Problems Connected with a Biography of Sri Sankara
An Introduction to an English translation of MadhavaVidyaranya’s Sankara-dig.-vijaya, known also as Samkshepasankara-vijaya, requires in the first place an explanation as to why
it is undertaken. We are presenting this translation not because
we consider it a proper biography in the modern sense, but because
there is nothing better to offer on the life and achievements of
Sri Sankara. Sri Sankaracharya is undoubtedly the most widely
known of India’s saintly philosophers,both within the country
and outside, and there is a constant enquiry for an account of his
life. It is not that there are no lives, or rather life-sketches of his,
in English, written by modern scholars, but they are extremely
unsatisfactory in giving any. adequate idea of the great Acharya
or of his wonderful person~lity- of bow he was able to make that
great impact on the conscience of India, which has remained
unfaded to this day. Like a rivulet starting with great promise
but soon getting lost in a swampy morass, these modem writings
end in learned date discussions and textual criticisms, which give
the reader a sense of learned ignorance, but certainly no idea of
what Sankaracharya was like.
The trouble does not actually lie with. these scholars or the
accounts they have given of Sallkara’s life. It lies in the fact that
there is absolute dearth of reliable materials to produce a biography
of the modern type on Sankara, and the ‘scholarly writer, if he is to
produce a book of some respectable size, has no other alternative
but to fill it with discussions of the various versions of the dates
and of the incidents of Sankara’s life that have come down to us
through that series of literature known as Sankaravijayas, which
vary very widely from one another in regard to most of these details.
The generally undisputed features of Sankara’s life seem to be the
following: That he was born in Kaladi, Kerala, in a family of
Nam budiri Brahmanas: that he left hearth and home as a boy to
take to the life of a Sannyasin; that he was initiated into Sannyasa
by Govilldapada, the disciple of Gaudapada; that he wrote learned
commentaries on the Vedantasutras and the ten principal Upanishads and the Gita; that he led a busy life travelling all over India

refuting non-Vedic doctrines and establishing non-dualism as the
true teaching of the Vedas; that he left four principal disciples to
continue his mission; that he rid the various Indian cults of the
influence of debased sectaries and infused into them the purity
and idealism of Vedic thought;· that he established centres of
Advaitic learning in many places; andth&t he passed away at the
early age of thirtytwo at a place, the identity of which is yet to be
established. When he was born; where he met his teacher; where
he wrote his commentaries; what were the routes he took in his
all-India journeys for preaching and teaching; who were all his
opponents and where he met them; how and when he came across
his disciples; what temples he visited or renovated; what Maths he
founded or whether he founded any Math at !l:.ll; where lie passed
away-all these are matters on which conflicting or widely differing
views are expressed in the different traditional books concerned
with him known as Sankara-v,iiayas.
In a situation. like this, a modelll writer on Sankara’s life can
consider himself to have ·discharged his duty well if he produces
a volume of respectable size filled with condemnation of the old
Sankara-vijayas-which, by the way, have given him the few facts
he has got to write upon-for their ‘fancifulness, unreliability,
absence of chronological sense’ and a host of other obvious shortcomings, and indulge in learned discussions about the date and
the evidence in favour of or against the disputed facts, and finally
fill up the gap still left with expositions of Sankara’s philosophy;
In contrast to these are the traditional .biographical writings on
Sankara called Sankara-vijayas. All of them without an exception
mix the natural with the supernatural; bring into the picture the
.deliberations held by super-human beings in the heavens; bring
gods and dead sages into the affairs of men; report miraculous
feats and occurrences; and come into conflict with one another in
regard to m~ny biographical details. Yet tl:eir very so-called
fancifulness, the poetic approach of at least some of them, their
mythological setting and descriptive details, have given some of
them a fullness and impressiveness which are far more educative
than the few bald details and the futile discussions on their obvious
deficiencies that one comes across in the modem biographical
writings on Sankara.
The contrast may be better illustrated by an analogy. Suppose

a few bones of a rare species of animal that lived in bygone times
are obtained. A very learned discussion about the evolutionary
background and the probable biological features of the fossilised
bones can be instituted by biologists and anthropologists. A
clever artist, on the other hand, can try to reconstruct the probable
appearance of that extinct species of animals in some plastic material,
based on the clues from the bony structures recovered. Now, in
spite of the great erudition behind the first way of approach; it is the
reconstructed model, despite its obvious fancifulness and imaginative make-up, that can give some plausible idea to the common man
about that rare animal to which the bones belonged. The flourishing
ofa few bones and the learned discussions on them will leave no impression on the minds of any but specialists in the field. The attempted historical biographies ofSankara are just like the rattling of
the few bones of facts available along with abstruse discussions
about them, while the Sankara-vijayas are like the reconstructed
model of the animal which may be fanciful but impressive and meaningful to the ordinary man. Ifwe approach the Sankara-vijayas without forgetting that mythological elements have entered into them,
they would enable us to get a. much more vivid and flesh-and-blood
picture ofSankara than these learned discussions on dates and on the
credibility of various texts and some of the details contained in them.
The word ‘mythological’ is not used here in any sense of disparagement. A highly poetic and mythological narration of the
lives of individuals or events marks the measure of the tremendous
impact that these individuals and. events have made on the racial
mind of a people in those ancient days when correct recording
was not much in vogue, and impressive events easily took a my thologiciil turn. They are living traditions that transmit a little of
their original impact to the generations that have come later,
whereas pure historical productions are only like dead specimens
and curios preserved in the corridors of Time’s museum. The
trouble comes only when mythological accounts are taken as
meticulously factual and· men begin to be dogmatic about the
versions presented in them. In the mythological literary technique,
facts are often inflated with the emotional overtones and with the
artistic expressiveness that their impact has elicited from human
consciousness, and we have therefore to seek their message in the
total effect they produce and not through a cocksure attitude

towards the happenings in space and time. If we approach the
Sankara-vijaya in this spirit, we shall understand more about
Sankara and his way oflife than through the writings of professors
who disparage them for their defective chronology, their fanciful
descriptions and their confusing statement of facts. Such being
the position, a translation of a Sankara-vijaya is the only way to
give some idea of Sankara, his doings, his personality and the
times in which he lived.
Sankara-Vijaya literature
The translation given in this book is of Sankara-dig-vijaya or
Samkshepa-Sankara-vijaya by Madhava-Vidyaranya. It is, however, to be remembered that this is only one of the following ten
Sankara-vijayas listed on p.32 of T.S. Narayana Sastri’s The.
Age of Sankara: (I) Brihat-Sankara-vijaya of Chitsukhacharya;
(2) Priichfna-Sankara-vijaya of Anandagiri; (3) Sankara-vijaya of
Vidya Sankara alias Sankarananda, otherwise known as Vyiisiichalfya-Sankara-vijaya; (4) Keralfya-Sankara-vijaya by Govindanatha, also known as Achiirya-charita; (5) Sankariibhyudaya of
Chudamani Dikshita; (6) Sankara-vijaya of Anantanandagiri
(to be distinguished from Anandagiri) known also as Guru-vijaya
or Achiirya-vijaya .. (7) Sankara-vijaya of VaIn sa hay aka vi under the
name Achiirya-dig-vijaya.. (8) Sankara-dig-vijaya-siira of Sadananda; (9) Sankara-vijaya-viliisa of Chidvihisa; and (10) Sankaradig-vijaya or Samkshepa-Sankara-vijaya of Madhava-Vidyaranya.
Of these, the Jirst two, the Brihat-Sankara-vijaya and PriichfnaSankara-vijaya are supposed to be the products of the contemporaries of Sankara, their authors being the Acharya’s disciples.
Nothing can be said of this claim, as the texts are not available
anywhere at present. Sri T. S. Narayana Sastri, the author of The
Age of Sankara, claims to have come across what he calls a’mutilated copy’ of the second section, called Sankariichiirya-satpatha,
of Chitsukha’s work mentioned above. There is, however, no
means to assess the authenticity of the claim on behalf of this
mutilated copy, as it is not available anywhere.
Regarding the remaining Sankara-vijayas, while some of them
might be lying in some obscure corners of manuscript libraries,
there are only five of them available in printed form, and even
most of them can be got only with considerable difficulty. These

are Sankara-vijaya of Anantanandagiri (quite different from the
now defunct Anandagiri’s work with which it is confused even by
scholars), Achiirya-charita of Govindanatha, Sankara-vijaya of
Vyiisachala, Sankara-vijaya-viliisa of Chidvihisa, and Sankara-digvijaya of Mad~ava-Vidyaranaya.
The Authorship of Saokara-dig-vijaya
We are taking up for translation the last of these, namely,
Madhava-Vidyaranya’s work, with the full awareness of its limitations, which may be listed as follows: It is not a biography but
a biographical and philosophical poem, as the author himself
calls it. There are many obviously mythological elements in it,
like reports of conferences held in heavens, appearance of Devas
and dead sages among men, traffic between men and gods, thundering miracles, and chronological absurdities which Prof. S. S. Suryanarayana condemns as ‘indiscriminate bringing together of
writers of very different centuries among those whom Sankara met
and defeated.’ But these unhistorical features, it shares with all other
available Sankara-vijayas, including that of Anantanandagiri.
Though Wilson and Monier Williams find Anantanandagiri’s
writing to be more authentic and ‘lesS’ fanciful’, it seems so only
because, being a rather scrappy writing, more of the nature of a·
synopsis in modern Sanskrit prose, such fanciful features do not
look highlighted in the way in which they do in a poetical and
elaborate piece of literature like the work of Madhava-Vidyaranya,
to which people will have to turn for the present to get some clear
idea of Sankara and his doings. Ever since it was· first printed in
Ganapat Krishnaji Press in Bombay in the year 1863, it has continued to be a popular work on Sankara and it is still the only
work on the basis of which ordinary people have managed to get
some idea of the great Acharya, in spite of the severe uncharitable
criticism 1 directed against it by several scholars. But it has survived

all these criticisms, and will be studied with interest for all time as a
unique historical and philosophical poem in Sanskrit on one of
the greatest spiritual luminaries of India.
The criticism of it is uncharitable because it is mainly born of
prejudice, and it has extended beyond finding fault with the text,
to the question of its authorship itself. The critics somehow
want to disprove that this work is, as traditionally accepted, a
writing of the great Madhava-Vidyaranya, the author of the
Panchadasi, and a great name in the field of Indian philosophical
and theological literature. For, if his authorship is accepted, the
book will receive a high status, which some schools of thought do
not like for reasons of their own. In fact, except in the eyes of a
few such biassed scholars, it has actually got that status at present,
especially in the eyes of the followers of Sankaracharya in general;
but this position is sought to be undermined by disputing its authorship on all kinds of flimsy and far-fetched grounds. Besides the
support of tradition,. the colophon at the end of every chapter
of the book mentions its author’s name as Madhava, that being
the pre-monastic name ofVidyaranya. Before he adopted Sannyasa
under the monastic name of Vidyaranya, he was known as Madhavacharya, and was the chief minister of the great Vijayanagara
kingdom under its first three rulers. He was born in the year 1295
in a poor Brahmana family near Hampi in the region of the river
Tungabhadra. His father’s name was Miiyana and mother’s,
Srimati. He had two brothers by name Siiyana and BhOganatha.
Though brought up in poverty, all the brothers became versatile

scholars in all branches of learning. Bhoganatha took to the Order
of Sannyasa in early life. Sayana and Madhava were the authors of
many works on religion and philosophy. The famous commentary of
Rig Veda, though a work of Sayana, was probably a combined
work of theirs, for it is said in its Introduction: “Kripiilur-madhavacaryal} vediirtham vaktum udyatal}” and at the conclusion:
“iti Sayaniiciirya viracite madhavlya” etc.
For relief from poverty, Madhavacharya is said to have performed austerities at the shrine of Devi Bhuvaneswari at Hampi,
but the Devi revealed to him that in that life he was not destined
to be rich himself, but he would be able to help others to become
rich. This was an indication of the great part he was to play in
the political life of his times. In his fortieth year he became associated with the founders of the Vijayanagara empire-Hari Hara
I and his brother Bhukka I-who began the consolidation of that
State by 1336. He served under three successive. kings as chief
minister and built up the greatness and prosperity of that kingdom
until he retired in about 1380 to take to the life of Sannyasa at the
age of 85. He became the head of the Sringeri Math for a few
years and passed away at the age of 91 in the year 1386.
The identity of Madhava, the author of Sankara-dig-vijaya,
with his Madhava-Vidyaranya is further established by the first
verse of the text, wherein he pays obeisance to his teacher Vidyatirtha. Vidyatirtha was the head of Sringeri Sankara Math during
1228 to 1333. He was succeeded by Bharatikrishna Tirtha (1333-
1380); the immediate predecessor of Vidyaranya, who in turn

succeeded him as the head (1380-1386) at a very advanced age.
Thus, though not the immediate successor ofVidyatirtha, MadhavaVidyaranya must have had his spiritual initiation from him in his
pre-monastic life .. The identity is further established by the poet
Madhava’s reference to his life in the royal court in the following
touching introductory verses of his work: “By indulging in insincere
praise of the goodness and magnanimity of kings, which are really
non-esistent like the son of a barren woman -:>r the horns of a hare,
my poesy has become extremely impure. Now I shall render it pure
and fragrant by applying to it the cool and fragrant sandal paste
fallen from the body of the danseuse of the Acharya’s holy fame and
greatness, as she perfotms her dance on the great stage of the world.”
Besides, the t~xt is a masterpiece of literature and philosophy,
which none but a great mind could have produced. But there are
detractors of this great”text who try to minimise its obvious literary
worth by imputing -plagiarism and literary piracy to its author.
They claim that they have been able to show several versesthat have
ent~red into it from certain other Sankara-vijayas like ProchlnaSankara-vijaya and Vyasachala’s Sankara-vijaya. Though Priichfna-Sankara-vijaya is nowhere available, T. S. Narayana Sastri
claims to have in his possession some mutilated sect.ions of it; but
such unverifiable and exclusive claims on behalf of mutilated
texts cannot be entertained by a critical and impartial student of
these texts, since considerations other than the scholarly have
entered into these criticisms, and manuscripts, too, have been
heavily tampered with by Sanskrit Pandits. It can as well be that the

other Vijayas have taken these from the work of Madhava. Next,
even if such verses are there, and they are demonstrably present in
regard to Vyasachala’s work, the author can never be accused of
plagiarism, because he acknowledges at the outset itself that his
work is a collection of all the traditions about Sankaracharya and
that in it all the important things contained in an extensive literature
can be seen in a nutshell as an elephant’s face in a mirror. Is this’
not a general acknowledgement of dependence on earlier texts,
and if quotations from them are found, where is the justification
for accusing the author of plagiarism, unless the prejudice of such
critics is accepted as’ sufficient reason?
Besides, it is forgotten by these critics that it is a literay’technique
of Vidyaranya, as seen from his other works also, to quote extensively from recognised authorities without specially mentioning
their names, and that this feature of the present work goes only to
esta.blish the identity of its authorship· with Vidyaranya. Comparing the text with Vyasachala’a work, it is obvious that many
verses are common to both the texts. The author of the present
work, however, seems to imply Vyasachala as one orthe recognised
authorities on’this theme in the 17th verse of the 1st chapter.
There is also the view that the author need not necessarily be
Madhava-Vidyaranya but Madhavacharya, the son of the former’s
brother Sayan a and the author of Sarvadarsana-Samgraha, a
masterly philosophical text. To make this hypothesis even plausible,
it has to be established that this Madhava was the disciple of
Vidyatirtha, which the author of Sankara-dig-vijaya claims to be
in the very first verse of the text.
The authorship of the book is questioned also from the point
of view of style. Now views on style can be very sUbjecti-:e, and
when one wants to dispute the authorship of any work, the easiest
way is t9 ad~pt this line of criticism. In Sanskrit there are various
types of style, and accomplished men of letters can vary the style

according to the topic they deal with. According to the scholarly
traditions of ancient India most of the philosophic, theological
and even scientific subjects were expounded in metrical forms,
but the styles employed for these have necessarily to be different
from that for pure literary and poetical productions. Most oT
Vidyaranya’s other works are on high philosophical and theological
themes, and ifhe has used methods and styles in such works differing
from that of a historical poem like Sankara-dig-vijaya, it is only
what one should expect of a great thinker and writer. That the
author of this work has poetic effect very much in view can be
inferred from his description of himself as Nava-Kalidasa (a modern
Kalidasa) and his work as Navakalidasa-santana (offspring of the
modern Kalidasa). So, difference in style, even if any, is not very
relevant to the question of authorship, especially when the identity
of the author is plainly mentioned in the book itself.
In place of taking the poet’s description of his work as a production of a Nava-Kalidasa in the proper light, these hostile critics
have in a facile manner cpncluded that the name of the author
must be Nava-Kalidasa, though such a conclusion is against all
internal evid~nce. No one has heard of the name of such a Sanskrit
poet. They also safely forget the highly metaphysical doctrines
couched in cryptic but very attractive style in the discussions of
Sankara with Mandana, the upholder of Purvamimamsa doctrine,
and with Bhatta Bhaskara, the exponent of the Bhedabheda philosophy. These discussions have drawn the unstinted praise of an
independent critic like Telang. If Nava-Kalidasa, who forged
this book and imposed it on Vidyaranya, was a mere poet~and
an unknown poet at that-an explanation has to be given for the
impressive metaphysical wisdom, the dialectical skill. and the
Vedantic technique of exposition displayed in these chapters. The
genius of the author of Panchadasi is clearly reflected in them.
In philosophical profundity, in literary excellence and in nonpartisan outlook, it is far superior to all other Sankara-Vijayas.
In the light of all this internal evidence. the disparaging criticism
of this text. questioning its authorship itself, can be attri15uted only
to the prejudice of the critics.
Acceptance of Vidyaranya’s authorship does not. however. in
any way mean the denial of th:e mythical elements and the fanciful
contemporaneity of various Indian philosophers found in it. These

features it shares with all the other Sankara-vijayas. Chronology
and historicity did not receive much attention from even the
greatest of Indian writers in those days.
Date of Sankara
Regarding the biographical details contained in different Sankaravijayas, there are wide variations, as already pointed out. There
is no way now of settling these differences, although they can give
fertile ground for endless and inconclusive discussions for learned
men. Under the circumstances, Madhava-Vidyaranya’s Sankaradig-vijaya, which has already stood the test oftime and received
recognition, may be taken as sufficient authority to give the layman
much of the available information about Sankara. There are,
however, three details of his life, which are highly controversial
in nature, but to which we shall bestow some attention, not in the
hope of arriving at any final conclusion, but to be appraised of
the wide variations of views on them and the need, therefore, of
avoiding dogmatic adherence to any particular view. The three
points that are taken for a brief and inconclusive discussion here
are: (1) the date of Sankara (2) what institutions he founded and
(3) where he passed away. .
Every date in ancient Indian history, except that of the invasion
of Alexander (326 B.C.), is controversial, and Sankara’s date is
no exception. Max Muller and other orientalists have somehow
fixed it as 788 to 820 A.D., and Das Gupta and Radhakrishnan,
the well-known writers on the history of Indian Philosophy, have
accepted and repeated it in their books. To do so is not in itself
wrong, but to do it in such a way as to make the layman believe
it to be conclusive is, to say the least, an injustice to him. It is
held by the critics of this date that the Sankara of 788-820 A.D.
is not the Adi-Sankara (the original Sankara), but Abhinava
Sankara (modern Sankara), another famous Sannyasin of later
times (78~39), wQo was born at Chidambaram and was the head
of the Sankara Math at Kanchipuram between 801 and 839. He
was reputed for his holiness and learning and is said to have gone
on tours of controversy (Dig-vijaya) like the original Sankara.
It is found that not only modern scholars, but even the
authors of several Sankara-vijayas have superimposed these two
personalities mutually and mixed up several details of their lives.

The author of the concept of adhyasa himself seems to have become
a victim of it! The cause of much of this confusion has been the
custom of all the incumbents of the headship of Sankara Maths
being called Sankaracharyas. To distinguish the real Sankara,
he is therefore referred to as ‘Adi-Sankara’ – an expression that
is quite meaningless. For, Sankaracharya was “i:he name of an
individual and not a title, and if the heads of the Maths of that
illustrious personage were known only by their individual names
like the heads of religious institutions founded by other teachers,
probably much of this confusion could have been avoided.
In the light of the Abhinava-Sankara theory, much of the data
on which Adi-Sankara’s date is usually fixed by modern scholars
lose their validity. The Cambodian inscription of Indravarman
(878-887) which mentions the name of his preceptor as Sivasoma,
the pupil of ‘Bhagavan Sankar’, can have reference only to Abhinava-Sankara. Next the ‘Dravida-sisu’ referred to in the Saundaryalahari, meaning Thirujnana-sambandhar, the great Saiva Saint
who lived towards the middl~ of the 7th century, also loses its
significance; for the Soundaryalahari could have been the composition of this later Sankaracharya, an obvious parallel to which
may be found in the Devyapariidha-Kshamiipana-stotra, a work
generally attributed to Adi-Sankara, wherein the poet speaks of
himself as over eighty-five years of age- a fact that cannot be true
of Sankara Who lived for 32 years only. This confusion most
probably extends to many minor works attributed to Sankaracharya, chiefly because of the custom of all heads of Sankara
Maths being called as Sankaracharyas, a point discussed already
in the previous paragraph. Another objection to the 788 A.D.
theory is that Sankara refers to the city Pataliputra, as if it were a
city then existing. But this city, which was one of the very ancient
capitals of India, had been submerged by the neighbouring river
long before 750 A.D. All these data show that the modern scholars’
fixing of Sankara’s date as 788 A.D.,2 cannot be accepted as an
unchallengeable certainty.
The modern scholars in fixing Sankara’s date as 788 have totally
rejected the traditional date derived from Sankara Math records

and from Sankara·vijayas. Traditional Indian dates are suspect
because of the ~ultiplicity of eras, of which about fortyseven
have been enumerated by T. S. Narayana Sastri in his book,
The Age of Sankara. So unless the era is specifically mentioned, it
is difficult to fix a date in any understandable way. Two of these
eras ace famous– the Kali era, which started in 3102 B.C., and
Yudhishthira Saka era which started 37 years after, i.e., in 3065 B.C.
The calculation according to the latter era is, however, complicated
further by the fact that, according to the Jains and the Buddhists,
the latter era started 468 years after the Kali era, that is, in 2634 B.C.
Sri T. S. Narayana Sastri, in his book, The Age of Sankara,
argues the case for the traditional date, on the basis of the list of
succession kept in Kamakoti Math and Sringeri Math, and what
he ‘has been able to gather from ‘mutilated copies’ of BrihatSankara-vijaya, Priichina-Sankara-vijaya and Vyiisiichaliya-Sankara-vijaya. Until authentic copies of these works are available,
the information they are supposed to give is not acceptable. Nevertheless, he maintains that, according to Brihad-Sankara-vijaya and
Priichina-Sankara-vijaya, San~ara was born in 2593 of Kali era
(509 B.C.) and passed away at the age of 32 in 2625 of Kali era
(477 B.C.). He also maintains that this is more or ‘less corroborated
by the succession list of heads maintained at the Kamakoti,
Dwaraka, Sringeri and other Maths, with, however, one complicating factor intervening. The complication is that in the Sringeri
Math list the date of Sankara’s demise is given, according to
Sri T. S. Narayana Sastri himself, as 12 B.C. and, therefore, his
birth must have been in 44 B.C., or in 48 B.C., ifhe lived upto 36 years,
as some hold. This one difference is sufficient to dismiss the evidence
of the Maths, but Sri Sastri points out that the posteriority of the
Sringeri version of the date can be accounted for by the confusion
between the Kali and Yudhishthira ~aka eras. (The Yudhishthira

Saka era, according to Hindus, began 37 years after the commencement of the Kali era, while the Jains and the Buddhist writers
calculate it as having begun 468 years after the start of .Kali era
i.e. in 2634 B.C.) It is held by Sri Sastri that in Mysore and the
regions round about, the Jain influence was very great and the
confusion between eras in. this. respect might have been widely
prevalent also. Now, 44 B.C., the supposed date of the birth of
Sankara accor~ing to Sringeri Math, might have been the result of
the confusion of eras ind calculations based on them. 2625 of the
Kali era, the date of his death, must have been taken as referring
to Buddhist-Jain era and then converted into Kali era by adding
468 to it, thus arriving at 309~ pf Kali era (9 or 10 B.C.) as the
date of Sankara’s death. He accounts for the small discrepancy of
3 or 4 years by referring to .a tradition in Mysore that Sankara
lived till the 36th year, While this is an ingenious way of reconciling
the difference, one has to admit that there are too many ‘buts’,
‘ifs’ and other suppositions to make it credible.
It is rather surprising to note that, while, as stated in T. S. Narayana Sastri’s work, in the Kamakoti list Sankara occupied that
Gaddi for three years (from 480 B.C. to 477 B.C.) and was followed
by Sureswara for 70 years (477 B.C. to 407 B.C.), the Sringeri list
maintains that Sankara occupied that Gaddi for six years (from
18 B.C. to 12 B.C.), and was followed by Sureswara for 785 years
(from 12 B.C. to 773 A.D.).3 During these 785 years, the Kamakoti
list shows that about 33 Acharyas adorned that Gaddi. Such
unbelievable inconsistencies have made modern historians totally

reject the evidence provided by the chronological lists of the
Maths. So Sri Ullur Parameswara Iyer, himself a pious Brahrnana,
maintains in his History of Kerala Sahitya (Vol. I p. 111) that it is
easy to prove that most of these Math lists have been formulated
so late as the 16th century A.D.
But a still greater difficulty posed for such an early date as
509 to 476 B.C. for Sankara is the proximity of this to the generally
accepted date ofthe Buddha (567-487 B.C.). Sankara has criticised
Buddhism in its developed form with its four branches of philosophy. A few centuries at least should certainly be allowed to
elapse for accommodating this undeniable fact. Sri T. S. Narayana
Sastri is, however, remarkably ingenious, and his reply to this
objection is that the Buddha’s date was certainly much earlier.
Vaguely quoting Prof. Wheeler, Weber and Chinese records, he
contends that the Buddha must have flourished at any time between
the 20th and the 14th century B.C. He challenges the fixing of the
date of Buddha on the basis of the dates of Kanishka or of
MegasthenesY The reference to Megasthenes, the Greek ambassador, who refers to the ruler to whom he was accredited as
Shandracotus, need not necessarily be to Chandragupta Maurya

but to the king of the Gupta dynasty (300-600 A.D.) with the same
name, or even· to Samudra Gupta. If this line of argumeni iE
accepted, the present dates ofIndian history will have tc be worked
back to about three to four hundred years, which will land us in
very great difficulties, as shown in the foot note. Besides, arguments
of this type are never conclusive; they can at best throw doubts
on other theories accepted on uncertain grounds.
Without going so far as to challenge the accepted date of the
Buddha, there is another opinion that assigns Sankara to the
1st century D.C. This view is held by Sri N. Ramesam in his book
Sri Sankaracharya (1971). His argument is as follows: Sankara
is accepted in all Sankara-vijayas as a contemporary of Kumarila.
Kumarila must have lived after Kalidasa, the poet, because Kumarila quotes Kalidasa’s famous line; Satam hi sandeha pade$u
vastu~u pramii{lam antahkara{lasya vriuayal}. Now Kalidasa’s date
has not been firmly fixed (first half of the 5th century A.D. according
to some), but it is contended that it cannot be earlier than 150 B.C.,
as Agni Mitra, one of the heroes in a famous drama of Kalidasa,
is ascribed to that date. So also, it cannot be later than the Mandasor Inscription of 450 A.D. SO on the basis that Sankara and
Kumarila were contemporaries and that Kumarila came after
Kalidasa, we have to search for Sankara’s date between 150 D.C.
and 450 A.D. Now to narrow down the gap still further, the list of
spiritual preceptors that preceded Sankara is taken into con

sideration. Patanjali, Gaudapada, Govindapada and Sankara–~
form the accepted nne of discipleship. Patanjali, Sri Ramesam
contends, lived in the 2nd century B.C., a conclusion which, if
accepted finally (?), gives much credence to his theory. Now,
not less than a hundred years can be easily taken as the distance
in time between Sankara and Patanjali in this line of succession,
and thus we derive the time of Sankara as the lSI century B.C.,
which. has the merit of being in agreement with the KumarilaSankara contemporaneity and the Kumarila-Kalidasa relation·
ship. The 1st century hypothesis has also got the advantage of
tallying with the Sringeri Math’s teacher-disciple list, according to
which, as already stated, 12 B.C. is the date of Sankara’s demise.
Sri Ramesam finds further confirmation for his theory in the
existence of a temple on a Sankaracharya Hill in Kashmir attributed
to Jaluka, a son of Asoka who became the ruler. of Kashmir after
Asoka’s demise, according to Rajatarangini. Asoka passed away
in 180 B.C. and it is very credible that Jaluka could have been in
Kashmir when Sankara visited that region, provided Sankara’s
life is fixed in the 1st century B.C. Further, Cunningham and
General Cole are stated to assign the temple architecturally to the
times of Jaluka.
Like Sri Sastri, Sri Ramesam also refutes the modern scholars’
view of Sankara’s date being 788-820 A.D. on the grou.nd that this
has arisen due to confusion between Adi-Sankara and AbhinavaSankara (788-840 A.D.).

Now this theory, unlike Sri Sastri’s, has the merit of not disturbing the accepted date of the Buddha. It has also the support
of Rajatarangini and the Sringeri tradition. But its credibility
depends largely on the theory of 200 B.C. being the time of Patanjali
and the acceptance of the Kumarila-Kalidasa relationship. If these
are questioned, the whole theory falls. This is the case with most
dates in Indian history, where the rule is to fix the date of one person
or event on the basis of the date of another person or event, which
itself is open to question. There are, however, several pieces of
internal evidence that go against even this date in B:C. ‘s, as will be
seen from the succeeding paragraphs.
Yet another, and in fact an entirely new, clue base~ on internal
evidence and in contradiction to the above theories of a B.C. antiquity to Sankara, is given by Dr. A. G. Krishna Warrier, Professor
of Sanskrit (Rtd) in the Kerala University, in his learned Introduction to his translation· of Sankara’s Brahma-sutra-bhiishya into
Malayalam. He states that the Buddhist author Kamalasila has
pointed out that Sankara has quoted in his Brahma-sutra-bhiishya
(B. S. II. 2-2S) the following passage from the Alambanaparfksha
by Dingnaga, the celebrated Buddhist savant: YadamarjneyarUpam
tat bahiryadavabhiisate’ Dingnaga’s date, which Dr. Warrier
links with those of Vas.ubandhu (450 A.D.) and Bhartrhari, is
fixed by him as about 450 A.D. But that is not aU. The following
verse of Dingnaga’s commentator Dharmakirti is quoted by
Sankara in his work Upade$a-sahasri: Abhinnopi hi buddhyiitmii
viparyiisitadarSanai!J griihyagriihaka-samvitti bhedaviiniva lak~.vate
(ch. IS, v. 142). This refe(ence is from Dharmakirti’s PramiilJ.avinischIJaya. Dr. Warrier points out that Dharmakirti is described
as a ‘great Buddhist logician’ by the Chinese pilgrim-traveller,
It-sing, who was in India in 690 A.D. The implication is that Dharmakirti must have lived in the first half of the 7th century or earlier,
and that Sankara came after him. It means that Sankara’s date
cannot be pushed back beyond the 5th century A.D., or even beyond
the 7th century A.D., if the Upadesasahasri is accepted as a genuine
work of Sankara. As in the case of most dates in Indian history,
the credibility of the view, too, depends on the acceptance of the
dates of Dingnaga and Dharmakirti as 5th century and 7th century
respectively, and that Upadesasahasri is really a work of Sankara,
as traditionally accepted. Fixing dates on the basis of other dates,

which are themselves open to question, can yield only possibilities
and not certainties.
Probable dates suggested by other scholars are also the 6th
century and the 7th century A.D. Sankara refers in his writings to
a king named Purnavarman who. according to Hsuan Tsang,
ruled in 590 A.D. It is, therefore, contended that Sankara must
have lived about that time or after. Next Telang points out how
Sankara speaks of Pataliputra in his Sutra-bhashya (IV. ii. 5) and
that this will warrant Sankara having lived about a century before
750 A.D., by which time Pataliputra had been eroded by the river
and was non-existent. Such references to names of persons, cities,
rivers, etc. in philosophical writings can also be explained as stock
examples, as we use Aristotle or Achilles in logic, and need not
necessarily have any historical significance. Dr. T. R. Chintamani
maintains that Kumarila lived towards the latter half of tl1e 7th
century A.D. (itself a controversial point) and Sankara. being a
contemporary of his, must have lived about that time (655-684 A.D.).
It is also pointed out by him that Vidyananda, the teacher of
Jainasena, who was also the author of laina-harivamsa (783 A.D.),
quotes a verse4 from the Brihadaranyaka-vartika of Sureswara,
disciple of Sankara. This is impossible to conceive without granting
that Sankara and Sureswara lived about a hundred years earlier to
Jainasena who lived about the second half of the 8th century A.D.
Thus vastly varied are the views about Sankara’s date, ranging
from 509 B.C. to 788 A.D .• i.e .• more than a millennium and a
half. Sri S. S. Suryanarayana Sastry’s contention that “for discarding the date generally assigned, viz., 788-820 A.D., no sufficient
grounds have yet been given,” cannot stand today, since this date
is proved to be the time of Abhinava Sankara. Nor have the
upholders of this view given sufficient “justification’ for their view,
or disproved the objections raised against it. Under the circumstances, all these complicated discussions of Sankara’s date culminate
only in a learned ignorance; We have to admit that we have no
certain knowledge. and it is. therefore, wise not to be dogmatic
but keep an open mind. Most probably he must have lived somewhere between the 5th and the 7th century A.D., certainly much

earlier than the end of the 8th century, his generally accepted date
by modern scholars.
Maths founded by Sankara
Which are the Maths or monastic institutions that Sankara
founded? This is another question on which there has been much
dispute. Traditionally, four Maths are supposed to have been
founded by Sankara at the four regions of India- at Sringeri in
the south under Sureswara, at Dwarka in the west under Hastamalaka, at Badari in the north under Totaka, and at Puri in the east
under Padmapada. It is pointed out in the monograph of P. Rama
Sastry on The Maths Founded by Sankara that this four-Math
theory has been propounded first in Chidvilasa’s Sankara-vijaya
which, along with some other Sankara-vijayas, is, according to
1′. S. Narayana Sastri, a recent production and of little authority.
It finds no support in the other V~jayas of its kind and perhaps
not even in the more ancient Sankara-vijayas. Of course this view
cannot be verified now, as the most ancient of these Sankara-vijayas
arc not available now. Leaving aside the unavailable Sankaravijayas even most of the available ones, including those of Madhava,
Ariantanandagiri. Vyasachala and Govindanatha. do not hold any
such restricted view like the four-Math theory. Madhava’s Sankaravijaya, though a butt of criticism by a large number of people who
dislike its popularity, seems to be non-partisan, and maintains
only that Sankara in his last days sent several of his disciples to
preach the doctrine at ‘Sringa-giri and other centres’. Though it
gives special ifnportance to Sringeli’ by naming it. It admits the
existence of many other centres. Whether these were all Maths
with resident Sfmnyasins is anybody’s guess. Anantanandagiri, as
also texts like Sivarahasya, mention Kanchi as one of the centres he
founded- in fact, as the Math where he finally settled down and
passed away, thus giving it special importance.
Under the circumstances how the theory of fOUi Maths came
to have such popularity has to be explained. It cannot be merely
because of the mention of it in Chidvilasa’s Sankara-vijaya. On
the other hand, that text must have merely recorded the popular
notion existing at the time. The theory seems to have originated
from the fact that the Orders of Dasanami Sannyasins recognise
and accept affiliation with only these four Maths– the Orders

known as Puris, Bharatis and Saraswathis with Sringen Math;
Giris, Aranyas and Vanas with Jyothi Math; Ashramas and
Tirthas with Dwaraka Math; and Parvatas and Sagaras with Puri
Math. No other Math is recognised by them. Now, if there were
more Maths of Sankara, why have the Dasanami Sannyasins
limited their affiliation to these four Maths only? None of the
protagonists of different Sankara Maths have answered this question. The affiliation, no doubt, is only a nominal one, and these
Sannyasins neither take Sannyasa from these Maths nor follow
any direction or control emanating from them. Still ttre question
of how they came to be thus affiliated has to be answered. The
advocates of more-than-four-Maths have given no explanation. In
fact, they have not at all taken into account the evidence of Dasanami Sannyasins, who have played a more active role in propagating the institution of Sannyasa and the Advaita philosophy
than the Sankara Maths. From what time- whether it was from
the time of Sankaracharya himself or in later times– the Dasanamis
came into existence, cannot be ascertained now. Even assuming
they came later, and also that Sankara started more than four
Maths, their affiliation with these four Maths above mentioned
establishes at least that, at th~ time these Sannyasin Orders took
shape, only these four Maths were functioning effectively. The
functioning of the Maths as also their popularity must have
depended largely on the eminence of the Heads at particular
times. But this does not preclude the possibility of other genuine
Maths, unnoticed and unrecognised by Sannyasins, functioning
among non-Sannyasin communities. Nothing more precise than
this can be said about the question as to which .are the Maths
originally founded by Sankarach~fYa, or even whether he founded
any Math at all. Different sectaries having varying traditions can
stick to them with justification, provided they do not become too
cocksure and dogmatic and deny a similar right to others who
differ from them.
Where did Sankara attain Siddhi
The birth place of Sankara being at Kaladi is the one biographical
fact accepted uniformly by all Sankara-vijayas except one in one
of its editions. But the place where he passed away is disputed.
There are four views on the question.· According to Madhaviya-

Sankara-vijaya he went to Kedar via Badari after ascending ‘the
Throne of Omniscience’in Kashmir, and from there he entered
into Kailasa, the realm of Siva, transfiguring himself into Siva’s
form. There is also a monument to Sankaracharya in that region
to commemorate this event.
But this version is questioned by other authorities. On this
controversy, it is interesting to read the following statement issued
by Sri T. N. Ramachandran, Rtd. Joint Director-General of
Archaeology of India:5 “At Kedarnath, on the way to Badrinath,
there is a monument associ~ted with the great Adi-Sankaracharya
which His Holiness Sri Sankaracharya of Dwaraka Pith visited
some time ago and expressed a desire to renovate (the memorial).
His Holiness issued instructions to scholars of all parts of our
country to ascertain the place of the Samadhi of the great AdiSankaracharya. On this Sri Sampurnanand, the Chief Minister
of Uttar Pradesh, and myself bestowed some thOUght.
“After having arrived at some conclusion on the point by mutual
correspondence, we are of the opinion, that Kedarnath cannot
be said to be the Samadh,isthan (the final resting place) of the
great Acharya. Yet it is a unique place connected with the life of
the Acharya inasmuch as the great Adi-Sankara disappeared
from amidst his followers while at Kedarnath. Traditions recorded
in some works dealing with Adi-Sankaracharya point out to the
fact that Sri Sankara went to Kailas from Kedarnath, brought the
five Sphatika Lingas (Sivalingas made of crystal) and a portion of
the Soundaryalallilri Stotra, and repairing to the South, attained
Siddhi (final end) at Kanchi.6
“The Memorial at Kedarnath should at any rate be kept intact,
and it is the duty of all who profess any interest in the hoary Religion

and Philosophy of our land to join hands in the sacred endeavour
of renovating the Adi-Sankara Memorial at Kedarnath, as chalked
out by Sri Sampurnanand, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh,
in his letter addressed to me: (Naini Tal, letter dated July 6, 1958).
‘Dear Sri Ramachandra, Recently I had occasion to discuss the
matter with the Sankaracharya of Dwaraka Pith also. In the
first place the word ‘Samadhi’ is a misnomer in this connection.
There is nothing to prove that Sri Sankaracharya died at this spot.
All that tradition says is that he came to Kedarnath and, in modern
phraseology, disappeared thereafter. So, what is called Samadhi
is really not a Samadhi but a Memorial. I myself do not treat it as
Samadhi and such proposals as I am considering)are based on this
information. What I propose is that instead of the wretched structure that passes as a Sam!ldhi, a new Memorial should be built
in memory of the great Acharya. It should not occupy the place of
the present construction which is in danger of being overwhelmed
by an avalanche any day. It should be built at a safer place somewhere near the temple .. I am getting a design prepared by our
State Architect. The Sankaracharya of Dwaraka Pith has given me
his support in the matter’ …. “
This theory of Sankara having attained Siddhi (final end) at
Kanchi is supported, according to T. S. Narayana Sastri in his
book The Age of Sankara, by the following texts: Brihat Sankaravijaya, Vyasachala’s Sankara-vijaya and Anantanandagiri’s Sankara-rijaya. besides the Punyasloka Maniari, lagat-guru-ratnamala
and lagat-guru-katha samgraha. On this it has to be remarked
that from among the above-mentioned Sankara-vijayas one has
only Anantanandagiri’s and Vyasachala’s works available for

reference and corroboration. Sri T. S. Narayana Sastri, however,
claims to possess some extracts of mutilated sections of the first
of the texts mentioned, which is considered by some a~ the most
ancient and authoritative text. But no one can be sure of, much
less accept, the claims of these multilated manuscripts.
As far as Vyasachala’s work is concerned, it is very clear that
it does not support this theory. All that it says is that Sankara
ascended the ‘Throne of Omniscience’ in Kashmir, (which some
think is identical with Kanchi, as Govindanatha interprets it), and
then went away to some place ‘pleasing’ to him (ruciradesam).
The narrative part of the work abruptly ends with this, followed
by three or four evocatory verses. So, what that place is to which he
went leaving Kashmir or Kanchi, is anybody’s guess. It is difficult
to understand how Kashmir can be Kanchi. Even if Kashmir be
Kanchi, it is sure that Sankara left it, according to Vyasachala. Among
available Sankara-vijayas, only Anantanandagiri’s gives clear support to this theory of Sankara attaining Siddhi at Kanchi. But
whether that Sankara is Adi-Sankara or Abhinava-Sankara is again
a matter of dispute in the light of the textual criticism of different
editions of the work. The point is discussed in a later paragraph.
It is, however, to be noted that to the Madras University edition
of Vyasachala’s work is pasted, at the end, an additional page
containing a new discovery by Pandit Polagam Rama Sastri on the
subject, forwarded to the editor after the printing of the book was
over. It gives five additional verses to be added at the end. The
editor of the work had not found them in any of the manuscripts
he came across, but Pandit Rama Sastri had discovered these
extracts in Atmabodhendra Saraswathi’s commentary on Jagadgururatnamala. The main purpose of these verses is to omit Sankara’s leaving for ruciradesam (place pleasing to him) and make him stay at Kanchi.· But strangely enough the interpolator forgot the
whole context in Vyasachala’s work— the incongruity of suddenly
speaking of Sankara, who was in Kashmir, the northernmost region
of India, being at Kanchi in the far south. Probably there is a
missing link to be supplied hereafter. It is perhaps this confused
situation that makes Govindanatha interpret Kashmir as Kanchi
unhesitatingly in his Acharyacharita, to which we shall be referring
hereafter. Govindanatha, however, does not allow him to stop at
Kanchi, but makes him go further south.

Allusion has been made in a quotation given earlier to Sankara’s
re-emergence from Kailasa. This is the version of Markandeya
Samhita and Anantanandagiri, supported also by Sadasivendra
Brahman. According to this version, disappearing from the world
of men from Varanasi for sometime, he re-emerged from Sivaloka
in Kailasa with five Sivalingas and the Soundaryalahari, one of the
great works on the Divine Mother attributed to him. He travelled
all over India again on another Dig-vijaya and established these
Sivalingas in different places and finally settled in Kanchi, where
he attained Siddhi.
Describing this great event, Dr. T. M. P. Mahadevan says in
his Introduction to the Madras University edition of Anantanandagiri’s text: “In Kanchi, the mokshapuri, Sankara during the
last moments of his life directed Sureswara of the Indra-saraswati
Order to send the Moksha-linga to Chidambaram and then transformed his gross body through Yogic process to subtle form,
finally culminating in omnipresent consciousness that” is absolute
bliss.” He quotes Anantanandagiri’s verse, the purport of which
is “Sankaracharya, the grantor of liberation to spiritual aspirants,
is there present even today as the all-pervading consciousness.”
Dr. T. M. P. Mahadevan finds further proof for these events in the
abundance of ancient sculptures of Sankaracharya in and about
Kanchi as listed by liim in the Introduction to the recently published
Madras University edition of Anantanandagiri’·s Sankara-.”ijaya.
The attainment of Siddhi at Kanchi is further corroborated
by Sivarahasya, a v.)luminous text of the Siva cult dealing with all
the devotees of Siva, which is also quoted in the Madras University
edition of Anantanandagiri. Ii has, however, to be remarked
that, as pointed out by T. S. Narayana Sastri (pp. 287 of his work
The Age of Sankara), there are confticti~g readings on this point
in different manuscripts of the text of Sivarahasya. In one it is:
misran tato lokam avapa saivam. In another it is: misran sa kancytim
In still another it is: Kiincyam Sive! tava pure sa ca siddhim apa.
Evidently texts have been manipulated by interested Pandits,
creating a very confusing and suspicious situation. This view
cannot, therefore, be accepted as conclusive as some adherents of
it seem to hold.
There are further insuperable difficulties in accepting Anantanandagiri’s work as a proof of this theory at all. A little textual

criticism of the work will make the point clear. In the edition of
it, recently published by the University, of Madras under the
editorship of Dr. Veezhinathan, the birth of Sankara is thus described: “In the beautiful land of Kerala, there is a prominent
village called Kaladi, and at that place dwelt a wise man named
Siva guru, the son of Vidyathiraja. The great Siva, desirous of
blessing the world, entered by his spiritual glory into his wife,
who had become great. and holy by her austerities .. She bore a
foetus whose splendour resembled the sun and it was delivered
at an ,auspicious moment.” This in main outline is in agreement
with the version given by all literature on Sankara.
But the first ever published edition of this work gives an entirely
different version. Below is given this version from the 2nd chapter
of Anantanandagiri’s Sankara-vijaya published by the Baptist
Mission Press in 1868 under the editorship of Navadweepa Goswami
and Jayanarayana Tarkapanchanana: “In the world there is the
famous Akasalinga of Siva, the all-pervading Deity, in the place
called Chidambaram. There many Brahmanas inhabited, and
among them, in a family of very learned men, was born a leading
Brahmana named Sarvajna. He had a wife named Kamakshi
who was possessed of all auspicious qualities. By meditating on
the Lord of Chidambaram, this couple had a famous daughter
named Visishta, who from her early girlhood delighted herself
by meditation on Siva ·and was devoted to the knowledge of the
Divine. In her eighth year her father Sarvajna married her to one
named Visvajit. But she, Visishta, ;llways continued to look upon
as her Lord (Pati) the Non-dual Being Siva installed in the Akasalinga at Chidambaram, and performed worship and meditation
on Him with added and awe-inspiring dev.otion. Finding her to
be of this nature, Visvajit (her husband) abandoned her and resorted
to the forest to perform austerities as a hermit. Since then the
girl Visishta pleased the Lord of Chidambaram by her wholehearted worship and meditation. That Deity, although perfect in
every way, entered into the lotus face of that girl to the astonishment of all others who saw it. Possessed. of that great and aweinspiring power of the Lord, Visishta became veritably Ambika
(Siva’s consort) Herself. She was thenceforth worshipped and served
by all, including her parents. As months passed, the foetus in her
developed day by day, and after the third month, the great Brah

manas did the appropriate ri tuals, taking the Lord of Chidambaram
as Yajamana (in this case for the performanCe of the rituals which
the husband of the girl is to perform). On the attainment of the
tenth month, out came from the womb of Visishta the great God
Siva under the name of Sankaracharya. At that time a rain of
flowers was showered from the heavens. and the Devas sounded
for long their musical and percussion instruments like Dundubhi
and the rest.”
Now, in Dr. Veezhinathan’s edition, the above text is given as
a footnote. He has not given sufficient reason for discarding it.
From the rather unclear reference to manuscripts he has given in
his Introduction, this version seems to be supported by five manuscripts (B.Mss.) and an earlier printed version published by
Jivananda Vidya Sagara and printed at Sarasudhanidhi Press at
Calcutta in 1881. He has not, however, referred to the still earlier
Calcutta edition of 1868, quoted herein above, probably because
the book was not available to him. As against this, he refers to
ten manuscripts (A.Mss.) as supporting his version. Probably
many of these manuscripts of both groups may be copies only,
and from the numbers, their authenticity cannot be ascertained.
Besides, several of them are not complete also. Dr. Veezhinathan,
however, concludes that the texts main.taining Chidambaram being
the birth place of Sankara form a later interpolation, on the basis
of the citation of Achutaraya Modak and of an article of
W. R. Antarkar on Anantanandagiri’s text in the Journal of the
Bombay University, September 1961. The discussion is in no way
conclusive. Considering that equally great scholars unconnected
with later controversies have adopted the other version so early
as 1868, the importance of it cannot be so easily minimised. The
Editors of the 1868 edition, Navadweep Goswami and Jayanarayana
Tarkapanchanana, have stated in their Preface that ‘their edition
had been prepared in the light of three texts they could get–one in
Nagari letters which was procured with great difficulty; another in
Telugu characters procured with equal difficulty; and still another
in Bengali alphabets made on the basis. of the above texts’. There
is no reason why this text should not be given at least an equal
place of importance as the one edited by Dr. Veezhinathan.
According to the text of the Calcutta edition, Anantanandagiri is
giving the history, not of ‘Adi-Sankara who was born at Kaladi’.

but of a Sankaracharya ‘who was born immaculately to Visishta of Chidambaram’, who continued to live at Chidambaram itself, took Sannyasa there, and who went on Dig-vijaya tours that are entitely different from the routes that Adi-Sankara is supposed to have taken in several of the other Vijayas. This Sankara is” very largely concerned with reforining the various cults that prevailed in the country and vFry little with philosophy. The controversy with Mandana, whi6h is one of .the most glorious episodes in Adi-Sankara’s life, finds a casual mention in the form of Ii synopsis. In this, as also in entering into Ainaruka’s body and in the writing of the Bhashyas, the twoSankaracharyas are mixed up. According to the Calcutta edition also, be finally attains Siddhi at Kanchi as in the one edited by Dr. Veezhinathan. But the ·point that comes out of the Calcutta edition is that it is the ‘Chidambaram Sankara, the ,son of Visishta’, and not the ‘Adi-Sankara: of K~ladi’ that atta,ins Siddhi at Kanthi. So Anantanandagiri’s text ~nnot be taken as a conclusive evidence or settled proof of Adi-Sankara’s final resting place. It is only one of the traditions supported by some manuscripts. There is every possibility that this Chidambaram Sankaracharya is the Abhinav:a-Sankara, whom’ even modem scholars have mistakenly identified with Adi-Sankara and given 788 A.D. as his time. Besides, Anantanandagiri, the author, calls, the hero of his work his Parama-guru (his teacher’s teacher). This makes the matter all the more confusing. For, no one·has recorded that Adi-Sankara or his disciples had a djsciple called Anantana~dagiri. Anandagiri (quite different from Anantanandagiri) wa~ Sankara’s disciple, an”- the Prach’ina-Sankara-vijaya attributed to him (a book quite different from Anantanandagiri’s) is not available anywhere now. The point that we want to make out by these critical remarks is that it is not very desirable to take a dogmatic position on such points where no final view is possible with the existing information. The best that can be said is that it is one of the traditions. Still another place which claims the honour of being the last resting place of Sankara is Vrishachala- the Siva temple at Trichur, from the Deity of whjch place he is supposed to have had his origin. This is the view of Sankara-vijaya of Govindanath, also known ,as Acharya-charita. Goviildanatha, who claims his work to be based on Vy~achala’s Sankara-vijaya, brings Sankara up to

Kanchi at the end of his mission and makes him assume the Throne
of Omn~science there at Kanchi, which he seettlS to identify
strangely with Kashmir. He does not, however, allow him to stop
there. He takes him further to Trichur (Thiru-siva-perur), from
the Siva-Deity of which place (Vrishachala) he had received embodiment. Sankara is supposed to have founded also a Math
there, which continues to exist even today as Naduvil-madam,
and spent his last days there until he was absorbed in the Divine
Essence.
According to Govindanatha, Sankara, on realising that his
last day had come, made obeisance to all the Deities in the temple
and coming out, sat at a spot and contemplated on the glorious
form of Maha Vishnu. Then with the mind overflowing with
devotion, he recited a great hymn to Maha-Vi~nu known as
Vishnu-piidiidikesa stotra, composed extempore by him. In the
midst of this, his spirit left the body, and “merged in the Blissful
Essence that is behind the disc of the Sun”. Today a visitor to the
Vrishachala (Vadakkunathan) temple at Trichur can see a raised
platform with emblems of conch and discus in stone, marking the
place where Sankara is supposed to have attained Siddhi.
This theory is criticised by Sri T. S. Narayana Sastri and others
on the ground that it is the product of a Keralite with too much
of local patriotism and is improbable. This, however, is only
a matter of opinion. It is as credible or incredible as any other
theory based on Sankara-vijayas. The theory only suffers from
the fact that there have been no partisans to highlight it.
Its critics forget that Govindanatha claims that his work is
based on Vyasachala’s Sankara-vijaya. On this point Vyasachala
only says that Sankara in the end went away to ruciradeSam-a
place dear to him. What that place is, is anybody’s gues. The
place dear to him, can possibly be the Siva temple at Vrishachala
from which he is said to have had his origin, as Govindanatha
seems to interpret it. It may also be Kanchi, or Dattatreya-guha,
or Sivaloka.
Another tradition is that Sankaracharya spent his last days in
Dattatreya-guha (the cave of the sage Dattatreya). According to
Chidvilasa’s Sankara-vijaya this cave is in Badarinarayan.
According to this text it was to Badari that Sankara originally
went straightway from his home at Kaladi, met his Guru Govinda

pada, wrote his Bhashyas and stayed until he started on his tour of
philosophical debates and controversies. After all his life-work,
Chidvilasa brings him back to Badari where he lives until he grows
very old and decrepit (larjara-vigraha). Then Dattatreya leads
him into his abode in a cavern there, from where he goes to Siva’s
region. According to Guruvamsa Kllvya, it was in Marathawada,
at a place called Mahuripuri, that Sankara entered into communion with Dattatreya. This place is known today as Mahur, or
Mahuragad. In the Central Railway, there is a line from Mlirthijapur to Yavatmal. Not far from Yavatmal is Mahur with a temple
of Dattatreya.7
We have shown above the confusion prevailing about the place
of Sankara’s demise. The same extends to most events of his life,
especially about the places where they happened and about the
routes he took in his travels. The place of his birth as Kaladi,
which is the most undisputed point in his life accepted by almost
all the Sankara-vijayas, is given as different at least by one Sankaravijaya, that of Anantanandagiri, in its Calcutta edition published
in 1868. According to this edition he was born immaculately at
Chidambaram as the son of Visishta, a theory that has already
been discussed earlier. Sivarahasya calls the place of his birth as
Sasalagrama in Kerala. One is at a loss to identify that place.S
Thus, not to speak of the place of his demise, even the place
of his birth, which is the one biographical point on which all
other Sankara-vijayas are agreed, is disputed at least by one version
of what is considered today by many as an authoritative text,
namely, that of Anantanandagiri, in its Calcutta edition of 1868.
As pointed out already, t.his deviation is the result of confusing
Adi-Sankara with Abhinava-Sankara, who might have been a
native of Chidambaram. The same confusion might have entered
into some of the other details connected with the hero of Anantanandagiri’s Sankara-vijaya. For, as already pointed out, the

custom of all the Heads of Sankara Maths being called as Sankaracharyas, as if it were a title, and nOFan individual’s name, was the
main cause of much of this confusion of biographical and literary
details connected with Sankara. This confusion has got worse
confounded by the interference with manuscript copies in the
past by the adherents of particular Sankara Maths in order to
enhance the prestige and supremacy of the particular institution,
that patronised them. As a result, we have today only a lot of
traditions about Sankaracharya, and he is a foolhardy man, indeed,
who dares to swear by any of these traditions as truly historical and
the others as fabricated. Choice in such a situation can only be
subjective.

Unquestionable History of Sankara

In this confused situation, Madhava’s Sankara-dig-vijayahas
one outstanding superiority over aU other available literature of
that kind. As a poem it justifies itself as truly the product of a
Nava-Kalidasa (a modern Kalidasa), as the author describes
himself in his composition. And as a profound and penetrating
exposition of. some of the moot points in Advaita metaphysics,
dressed in a poetical style that is as attractive to literary men as to
philosophers, it can be described as a unique philosophical and
historical poem .. It has stood the test of time, and it will stand for
aU time, in spite of interested hostile criticism, which the author
himself has anticipated and· answered in the opening verses of the
first canto. Whatever the uncer:tainties might be about biographical details, the historicity of Sankaracharya stands on the following
firm foundations: In spite of aU the differences among authorities
on some important details of his life, the main outlines of it stand
clear, as we have shown at the beginning of this essay. The differences in details only vary round these common factors representing
different traditions. There is also his impress on most of the great
temples and holy places of India, where he lived, preached, renovated edifices, and contributed so immensely to their holy traditions that his name and doings have become almost legendary,
creating an image that has remained indelible on the Indian mind.
Above all, there are his great commentaries on three source books
of Vedanta, the Vedanta Sutras, the Upanishads and the Bhagavad
Gila. Rightly does Dr. Radhakrishna offer the tribute of the

Indian mind to the personality of the great Acharya in the following
most beautiful and effective words in his book on Indian Philosophy:
“The life of Sankara makes a strong impression of contraries.
He is a philosopher and a poet, a savant and a saint, a mystic and a
religious reformer. Such diverse gifts did he possess that different
images present themselves, if we try to recall his personality. One
sees him in youth, on fire with intellectual ambition, a stiff and
intrepid debator; another regards him as a shrewd political genius
(rath~ a patriot) attempting to impress on the people a sense of
unity; for a third, he is a calm philosopher engaged in the single
effort to expose the contradictions of life and thought with an
unmatched incisiveness; for a fourth, he is the mystic who declares
that we are all greater than we know. There have been few minds
more universal than his.”

SWAMI TAPASYANANDA