An account of travel to the five Indian kingdoms – 723 CE(en.wikipedia.org) |
An account of travel to the five Indian kingdoms – 723 CE(en.wikipedia.org) |
And Sankara had many ideas that were similar to Buddhism, like disdain for rituals, liberation through knowledge, disregard of caste hierarchy, etc.
He was later attacked by rival Vedanta schools for being opposed to rituals as rituals are central to the Vedas.
But he did attack Buddha and Buddhist ideas. The point of conflict was the existence of self.
But he used many strawman arguments, and criticised Buddha for saying things he didn't say. Sankara didn't know and didn't care.
He was a great philosopher, though.
I don't know why, but I find this super cute in a naive way, like something a 5 year old would say. But I guess that was state-of-the-art weather science back then!
(I'm not remotely an expert, but it seems like at least a possibility for an explanation, and it's a interesting and seemingly little-known class of phenomena.)
Shankaracharyas problems with Buddhism are because he was criticizing something that had already ceased to be a living vigorous tradition in his time.
Buddhism in that time and place was entirely monastic. If you were a layman you could support the sangha but you kept your existing dharmic commitments. You were not exclusively “Buddhist” unless you became a monk. Also it seems the condition of nuns had become rather bad.
Shaivism etc. by contrast had a complete path that addressed worldly concerns as well as liberation, for householders as well as ascetics and accessible to men and women of all castes.
Buddha told Ananda that hundreds of his householder disciples attained Nirvana.
Shaivism etc. (and for that matter Jainism) had clear and specific codes of conduct for grhastha disciples.
Sutras continued to be produced long after Shakyamunis lifetime and some anachronistically ascribe later ideas to early figures.