The Journal of Hindu Studies Advance Access published September 8, 2012

The Journal of Hindu Studies 2012;110

doi:10.1093/jhs/his032

Clouding Self-Identity: Sankara, Sa:sk@ras, and

the Possession of King Amaruka
Neil Dalal*

Abstract: Prior to his possession of King Amaruka in the Sankaradigvijaya,

Sankara soothes the doubts of his disciples and argues that knowledge of his
self as non-dual brahman is unwavering. He claims he will remain as a disinterested witness to his erotic practices and will not forget his true identity or
duties. This article takes up the striking fact that Sankara does indeed forget
his identity, is consumed by his pleasures and royal responsibilities, and must
be reminded by his disciples. Why and how would a liberated person forget his
or her identity? Is it theoretically possible that the liberated person can be
overwhelmed by desires and sense pleasures? These questions and the possession episode allude to the issue of mental impressions (sa:sk@ras) somehow
clouding the Advaitins self-knowledge. This article explores the nature of
sa:sk@ras in Sankaras writing and their effects on identity and selfknowledge. I use this discussion as a means to interpret the Amaruka episode
from an Advaitin perspective, and to argue that sa:sk@ras allow for a complex
and porous personal identity.

Sankaras possession of Amaruka is an important narrative in the Sankaradigvijaya

that provides windows into later Advaitin conceptions of possession, magical
powers, self-identity, and issues of morality, karma, and celibacy. However, many
centuries, inconsistencies, as well as authorial intent separate the sacred and miraculous biography of the Sankaradigvijaya from the commentaries of Sankara, the
erudite Advaitin. Therefore, we must be cautious about anachronistically projecting
issues from the Amaruka narrative back into Sankaras writing. On the other hand,
the Sankaradigvijaya is clearly informed by Sankaras writing and potentially influences the reception of his commentaries among Advaita Ved@ntin communities due
to its popularity. The Amaruka narrative is particularly unusual as it describes
questionable actions and raises some challenging questions; questions that might
be disconcerting to some Advaitins, past or present, and which invite a dialogue
with the philosophy found in Sankaras commentaries.
The Author 2012. Oxford University Press and The Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies. All rights reserved.
For permissions, please email journals.permissions@oup.com

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ. of Massachusetts/Amherst Library on October 14, 2012

*Corresponding author: South Asian Philosophy and Religious, Department of Philosophy

and Religious Studies Program, University of Alberta, ndalal@ualberta.ca

Clouding Self-Identity

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ. of Massachusetts/Amherst Library on October 14, 2012

Prior to his possession of King Amaruka, Sankara soothes the doubts of his close
disciples. Padmap@da in particular does not approve of his teachers intended
action. Padmap@da describes the yogi Matsyendran@tha, who possessed a dead
king and subsequently forgot his true identity while absorbed in sensual pleasures.
Only through the intervention of his disciple, GorakXa, did he return to his senses.1
In response to Padmap@das foreshadowing concern, Sankara claims that he is
without any such failings because he has destroyed the root of sa:s@ra, is without
desire, and is completely established in the knowledge of absolute non-duality
(brahman).2 Sankara sees the world as an appearance. He believes he will remain
a disinterested witness while possessing the king to understand the manifestations
of love and finer points of the K@ma S@stra.3 However, Sankara does indeed fall into
the same trap as Matsyendran@tha. That Sankara manages to forget his identity, is
consumed by his erotic pleasures and royal responsibilities, and must be reminded
by his disciples are striking developments in the narrative. Why and how would a
liberated person forget his or her identity and require a reminder? Is it theoretically possible that sensual pleasures could overwhelm a liberated person such as
Sankara?
The Sankaradigvijaya does not clarify the exact nature of Sankaras forgetting,
and the authorial intention of this narrative twist is elusive.4 While John Llewellyn
points out some of the theological problems of the narrative in his essay, I attempt
to reconcile the question according to Advaita psychology and contemplative
theory. Sankaras identity confusion possibly alludes to a genuine anxiety regarding the difficulty of holding non-dual knowledge while living in the world. It also
points back towards a particular concern in Sankaras commentaries regarding
mental impressions, or samsk@ras, potentially clouding the Advaitins
self-knowledge. In this article I explore the nature of sa:sk@ras in Sankaras writing and their effects on identity and self-knowledge. I use this discussion as a
means to interpret the Amaruka episode from an Advaitin perspective. Despite his
strict emphasis on a non-relational and non-dual self (@tman), Sankaras theory of
sa:sk@ras allows for a complex and porous personal identity. This supports one of
Frederick Smiths conclusions in The Self Possessed, that brahmanical traditions
characterised personal identity as having permeable boundaries.5 However, it provides some nuances to Smiths suggestion that Advaita Ved@nta and its normative
identification of @tman and brahman has overshadowed broader notions of identity
in the Indian context.6
Actions, knowledge, and experiences, due to conditioned beliefs of oneself as
finite, limited, and intrinsically separated from the surrounding world may cause
habitual reflexive and reactive thought patterns. Sankara calls these habitual
thought patterns sa:sk@ras or v@san@s, and in other contexts uses terms such as
kasaya,7 viparatapratyaya,8 klesa,9 or kalmasa.10 They persist as traces, tendencies,
subconscious impressions, dispositions, and psychological seeds. And they function
as causal mechanisms for memory, action, habits, emotions, and dreams.

Neil Dalal

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ. of Massachusetts/Amherst Library on October 14, 2012

Sa:sk@ras provide the bridges or connections that bring past experiences into
present memory. A sa:sk@ra evokes memory when some perceived content combines with or triggers the sa:sk@ra to produce its respective kind of awareness.11
We may not be able to directly perceive our sa:sk@ras but we infer them. When I
perceive certain objects that draw emotions, desire, or prompt actions in me, I can
postulate some sa:sk@ra that links the object with prior events and experiences.
Sa:sk@ras trigger affective states and desires in the mind to seek certain outcomes
and further influence a person to continue performing such actions. Ones actions
determine the types of sa:sk@ras accrued. Saintly or meritorious actions breed
sa:sk@ras that lead the individual to more meritorious actions. Negative or harmful actions lead to painful sa:sk@ras, actions, and experiences.12 The process is a
cyclical one that fuels itself and deepens the sa:sk@ras through habitual
conditioning.
For Sankara, sa:sk@ras function in significant metaphysical ways beyond psychology and memory. Samsk@ras or v@san@s are also conceived as karmic residue
created by earlier actions. They form an essential component of the subtle body
(linga-sarara) transmigrating from death to birth.13 Sankara writes that the subtle
body consists of v@san@s, and results from the association of mind with formed and
formless v@san@s.14 Later in the same commentary, he states that v@san@s arise in
the mind in the presence of objects of enjoyment, such as women. The subtle body
of this person is attached or dyed with v@san@s like a cloth dyed with turmeric or
the grey color of sheeps wool. These v@san@s, or residue of karma, help determine
future actions or facilitate the manifestation of karmic potential and the corresponding experiences, not only in the present but in death and rebirth too. Just as
in the dream, which is determined by v@san@s while ones sense organs do not
function, so too in death the organs cease and the v@san@s determine the trajectory
of the subtle body, dictate the type of new body required in the next birth, and
forge a link to that body.
The BPhad@ra>yaka UpaniXad 4.4.2 provides the following description of what
happens at death. The functions of the sense organs and the functions of the
organs of actions withdraw into the subtle body of the individual. Thus when
people see a person in the process of dying, they notice that he or she loses the
functions of the senses and action. According to the UpaniXad, the sense functions
are united in the intellect. At death, the subtle body leaves the physical body
through the top of the head or the eye or through some other body part. The
vital force along with the merged functions then moves to another body.15
Knowledge, work, and past experience also goes along with the departing self.16
According to Sankaras commentary on this passage, v@san@s form an essential
component of the transmigrating subtle body. Experiences are the impressions
from the results of past action. These v@san@s bring past actions into fruition and
initiate new actions. Without them karma cannot fructify and new actions will not
be done in the following birth.17

Clouding Self-Identity

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ. of Massachusetts/Amherst Library on October 14, 2012

Perhaps most importantly, Sankara appears to believe that a unique class of

sa:sk@ras may disturb ones understanding of non-dual brahman.18 These secondary obstacles to liberation are not as direct as fundamental ignorance or doubts
about brahman and the means to know brahman. But despite being more ambiguous
and subtle, they are capable of obstructing the UpaniXadic teaching methodology
from functioning properly and disrupting ones self-knowledge. Later Advaitins
specify this type of sa:sk@ra phenomena as contradictory thoughts
(viparatapratyayas) or contradictory habitual thinking patterns (viparatabh@van@s).
They are terms used to signify a situation where ones experience and disposition
is opposed to what one knows as his or her true identity.19
False notions prior to the rise of brahmvidy@ lead to a sense of insecurity and
breed problematic emotional states, which impel various actions and further ingrain sa:sk@ras. These sa:sk@ra patterns may remain antecedent to proper knowledge gained from listening (srava>a) and reflection (manana). Even though that
self-knowledge has firm conviction, the sa:sk@ras may continue to simulate previous false notions. They cause temporary confusion or psychological states that
are not in keeping with ones understanding of self and reality as non-dual brahman. Despite ones conviction of the infinite nature of brahman, mental impressions
regarding ones finite nature surface in the mind.20 The problem with these
sa:sk@ras, from the standpoint of self-knowledge, is their reinforcement of notions
of duality and mistaken self-identity.
Sa:sk@ras may temporarily disrupt the individuals understanding, either preventing liberating knowledge or clouding ones immediate understanding of brahman. He or she may then mistakenly take the previous false notion as real again.
Sankara gives the example of a lost person who learns the proper direction but
subsequently loses the way.21 Despite knowing the points of the compass, he forgets the direction again.22 The destruction of self-ignorance does not necessarily
entail the destruction of all problematic sa:sk@ras. The samsk@ras while originally
dependent on ignorance are secondary products and not ignorance itself. Thus
they can continue for a period in the absence of ignorance.23 Contemplation
(nididhy@sana) is a particular method for cultivating maturity in self-knowledge
by resolving these contradictory thought patterns and preventing further ones. It
consists of remaining in an awareness of non-duality by holding the content of the
great UpaniXad sentences (mah@v@ykas) that identify ones self with brahman. With
repetition, contemplation cultivates stability in self-knowledge (j>@naniXb@ or
sthitaprajn@), so that self-identity as brahman is always available and immediately
evident.24
Sankara does not clearly define how samsk@ras obstruct knowledge of brahman or
articulate the way in which study and contemplative practices such as nididhy@sana
remove them. Nor does this category of obstacles fit easily into his epistemology
because their relationship with ignorance and karma is unclear. There are also
discrepancies regarding where this type of sa:sk@ra fits in the chronology of study
and liberation. The difficulty is not only explaining why such obstacles exist

Neil Dalal

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ. of Massachusetts/Amherst Library on October 14, 2012

without ignorance, but also why they should have any effect of destabilising
knowledge if one has already directly recognised brahman.25
Sankara is not exactly helpful here. When comparing his various works, he
demonstrates ambivalence to accepting sa:sk@ras as obstructions to
self-knowledge. In some situations he appears to refute the theory of sa:sk@ras
for one who is properly exposed to the UpaniXadic teachings. For example, in
chapter eighteen of the Upadesas@hasra, Sankara raises the theory of sa:sk@ra
and rejects it as part of an opponents position endorsing a form of repetitive
contemplative practice known as prasankhy@na.26 The prasankhy@na contemplation
and its corresponding theory of sa:sk@ra are also key aspects of Ma>nana Misras
understanding of contemplation in his Brahmasiddhi, a position criticised by
Sankaras disciple, Suresvara. Sankara often states that listening alone, or listening
and logical reflection is all that is required.27 If the mah@v@kya sentence meanings
are understood, then there should be direct knowledge of brahman without doubts.
No other practice is required and nothing should be able to disturb self-knowledge.
These ideas are in keeping with Sankaras critique of action as a means of knowledge and his insistence that the UpaniXads are the only means to liberating
knowledge. They also align with his crucial philosophical positions of intrinsic
veridicality of knowledge (svapr@m@>ya) and self-luminosity of consciousness
(svaprak@satva).
Nevertheless, in other contexts Sankara accepts a similar conception of
sa:sk@ras as obstacles to be neutralised with contemplation. This sets up a potential contradiction in Sankaras theory of liberation. Liberation is identified with the
removal of ignorance and one need not perform any further action. But occasionally he appears to accept some form of contemplation post liberating knowledge.28
Part of the confusion regarding this acceptance is that Sankara rarely makes a
distinction of knowledge types. He doesnt lend himself to distinctions of
non-propositional and propositional knowledge, direct and indirect knowledge,
or a chronology within a progress of study. And in fact, assuming such distinctions
may contradict or harm fundamental Advaita doctrines. Therefore, one cannot
easily clarify a relationship between the removal of sa:sk@ras and liberating knowledge of brahman, or if sa:sk@ras can cause problems before and after the destruction of ignorance.
Advaitins generally assume there is total stability and clarity in knowledge
(jn@naniXbh@) when one is liberated while living. This stock position denies that
the liberated individual with immediate knowledge of brahman is still subject to
sa:sk@ras in the form of contradictory dispositions that may override, disturb, or
confuse his or her knowledge. The liberated person who has total clarity should
never lose sight of the self as brahman, which is ever present and self-illuminating
in the midst of all experiences. With jn@naniXbh@ there is a natural, spontaneous
and continuous flow of ones understanding of @tman/brahman identity. Sankara
calls this flow or memory of self-knowledge, smPti santati, a probable synonym for
nididhy@sana.29 And he is quite adamant that it need not be enjoined as an action to

Clouding Self-Identity

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ. of Massachusetts/Amherst Library on October 14, 2012

be practiced.30 But in some contexts, he recommends smPti santati to counter the

force of sa:sk@ras and karma that are disturbing self-knowledge.31 Sankaras
ambiguity fails to preclude the possibility that sa:sk@ras may cloud a liberated
persons self-knowledge. It may have also facilitated later Yogic interpretations of
Advaita that focus on eradicating all impressions through experiences of mental
cessation.
This discussion of sa:sk@ras leads us to some interesting issues of self-identity in
Advaita. The process of Advaita study intends to strip away ones assemblage of
limited identities and in turn neutralise any problematic sa:sk@ras. One
supposedly becomes aware of the shifting ground of identity and its lack of any
essence other than brahman. The only identity that remains is unadulterated consciousness without any location, boundaries, agency, or sense of other. And from
that ultimate standpoint the whole discussion of sa:sk@ras, possession, experience,
and identity is moot, a point that Andrew Fort addresses in his essay. The world
and any limited self-identities are an appearance, a provisional empirical reality
that depends on brahman for its existence.
However, from another standpoint, the person liberated while living holds multiple identities and continues an individual existence. As Sthaneshwar Timalsina
points out in his essay, one gains liberating knowledge while embodied. And embodiment continues while living liberated. For Sankara, the world does not become
non-existent or literally disappear like waking up from a dream upon the rise of
self-knowledge because it is not a subjective projection. One still has a body sense
mind complex, an up@dhi that lives and interacts with the world. This up@dhi
continues despite recognising itself as a mistaken superimposition, dependent
on brahman, and not absolutely real. Thus the identity of individual in the
world, though lacking independent existence and reducible to brahman, continues
in an unbinding way. The liberated person is still the witness of body, mind, and
experience, and has the wisdom to navigate this paradox of identity. The recognition of absolute reality despite the continuation of world appearance is a mark of
one who has stability in knowledge. But for one without stability in knowledge,
there is a situation where sa:sk@ras can disorient and decenter brahman identity.
They may induce a temporary form of delusion or forgetting, causing the as
though loss of the true self until one is reminded of reality. In this sense there
is a recognition and recovery of brahman, though in reality nothing changes.
Now let us turn back to the Sankaradigvijaya to speculate how sa:sk@ras might
work during Sankaras possession of Amaruka. Sankara possesses the yogic power
to shift his subtle body into another body, a process similar to what takes place in
rebirth. Perhaps as a liberated person he is completely unattached to fleeting
impermanent individual identities thus enabling the power of possession. It is
important to note that sa:sk@ras form a key component of the subtle body. He
manipulates and projects his sa:sk@ras along with his subtle organs of action,
senses, pra>as, and mind into the dead king.

Neil Dalal

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ. of Massachusetts/Amherst Library on October 14, 2012

Normally one would assume that Sankara, the hagiographical character, possesses total clarity and lacks any problematic sa:sk@ras. However, the Amaruka
episode presents a unique challenge to jn@na niXbh@. When Sankara projects his
subtle body into the king, he transfers his former sa:sk@ras with him. These
sa:sk@ras allow Sankara to maintain his identity, memories, and knowledge
even while in an alien body. Now, instead of two identities, he possesses three,
as brahman, Sankara, and Amaruka. By this I do not mean that the former
sa:sk@ras of the deceased King Amaruka are still connected to the body, for his
subtle body and sa:sk@ras have ostensibly transmigrated to another body.
Therefore, unlike some other forms of possession, there is no co-existence of
the former Amaruka individual with the newly imposed personality of Sankara.
However, the sa:sk@ras that Sankara accrues through actions in Amarukas possessed body create a new identity for him as the king.
While possessing Amarukas body, Sankara plays with fire by pursuing royal and
erotic experiences normally prohibited to a renunciate. The experiment leads to
entanglement with conflicting sa:sk@ras. It forges a sa:sk@ric link to the new body
and an absorption in that particular physical identity. New sa:sk@ras give rise to
competing identities of king and renunciate, and eventually the deep identity of
himself as Sankara loses its familiarity in the face of a new body. When the
Amaruka sa:sk@ras become ingrained and dominant they overwhelm sa:sk@ras
relating to his identity as Sankara. The new sa:sk@ras not only lead to forgetting,
but also ironically repossess him or counter possess him, in that they allow the
Amaruka identity to temporarily displace Sankara.
Sankaras knowledge of brahman and awareness of himself as a disinterested
witness may or may not be masked by the new sa:sk@ras. And even if that is the
case, that does not mean he regains ignorance. According to most Advaitins,
ignorance is a positive entity, not the absence of knowledge. Once destroyed it
cannot be created again. Perhaps he could still be clearly aware that his true
nature is non-dual even though his body-mind identity is disoriented. However,
if the story parallels that of Matsyendran@tha, then Sankara forgets his sam@dhi
and becomes like an ordinary person.32
Despite his supposed omniscience, Sankara appears unaware of his other physical identity, his original mission, and the immanent danger that his former body
is about to be placed on a pyre. Fortunately his desperate disciples, cleverly
disguised as musicians, gain entry to the court. They recapitulate the essential
teachings of Advaita in the form of a song and remind him of his identity. To his
credit, Sankara requires only a brief reminder to counter the sa:sk@ras clouding
his true identity. He regains his understanding (sa:jn@), awakening to what he
already knows.33 This reminder is analogous to listening and contemplation, which
bring his mind back to an appreciation of non-duality.
This discussion of sa:sk@ras in the context of Sankaras writing and the
Amaruka possession lead to some interesting questions and conclusions. One tangential question, is whether Sankara is in keeping with dharma or transgressing his

Clouding Self-Identity

References
Adhvarindra, D., 1993. Ved@nta Paribh@X@. Swami Madhavananda, (trans). Calcutta: Advaita
Ashrama.
Bader, J., 2000. Conquest of the Four Quarters: Traditional Accounts of the Life of Sankara. New
Delhi: Aditya Prakashan.
Madhava-Vidyaranya, 1996. Sankara Digvijaya: The Traditional Life of Sri Sankaracharya.
Swami Tapsyananda, (trans). Madras: Sri Ramakrishna Math.
Potter, K. H., 1981. Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies Vol 3: Advaita Ved@nta up to Sa:kara
and His Pupils. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ. of Massachusetts/Amherst Library on October 14, 2012

dharma and moral responsibility as a renunciate in exploiting the karmic loopholes

of possession to engage in sexual activities? Sankara argues that he is free of
any karma, injunctions, or prohibitions as a liberated individual who lacks any
agency.34 Later in the narrative, Sankara claims that he has not committed any sin
in his body and was absolutely pure in life, thereby excluding any actions committed in Amarukas body.35 These truth claims allow him to gain the throne of
omniscience. Despite this, he does carry his Amaruka sa:sk@ras, in the form of
memories, knowledge, and past experience, back to his renunciate body. We
should reconsider this sa:sk@ra connection to prohibited action in constructing
an ethical interpretation of his possession and actions as Amaruka.
Beyond the obvious moral issues of a monk engaging in possession and compromising celibacy, the discussion of sa:sk@ras provides some insight into
self-identity. We generally and accurately understand the historical Sankara as
positing an absolute self, which is impermeable, homogenous, and excludes any
relationship, change, complexity, or hybridity. Brahman identity, if we can even
call it an identity, is not achieved through any agency or action, but is rather
directly recognised as the constant presence or existence of ones own immediate
consciousness. From the ultimate standpoint of brahman there are no transactional
individual identities. However, Sankaras theory of sa:sk@ras provides a small
opening in which we can discuss porous and multiple identities even from the
standpoint of a liberated person.
Sa:sk@ras support the notion of a complex self in terms of the complexity of
sa:sk@ras themselves, their various types, their virtually infinite and unknowable
nature, and the myriad ways they manifest in the individual in conjunction with
other variables. They are ever changing, capable of moving from one body to
another, and the acquisition of new sa:sk@ras can lead to shifting identities and
a porous self. In this sense, sa:sk@ras allow a permeable and fluid development of
personality and self-identity. Limited identities are not static or fixed, but rather a
process of becoming where identity shifts in relation to personal experience.
Individuals have agency to construct identities by creating or excluding certain
sa:sk@ras. They are also subject to external forces and pressures that ingrain
sa:sk@ras.

Neil Dalal

Notes
1
2
3
4

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

12
13

14
15

16
17
18
19

Sankaradigvijaya 9.8086; Tapasyananda, pp. 1134.

Ibid, 9.901; Tapasyananda, pp.1145.
Ibid, 9.78; Tapasyananda, p.113.
See Bader (2000) for more discussion of the composition of the Sankaradigvijaya. In
addition, Smith (2006, p. 317) notes that the Amaruka episode was lifted from earlier
fictional tales.
Smith (2006, pp.5856).
Ibid, pp.XXIII, 586, 347.
Gaunap@da K@rika Bh@Xya 3.44.
BPhad@ra>yaka UpaniXad Bh@Xya 1.4.10.
Sankara on Brahmas+tra 4.2.7.
Bhagavadgat@ 5.17, 6.278.
Later Advaitins also understood sa:sk@ras as latent impressions of knowledge that
facilitate the intermediate operation of reminding one of invariable concomitance
(vy@pti) in the process of inferential knowledge. For example see the first chapter of
Ved@nta Paribh@X@ (Madhavananda 1993, p. 69).
Potter (1981, p .23).
In other contexts, such as Mu>naka UpaniXad Bh@Xya 3.1.1 and Prasna UpaniXad Bh@Xya
4.5, the v@san@s composing the subtle body are from ignorance (avidy@), action
(karma), and desire (k@ma).
BPhad@ra>yaka UpaniXad Bh@Xya 2.3.6 (Madhavananda 1993, p. 234).
It is not clear if this verse, or the BPhad@ra>yaka UpaniXad in general, endorses the
transmigration of the self into another body, but Sankara interprets this verse as
dealing with rebirth.
Brahmas+tra 4.2.121 presents a similar but more detailed explanation of what happens at death.
BPhad@ra>yaka UpaniXad Bh@Xya 4.4.2 (Madhavananda 1993, p. 491).
See Sankara on BPhad@ra>yaka UpaniXad 1.4.7, 1.4.10; Gaunap@da K@rika 3.44;
Brahmas+tra 4.1.15, 3.4.26, 3.4.4748, 3.4.51; and Bhagavadgat@ 4.18, 5.13.
BPhad@ra>yaka UpaniXad Bh@Xya 1.4.10.

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ. of Massachusetts/Amherst Library on October 14, 2012

Sankara, 1992a. Ch@ndogya UpaniXad With the Commentary of Sankar@c@rya. Swami

Gambhirananda, (trans). Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama.
Sankara, 1992b. A Thousand Teachings. The Upadesas@hasra of Sankara. Mayeda S., (trans).
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Sankara, 1992c. Eight Upanishads: With the Commentary of Sankar@c@rya. Vol. 1 and 2. Swami
Gambhirananda, (trans). Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama.
Sankara, 1993. The BPhad@ra>yaka UpaniXad: with the Commentary of Sankar@c@rya. Swami
Madhavananda, (trans). Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama.
Sankara, 1995. Bhagavadgat@ with the Commentary of Sankar@c@rya. Swami Gambhirananda,
(trans). Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama.
Sankara, 1996. Brahmas+trabh@Xya of Sra Sankar@c@rya. Swami Gambhirananda, (trans).
Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama.
Smith, F. M., 2006. The Self Possessed: Deity and Spirit Possession in South Asian Literature and
Civilization. New York: Columbia University Press.
Vidyaranya, 1986. Srimad Sankara Digvijayam. Padmanaban K. (trans). Madras: Padmanaban.

10

Clouding Self-Identity

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ. of Massachusetts/Amherst Library on October 14, 2012

20 KaX@ya is a specific type of negative sa:sk@ra that creates mental affliction. KaX@yas
are attested in Gaunap@da K@rika 3.44 where Gaudap@da writes, one should know
(the mind) with kaX@yas (sakaX@ya: vij@nay@t). KaX@ya also occurs in Ch@ndogya
UpaniXad 7.26.2, where Sankara defines them as impurities such as desire (r@ga)
and aversion (dvesa), which are like tree sap that must be washed off by the repetition of knowledge and detachment. Also see their mention in Gaunap@da K@rika
4.90, which defines kasaya as attraction, repulsion, or delusion. The term kaX@ya
generally refers to negative impressions, whereas sa:sk@ras and v@san@s represent
both positive and negative impressions.
21 This may be an indirect reference to Ch@ndogya UpaniXad 6.14 where a blindfolded
man needs directions to find his way back to the land of Gandh@ra.
22 BPhad@ra>yaka UpaniXad Bh@Xya 1.4.10 (Madhavananda 1993, p. 116). Also see Sankara
on Bhagavadgat@ 4.18 and Brahmas+tra 3.4.47.
23 See Brahmas+tra Bh@Xya 4.1.15.
24 See Sankara on Bhagavadgat@ 2.5472, 3.4, 3.17, 5.17, 5.20, 18.55; Brahmas+tra 3.4.20;
and Mu>naka UpaniXad 1.2.12, 3.256.
25 In addition, Sankara does not clarify the identity or difference of these sa:sk@ras
with those that make up the subtle body.
26 Upadesas@hasra 18.13, 18.1034.
27 Brahmas+tra Bh@Xya 2.1.3 and Ch@ndogya UpaniXad Bh@Xya 8.1.1.
28 There are a few textual passages that lend themselves to an interpretation that
contemplation is still possible, perhaps even necessary, after direct brahmavidy@
takes place due to residual disturbances from problematic dispositions. See
Sankara on BPhad@ra>yaka UpaniXad 1.4.7, 1.4.10; Bhagavadgat@ 4.18; Brahmas+tra
3.2.51.
29 See Sankara on BPhad@ra>yaka UpaniXad 1.4.7, 1.4.10; Bhagavadgat@ 12.3, 13.24, 18.50,
18.55; Prasna UpaniXad 5.1; Brahmas+tra 4.1.8.
30 BPhad@ra>yaka UpaniXad 1.4.7.
31 BPhad@ra>yaka UpaniXad 1.4.7.
32 Sankaradigvijaya 9.83. The meaning of sam@dhi in this verse is unclear. While generally understood as a concentrated mind or in the Yogic sense of suppressing the
fluctuations of the mind, Sankara will sometimes use it synonymously with
self-knowledge or nididhy@sana. For example, see his commentary on Brahmas+tra
2.3.39 and Gaunap@da K@rika 3.37. Tapasyananda (p. 113) leaves the term untranslated. Padmanaban (p. 61) translates it as tapas.
33 Sankaradigvijaya 10.57; Tapasyananda, pp.1223.
34 Ibid, 9.93, 9.96100; Tapasyananda, pp.1145.
35 Ibid, 16.86; Tapasyananda, pp.1923.