It does not seem that any sect can plausibly claim Sankara as founder or adherent.  His real religion was Vedantism and this, though not incompatible with sectarian worship, is predisposed to be impartial.  The legend says that when summoned to his mother’s deathbed, he spoke to her first of the Vedanta philosophy.  But she bade him give her some consolation which she could understand.  So he recited a hymn to Siva, but when the attendants of that god appeared she was frightened.  Sankara then recited a hymn to Vishnu and when his gentler messengers came to her bedside, she gave her son her blessing and allowed them to take her willing soul.

This story implies that he was ready to sanction any form of reputable worship with a slight bias towards Vishnuism.[517] At the present day the Smartas, who consider themselves his followers, have a preference for the worship of Siva.  But the basis of their faith is not Sivaism but the recognition of the great body of Indian traditions known as Smriti.  And that, next to Vedantism, was the essence of Sankara’s teaching:  he wished to regard tradition as a coherent whole, based on the eternal Veda but including authoritative Smriti to be interpreted in the light of the Veda, and thus he hoped to correct extravagant and partial views and to lead to those heights whence it is seen that all is one, “without difference.”

The results of Sankara’s labours may still be seen in the organization of southern Hinduism which is more complete than in the north.  It is even said that the head of the Sringeri monastery in Mysore exercises an authority over Smarta Brahmans similar to that of the Pope.[518] This is probably an exaggeration but his decision is accepted as settling caste disputes, and even to-day the Sringeri math[519] is one of the most important religious institutions in India.  The abbot, who is known as Jagadguru, is head of the Smarta Brahmans.  The present occupant is said to be thirty-third in succession from Sankara and numbers among his predecessors Sayanacarya, the celebrated Vedic commentator who lived in the fourteenth century.  The continued prosperity of this establishment and of other religious corporations in the Dravidian country, whereas the Mohammedans destroyed all monasteries whether Hindu or Buddhist in the north, is one of the reasons for certain differences in northern and southern Hinduism.  For instance in northern India any Brahman, whatever his avocation may be, is allowed to perform religious ceremonies, whereas in the Deccan and south India Brahmans are divided into Laukikas or secular and Bhikshus or religious.  The latter are householders, the name having lost its monastic sense, but they have the exclusive right of officiating and acting as Gurus and thus form a married clergy.

It is possible that the influence of Sankara may have had a puritanical side which partly accounts for the degeneration of later Indian art.  His higher teaching inculcated a spiritual creed which needed no shrines, while for those who required rites he recommended the old Brahmanic ritual rather than the modern temple cultus.  The result of this may have been that piety and learning were diverted from art, so that architecture and sculpture ceased to be in touch with the best religious intelligence.