[braindead_in]

Is there a full translation available? The 7th century was a momentous century for India. The golden age of Maurya's was over, Buddhism was at it's peak, Adi Shankaracharya was challenging it and the Islamic invasions were just starting. It would have been a fascinating time to visit India.

[jaldhar]

Although travelers paint a rosy picture (what’s a Buddhist monk going to tell the folks at home?) the best days of Indian Buddhism were already in the past by the 7th century. Shankaracharya (who was actually a century later in the opinion of most historians) actually doesn’t criticize Buddhism that much; the main philosophical opposition came from Nyaya and Mimamsa and at the popular level from Shaivism/Shaktism and Vaishnavism.

[rg111]

It is more like Nyaya-Vaisheshika was the only school that could barely confront Buddhism.

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.

[jaldhar]

That’s a rather tendentious way of putting it. There was a vigorous back and forth between the Nyaya and Buddhist logicians as acknowledged by thinkers on both sides. And barely or not, Nyaya did eventually prevail.

Shankaracharyas problems with Buddhism are because he was criticizing something that had already ceased to be a living vigorous tradition in his time.

[prox]

I am not too well versed in the politics of those times. But was it also a change in patronship that set a new direction? Did rulers change to Shaivism/Shaktism and Vaishnavism and the population followed?

[jaldhar]

We know more about changes at the elite level because the archaeological and literary evidence favors it and yes there was a significant shift in patronage but the Bhakti movements grew at the popular level too.

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.

[rg111]

There were millions of Buddhist householders. They not only supported the monks, but also practised Buddhism.

Buddha told Ananda that hundreds of his householder disciples attained Nirvana.

[jaldhar]

What does it mean to practice Buddhism if not a monk? Can you point to specific activities (as opposed to general ethical principles) that must be performed by a layman? Buddhism did develop such things but later than the period under discussion and outside India.

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.