[Advaita-l] The true purport of Shankara's 'censure' of Buddha in the BSB

[V Subrahmanian]

The Srimad Bhagavatam portrays Rama as someone who showed to the world  by
his misery that such would be the fate of those attached to wife/woman.

https://www.vedabase.com/en/sb/9/10/11

//  Thus He showed by His personal example the condition of a person
attached to women.//

ŚB 9.10.11
रक्षोऽधमेन वृकवद् विपिनेऽसमक्षं
वैदेहराजदुहितर्यपयापितायाम् ।
भ्रात्रा वने* कृपणवत्* प्रियया वियुक्त:
स्त्रीसङ्गिनां गतिमिति प्रथयंश्चचार ॥ ११ ॥

When Rāmacandra entered the forest and Lakṣmaṇa was also absent, the worst
of the Rākṣasas, Rāvaṇa, kidnapped Sītādevī, the daughter of the King of
Videha, just as a tiger seizes unprotected sheep when the shepherd is
absent. Then Lord Rāmacandra wandered in the forest with His brother
Lakṣmaṇa *as if very much distressed due to separation from His wife. *Thus
He showed by His personal example the condition of a person attached to
women.

The Bhagavatam, Veda Vyasa, uses the term kr̥paṇa for Rama:
The dictionary meaning for this word is:
ApteEnglish
कृपण [kṛpaṇa],
a.
[कृप्-क्युन् न लत्वम्]
*Poor, pitiable, wretched, helpless*
pitiable, *miserable,* querulous (n.
adv.
)

Thus, Veda Vyasa has accepted the purport of the Valmiki Ramayana verses
where Rama expresses his miserable situation to Lakshmana.
Of course, all this is a show and not real is accepted by all. In fact in
the avatara drama scripted by Vishnu himself, in order to accomplish the
ultimate purpose of slaying Ravana, all the events that go to help this
cause are essentially a part of that play. The events are designed in such
a way to further that cause at every stage. The Mandara, Kaikeyi, the boon,
the banishment, the abduction of Seetha, the friendship with Sugriva,
Hanuman's role, etc. are all part of this.
As Shankara has said: when something is perceived as duHkha, miserable, the
cause for it is the object of anger and dwesha. That logic does not fail
even in the lilas of Ishwara. Something has to happen to trigger duhkha,
anger and hatred. Hence alone Veda Vyasa who, on the one hand, portrays
Krishna as the friend of all, suhrt, and free from personalised raga and
dwesha, yet does not hesitate to portray the same Krishna as the one holds
certain individuals as dear to him and some as objects of dwesha/enmity.
Hence alone Veda Vyasa uses the terms MuradviSh, Kamsārin, etc. The wods
dwish and ari mean hatred and enemy. No one would charge Veda Vyasa or
Valmiki as being disrespectful to Ishwara.

warm regards
subbu





On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 4:05 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Shankara has said this in the Brahma Sutra Bhashya 2.2.32 while commenting
> on the Buddhist related sutras:
>
> *Sanskrit Text (from Śaṅkara):*
>
> अपि च बाह्यार्थविज्ञानशून्यवादत्रयमितरेतरविरुद्धमुपदिशता सुगतेन
> स्पष्टीकृतमात्मनोऽसम्बद्धप्रलापित्वम् ।
> प्रद्वेषो वा प्रजासु — विरुद्धार्थप्रतिपत्त्या विमुह्येयुरिमाः प्रजा इति ।
> सर्वथाप्यनादरणीयोऽयं सुगतसमयः श्रेयस्कामैरित्यभिप्रायः ॥ ३२ ॥
>
> *English Rendering:*
>
> Moreover, by teaching three mutually contradictory doctrines —
> *bāhyārthavijñāna*, *śūnyavāda*, and their variants — the *Sugata*
> (Buddha) has made clear *ātmano’sambaddha-pralāpitvam*, his incoherent
> babbling (self-contradiction).
> Or else, it may be that, out of *pradveṣaḥ prajāsu* — aversion towards
> certain beings — he (the Buddha) promulgated such mutually conflicting
> views so that *viruddhārthapratipattyā vimuhyeyur imāḥ prajāḥ* — these
> creatures, deluded by the grasp of contradictory notions, might lose
> discernment.
> In any case, *sarvathāpy anādaraṇīyo’yaṃ sugatasamayaḥ śreyaskāmair ity
> abhiprāyaḥ* — this doctrine of the Sugata (Buddha) is, in every way, to
> be disregarded by those who desire the highest good. (32)
> ------------------------------
>
> *Substance: *
>
> In the Buddhist system, there are several mutually contradictory schools
> of thought:
>
>    1.
>
>    Acceptance of external objects as real, through *pratyakṣa* (direct
>    perception);
>    2.
>
>    Acceptance of the same through *anumāna* (inference);
>    3.
>
>    The *kṣaṇika-vijñānavāda* — which denies the existence of external
>    objects altogether;
>    4.
>
>    The *śūnyavāda* — which asserts absolute voidness.
>
> Thus, the Buddha, by propounding such inconsistent doctrines, has made
> evident *his incoherent speech (asambaddha-pralāpitvam)*.
> Or, it may also be that — in order that beings opposed to the Vedic path (
> *vaidika-mārga-virodhinaḥ*) may become deluded — he taught such doctrines.
> In either case, *this system is to be rejected.*
> ------------------------------
>
> *Ānandagiri’s explanation in his Nyāyanirṇaya:*
>
> सर्वज्ञस्य भगवतो
> वासुदेवस्येतिहासपुराणयोर्बुद्धत्वप्रसिद्धेस्तस्यासम्बद्धप्रलापित्वमयुक्तमित्याशङ्क्याह
> — प्रद्वेषो वेति । वैदिकपथविरुद्धजन्तूपलक्षणार्थं प्रजाग्रहणम् ॥
>
> Since the *Itihāsa* and *Purāṇa* proclaim that Bhagavān Vāsudeva, the
> Omniscient, incarnated as Buddha, it would be improper (*ayuktam*) to
> attribute incoherent babbling (*asambaddha-pralāpitvam*) to him.
> Anticipating this doubt, Śaṅkara himself offers the alternative
> interpretation — *pradveṣo vā* — that “aversion” was towards beings
> opposed to the Vedic path.
> The term *prajāḥ* (creatures) is used here to refer to those opposed to
> the *vaidika-mārga*.
> ------------------------------
>
> *Summary meaning:*
> Śaṅkara remarks that the Buddha’s teachings are mutually contradictory and
> hence incoherent, or perhaps deliberately designed to confound those
> antagonistic to the Vedic way. Ānandagiri clarifies that since the Buddha
> is none other than Vāsudeva himself, the incoherence must be intentional —
> a means to delude *vaidika-virodhins*, not a sign of ignorance.
>
> In the Srimadbhagavatam is this reference:
>
> ŚB 1.3.24
> तत: कलौ सम्प्रवृत्ते सम्मोहाय सुरद्विषाम् ।
> बुद्धो नामाजनसुत: कीकटेषु भविष्यति ॥ २४
>
> Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha,
> the son of Ajan (Jina), in the province of Gayā, just for the purpose of
> deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist.
>
> warm regards
>
> subbu
>
>
>
>