The Pithas and the date of Sankara

Summary

P. Sastri’s article investigates the number of monasterial seats (pīṭhas) attributed to Ādi Śaṅkara and the period in which he lived. Late biographies such as Cidvilāsa’s Śaṅkara‑vijaya and Madhava’s abridged version, composed in the seventeenth century, exaggerate and embellish the saint’s life; their accounts of his parents and his alleged ability to enter another’s body (parakāya‑praveśa) are dismissed as spuriousfile:///home/oai/share/Pithas_and_the_Date_of_Sankara.pdf#:~:text=The%20Pithas%20and%20the%20date,of%20such%20a%20late%20text. Because these hagiographies cannot be trusted, Sastri argues that one must rely on Śaṅkara’s own commentaries and historical factors. The traditional four pīṭhas – at Śṛṅgeri, Dvārakā, Badarī and Jagannātha (Puri) – are sometimes supplemented by a fifth centre at Kanchī. The author notes that the Śṛṅgeri institution is associated with the goddess Śāradā and the Yajurveda, while the Dvārakā, Badarī and Jagannātha centres correspond to other Vedasfile:///home/oai/share/Pithas_and_the_Date_of_Sankara.pdf#:~:text=%E0%A5%A4. However, epigraphic and ritual evidence from Kanchī, including the association with the goddess Kāmākṣī, suggests that Śaṅkara may have established a Sarvajña Pīṭha there. The article situates Śaṅkara’s life within the vibrant intellectual climate of South India, where Yogācāra and Madhyamaka Buddhists, Jainas and various Śaiva sects were activefile:///home/oai/share/Pithas_and_the_Date_of_Sankara.pdf#:~:text=As%20the%20bhisya%20%E0%AB%A60%202,v%20%E2%80%98%20%E0%A5%A4. Sastri reasons that Śaṅkara wrote primarily to refute Buddhist and Mīmāṃsā doctrines, which implies a date after the intense Buddhist activities of the early centuries CE rather than the 5th century BCE. Modern scholarship supports this view: while some monastic traditions date him to 491–483 BCE, most historians place him in the first half of the eighth century (around 700–750 CE) or even 788–820 CEhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Shankara#:~:text=Several%20different%20dates%20have%20been,38. Sastri also questions the claim that Śaṅkara died at age 32, suggesting that his travels and voluminous writings presuppose a longer life. By critically examining textual traditions, monastic lineages, goddess cults and historical context, the article argues that the standard four pīṭhas may be later constructs and that Kanchī’s pīṭha reflects Śaṅkara’s own foundation. His conclusion underscores the necessity of disentangling historical Śaṅkara from myth, pointing out that clarifying his date and institutions is crucial for understanding the development of the Advaita Vedānta tradition.