1

God-Human Relation in Sankara’s Advaita Vedanta and Its relevance for

Human Rights and Responsibility
- R.D.Mawia Ralte
Lecturer,
Department of Religion, AICS

Human rights has been discussed and reflected from various perspectives, both from secular and
religious. As the subject is so important, it deserves our attention to the extent of looking from
all possible directions and such a variety of perspectives with which it has been looked into
ought to have produced positive result. A Christian youth gathering, trying to look at human
rights from a Hindu perspective, may seem to be unusual and odd. However, as we live in a
country where Hindu population reaches close to 82% of the whole population, we feel the need
of putting ourselves in the shoes of Hindus and reflect upon this important issue. Thus, this topic
is chosen, hoping that we may have wider perspective in our understanding of Human Rights.
So, we want to see the relevance of the thought of a Hindu theologian and philosopher by the
name Sankara, who lived and formulated his theology-philosophy more than a thousand years
ago, long before human being realized the need of Human Rights Movement. Sankara might
have no intention to address human right violations of our time; nevertheless, the importance of
his thought for today’s human right movement still stand. So, it is intended in this paper to study
the Advaita Vedanta philosophy as expounded by Sankaracharya so as to see the relevance of it
for our struggle to have a just and humane society.

Sankara’s Advaita Vedanta has been misunderstood by many modern scholars and owing to that
the relevance of his thought has not been properly utilized. We are making here an attempt to
correctly understand Sankara’s thought and see the relevance of it for human right movement.
The first section of the paper deals with the correct interpretation of Sankara’s Advaita Vedanta
and the second section looks at the relevance of it for human rights and responsibilities in our
contemporary world.

I. Brief Background of Sankara

Sankara was undoubtedly the most important theologian and philosopher of modern Hinduism.
Dr. R. De Smet, a Jesuit scholar, may not be exaggerating when he exalts Sankara as possessing
“metaphysical genius, faultless acumen, dexterous logic, incomparable erudition and unshakable
faith”1. He was probably the product of the eight century C.E. who had exclusive faith in sruti,
the primary scripture of the Hindus and considered it as infallible. He is more a theologian than
a philosopher as his writings are more of commentary (bhasya) of the scripture than
philosophical treaties.

II. Misinterpretation of Sankara’s Advaita Vedanta

Owning to his greatness, many works produced by some of his disciples and even his opponents
which were spurious has been attributed to his name. Because of this, there are hundreds of
works put in the name of Sankara that are not genuine. The list of the writings in the name of
Sankara amount to 433 titles. The modern scholar rejected most of these as unauthentic. When
many modern scholars interpreted Sankara from these spurious works, they produced a distorted
picture of Sankara’s Advaita Vedanta. The following works were accepted today as the genuine
works of Sankara –2
1
R.De Smet, “Sankara’s Non-dualism (Advaita-Vada)” in Religious Hinduism, edited by R.De Smet and J. Neuner,
Mumbai: St. Paul, 1997, p. 81.
2
Ibid., p. 82.
 2

1. The commentaries (bhasya) on nine Upanishads such as Brihadharanyaka Upanishad,

Chandogya Upanishad, Aitareya Upanishad, Taittiriya Upanishad, Isa Upanishad,
Kena Upanishad, Katha Upanishad, Prashna Upanishad and Mundaka Upanishad.
2. The commentary on the Bhagavad Gita
3. The commentary on the Brahma or Vedanta sutra
4. A non-commentarial treaties, the Upadesa-sahastri

Some of the prominent interpretations of Sankara which have fallen short of the authentic
Sankarite doctrine are as follows –
1. Brahman alone is real, the world is maya which means illusion, the human soul is
identical with Brahman and that the Upanishadic teaching of Aham Brahmasmi (I am
Brahman) should be understood literally.
2. Brahman is nirguna which means ‘impersonal’ hence there is no possibility of having
personal relationship with it.
3. As the world including human body is unreal, just illusion, there is no point in talking
human right and caring human body and our environment, because these are just illusion.
Over against such a wrong concept of Sankara’s Advaita Vedanta, we try to give a correct
interpretation and see the relevance of his thought for human existence in this world.

II. Brahman (God) in Sankara’s Advaita Vedanta

Before we go into the discussion of God-Human relation in Sankara’s Advaita Vedanta, let us
look, in brief, his concept of God and Human being. God (Brahman or Atman) according to
Sankara is the non-dual (A-dvaita) absolute. It has no part but exists everywhere internally and
externally. Something that exists apart from Brahman is simply non-exist, because without
Brahman or apart from Brahman there is no existence. In this sense, Brahman is the source of
existence. Sankara attempted to describe Brahman in line with the Upanishads as partless,
beyond speech, fearless, immortal, infinite, having without or within, without a second, pure,
intelligent, all-knowing, all-powerful and so on. However, he also said that these explanations
“can only indicate Brahman, but not express It”3, because Brahman is so big and so great that It
cannot be explained or described satisfactorily with human terms.

According to Sankara, Brahman can be conceived from two different points of view. If we look
at God from the ordinary practical stand point, God may be regarded as the creator, the
sustainer and the destroyer of the world and therefore Omnipotent and Omniscient Being. He
then appears to possess all these qualities. Therefore, he is very much a personal God (Saguna
Brahman). Sankara called this aspect of Brahman as Isvara or Lord. He has used the terms
Isvara and Brahman interchangeably which indicates that Sankara’s Brahman is the most
personal Being. At this stage, Brahman is the object of worship4 – we can praise him, pray to
him, make sacrifices to him, love him and adore him. However, the description of Brahman as
above is true only from the practical stand point of view, but when we look at Brahman from the
transcendental point of view, we see Brahman as consciousness, real and infinite. It can not be
described by qualities which relate to the world. Brahman in this aspect is devoid of all
distinctions – external as well as internal. Brahman in this absolutely transcendent aspect, says
Sankara, cannot be described at all and it is, therefore, indeterminate and characterless or
nirguna. As it has been pointed out already, the description of Brahman even as infinite, real or
consciousness cannot directly convey the idea or reality of Brahman; they only serve to direct
the mind towards Brahman by denying of its finiteness, unreality and unconsciousness.
3
K.P.Aleaz, Religions in Christian Theology, Kolkata: Punthi Pustak, 2001, p. 19.
4
Satischandra Chatterjee and Dhirendramohan Datta, An Introduction to Indian Philosophy, Kolkata: University of
Calcutta, 2004, p. 387.
 3

Therefore, Upanishad used the term ‘neti neti’ (not this not that) to describe Brahman in
its/his/her absolute transcendent state, because any description, no mater how elaborate it might
be, will be fallen short of the reality of Brahman.

IV. Human Being In Sankara’s Advaita Vedanta

According to Sankara, human being is the combination of body, senses, mind, intellect and
Brahman. “The Atman (Brahman) presiding over the cage of the body and senses and becoming
associated with the fruit of work is called Jiva or human soul. The difference between human
being (jiva) and God (Brahman) is aptly illustrated by Sankara using space within a jar and
space outside a jar. Space within a jar is limited by the wall of a jar whereas space outside a jar
is unlimited; likewise jiva (human being) is limited by its association with body, senses, mind,
etc., whereas Brahman is free and unlimited. Jiva is not human body; it does not perish with the
death of a body. So, jiva is eternal and identical with Brahman (God).

V. God-Human relation
The significance of Sankar’s thought lies in its emphasis on the closeness of God with human
being. Without God there is no existence. K.P Aleaz comments: “The total nothingness of
human apart from God has been brought out so clearly in no other system of thought as in that of
Sankara”5. As God is so close and involves in all aspects of human life, the way we look at other
human beings reflected the way we look at God. The following discussion on God-Human
relation in Sankara’s Advaita will elucidate our point.

1. God-Human Relation as Cause-Effect Relation: According to Sankara God created the entire
universe in due order from his own body, consequently the whole universe, including human
being, is Brahman alone. Therefore, if we consider human as something other than Brahman, it
is false. The relation between Brahman (God) and creation (human) is cause-effect relation. The
whole reality of the effect (i.e. human) comes from and does pre-exist in its cause (i.e. God).
Sankara asserted time and again that the effect has existence only as dependent on the cause. So,
human being is inseparable from God. It is good news for those who are oppressed and are
suffering to know that God is the root, support, storehouse, controller and director of the whole
creation including human being. There is no gulf between God and human beings. “Unity is the
gospel of Sankara’s Advaita Vedanta. There is an inseparable relation between God and human
and it is this inseparability which gives meaning to life. In other words, there is always total
availability of God in the life of human beings.

2. Humans as name and form (nama-rupa) of Brahman: In Sankara’s thought the various parts
or differentiations of the universe including humans are the name and form – nama rupa of
Brahman. The different between the name and form and Brahman is that the former had origin
and dissolution - whereas the latter does not have. The name and form were pre-existed dormant
in Brahman before creation. This unmanifested name and form was one with Brahman like the
foam (bubbles) with the water. As the foam is inseparable from water, so also the name and
form of Brahman from Brahman. The relation between Brahman and its name and form is
inseparable relation. This is the glory and significance of being human – that we live, move and
have our being in God.

3. Human as Upadhi of God – According to Sankara human beings are Upadhis or extrinsic
denominators or limited adjuncts of Brahman. In other words human beings are Brahman
limited by the adjuncts of the body, the senses, the mind, the intellect. Therefore, in reality they

5
K.P.Aleaz, Religions in Christian Theology, p. 21.
 4

are not totally different but not totally identical either as a space within a jar is neither totally
different nor completely identical with a space out side of it.

4. Intimacy of God-Human Relation: Sankara has explained the relation between Brahman and
the universe including humans through the help of comparisons like the magician and his/her
magic; dreamer and his/her dream; mirage and illusory water, cosmic space and space within a
jar, water and foam, moon and its reflection in water or a person and his/her reflection in
mirror6. All these comparisons point to the fact that creation is totally depended on the creator as
the reflection in the mirror is depended on the person reflected. As human being is the reflection
of God, there exists integral relation between God and human. On the one hand, without God
human is mere nothingness, on the other hand because of God, he/she has meaning of life and is
illuminated. The presence of man/woman in front of a mirror makes the existence of the
reflected image in the mirror real, the absence of him/her will result into the cessation of that
image. This shows that such an inseparable relation exists between these two. In the same
manner God and human being, in Sankara’s thought, have indissoluble relation that binds
together as one. Anything happens to human is happens to God.

VI. The Relevance of Sankara’s Advaita Vedanta for Human Rights and Responsibilities
When we talk about human rights it is also important to remember that human responsibilities
are part and parcel of the whole issue. We cannot emphasize human rights neglecting human
responsibilities as these two are two sides of the same coin. So, in this paper both these issues
are taken into consideration. Having in mind this aspect, let us turn to see the relevance of
Sankara’s thought for human rights and responsibilities.

1. Equality of Humans: Human rights violation sprung from dis-respect of fellow human beings.
This is basically due to the dichotomy of human into two opposites – rich and poor, high class
and low class, caste and out-caste, black and white, educated and uneducated, strong and weak,
majority and minority, the ruling class and the ordinary persons and the like. Equality of every
human being needs to be re-asserted to do away with this violation. We see in the Sankarite
doctrine the basic equality of all human beings irrespective of their socio-political and economic
condition. Aleaz comments thus, “So, in Sankara’s system of thought there is promise of
equality of all humans in the realm of knowledge and liberation. Duties belonging to particular
castes etc. came to an end when right knowledge is achieved”7, because Sankara advocated
equality and distinctionlessness of humans. He emphasized equality not in the form of our
possession and position but in our essence – we are essentially equal. As much as the rich are the
name and form of Brahman, so also are the poor. As deep as Brahman pervades the high class
people so also are the lower class pervaded by Brahman.

2. Oneness of God with Human Beings – Sankara brought out clearly the oneness (A-dvaita) of
everything. There is only one thing which is real, that is Brahman and that everything, visible
and invisible including human beings are part of Brahman, or rather the extension of Brahman.
Therefore, violation of human rights becomes more serious in the light of Sankara’s Advaita
Vedanta, and also our responsibility towards fellow human beings becomes more important
because every human being is part and parcel of God. As we cannot separate the pot from the
clay, we also cannot separate human being from God. These two are one. The implication of this
oneness is that it enhances the importance of every person irrespective of his/her social,
economic and political status, his/her caste, class or skin colour. Humans are to be respected and

6
Ibid., p. 31
7
Ibid., p. 21
 5

treated properly because they are potentially divine. We ought to respect them as we should
have done to God because there is no real difference between human beings and God.

3. Oneness of Humans - The problem of oppression, subjugation, alienation, discrimination,

inhuman act, etc. is caused by the wrong notion we have that we are different. Our outward
differences brought about by the colour of our skin, economic disparity, caste and political
affiliations, etc. is the root cause of human rights violation. In the midst of this Sankara
emphatically maintained A-dvaita (oneness) not only with God but also with fellow human
beings. Ignorant person perceives others as someone different from him/her, but to a
knowledgeable person the otherness in others had gone and the oneness in diversity is
recognized. Sankara propagated oneness of everything (advaita) so that discrimination of any
sort will be vapourised.

4. Closeness of God with every human being – As already underlined, according to Sankara
human being has no reality apart from God, therefore, he/she is called a ‘contingent being’.
His/her reality is a ‘derived reality’, derived from God – he/she exists because of God, there is
unshakable, inseparable and indivisible relation between human and God. So, our attitude
towards any human being, rich or poor, educated or illiterate is directly corresponding to our
attitude towards God. Inhuman act done to any individual is amount to committing the same
thing to God Himself. In the light of this, human rights violation is equivalent to violation of
God, at the same time the responsibility we have towards God is same as the responsibility we
have towards fellow human beings. Therefore, Sankara asserted to respect all creation including
human beings as they are the ‘name and form’ (nama-rupa) of God and His reflection.

5. God’s concern for the welfare of every human being - Sankara brought out vividly how God
concerns the whole creation, showing his love and care. God who is the material and efficient
cause of the world and human being is not detached from them. He is very near to them;
moreover, he is in them. So, treating harshly fellow human beings means treating harshly God
according to Sankara’s Advaita Vedanta. God illumines the entire creation including human
being, pervades it and permeates it. He is in and with them. This is how God showed his love
and concern for the entire universe and everything in it. In the light of this, we learn the
seriousness of human rights and responsibilities. The duty we have towards human rights, and
the responsibilities rested upon us are directed towards God. We are accountable to both human
and God as they are one. As human beings are the extension of God, sufferings of human beings
are His suffering, bad treatment given to human beings is borne by Him. This is the gospel of
Sankara.

Concluding Remarks
The UNO Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted and proclaimed by General
Assembly resolution 217A of 10 December 1948 became the guiding principle for Human Right
movement today. In this Declaration, Article 1 talks about the equality and dignity of all
humans. Article 2 declares that everyone is entitled to have rights and freedom without
distinction in terms of race, colour, sex, religion, etc. Article 7 declares that all are equal before
the law and that there should be no discrimination8. When we consider these rights found in the
Declaration and compare it with Sankara’s thought, we will realize that both go hand in hand,
indicating the relevance and significance of Sankara’s thought for human rights struggle in our
contemporary world. From the above discussion the following concluding points emerged –

8
S. Subramaniam, Human Rights: International Challenges, New Delhi: Manas Publications, 1997, pp.13-14.
 6

1. The Advaita Vedanta philosophy of Sankara emphasized oneness of everything. It

promotes brotherhood/sisterhood among the people, stressing the need of mutual love
and understanding as we are all one. Discrimination, oppression of the weaker section of
the society and inhuman treatment of the weak are all the product of the attitude of
separateness which according to Sankara is in the mind of an ignorant person only.
2. The closeness of God with human beings has been evidently brought out in Sankara’s
thought, so also the oneness of human beings. God is not only depicted as present with
human being, but also He is in them, permeating and pervading the whole creation.
Every cell of human experiences the presence of God. Thus, violation of human rights is
more serious in Sankara’s doctrine because it is equivalent to violating God’s own rights.
3. Sankara emphasizes God’s relationship with his creation not simply as creator-creation
relationship but rather taking creation including human beings as the limiting adjuncts of
God, the name and form of God and the effect of the Cause. By saying so, he wants to
reveal explicitly the love and concern of God for his creation. Human rights violation
from this perspective is a clear departure from God’s ordinances and the mockery of His
name.
4. Oneness of human being in Sankara’s Advaita Vedanta is relevance in the context of
India where people are divided into many castes and sub-castes, and where
discrimination and oppression of the weaker section of the society is rampant. All these
are the product of the lack of feeling of oneness among human beings which Sankara
tried to give to the world. If anyone realizes his/her oneness to his/her fellow humans,
then, discrimination will disappear, mutual love and understanding will prevail, each
member of human race will have his/her own right and share in the economy of God.
This is the dream of a young sanyasa by the name Sankaracharya. We may thus pray as
Rabindranath Tagore –

Where the mind is without fear and the head is

held high;
Where knowledge is free;
Where the world has not been broken up into
fragments by narrow domestic walls;
Where words came out from the depth of truth;
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards
Perfection;
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its
way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit;
Where the mind is led forward by thee into ever-
widening thought and action –
Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my
country awake.9

………..

9
Rabindranath Tagore, Gitanjali pp.27-8 Quoted in S.R. Bakshi, Rabindra Nath Tagore and the Challenge of
Today, New Delhi: Om Publications, 2001, p.149.