The above is separate, but this post belongs with the next 3.
1/4
1. Found some handy and to the point quotes to back up stuff I had merely stated earlier about
- how Adi Shankara can't be accused of Buddhism and
- how the 3 Vedantic views were established before the 3 Vedantic acharyas who famously espoused them again in a later age. (Not that this is surprising: e.g. before any of the 3 Vedantic acharyas, the 3 traditional POVs concerning (a)dvaitam were already part of Vaishnavam, Shaivam and Shaktam.)
I.e. Shankara can hardly have been a Buddhist since he thought Buddha [that is, Buddha's teachings which started from considering but then specifically broke away from the Upanishads etc] was unwittingly or deliberately wrong.
2. Also relevant is the following essay by a Japanese author, taken from a book of essays by different - non-Hindu and definitely foreign I think - writers. Fortunately, no scanning's even needed as it's on Googlebooks, providing easy screengrabs. The pages of the essay are put up in the next 3 posts below.
It's from pages 18-29 of: books.google.com/books?id=JugqR3unjB4C
(Note that a direct translation of Shankara's comment described in the first quoteblock of this post is also found on the screengrab of p. 22 in post #184 below)
Disclaimers:
- While the Japanese author doesn't seem offensive, I *don't* recommend the book: e.g. the very next essay is by the insidious inculturating Jesuit Francis Clooney. (Those who don't know who he is, search IF for "clooney".) Clearly Clooney's writing in the book for a reason - christianism - and that renders the entire book suspicious, not to mention that it's mostly by a bunch of aliens writing about an aspect of Hindu religion, like dabblers like to do.
- And I don't agree with all of the essay by the Japanese author either, but if I had to go over all the points of contention using extracts from elsewhere I'll be here till the cows come mooing home. :pass:
For one thing, there are several people who aren't alive to defend themselves/defend those they knew in person from suppositions made.
Further, while the article acquits Shankara of the invalid "hidden Buddhist" accusation, it does bring to fore more serious problems/suppositions/projections that have been waiting in line, and which will thus now be up front for needing tackling in future. They concern [Advaita] Vedanta, naturally (and its relation with the rest of Hindu religion). They will therefore easily affect self-subversionists among those Hindus of the New-age "Let's Vedanta" kind. (They can not remotely affect the traditional views of traditional Advaitic Hindus, who never separated Vedanta from the Vedas and don't remove the Gods from Hindu religion either.) But alien dabblers in Vedanta are those who find these problems most useful in order to do what many a dabbler usually does: try to cut out Hindu religion piecemeal for "universal" appropriation. (But alien dabbling is a direct product of christoconditioning: were it not for christianism, there would be no alienated hence no dabblers. Christianism generally uses the "piecemeal" approach too to forcibly separate what it can from theistic Hindu religion, but applies the procedure in order to graft those same things onto the inverted-theism of christianism instead - e.g. Yoga, Vedanta, etc.) Anyway, western literature has been cutting deep into the issue for a long time, creating a whole class of problems that will avalanche eventually or else subtly subvert widely, though they are at present usually directed most verbosely and fearsomely at Hellenismos.
+ The essay is reposted here only to show up the invalidity of accusing Adi Shankara of "hidden (or any) Buddhism". Though he didn't "defeat" Buddhism - since that was something Hindus before him had already accomplished - he *was* setting Hindu religion internally in order, particularly the Vedanta aspect and its relation to the rest. His adversaries were therefore mainly internals. E.g. the primary being the late (non-theistic) Samkhyans (Adi Shankara appears to have no issue with the general Samkhyan enumeration or its earlier explications such as in the Gita and the Upanishads). But as part of the process of setting the Hindu religion internally in order, it also required refuting the external stuff/external wrong views on Hindu materials. Which particularly included keeping the Vedantic POV away from any bauddhifications encroaching on it (bauddhification is what seems to be referred to in the Japanese writer's essay as "buddhicisation" or something), something Other Heathens elsewhere had to do in different ways. It's at this point - of considering Buddhism's views where they touch on Upanishadic thought - that Shankara also turned to refute Buddhist misinterpretations of the Vedanta, which essentially means refuting *Buddhism* itself, since Buddhist speculations proceed entirely from Upanishadic precursors (that is, there's no Buddhism without pre-existing Vedic religion, specifically Upanishadic thought). Adi Shankara wasn't the first or only Hindu to do such refutation of external views on Hindu matters for internal/housekeeping purposes, but he was certainly one of those who's rightfully credited with doing this.
The article also indicates that - what it calls "orthodox" - Hindus viewed Buddhist interpretations of Vedic religion (specifically of the Vedanta aspect, since that's the area Buddhism concerned itself with) as mistaken*, and that this necessarily extends to Buddhism's continuing to conveniently misread its own ideas, views and conclusions into the Bhagavad Gita and other mainstream *Hindu* materials: Buddhist views on these materials remain mistaken from the so-called "orthodox" Hindu [rather plain Hindu] POV. And the Hindu POV matters, since the very materials in consideration *are* Hindu and not Buddhist: Buddhism merely seeks self-vindication in such Hindu materials as they form the backdrop and originating train of thought from which Buddhism diverged.
* And in this respect too, Adi Shankara was merely one of a great many precursors and successors, yet "curiously" he keeps getting singled out for it.
+ The article further states in passing (i.e. self-evidentially) what's well-known: that the "popular Hinduism of the masses" - that is, the Piety to the Hindu Gods, which exists in the Vedas itself - naturally preceded the Adi Shankaracharya too. [<- This is generally denied only by opportunistic missionary ideologies like christianism, neo-Buddhisms etc, seeking to divorce the Hindu laity from their ancestral religion and hoping to claim a greater ancientry for their own ideologies.] Obvious. But still, worth observing.
1/4
1. Found some handy and to the point quotes to back up stuff I had merely stated earlier about
- how Adi Shankara can't be accused of Buddhism and
- how the 3 Vedantic views were established before the 3 Vedantic acharyas who famously espoused them again in a later age. (Not that this is surprising: e.g. before any of the 3 Vedantic acharyas, the 3 traditional POVs concerning (a)dvaitam were already part of Vaishnavam, Shaivam and Shaktam.)
Quote:In his [Adi Shankara's] BrahmasUtra BhAShya, after giving the position of the four systems of Buddhist philosophy, inculcating realism, idealism, and nihilism, and after refuting them, he concludes that the TathAgata [Buddha] who indulged in such mutually contradictory teachings must have been either a fool or a knave -- a fool in case he unknowingly preached contradictions or a knave if he preached these purposely to confuse people and send them to their doom.
I.e. Shankara can hardly have been a Buddhist since he thought Buddha [that is, Buddha's teachings which started from considering but then specifically broke away from the Upanishads etc] was unwittingly or deliberately wrong.
Quote:The VedAnta SUtras themselves mention three traditions of VedAnta -- those of Audalomi, Ashmaratya and KAshakR^itsna. ...(Both the above quoteblocks are stolen from a book by a Hindu. I.e. not an alien. <- It matters to me, which is obviously why I mention it.)
Even according to Vedic savants, the Veda can be interpreted from three standpoints -- the Adhibautika, Adhidaivika, and AdhyAtma. Regarding VedAntic traditions also, mention is made of three teachers whose theories of relation between Brahman and JIva are very much like those of the three great AchAryas. Audalomi holds that the soul is different from Brahman in the state of bondage, but becomes one with Him [Brahman] in liberation as the water of a river becomes one with the ocean when it flows into the sea. According to Ashmaratya even in bondage the soul is different and non-different from Brahman, as a ray of light is in relation to the sun. KAshakR^itsna is of the view that Brahman residing in the heart is the controller and the soul is the controlled.
[color="#800080"](Related to stuff in post 162[/color])
2. Also relevant is the following essay by a Japanese author, taken from a book of essays by different - non-Hindu and definitely foreign I think - writers. Fortunately, no scanning's even needed as it's on Googlebooks, providing easy screengrabs. The pages of the essay are put up in the next 3 posts below.
It's from pages 18-29 of: books.google.com/books?id=JugqR3unjB4C
(Note that a direct translation of Shankara's comment described in the first quoteblock of this post is also found on the screengrab of p. 22 in post #184 below)
Disclaimers:
- While the Japanese author doesn't seem offensive, I *don't* recommend the book: e.g. the very next essay is by the insidious inculturating Jesuit Francis Clooney. (Those who don't know who he is, search IF for "clooney".) Clearly Clooney's writing in the book for a reason - christianism - and that renders the entire book suspicious, not to mention that it's mostly by a bunch of aliens writing about an aspect of Hindu religion, like dabblers like to do.
- And I don't agree with all of the essay by the Japanese author either, but if I had to go over all the points of contention using extracts from elsewhere I'll be here till the cows come mooing home. :pass:
For one thing, there are several people who aren't alive to defend themselves/defend those they knew in person from suppositions made.
Further, while the article acquits Shankara of the invalid "hidden Buddhist" accusation, it does bring to fore more serious problems/suppositions/projections that have been waiting in line, and which will thus now be up front for needing tackling in future. They concern [Advaita] Vedanta, naturally (and its relation with the rest of Hindu religion). They will therefore easily affect self-subversionists among those Hindus of the New-age "Let's Vedanta" kind. (They can not remotely affect the traditional views of traditional Advaitic Hindus, who never separated Vedanta from the Vedas and don't remove the Gods from Hindu religion either.) But alien dabblers in Vedanta are those who find these problems most useful in order to do what many a dabbler usually does: try to cut out Hindu religion piecemeal for "universal" appropriation. (But alien dabbling is a direct product of christoconditioning: were it not for christianism, there would be no alienated hence no dabblers. Christianism generally uses the "piecemeal" approach too to forcibly separate what it can from theistic Hindu religion, but applies the procedure in order to graft those same things onto the inverted-theism of christianism instead - e.g. Yoga, Vedanta, etc.) Anyway, western literature has been cutting deep into the issue for a long time, creating a whole class of problems that will avalanche eventually or else subtly subvert widely, though they are at present usually directed most verbosely and fearsomely at Hellenismos.
+ The essay is reposted here only to show up the invalidity of accusing Adi Shankara of "hidden (or any) Buddhism". Though he didn't "defeat" Buddhism - since that was something Hindus before him had already accomplished - he *was* setting Hindu religion internally in order, particularly the Vedanta aspect and its relation to the rest. His adversaries were therefore mainly internals. E.g. the primary being the late (non-theistic) Samkhyans (Adi Shankara appears to have no issue with the general Samkhyan enumeration or its earlier explications such as in the Gita and the Upanishads). But as part of the process of setting the Hindu religion internally in order, it also required refuting the external stuff/external wrong views on Hindu materials. Which particularly included keeping the Vedantic POV away from any bauddhifications encroaching on it (bauddhification is what seems to be referred to in the Japanese writer's essay as "buddhicisation" or something), something Other Heathens elsewhere had to do in different ways. It's at this point - of considering Buddhism's views where they touch on Upanishadic thought - that Shankara also turned to refute Buddhist misinterpretations of the Vedanta, which essentially means refuting *Buddhism* itself, since Buddhist speculations proceed entirely from Upanishadic precursors (that is, there's no Buddhism without pre-existing Vedic religion, specifically Upanishadic thought). Adi Shankara wasn't the first or only Hindu to do such refutation of external views on Hindu matters for internal/housekeeping purposes, but he was certainly one of those who's rightfully credited with doing this.
The article also indicates that - what it calls "orthodox" - Hindus viewed Buddhist interpretations of Vedic religion (specifically of the Vedanta aspect, since that's the area Buddhism concerned itself with) as mistaken*, and that this necessarily extends to Buddhism's continuing to conveniently misread its own ideas, views and conclusions into the Bhagavad Gita and other mainstream *Hindu* materials: Buddhist views on these materials remain mistaken from the so-called "orthodox" Hindu [rather plain Hindu] POV. And the Hindu POV matters, since the very materials in consideration *are* Hindu and not Buddhist: Buddhism merely seeks self-vindication in such Hindu materials as they form the backdrop and originating train of thought from which Buddhism diverged.
* And in this respect too, Adi Shankara was merely one of a great many precursors and successors, yet "curiously" he keeps getting singled out for it.
+ The article further states in passing (i.e. self-evidentially) what's well-known: that the "popular Hinduism of the masses" - that is, the Piety to the Hindu Gods, which exists in the Vedas itself - naturally preceded the Adi Shankaracharya too. [<- This is generally denied only by opportunistic missionary ideologies like christianism, neo-Buddhisms etc, seeking to divorce the Hindu laity from their ancestral religion and hoping to claim a greater ancientry for their own ideologies.] Obvious. But still, worth observing.