When we think of Adi Shankaracharya, we often view him as one of the greatest spiritual figures in Indian philosophy. His work systematizing Advaita Vedanta and his deep commentary on the Upanishads laid the foundation for non-duality as a spiritual path. But what’s often underappreciated is the way Shankara approached this task—it wasn’t just spiritual; it was highly academic in nature.

Why Academia Matters

Some might feel that “academic” can sound cold or detached from spiritual experience, but in reality, the academic approach brings something crucial to the table: rigor, objectivity, and systematization. This is why I have such high respect for academia. It’s not just about collecting information; it’s about dissecting, analyzing, and rigorously testing ideas.

In the same way, Shankara didn’t just accept any philosophical idea at face value. He looked at competing claims, whether they were from Buddhism, Sankhya, or Mimamsa, and took them apart piece by piece. He reviewed, critiqued, and offered counterarguments, much like how scientific research today is built on peer-reviewed critique. Ramanuja, another great thinker, took a similar approach in defending his Visishtadvaita school.

I often think about the modern world we live in—one shaped so profoundly by the advances in science and technology—and how much of that is due to the scientific method that comes out of academia. It’s not so different from how Shankara and other ancient sages worked—they engaged with all available knowledge, refined their understanding, and built their systems of thought.

Truth That Stands the Test

At the end of the day, spirituality, like science, is a quest for truth. And while that truth is ultimately something you must experience for yourself in the here and now, there’s a key point to remember: truth must stand up to scrutiny—whether it’s theoretical, philosophical, or even scientific.

For instance, if neuroscience were to prove that consciousness is a purely local, emergent phenomenon of the brain, wouldn’t it be necessary for us to check our spiritual understanding against this? The sages of old didn’t shy away from engaging with their understanding of biology, physics, or chemistry—limited though it may have been at the time. This is an important aspect of the academic effort in spirituality: not just relying on what we feel intuitively, but testing those intuitions rigorously.

Intuitions, after all, can be misleading. Even language, with all its nuances and complexities, can sometimes obscure rather than clarify. It’s easy to hide behind wordplay and abstract ideas, but truth should be able to withstand any kind of test. Shankara, in his time, certainly wouldn’t have hesitated to review and critique the body of knowledge available to him—whether it came from peers or competing schools of thought.

The Spiritual Journey: Unique, but Interconnected

Each of us is on our own spiritual journey, and yes, that journey is unique to each individual. Our struggles are our own because our ignorance (ajnana) is unique. The work of resolving that ignorance is something we must do for ourselves. But this doesn’t mean we can ignore the work of others, whether those who came before or those who come after. We are constantly learning from those who have walked this path before us, and it’s only fair that we also engage with the knowledge that has emerged since, even outside our own tradition or school of thought.

In fact, I consider this process of cross-referencing knowledge, from spiritual teachings to scientific findings, to be an essential part of the spiritual quest. It’s about the pursuit of truth, which drives both the academic and the spiritual mind. Yes, it ultimately comes down to what you see for yourself, but truth should always be tested, reviewed, and refined.

Reconciling Spirituality and Science

I often ask myself if it’s necessary to reconcile our spiritual understanding with science and other schools of thought. My answer is a resounding yes. Today, we know so much more about the mind, consciousness, and the self thanks to scientific advances, especially in fields like neuroscience. There’s no reason why we shouldn’t cross-reference this new understanding with our spiritual knowledge. We must address these modern conflicts and ambiguities instead of focusing solely on philosophical debates that happened two millennia ago.

In this sense, we are not done with the Upanishads. We need to keep thinking through them, engaging with the texts in light of the latest discoveries in science. It’s an ongoing process that requires us to bring in new perspectives while honoring the wisdom of the past.

The Collective and Personal Journey

Finally, while we all walk our own individual spiritual path, it’s important to remember that this is also a collective journey. We learn from each other, critique each other, and help refine each other’s understanding along the way. I see this process not only as necessary but also as deeply spiritual.

So, keep that openness to knowledge and critique alive. It’s the spark that drives both the academic mind and the spiritual seeker. And ultimately, it’s this quest for clarity and understanding that helps us all move forward—both in our personal journey and in the collective evolution of knowledge.

Shankara’s approach to Vedanta, like the work done in academia today, was about clarity and rigor. He wanted to resolve the ambiguities in the Upanishads and build a system that stood the test of time and critique. In our spiritual quest today, we should follow that same path—engaging with new ideas, testing our understanding, and ensuring that our truths can withstand any challenge, theoretical or otherwise.