The numerous glosses written by his followers tried to blend ritualistic attitude with the monistic inclination of the Sage.+

The history of Advaita is replete with interpretation and reinterpretation of Sage Sankara’s philosophical work. The generation of Advaita followers that succeeded Sage Sankara wrote several commentaries on Sage Sankara’s work. Each commentator claimed that he grasped the essence and true intent of Sage Sankara and went on to write according to his own understanding. In that process, he wove into the commentaries his personal views and hoisted them on Sage Sankara.

This kind of adulation gave rise to several versions of Advaita. The numerous glosses written by his followers tried to blend the ritualistic attitude with the monastic inclination of the Master. The result was the distortion of Sage Sankara’s position.

The purpose of the scriptures, Sage Sankara said, was to describe the reality as it is. Sage Sankara rejected the Mimamsa view and argued that scripture was not mandatory in character, at least where it concerned the pursuit of wisdom.

Upanishads, he remarked, dealt with Brahman (God) and that Brahman (God in truth) could not be a subject matter of injunctions and prohibitions.

Sage Sankara strongly advocated the study of Upanishads and, at the same time, cautioned that the study of Upanishads alone would not lead to liberation. In matters of such as spiritual attainment, one’s own experience was the sole authority, and it cannot be disputed.

Sage Sankara also said the study of the Upanishad was neither indispensable nor a necessary prerequisite for attaining the human goal, the moksha.

Sage Sankara pointed out that even those who were outside the Upanishad fold were as eligible to moksha as those within the fold were.

Sage Sankara declared that all beings are Brahman, and therefore the question of discrimination did not arise. All that one was required to do was to get rid of ignorance (Duality).:~ Santthosh Kumaar