On Mr. Malaiya's comments

[Guest guest]

On Mr. Malaiya's comments

 

1. It seems to me that in an academic/scholarly discussion one should try to

analyze various facets of an issue, to see of one can come to any common ground.

For this we need to consider dispassionately the different perspectives that the

protagonists of various positions might take. That was the kind of analysis I

was trying to do, rather than assert that one is right and the other is wrong.

 

2. I am happy that Yashwant recognized the essence of what I was trying to say,

namely that <Whether someone is or is not a Hindu depends on the definition of

the word Hindu being used.>

 

3. <If "accepting the authority of the vedas" is a requirement for one to be

Hindu, then the Sikhs would not be Hindu.>

 

This is a fair statement. And it is quite true that the acceptance of Vedas as a

requirement for being a Hindu was never a universal condition within the Hindu

world. But it has been incorporated into some more recent efforts at defining

who a Hindu is. [Again, I was not making any doctrinal statement; I was merely

trying to articulate the general feelings of those who hold on to their

different views on whether Sikhism is part of Hinduism or not.]

 

 

4. <But this definition of a Hindu is new one and appears to have been

influenced by the definitions of Christianity and Islam, which are book-based

religions.>

 

I am no sure about this. Long before Muslims and Christians came, Hindu

thinkers/philosophers had distinguished between schools that accepted the Vedas

(equivalent of a holy book) and those that did not. What may be said is that

there were Vedic Hindus and Nastika Hindus as also Nirishvara Hindus. From this

perspective Buddha, Mahavira, Carvaka, Brihaspati, etc. were all regarded as

Hindus in classical India. For one thing, there was no central authority to

ex-communicate them.

 

Indeed, the genius of the Hindu world has always been its capacity to

accommodate every shade of thought and every vision of the transcendent,

including its denial: This is what enabled (and still enables) Hindus to (at

least doctrinally) tolerate a variety of perspectives. I feel that this

intrinsic trait in the Hindu value-system, which emerged in the West after 18th

century Enlightenment, is one of the greatest strengths of Hinduism, and can be

its greatest contribution to the religiously pluralistic but dis-harmonious

world of today. My hope and prayer is that it be not diminished as a result of

other pressures that India is currently experiencing.

 

5. <Historically Hinduism has accepted "converts". Many Yavanas (IndoGreeks) of

Takshashila and Bactria were Vaishnavas, as we learn from the Heliodorus column

in Vidisha and coinage of Indo-Greeks. Hinduism was quite popular in Cambodia,

Champa and Indonesia only a few centuries ago.>

 

There is a difference between <religious conversion> which is an active

proclamation of faith and loyalty to a new system, explicitly disowning one's

previous affiliation, and often instigated by proselytizing preachers; and

cultural assimilation which is a gradual process of becoming part of the culture

in which one grows up. Most Hindus who live in the West has assimilated many of

the values and worldviews of the modern West. This does not mean that they been

converted to a Western religion. Buddhists, like Muslims and Christians, were

engaged in active religious conversion. I am not so sure that Hindus (before the

modern era) sent out missionaries.

 

6. <The Hindu "ban" on conversion appears to have been a result of Islamic ban

on reconversion of people to other faiths.>

 

I don't think there was ever any <ban> on conversion into Hinduism. However, as

Lord Krishna says in the Gita, Hindus generally hold the view that it is far

more important to follow one's one dharma, however imperfectly, than to adopt

another's. Moreover, given that in traditional Hinduism one was born into a

varna, it was difficult to decide into which varna one would accommodate a

convert.

 

V. V. Raman

 

August 29, 2002

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

>I am not so sure that Hindus (before the modern era) sent out

>missionaries.

 

But what happened to Buddhism and Jainism which were very prevalent

in South India at one time? What happened to its adherents?

 

Pointer : The Shankara Dig Vijaya of Maadhava speaks of Shankara

converting "Buddhist brahmins" to the Advaita fold.

 

Shankara is notorious for defeating philosophers of rival schools in

debates - even Buddhists and Jains - and taking them into the Advaita

fold.

 

So it is very likely that Buddhists and Jains in Southern India were

gradually reconverted back to one of the many sects of "Hinduism" -

by the bhakti saints, Shankara etc.

[Guest guest]

"vpcnk" wrote:

 

> Shankara is notorious for defeating philosophers of rival schools

>in debates - even Buddhists and Jains - and taking them into the

>Advaita fold.

>

> So it is very likely that Buddhists and Jains in Southern India

>were gradually reconverted back to one of the many sects

>of "Hinduism" - by the bhakti saints, Shankara etc.

 

It should be noted that Buddhism had already declined significantly

by the time of Sankaracharya. It continued to survive for several

centuries after Sankaracharya in several regions of India.

 

Were there any specific kings who were converted by Sankaracharya?

 

Manish Mody wrote:

 

>16.Wasn't it Shankaracharya the first who said that one should

> rather be crushed under an elephant's feet than enter a Jain

> temple?

 

I think that Sanskrit verse is from Bhavishya Purana.

 

Yashwant

[Guest guest]

> It should be noted that Buddhism had already declined significantly

> by the time of Sankaracharya. It continued to survive for several

> centuries after Sankaracharya in several regions of India.

 

Nobody is disputing that Buddhism was "on the decline" by the time of

Shankara - but it is to be noted that the bhakti saints preceded

Shankara by several centuries - in their time Buddhism and Jainism

ruled the roost in Southern India. All of the five great epics (Im

Perum Kaapiyangal) of the Tamils are Buddhist or Jain only - none

is "Hindu".

 

So the question here is : what happened to all the Buddhists and

Jains, especially in Southern India?

 

I just pointed to the Shankara dig vijaya to show that conversion was

happening even then. Even as Jainism and Buddhism poached on

the "Hindu" masses to establish themselves in Southern India, at a

later point in time they were poached back by "Hindu" saints.

 

The collection of Jainaa medival stories translated by Phyllis

Granoff illustrates many such conversions to Jainism from "Hindu"

ranks.

[Guest guest]

Ravindra" wrote:

 

> As noted, Buddhism was certainly on the decline by the time of Adi

> Shankaracharya.

>

> In my opinion, Buddhism had moved away from all it stood for.

> Buddhism was supposed to be a "people's religion", preaching in

>Pali and other prakrit languages, as against the Brahmanical

>Sanskrit.

 

That is basically correct. However it should be mentioned that

Buddhists contributed to Sanskrit very early. BuddhaCharita of

Ashvaghosha is considered to be one of the earliest extant kavyas in

Sanskrit.

 

> But, the Mahayani saints/sanyasis controlled the religion from such

>bases as Nalanda and such. They preached(?) in Sanskrit, and as per

>the (popular ?) legend of Kumarila Bhatta, were always wary of the

>Hindu reformist/bhakti saints.

 

When Nalanda was flourishing, word Hindu had not come into use, and

there was no clearly identifiable separation that allows defining the

word Hindu then in a way to exclude Buddhists. "Hindu" at that time,

and for several centuries after destruction of Nalanda, continued to

mean Indian.

 

I think quite a few, if not a majority of students at Nalanda were

brahmin. A singnificant fraction of students at buddhist institutions

are brahmins who were non-monks. Non-buddhist texts were also studied

there.

 

 

> Buddhism had also started to borrow sculpture, tradition and

>culture from Hinduism, converting the sculptor castes, so as to

>induce them to picture the Buddha in place of Hindu gods such as

>Vishnu and Shiva (perhaps one of the reasons for the Buddha, over

>time replacing Halayudha as one of the ten

> Avataras of Vishnu?)

 

Worship of statues of Buddha apears to be just as old. For many

centuries, Buddhists were the main patrons of the sculptors.

The religion of sculptor castes has nothing to do with specific gods

they carved.

 

The vedic tradition originally did not use statues or temples.

Manusmriti is critical of brahmins who serve as priests at temples.

 

> In all Buddhism was no longer the popular religion it was originally

> destined to be. It already did not hold water with the people by

>the time of Adi Shankara. Buddhism was represented by the Sanyasis

>at the various (?) universities such as Nalanda and Takshashila.

 

Incidentally Takshashila was a major learning center even during the

lifetime of Gautham Buddha. Its significance declined very early. It

has been suggested that Panini was associated with Takshashila.

 

Why Buddhism declined has been widely debated. It has been argued

that many Buddhist practices became part of other traditions and thus

Buddhism lost its edge. Also Buddhism may have been a victim of its

success. Its viharas owned a lot of land, the life of monks became

too easy and they spent all their time discussing philosophy and

logic. "Brain drain" of learned monks over several centuries may also

have had some impact.

 

Yashwant

[Guest guest]

> Manusmriti is critical of brahmins who serve as priests at temples.

 

Can you quote the exact verse and related verses?

[Guest guest]

"vpcnk" wrote:

> > Manusmriti is critical of brahmins who serve as priests at

temples.

>

> Can you quote the exact verse and related verses?

 

>From Manu Smriti:

 

ye stenapatitakliibaa ye cha naastikavR^ittayaH |

taan.h havyakavyayorvipraananarhaan.h manurabraviit.h || 150

jaTilaM chaanadhiiyaanaM durbaalaM kitavaM tathaa |

yaajayanti cha ye puugaa.nstaa.nshcha shraaddhe na bhojayet.h ||151||

chikitsakaan.h devalakaan.h maa.nsavikrayiNastathaa |

vipaNena cha jiivanto varjyaaH syurhavyakavyayoH ||152||

 

150. Manu has declared that those Brahmanas who are thieves, outcasts,

eunuchs, or atheists are unworthy (to partake) of oblations to the

gods and manes.

 

151. Let him not entertain at a Sraddha one who wears his hair in

braids (a student), one who has not studied (the Veda), one afflicted

with a skin-disease, a gambler, nor those who sacrifice for a

multitude (of sacrificers).

 

152. Physicians, temple-priests, sellers of meat, and those who

subsist by shop-keeping must be avoided at sacrifices offered to the

gods and to the manes.

 

somavikrayiNe vishhThaa bhishhaje puuyashoNitam.h |

nashhTaM devalake dattamapratishhThaM tu vaardhushhau || 180 ||

 

180 (Food) given to a seller of Soma becomes ordure, (that given) to a

physician pus and blood, but (that presented) to a temple-priest is

lost, and (that given) to a usurer finds no place (in the world of the

gods).

 

Translation by G. Buhler.

 

Yashwant

[Guest guest]

vpcnk wrote:

 

I think Sanskrit was confined mainly to the philosophical sphere

where the targeted audience, apart from the Buddhists themselves,

were either Brahmins or Jainaas.

*****

Agreed.

 

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.

*****

Agreed, though I'm not so sure about about generalizing the Naiyaayika

input -- there is evidence of brahmins of various pursuasions joining the

Buddhist fold at different periods, that is, at one period one can discern

Sa.mkhyaa influences etc etc.

 

>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.

*****

Obviously alternative materials will be sparse but people like Gregory

Schopen have produced interesting results from epigraphy and archaeology

 

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.

****

Agreed.

 

> 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.

However, one wonders to what extent the early vihaaras were actually like

"monasteries".

It must also be remembered that extensive portions of the aagamas/nikaayas

etc were "retrofitted" with words being attributed to the Buddha to suit

various doctrinal / organizational agendas -- one of which was the friction

between forest-dwellers and settled monks. This continued for hundreds of

years after the Buddha and traces of the rivalry can still be discerned in

early period Mahayana sutras such as the Mahaparinirvana-sutra etc. It is

therefore perhaps dangerous to generalize.

 

 

Actually popular accounts of Shankara consider that Buddhism was

actually "ruling the roost" when Shankara appeared.

****

Depending upon what dates one ascribes to Shankara, I think the evidence in

general shows that Buddhism was already on the defensive and shrinking in

influence overall -- even Xuanzang earlier noted the decline in many areas.

 

>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.

****

Yes, I realize that. The similar term "shramanera" was widely used as well

and found acceptance in Buddhist circles.

 

[Taranatha] 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.

*****

Perhaps only as much as any other historian writing at a temporal and

spatial remove from his subject. However, if you read Taranatha's note on

his sources, you will see that he consulted a good number of Indic

historiographical works and live pandits -- he notes that the accounts given

to him differ only in detail and so he is confident of the overall accuracy.

He also conscientiously remarks that he was unable to get detailed

information about South India and several other places.

 

> Also Indological opinion considers

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

Yes and hence Taranatha or rather his sources were in error -- but

presumably they believed the veracity of their accounts. My point was that

hagiography is not immune to mythology so it must be approached with

caution.

 

> But historically Taranaatha's claim is false

Yes, in a literal sense Taranatha's sources were wrong but they may reflect

some historical facts which counter-balance the later triumphalist accounts

of Shankara's dig-vijaya. Thus, it is quite possible for Shankara to have

been defeated on occasion in debate and yet, as you point out, for advaita

to have survived healthily. In Buddhism, for example, a person like

Chandrakirti was probably of quite minor contemporary standing and small

influence, and yet, looking at later hagiographies via Tibetan sources, his

importance is inflated to an extraordinary degree.

 

> because while Buddhism is no more, Advaita is unrivalled for its

> spiritual/philosophical influence in India even today.

Still, Buddhism left the maternal home and flourished abroad -- in many

parts of the world, it is considered a sign of adulthood when a child leaves

its parental home

 

Best wishes,

Stephen Hodge

[Guest guest]

> Still, Buddhism left the maternal home and flourished abroad -- in

many

> parts of the world, it is considered a sign of adulthood when a

child leaves

> its parental home

 

Stephen you've to be very careful in the way you express your views :

by making a statement like the above you're insulting a whole

civilization, people and culture. Your views can very easily be

interpreted as racist and culturally supremacist.

 

But what's the validity of such a view?

 

If we were to to your argument that Buddhism "matured" only

after it left India then we have to consider the Buddha and his

disciples like Naagaarjuna and Vaasubandhu as immature.

 

If your argument is that Indians were not mature enough to understand

the validity of Buddhism and sustain it - then considering that it

existed in India for more than a millennia, developed and sustained

by "mature" Indian teachers, then the question would arise as to why

no more newer "mature" people, didn't come forward to sustain

Buddhism?

 

It cannot be claimed that "wily" Brahmins hoodwinked the people –

because brahmanical opposition to Buddhism was always there right

from the day of the Buddha. If the Bauddhas can survive for a

thousand years why not another thousand years or more?

 

Also according to Bauddha history itself many of its greatest

aachaaryaas were themselves from Brahmin ranks. These Brahmins

accepted Buddhism mainly for the validity of its doctrines in the

existing philosophical environment. The negative/modal perspective of

Buddhism – anatta, skandhas and pratitya samutpaada – has always had

its share of admirers in India. You can kill people and destroy

monasteries, but you cannot destroy ideas. So why did that interest

in Buddhist philosophy fizzle out?

 

Unless of course the Indian mind found an even more valid alternative.

 

Advaita Vedaanta has sometime to teach over and above Buddhism.

That's the reason it is Shankara who's credited with effecting the

demise of Buddhism and not the Naiyaayikas and the Mimaamsakas whose

polemical efforts against the Bauddhas far exceeded anything Advaita

had ever put up. Advaita didn't blindly oppose Buddhism like the

other schools. In the age-old way of Vedic assimilation, the

orthodoxy took care to understand Buddhist philosophy - in Gaudapaada

and Shankara we find a serious evaluation of Buddhist views. Advaita

agreed with many of Buddhism's conclusions – maya and advaya. Only it

pointed out that the argument didn't end where the Bauddhas left it

(thus the significance of Gaudapaada's "naitad Buddhena baashitam").

Advaita was able to push the argument to even greater depths (read

the chapter titled "tat tvam asi" in the Upadesha Saahasri to know

the level of Shankara's argument) and prove the validity of the

teachings of the Upanishads – the Veda-anta – whose highest teaching

is Advaita. The Indian intelligentsia, including the Buddhists,

understood and accepted the validity of Shankara's arguments. Thus

the death of Buddhist philosophy in India.

 

Advaita represents the stage in Indian philosophy where the Indian

intellect could successfully reconcile the teachings of the ancient

scriptures with reason. After the rise of Advaita the main

concentration of the Indian mind had turned towards interpreting the

scriptures leading to the creation of the various schools of

Vedaanta. Over a period of time all the aastika schools were

assimilated into one or the other form of Vedaanta. Buddhism and

Jainism too suffered the same fate. Jainism survives only in tiny

pockets in Northern India today – held together more by clannish

loyalties than any meaningful distinction between its parallel in the

Vedaanta – Dvaita.

[Guest guest]

L.S.Cousins comments:

 

> >It must also be remembered that extensive portions of the

aagamas/nikaayas

> >etc were "retrofitted" with words being attributed to the Buddha to suit

> >various doctrinal / organizational agendas --

>

> I have seen this repeated from time to time. But is there any

> evidence for the claim ?

 

So, conversely, you would maintain that all nikaaya / aagama texts are

literally Buddha-vacana ? You thus presumably have no difficulty, for

example, in accepting the sizable number of texts preserved in the Chinese

translations of the Ekottara and Sa.myukta-aagamas that have no parallel in

Pali (and vice versa) as authentic and original Buddha-vacana. I am aware

that you do not read Chinese to pick up the divergent details but I suppose

you at least have Akanuma to hand for guidance on parallel texts.

 

As for the "organizational agendas", do you think that the detailed

instructions given in some parts of each Vinaya concerning such matters as

the precise construction of latrines, the use etc of bedding, the

fabrication of sanitary pads for nuns etc etc were given by the Buddha

himself ? Not impossible I suppose, but it would seem more reasonable, to

me at least, to believe that they were added as the need arose after the

Buddha's demise.

 

> Evidence to the contrary seems very clear. In debates we standardly

> see school A citing evidence from the scriptures of school B in

> support of their own position. Evidently no doctrinally based

> revision has taken place on most of the major issues.

Actually, you have misread my msg -- where did I say that the "various

doctrinal / oganizational agendas" were sectarian based ? My view, on

grounds of style and content, is that significant additions would have been

made within the first 150 years with more after the various schools drifted

apart. You will also be familar with Waldschmidt on the development of the

early Vinaya.

 

> I have seen evidence for what one might call 'doctrinal creep' i.e.

> specific discourses composed at a later date which contain ideas

> belonging to the time of composition.

Precisely what I was alluding to in my initial message -- what else are

these but "doctrinal agendas" ?

 

Best wishes,

Stephen Hodge

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "vpcnk" <vpcnk@H...> wrote:

> > Advaita is unrivalled for its spiritual/philosophical

> > influence in India even today.

 

Compared to the spiritual influence of Saiva Siddhanta

and Srivaishnavism in Tamil history, literature and inscriptions,

advaita tradition's mention is rather small.

 

In fact, advaita is more in print journalism of 20th century

than anytime before in anyother source. One major reason

is the enormous charisma of Kanchi PeriyavaaL Chandrasekharendra

Saraswathi avarkaL.

 

Regards,

N. Ganesan

[Guest guest]

Nanda Chandran wrote:

> Actually popular accounts of Shankara consider that Buddhism was

> actually "ruling the roost" when Shankara appeared.

> ****

 

INDOLOGY, "Stephen Hodge" <s.hodge@p...> wrote:

 

> Depending upon what dates one ascribes to Shankara, I think

>the evidence in general shows that Buddhism was already on the

>defensive and shrinking in

> influence overall -- even Xuanzang earlier noted the decline

>in many areas.

>

 

Please note that in Tamil Nadu, a core region for defining

things South India, the Buddhism and Jainism faced a decline

when Saiva Nayanars and Alwars started their Bhakti era campaigns,

converted Pallava kings to Saivism or Vaishnavism, their songs

get codified and become canonized in temples, some sung

in the same tune as Vedas. This all happened centuries

before Adi Sankara.

 

Also note that Sankara hagiography written in 14th century

S. India, (after the Muslim invasions), has lot of stories

from Tamil Saivism legends about Nayanmars. Have seen Prof. D.

Lorenzen's paper on Sankara life story. Don't know whether

any professor has looked into the parallels between Sankara

legends and the centuries earlier Tamil saiva legends.

 

------------------

 

Actually, the two inscriptions that mention Sankara is in Tamil.

The oldest one is Chola dated to 1065 AD, then a householder

named KaalaDi Sankaran is 13th century Pandya inscription.

Tiru. Palaniappan and myself have pointed to these sources.

 

The one who mentions Sankara is Vacaspatimisra, and he is clearly

in the late 10th century. And, earlier Tibetan philosophers

do not mention Sankara at all (K. Kunjunni Raja).

 

Given the first sources are in 10th and 11th centuries only,

it's highly likely that Sankara flourished around 900 AD.

(At least this is how Tamil Saiva Nayanars or Alvars are dated.)

 

---------------

 

Alos, note that Tamilists of great repute, and adoring the

Sethu samsthanam, Sri. R. Raghava Aiyangar (and his cross-cousin,

M. Raghava) discovered the birthplace of Sankara. This

fact is recorded in the J. of Oriental Research, Madras University,

Volume 1.

 

 

Regards,

N. Ganesan

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "vpcnk" <vpcnk@H...> wrote:

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

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

 

Does the early Vedas (eg., Rgveda) advocate sannyasa?

 

Or, is it only from Upanishadic period where ascetics

renounce to get rid of karma. Earlier there was a mention

about no karma doctrine in Rgveda.

 

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

>

 

Was it nirgrantha? It Tamil inscriptions and lit.,

"nikkantar" commonly occur.

[Guest guest]

> Compared to the spiritual influence of Saiva Siddhanta

> and Srivaishnavism in Tamil history, literature and inscriptions,

> advaita tradition's mention is rather small.

 

But I'll issue you a practical challenge : take ten ordinary tamils

and check who's the one most people are aware of : Shankara or

Ramanuja or Maikanda Thevar.

 

Visishtadvaita and Saiva Siddhaanta are atbest only regional

philosophies. The latter being restricted mainly to TN and the former

whose influence is slightly wider - atbest only in TN, Andhra and

Karnataka.

 

But Shankara and Advaita are known throught India. Also being the

older tradition, the smarta following of Shankara is numerically much

bigger in India than any other single brahmanical sect. While most

brahmanical sects only have a regional following the smaartha

following is nation wide. In the Advaita-L we have smaarthaas from

all corners of India.

 

Anyway whether it is due to Shri Chandrashekara Saraswati or the

Ramakrishnaites or the modern pop-Advaitins, still it is Advaita

which is the most popular philosophy in India today.

[Guest guest]

vpcnk wrote:

>> Still, Buddhism left the maternal home and flourished abroad

>> -- in many parts of the world, it is considered a sign of adulthood

>> when a child leaves its parental home

 

> Stephen you've to be very careful in the way you express your views :

> by making a statement like the above you're insulting a whole

> civilization, people and culture. Your views can very easily be

> interpreted as racist and culturally supremacist.

> But what's the validity of such a view?

You should also read very carefully what I write -- you are seeing in my msg

something which is not there, though I am sorry if that is how you wish to

read it. See below:

 

> If we were to to your argument that Buddhism "matured" only

> after it left India then we have to consider the Buddha and his

> disciples like Naagaarjuna and Vaasubandhu as immature.

Note a) I did not use the word "matured" and b) the second part says "WHEN a

child leaves home" not "*after* a chid leaves home". Though Buddhism

continued to develop in various interesting ways outside of India, I

consider that it fully matured there first. The remainder of your comments

are based on your misreading of my statement.

 

> In the age-old way of Vedic assimilation, the

> orthodoxy took care to understand Buddhist philosophy - in Gaudapaada

> and Shankara we find a serious evaluation of Buddhist views.

And contra this claim, have a look at Gregory Darling's "Evaluation of the

Vedantic Critique of Buddhism" (Motilal Banarsidass 1987) for a very

different conclusion -- he writes in his Conclusion that, "It has been

discovered that Buddhist positions were often distorted out of ignorance or

deliberate intent and that the Vedantic commentators proceeded to build

their refutations of B on the basis of incorrect assumptions." The evidence

he presents is quite convincing. He also suggests that "their (= Ramanuja,

Madhva and Shankara) criticisms of Buddhism provided merely a pretext for

their criticism of other Vedantic systems".

 

> The Indian intelligentsia, including the Buddhists,

> understood and accepted the validity of Shankara's arguments

> Thus the death of Buddhist philosophy in India.

This is extremely simplistic. Apart from other well-known reasons for the

eventual disappearance of Buddhism in most areas of India, I think there is

also a natural ebb and flow in any movement, religious or otherwise.

Buddhist philosophy was unfortunately going through a periodic low period --

though not entirely so -- for a couple of centuries after Shankara and was

denied any chance of its recovery as it was severely damaged if not

destroyed in many areas along with its large monastic centres.

Out of interest, have you read Bhaviveka's critique and refutation of

Vedaanta ? It would seem to show that not all Buddhists were quite so

enamoured of it as you suggest. There were also a number of fairly

significant Buddhist philosopher-logicians during the 9th-11th centuries

such as J~naana'sriimitra, Ratnaakara'saanti and others. Why do they do not

seem to have devoted any attention, to the best of my knowledge, to refuting

Vedaanta if it was as influential as you suggest ? Were they really so out

of touch with things that they merely continued to hammer away at their

traditional opponents ?

 

 

> Advaita represents the stage in Indian philosophy where the Indian

> intellect could successfully reconcile the teachings of the ancient

> scriptures with reason.

Something that one could argue the Buddhists had done all along with their

scriptures.

 

> Over a period of time all the aastika schools were assimilated

> into one or the other form of Vedaanta. Buddhism and

> Jainism too suffered the same fate.

And was there anything unusual happening in India during this process by

coincidence ?

 

Best wishes,

Stephen Hodge

[Guest guest]

>Though Buddhism continued to develop in various interesting ways

>outside of India, I consider that it fully matured there first.

 

In the light of the above statement I'm unable to understand your

original assertion :

 

>> Still, Buddhism left the maternal home and flourished abroad

>> -- in many parts of the world, it is considered a sign of adulthood

>> when a child leaves its parental home

 

Please do enlighten.

 

> have a look at Gregory Darling's "Evaluation of

>the Vedantic Critique of Buddhism" (Motilal Banarsidass 1987) for a

>very different conclusion -- he writes in his Conclusion that, "It

has >been discovered that Buddhist positions were often distorted out

of >ignorance or deliberate intent and that the Vedantic commentators

>proceeded to build their refutations of B on the basis of incorrect

>assumptions."

 

Instead of providing merely the conclusion it would have been better

if you'd provided some points from his book as to how the Vedaantic

criticism of Buddhism is faulty. Please do so – let's evaluate the

validity of Darling's criticism.

 

Also it is to be noted that criticism against Bauddha schools is not

always so explicit in Advaitic texts – you cannot merely take the

chapter in the Brahma Sutra Bhaashyam of Shankara which discusses the

validity of the philosophy of rival schools and consider it to be his

only criticism against Buddhism. Serious consideration of issues in

Bauddha philosophy is spread over Gaudapaada's Kaarikaas as well as

other of Shankara's works like Upadesha Saahasri. But to grasp these

arguments one should also have a keen understanding of Bauddha

philosophy itself to be able to identify such issues as "Bauddha".

 

I myself accept that Shankara's criticism in his BSB does not

adequately address the issues raised by Naagaarjuna and Vaasubandhu.

But such issues are addressed elsewhere. Let us see how much Darling

has grasped of both Bauddha philosophy and Advaita. So please do

provide us with his important arguments.

 

>for a couple of centuries after Shankara and was denied any chance

of >its recovery as it was severely damaged if not destroyed in many

areas >along with its large monastic centres.

 

But such destruction of monastic centers is almost unknown in

Southern India where Buddhism flourished for centuries. Not only were

most of the great aachaaryaas of the Mahaayaana of South Indian

origin - Indological opinion considers that the bulk of Mahaayaana

philosophy was developed in the southern regions. So how did Buddhism

disappear from these regions?

 

Here an important point to note is that almost without exception all

the major Vedaantic schools are of South Indian origin : Advaita of

Shankra - either Kerala or TamilNadu, Visishitadvaita of Ramanuja -

TamilNadu, Dvaita of Madhva - Karnataka, Shudhadvaita of Vallabha –

Andhra, DvaitaAdvaita of Nimbarka – Andhra and Saiva Siddhaanta of

Meykanda Thevar and the Sivaachaaryas – TamilNadu.

 

So without doubt all these Vedaantic movements had its impact on the

philosophical development in the Southern regions, of which Buddhism

was historically a vital part.

 

>It would seem to show that not all Buddhists were quite so

>enamoured of it as you suggest.

 

The point is not whether Bauddhas accepted Vedaanta. No philosophy is

absolute and there are always flaws – if you want to criticize any

school there's always scope for it.

 

But the point is, are the differences really significant? They are

not. That's what Bhavya noted where he approvingly quotes from

Gaudapaadiya Kaarikaa.

 

If you compare Advaita with Mahaayaana Buddhism what's the major

difference?

 

Saantarakshita who cannot be said to have any positive feeling

towards the Vedaanta has only one major argument against advaita –

that advaita holds consciousness to be eternal – in contrast to his

own philosophy which following Dignaaga and Dharmakiriti, holds

consciousness to be momentary.

 

But it is to be noted that the theory of momentariness has been

bitterly criticized by earlier Bauddha aachaaryaas like Naagaarjuna

and Vaasubandhu. And in contrast to all their predecessors who'd

deliberately shied away from such a definition, the original

Yogaacaarins – Asanga and Vaasubandu – clearly taught consciousness

to be unchanging and permanent (nitya). Asanga even uses the

term "Atman" to signify reality. That the original Yogaacaarins

taught something similar to Advaita can be confirmed by

Chandrakirti's criticism of the Yogaacaara on the grounds that the

Vijnaanavaada sounds "suspiciously similar to the Atman doctrine of

the heretics".

 

>There were also a number of fairly significant Buddhist philosopher-

>logicians during the 9th-11th centuries such as J~naana'sriimitra,

>Ratnaakara'saanti and others. Why do they do not seem to have

devoted >any attention, to the best of my knowledge, to refuting

Vedaanta if it >was as influential as you suggest ?

 

Dating Indian texts is always a hazy enterprise. But even if your

argument is valid …

 

>Were they really so out of touch with things that they merely

>continued to hammer away at their traditional opponents ?

 

There could be multiple reasons for this.

 

Vedaanta is primarily scripture based. The Vedaantic schools are more

interested in finding support for their doctrines in the scriptures

than validating it by reason alone. So it is quite possible that they

were not really interested in disputes with non-Vedaantic schools who

didn't give as much importance to the scriptures as they did. This

doesn't mean that they totally ignored them, but just that their main

concentration was on disputing amongst themselves.

 

In this scenario the Bauddhas might have found it more relevant to

dispute with those who accepted reason as the fundamental ground for

settling philosophical issues – like the Naiyaayikas.

 

Another point to note here is that : sure, there were existing

Bauddha philosophers. But what of new blood? Who is to sustain the

philosophical traditions in the future? It is here that the rise of

the Vedaantic schools truly cut into the "Bauddha brain drain" from

the brahmanical ranks. In contrast to earlier Brahmins like

Naagaarjuna and Dharmakirti who embraced Buddhism because it taught

something distinct, later brahmins didn't find anything in Buddhism

that one or the other of the Vedaantic schools couldn't offer.

 

> Advaita represents the stage in Indian philosophy where the Indian

> intellect could successfully reconcile the teachings of the ancient

> scriptures with reason.

>Something that one could argue the Buddhists had done all along with

>theird scriptures.

 

I'm not talking about the effort at reconciliation between scriptural

assertions and reason – that has always been there with the Vedic

schools too.

 

What I'm talking about is "full reconciliation" or reasonably so, of

scriptural assertions with reason.

 

Even here since the Buddha concentrated mainly on the known (the non-

self/anatta) and shied away from metaphysics, the job of the Bauddhas

is not half as hard as that of the Vedaantists who had to reconcile

absolutist metaphysics with reason. But schools like Advaita used

Bauddha epistemology and psychology to reconcile Vedaantic

metaphysics with reason.

 

> Over a period of time all the aastika schools were assimilated

> into one or the other form of Vedaanta. Buddhism and

> Jainism too suffered the same fate.

>And was there anything unusual happening in India during this

process >by coincidence ?

 

If you're talking about Moslem invasions, such destruction of

monasteries and slaughter of monks, hardly happened in the South.

Where did the Bauddhas of South India disappear to?

 

Also what's the origin of the dubious theory that Bauddhas willingly

allowed Moslem invaders to slaughter them? In contrast we find

specific instructions that Bauddhas are not to commit suicide

(probably in reference to such practice by sects like Jainism)

because those who have insight into reality are valuable as they can

teach to people who are still on the path.

 

That all monastries were destroyed and all monks were killed is an

untenable theory to hide the real facts regarding the demise of

Buddhism.

[Guest guest]

L.S.Cousins wrote:

 

> Nothing I said could possibly be interpreting as implying that.

Yes, I know -- it's irritating when people misread and misinterpret one's

msgs, isn't it.

 

> My point was concerned with the notion that we have a body of texts that

> have undergone substantial revision as a later date for doctrinal and

> other reasons.

OK. Let me reword my point. I think we are agreed that not all suttas /

sutras preserved in the surviving nikaayas and aagamas were literally

Buddha-vacana. You may have a better idea of the percentage than me but

does a minimum of 25% sounds reasonable ? In other words, there are

portions of the surviving nikaayas / aagamas (and Vinayas) that were

composed by later Buddhists and some of them introduce what are, in effect,

doctrinal / practical innovations. Some of this must have happened at an

early stage before sectarian divisions arose and some subsequently. Since

these texts were composed by people, it seems reasonable that they had

specific reasons for doing so -- a purpose, or, as I would say, an agenda.

One small later example here. While the Pali texts regularly speak of

"anicca, dukkha, anattaa", the Sarvastivadin and Mahasanghika equivalents

regularly speak of "anitya, duhkha, *'suunya*, anatman". Would you prefer

to see the inclusion of "'suunya" here as "doctrinal creep" ? To me, it

suggests a doctrinal purpose.

Regarding the Vinaya, one can see that the Pratimok.sa probably originated

as a single set of rules but, as you know, the later schools differ in the

precise number. Why should there be variant rules ? Were the additions or

deletions made consciously or are they again an example of your "doctrinal

creep" line of thinking ? If they were, as I would maintain, generally

made consciously, there must have been some purpose (= agenda) for doing so.

Outside the Pratimok.sa, the content of the various Vinayas do differ

considerably -- just compare the length of the Pali Vinaya with that of the

Muula-sarvaastivaadins. Why is the latter so much longer ? By accident ?

Thus, the upshot of this is that there are additions, delections and

amendments. If I understand you correctly, you would maintain that these

are largely a product of unconscious or evolutionary "doctrinal creep" while

I see them, in many cases, as conscious changes -- surely we are both

evaluating the situation subjectively according to our tastes and

prejudices.

 

> If you define 'agenda' in such a loose manner, then everything that

> has ever been done by any human being is the product of an agenda. At

> this point the word agenda conveys no information at all.

You may have difficulty understanding my usage of "agenda" up there in

Oxford but say it to anybody on the streets down here in London (as in

"hidden agenda" etc) and they will know exactly what I mean. It seems I

really must remember to avoid colloquialisms in future if there is the

chance you will be reading my msgs.

 

Best wishes,

Stephen Hodge

[Guest guest]

vpcnk wrote:

 

 

>Though Buddhism continued to develop in various interesting ways

>outside of India, I consider that it fully matured there first.

 

>In the light of the above statement I'm unable to understand your

original assertion :

 

>> Still, Buddhism left the maternal home and flourished abroad

>> -- in many parts of the world, it is considered a sign of adulthood

>> when a child leaves its parental home

 

>Please do enlighten.

 

I get the feeling you are being quite obtuse -- has it really escaped your

notice that it is intended as a light-hearted throw-away comment (not

assertion) as should be clear to you by the addition of the smiley face ---

like these --> :) See them now ??

 

 

> Instead of providing merely the conclusion it would have been better

if you'd provided some points from his book as to how the Vedaantic

criticism of Buddhism is faulty. Please do so - let's evaluate the

validity of Darling's criticism.

****

I've given you the reference -- you do the work ! Do you really think I

have time to go through Darling's book to summarize even a selection of his

points ? He's written a whole book on the subject in detail so why bother

with my summary ?

 

 

> Let us see how much Darling

has grasped of both Bauddha philosophy and Advaita. So please do

provide us with his important arguments.

*****

You, of course, are in a position to determine this. We won't go over old

ground but I seem to remember that you had difficulty convincing people on

the Buddha-L list that you had a good grasp of Buddhism prior to your abrupt

exit from that list.

 

 

>Not only were most of the great aachaaryaas of the Mahaayaana of South

Indian

origin - Indological opinion considers that the bulk of Mahaayaana

philosophy was developed in the southern regions.

****

Does it ? What out-of-date sources are you using for that assertion ?

Just because, as you rightly say, some but not most of the great Mahayana

acaryas came from South India does not automatically mean that Mahayana was

"developed" there.

 

> So how did Buddhism disappear from these regions?

My position is that Buddhism's disappearance from most of India was likely

to have been the result of complex factors interacting whereas you

previously claimed tout court that Buddhist philosophy and Buddhism itself

ultimately died out in India because it was inadequate to the challenge

posed by Shankara and later Vedanta. That *may* have been one element but

the situation would seem to have been a little more complicated than you

would concede.

 

> The original Yogaacaarins - Asanga and Vaasubandu - clearly taught

consciousness

to be unchanging and permanent (nitya). Asanga even uses the

term "Atman" to signify reality.

 

We've been over this before on Buddha-L -- your understanding of Yogacara

and Mahyana in general is seriously flawed. You were unable to convince

anybody otherwise then and I'm not going to participate in a re-run here.

 

> That all monastries were destroyed and all monks were killed is an

untenable theory to hide the real facts regarding the demise of

Buddhism.

****

Then you place no value on eye-witness accounts preserved in Tibetan sources

and that even the contemporary Chinese were aware of what had happened ?

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "vpcnk" <vpcnk@H...> wrote:

>

> > Compared to the spiritual influence of Saiva Siddhanta

> > and Srivaishnavism in Tamil history, literature and inscriptions,

> > advaita tradition's mention is rather small.

>

> But I'll issue you a practical challenge : take ten ordinary tamils

> and check who's the one most people are aware of : Shankara or

> Ramanuja or Maikanda Thevar.

>

 

Chandran,

 

You are sounding more and more like a spokesman for the Advaita

political party :-) Maybe if your ordinary Tamils went to vote, maybe

they would vote Advaita assuming you could boil the advaitins'

message down to a recognizable symbol on the ballot paper :-)

 

Dr Ganesan incidentally has already posited a 20th century print

media phenomenon to explain this kind of brand recognition. You have

also not responded to my observation that there is not the kind of

epigraphical notice to Sankaracharyas' or advaita that attests to a

great influence of advaita in history.

 

So I reckon your pet thesis on Advaita's alleged spritual and

philosophical influence is yet to move forward.

 

Thanks and Warm Regards,

 

Lakshmi Srinivas

[Guest guest]

> Chandran,

 

I'll have ask my father to respond to this.

 

> You are sounding more and more like a spokesman for the Advaita

> political party :-) Maybe if your ordinary Tamils went to vote,

maybe

> they would vote Advaita assuming you could boil the advaitins'

> message down to a recognizable symbol on the ballot paper :-)

 

Hey check superstar Rajnikant's new movie "Baba". Does he talk about

Ramanuja? Does he mention Meykanda Thevar? Yet he speaks of Adi

Shankara. None know better about Tamils than the "one man who will

come"! So there! Katham Katham!

 

:-)

[Guest guest]

>I get the feeling you are being quite obtuse -- has it really

escaped >your notice that it is intended as a light-hearted throw-

away comment >(not assertion) as should be clear to you by the

addition of the >smiley face --- like these --> :) See them

now ??

 

If I said : "you're a racist" and put a smiley, would you accept it

as light hearted humor?

 

Indians and their culture are not laboratory insects to be examined,

dissected and treated anyway you like. Some courtesy and respect

please.

 

>I've given you the reference -- you do the work ! Do you really

think >I have time to go through Darling's book to summarize even a

selection >of his points ? He's written a whole book on the subject

in detail so >why bother with my summary ?

 

I gave some specific arguments and in response instead of providing

counter arguments you merely pointed to a book. Either do not respond

to such arguments or if you point to a book please provide the

arguments in it. As if I have the resources and the time to look up

every source quoted by you.

 

>You, of course, are in a position to determine this. We won't go

over >old ground but I seem to remember that you had difficulty

convincing >people on the Buddha-L list that you had a good grasp of

Buddhism >prior to your abrupt exit from that list.

 

It is against net etiquette to talk about one list in another,

primarily because nothing can be verified.

 

But personally Buddha-L was a disappointment to me. I expected

scholarly views – instead all I was exposed to out there was

ignorance and blatant prejudice. When the standard level of courtesy

in the list, which the moderator of the list himself freely engaged

in, extended to members insulting each other as homosexuals and

pedophiles – I was ejected out of the list for merely asking the

moderator to refrain from making snide comments – the moderator

charged me with being "rude" and cancelled my subscription! The real

reason of course was that I was asking too many questions regarding

the validity of the western interpretation of Buddhism. Anybody with

access to the archives for the month of March and April and check the

veracity of my claims.

 

My experience with Buddha-L was quite reminiscent of the old Indology

list – the same old boys club at work again!

 

>We've been over this before on Buddha-L -- your understanding of

>Yogacara and Mahyana in general is seriously flawed.

 

This charge would have been more convincing if you'd not ducked out

of the "chitta maatra Vs vijnaana maatra" discussion on this list

itself.

 

Anyway I'm tired of this discussion. I'm out of this.

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "vpcnk" <vpcnk@H...> wrote:

 

> > You are sounding more and more like a spokesman for the Advaita

> > political party :-) Maybe if your ordinary Tamils went to vote,

> maybe

> > they would vote Advaita assuming you could boil the advaitins'

> > message down to a recognizable symbol on the ballot paper :-)

>

> Hey check superstar Rajnikant's new movie "Baba". Does he talk

about

> Ramanuja? Does he mention Meykanda Thevar? Yet he speaks of Adi

> Shankara. None know better about Tamils than the "one man who will

> come"! So there! Katham Katham!

 

 

Sounds like an endorsement for a deodorant or something :-)

 

Lakshmi Srinivas

[Guest guest]

LS> > You are sounding more and more like a spokesman for the Advaita

> > political party :-) Maybe if your ordinary Tamils went to vote,

> maybe

> > they would vote Advaita assuming you could boil the advaitins'

> > message down to a recognizable symbol on the ballot paper :-)

>

 

INDOLOGY, "vpcnk" <vpcnk@H...> wrote:

> Hey check superstar Rajnikant's new movie "Baba". Does he talk about

> Ramanuja? Does he mention Meykanda Thevar? Yet he speaks of Adi

> Shankara. None know better about Tamils than the "one man who will

> come"! So there! Katham Katham!

>

 

BTW, Baba movie is a dismal failure. The distributors have lost

heavily, that's what I hear.

 

Rajnikant is a Madhvaite coming from Karnataka-Maharashtra.

Recently, he became a disciple of

Swami Dayananda Saraswathi (a journalist by profession, his

purvasramam name is Jaganathan, I think) recently.

 

The late Swami Satchidananda took to sanyas from Swami Sivananda,

Rishikesh (orig. from Kallidaikurichi). Satchidananda, whom I

knew personally, we come from the same place and community,

like Swami Chidbhavananda before him, are the two from Coimbatore

who knew advaita. But before Satchidananda, his father and

grandfather wrote Saiva Siddhanta works.

 

Regards,

N. Ganesan

[Guest guest]

Thanking L. Cousins, S. Hodge, Nanda, and others for their perceptive and

instructive dialogue. Some comments and questions:

 

 

 

Perhaps it is only an insignificant point, but when we speak – as Lance Cousins

puts it – of "a body of texts that have undergone substantial revision a[t] a

later date," there seems to be some oversimplification here as to the very

self-attested "hearsay" origins of these texts. Parenthetically, if by "text"

our reference is limited to words appearing in anything written or printed, how

does academic discipline specify the inferred pre-textual material?

 

 

 

Further, when Cousins remarks, "The nature and processes of historical evolution

over time...," again, I feel there is a hazardous assumption that the

"finally-written texts" themselves appeared straightaway "un-revised." This is

to say that, the composers of the texts, like all writers, must have gone

through multiple drafts in the course of finalizing their compositions. This

furthermore naturally overlooks the extremely long process of re-issuing

("recessions") and the tedious task of the copyist. And finally, to this point:

Is there any significance in the published assertion that the vast majority of

the textual evidence for the Pali Canon comes from manuscripts less than three

hundred years old?

 

 

 

Troy Harris

 

 

 

 

 

News - Today's headlines

 

 

[Guest guest]

Stephen Hodge wrote:

 

<< OK. Let me reword my point. I think we are agreed that not all

suttas /sutras preserved in the surviving nikaayas and aagamas were

literally Buddha-vacana. You may have a better idea of the percentage

than me but does a minimum of 25% sounds reasonable ? >>

 

INDOLOGY/message/2369

 

 

But Stephen, I would very sincerely like to ask you, or anyone who

has a view on the matter: Is there to anybody's knowledge a single

thread of evidence that even one word of the Pali Cannon is

attributable to anyone whom-so-ever?

 

_________

 

Troy Harris