Shankara: A Hindu Revivalist or a Crypto-Buddhist?

71 Pages·2017·0.49 MB·English

GGeeoorrggiiaa SSttaattee UUnniivveerrssiittyy
SScchhoollaarrWWoorrkkss @@ GGeeoorrggiiaa SSttaattee UUnniivveerrssiittyy
Religious Studies Theses Department of Religious Studies
12-4-2006
SShhaannkkaarraa:: AA HHiinndduu RReevviivvaalliisstt oorr aa CCrryyppttoo--BBuuddddhhiisstt??
Kencho Tenzin
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/rs_theses
Part of the Religion Commons
RReeccoommmmeennddeedd CCiittaattiioonn
Tenzin, Kencho, "Shankara: A Hindu Revivalist or a Crypto-Buddhist?." Thesis, Georgia State University,
2006.
doi: https://doi.org/10.57709/1062066
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Religious Studies at ScholarWorks @
Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Religious Studies Theses by an authorized
administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact
[email protected].
SHANKARA: A HINDU REVIVALIST OR A CRYPTO BUDDHIST?

by

KENCHO TENZIN

Under The Direction of Kathryn McClymond

ABSTRACT

Shankara, the great Indian thinker, was known as the accurate expounder of the
Upanishads. He is seen as a towering figure in the history of Indian philosophy and is
credited with restoring the teachings of the Vedas to their pristine form. However, there
are others who do not see such contributions from Shankara. They criticize his
philosophy by calling it “crypto-Buddhism.” It is his unique philosophy of Advaita
Vedanta that puts him at odds with other Hindu orthodox schools. Ironically, he is also
criticized by Buddhists as a “born enemy of Buddhism” due to his relentless attacks on
their tradition. This thesis, therefore, probes the question of how Shankara should best be
regarded, “a Hindu Revivalist or a Crypto-Buddhist?” To address this question, this
thesis reviews the historical setting for Shakara’s work, the state of Indian philosophy as
a dynamic conversation involving Hindu and Buddhist thinkers, and finally Shankara’s
intellectual genealogy.

INDEX WORDS: Shankara, Crypto-Buddhist, Advaita Vedanta, Brahman, Sunyata,
Maya, Atman, Moksa
SHANKARA: A HINDU REVIVALIST OR A CRYPTO-BUDDHIST?

by

KENCHO TENZIN

Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Masters of Arts
in the College of Arts and Sciences
Georgia State University

2006
Copyright by
Kencho Tenzin
2006
SHANKARA: A HINDU REVIVALIST OR A CRYPTO-BUDDHIST?

by

KENCHO TENZIN

Major Professor: Kathryn McClymond
Committee: Jonathan Herman
Christopher White

Electronic Version Approved:

Office of Graduate Studies
College of Arts and Sciences
Georgia State University
December 2006
ACKNOWLEDMENT

In the process of writing this thesis, many people have helped me, both directly and
indirectly. Their ideas, suggestions, and queries were the source of my inspiration. This
thesis could not have been completed without their assistance. First, my heartfelt
appreciation goes to Dr. Kathryn McClymond, my thesis advisor, for her guidance and
inspiration in writing this thesis and also her unwavering support throughout my graduate
school years at Georgia State University.
My special thanks also go to Dr. Susan Walcott and Brendan Ozawa whose
encouragement and support have been both valuable and indispensable. I am also very
grateful to my father-in-law, Dr. Arun Chatterjee, for showing me the underlying tenets
of different Hindu philosophical schools, particularly of Advaita Vedanta of Shankara. I
would like to thank my thesis committee members, Dr. Jonathan Herman and Dr.
Christopher White, for their insightful comments, suggestions, and teachings as well.
Finally, but most importantly I would like to thank my wife, Rinku, for her selfless
support, without whom I would have never done this.

iv
Table of Contents

Introduction 1
Historical Background 7
Gaudapada’s influence on Shankara 18
Shankara’s Philosophy 25
Critiquing Shankara’s Philosophy 37
A Response to Shankara’s Critics 42
Conclusion 51
References 54
Glossaries 56
Appendix 64

v
1
Shankara: A Hindu Revivalist or Crypto-Buddhist?
Introduction
One of the best known figures in the history of Indian thought, Shankara has been
credited with restoring the study of Vedas, especially Advaita Vedanta to their pristine
purity, and he is also widely regarded as an accurate expounder of the Upanishads. As
George Cronk (2003) says, “Shankara is a towering figure in the history of Indian
philosophy” (1). The same notion prevails in Surendranath Dasgupta’s Indian Idealism
(1962), where he says, “The most important interpretation of Upanishadic idealism has
been that of the Brahmasutras as expounded by Shankara and as further elaborated by his
followers” (149).
In sharp contrast to such accolades, well-regarded scholars such as C. D .Sharma,
S.G. Mudgal, and Ninian Smart do not view Shankara’s thought as innovative. According
to them, Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta philosophy did not differ significantly from
Mahayana Buddhism. Mudgal (1975), for example, points out in the introduction of his
book Advaita of Shankara–A Reappraisal that “the difference between Sunyavada
(Mahayana) and Advaita is a matter of degree and emphasis and not a matter of
difference in kind” (4). “Probably because of these similarities,” Natalie Isayeva (1993)
says, “even such an astute Buddhologist as Rozenberg was of the opinion that a precise
differentiation between Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism is impossible to draw” (172). For
this very reason, Ramanuja, the founder of the Visistadvaita Vedanta School and other
orthodox Hindu schools, went so far as to describe Shankara as a “crypto-Buddhist.”
Yet at the same time, ironically, Shankara is criticized by Buddhist scholars as a
“born enemy of Buddhists” due to his relentless attacks on their tradition. Sengaku
2
Mayeda (1999) says, “Sankara, however, vehemently attacks Buddhism here and there in
his Brahmasutrabhasya, Brhadaranyakopanisadbhasya, Upadesasahasri and his other
works” (n.p.). Shankara, for instance, accuses Buddhism for sowing the general sense of
pessimism in people’s mind. Shankara argues that Buddhism (Mahayana) is vainasika-
mata, a teaching of non-existence and destruction. Shankara even portrays Buddha’s
teachings as a means to lead the wicked and the demons astray despite his inclusion of
Buddha as the ninth avatar of Vishnu (Hindu god). Gavin Flood (1996) says, “The
Buddha is a curious inclusion in this list: an incarnation sent to lead the wicked and the
demons astray and so to hasten the end of the current age of darkness (kali yuga)” (116).
These are some of the few instances that clearly demonstrate Shankara’s attitude towards
Buddhism. One reason, according to F. Whaling (1979), for Shankara’s reaction against
Buddhism is “the undue Buddhist influence he felt he had received from Gaudapada”
(23). This raises the key question that will be addressed in this thesis: is Shankara best
regarded as a “crypto-Buddhist” or as a “born enemy of Buddhism?”
According to Shankara, in his time sanatana dharma (eternal teaching, tradition, or
religion) had been almost broken within the entangling of Buddhist philosophy, which
had given rise to a general sense of pessimism amongst the general population.
Hinduism, on the other hand, was disunited and had split into many groups and sects,
each with its own views. Both Hindu and Buddhist communities were showing signs of
corruption, disintegration, and a lack of inner dynamism in appealing to the general
public. A philosophical emptiness prevailed, and society was in need of correct spiritual
direction. It was in this atmosphere that Shankara was keen to stress the importance and
correct interpretation of the Upanishads. As T.M.P. Mahadevan (1968) says, “At the time
3
when false doctrines were misguiding the people and orthodoxy had nothing better to
offer than a barren and outmoded ritualism to counteract the atheism of the heterodox,
Shankara expounded the philosophy of the Upanishads for the benefit of humanity”
(285). A similar conclusion is also made by Isayeva in her book, Shankara and Indian
philosophy. She says, “His [Shankara’s] task was to curb the activity of ‘heretics’, to put
an end to mental instability in general and what was of no less importance–to set limits
on ritual trends within a former brahmanist unity, submitting it to a new kind of spiritual
kind” (11).
However, it seems that while Shankara did assimilate some teachings of Buddhism
into his Advaita system, at the same time he denied and refuted Buddhist concepts that
were not in agreement with the Upanisads. For instance, he embraced the practice of
ahimsa (non-violence) and condemned animal sacrifices. However, he vehemently
criticized the central Buddhist doctrine of sunyata (emptiness). Regarding orthodox
Hinduism, Shankara believed that early Vedantins, such as Ramanuja and Madva, failed
to grasp the real nature and meaning of the philosophy of the Vedanta as taught in the
Upanishads. According to Shankara, pre-Shankara Vedanta was theistic and realist. It
conceived of Brahman as unity-in-diversity, with internal individual distinctions being
admitted. In mukti (liberation), the jiva (individual soul) retains its individuality. These
views were not palatable to Shankara, and in contrast he taught the doctrine of non-
dualism (Advaita). According to Shankara, in the state of mukti, an individual is absorbed
in the Brahman. By embarking in this direction, Shankara created a new form of Indian
philosophy quite different from his predecessors.