Sankaracharya and his confrontation of Buddhist philosophy

[stefos]

UPDATE:

Due to the wrong perspective conveyed from my original posting, phrasing has been changed

 

Hi everyone,

 

I heard some time ago about Sankara having a large hand in getting Buddhism out of India.

 

I bought many copies of the Brahma sutras with the commentary of Sankaracharya.

 

Interesting to find out, he essentially "defeated" the philosophy of the Buddhist schools of his day:

Vijnanavadins, Sautrantikas, Yogacharas and Madhyamikas.

 

The Theravada school is not even mentioned nor is Dzogchen or Mahamudra which is

very interesting....I wonder why. Could it be that Mahamudra is based on Madhyamika?

I do not believe that Dzogchen is.

 

What are YOUR comments regarding Sankara and his refutation of these Buddhist schools of thought?

 

Stefos

 

P.S. I understand that Sankara acknowledged Sunya but he said "there is more beyond that" essentially which is why he refuted the Buddhist schools he did.

Interestingly, both Dzogchen and Mahamudra speak of the "nature of mind" as opposed to the mind itself. To me, this is non other than Sat-Chit-Anand.

Edited December 11, 2014 by stefos

[3bob]

choose one cake and eat it...

[stefos]

choose one cake and eat it...

 

I assume you mean: Run with Dzogchen/Mahamudra or Advaita Vedanta

 

Yes, you're right......however an open minded & intelligent person would consider differing viewpoints

other than his or her own....as in the case of Sankaracharya here.

 

Btw, the above sentence was not meant as a "dig" on your person.

 

I don't like attacking people but I will healthily debate a position.

 

Have a great weekend!

Stefos

[3bob]

I've played the correlation game a lot in the past and a little now and then, yet after one considers differing viewpoints a cake still must be chosen and eaten otherwise one is just wandering around window shopping. (which has definite limits!)

 

Btw, I think that "Enlightened Buddhists" or "Self Realized Hindu" people debating this or that is worlds different from starting students parroting such debates as if they were based on their own state of being. Anyway, and basically since Hinduism is Vedic based and Buddhism is not its futile to try and make them sound the same, thus the Lama's stick to their schools and the Sat Gurus stick to theirs and never or very seldom do such people get together on the weekends to compare notes except or perhaps in regards to dealing with worldly or humane type issues that all people have in common.

[forestofclarity]

There's an old story about a rich father who's house was on fire. His children were so caught up in their games that they didn't notice and wouldn't leave the house. So the father told them there were amazing carriages outside: to one, he said it was a goat drawn carriage, to another, a deer drawn carriage, and to the third, a horse drawn carriage. The children became so excited they ran outside to see the carriages.

 

So who's lie is the best? The one that gets you out of the burning house.

[stefos]

There's an old story about a rich father who's house was on fire. His children were so caught up in their games that they didn't notice and wouldn't leave the house. So the father told them there were amazing carriages outside: to one, he said it was a goat drawn carriage, to another, a deer drawn carriage, and to the third, a horse drawn carriage. The children became so excited they ran outside to see the carriages.

 

So who's lie is the best? The one that gets you out of the burning house.

 

Hi forestofemptiness,

 

Thanks for sharing.

 

You do have an obvious point however:

 

The issue here is that Shankaracharya nixed the 4 schools I've mentioned which constitutes every form of known Buddhism today except Theravada & Dzogchen and perhaps Mahamudra If it's based on Madhyamika thought then I stand corrected.

 

Furthermore, Of the 18-24 ancient Buddhist schools none exist except a modified school which today is called Theravada.

The rest have died out.

 

A big part of me is VERY leery about what is touted as Buddhist, as none of the ancient schools exist.

Only syncretistic expressions exist.

The pali "canon" being compiled around the 1st centure A.D./C.E.

 

Stefos

Edited November 13, 2014 by stefos

[dwai]

During the times of Adi Shankaracharya, the intellectual atmosphere in India was that of debate and discussions. And teachers would have to grow their following by publicly debating and defeating others (sometimes a series of debates). They had to first learn the opponents positions in great detail and then formulate their counter arguments.

 

Shankara led the way in assuring that Advaita Vedanta (or the Non-dualist interpretation of Vedanta) came to the forefront of the Indic spiritual and intellectual spectrum in those times.

 

A lot of his arguments were very cogent and I suspect led the Buddhist camps to refine their theories and teachings as well (to bridge the logic gaps that Shankara exposed).

 

Advaita Vedanta interpretations too have developed and improved because of their contact and interactions with Samkhya, Jaina and Buddhist philosophical frameworks.

 

These "fights" should be viewed as intellectual and academic (to a certain degree) interactions and usually their result was favorable for all parties involved, because honest and sincere introspection leads to both acknowledgement of flaws and fallacies, as well as course corrections and adjustments.

[stefos]

Hi Dwai,

 

Pranams to you sir! MORE!!!!

 

The Apostle Paul---- "Bless rather, Bless and do not curse"

 

Stefos

Edited November 13, 2014 by stefos

[Simple_Jack]

From the textbook of Dr. Upinder Singh (daughter of prime minister and noted historian):

 

"The earliest formal exposition of Advaita or non-dualistic Vedanta was put forward by Gaudapada in the 7th or 8th century in his Mandukyakarika, a verse commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad. Gaudapada was influenced by Madhyamika and Vijnanavada Buddhism."

 

Also the Mandukya Upanishad itself was influenced by Mahayana:

 

Hajime Nakamura, Trevor Leggett. A History of Early Vedānta Philosophy, Part 2. Reprint by Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 2004 page 284-6

 

"As was pointed out in detail in the section titled Interpretation, many particular Buddhist terms or uniquely Buddhist modes of expression may be found in it."

 

"From the fact that many Buddhist terms are found in its explanation, it is clear that this view was established under the influence of the Mahayana Buddhist concept of Void."

 

"Although Buddhistic influence can be seen in the Maitri-Upanishad, the particular terms and modes of expression of Mahayana Buddhism do not yet appear, whereas the influence of the Mahayana concept of Void can clearly be recognized in the Mandukya-Upanisad."

 

"Although Mahayana Buddhism strongly influenced this Upanisad, neither the mode of exposition of the Madhyamika school nor the characteristic terminology of the Vijnanavada school appears."

 

If you want to see the verbatim verses Gaudapada took from Madhyamaka, you can click:

 

http://books.google....whether&f=false

 

Shankara did not understand Buddhism, or purposely misrepresented Buddhism as he did the other Indian philosophies. This is mentioned in many academic books on Shankara. This also indicates that Shankara never defeated Buddhists.

 

~RongzomFan

[3bob]

Mods, might as well move this string to the pit along where the other example of it landed... btw, I earlier submitted that it should be in the Hindu sub-forum but since certain Buddhists are in attack mode here the string has proven futile, negative and destructive for both the Buddhist and Hindu sub-forums.

Edited December 3, 2014 by 3bob

[doc benway]

During the times of Adi Shankaracharya, the intellectual atmosphere in India was that of debate and discussions. And teachers would have to grow their following by publicly debating and defeating others (sometimes a series of debates). They had to first learn the opponents positions in great detail and then formulate their counter arguments.

 

Shankara led the way in assuring that Advaita Vedanta (or the Non-dualist interpretation of Vedanta) came to the forefront of the Indic spiritual and intellectual spectrum in those times.

 

A lot of his arguments were very cogent and I suspect led the Buddhist camps to refine their theories and teachings as well (to bridge the logic gaps that Shankara exposed).

 

Advaita Vedanta interpretations too have developed and improved because of their contact and interactions with Samkhya, Jaina and Buddhist philosophical frameworks.

 

These "fights" should be viewed as intellectual and academic (to a certain degree) interactions and usually their result was favorable for all parties involved, because honest and sincere introspection leads to both acknowledgement of flaws and fallacies, as well as course corrections and adjustments.

 

Quoted in the hope that discussion and debate in these forums could someday exemplify the ideal dwai is pointing out.

_/\_

[amoyaan]

Shankara did not understand Buddhism, or purposely misrepresented Buddhism as he did the other Indian philosophies. This is mentioned in many academic books on Shankara. This also indicates that Shankara never defeated Buddhists.

 

~RongzomFan

 

Well, if Shankara did misunderstand or misrepresent Buddhism, you'd think the Buddhists he was debating would have been quick to point that out. Either way, they failed. Also, even if something is printed in an academic book this doesn't automatically mean that it's anything other than conjecture.

[amoyaan]

Quoted in the hope that discussion and debate in these forums could someday exemplify the ideal dwai is pointing out.

_/\_

 

Yes! Dwai expressed it perfectly. The spirit of these debates was very much based on a love of and respect for knowledge, rather than systems or traditions. That should be the spirit of all such discussion

[stefos]

Hi everyone,

 

The point for me originally posting was not stated in the best of terms.

 

I should have, in hindsight, reworded certain things to make it more understandable & cogent to my

perception at the time of writing.

 

This is my fault alone and I own it.

 

Please forgive me everyone whom I've offended..........It truly was not meant as such.

 

My posts are generally done in the mode of investigation & understanding, not being critical, which anyone can be & do.

 

Thank you!

Stefos

 

UPDATE:

My original post has been changed to convey my proper intent.

Edited December 11, 2014 by stefos

[3bob]

ok man.

[stefos]

ok man.

 

3bob,

 

Thank you!

 

Forgiving and forbearing are NOT easy things but they can be.

Stefos

[forestofclarity]

I've done some further study in Advaita and can say that Shankara did not, in fact, refute Buddhism. According to Michael Comans, by Shankara's time, Buddhism was pretty much on it's way out. Shankara was more determined to refute the Mimamsa school which was dominate in his day. So it makes sense that Shankara's view of Buddhism was partial and limited at best given the lack of available Buddhists to set forth their position. And that also explains why no Buddhists pointed out Shankara's shortcomings. 

 

Looking back to Gaudapada, it appears he had a lot in common with the Buddhists of his day, at least as their critiques apply to the world of things. And it also appears that Gaudapada agreed in large part with the Buddhists, although there are crucial disagreements. 

 

The Dayananda school describes Anvaya and Vyatireka like this:

When this arises, that arises. When this does not arise, that does not arise. 

 

This sounds familiar to the Buddhists, and in fact this is one way the Buddha describes dependent origination in the Suttas. But where Buddhists use this to establish thoroughgoing interdependence, Advaitins use it to establish dependence on awareness. However, for the Advaitin, awareness illuminates objects, but is actually an object itself. 

[dwai]

I've done some further study in Advaita and can say that Shankara did not, in fact, refute Buddhism. According to Michael Comans, by Shankara's time, Buddhism was pretty much on it's way out. Shankara was more determined to refute the Mimamsa school which was dominate in his day. So it makes sense that Shankara's view of Buddhism was partial and limited at best given the lack of available Buddhists to set forth their position. And that also explains why no Buddhists pointed out Shankara's shortcomings. 

 

Looking back to Gaudapada, it appears he had a lot in common with the Buddhists of his day, at least as their critiques apply to the world of things. And it also appears that Gaudapada agreed in large part with the Buddhists, although there are crucial disagreements. 

 

The Dayananda school describes Anvaya and Vyatireka like this:

 

When this arises, that arises. When this does not arise, that does not arise. 

 

This sounds familiar to the Buddhists, and in fact this is one way the Buddha describes dependent origination in the Suttas. But where Buddhists use this to establish thoroughgoing interdependence, Advaitins use it to establish dependence on awareness. However, for the Advaitin, awareness illuminates objects, but is actually an object itself. 

Shankaracharya only refuted sautrantika positions. 

 

http://www.kamakotimandali.com/blog/index.php?p=540&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

[Jadespear]

Do not all flows of thought color how we apprehend or understand what is?...how we label, that which is truely without a label...

 

And does this coloring of our awareness, not leave a shadow in its wake of what is not or what could have been, or what remains?

 

0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-0............

 

Everything that has been created, has come into being through the labor and workings of the elements....

[RigdzinTrinley]

UPDATE:

Due to the wrong perspective conveyed from my original posting, phrasing has been changed

 

Hi everyone,

 

I heard some time ago about Sankara having a large hand in getting Buddhism out of India.

 

I bought many copies of the Brahma sutras with the commentary of Sankaracharya.

 

Interesting to find out, he essentially "defeated" the philosophy of the Buddhist schools of his day:

Vijnanavadins, Sautrantikas, Yogacharas and Madhyamikas.

 

The Theravada school is not even mentioned nor is Dzogchen or Mahamudra which is

very interesting....I wonder why. Could it be that Mahamudra is based on Madhyamika?

I do not believe that Dzogchen is.

 

What are YOUR comments regarding Sankara and his refutation of these Buddhist schools of thought?

 

Stefos

 

P.S. I understand that Sankara acknowledged Sunya but he said "there is more beyond that" essentially which is why he refuted the Buddhist schools he did.

Interestingly, both Dzogchen and Mahamudra speak of the "nature of mind" as opposed to the mind itself. To me, this is non other than Sat-Chit-Anand.

Atisha said that except him and one of his Indian Masters no one in the budhdist world could tell the difference between the modern non buddhist schools and the buddhist schools anymore

 

that was a loooooong time ago and atisha probably would outshine all of the modern day masters and of course us in terms of his practice and learning

 

dzongsar khyentse rinpoche also said during a teaching that to tell the exact difference between hindu and buddhist doctrines (concerning the view of the ultimate) is almost impossible after shankaracharyas time

 

so I will keep simply quiet and bow down either way and follow my tradition

 

 

I do dare to answer the quesitona bout the relationship between Mahamudra,Dzogchen and Madhyamika

 

Mahamudra is divided into two section - Sutra Mahamudra and Tantra Mahamudra, Sutra Mahamudra is basically the "how to do" Madhyamika on the cusion

 

Tantra Mahamudra is a little more radical then that

 

Dzogchen and Madhyamika have a little different relationship yes, but not soooooo different either

 

Rangdzom and partly Longchenpa would draw a strong line between madhyamika and Dzogchen

 

Mipham Rinpoche (who has the most followers among the Scholar Yogis of Dzogchen these days) changed the game a bit:

 

basically his point is if you don't get Madhyamika forget about understanding Tantra or Dzogchen, they might be higher in their view or not - the techniques are faster and more advanced for sure but without grounding in the Madhyamika view one probably goes wrong or if not that has real good karma/faculties/faith

 

why? the term Emptiness in the following list is always the meaning of Great Madhyamika (what that means I say shortly)

 

the union of appearance/emptiness (Madyamika)

the union of clarity/emptiness (Maha Yoga)

the union of bliss/emptiness (Anu Yoga)

the union of pristine awareness/emptiness (Ati Yoga) pristine awareness meaning rigpa (kind of)

 

so all the emptiness aspect of those unions up there is the meaing of Maha Madhyamika - miphams point is, and rightly so, if you dont get the union of appearance/emptiness how could you possibly fully grasp Rigpa? and what rigpa means and is..

 

Maha Madhyamika means roughly (and this mainly a Nyigma presentation) that there are two levels of ultimate truth:

one is the nominal Ultimate and one is the well.... not nominal ultimate (the ultimate ultimate )

 

the nominal ultimate is what you arrive at when you do analytical meditation into the nature of self of the person and phenomena - its not yet the real emptiness of persons and phenomena - its still part of mind

 

by the way mind and nature of mind is more the sutric speak - in dzogchen speak you talk more about conciousness with aspects (rnam she) and nowness awareness (ye she) or the difference between the alaya and dharmakaya etc (why they have so many terms and classifications for basically the same thing is a mystery to me - but maybe you enjoy that stuff as much as I do?)

 

Ok back to...

the not nominal ultimate is only the object of meditation of an arya being (first Bhumi Bodhisattva) but for now getting a good grasp of the nominal ultimate is good enough to start doing tantric practice or dzogchen practice

 

so modern scholar yogis of the Dzogchen lineage are in accord with mipham (the ones I know at least)

and always seem to make the point that it is important to study madhyamika before entering the tantric arena...

 

 

 

modern Yogis are in accord with ancient Yogis

 

means - "direct introduction" and let them find out what just has happened there

 

hope that made sense

Edited October 14, 2015 by RigdzinTrinley

[Jeff]

I am one who enjoys this stuff as much as you do. I found your above analysis both interesting and informative. Would you mind sharing which of the relative approaches you personally focus on and why you chose it compared to the others?

 

Also, do you see them all leading to the same "place" (realization)?

 

 

Thanks,

Jeff

Edited October 14, 2015 by Jeff

[RigdzinTrinley]

Hey Jeff,

 

Yes I love this stuff too - so much that I forget to practice the meaning

 

I would say that my connection to a certain kind of lineage of transmission of teachings are karma - that's it

 

I didn't really choose that lineage - I seem to bumb into lamas from a certain region who have a certain way of teaching dharma - many have the same root gurus even

 

I also met westerners here in India that have those same connections - Its like a karmic family

 

Regarding practice and what I practice or what I focus my studies on - that's mostly in my lamas hands

 

Basically there is something called yang dagpai tawa or the utterly pure view

 

That's what its about - to get that view

 

Then meditation is possible and will really transform the mindstream

 

I would say what my teachers try to make me understand is that essential view and that view is the same for different traditions or lineages of transmission (I think) - why dzogchen? I feel I have strong karma with this lineage and the other way around, I just go with that

[Jeff]

If you don't mind my asking with your utterly pure view, do you feel (sense) things like chakras and energy?

 

 

Thanks again.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Jeff

[RigdzinTrinley]

The utterly pure view is the union of appearance/emptiness

 

Appearance meaning dependently originated phenomena

 

Emptiness is the absence of a "core" you could say - their openness or space like nature

 

That everything arises like a dream or illusion without "substance"

 

Chackras are dream

 

Energies are dream

[Jeff]

The utterly pure view is the union of appearance/emptiness

Appearance meaning dependently originated phenomena

Emptiness is the absence of a "core" you could say - their openness or space like nature

That everything arises like a dream or illusion without "substance"

Chackras are dream

Energies are dream

 

Thanks for sharing.

 

Does not the Heart sutra say that Form = Emptiness and also Emptiness = Form? Is not "everything arises like a dream or illusion" only he first part of the Heart sutra? Don't buy into the concept of the three primordial wisdoms: essence, nature, and energy?