Concept of Mukti and Shankaracharya

[George Cronk]

In his BRAHMASUTRA-BHASHYA, Adhyaya II, Pada 2, Section 32, Shamkara writes
the following:  "From whatever points of view the Buddhist systems are
tested with regard to their plausibility, they cave in on all sides, like
the walls of a well dug in sandy soil.  [Buddhist philosophy] has, in fact,
no foundation whatever to rest upon, and thus it is foolish to adopt it as a
guide in the practical concerns of life.  Moreover, the Buddha,  by
presenting three mutually contradictory systems of philosophy -- teaching
respectively the reality of the external world, the reality of
consciousness-only, and general emptiness -- has himself made it clear
either that he was a man given to making incoherent assertions, or else that
hatred of all beings moved him to propound absurd doctrines that would
thoroughly confuse all who might take him seriously.  Thus . . . , the
Buddha’s doctrine must be entirely disregarded  by  all  those  who  have  a
regard  for  their  own  happiness."

When Shamkara focuses his analytical and critical dialectic on his
philosophical opponents, he can be very tough!

-----Original Message-----
From: DEVARAKONDA VENKATA NARAYANA SARMA <narayana at HD1.DOT.NET.IN>
To: INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK <INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK>
Date: Thursday, December 31, 1998 8:48 PM
Subject: Re: Concept of Mukti and Shankaracharya


>Please give some references.
>
>regards,
>
>sarma.
>At 07:36 AM 12/31/98 +0530, K.S.Arjunwadkar wrote:
>>Thus, at times, he dubs his opponent who solely relies on
>>logic/reason as a bull without a tail and horns, ridicules him as speaking
>>with an unrestrained mouth, and so on. While concluding his criticism of
>>the philosophical doctrines of the Buddha, he remarks that the Buddha was
>>either insane or one who hated the mankind to the extent of taking
pleasure
>>in misguiding it. I can, if required, quote from his works to support my
>>statements.
>>
>