Did Adi Shankaracharya defeat Buddhism?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 2314
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Did Adi Shankaracharya defeat Buddhism?

Post by Bundokji » Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:11 pm

binocular wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:00 pm
"Hinduism" is such a broad term ... comprising so many different doctrines, not just a few of them mutually exclusive.
Same thing can be said about Buddhism. For an outsider examining different schools and methods of practice, it is hard to believe that they belong to the same doctrine.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 5590
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Did Adi Shankaracharya defeat Buddhism?

Post by Sam Vara » Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:14 pm

Kim OHara wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 10:52 am
Sam Vara wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 9:13 am
Well, something defeated Buddhism in India. If it was merely thousands of monks being slaughtered and monasteries burned by people wishing to extirpate it, then that's regrettable but only of historical interest. If, however, it was defeated by Shankaracharya's logic, then I guess we ought to know about it and see if that defeat can be avoided in ourselves. ...
According to Wikipedia, it was both of these reasons and a couple of others.
:reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... m_in_India

:coffee:
Kim
Thanks Kim. I'll get reading...

Dinsdale
Posts: 6675
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Did Adi Shankaracharya defeat Buddhism?

Post by Dinsdale » Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:18 pm

binocular wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:00 pm
Bundokji wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 11:51 am
What constitutes the end of suffering from a Buddhist point of view might be radically different from Hinduism.
"Hinduism" is such a broad term ... comprising so many different doctrines, not just a few of them mutually exclusive.
Yes, it's even more diverse and pluralistic than Buddhism. :tongue:
For example the Samkhya school is arguably atheistic, and the six schools have quite different philosophies.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Dinsdale
Posts: 6675
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Did Adi Shankaracharya defeat Buddhism?

Post by Dinsdale » Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:23 pm

sentinel wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 11:44 am
If atman knowable
If nibbana knowable
That is in theory
Practically , unless one attained to the state
Comparison just remains
If one is an arhat he won't bother about atman
If one attained atman he don't bother either
I can't argue with that! Perhaps it comes down to different assumptions about the goal of practice? And different assumptions about what meditative or "spiritual" experiences signify?
Buddha save me from new-agers!

binocular
Posts: 6569
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Did Adi Shankaracharya defeat Buddhism?

Post by binocular » Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:32 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:23 pm
Perhaps it comes down to different assumptions about the goal of practice? And different assumptions about what meditative or "spiritual" experiences signify?
Of course. And these assumptions tend to be articulated, as part of the doctrine.
Every person we save is one less zombie to fight. -- World War Z

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 5590
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Did Adi Shankaracharya defeat Buddhism?

Post by Sam Vara » Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:32 pm

Bundokji wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 10:56 am
Sam Vara wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 10:35 am
The unknowability of Atman as an object of knowledge is "useful" in that it enables one to make the claim that it is indeed self, and that the Buddhist anatta doctrine (and Dukkha and anicca) applies only to objects of knowledge.
I still fail to see how the idea of Atman adds anything useful. The Buddha taught that all conditioned things are Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta. The term "conditioned" implies objects of knowledge because it is quite legitimate to ask: conditioned by what? so the process of "objectifying" is integral to making things knowable.
He also taught that all things (presumably both conditioned and unconditioned) were anatta, which means that even non-objects are not self, which is distinctly disadvantageous if you think you are one and would like to remain one.

Dinsdale
Posts: 6675
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Did Adi Shankaracharya defeat Buddhism?

Post by Dinsdale » Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:46 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:32 pm
Bundokji wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 10:56 am
Sam Vara wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 10:35 am
The unknowability of Atman as an object of knowledge is "useful" in that it enables one to make the claim that it is indeed self, and that the Buddhist anatta doctrine (and Dukkha and anicca) applies only to objects of knowledge.
I still fail to see how the idea of Atman adds anything useful. The Buddha taught that all conditioned things are Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta. The term "conditioned" implies objects of knowledge because it is quite legitimate to ask: conditioned by what? so the process of "objectifying" is integral to making things knowable.
He also taught that all things (presumably both conditioned and unconditioned) were anatta, which means that even non-objects are not self, which is distinctly disadvantageous if you think you are one and would like to remain one.
Though if not self means not personal, then that probably applies to Atman too. Atman isnt really a "soul", it's more like a reflection of Brahman, which is said to be the underling reality. I'm not suggesting that Atman is the same as Nibbana, just that both can be viewed as non personal, not "me" or "mine". And of course anatta does also negate Atman.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Dinsdale
Posts: 6675
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Did Adi Shankaracharya defeat Buddhism?

Post by Dinsdale » Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:51 pm

binocular wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:32 pm
Dinsdale wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:23 pm
Perhaps it comes down to different assumptions about the goal of practice? And different assumptions about what meditative or "spiritual" experiences signify?
Of course. And these assumptions tend to be articulated, as part of the doctrine.
Yes, and as part of the practice system. Different methods of practice can lead in different directions.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 5590
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Did Adi Shankaracharya defeat Buddhism?

Post by Sam Vara » Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:53 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:46 pm

Though if not self means not personal, then that probably applies to Atman too. Atman isnt really a "soul", it's more like a reflection of Brahman, which is said to be the underling reality. I'm not suggesting that Atman is the same as Nibbana, just that both can be viewed as non personal, not "me" or "mine".
Absolutely. That seems to be the "impersonalist" view of the speaker in the first video. Because "self" can mean so many things in English, there is the potential for people to talk at cross-purposes here.

User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 2314
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Did Adi Shankaracharya defeat Buddhism?

Post by Bundokji » Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:02 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:32 pm
He also taught that all things (presumably both conditioned and unconditioned) were anatta, which means that even non-objects are not self, which is distinctly disadvantageous if you think you are one and would like to remain one.
"Unconditioned" and "thing" seem to be mutually exclusive. If you agree, the unconditioned as "anatta" is merely a figure of speech in the same way non-objects is a figure of speech, while the conditioned as "Anatta" is descriptive and possibly directive.

If the above makes sense to you, equating the two can be misleading.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 5590
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Did Adi Shankaracharya defeat Buddhism?

Post by Sam Vara » Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:11 pm

Bundokji wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:02 pm
Sam Vara wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:32 pm
He also taught that all things (presumably both conditioned and unconditioned) were anatta, which means that even non-objects are not self, which is distinctly disadvantageous if you think you are one and would like to remain one.
"Unconditioned" and "thing" seem to be mutually exclusive. If you agree...
No, I'm not sure that I agree. "Thing" here does not denote an object, but is merely a general term to be used as a placeholder.

User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 2314
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Did Adi Shankaracharya defeat Buddhism?

Post by Bundokji » Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:26 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:11 pm
No, I'm not sure that I agree. "Thing" here does not denote an object, but is merely a general term to be used as a placeholder.
Can you name an object that is not a thing?

If not, we are back to square one: what is the use of naming Atman as a self when they say it is formless/unknowable?
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 5590
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Did Adi Shankaracharya defeat Buddhism?

Post by Sam Vara » Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:33 pm

Bundokji wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:26 pm
Sam Vara wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:11 pm
No, I'm not sure that I agree. "Thing" here does not denote an object, but is merely a general term to be used as a placeholder.
Can you name an object that is not a thing?

If not, we are back to square one: what is the use of naming Atman as a self when they say it is formless/unknowable?
I think it is more about being able to name things which are not objects. The lure is to be (or know) a thing which is free from what afflicts all objects.

Dinsdale
Posts: 6675
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Did Adi Shankaracharya defeat Buddhism?

Post by Dinsdale » Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:46 pm

Bundokji wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:26 pm
Sam Vara wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:11 pm
No, I'm not sure that I agree. "Thing" here does not denote an object, but is merely a general term to be used as a placeholder.
Can you name an object that is not a thing?

If not, we are back to square one: what is the use of naming Atman as a self when they say it is formless/unknowable?
Actually I think Atman can be known, but as with Nibbana a great deal of practice is required to reveal it. And referring to Atman as a "self" is misunderstanding it, IMO.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 2314
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Did Adi Shankaracharya defeat Buddhism?

Post by Bundokji » Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:57 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:46 pm
Who is naming Atman as a self?
Do you find any meaningful difference between "soul" or "essence" and between "self"? If so, could you please highlight it?
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: binocular, Sam Vara and 41 guests