|
|
Many
believe that Buddhism ceased to have a large following in India
because it came under the attack of Sankara. This is not true.
There are very few passages in the Acarya's commentaries critical
of that religion, a religion that was opposed to the Vedas. Far
more forcefully has he criticised the doctrines of Sankhya and
Mimamsa that respect the Vedic tradition. He demolishes their
view that Isvara is not the creator of the world and that it is
not he who dispenses the fruits of our actions. He also maintains
that Isvara possesses the laksanas or characteristics attributed
to him by the Vedas and the Brahmasutra and argues that there can
be no world without Isvara and that it is wrong to maintain that
our works yield fruits on their own. It is Isvara, his resolve,
that has created this world, and it is he who awards us the
fruits of our actions. We cannot find support in his commentaries
for the view that he was responsible for the decline of Buddhism
in India.
Then
how did Buddhism cease to have a considerable following in out
country? Somebody must have subjected it to such rigorous attack
as to have brought about its decline in this land. Who performed
this task? The answer is the mimamsakas and the tarkikas. Those
who are adept in the Tarka-sastra(logic) are called tarkikas. The
Tarka is the part of Nyaya which is one of the fourteen branches
of Vedic learning and which comes next to Mimamsa. People
proficient in Nyaya are naiyayikas; those well versed in grammar
are "vaiyakaranis"; and those proficient in the Puranas
are "pauranikas".
Udayanacarya,
the tarkika, and Kumarilabhatta, the mimamsaka, opposed Buddhism
for different reasons. The former severely criticised that
religion for its denial of Isvara. To mimamsakas, as I have said
earlier, Vedic rituals are of the utmost importance. Even though
they don't believe that it is Isvara who awards us the fruit of
our actions, they believe that the rituals we perform yield their
own fruits and that the injunctions of the dharmasastras must be
carried out faithfully. They attacked Buddhism for its refusal to
accept Vedic rituals. Kumarilabhatta has written profusely in
criticism of that religion. He and Udayanacarya were chiefly
responsible for the failure of Buddhism to acquire a large
following in this country. Our Acarya came later and there was no
need for him to make a special assault on that religion on his
own. On the contrary, his chief task was to expose the flaws in
the systems upheld by the very opponents of Buddhism,
Kumarilabhatta and Udayanacarya. He established that Isvara is
the creator of the universe and that it is he who awards the
fruits of our actions.
I
am mentioning this fact so as to disabuse you of the wrong
notions you must have formed with regard to Sankara's role in the
decline of Buddhism. There is a special chapter in one of
Kumarilabhatta's works called "Tarkapadam" in which he
has made an extensive refutation of Buddhism. So too has
Udayanacarya in his Bauddhadhikaram. These two acaryas
were mainly responsible for the decline of Buddhism in our land
and not Sankara Bhagavatpada. What we are taught on the subject
in our textbooks of history is not true.
|
|
|
|
|
"Hindu Dharma" is a book
which contains English translation of certain invaluable and
engrossing speeches of Sri Sri Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi MahaSwamiji (at
various times during the years 1884 to 1994).
For a general background, please see here
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
