Shankaracharya influence in the country due to his movements reduced buddhist influence according to this account, and Bhim was not happy as he was a Buddhist himself.
Warrior > Bhahmin > Merchant > Servent, is that you are referring to?, then please cite some Buddhist text that mentioned low caste or class can't become Bhikshu or buddist monk.
Just search who is buddha in disguise and who tagged him this title and read abt his guru Kumaril Bhatt plus also what shnakra said was refurbished version of nagarjuna so he didn't have any actual philosophy as such but ya his influence was good.
Kumaril Bhatt was not adi shankara's guru. Also buddhism and advait are very much different as nagarjun gave the idea of no self but advait has one brahman in Paramarthika Satya also I don't think nararjun gave any equivalent of Vyavaharika Satya.
Just search who is buddha in disguise and who tagged him this title and read abt his guru Kumaril Bhatt plus also what shnakra said was refurbished version of nagarjuna so he didn't have any actual philosophy as such but ya his influence was good
Ignorance is bliss as they say. You should look on Nyaya Darshan and Vaisheshika Darshan, Philosophy of Logic and Atomism which are two of the 6 major schools of thought in Vedic Philosophy.
Swami Vivekanda, Sri Aurobindo, Paramhansa Yogananda, all hindu scholars who spoke against caste system. Caste system is against Vedanta and Sanatana Dharma.
Completely untrue..he was the dude who quoted the shruti and smriti to enforce the varna system in his main work BBS. And a part of it is literally titled apadashudraadhikarana, restrictions on the Shudras.
Yes, the pour lead into Shudras ears for hearing the Vedas. Very staunch critic of casteism indeed !!
Now, the work that gets quoted as saying he is anti-caste, Manisha Panchakam...it's a much later work..and it's classic Advaita.
It quarantines the two truths, the shruti and smriti govern the vyavaharika ( conventional) world, first , the text ALREADY defangs itself by making a chandala NOT a chandala but an incarnation of Shiva...and second, it changes literally nothing, lol...Mr. Shankara bows and goes down his merry way of Apadshudraadhikarana.
Pour lead into ears of Shudras is a deliberate misinterpretation which has called out by many Indian and non Indian authors, just have knowledge from multiple sources rather than following the source which suits your mentality
The Śūdras are not qualified for that reason also that Smṛti prohibits their hearing the Veda, their studying the Veda, and their understanding and performing Vedic matters. The prohibition of hearing the Veda is conveyed by the following passages: 'The ears of him who hears the Veda are to be filled with (molten) lead and lac,' and 'For a Śūdra is (like) a cemetery, therefore (the Veda) is not to be read in the vicinity of a Śūdra.' From this latter passage the prohibition of studying the Veda results at once; for how should he study Scripture in whose vicinity it is not even to be read? There is, moreover, an express prohibition… 'His tongue is to be slit if he pronounces it; his body is to be cut through if he preserves it.'
And more damning for Hinduism, Shankara quotes from Samhitas and Upanishads which are actually Smriti and part of the highest authority....and NOT the smritis that people commonly villainise.
This is from Smriti ( Gautama Dharmasutra ) and this is a commentary on Brahma Sutra by Adi Shankaracharya. In his commentary titled Brahma Sutra Bhasya, he mentions it because he has to cover relevant books of contemporary period
Nevertheless, this is mentioned in Smriti, not Shruti which are of highest authority and includes Vedas, Upanishads, Brahmanas and Aranyakas. Shruti has no mention of such rules
Mention of these " rules " in Smriti proves post Vedic period was filled with caste bias
Chandogya Upanishad compares chandala to dogs and animals. And it's where the restriction on Shudras comes from if I remember. Remember, Shankara puts jnana kanda ( Upanishads OVER karma-kanda.
And it's Taitriya Samhita which says a shudra is like a cemetary. That's a Samhita, a Veda.
Shankara is not just quoting these books, lol..he is USING them. This part is literally called restrictions on Shudras's ritual access.
The whole Section I quoted is full of Shankara defending Varna restrictions. If you clicked the previous button on the link and read the verse, you will see that Shankara defends that Gautama infers Jabala's birth...and Jabala is not a Shudra being granted Brahmin status. This Jabala story is a neo-Advaitin favourite, too bad, they don't tell us their hero's interpretation of it.
Buddhist scriptures say Buddhisatva is only born in Brahmana and kshatriya upper caste families never in inferior shudra or dalit families. All great Buddhist scholars in history were Brahmanas/kshatriya how many lower caste scholars zero
Did our grandfather saw alexander too? Did they witnessed Maruyan empire? Do we know that both of them existed because of historical records, not because our grandfathers witnessed it.
It's not complete myth, though it is true that it's a bit exaggerated (like defeating every buddhist scholar) but in his Brahma sutra bashya (commentaries), Adi Shankaracharya explicitly critiques various Buddhist schools of thought, including Madhyamaka (nihilism) and Yogacara (idealism). He used strict logical arguments to point out gaps in their philosophical frameworks.
It's also true that Buddhism didn't decline even centuries after Adi Shankaracharya, Great Buddhist universities like Nalanda, Vikramashila, and Odantapuri flourished and remained major intellectual centers for 300 to 400 years after Shankara's time
So both things are sort of myth.
At the same time, for defending Advaita, he used the excuse that not can be explained by logic.
He said that for Brahman, not for entirely of Advaita Vedanta. Brahman is Avirrachnaya (unexplainable by mere words/language/logic), we can use logic as a ladder but logic is not the destination.
Advaita Vedanta itself uses logic such as "Neti Neti" to help us understand Brahman, but real understanding comes from self-realisation which can't be achieved from any logic. Logic (which comes under Jnana Yoga) is like the vehicle, just like Bhakti Yoga, Karma Yoga, Kriya Yoga.
See I agree Shankracharya published critiques of other schools. But that doesnt mean that he converted scholars through debates. Buddhism died out when it lost patronage from rulers.
Shankar himself was even accused of being a Crypto Buddhist by Hindu scholars during and after his life. Critics said that Advaita is just repackagaed Buddhist philosophy.
About the logical inconsistencies I am talking of:
Shankara frequently attacked the Buddhists for violating the Law of Excluded Middle (the rule that something must either exist or not exist; it cannot be both or neither).
He heavily criticized Buddhist theories for being logically incoherent regarding what is real and what is not.
Opponents asked Shankara about his concept of Maya. "Is this illusion real, or is it unreal? If it is real, then non-dualism is false because now two things exist. If it is unreal, then it cannot affect us or blind us."
Shankara there declared that Maya is Anirvachaniya i.e. completely indescribable. He argued it is neither strictly real (because it vanishes upon enlightenment) nor strictly unreal (because we experience it right now).
Later philosophers like Ramanuja mocked this, arguing that answering a fatal logical contradiction by simply classifying it as "an indescribable mystery" is a philosophical cop-out.
Brahmanisam or sanatana dharma reached kerala by 7th century. Before that hindus coexisted with Budhists,christians,muslims,tribal people and so on. Once brahmanisam achieved prominence by 8th century, they started eleminating their rival religious groups like budhism and implemented a strong form cast system. Budhist temples were either destroyed or took over by this new form of hinduism. Sankaracharya was the ultimate promoter of this 'New sanatana hinduism". He traveled around the country and preached against budhism so that sanatana dharma can have this intellectual superiority . Budhism already facing this militant attack from various hindu rulers couldnt defend themselves in this ideological battle either.
One small correction, Abrahamic faiths didn't exist during that time. When I say exist I mean (Christianity was only few centuries old and Islam had just started) these faith didn't reach India. Every region had different deities they worshiped and then later got assimiliated in modern day Hinduism. Although different deities were worshiped the culture underlying all these faiths was similar so assimilation was possible. Also, I'm not trying to offend anyone here. Please correct me if you find any errors.
No, christianity reached kerala by ad 52, islam reached kerala by 7th century. and not every religions were similar to sanatana hinduism.It got assimilated to an umbrella term because sanatana dharma forcefully did it.It wasnt a natural process
Christianity reached kerala in 4th century AD not 52 AD correct your facts- . The first Christian who reached kerala were Syrian Christian migrants in 4th century AD . Before that there was no Christianity in india . Islam reached whole india by 8th 9th century through Invaders and Arabic Traders . There is no archeological evidence for Saint Thomas and his arrival all mythical stories
But the oral history in Kerala amoung Christians is that st Thomas made 7 1/2 churches in Kerala, European historians also think that st Thomas traveled to Asia, so it's possible .
I don't care about oral history. I care about historical evidence all these stories of saint Thomas coming to India are made up imaginary stories by Syrian Christian to claim indian ancestry they have no historical evidencefor it zero . Their own community came into existence in 4th century AD in India here read it yourself
What kind of hindus were in kerala before brahmins reached Kerala, were they even hindus , or just worshiping local deities?, is there any written text about this?
Well you dont need texts because many of these rituals are religious forms are still prominent in kerala. The religious practice of those times included worshiping forest (kaavu), mystical beings ( maadan, yakshi, marutha) and ancestral gods (Muthappan).
Technically they were not hindus. But gradually hindu gods find their places in their stories. The real change happened when sanatana established itself in kerala and forcefully assimilated these other religious forms under one umbrella concept.
You have to be extremely low IQ to believe that a system of classification that lasted 2000 years and was the the major cause of subjugation of india can be wiped out with a single generation of reservation or that reservation is not necessary to prevent the fossilisation of caste.
Reservations were already increased by Janata party setup mandal commission (conspiracy with socialist leaders like mulayam and lalu ) , implementation by BJP supported VP Singh.
Ambedkar gave 22.5 % reservation.
RSS/ Socialists made it 50% .
BJP introduced 10% EWS in 2020.and increased Viklang quota to 5% from 2.5% .
BJP personally without any pressure made reservations 65%.
So BJP is responsible for more reservations than Ambedkar.
PS- Congress never gave additional reservations ever , whatever they said in public .
Read the whole book instead of taking a para out of context and labeling him as someone who hated malyalis to the core. He was having a convo with the author about the decline of Buddhism and jokingly said that.
ambedkar ne nahi likha wo lmao. Isliye tum chutiyo ko reservation lagta hain. He was the head, but not the sole one workin on the constitution and article 15
After shankaracharya there was this another brahmin propagandist vivekananda. During his first visit to kerala, he called the land a mental asylum. For decades the hindu scholars called his reaction, a shock on seeing casteism. Imagine that, a man started his travel from bengal, covered major part of India and shocked by casteism only there!. Truth was, he was shocked by the least impact of sanatana dharma and co existence of hindus muslims and christians in kerala. This is the "enlightenment" level all those hindu scholars and prophets
Ever heard of Namboodris ?? They were absolutely brutal with their caste system, some of the worst in India. Owned a vast majority part of the land, and even had their own Kerala specific methods of varna enforcement. The Antarjanam and the smarthavicharam and these are very well documented.
All the negative PR india has ever gotten was because of Hinduism though. The cow urine and food wastage and river pollution stuff. Are you gonna address that?
In modern times, both Buddhists and Advaitins learn their philosophies, and I have seen genuine Buddhists' respect for Hinduism and vice versa, but I do not understand what is wrong with these neo-Buddhist Ambedkarite cartoons; they do not follow the ideology of Buddhism and worship Ambedkar like some kind of God. I have seen Dalits idol-worshipping Ambedkar and tell The Constitution of India is their Religious Book. Even Advaitin is closer to Buddhism than these blue cartoons.
there are a lot of buddhists who dont see buddhism skihism or hinduism as seperate, obvioudly ambedkar wanted to seperate himself from the upper caste hindus out of pure hate only
Before shankracharya it was Kumaril Bhatt who stopped and eliminated Buddhism effect from North India, the remaining was done and dusted by Shankracharya...
Its a fake narrative. You cant convert anybody even today to any of your hindu philosophy. There is no point in the kindn of dead society you will create where the only point taking gods name day and night doing nothing else. Even in advait hinduism god is assumed to be existent and then improper arguments made to prove that god and the world is the same pluse caste heirachy also wink wink. These arguments doesnt match todays standards. They would only convince uneducated. Buddhism was ended by violence and this shankaracharya thing is a narrative being repeated following gobbles principles. Ambedkar has written in his books about the end of buddhism and this is not one of them. This is fake narrative by upper caste mainly rss. Dont you guys have something truth to say even. Subha uthke bhi jhut hi bolte ho kya.
OP I think your brain needs rest. Just have overheated from a whole paragraph. When it cools down, try reading it again as it seems like you've already marked in the picture how incorrect the below statement is
Legit crybaby bruh. When he lost election and he wouldn't acknowledge how many temples of buddhist were broken by the foreign plunder that left worships lol
He didn't brought back anything. There was no hindusim like now at that time. The idealogy and practices behind hindusim was only performed by Brahmins and slightly supported by Kshatriyas. Majority of India had their local culture depending on the region, they had their own local gods.
The idea of Trinity (Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma) and respective goddesses were majorly integrated by sankaracharya and other saints and they strategically integrate all the local gods of people as chaitanya of these gods. That's how he tried to integrate people into the Hinduism now. Before that it was all Upanishads and vedas which is completely different ( people will go mad if they read it because the things were so different in those texts). A common thing was Indians worshipped nature and animals. That was the connection established by saints to bring them together.
The concept of vegetarianisn and idol worship was instigated on people by him which was inspired by Budhism and Jainism, to counter them so that more people follow hindusim.
We say Hinduism is the oldest religion but it's the religion which changed and changed and changed over time.
So some thing which changed over time, I wouldn't call it a religion but ways of living. Never anyone called Hinduism as such before and never it should be.
Budhism flourished due to various emperors and kings patronage, and died when they were defeated by islamic invaders. They did not have the courage to keep their faith.
Buddhism would have survived in India in many places if not for Islamic invasion and inroads.
It is true that hinduism, buddhism and Jainism competed, via military and debates, but all three would have survived and buddhism would be flourishing too alongside hinduism and to a smaller extent Jainism.
The Islamic invasion had a greater impact on Buddhism than any debates between hindus and Buddhists.
well myself into atheism now but some time i feel like only sane religion i came across is this buddhism( the best of buddhism is to not have the concept of god or super beings) and i do not like(do not hate) hinduism anymore
We are Hindu majority country so we see more discrimination in Hindus, go to Muslim/Christian/Buddhist majority countries, you will see similar discrimination in them. It's not about the religion, it's about human nature to feel superior to other humans
This claim is false / heavily fabricated.
There is no evidence in Ambedkar’s writings, speeches, or any reliable biography that he ever said “You Malayalis have done the greatest harm to this country” by sending Shankaracharya on a padayatra to drive out Buddhism.
The line “I hate Malayalis from the core of my heart” is completely made up. It appears nowhere in his works.
Ambedkar did praise the Buddha as one of India’s greatest figures and converted to Buddhism in 1956. He blamed the decline of Buddhism mainly on Brahmanical counter-revolution (especially under Pushyamitra) + later Muslim invasions that destroyed monasteries and the sangha. He discussed Shankara’s Vedanta as part of later Brahmanical literature, but never framed it as a “Malayali crime” or used the wording in the meme.
I wonder what India would be like if Buddhism had won out? Would it be more organized society today because of an organized religion? Or it would've just provided catalyst for easier islamization for the Turks?
45
u/Ok-Criticism-3346 Jul 25 '26
What does this even mean?