[Y-Indology] On Mr. Malaiya's comments

[Guest guest]

>While one might agree that Sanskrit was used by Buddhist scholar-

monks >for their works -- as a lingua franca among scholars perhaps --

what >evidence is there that they "preached" to the masses in

Sanskrit ?

 

I think Sanskrit was confined mainly to the philosophical sphere

where the targeted audience, apart from the Buddhists themselves,

were either Brahmins or Jainaas. Also considering that many of the

great Bauddha aachaaryaas were originally Brahmins themselves (maybe

mainly Naiyaayikaas), they were simply continuing their traditional

enterprise with the tools they were familiar with.

 

>One also is in danger of getting a slanted impression of early

>medieval Buddhism when relying solely on literature –

 

Though this is true, still it is to be realized that such literature

is our only source on the subject.

 

>thus, other rs have claimed, wrongly in may view, that

>Buddhism was primarily a monastic religion. It depends what is meant

>by "monastic" -- is the emphasis on monks or their place of

residence. >If the latter, then one should not forget the importance

of the >forest-dwelling tradition which continued alongside the

settled way of >life in monasteries.

 

In contrast to the early Vedic model of renunciation which was not

really organized and where the samnyaasins would just "wander",

Buddhism has always been more organized. Though we do find the Buddha

supporting the Vedic ideal in some of his dialogues, which he himself

practiced prior to his enlightenment, still it is to be noted that

even during his time the concept of monasteries where monks/bhikshus

would stay and practice the dharma had been established. In fact the

middle way which seeks to avoid the extreme of physical tribulation

would consider the trials of a life of a wandering mendicant as

unnecessary.

 

>Though Buddhism was probably less influential by the time of

Shankara,

 

Actually popular accounts of Shankara consider that Buddhism was

actually "ruling the roost" when Shankara appeared. But as is to be

expected the "reigning champion" was under severe attack – from the

Miimaamsakas and the Naiyaayikas. Shankara merely added to the

assault.

 

>Who are these "sanyasis" ? It is not a term encountered in Buddhist

>literature.

 

Samnyaasin is the brahmanical term for a wandering mendicant –

concept wise the same thing as a bhikshu - and without doubt the

latter was modeled on the former.

 

Actually the very use of the word "bhikshu" instead of samnyaasin

might signify affiliation to the Bauddha sangha – implying an

attachment to a monastery/organization instead of the

traditional "freelance wanderer".

 

On a related note : what were Jainaa ascetics traditionally called?

 

>As they say, the victors write history. For an interesting,

>alternative, Buddhist view of Shankara's activities, see for example

>pp224-235 of Taranatha's History of Buddhism in India

 

But you've to carefully distinguish between Indian Buddhism and

Buddhism exported to other lands. Taranaatha is a Tibetean as is

Buuston. He cannot be expected to have a realistic idea of what was

going on in India – and that too Southern India to which both

Dharmakirti and Shankara belonged. Also Indological opinion considers

Dharmakirti to predate Shankara by at least a century or two.

 

But historically Taranaatha's claim is false because while Buddhism

is no more, Advaita is unrivalled for its spiritual/philosophical

influence in India even today.