Concept of Mukti and Shankaracharya

[DEVARAKONDA VENKATA NARAYANA SARMA]

Here the reference seems to be to sarvAsthivAdins (vaibhASikAs),
vijnAnavAdins and zUnyavAdins. This is hardly an attack 
by Sankara on Buddha as a person but an attack on the later 
schools of Buddhism. Insteaad of refuting them individually
Sankara takes the easy way out. He heckles them for their lack 
of unanimity about what is the teaching of Buddha.

regards,

sarma.
 
At 09:50 AM 1/2/99 -0500, you wrote:
>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.
>>>
>>
>
>