[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Sankara's Arguments against the Buddhists
--------------------------------------------
Journal: Philosophy East and West
Vol. 3, no.4, January 1954, pp.291-306
Author: D.H.H. Ingalls
Paper title: Sankara's arguments against the Buddhists
Much has been said on the relation of Sankaracarya to the Buddhists, and the
views which are current on this topic differ as much as black differs from
white. The more enthusiastic of Sankara's followers claim that he is chiefly
responsible for driving the buddhists out of India. Their sectarian opponents,
on the other hand, have claimed that far from opposing Buddhism, Sankara
secretly accepted its doctrines and introduced as many of them as he could into
the Vedanta tradition. Scholars outside India have also been far from agreement
in their opinions, for some have emphasised the practical element of Sankara's
doctrine, which is opposed to Buddhism, while others, by emphasising the
idealistic and acosmic elements, have reduced the differences to a minimum.
In Japan, where the Buddhist teachers of the past are held in great respect,
scholars have followed still a different path, arguing that Sankara failed to
understand Buddhism, whatever his attitude to it may have been.
:
:
:
It becomes clear from a comparison of Sankara and Bhaskara that the major part
of Sankara's commentary on the Brahma-sutra is not original with Sankara,
but is repeated from what commentators had written in the past. What we have in
the Brahma-sutra-bhasya is the accumulated philosophy of a millenium....Now to
determine Sankara's exact attitude toward Buddhism, it is essential that we
attempt to disentangle what is original with Sankara and what is not. Let me
point out briefly the means at our proposal.
:
:
:
[about 15 pages later]
The immediate and unmistakable concern of the Upanishads is with the one
principle of life. The approach is sometimes realistic, sometimes idealistic,
sometimes enlightened, and sometimes on the basis of ritual and magic. But the
one principle is the same...we are told that it is bliss,one without a second...
Throughout the words of the Buddha, on the other hand, there runs with equal
persistence the theme of misery of the world. The world is essentially multiple,
and the hope for unhappy mankind is that if the dharmas(elements of existence)
come into being they likewise cease to exist. The Upanishadic tradition is
essentially aristocratic and priestly. The Buddhist tradition, on the other hand
is one of revolt.
:
:
:
...On these accounts, Sankara's arguments against the Buddhists, both those
which he repeats from the past and those which he originates, seem to me not
pointless but deeply significant and worthy of study.
-----------------------end of paper---------------
Sankara describes that there were three(yep-three!) schools of Buddhism.
1) Believing in the existence of everything: Sarvastitva
2) Believing that there exist only ideas : vijnana....(something)
3) Believing in nothing-ness : sunyavada
In his commentary on the Brahma-sutra, Sankara says,"The Buddha exposed for the
sake of instruction, three mutually contradictory doctrines, either having
manifested thus his own incoherent garrulity or his enmity towards all living
beings, having erroneously assumed that they would be confused."
Sankara also says," Actually, having noticed the attraction of some of his
disciples towards external objects and having taken it into account,[the Buddha]
proclaimed the teaching about [the existence] of external objects. [But] this
is not the opinion of Buddha [himself]."
Sankara's opinion of Buddha seems to be---
1) Buddha hated the jivas. OR
2) Buddha was incoherent in his understanding. OR
3) Buddha taught according to what he saw his disciples needs to be.
If the only thing that Sankara knew about Buddha was from his teachings, why
say something like "Buddha taught such-and-such...but that's not his opinion."??
How could Sankara ever know what Buddha's real opinion was?
I also read the Karika by Gaudapada, the Guru of Sankara's Guru, Govindapada.
In it, there is only one reference to Buddha, in the 99th Stanza(though he does
talk about Buddhism in other stanzas)-----
Translated as," The knowledge of the wise man, who is all-pervasive,
does not extend to external objects; all the souls, also, like knowledge(do not
reach out to objects). This is not the view of Buddha."
I then saw the sanskrit verse-
Kramate na hi Buddhasya, Jnana Dharmashu Tayinah |
Sarve Dharmastatajnanam, naitat Buddhena bhasitam ||
I would have translated it as," The knowledge of the Buddha who is
all-pervasive does not extend to objects; all the souls , also, like knowledge
( do not reach out to objects ). This is not in the teachings of Buddha."
The hundredth stanza goes,"...we salute this knowledge to the best of our
ability."
So what was Sankara's views on the Buddha ?????
-Kartik
