On Buddhism vs Brahmanism
The view that Brahmanism contributed to Buddhism's downfall is BS ofcourse
But H-nationalists have encouraged this misconception by lionising the great Adi Shankara as the vanquisher of Buddhist arguments
Sankara's writings barely discuss Buddhism
The view that Brahmanism contributed to Buddhism's downfall is BS ofcourse
But H-nationalists have encouraged this misconception by lionising the great Adi Shankara as the vanquisher of Buddhist arguments
Sankara's writings barely discuss Buddhism
In fact, many of the medieval Sri-Vaishnava and Madhva critics of Adi Sankara suggested that Shankara was a crypto-Buddhist
An unfair criticism for sure
But that's something they wouldn't have said if the historical Shankara was primarily a "vanquisher of Buddhism"
An unfair criticism for sure
But that's something they wouldn't have said if the historical Shankara was primarily a "vanquisher of Buddhism"
Like so many Indians, I've grown up with this "legend" of Sankara causing "Hinduism" to triumph all over India, and vanquish Buddhism
This argument - I heard from friends, relatives, elders - none of whom were themselves Buddhists, or from the Left
This argument - I heard from friends, relatives, elders - none of whom were themselves Buddhists, or from the Left
These arguments were never denied vociferously by the H-Right itself
Maybe because they liked the idea of Sankara as a great vanquisher of a rival sect
Maybe because they liked the idea of Sankara as a great vanquisher of a rival sect
Ofcourse the other side turned Sankara into a somewhat negative figure using exactly the same "vanquisher narrative"
And now we are not happy
This is what happens when we are not rigorous - bad ideas / theories we may have embraced expediently in the past, come back to bite us
And now we are not happy
This is what happens when we are not rigorous - bad ideas / theories we may have embraced expediently in the past, come back to bite us
One of the few places where we see Shankara taking on Buddhism in his writings is in his commentary on 2.2.32 Sutra (Vedanta Sutra Bhashya) 
This is a refutation of Buddhism "shunyavAda" (nihilism) but it is among the many such refutations of rival schools including other Vedantin schools, in Shankara's work
These snippets are not sufficient to regard Shankara as a "vanquisher of Buddhists"
These snippets are not sufficient to regard Shankara as a "vanquisher of Buddhists"
Now a proto H-nationalist figure like Bal Gangadhar Tilak said -
"Sankara's brilliant intellectual power refuted the Jain and Buddhist doctrines which had then gained ground on all sides and established his own Non Dualistic doctrine"
"Sankara's brilliant intellectual power refuted the Jain and Buddhist doctrines which had then gained ground on all sides and established his own Non Dualistic doctrine"
This kind of myth making has greatly misinterpreted Sankara's role in Indian intellectual history
Adi Sankara was no politician. He was primarily a philosopher, who came on the scene when Buddhism was already in decline
Also the "Non dualistic" doctrine predates Sankara
Adi Sankara was no politician. He was primarily a philosopher, who came on the scene when Buddhism was already in decline
Also the "Non dualistic" doctrine predates Sankara
Sure. Sankara critiqued Buddhism
But he also critiqued other Vedantic schools like Sankhya, Purva Mimamsa
He also critiqued Bhagavata religion
But Bhagavata religion was not "vanquished". If anything it boomed in the centuries post Shankara
But he also critiqued other Vedantic schools like Sankhya, Purva Mimamsa
He also critiqued Bhagavata religion
But Bhagavata religion was not "vanquished". If anything it boomed in the centuries post Shankara
There is no reason to pick on his criticism of "buddhism" and turn him into this "revolutionary conquerer"
Such myths have been misinterpreted by neo-buddhists in our times, and is coming back to bite us
Such myths have been misinterpreted by neo-buddhists in our times, and is coming back to bite us
