-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What did Vivekananda and Shankarcharya do for Hinduism?
- Thread starter ronki23
- Start date
Vivekanada is credited with essentially reviving Hinduism in India during the 19th century and introducing Hindu concepts to the Western world, thereby helping to establish Hinduism as a major world religion. He also talked at great length about promoting interfaith positive relationships and tolerance.
Swami Vivekananda - Wikipedia
As for Adi Shankarcharya, didn't he essentially unify (more or less) the main Hindu teachings?
Adi Shankara - Wikipedia
Swami Vivekananda - Wikipedia
As for Adi Shankarcharya, didn't he essentially unify (more or less) the main Hindu teachings?
Adi Shankara - Wikipedia
As Aupji and SR have said pretty much. Vivekananda brought Hinduism out of the 'pagan', 'heathen', 'savage' view and more to the forefront as a humanistic religion.
Shankaracharya preached Advaita and brought the populace back to what is now called Hinduism and away from Buddhism.
While these two are well known in the West there were many other reformers working alongside them. Aurobindo is a well known contemporary (I think, may be wrong) of Vivekananda.
Shankaracharya preached Advaita and brought the populace back to what is now called Hinduism and away from Buddhism.
While these two are well known in the West there were many other reformers working alongside them. Aurobindo is a well known contemporary (I think, may be wrong) of Vivekananda.
Shantanu
Well-Known Member
In different ways they were the supreme monks of Hindusim.
One interesting thing about Vivekenanda in America was that he didn't go over that well. People walked out of his speeches in droves, because he refused to go all Christian. They must have figured he was the devil incarnate. But those who did stay to listen heard the message loud and clear.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
He was, and he was, IMHO, somewhere between Madam Blavatsky and Swami Vivekananda.
Not really contemparies for much of a time.. Vivekenanda 1863-1902, and Aurobindo - 1872-1950 Some overlap yes.He was, and he was, IMHO, somewhere between Madam Blavatsky and Swami Vivekananda.
Shankara wanted to unify the Hindus. The three main sects at the time were Saiva, Vaishnava, and Shakta. Another long existing but rarer sect was the Smarta Sampradaya, which had 'you choose' an option for God called the ishta devata. So he tried to get them all together to see it the same way, with the main idea being similarities, but a choice of God. Many went with him, and many didn't, The end result was mostly the creation of a 4th sect, that of Smartism. So although he is not the founder of the Smarta sampradaya, he is certainly a reformed or more modern adherent who clarifies it a lot. But the more traditional components of the previous main 3 didn't budge much, preferring to sticl to their own ways and traditions and still tolerating the other sects, and now tolerating one more.
But there is also overlap, so you will get phrases like Smarta leaning towards Saiva, or Vaishnave leaning to Smarta ... stuff like that. Some people, both Saivas, and Vaishnavas, and probably Smartas too, like to claim his as one of their own. So it becomes a bit difficult to tell the difference between a Vaishnava and a Smarta whose ishta-devata is Vishnu. But you would know if you took each to a Saiva temple. The Smarta would worship wholeheartedly, while the Vaishnave would be more reserved, more in a 'I'll tolerate this' sort of way.
So some people really admire what he did, believing he created a more unified Hinduism, a great reformer, while others just figure he created a 4th great sect,.
निताइ dasa
Nitai's servant's servant
Shankara also established the authority of the Vedanta school over the other 5 Hindu ones and established the authority of the Vedas again by pushing Buddhism out of India.
Sankaracharya was (is?) the foremost exponent of Vedanta school of Hinduism and the later great Vedanta acharya-s (Ramanuja, Madhava etc.) were often reacting to his exposition when laying down their own distinctive views. Sankaracharya is to Vedanta what Udayana is to Nyaya and Nagarjuna is to Bauddha traditions. Opponent or proponent, one cannot ignore Sankaracharya.
ronki23
Well-Known Member
I quoted you because you mentioned Buddhism and how Sankara drove it out of India. But in India, Nepal, Burma, Bhutan, Thailand and some parts of Tibet the Buddhist and Hindu Temples are side-by-side or even part of the same building. Isn't Buddha an incarnation of Vishnu?
And if Buddha is Vishnu, why are countries like China,Hong Kong, Taiwan, Vietnam, Cambodia,Korea and Japan Buddhist and believe in their own deities but not Hindu deities?
Didn't Buddha himself say he was the final incarnation? So how can Buddha be a Hindu God if Hindus believe in Kalki Avatar?
Within those sects who believe in avatars at all, some see Buddha as an avatar, and some don't. We're vast.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
I do not believe in the saying "Sankara drove out Buddhism from India". At that time, Hinduism and Buddhism were not separate. Buddhism was considered a sect of Hinduism, a path, 'mata', a philosophical view. As @sayak83 once pointed out, even the Buddhists considered themselves to be 'Astikas' and a part of Hinduism. Hindus supported Buddhist and Jain monks equally. Even now, we rever them equally. As I said, perhaps the academic Buddhism had lost its charm to Hinduism and its Gods, Goddesses, temples, festivals and pilgrimages. Hinduism was more colorful. Of course, Buddha was accepted as an avatara of Lord Vishnu. Hinduism did not reach China, Japan and Korea, only Buddhism did. In South-East Asia, Hindu influence was already there, so a mixed culture developed there.
Buddha never said a-la the Abrahamics that he is the last ('God's anointed' or 'nabi-ul-khatm'). He did not even believe in existence of Gods. He was a very rational person for his age. He actually said that every person had the potentiality to become a Buddha and that there had been six before him.
Last edited:
निताइ dasa
Nitai's servant's servant
By driving out I mean not completely. In that time people were losing faith in the Vedas and Buddhism had become very prominent. Lord Buddha rejected the authority of the Vedas and preached a philosophy of atheism and monism. This was in contradiction with the traditional astika or theistic schools of Hinduism. Sankaracharya spent alot of his time debating both Buddhists and also the Mimamsa philosophers and because of him, be see the decline of both in India and the subsequent rise of Vedanta. If it wasn't for him, I don't think any later Vedanta scholar would be able to put forth their subsequent theories.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
I am not pointing out anybody in particular and certainly not you, Nitai Bro, but this is the general saying that goes around. Well, you can say that Buddhism was inclined towards monism, though Buddha never expressly stated that. He did not consider it important. But yes, later Buddhists talked about Dhammakaya, Tathagatagarbha, Bodhikaya, etc. Aryan priests and Vedas had foreign origin. When they moved beyond Saraswati valley where they had been for quite some time, they faced opposition by Charvak philosophy, Jains and Buddhists. The indigenous people stuck to their philosophy, ways (ahimsa) and continued to worship their traditional Gods and Goddesses. Sankara in his 'shanmata' included Vishnu and Surya and provided a compromise.
Buddha may be an avatar but not necessarily one of the Dasavatara. Vishnu has 24 avatars, not just 10. 24 Avataars of Lord Vishnu