Dharmic Schism Fallacies: Crypto-Buddhist Myths vs Historical Truths
Schism-seekers' nonfactual fallacies have been disproven for some time now.
Given the vivid and intently scholastic traditions of Sanatan Dharma (which, as Part 1 discussed, can be considered the most appropriate historical term for “Hinduism”, even if the faith’s foundation predates it likely by order of millennia), many modern “thought leaders” are wont to lob barbs and criticisms at its current standing in the world. Perhaps it’s the angst of a certain brand of “atheist” chagrined by the faith’s resilience in the face of their absolutist belief in non-belief.
It is also likely that, in many cases, it’s simple bigotry in order to advance their personal ambitions or the faith they hold, which proselytizers of the religion of non-belief run active cover for. When it comes to Indian Buddhism, there are quite a few historical texts that seemingly supports the bigot and the fanatical believer of non-beliefs.
When it comes to the relationship between Sanatan Dharma and Buddhism, Belgian/Flemish historian and Indologist Dr. Koenraad Elst summed it up very succinctly not too long ago:
Now, Dr. Elst is often marked as a controversial figure in his homeland of Belgium and in the so-called “secular” fabric of modern Europe for a variety of reasons, despite which he remains unstinting in his appreciation of Sanatan Dharma and often-scathing criticism in the passivity of those who follow it. If Dr. Elst’s modernist (and perhaps provocative) assertions aren’t enough, fear not: contemporary research by scholars from across the world who aren’t exclusively Indian (or even followers of the faith) and which isn’t coloured by colonial-era trappings lay out -and even confirm - the truth as it had always been.
Shiva and Shankara
Among those who seek to find a schism between the Indic Dharmas - particularly between Sanatana and Buddhism - one individual seems to invoke particular ire among those purporting to be modern-day “thought leaders”: Adi Shankaracharya. Said “thought leaders” put forth several variations of the view that Adi Shankaracharya essentially argued Buddhist scholars into a corner and plotted with the kings of India to drive them out of India. Some others claim that Adi Shankaracharya was a “crypto-Buddhist” accumulating power.
Adi Shankaracharya’s relevance is both salutary and overstated. Accounts of his birth vary widely: some sources, principally from the cardinal institutions (singular: “Maṭha”; मठ) established by his teachings establish him more or less as a contemporary of the Buddha. Other sources mark him as having lived a millennium later, i.e. roughly a century after the demise of the Gupta Empire. Contemporary researchers generally accept the latter as being more likely.
Among the many works he authored was the “Brahmasutrabhashya” (ब्रह्मसूत्रभाष्य), a highly influential commentary on the “Brahma Sutra” (ब्रह्मसूत्र), which itself a fundamental text of the “Vedanta” (वेदान्त) school of philosophy within Sanatan Dharma and widely considered to be one of its three most important texts. “Vedanta” emphasizes “jnana” (ज्ञान, “knowledge”) and “jnana yoga” (ज्ञानयोग, “path of knowledge”) over theistic devotion. This emphasis could be the root of the rather shallow rationalization by “thought leaders” for proclaiming Adi Shankaracharya as a “crypto-Buddhist”.
However, well-documented and consistent research establishes Sri Shankaracharya to be a follower of the Sanatan “Shaiva” tradition (शैवसम्प्रदायः) which, in comparison to all other traditions, was the most accepting of an ascetic pursuit and the harnessing of yoga. Like other Sanatan traditions, it also traditionally encouraged one to discover and be one with Shiva within. By no means was the “Shaiva” tradition a concurrent belief that coincided with Buddhism: ancient inscriptions place the Lord within the Indus Valley Civilization, which is estimated to have existed at least as early as the second millennium BCE. Given the advanced level of architecture, it could be hypothesized that the civilization’s roots and philosophies run much older than that.
Given that Indus Valley scrips remain largely undeciphered, some could argue that Lord Shiva (and ergo “Shaiva” traditions) didn’t originate here. For those, it bears remembering that the “Rigveda” (ऋग्वेद), one of the four sacred canonical Sanatan texts (श्रुति, “shruti”) known as the “Vedas”, is widely accepted to have been composed around 1500 BCE. The Rigveda, although heavily inclined towards scriptural theology, references a hundred epithets to “Rudra” (रुद्र; another name for the Lord) that continue to be the basis of prayers in the present day. Given that a “Veda” is a compilation of doctrine rigorously tested to have consistent philosophical discourse and then stripped of individual author attribution to prevent bias in a system known as “Apaurusheya” (अपौरुषेय). The Rigveda’s linguistic style has been compared to that of the documents of the little-known Mitanni (𒆳𒌷𒈪𒋫𒀭𒉌) Empire that existed between 1550–1260 BCE in northern Syria and southeast Anatolia - which also references a number of Sanatan Gods, shares linguistic and cultural references with the Zoroastrianism's Avesta (which also shares a number of Gods with Sanatana) and the Sintashta culture, estimated to have existed around 2050–1900 BCE in the northern Eurasian steppe on the borders of Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The “Sintashta” people displayed an unusually high level of copper mining and bronze metallurgy along with militaristic characteristics and a penchant for extensive fortified settlements, which was unusual for a “Steppe culture” of that time period.
Such was the prevalence of the Lord that even China’s Northern Wei Dynasty (北魏) - which rose to prominence alongside the Gupta Empire - is thought to have included references to him which, due to their avid patronage of Buddhism, might indicate the iconography to be a pre-Buddhist carryover.
Elsewhere along the steppe, the Lord also remained prevalent within Buddhist spheres of influence - in a possible sign of his enduring popularity.
Refutations of “Crypto-Buddhism”
Such coterminous ardour across Asia would likely be a testament of the scholastic intensity that served as the undercurrent for the philosophy built on the metaphysical truths deemed self-evident by Dharma. The ascetism to attain oneness with this truth, manifested around Lord Shiva, could thus be considered a long-standing tradition.
It bears noting that many Buddhist principles are strikingly similar to the “Ajivika” (आजीविका) ascetic movement whose founder, Makkhali Gosala, was a contemporary of both the Buddha and Mahavira, the last tirthankar of Jainism. While some sources prevaricate on labelling it a Sanatan school of thought, it is recorded that Emperor Ashoka, the first major emperor to follow Buddhism, considered it to be more closely related to the Sanatan schools of thought than Buddhist and Jain schools after studied consideration. Such was this movement’s intellectual prowess that, while it left behind precious little literature, it found frequent mention in Jain and Buddhist texts - where its doctrine is considered likely to have been distorted for polemical purposes.
The “Ajivika” school’s doctrine of absolute fatalism (or determinism) essentially declared that the path to moksha, i.e. liberation from the eternal cycle of birth, death, and rebirth, was impossible, directly running counter to Jain and Buddhist precepts. Like Sanatan philosophy, it affirmed belief in the existence in “Atman” (आत्मन्), a self—existent individual essence. Unlike orthodox Sanatan schools, it held that this has material form. But “Ajivika” philosophy wasn’t unique; it shared many concepts (such as the existence of atoms1 as indivisible blocks of the universe, among other ideas) with the Sanatan “Vaisheshika” (वैशेषिक) school of philosophy, which is considered to have formalized under Kaṇaada (कणाद) nearly two centuries or so before the Buddha’s life on this mortal plane. In turn, “Vaisheshika” shared ideas with the “Nyaaya” (न्याय) school of philosophy, with both schools’ scholars usually recorded as having studied together. The “Nyaaya” school is considered to be indescribably ancient; the “Rigveda” recites the school’s spiritual questions in its logical propositions. Thus, the spiritual philosophy of Adi Shankaracharya (and indeed of both “Advaita” philosophy and the “Shaiva” tradition) can be described as a journey dating back millennia before the advent of Buddhism and its scholarship. The schism-seeker’s argument of the Adi Shankaracharya being a “crypto-Buddhist” is thus lacking in veracity.
Another argument made by the schism-seeker who might persist in calling the venerable Shankaracharya as being a “crypto-Buddhist” lies in his (infrequent) citation of Buddhist scholars in his commentary. The schism-seeker would likely find solace that some of his early critics of the “Vaishnava” tradition (वैष्णवसम्प्रदायः) labeled him so as well. This argument, as mentioned earlier, can be discounted given the deep pre-Buddhist roots of both “Advaita” and “Shaiva” - which the former had already done so and considered settled centuries ago. The citation of Buddhist scholars were particularly heavy in his critiques of Buddhist philosophy. In this regard, Adi Shankaracharya was hardly the first to do so.
The early foundation of his critique in his own life arguably lay in Gauḍapada (गौडपाद), a scholar of the “Advaita Vedanta” school of philosophy who Shankarcharya regarded as his “paramguru” (highest teacher). In the lineage of gurus, this has a profound meaning in the lineage of gurus wherein:
Sanatan Dharma has a uniquely-nuanced consideration of the nature of instructor, in that the term “guru” lies within a hierarchy:
An “Adhyapak” (अध्यापक) gives you information.
An “Upadhyaya” (उपाध्याय) imparts knowledge with information.
An “Acharya” (आचार्य) imparts skills.
A “Pandit” (पण्डित), itself derived from the Sanskrit “Prajna” (प्रज्ञा, “to know, understand, distinguish, learn, perceive, discover”), gives deep insight into a subject.
A “Dhrishta” (धृष्ट) holds a visionary view on a subject and instructs one to think in that manner.
A “Guru” (गुरु) molds values, is an exemplar to one’s life2 and who shares experiential knowledge as much as literal knowledge.
In Dharmic scholastic tradition, the lineage of gurus also has specific consideration to indicate consistency in philosophy and evolution of thereof. This lineage is broadly classified thus:
The “Guru” is one’s immediate guru.
The “Paramguru” is one’s guru’s guru.
The “Parapara guru” is the guru of one’s paramguru.
The “Parameshti guru” is the guru of one’s parapara guru.
In other words, the term “guru” is not meant to be bandied about lightly.
The allegations of “crypto-Buddhism” lay upon Gauḍapada as well. The principal argument for this lay in the “Gaudapada Karika” (गौडपादकारिका), a scholastic work of four chapters that he compiled. A schism-seeker of little knowledge would seize upon this work’s fourth chapter, which acknowledges the existence of Buddhist philosophy. While this is true, the chapter also concludes with a refutation of the Buddha’s work itself thus: “The Buddha instructs us that consciousness does not reach the dharmas, yet the Buddha said nothing about either consciousness or dharmas!” Adding to the confusion is contemporary research that indicates that while the first three chapters are unmistakably “Advaita” Vedanta, the fourth chapter might have been written after the first three chapters.
It’s entirely possible that one or more of Gaudapada’s students or successors composed a hitherto-incomplete Chapter Four after his passing by basing it on instructions and commentary he uttered while on this mortal plane. In any case, even in Gaudapada’s case, the schism-seeker shouldn’t find solace, given the scholar’s intricate refutation of Buddhist philosophy despite acknowledging it. After all, one cannot refute that which hasn’t been acknowledged to be.
On the matter of acknowledgement as a form of recognition: while it’s true that Sanatan philosophy prefers not to deviate from its own millennia-spanning evolution, it also doesn’t forbid discourse on a key matter in the present. As Swami Nikhilananda - the founder of the New York branch of the Ramakrishna Mission - states, Buddhism was prevalent at the time and its philosophical stance needed to be addressed.
It also bears noting that Adi Shankaracharya and Gaudapada weren’t the only prominent intellectual opponents to Buddhist philosophy. A more-senior contemporary of Shankaracharya, Kumarilla Bhatta (कुमारिल भट्ट), was well-regarded as being the foremost Sanatan scholar on Buddhist philosophy who undertook significant study with the express intention of refuting it. Kumarilla argued on various points: the inconsistent language used in successive Buddhist texts indicate the likelihood of authorship bias and lack of continuous evolution in its philosophical stance while the fact that the foundational “Pali Canon” was conceived after the Buddha’s passing from this mortal plane makes its legitimacy as the Buddha’s teachings questionable while also undermining its scholars’ assertion of it being eternal scripture. Kumarilla also questioned the Buddhist notion that the universe was momentary (“kshanika”). He contends that no matter how small one would define the duration of a moment, one could divide the moment into infinitely smaller parts. Thus, he argues: “if the universe does not exist between moments, then in which of these moments does it exist?” Since a moment could be infinitesimally small, he goes on to conclude that Buddhist philosophy holds that the universe is non-existent, thus undermining its own argument of a “kshanika” universe.
The “Advaita Vedanta” school’s principle of non-dualism holds that “Atman” and “Brahman” (ब्रह्म), i.e. the ultimate reality of the universe, is non-different. Some schism-seekers of poor education would exclaim that this implies “crypto-Buddhism” which is again untrue; the ascetic history of “Advaita” and “Shaiva” proves its distinct evolution. Also, “Advaita”, unlike Buddhism, considers the Vedas to be an entirely reliable source of knowledge and the “Upanishads” to hold the “errorless revealed truth”. “Advaita” scholars were well-positioned to argue that Buddhist philosophy’s rejection of this knowledge leaves their revelations possibly riddled with errors.
A Hero, Revised
Despite the ire of “thought leaders”, contemporary research now holds the view that Shankaracharya, salutary though his work may be, was overshadowed by his contemporary Mandana Misra, who was also a student of Kumarilla Bhatta. In his seminal work “Brahmasiddhi” (ब्रह्मसिध्दि), Mandana put forth that errors are opportunities to receive the fullness of correct knowledge since one not only understands the truth but also understand errors and what is not truth. His student Vachaspati Mishra wrote commentaries on both Shankaracharya’s “Brahmasutrabhashya” as well as the “Brahmasiddhi”, wherein the two scholars’ thoughts were harmonized and arguments strengthened, leading to a subsequent rise in its scholastic acceptability among various Advaita Orders3.
Contemporary research postulates that Adi Shankaracharya’s status as a conqueror of disparate theological schools of thought was likely created around the time of the Vijayanagara Empire, i.e. in the 14th to 17th century CE, when Vidyaranya became the pontiff of the Sringeri Matha as well as a central figure in the Empire. Vidyaranya’s “Sarvadarshanasaṃgraha” (सर्वदर्शनसंग्रह; “Summary of all Views”) presented Shankaracharya’s teachings as the summit of all revelations and the most inclusive in terms of correctness. With the Empire’s financial backing, word of Shankaracharya’s elevation spread around the various institutions of Sanatana.
Thus, while Adi Shankaracharya’s work as a “conqueror” might be overstated, there is no denying that he was part of the evolution of Sanatan Dharma for the laity. But more of that in the next part: “Ascendant Heterodoxies vs Divisions”
Vaisheshika philosophy held the “paramanu” (परमाणु) to be the foundational building blocks of the physical universe. “Paramanu” is the contemporary Indic word for “atom” across most of its 576 languages and 19,500 dialects.
A popular theory posits that the term “guru” is gu (गु) and ru (रु), which respectively stands for “darkness” and “light that dispels”. This is not true: in Sanskrit, “tamas” (तमस्) is “darkness” and there are many terms for light, none of which have “ru” as a root. It can be assumed that this is an example of “folk etymology” to highlight the importance of a “guru” in one’s spiritual journey.
There is an indefinite difference between “Order” (as used in Part 1, i.e. “Dharmic Tapestry”) and “school of thought” as used here. The former denotes an organization of scholars organized under a pragmatic principle (as part of an ancient temple complex, under a kingdom’s religious ministry, a specific region, etc.) who may or may not all be of the same “school of thought” but are otherwise united in practical purposes, such as serving the laity in proximate regions.