The accounts of Sankara’s life are little but a collection of legends, in which, however, the following facts stand out.  He was the pupil of Govinda, who was himself the pupil of Gaudapada and this connection would be important could we be certain that this Gaudapada was the author of the metrical treatise on philosophy bearing his name.  He wrote popular hymns as well as commentaries on the Upanishads, Vedanta Sutras and Bhagavad-gita, thus recognizing both Vedic and post-Vedic literature:  he resided for some time on the Narbudda and at Benares, and in the course of the journeys in which like Paul he gave vent to his activity, he founded four maths or monasteries, at Sringeri, Puri, Dwaraka and Badrinath in the Himalaya.  Near the latter he died before he was an old man.  On his deathbed he is said to have asked forgiveness for going on pilgrimages and frequenting temples, because by so doing he had seemed to forget that God is everywhere.

It is clear that his work both as an author and organizer was considerable and permanent, and that much of his career was spent outside Dravidian lands.  His greatest achievement was his exposition of the Vedanta, of which I treat elsewhere.  He based his arguments unreservedly on the Vedic texts and aimed at being merely conservative, but those texts and even the ancient commentaries are obscure and inconsistent, and it was reserved for his genius to produce from them a system which in consistency, thoroughness and profundity holds the first place in Indian philosophy.  His work did not consist, as he himself supposed, in harmonizing the Upanishads.  In this department of interpretation he is as uncritical as other orthodox commentators, but he took the most profound thoughts of the old literature and boldly constructed with them a great edifice of speculation.  Since his time the Vedanta has been regarded as the principal philosophy of India—­a position which it does not seem to have held before—­and his interpretation of it, though often contested and not suited to popular religion, still commands the respect and to some extent the adherence of most educated Hindus.

In practical religion he clearly felt, as every Indian reformer still must feel, the want of discipline and a common standard, Though the Buddhism of his day had ceased to satisfy the needs of India, he saw that its strength lay in its morality, its relative freedom from superstition and its ecclesiastical organization.  Accordingly he denounced extravagant sects[515] and forbade such practices as branding.  He also instituted an order of ascetics.[516] In doing this he was not only trying to obtain for Hinduism the disciplinary advantages of the Buddhist church but also to break through the rule prescribing that a Brahman must first be a householder and only late in life devote himself entirely to religion.  This rule did the Brahmans good service in insuring the continuity and respectability of their class but it tended to drive enthusiasts to other creeds.