Introduction to a Philosophical Debating Ground: Buddha and Adi Shankara

The idea of a debate between two of the greatest and most influential philosophers of their time - Buddha and Adi Shankara - is intriguing and highly debated among scholars. Two very different philosophies, each representing the pinnacle of Eastern thought, would undoubtedly make for an engaging and enlightening discourse. However, the context and nature of such a debate are far from straightforward. This article explores the possibility of such a debate and delves into the perspectives of key figures in the world of philosophy.

The Legacy of Buddha and Shankara

Buddha, the founder of Buddhism, is known for his teachings on compassion, mindfulness, and the path to enlightenment. Unlike Shankara, who dedicated his life to the propagation of Advaita Vedanta, Buddhism emphasizes individual enlightenment and the cessation of suffering. In contrast, Shankara's philosophy aims to demonstrate the unity of the self and Brahman, the ultimate reality in Hinduism.

Shankara, the seventh-century philosopher, established four mathas (monasteries) across India to spread his views. His legacy is marked by his definitive contributions to the Advaita Vedanta school of thought, which asserts the non-dualism of the self and the ultimate reality.

Arguments from Key Figures

Vivekananda and Ramakrishna

Vivekananda, disciple of Ramakrishna, was a prominent figure in the world of Indian philosophy in the 19th century. Ramakrishna, a mystic and religious leader, is credited with inspiring Vivekananda to embrace Vedanta and Hinduism profoundly. Mahendra Nath Gupta, a regular visitor to Ramakrishna’s abode, kept detailed records of discussions and dialogues. According to these records, Ramakrishna showed no interest in the discoveries of Buddhism, prioritizing instead his philosophy of Advaita Vedanta.

Vivekananda's own journey reflects his growing affinity for Vedanta, eventually aligning himself with it more closely. This inclination would naturally bias his judgment in any debate between Buddhism and Advaita.

A Balanced View from Mahendra Nath Gupta

Mahendra Nath Gupta, a trusted companion of Ramakrishna, kept detailed records of his teachings and dialogues. His records provide invaluable insights into the spiritual and philosophical environment of the time. According to M, no matter how excited Vivekananda was about the discoveries of Buddhism, Ramakrishna showed no interest. This suggests a bias towards Advaita in the context of the debate.

Possible Outcomes of the Debate

Historical Context and Sectarian Bias

The nature of any historical debate between Buddha and Shankara would depend heavily on the sect whose scriptures are being read. For example, if Adi Shankara's followers were in favor, the debate would likely be presented in a manner that supports Shankara's philosophical agenda. Similarly, if Buddhist sects were in favor, the debate might be portrayed in a way that supports their philosophies.

Nagarjuna and Adi Shankara: An Engaging Match

A more engaging match would be between Nagarjuna, the founder of Madhyamaka philosophy, and Adi Shankara. Nagarjuna's philosophy is known for its dialectical method and rejection of all extremes, including the non-dualism championed by Shankara. This debate would be intellectually challenging and likely to engage both sides deeply.

Conclusion: The Human Factor in Debates

The debate between Buddha and Shakara is not just about philosophical views but also reflects the biases and motivations of the individuals involved. Even great spiritual leaders can bring biases to the table. In conclusion, any attempt to debate these great philosophers would be highly subjective and colored by the proclivities of the debaters.

Key Takeaways: Bias plays a critical role in how historical debates are interpreted. Nagarjuna and Shankara would offer a more open and intellectually rigorous debate compared to Buddha and Shankara. Vivekananda's judgment would likely favor Advaita Vedanta, demonstrating the human element in philosophical disputes.

In conclusion, the idea of a debate between Buddha and Shankara is a fascinating one, but its fruits would be heavily influenced by the perspectives and biases of the participants involved.