the cosmic power that is responsible for the variety of forms in the empirical universe. Maya is the principle that makes the infinite Brahman appear finite. It resides in the individual as avidya. Avidya means ignorance. It is not the absence of knowledge but rather the superimposition of the attributes of one thing on another. Just as darkness disappears when light occurs, so also with self-knowledge ignorance dispels. Ignorance therefore has no substantial existence. Therefore what one needs to seek to attain enlightenment is nothing but self-knowledge.
If Brahman alone is true then where is the place for idol worship in advaitya? And yet why did Adi Shankaracharya himself worshipp deities in several forms?
Adi Shankaracharya reconciled the worship of six deities, viz Shiva, Vishnu, Shakti, Ganesha, Surya and Skanda. The understanding behind this is very simple. Through these gods we worship none but the Brahman. There is an essential oneness of all these deities. Brahman is the universal spirit that underlies all. Brahman is described as the substratum (adhistana) of all things. Through the microcosm we seek the macrocosm. In the vocabulary of the advatins the Nirguna Brahman (Higher Brahman) is sought through the Saguna Brahman (Brahman ascribed with qualities).
The recent controversy about whether Sai Baba’s idol should be placed in the Sanatana temples can be understood in this light. From a higher advaitic perspective an idol whether that of
Vishnu, Durga, Sai Baba, Sant Gyaneshwar, or Sant Jalaram, is ultimately a door to seek the ultimate truth, the Brahman. An idol is in a way the superimposition of subjective creativity on creation. Its form suits a particular mass psyche and inspires the devotee to elevate from a lower rung of being. An idol of a god or a saint after all is a symbolic representation of the divinity they propagate or stand for.
In spite of being a jnani Adi Shankaracharya was empathetic to the needs of the common populace and accommodated idol worship with grace and great insight. This can be interpreted as the beginning of ‘INCLUSIVENESS’. If we exclude, rather than include, we discourage people from seeking and engage them in mere arguments. Needless to say how insignificant and ignorant it is to delve into the religious/sectarian origin of a saint to determine whether it can be included wholeheartedly as a part of a larger faith. We do not know if Kabir was a Hindu or a Muslim but Kabir’s aphorisms have seeped deep in to the psyche and souls of thousands of Hindus, Muslims or Sikhs alike. INCLUSIVENESS enriches us, exclusion impoverishes.
Vivekananda who was an uncontroversial advaitin said, “We may worship a picture as God, but not God as the picture. God in the picture is right, but the picture as God is wrong.” – The Complete Works of Vivekananda, vol.4. A picture or an idol is not as important as what it represents. Shankara propagates a mahavakya (grand pronouncement) from the Chandogya Upanishad, “Tat Tvam Asi” or ‘that thou art‘. It means ‘You are that Brahman’. In other words, the Brahman which is the cosmic divinity is no different from the divinity that is you. A seeker thus seeks liberation by realising the Brahman in himself, in the other and in the whole Existence. Advaitya is a philosophy that is capable of seeing the transcendental in the immanent, the oneness in multiplicity, monism in pluralism and unity in diversity. In such an all-embracing philosophy, where then can be a place for controversy?