About a few things that caught my eye in the stuff Ramana pasted in the previous post.
Post 1/2
1. First on this:
Vivekaananda may have said that, but the following is what Adi Shankara himself said (and all translations I've seen make the same point). People can make up their own mind how correct or representative is Vivekananda's opinion that Shankara showed that Buddhism and Vedanta are essentially the same/not different.
Note that Shankara is particularly critiquing the teachings of the Buddha* - "the master" - on this VERY topic (i.e. the Vedanta), not merely critiquing the opinions of non-comprehending "disciples". While it's true Buddha's teachings are merely things that are attributed to the Buddha, but the particular attributions are his primary teachings that were and remain generally accepted by Buddhists as being of the [Shakyamuni] Buddha.
I'm copying and pasting from post 182 of this thread, where the matter of Shankara [and genuine, pre-Buddhist Vedanta in general] vis-a-vis Buddha was already brought up:
Another translation of the same is pasted in post 184, in an article - rather relevant to this very topic - on how similar (or rather, not) Shankara's Advaitam is to Buddhism, and more generally: on how dissimilar the original, untampered, pre-Buddhist Advaitam and Vedanta is to Buddhism.
I.e. Shankara - in his own words - says that the Buddha was simple wrong, even though Shankara can't determine whether Buddha was wrong with malice-aforethought or merely self-deluded in his error. But Shankara ends with (as in the 2nd translation provided) "Buddha's doctrine has to be disregarded by all those who have a regard for their own happiness."
In fact, in the second column of the screengrab of the article pasted in post 184, Shankara in the bhAShya to the mANDukyopaniShat even takes on the assumption that Buddhism was similar to Shankara' guru's explication of Advaita:
(For now disregarding the awkward English wording for Hindu concepts that are more familiar to us in our own tongues.) The difference may seem subtle, but it is all-important to Hindus (and Buddhists too), although new-agey Hindus are unable to differentiate, see the example pasted in post 155, containing also a summary relaying Shankara's view in blue.
Shankara merely reverted the state of Vedanta - the perception thereof - to the original pre-Buddhist (to be more specific, pre-Bauddhific tampering) kind.
In fact, the entire article pasted in 183-185 - with provisos and warnings - is useful for Hindus and Buddhists, to rebut the current assumption that Buddhism is similar in essence to Vedanta or its Advaitic kind, and the silly accusation that Adi Shankara was a Buddhist or was Bauddhifiying Vedanta (actually, as Hindus explain and non-native scholars are forced to admit, Shankara de-bauddhified Vedanta by removing the gradual Buddhist interference/bauddhification in it that had deliberately been crept in/insinuated into it).
Yes, Buddhism did their darn best to try to Bauddhify Vedanta, but No, Hindus did not roll over and at least the Adi Shankaracharya was successful in rolling back the Bauddhification (aka subversion) of Hindus' Vedanta. Let's make this clear: learned Hindus both ancient and modern regard Buddhism (etc) as a subversion* of Hindus' pre-existing religion and views, and Buddhism's attempts to Bauddhify the Vedanta is seen quite in that same light, although this happened at a more "subtle" level than the clearer forms of inculturation that Buddhism et al perpetrated. (* This appears to be why Buddhists, Jains et al were denoted as Pashandas and other such terms by Hindus. <- Which moreover shows that Hindus clearly recognised these nouveau religions were historical spin-off religions from Hindus' own religion, once more underlining the chronological order of "Hinduism" vis-a-vis the later Indian religions.)
Post 1/2
1. First on this:
Quote:6. Quoting Swami Vivekananda: "[...] Sankara came and showed that the real essence of Buddhism and that of Vedanta are not very different but that the disciples did not understand the master and have degraded themselves, denied the existence of soul and one God and have become atheists. That was what Sankara showed and all the Buddhists began to come back to their old religionââ¬Â.
Vivekaananda may have said that, but the following is what Adi Shankara himself said (and all translations I've seen make the same point). People can make up their own mind how correct or representative is Vivekananda's opinion that Shankara showed that Buddhism and Vedanta are essentially the same/not different.
Note that Shankara is particularly critiquing the teachings of the Buddha* - "the master" - on this VERY topic (i.e. the Vedanta), not merely critiquing the opinions of non-comprehending "disciples". While it's true Buddha's teachings are merely things that are attributed to the Buddha, but the particular attributions are his primary teachings that were and remain generally accepted by Buddhists as being of the [Shakyamuni] Buddha.
I'm copying and pasting from post 182 of this thread, where the matter of Shankara [and genuine, pre-Buddhist Vedanta in general] vis-a-vis Buddha was already brought up:
Quote:In his [color="#800080"][Adi Shankara's][/color] 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 [color="#800080"][Buddha][/color] 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.
Another translation of the same is pasted in post 184, in an article - rather relevant to this very topic - on how similar (or rather, not) Shankara's Advaitam is to Buddhism, and more generally: on how dissimilar the original, untampered, pre-Buddhist Advaitam and Vedanta is to Buddhism.
I.e. Shankara - in his own words - says that the Buddha was simple wrong, even though Shankara can't determine whether Buddha was wrong with malice-aforethought or merely self-deluded in his error. But Shankara ends with (as in the 2nd translation provided) "Buddha's doctrine has to be disregarded by all those who have a regard for their own happiness."
In fact, in the second column of the screengrab of the article pasted in post 184, Shankara in the bhAShya to the mANDukyopaniShat even takes on the assumption that Buddhism was similar to Shankara' guru's explication of Advaita:
Quote:"[This] knowledge regarding the Ultimate Reality, non-dual and characterised by the absence of the difference of knowledge, object of knowledge, and knower, <<is not the same as that declared by the Buddha>>. [The view of the Buddha,] which rejects the extistence of external objects and asserts the existence of consciousness alone, is said to be similar to or very near the truth of non-dual Aatman. But this knowledge of the non-dual which is the Ultimate Reality can be attained through Vedaanta alone."
(For now disregarding the awkward English wording for Hindu concepts that are more familiar to us in our own tongues.) The difference may seem subtle, but it is all-important to Hindus (and Buddhists too), although new-agey Hindus are unable to differentiate, see the example pasted in post 155, containing also a summary relaying Shankara's view in blue.
Shankara merely reverted the state of Vedanta - the perception thereof - to the original pre-Buddhist (to be more specific, pre-Bauddhific tampering) kind.
In fact, the entire article pasted in 183-185 - with provisos and warnings - is useful for Hindus and Buddhists, to rebut the current assumption that Buddhism is similar in essence to Vedanta or its Advaitic kind, and the silly accusation that Adi Shankara was a Buddhist or was Bauddhifiying Vedanta (actually, as Hindus explain and non-native scholars are forced to admit, Shankara de-bauddhified Vedanta by removing the gradual Buddhist interference/bauddhification in it that had deliberately been crept in/insinuated into it).
Yes, Buddhism did their darn best to try to Bauddhify Vedanta, but No, Hindus did not roll over and at least the Adi Shankaracharya was successful in rolling back the Bauddhification (aka subversion) of Hindus' Vedanta. Let's make this clear: learned Hindus both ancient and modern regard Buddhism (etc) as a subversion* of Hindus' pre-existing religion and views, and Buddhism's attempts to Bauddhify the Vedanta is seen quite in that same light, although this happened at a more "subtle" level than the clearer forms of inculturation that Buddhism et al perpetrated. (* This appears to be why Buddhists, Jains et al were denoted as Pashandas and other such terms by Hindus. <- Which moreover shows that Hindus clearly recognised these nouveau religions were historical spin-off religions from Hindus' own religion, once more underlining the chronological order of "Hinduism" vis-a-vis the later Indian religions.)