Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University Religious Studies Theses Department of Religious Studies 12-4-2006 Shankara: A Hindu Revivalist or a Crypto-Buddhist? Kencho Tenzin Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/rs_theses Part of the Religion Commons Recommended Citation Tenzin, Kencho, "Shankara: A Hindu Revivalist or a Crypto-Buddhist?." Thesis, Georgia State University, 2006. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/rs_theses/4 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. 4 Although Sankara’s time seems far removed from ours, and the differences and similarities between his thought and that of Nagarjuna’s tradition may not seem of great relevance today, there is actually