One frequently hears the claim that ācārya Shankara Bhagavatpāda was responsible for eliminating Buddhism from the Indian sub-continent. This is used both as praise and as an accusation directed towards the ācārya. Several scholars have also pointed towards the inadequacy of ācārya’s criticism of Buddhism and it is indeed true that the refutation of Buddhism by the ācārya is somewhat uni-dimensional. However, the reason for this is simply that ācārya’s primary focus was not refuting Buddhism but rather Pūrva Mīmāmsā which had already done a great job of handling the Buddhist accusations on the Vedic path. Even a simple look at a hagiography such as the Mādhavīya Shankara Digvijaya makes this clear (ṣaṇmukha as Kumārila Bhaṭṭa is described to have already contained the Buddhist ‘epidemic’ by the time of Shankara’s advent). Here is a selection from Daivattin Kural where HH Kāñcī Paramācārya addresses this very issue.
Then how did Buddhism cease to have a considerable following in our country? Somebody must have subjected it to such rigorous attack as to have brought about its decline in this land. Who performed this task? The answer is Mīmāmsakas and Tārkikas. Those who are adept in the Tarkaśāśtra (logic) are called Tārkikas. The Tarka is the part of Nyāya which is one of the fourteen branches of Vedic learning and which comes next to Mīmāmsā. People proficient in Nyāya are Naiyyāyikas; those well versed in grammar are Vaiyākaraṇis, and those proficient in the Purāṇas are Paurāṇikas.
Udayanācārya, the tārkika, and Kumārila Bhaṭṭa, the Mīmāmsaka, opposed Buddhism for different reasons. The former severely criticized that religion for its denial of īśvara. To Mīmāmsakas, as I have said earlier, Vedic rituals are of the utmost importance. Even though they don’t believe that it is īśvara who awards us the fruit of our actions, they believe that the rituals we perform yield their own fruits and that the injunctions of the Dharmaśāstras must be carried out faithfully. They attacked Buddhism for its refusal to accept Vedic rituals. Kumārila Bhaṭṭa has written profusely in criticism of that religion. He and Udayanācārya were chiefly responsible for the failure of Buddhism to acquire a large following in this country. Our ācārya came later and there was no need for him to make a special assault on that religion on his own. On the contrary, his chief task was to expose the flaws in the systems upheld by the very opponents of Buddhism, Kumārila Bhaṭṭa and Udayanācārya. He established that īśvara is the creator of the universe and that it is he who awards the fruits of our actions.
I am mentioning this fact so as to disabuse you of the wrong notions you must have formed with regard to Shankara’s role in the decline of Buddhism. There is a special chapter in one of Kumārila Bhaṭṭa’s works called Tarkapādam in which he has made an extensive refutation of Buddhism. So too has Udayanācārya in his Bauddhādhikaraṇam. These two ācāryas were mainly responsible for the decline of Buddhism in our land and not Shankara Bhagavatpāda. What we are taught on the subject in our textbooks of history is not true.
In my opinion, at no time in our history did Buddhism in the fullest sense of that religion have a large following in India. Today a number of Hindus, who are members of the Theosophical Society, celebrate our festivals like other Hindus and conduct marriages in the Hindu way. There are many devotees of Ramakrishna Paramahamsa practicing our traditional customs. Sri C. Ramanujacariyar, “Anna” (Sri N. Subramanya Ayyar), and some others are intimately associated with the Ramakrishna Mission but they still adhere to our traditional beliefs. When great men make their appearance people are drawn to them for their qualities of compassion and wisdom. In the organizations established after them, our Sanātana dharma is followed with some changes. But a large number of the devotees of these men still follow the old customs and traditions in their homes.
Many regard Gandhiji as the founder almost of a new religion (Gandhism) and look upon him as one greater than avatāras like Rāma and Kr̥ṣṇa. But in their private lives, few of them practice what he preached – for instance, widow marriage, mixing with members of other castes, and so on. People developed esteem for Gandhiji for his personal life of self-sacrifice, truthfulness, devotion, and service to mankind. But applying his ideas in actual life was another matter.
It was in the same way that the Buddha had earned wide respect for his lofty character and exemplary personal life. “A prince renounces his wife and child in the prime of his youth to free the world from sorrow”: the story of Siddhārtha, including such accounts, made an impact on people. They were moved by his compassion, sense of detachment, and self-sacrifice. But it did not mean that they were ready to follow his teachings. They admired the Buddha for his personal qualities but they continued to subscribe to the varṇāśrama system and the ancient way of religious life with its sacrifice and other rites. Contrary to what he wished, people did not come forward in large numbers to become monks but continued to remain householders adhering to Vedic practices.
Emperor Ashoka did much to propagate Buddhism, but in society in general the Vedic dharma did not undergo any change. Besides, the emperor himself supported the varṇāśrama dharma as is evident from his famous edicts. But for the Buddhist bhikṣus ( monks), all householders followed the Vedic path. Though they were silent on the question of īśvara and other deities, some books written by great Buddhist monks open with hymns to Sarasvatī. They also worshipped a number of gods. It is from Tibet that we have obtained many tāntric works relating to the worship of various deities. If you read the works of śrīharṣa, Bilhaṇa and so on in Sanskrit, and Tamil poetical works like that of Ilango Adigal, you will realize that even during times when Buddhism wielded influence in society, Vedic customs and varṇāśrama were followed by the generality of people.
Reformists today speak in glowing terms about Vyāsa, Shaṅkarācārya, Rāmānujācārya, and others. But they do not accept the customs and traditions I ask people to follow. Some of them, however, come to see me. Is it not because they feel that there is something good about me, because they have personal regard for me, even though they do not accept my ideas? Similarly, great men have been respected in this country for their personal qualities and blameless life notwithstanding the fact they advocated views that differed slightly from the Vedic tradition or were radically opposed to it. Our people anyway had long been steeped in the ancient Vedic religion and its firmly established practices and, until the turn of the century, were reluctant to discard the religion of their forefathers and the vocations followed by them. Such was our people’s attitude during the time of the Buddha also. When his doctrines came under attack from Udayanācārya and Kumārila Bhaṭṭa even the few who had first accepted them returned to the Vedic religion.