Buddha and Sankara

[Guest guest]

All,

I will be interested in knowing more about the similarities and

otherwise between Buddha's discourses and Sankara's, the two giant

Theologians of India.

I have heard it said that Sankara was referred to, by his adversaries,

as "Prachanna Buddha", 'The Pretender as Buddha'(?).

Does any one have any input to this? Any one aware of any text that

compares Buddha to Sankara?

Thanks and Regards,

Ram

[Guest guest]

> I will be interested in knowing more about the similarities and

> otherwise between Buddha's discourses and Sankara's, the two giant

> Theologians of India.

> I have heard it said that Sankara was referred to, by his

>adversaries, as "Prachanna Buddha", 'The Pretender as Buddha'(?).

 

Both Sankara and Buddha believed in confusion of the Self and non-

Self. The original buddhistic teachings dont reject Atman. They

simply refuse to define it in a positive way. It is later Buddhism

which rejects Atman.

 

The non-Self is impermanent in both Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta and

has to be rejected. After such rejection the state achieved is

brahman according to Sankara and nirvANa according to Buddha.

However, apart from the rejection, Sankara requires one to have the

knowledge of identity with brahman, for liberation. (Here buddhism

appears to have a lot more in common with sAmkhya.)

 

Buddhism & Advaita Vedanta (and even the Brhadaaranyaka and Mandukya)

give a negative description for nirvANa/brahman. In Buddhism,

positive definitions are never mentioned. In advaita and the

upanishads, the negative descriptions are superior to the positive

ones.

 

There is no supreme Lord in buddhism. In advaita and the mANDUkya,

the supreme Lord is an illusion, but still has a practical utility.

In that sense while buddhism is non-theistic, advaita accommodates

both theism and non-theism.

 

There are many other similarities, but these similarities are with

the mahAyAna buddhism which was not originally taught by the Buddha.

 

As an aside, only Sankara's vivarta vAda and Gaudapada's ajAti vAda

can withstand the intense attack of Nagarjuna on causation and self-

nature. Other theories like pariNAma vAda and asat-kArya-vAda are

hopeless. Gaudapada has probably taken some time to go through the

works of Nagarjuna. The result being that among the vedAntic schools,

only advaita can withstand a sustained buddhistic attack. The other

schools of vedanta would be forced to give up their concept of

svabhAva.

 

Most scholars now believe that Gaudapada used buddhistic reasoning,

only as a means to establish the tenets of vedanta and not to bring

buddhism into vedanta. So accusing him of buddhism has not much basis.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "narayana_kl_71"

<narayana_kl_71> wrote:

> > I will be interested in knowing more about the similarities and

> > otherwise between Buddha's discourses and Sankara's, the two giant

> > Theologians of India.

> > I have heard it said that Sankara was referred to, by his

> >adversaries, as "Prachanna Buddha", 'The Pretender as Buddha'(?).

>

> Both Sankara and Buddha believed in confusion of the Self and non-

> Self. The original buddhistic teachings dont reject Atman. They

> simply refuse to define it in a positive way. It is later Buddhism

> which rejects Atman.

>

> Most scholars now believe that Gaudapada used buddhistic reasoning,

> only as a means to establish the tenets of vedanta and not to bring

> buddhism into vedanta. So accusing him of buddhism has not much

basis.

 

Namaste,

 

It is of interest to note that Prof. R.D.Ranade, in his

book - Vedanta -The Culmination of Indian Thought, [1st ed. 1970,

Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, p. 43] wrote:

 

"............But instead of Gaudapada being a Pracchanna Buddha,

Nagarjuna may be regarded as a Pracchanna Advaitin..............." !!

 

Later on he goes on to say ".....Thus the philosophical atmosphere of

the time may be given the credit of giving rise to the great

philosophical systems like those of Nagarjuna and

Gaudapada............Gaudapada adopts the same terminology and the

same method of argumentation as the Buddhists and erects his

absolutistic philosophy thereon................."

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder