[Y-Indology] samkara tradition and temple worship

[Guest guest]

>But who will deny that Brahmanism and Buddhism had by the time of

>shankara become separate institutions?

 

I would have thought it was the other way.

 

In my mind the Buddha taught in an environment where he was not

really considered an outsider. Sure they were many people especially

brahmins who disputed his authority, but again they were probably as

many earnest brahmins willing to sit at his feet and learn.

 

But by the time which followed the establishment of the Buddhist

Sangha, both the streams definitely diverged with Buddhism

establishing itself on its own right apart from the other streams.

 

But works like Suhrlekha and Ratnavali of Naagaarjuna as well as

Yogaacaara works seem to suggest the coming together of both streams

once again. S Radhakrishnan probably deriving inspiration from this

notes in his Indian Philosophy that "Brahmins were increasingly

looked upon as brethren by Buddhist monks".

 

But such a movement would also surely have triggered its anti-thesis -

Buddhists who still wanted their own distinct identity.

 

It is also to be noted that the Vedas were taught in Buddhist

universities like Nalanda and Takshila. So it is quite possible that

the brahmins in Buddhism always tried to patch things up between the

two streams. But again as notable a Brahmin as Ashvagosha has

authored the Vajrasoochi which is a virulent attack on the brahmins.

 

It is very difficult to make absolute pronouncements on such issues.

I would think that the argument can cut both ways depending on the

situation.

[Guest guest]

A minor point of correction: There were exclusively pudgalavaadin monasteries

in India. For example, there is a second century inscription from Mathura

mentioning the Saamitiiyas and another from 4th century Sarnath mentioning the

Vaatsiiputras -- both of whom are classed as "pudgalavaadin". Nevertheless,

your point is well taken. It might, however, be better illustrated with

Mahayana (prior to the fifth century) in place of pudgalavaada.

 

Cheers

 

Joseph Walser

Tufts University

 

Quoting Phillip Ernest <phillip.ernest:

 

>

> -

> "subrahmanyas2000" <subrahmanyas

> <INDOLOGY>

> Thursday, March 13, 2003 12:05 AM

> [Y-Indology] Re: samkara tradition and temple worship

>

>

> >

> > The question of who originated and who absorbed is

> > not an appropriate question for the Indic traditions, since there

> > are no institutionalized orders. It is the

> > "christian church" way of thinking to ask such questions

> > and in many ways irrelevant to the particular guru-shishya

> > lineage that may be under discussion.

>

> I think this is a real overstatement. Just looking at Buddhism, it is true

> to say that adherents of different Buddhist schools lived in the same

> monasteries, and that exclusively pudgalavaadin monasteries, for example,

> were not set up. But Buddhist literature reveals that there was intense

> interest in drawing boundaries between schools, deciding what was whose and

> what had originated where (many words were expended on trying to sort out

> whether the pudgalavaadins were or were not tiirthikas) even if these

> doctrinal divisions did not manifest as institutional schisms _within

> Buddhism_ in the same way that similar ones did in Christendom. But who

> will deny that Brahmanism and Buddhism had by the time of shankara become

> separate institutions? And the bitter criticisms that were brought by

> vedaantin and Buddhist alike against what even at the time was seen as his

> cooptation of madhyamaka ideas arose within and hardened institutional

> boundaries.

>

> P

>

>

>

>

> indology

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

-

"Joseph Walser" <joseph.walser

<INDOLOGY>

Thursday, March 13, 2003 3:30 PM

Re: [Y-Indology] Re: samkara tradition and temple worship

 

 

> A minor point of correction: There were exclusively pudgalavaadin

monasteries

> in India.

 

This is very interesting news, and I'll have to look into it. I think it is

a fact that may not be widely known at all. No doubt the pudgalavaadins

were everywhere, and many monsteries were mixed; but this is the final word

on the matter in the few books I've read. But it makes sense that special

pudgalavaadin monasteries would eventually be established, since the

pudgalavaada did become the predominant Buddhist school.

 

Let me also put in a plug here for the recent book on pudgalavaada by this

university's Prof. Leonard Priestley; it strikes me as very careful

scholarly writing, often in beautiful style, on a neglected area of

buddhology.

 

Phillip

[Guest guest]

Phillip,

Bhiksu Thich Thien Chau has a good discussion of the monasteries in his book,

The Literature of the Personalists of Early Buddhism on page 4ff. I look

forward to reading professor Priestley's book. Can you give me more information

on it (Title, etc.)?

 

Joseph

 

 

Quoting Phillip Ernest <phillip.ernest:

 

>

> -

> "Joseph Walser" <joseph.walser

> <INDOLOGY>

> Thursday, March 13, 2003 3:30 PM

> Re: [Y-Indology] Re: samkara tradition and temple worship

>

>

> > A minor point of correction: There were exclusively pudgalavaadin

> monasteries

> > in India.

>

> This is very interesting news, and I'll have to look into it. I think it is

> a fact that may not be widely known at all. No doubt the pudgalavaadins

> were everywhere, and many monsteries were mixed; but this is the final word

> on the matter in the few books I've read. But it makes sense that special

> pudgalavaadin monasteries would eventually be established, since the

> pudgalavaada did become the predominant Buddhist school.

>

> Let me also put in a plug here for the recent book on pudgalavaada by this

> university's Prof. Leonard Priestley; it strikes me as very careful

> scholarly writing, often in beautiful style, on a neglected area of

> buddhology.

>

> Phillip

>

>

>

>

> indology

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

>

>