The true purport of Shankara's 'censure' of Buddha in the BSB

[V Subrahmanian]

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

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

>pradveṣaḥ prajāsu — aversion towards certain beings

The correct translation of the above is - "hatred of (all) beings", not just "certain beings". 

Here, I am posting the relevant translation of Swami Gambhirananda -

"Moreover, Buddha exposed his own incoherence in talk when he instructed the three mutually contradictory theories of the existence of external objects, existence of consciousness, and absolute nihilism; or he showed his malevolence towards all creatures, acting under the delusion that these creatures would get confused by imbibing contradictory views."

Best Regards

Kalyan

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

>"Anticipating this doubt, Śaṅkara himself offers the alternative interpretation — pradveṣo vā — that “aversion” was towards beings opposed to the Vedic path."

As mentioned in the Gita, vAsudeva does not hate anyone.

Gita 9.29

समोऽहं सर्वभूतेषु न मे द्वेष्योऽस्ति न प्रियः।
ये भजन्ति तु मां भक्त्या मयि ते तेषु चाप्यहम्।।9.29।।

The same am I to all beings; **to Me there is none hateful or dear**; but those who worship Me with devotion are in Me and I am also in them.

ज्ञेयः स नित्यसंन्यासी यो न द्वेष्टि न काङ्क्षति।

निर्द्वन्द्वो हि महाबाहो सुखं बन्धात्प्रमुच्यते।।5.3।।

He should be known as a perpertual Sannyasi **who neither hates nor desires**; for, free from the pairs of opposites, O mighty-armed Arjuna, he is easily set free from bondage.

Best Regards

On Thursday, 23 October 2025 at 4:05:38 pm UTC+5:30 v.subrahmanian wrote:

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 7:59 PM Kalyan Chakravarthy <kalyanchakr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>pradveṣaḥ prajāsu — aversion towards certain beings

The correct translation of the above is - "hatred of (all) beings", not just "certain beings". 

Here, I am posting the relevant translation of Swami Gambhirananda -

"Moreover, Buddha exposed his own incoherence in talk when he instructed the three mutually contradictory theories of the existence of external objects, existence of consciousness, and absolute nihilism; or he showed his malevolence towards all creatures, acting under the delusion that these creatures would get confused by imbibing contradictory views."

The above translation is not depicting the Bhashya correctly. Note the highlighted phrase.  While the Bhashya says:  विरुद्धार्थप्रतिपत्त्या विमुह्येयुरिमाः प्रजा  where the delusion, moha, is for the creatures.  There is no mention of delusion on the part of Buddha as per Shankara. But the translation ascribes delusion to Buddha too in the highlighted portion. That part is correctly translated by George Thibaut:  https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/brahma-sutras-thibaut/d/doc63877.html

//or else that hatred of all beings induced him to propound absurd doctrines by accepting which they would become thoroughly confused// 

The translation given by me is in accordance with Anandagiri's commentary which says that the word prajā: is indicative of 'those who are averse to the vedic path.'  

warm regards

subbu

Best Regards

Kalyan

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 8:16 PM Kalyan Chakravarthy <kalyanchakr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>"Anticipating this doubt, Śaṅkara himself offers the alternative interpretation — pradveṣo vā — that “aversion” was towards beings opposed to the Vedic path."

As mentioned in the Gita, vAsudeva does not hate anyone.

Gita 9.29

समोऽहं सर्वभूतेषु न मे द्वेष्योऽस्ति न प्रियः।
ये भजन्ति तु मां भक्त्या मयि ते तेषु चाप्यहम्।।9.29।।

The same am I to all beings; **to Me there is none hateful or dear**; but those who worship Me with devotion are in Me and I am also in them.

ज्ञेयः स नित्यसंन्यासी यो न द्वेष्टि न काङ्क्षति।

निर्द्वन्द्वो हि महाबाहो सुखं बन्धात्प्रमुच्यते।।5.3।।

He should be known as a perpertual Sannyasi **who neither hates nor desires**; for, free from the pairs of opposites, O mighty-armed Arjuna, he is easily set free from bondage.

Namaste 

In the Narasimha Avatara the Bhagavatam records that all devatas, including Lakshmi, stayed away from the Lord after the slaying of Hiranyakashipu, out of fear.

These two verses are from the 7th canto, 9th chapter of the Bhagavatam:

śrī-nārada uvāca

evaḿ surādayaḥ sarve
brahma-rudra-puraḥ sarāḥ
nopaitum aśakan manyu-
saḿrambhaḿ sudurāsadam

SYNONYMS
śrī-nārada uvāca — the great saintly sage Nārada Muni said; evam — thus; sura-ādayaḥ — the groups of demigods; sarve — all; brahma-rudra-puraḥ sarāḥ — represented by Lord Brahmā and Lord Śiva; na — not; upaitum — to go before the Lord; aśakan — able; manyu-saḿrambham — in a completely angry mood; su-durāsadam — very difficult to approach (Lord Nṛsiḿhadeva).

The Bhagavatam uses a very strong expression to convey how anger ruled the roost then.

prahrādaḿ preṣayām āsa
brahmāvasthitam antike
tāta praśamayopehi
sva-pitre kupitaḿ prabhum

SYNONYMS
prahrādam — Prahlāda Mahārāja; preṣayām āsa — requested; brahmā — Lord Brahmā; avasthitam — being situated; antike — very near; tāta — my dear son; praśamaya — just try to appease; upehi — go near; sva-pitre — because of your father’s demoniac activities; kupitam — greatly angered; prabhum — the Lord.

The highlighted words show that Narasimha was given to extreme anger and was fierce, unapproachable.

Now, here are a few samples of Rama giving in to anger in combat with Khara:

Valmiki Ramayana:

स शरैरर्दितः क्रुद्धस्सर्वगात्रेषु राघवः।
रराज समरे रामो विधूमोऽग्निरिव ज्वलन्।।3.28.19।।

Translation

शरैः with darts, सर्वगात्रेषु in all limbs, अर्दितः afflicted, राघवः a scion of Raghu race, सः रामः that Rama, क्रुद्धः angry, विधूमः without smoke, ज्वलन् while burning, अग्निरिव like fire, समरे in fight, रराज glowed.

Rama, scion of the Raghu race, afflicted by the darts in all parts of the body, glowed in his anger like smokeless fire burning.

ततः कनकपुङ्खैस्तु शरैस्सन्नतपर्वभिः।
बिभेद रामस्सङ्क्रुद्धः खरस्य समरे ध्वजम्।।3.28.22।।

Translation

ततः then, रामः Rama, सङ्क्रुद्धः enraged, कनकपुङ्खैः with golden feathers, सन्नतपर्वभिः welljointed and smooth, शरैः darts, समरे in war, खरस्य of Khara, ध्वजम् flag on the chariot, बिभेद broken to pieces.

Rama took up in a rage the well jointed, smooth darts with golden feathers and broke the flag post of the chariot of Khara to pieces. 

We might say 'this anger is not genuine; it was only displayed outwardly'.  But the above verses do not say that. 

The Mahabharata says that Brahma and Shiva were born of the 'prasāda' (benevolence) and 'krodha' (anger) respectively of Vishnu: 

https://sa.wikisource.org/s/3ig

 ब्राह्मे रात्रिक्षये प्राप्ते तस्य ह्यमिततेजसः ।

प्रसादात्प्रादुरभवत्पद्मं पद्मनिभेक्षण ॥१५॥
तत्र ब्रह्मा समभवत्स तस्यैव प्रसादजः ॥१५॥
अह्नः क्षये ललाटाच्च सुतो देवस्य वै तथा ।
क्रोधाविष्टस्य सञ्जज्ञे रुद्रः संहारकारकः ॥१६॥
एतौ द्वौ विबुधश्रेष्ठौ प्रसादक्रोधजौ स्मृतौ ।

तदादेशितपन्थानौ सृष्टिसंहारकारकौ ॥१७॥  

So, there is nothing wrong in Vāsudeva being angry with those who hate the path of the Veda. 

regards

subbu

[putran M]

Namaskaram Subbu-ji,

Thanks for the extensive quotations. I was also reminded of the episode of Sri Rama and sage Jabali, where Rama expresses steep discontent at someone in an advisory/guiding role who propounds a nastika/charvaka path:

"I accuse the act done by my father in taking you into his service, you with your misleading intelligence, a firm atheist fallen from the true path. It is an exact state of the case that a mere *intellection deserves to be punished as it were a thief and know an atheist to be on par with a mere intellectual. Therefore he is the most suspectable and should be punished in the interest of the people. In no case should a wise man consort with an atheist." https://www.valmikiramayan.net/ayodhya/sarga109/ayodhya_109_prose.htm

thollmelukaalkizhu

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te2%3DLis9DXaEi0vhqPn88YJVraN5cPNWXROqBpy3nP0b0A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Niranjan Saha]

Indeed correct, Subbu ji. There is an anecdote in the 11th chapter of  the Vrddha harita smriti, there is an anecdote of Bhagavan displaying righteous anger at Shandilya for worshipping keshava with avaidika vidhis.

Translation of the text-

Once their lived a Highly Revered and Brilliant Brahmin of Kashyapā Gotra, Renowned in all the three worlds as Shāṇḍilya, Foremost Devotee of Vishnu. He was master of all Scriptures, but in Delusion he diverted from the Righteous path of Dharma and out of Ignorance Propounded methods of worshiping Lord Janardana using non-Vedic methods. He composed a “ Dharmasaṁhitā ”and Other Sacred texts opposed to Vedas which deserted Vedic Teachings. Some great sages following his doctrine, also began worshiping Bhagavaan Keśhava through non-Vedic Vidhis. Gradually, people on earth abandoned Vedic rites and the sacred utterance 'vaṣaṭ'. Thus, mankind ceased performing dharma as prescribed in the shruti and Vedic utterance was gone. Then Harī, The Lord of Universe, wielding in his four hands Kamāla, Śaṅkha, Chakra and Gadā became Infuriated by such an act. He declared to the illustrious Shāṇḍilya, blazing with divine radiance: ‘‘ O Foolish one! You have dared to compose a non–Vedic Dharma  opposed to My supreme, Vedic path. Since you have led people astray to non-Vedic Karma's, you shall now fall into a Gruesome hellish realm of Yama devoid of Vedic light.' Frightened by the words of the Ishvara, Shāṇḍilya was overcome with fear.

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

Namaste Subbuji

Anger and hatred are two completely different things.

Bhagawan does not hate. 

Best Regards

Kalyan

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

Both Thibaut's translation and Swami Gambhirananda's translation say - "hatred towards all beings". Unqualified hatred.

Best Regards

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2025 at 1:29 AM Kalyan Chakravarthy <kalyanchakr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Subbuji

Anger and hatred are two completely different things.

Dear Kalyan ji,

Actually anger is hatred finding expression. Shankara equates the two:

शक्नोतीहैव यः सोढुं प्राक्छरीरविमोक्षणात् ।
कामक्रोधोद्भवं वेगं स युक्तः स सुखी नरः ॥ २३ ॥   BG 5.23

5.23 One who can withstand here itself-before departing from the body-the impulse arising from desire and anger, that man is a yogi; he is happy.

Shankara says: कामः इन्द्रियगोचरप्राप्ते इष्टे विषये श्रूयमाणे स्मर्यमाणे वा अनुभूते सुखहेतौ या गर्धिः तृष्णा स कामः ; क्रोधश्च आत्मनः प्रतिकूलेषु दुःखहेतुषु दृश्यमानेषु श्रूयमाणेषु स्मर्यमाणेषु वा यो द्वेषः सः क्रोधः ; तौ कामक्रोधौ उद्भवो यस्य वेगस्य सः कामक्रोधोद्भवः वेगः ।   

Anger is that hatred which manifests when one encounters something that is detrimental to oneself as being the cause of misery upon seeing, hearing or recollecting that object/person, etc. 

The psychology being: that which is detrimental to oneself is hated, dwesha. Says Shankara in BGB 12.23 अद्वेष्टा सर्वभूतानां न द्वेष्टा, आत्मनः दुःखहेतुमपि न किञ्चित् द्वेष्टि  सर्वाणि ..  One can see the identity between Shankara's expression/definition of krodha (anger) in BGB 5.23 cited above and what he says for dwesha, hatred, in 12.23.

Thus, anger and hatred are synonyms for Shankara.  

You have cited समोऽहं सर्वभूतेषु न मे द्वेष्योऽस्ति न प्रियः।

ये भजन्ति तु मां भक्त्या मयि ते तेषु चाप्यहम्।।9.29।।

The same am I to all beings; **to Me there is none hateful or dear**;  

In fact Bhagavan himself says with reference to the Jnani: 

तेषां ज्ञानी नित्ययुक्त एकभक्ितर्विशिष्यते।

प्रियो हि ज्ञानिनोऽत्यर्थमहं स च मम प्रियः।।7.17।।    The Jnani is dear to Me. 

This is upalakshana, indicative of Bhagavan holding someone as object of hatred too, as seen in the case of the Buddha avatara which Shankara calls pradveSha. 

One can see the synonyms for hatred and anger having many overlaps. 

Here is a smriti verse cited by Madhwa:

यो द्विष्याद् विबुधश्रेष्ठं देवं नारायणं प्रभुम्।

कथं स न भवेद् द्वेष्य आलोकान्तस्य कस्यचित्॥१११॥  

He who hates the Great Lord Narayana, how indeed does he not become the object of hatred of anyone in the whole creation?

Considering Anandagiri's explanation, revisiting Shankara's statements, he first holds Buddha to be speaking incoherently since he has given mutually contradictory thoughts within his doctrine. Shankara now gives an alternate reason as to why that system is not to be admitted: OR he has hatred to beings.  This latter part is explained by Anandagiri citing the Buddha Avatara which was aimed at those anti-vedic people to delude them.  

warm regards

subbu

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

Namaste Sri Subbuji

>Anger is that hatred which manifests when one encounters something that is detrimental to oneself as being the cause of misery upon seeing, hearing or recollecting that object/person, etc. 

The above does not apply to VAsudeva because BhagavAn vAsudeva is forever free from misery. Therefore, His anger is not due to hatred. In fact, the above is specifically applied only to ajnAnis. Even for jnAni, there is nothing detrimental or miserable. 

In Psychology also, anger and hatred are 2 different emotions. 

>तेषां ज्ञानी नित्ययुक्त एकभक्ितर्विशिष्यते।

>प्रियो हि ज्ञानिनोऽत्यर्थमहं स च मम प्रियः।।7.17।।    The Jnani is dear to Me. 

True, the jnAni is dear to Him because jnAni is His very own Self.

But BhagavAn does not treat anyone with hatred or enemity. He is a friend of everyone.

भोक्तारं यज्ञतपसां सर्वलोकमहेश्वरम्।

सुहृदं सर्वभूतानां ज्ञात्वा मां शान्तिमृच्छति।।5.29।।

He who knows Me as the enjoyer of sacrifices and austerities, the great Lord of all the worlds and the** friend of all beings**, attains to peace.

As a friend of all beings, BhagavAn hates no one. 

This idea is repeated elsewhere too - 

गतिर्भर्ता प्रभुः साक्षी निवासः शरणं सुहृत्।

प्रभवः प्रलयः स्थानं निधानं बीजमव्ययम्।।9.18।।

I am the goal, supporter, the Lord, the witness, the abode, the refuge and the **friend**. I am the seat of origin and dissolution, the base for preservation and the imperishable seed.

Best Regards

[Bhaskar YR]

The above does not apply to VAsudeva because BhagavAn vAsudeva

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

But prabhuji you know something??  there is no end to imaginations of tArkikA-s  they can attribute rAga-dvesha to Ishwara, paramArtha jnAni so they see no difference between these two !! 😊 A mother can show anger towards her son but it does not mean she is showing her hatred towards her son. This anger may always be with ‘good intentions’ to mend the ways of her son. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

Namaste Sri Bhaskarji

Excellent example. A mother may be angry towards her child, but she does not hate her child. 

Thanks for giving this wonderful example. 

On a related note, Sri Shankara does not attribute rAga-dvesha to Bhagawan anywhere. He treats vAsudeva with the highest amount of respect. 

Best Regards

Kalyan

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

If we accept Anandagiri's assertion that Buddha is a special avatara like Rama and Krishna and therefore cannot babble ignorantly, then we also have to accept his position that the Buddha  dvesha is towards those who are antagonistic to the vedic path. 

Narasimha had dvesha (subbu-ji's original translation was aversion) towards Hiranyakashipu who abused Prahlada, and that dvesha is the basis for his expressed anger towards him. Now if the anger is interpreted in a lila sense, then so can the dvesha.

thollmelukaalkizhu 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB662508308E745850BC44234C84F1A%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Kalyan ji and Subbu ji.

Bhagvan can do leela, right? In leela, he can display rAga, he can display dvesha, he can display krodha, he can display kAma etc etc. 

He has neither likes nor dislikes. But he can do the leela of likes and dislikes. No one can prevent him. 

So, what is wrong in Bhagvan Buddha doing the leela of dvesha towards those human beings who are not aligned to Vedas. You cannot place restrictions on the ambit of Leela of Bhagvan. 

Leela me sab solve ho jata hai. 🙂

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Bill Eidson]

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 24, 2025, at 3:01 AM, V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te19wD6MfXoGP9hc5WvyvsX8bH89qEsAcBUbZYwzLM8wPw%40mail.gmail.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Subbuji,

With all respect to Adi Shankra, I believe absolutely in what Lord Buddha, the 9th avatara of Lord Krishna did and said. Respected Gaudapada also had total belief in Lord Buddha, and people thought Sri Gaudapada to be a sort of Buddhist. May be because by Lord Krishna's grace I also came to know that Lord Buddha taught one teaching to common people, immediately after his becoming Buddha and the second teaching was given 22 years later to a small group of Brahmins, who requested Lord Buddha to explain about the upanishadic teachings, which was beyond the scope of the common people in those days. The third type of teaching was 'Tantric teachings', Lord Buddha imparted towards the end of his life.

May be Adi Shankara did not have time to read the history of Lord Buddha's life.

Any comments please?

Regards

Sunil KB

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te2R0s9m5wozPh%2BOdtsU_%2B9VYkZbnjV%3DagYktdiZ%2BMJo6A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ram Chandran]

Namaskar dear Sunilji:

You asserted: " May be Adi Shankara did not have time to read the history of Lord Buddha's life."

Honestly, I do not have either time or scholarship to understand why you made that assertion.  Though I have read the history of Mahatma Gandhi and I  still  disagree with Gandhiji  on many of his assertions and actions.  You seem to imply that because you believe absolutely that Lord Buddha is the 9th Avatara of Lord Krishna, that everyone should accept what you believe and write.   I do expect plenty of comments for your assertions!!

Ram Chandran

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2025 at 4:44 PM Kalyan Chakravarthy <kalyanchakr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Sri Subbuji

>Anger is that hatred which manifests when one encounters something that is detrimental to oneself as being the cause of misery upon seeing, hearing or recollecting that object/person, etc. 

The above does not apply to VAsudeva because BhagavAn vAsudeva is forever free from misery. Therefore, His anger is not due to hatred. In fact, the above is specifically applied only to ajnAnis. Even for jnAni, there is nothing detrimental or miserable. 

Dear Kalyan ji, 

Here is what the Valmiki Ramayana says:

http://kirtimukha.com/Krishnaswamy/child_ramakien/ramayana37.htm

// Rama: Raama wept and ran hither and thither in the grove round the cottage. The leaves and flowers on the trees had faded. Seeta was nowhere to be seen. He wandered about like one mad. His eyes were bloodshot. He cried, “Alas, have they eaten her up? Have they carried her away. O, how she must have trembled in terror! I cannot bear the thought of it.”

After wandering and weeping in vain for a long time, he fell on the ground moaning, “Ha Lakshmana! Ha Seeta!” He cried like an elephant trapped in a pit. //

Aranya Kandam sarga 63:

स लक्ष्मणं शोकवशाभिपन्नं शोके निमग्नो विपुले तु रामः।
उवाच वाक्यं व्यसनानुरूपमुष्णं विनिश्श्वस्य रुदंत्सशोकम्।।3.63.2।।

विपुले शोके in intense grief, निमग्नः plunged, सः that, रामः Rama, सशोकम् with sorrow, रुदन् crying, शोकवशाभिपन्नम् who was caught in sorrow, लक्ष्मणम् Lakshmana, उष्णम् hot, विनिश्वस्य sighing, व्यसनानुरूपम् in his grief, वाक्यम् these words, उवाच said.

Plunged in deep grief, Rama heaved hot sighs and said these words to grief-stricken Lakshmana, weeping:

न मद्विधो दुष्कृतकर्मकारी मन्ये द्वितीयोऽस्ति वसुन्धरायाम्।
शोकेन शोको हि परम्पराया मा मेति भिन्दन्हृदयं मनश्च।।3.63.3।।

वसुन्धरायाम् on earth, मद्विधः like me, दुष्कृतकर्मकारी who undertakes forbidden acts, द्वितीयः second person, नास्ति not, मन्ये I think, शोकेन grief, शोकः grief, परम्परायाः continuously, हृदयम् heart, मनश्च mind also, भिन्दन् shattered, माम् my, एति हि is befalling.

I think there is none on earth like me who has performed such forbidden acts. One grief after the other is successively piercing my heart and my mind.

पूर्वं मया नूनमभीप्सितानि पापानि कर्माण्यसकृत्कृतानि।
तत्रायमद्यापतितो विपाको दुःखेन दुःखं यदहं विशामि।।3.63.4।।

मया by me, पूर्वम् in the past, नूनम् certainly, अभीप्सितानि dear to me, पापानि कर्माणि sinful deeds, असकृत् often, कृतानि done, तत्र there, अद्य now, विपाकः consequence of that, आपतितः has descended, यत् since, अहम् I, दुःखेन by sorrow, दुःखम् sorrow, विशामि I am entering.

In the past I had certainly done some sinful deeds I often liked the consequences of which have descended on me now as I am experiencing one sorrow after another.

राज्यप्रणाशस्स्वजनैर्वियोगः पितुर्विनाशो जननीवियोगः।
सर्वाणि मे लक्ष्मण शोकवेगमापूरयन्ति प्रविचिन्तितानि।।3.63.5।।

लक्ष्मण Lakshmana, राज्यप्रणाशः loss of kingdom, स्वजनैः kith and kin, वियोगः separation from, पितुः father, विनाशः death, जननीवियोगः separation from mother, सर्वाणि all, प्रविचिन्तितानि thinking over, मे I, शोकवेगम् fast increase sorrow, आपूरयन्ति greater measure.

O Lakshmana, loss of kingdom, separation from kith and kin, death of father, separation from mother–all these thoughts augment my sorrow faster and in greater measure. 

End of quote.

That all this grief, and the natural anger that it brings, is all a display of all human emotions / failings by Valmiki and Veda Vyasa about Rama, Krishna or Vishnu to carry some or the other message to we humans.  That it is all a 'leelaa' is not to be forgotten.  

Shankara's defining of duhkha and the consequent anger, equating it to dwesha, etc. fit in well in the cases such as mentioned above.  

Shankara, at the very beginning of the Gita Bhashya says: 

स च भगवान् ज्ञानैश्वर्यशक्तिबलवीर्यतेजोभिः सदा सम्पन्नः त्रिगुणात्मिकां स्वां मायां मूलप्रकृतिं वशीकृत्य, अजोऽव्ययो भूतानामीश्वरो नित्यशुद्धबुद्धमुक्तस्वभावोऽपि सन् , स्वमायया देहवानिव जात इव च लोकानुग्रहं कुर्वन् लक्ष्यते ।  

Shankara says: That great Lord, out of his own Māyā, is seen as though embodied, as though born...  

This applies to all such display of anger, etc. in the various avatara-s.

In the Vishnu Purana, at the very beginning, we have this message that tells us in no uncertain terms that the cosmic functions such as creation and destruction are not ‘really’ that of Brahman. The functions require the operation of guna-s and thereby it is only Brahman, assuming the appropriate gunas indulges in those functions:  

जुषन् रजो गुणं तत्र स्वयं विश्वेश्वरो हरिः  ।

ब्रह्माभूत्वास्य जगतो विसृष्टौ संप्रवर्तते  ॥ १,२.६१ ॥

सृष्टं च पात्यनुयुगं यावत्कल्पविकल्पना  ।

सत्त्वभृद्भगवान्विष्णुरप्रमेयपराक्रमः  ॥ १,२.६२ ॥

By attaching himself to Rajo guna, and himself having become Brahma, Vishnu (Brahman/Ishwara) engages in the creation of the world. And assuming the Sattva guna, Vishnu himself of mighty power engages in maintaining the created world.

तमोद्रेकी च कल्पान्ते रुद्ररूपी जर्नादनः  ।

मैत्रेयाखिलभूतानि भक्षयत्यतिदारूणः  ॥ १,२.६३ ॥

भक्षयित्वा च भूतानि जगत्येकार्णवीकृते  ।

नागपर्यङ्कशयने शेते च परमेश्वरः  ॥ १,२.६४ ॥

At the end of the Kalpa, Janardana of Rudra-form, who is of immense Tamas, O Maitreya, gobbles up the entire creation. And having made the world one mass, Parameshwara rests on the serpent-couch. [Sridhara Swamin says here: Parameshwara sleeps in his mula svarupa of brahma, shiva, etc. avatara.  Thus Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are only avataras of Brahman, no different from Rama, Krishna, Narasimha, etc., a concept that is anathema for those theological schools that hold a Vishnu that is absolutely distinct from the ‘jivas’ 🙂 that are Brahma and Shiva is the Para Brahman.]

Here the Purana clearly says it is Vishnu alone, owing to immense Tamas, has become Rudra.

One may find it despicable to hear Vishnu with rajas and tamas. But that's what Veda Vyasa says. 

In Psychology also, anger and hatred are 2 different emotions. 

But Shankara explicitly equates them in the Gita Bhashya.  There are many synonyms for anger and hatred that overlap.  

 

>तेषां ज्ञानी नित्ययुक्त एकभक्ितर्विशिष्यते।

>प्रियो हि ज्ञानिनोऽत्यर्थमहं स च मम प्रियः।।7.17।।    The Jnani is dear to Me. 

True, the jnAni is dear to Him because jnAni is His very own Self.

Actually, all jivas are the very Self of Ishwara, for he is the one that has become all the jivas and jadas in creation. Mandukya 6th mantra according to Advaita.  

But BhagavAn does not treat anyone with hatred or enemity. He is a friend of everyone.

भोक्तारं यज्ञतपसां सर्वलोकमहेश्वरम्।

सुहृदं सर्वभूतानां ज्ञात्वा मां शान्तिमृच्छति।।5.29।।

He who knows Me as the enjoyer of sacrifices and austerities, the great Lord of all the worlds and the** friend of all beings**, attains to peace.

As a friend of all beings, BhagavAn hates no one. 

But he does punish anyone who transgresses his rules. For carrying out such deeds he has to take upon himself those emotions that aught not to be in a person.  Krishna says in the Gita, do not give in to anger and desire and also says these are gateways to hell.  But he himself shows those emotions on certain occasions. Of course we all know that it is only an 'as if'.  While Brahman is all the jivas, which is an 'as if', what to say about his avataras and the acts there? 

In view of the above, there is nothing odd in Shankara holding Buddha avatara being hateful towards those who have turned away from the Vedic dharma. Anandagiri only annotates the Bhagavatam verse:

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. 

He also uses respectful epithets to Bhagavan:  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.

Thus, Shankara is never disrespectful of Bhagavan when he says what is in concordance with the views of Veda Vyasa and Valmiki.  Shankara has acknowledged the non-contradictory aspects of Buddha's doctrine. Yet, he first says that with the mutually opposed aspects of the doctrine Buddha is being incoherent. It is only as an alternative view, as though to justify the 'confusing' aspects of the doctrine, he indicates of the avatara's purpose.  If not for Anandagiri, one would not have known the import of the 'pradvesha' usage in the Bhashyam. Anandagiri has supplied such special inputs in the Gaudapada karika too, involving Narayana of the Badarikashrama and how He revealed the Truth to Gaudapada. 

warm regards

subbu  

[V Subrahmanian]

In this connection, this post of mine, with certain inputs from the Purana, etc. is a good read.  It's relevance to the present discussion can be appreciated:

https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2017/02/17/pasupata-and-pancharatra-composed-as-mohaka-sastra-s/

warm regards

subbu 

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Ramchandranji,

Ancient Hindu religious texts refer to Lord Buddha as the 9th Avatara. The eighth avatara 'Lord Krishn' is considered to be param Brahma avatara.

Five years, towards the end of his short life, even Adi Shankaracharya, on the advice of his paramguru 'Gaudapadacharya' went for Tantric worship of 'Mother Lalita' and wrote a commentary on "Lalita Trishati'. Interestingly, it appears that this Tantric worship of Mother Lalita or  Kamakshi or Shodashi remained confined only to the Adi Shankara's last math or 'Swamath', the Kamchi Kamakoti Math.

Sunil KB

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/f74e1e0f-9159-4117-86ae-3bbd1ee8e630n%40googlegroups.com.

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

Namaste Subbuji

>Aranya Kandam sarga 63:

>स लक्ष्मणं शोकवशाभिपन्नं शोके निमग्नो विपुले तु रामः।

उवाच वाक्यं व्यसनानुरूपमुष्णं विनिश्श्वस्य रुदंत्सशोकम्।।3.63.2।।

These, and the other verses that you quoted - I could not find them in the critical edition.

The critical edition can be found here- 

https://bombay.indology.info/ramayana/welcome.html

>Shankara, at the very beginning of the Gita Bhashya says: 

>स च भगवान् ज्ञानैश्वर्यशक्तिबलवीर्यतेजोभिः सदा सम्पन्नः त्रिगुणात्मिकां स्वां मायां मूलप्रकृतिं वशीकृत्य, अजोऽव्ययो भूतानामीश्वरो नित्यशुद्धबुद्धमुक्तस्वभावोऽपि सन् , स्वमायया देहवानिव जात इव च लोकानुग्रहं कुर्वन् लक्ष्यते ।  

The above shows that Sri Shankara thinks BhagavAn is always endowed with jnAna (sadA sampannaH).

Therefore, Bhagavan is free from misery and hatred. Shankara bhAshya is very clear. 

>But Shankara explicitly equates them in the Gita Bhashya.  There are many synonyms for anger and hatred that overlap.  

At the risk of repetition, above is true only for ajnAni, in some situations. 

If you come across any statement in Bhagavatam, Ramayana etc. that BhagavAn is subject to dvesha, please feel free to present. Even a mother's anger towards her child is not hatred, as Sri Bhaskarji pointed out. 

 

>But he does punish anyone who transgresses his rules. For carrying out such deeds he has to take upon himself those emotions that aught not to be in a person. Krishna says in the Gita, do not give in to anger and desire and also says these are gateways to hell. But he himself shows those emotions on certain occasions. Of course we all know that it is only an 'as if'. While Brahman is all the jivas, which is an 'as if', what to say about his avataras and the acts there? 

At the risk of repetition, I just want to say that hatred is different from anger.

Also, in Vishnu sahasranama, there is a name called - jitakrodha. One who has conquered anger. His anger is never uncontrolled and directed against those who are adhArmic. In fact, Shankara says he does not act out of anger, but to protect righteousness. 

BhagavAn has clearly stated in the Gita that he does not hate anyone. There is a direct verse to this effect, which cannot be overturned by any amount of logic. There is no verse contradicting this. I hope you looked at those quotes.

In the Srimad Bhagavatam beginning of 7th chapter also, it's mentioned Bhagavan bears no hatred even towards asuras.

PS: I did not respond to some of the portions, which were not relevant. There is no quote anywhere that BhagavAn has dvesha. 

Best Regards

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

Namaste Sri Sudhanshu ji

I dont know of any place where it is mentioned BhagavAn has dvesha, even in leela.

If you know of any quotes from Ramayana, Bhagavatam etc, please feel free to present.

Also, from Sri Shankara's authentic works, there is no evidence to show Sri Shankara considered Buddha-Shakyamuni as an avatAr of Vishnu.

Best Regards

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Kalyan ji.

For Bhagvan, there is neither dvesha nor preeti. He says in Gita 9.29, न मे द्वेष्यो अस्ति न प्रिय:

And then he says in 12.15 - हर्षामर्षभयोद्वेगैर्मुक्तो य: स च मे प्रिय:!

Contradiction!!!

When you say that Bhagvan does not have dvesha towards anyone, also say in the same breath, that he does not have Preeti towards anyone. 

And if you hold that he has Preeti towards his bhaktAs like Prahlad, then admit that he has dvesha towards Hiranyakashipu. 

If on the other hand, you are ok to admit Preeti but not dvesha, then you are violating Gita 9.29.

Admitting one but rejecting the other is violative of logic as well as Gita 9.29.

The conclusion is this - Bhagvan has neither Preeti nor dvesha for anyone. However, He displays preeti and dvesha as a part of his leela.

I dont know of any place where it is mentioned BhagavAn has dvesha, even in leela.

Please search the vast expanse of Puranas.

If you know of any quotes from Ramayana, Bhagavatam etc, please feel free to present.

It is logically clear. No need to search.

Also, from Sri Shankara's authentic works, there is no evidence to show Sri Shankara considered Buddha-Shakyamuni as an avatAr of Vishnu.

Why is Shankara expected to repeat what Puranas have already said?

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar .

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

Namaste Sri Sudhanshuji

There is no place in the Gita where BhagavAn contradicts his assertion that he has no dvesha.

So, he has no dvesha even in leela.

Best Regards

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sun, Oct 26, 2025 at 9:17 AM Kalyan Chakravarthy <kalyanchakr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Subbuji

>Aranya Kandam sarga 63:

>स लक्ष्मणं शोकवशाभिपन्नं शोके निमग्नो विपुले तु रामः।

उवाच वाक्यं व्यसनानुरूपमुष्णं विनिश्श्वस्य रुदंत्सशोकम्।।3.63.2।।

These, and the other verses that you quoted - I could not find them in the critical edition.

Namaste Kalyan ji,

All those verses have been commented upon by Govindaraja (Bhushana) (Ramanuja school), Tilaka and Shiromani.  You can read them here:

https://www.valmiki.iitk.ac.in/commentaries?language=dv&field_commnetary_tid=14&field_kanda_tid=3&field_sarga_value=63

These verses are accepted and published by both Madhwas and Ramanujas:

https://archive.org/details/valmiki-ramayana-with-govindarajas-commentary-sanskrit/3.Valmiki.Ramayana-Aranya.Kanda/page/208/mode/2up  Madhwa

https://srivaishnavan.com/?s=%E0%A4%B6%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%82&topic_data%5B%5D=301    Ramanuja

  

Even though Bhagavan is sadā jnāna sampannah, yet he has displayed krodha as per Bhagavatam, Ramayanam and Mahabharata (Krodha is an inalienable trait of Vishnu, from which Rudra emanates - Mahabharata).  Since Shankara has equated krodha and dwesha by logic, the logic does not fail.  In fact the lexicon too holds krodha, vidwesha, to be synonyms:

https://ashtadhyayi.com/kosha?search=%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%A7

 क्रोध पु० क्रुध—भावे घञ् । १ परापकाराय चित्तवृत्तिभेदे, परानिष्टाभिलाषेण अनिष्टविषयद्वेषहेतुके चित्तवृत्तिभेदे ।

Even for a Jnani, in the course of experiencing the prarabdha karma, the Vedanta shāstra accepts the manifestation of raga, dwesha, etc. Shankara has said that in the Brihadaranyaka Bhashya and Vidyaranya too states:

When anger is accepted, there is no logic for dwesha to be exempted as it is shown that the two are inseparable and stem from the same cause. In BGB 1.53 too Shankara equates krodha and dwesha (apart from the instance already cited):  

अहङ्कारं बलं दर्पं
कामं क्रोधं परिग्रहम् ।  Bhashya:  तं च, कामम् इच्छां क्रोधं = द्वेषं

We also see in the Geeta text itself the twins rāga-dweṣa and kāma-krodha interchanging. We have also seen from the Mahabharata, etc. that Bhagavan has to co-opt the Rajas and Tamas too for the srishti, laya purposes.   
  

 

Kalyan:

 

If you come across any statement in Bhagavatam, Ramayana etc. that BhagavAn is subject to dvesha, please feel free to present. Even a mother's anger towards her child is not hatred, as Sri Bhaskarji pointed out. 

VS:

I wouldn't say that Bhagavan is 'subject' to anger or dwesha; but there are quite a lot of names that say that Bhagavan is a 'hater/enemy' of x or y:

https://kosha.sanskrit.today/word/sa/%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%B0?q=%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%B0&scope=kosha 

This kosha gives the meaning of the name Mura and says: Krishna's names are connected to Mura in so many ways:

-जित्, -द्विष्, -भिद्, -मर्दन, -रिपु, -वैरिन्, -हन् epithets of Kṛiṣṇa or Viṣṇu

प्रकीर्णासृग्बिन्दुर्जयति भुजदण्डो मुरजितः 1

मुरवैरिणो राधिकामधि वचनजातम् 1. Enemy of Mura. Ripu also means same. vairi= hatred/enmity.

There are many such names for Krishna/Vishnu: मधुकैटभारिन्. कंसारिन्, etc. Shiva is called kāmāri (enemy of Manmatha) and purāri (enemy of the Tripura asuras) 

Padmapurana:  MuradviSha = Krishna. Literally 'a hater of Mura': 

Verse 6.78.26

< Previous

parent: Chapter 78

Next >

मुरद्विषं पिंडकयोर्जानुयुग्मे जनार्दनम् ।
फणीशं गुल्फयोर्न्यस्य क्रमयोश्च त्रिविक्रमम् ॥ २६ ॥

कंसचाणूरहन्तारं मुरद्विषं महासुरम्। शङ्खचक्रधरं विष्णुं वन्दे लक्ष्मीपतिं हरिम् ॥ ५८॥  Another source.

नमोऽगणितकल्याणगुणपूर्णाय विष्णवे। सत्याशेषजगज्जन्मपूर्वकर्त्र मुरद्विषे ।। 1 ।। श्री राघवेन्द्रयतिकृता वादावली भावदीपिका.. Madhwa. 

अलङ्कारमणिहारः https://sa.wikisource.org/s/1lo5   The author of Alankara Manihara is Krishna Brahmatantra Parakalaswamin. He is also known by variations of his name, such as Krishna Brahmatantra Parakalaswamin Srinivasachar.   Of the Ramanuja school.  He explicitly says: .....hates Mura:

"विबुधानामावासे पारिजात इव लसति । जगदामोदविधात्री जयति श्रीमञ्जरी मुरं द्विषति (verb) ॥ २१६९ ॥  विबुधानां विदुषां देवानां वा आवासे निवासभूते वृषभूभृति शेषाद्रौ..."

द्विषत् dviṣat - Dictionary Definition

·

1. Hating or detesting, hostile. 2. inimical, unfriendly. m. ... (-न्) An enemy. E. ... द्विष् to hate, participle aff. शतृ.

ममाभीष्टसुतं देहि कंसारे माधवाच्युत । Enemy of Kamsa  https://sa.wikisource.org/s/1ddc Harivamshapurana.

https://sa.wikisource.org/s/3gub

 

वन्दे कुट्मलिताञ्जलिर्मुहुरहं वीरं मयूरध्वजं येनार्धं कपटद्विजाय वपुषः कंसद्विषे दित्सता ।   one who hates Kamsa. 

                                                                                               

We have such epithets despite Krishna saying that he is the suhRt - friend of everyone. 

In the BG itself Krishna says many non-Jnanis are dear to him:  18.69, 18.65. Arjuna, not a Jnani as per Advaita, is dear to Krishna. The other bhaktas like the ones who are afflicted, who seek wealth and who seek knowledge - are all dear to the Lord. The Jnani is especially dear, he says. 

Here is a compilation of Shankara's stotra works, though not exhaustive, made by Swami Chinmayananda:  https://www.advaita-vedanta.org/texts/Complete_Works_of_Adishankara.html

It lists the Dashavatara stotram as that of Shankara. This has a verse that mentions Buddha as an avatara.  The stotra is hosted by many websites and there are videos too.  Here is a site carrying the lyrics:

https://www.ebharatisampat.in/readbook3.php?bookid=NDYxNDg5MzY0NTI5Nzc2&pageno=MjI0MjQyNjk5NTk=  Brihat stotra ratnakara: 

धरावद्धपद्मासनस्थांघ्रियष्टिर्नियम्यानिलंन्यस्तनासाग्रदृष्टिः॥
य आस्ते कलौ योगिनां चक्रवर्ती  स बुद्धः प्रबुद्धोऽस्तु निश्चिंतवर्त्ती॥९॥  The one foremost yogins, Buddha, in the Kaliyuga
दुरपारसंसारसंहारकारी भवत्यश्वचारः कृपाणप्रहारी ॥
मुरारिर्दशाकारधारीह कल्की करोतु द्विषां ध्वंसनं वः स कल्की ॥ १० ॥
इति श्रीमच्छङ्कराचार्यविरचितं दशावतारस्तोत्रं संपूर्णम्॥१३९॥

The Puri Shankaracharya on the widely used sankalpa by brahmins 'buaddhāvatāre'   https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=499328392742760

At Sringeri and all Kannada and many Telugu Smartas - the sankalpa with that term is in vogue:

सङ्कल्पः
शुभतिथौ, शोभने मुहूर्ते, अद्य ब्रह्मणः, द्वितीये परार्थे, श्वेतवाराहकल्पे वैवस्वतमन्वन्तरे, कलियुगे, प्रथमपादे, जम्बूद्वीपे भरतवर्षे, भरतखण्डे, दण्डकारण्ये, गोदावर्याः दक्षिणे तीरे, शालि- वाहनशके, बौद्धावतारे, रामक्षेत्रे, अस्मिन् वर्तमाने, व्यावहारिके, चान्द्रमानेन, प्रभवादि षष्ट्याः संवत्सराणां मध्ये, संवत्सरे, ....अयने, ऋतौ मासे, पक्षे, तिथौ, ....वासर-.
युक्तायां, शुभनक्षत्र, शुभयोग, शुभकरण, एवंगुणविशेषणविशि- ष्टायां शुभतिथौ, मम-उपात्त समस्त-दुरित-क्षय-द्वारा श्री परमेश्वर-

A core traditionalist that is Shankara, there need not be any doubt as to whether he accepted Buddha as an avatara.  Veda Vyasa, who has said in the Bhagavatam about the mohaka nature of the Vishnu avatara-Buddhist doctrine himself has refuted it in the Brahma sutras and Shankara expatiates on that. 

warm regards

subbu 

 



 

 

[V Subrahmanian]

In this Sringeri recent video, just after 9.05 minutes, there is a sankalpa read out where the term 'bauddhāvatāre' occurs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JalltYhzzsM

regards

subbu

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

Namaste Subbuji

>Even though Bhagavan is sadā jnāna sampannah, yet he has displayed krodha as per Bhagavatam, Ramayanam and Mahabharata (Krodha is >an inalienable trait of Vishnu, from which Rudra emanates - Mahabharata).  Since Shankara has equated krodha and dwesha by logic, the logic >does not fail.  In fact the lexicon too holds krodha, vidwesha, to be synonyms:

Let us examine what Sri Shankara says in Gita bhAshya - 

समोऽहं सर्वभूतेषु न मे द्वेष्योऽस्ति न प्रियः।

ये भजन्ति तु मां भक्त्या मयि ते तेषु चाप्यहम्।।9.29।।

Sanskrit Commentary By Sri Shankaracharya

।।9.29।। --,समः तुल्यः अहं सर्वभूतेषु। न मे द्वेष्यः अस्ति न प्रियः। अग्निवत् अहम् -- दूरस्थानां यथा अग्निः शीतं न अपनयति? समीपम् उपसर्पतां अपनयति तथा अहं भक्तान् अनुगृह्णामि? न इतरान्। ये भजन्ति तु माम् ईश्वरं भक्त्या मयि ते -- स्वभावत एव? न मम रागनिमित्तम् मयि वर्तन्ते। तेषु च अपि अहं स्वभावत एव वर्ते? न इतरेषु। ****न एतावता तेषु द्वेषो मम्*****।।श्रृणु मद्भक्तेर्माहात्म्यम् --,

English Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary By Swami Gambirananda

9.29 Aham, I; am samah, impartial, equal; sarva-bhutesu, towards all beings; me, to Me; na asti, there is none; dvesyah, detestable; na, none; priyah, dear. I am like fire: As fire does not ward off cold from those who are afar, but removes it from those who apporach, near, similarly I favour the devotees, not others. Tu, but; ye, those who approach near, similarly I favour the devotees, not others. Tu, but; ye, those who; bhajanti, worship Me, God; bhaktya, with devotion; te they; exist mayi, in Me-by their very nature; ['Their mind becomes fit for My manifestation, as it has been purified by following the virtuous path.'] they do not exist in Me because of My love, Ca, and; aham, I; api, too; naturally exist tesu, in them, not in others. ****Thus there is no hatred towards them (the latter)*****. 'Listen to the greatness of devotion to Me:'

Very clearly explained by Sri Shankara -  एतावता तेषु द्वेषो मम् - There is no hatred towards those who do not approach Him. This also shows how those who approach Him are dear to Him, just like the fire analogy. 

This is a very direct statement from Sri Shankara that BhagavAn has no Dwesha. This should clinch things. 

I will end this discussion here, but before that, one additional point on critical edition of Ramayana. 

>All those verses have been commented upon by Govindaraja (Bhushana) (Ramanuja school), Tilaka and Shiromani. You can read them here:

>https://www.valmiki.iitk.ac.in/commentaries?language=dv&field_commnetary_tid=14&field_kanda_tid=3&field_sarga_value=63

>These verses are accepted and published by both Madhwas and Ramanujas:

The existence of commentaries on these verses is not evidence of authenticity. 

The evidence of authenticity is the presence of these verses in various manuscripts throughout the geographical region of India. 

These verses are excised from the critical edition because of absence in many manuscripts.

Best Regards

Kalyan

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

Very clearly explained by Sri Shankara - ***न एतावता तेषु द्वेषो मम् - There is no hatred towards those who do not approach Him. This also shows how those who approach Him are dear to Him, just like the fire analogy. 

Forgot to include the न in the earlier message. 

Best Regards

[raj Rathore]

Namaste. 

> Also, from Sri Shankara's authentic works, there is no evidence to show Sri Shankara considered Buddha-Shakyamuni as an avatAr of Vishnu.

Sry i am replying to this quite late, but Buddha as Viṣṇu avatāra (to delude others) is something which is pre Śaṅkara. Bhaṭṭapāda well mentioned this in is Vārtikka. 

> smaryante ca purāṇeṣu dharmaviluptihetavaḥ / kalau śākyādayasteṣāṁ ko vākyaṁ śrotumarhati // [ Kumārila's Tantravārttika (1.3.6) ]

*It's vidita from Purāṇas that Śākya (i.e. Śākyamuni Buddha), etc. would be dharmaviluptikārakas, so who would listen to their vacanas?* 

Here, Kumārila refers to the Purāṇas, stating that they mention Śākyamuni Buddha, etc. would appear in Kaliyuga and would do viplava of dharma, so who would listen to their vacanas ? This isn't meant to state that no one listens to Buddhavacana in Kaliyuga but that Buddhavacana isn't worth listening to, because of its being dharmaviruddha.  Actually, if one tries to see among the vacanas and pakṣas of pre-modern pūrvācāryas, none of them seem to hold that Śākyamuni isn't Buddhāvatāra or that Buddhāvatāra is some other Vedavādī Buddha (which is viruddha to what's stated in Purāṇas and a nonsensical pakṣa). The 2-Buddha theory (that Śākyamuni Buddha isn't Purāṇokta Buddhāvatāra) was propagated first by Indologists, it wasn't (& isn't) traditional (paramparāpravartita & śāstrokta) Hindu position though some think nowadays that it's traditional just because some ācāryas of our time uphold it. Yes, Purāṇas may speak of more than one Buddhas (because there're >1 Buddhas), but Śākyamuni is Purāṇokta and *not* āpta and pūjya (of course). And it's not difficult for us to accept that there may be mention of more than 1 Buddha in Purāṇas because of the kalpabheda resolution.

Śaṅkara was a firm upholder of Itihāsa-Purāṇa, so from the above we know that Bhaṭṭapāda quoted Purāṇas mentioning Buddha (in Purāṇas he is Viṣṇu avatāra and came to delude as we know), thus we can safely accept that which is explained by Ānanadagiri to us, there is no point in stating that Śaṅkara didn't accept the Purāṇic equation (as it is very explicit in Purāṇas).

🙏🙏Śānti Śānti Śānti 🙏🙏

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/88d55d02-aaf0-49ff-9896-41ece513ecf2n%40googlegroups.com.

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

Namaste,

Whether Tantravārttika was really composed by Kumarila is a point of debate.

Having said that, my point is not whether the idea of "Buddha as an avatAra of Vishnu" pre-dates Sri Shankara. 

My point is - Whether any authentic works of Sri Shankara mention this. They dont. 

Best Regards

[Bhaskar YR]

Let us examine what Sri Shankara says in Gita bhAshya - 

 

समोऽहं सर्वभूतेषु न मे द्वेष्योऽस्ति न प्रियः।

ये भजन्ति तु मां भक्त्या मयि ते तेषु चाप्यहम्।।9.29।।

 

praNAms Sri Kalyan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

And its sambandha bhAshya to this verse, too clarify that Bhagavan does not have any rAga nor any dvesha towards anyone.  rAgadveshavAn tarhi bhagavAn yataH bhaktAn anugruNhAti netarAn eti , tanna.  It is really pity to note that we are seeing the arguments to promote and attribute rAga-dvesha to svayaM Bhagavan in the name of logic and entirely forgetting the fact that to get rid of the rAga-dvesha of ours we have to approach bhagavAn himself. If he himself is the custodian of these anishta-s, whom should we approach!!??  Tomorrow it is not surprising if we see arguments like : though lord said na me pArthAsi kartavyaM trishu lokeshu kiMchana, what he was doing in Kurukshetra?? so he must be having kartavyaM with kartrutva buddhi as he is pAndava pakshapAti and kaurava dveshi 😊 and arguments may get extra wings and someone who argues logically :  since Krishna engaged in rAsaleela with gOpikA stree-s, he must be a womanizer or he must be having excessive lust and since in his childhood he stole butter, he is ‘bAlAparAdhi’ or must be having criminal instincts in his childhood itself etc. Is there any end to these logicians logical imaginations??  I don’t think so. 

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

Dear Sri Bhaskarji

Namaste

In this context, Sri Madhusudhana Saraswati gives a very nice analogy.

The light from the sun is present everywhere but it becomes manifest only in a mirror and not in a pot. This does not mean that sun or sunlight have rAga for mirror or dvesha for pot. 

Similarly, BhagavAn manifests in the pure mind of a devotee and not in the impure mind of a non-devotee. Just like the sun analogy, BhagavAn too has no rAga or dvesha. 

Best Regards

Kalyan

[Bhaskar YR]

 

The light from the sun is present everywhere but it becomes manifest only in a mirror and not in a pot. This does not mean that sun or sunlight have rAga for mirror or dvesha for pot. 

Similarly, BhagavAn manifests in the pure mind of a devotee and not in the impure mind of a non-devotee. Just like the sun analogy, BhagavAn too has no rAga or dvesha. 

 

praNAms Sri Kalyan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Very good analogy, unfortunately for the logicians, it is from a logician cum Krishna bhaktha Sri MS himself.  I just wonder why these logicians are after the rAga-dvesha of bhagavAn and paramArtha jnAni, I think it is just because they are the advocators of brahmAshrita avidyA and they don’t see any difference between mAyOpAdhi of Ishwara and avidyOpAdhi of jeeva as they treat mAya and avidyA as synonymous.  Since jeeva will have rAga-dvesha due to his upAdhi saMbandha, Ishwara too according to them must be having rAga-dvesha ( a grand logical conclusion !!).  They don’t give any heed to the siddhAnta that Ishwara is nitya Shuddha buddha mukta svarUpa and he is devoid of any ditches.  Likewise paramArtha jnAni, he is sarva kAma vinirmukta, sarva samshayAteeta, he is krutakrutya, even though he is looking like dehavaan (embodied one) he is dehAteeta paramAtma svarUpa.  In theMundaka shruti bhAshya for the mantra bhdyate hrudayagranthiH chidyante sarva saMshayAH…bhAshyakAra explains : asya paramAtmajnAnasya phalaM edAneem abhidhiyate, bhidyate hrudaya graNtiH avidyAvAsanAprachayO, buddhyAshrayaH kAmaH…by attributing rAga, dvesha, mada, mAtsarya, krodha etc. due to over dose of dry logic,  we are just tarnishing the exalted image of Ishwara and paramArtha jnAni in Advaita siddhAnta. 

[raj Rathore]

> Whether Tantravārttika was really composed by Kumarila is a point of debate.

No it's not debated at all. Its continuation of Ślokavārtikka. Ślokavārtikka deals with tarkapāda, Tantravārtikka deals with rest of the pādas from ch 1, and  also Ch 2-3. Ṭupṭikā deals with rest of the Sūtra and Sūtra bhāṣya.

> Having said that, my point is not whether the idea of "Buddha as an avatAra of Vishnu" pre-dates Sri Shankara. 

So i think we all accept that Purāṇas mentioned Gautama as Viṣṇu avatāra, and Purāṇas are Pramāṇa well accepted by Saṅkara, etc.

> My point is - Whether any authentic works of Sri Shankara mention this. They dont. 

Well yes its not directly mentioned but Ānanadagiri's śabdas are more than enough here. And it's completely fine to accept this.

Śaṅkara accept Purāṇa, Purāṇas strongly uphold the Buddhāvatāra, so Śaṅkara accepting Buddhāvatāra should not be contested at all, its a traditional point well ingrained in śāstras (Buddhas too state the very same (in their suttas, etc)- Kṛṣṇa, Vyāsa being Buddha, etc) Ānanadagiri explained the Śaṅkara bhāṣya that there *that* refers to Buddhāvatāra was to delude others (so its apramāṇa). Everything fits perfectly. 🙏🙏

Namaste 🙏

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/456d9437-8ac1-472b-8967-6fb73171c95an%40googlegroups.com.

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

Namaste 

>Śaṅkara accept Purāṇa, Purāṇas strongly uphold the Buddhāvatāra, so Śaṅkara accepting Buddhāvatāra should not be contested at all, its a traditional point....

This kind of indirect argumentation and logic often leads to erroneous conclusions because there are several hidden assumptions being made.

If it is to be shown that Sri Shankara accepted Buddha as an avatAra of Vishnu, the best way is the direct method - to show quotations directly from his authentic works.

Unfortunately, we disagree on this point and therefore I do not have anything further to add here.

Best Regards

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

Dear Sri Bhaskarji, Namaste

>by attributing rAga, dvesha, mada, mAtsarya, krodha etc. due to over dose of dry logic, we are just tarnishing the exalted image of Ishwara and paramArtha jnAni in Advaita siddhAnta. 

When considering the works of Sri Shankara himself, it is very clear that he holds Ishwara in a highly exalted position.

This can be seen from the Brahmasutra Bhashya and Bhagavad Gita Bhashya.

Best Regards

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 12:29 PM Kalyan Chakravarthy <kalyanchakr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste 

>Śaṅkara accept Purāṇa, Purāṇas strongly uphold the Buddhāvatāra, so Śaṅkara accepting Buddhāvatāra should not be contested at all, its a traditional point....

This kind of indirect argumentation and logic often leads to erroneous conclusions because there are several hidden assumptions being made.

If it is to be shown that Sri Shankara accepted Buddha as an avatAra of Vishnu, the best way is the direct method - to show quotations directly from his authentic works.

Vedanta accepts, apart from Pratyaksha, other pramanas too like anumana, arthapatti, etc. When someone asked 'did Shankara accept Ganapati in his prasthana traya bhashyas?', the reply is: even if he has not mentioned in the bhashyas, yet, since there is a Taittiriya aranyaka collection of Gayatris where a Ganapati Gayatri is also there, there is no question of Shankara not knowing it or rejecting it.  

regards

subbu  

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Kalyan ji, Subbu ji 

If it is to be shown that Sri Shankara accepted Buddha as an avatAra of Vishnu, the best way is the direct method - to show quotations directly from his authentic works.

Shankara has never said that he does not regard Buddha as an avatara. 

He has never said that Varaha is an avatara.

He has never averred in his bhAshya that Sita was dharmaparnI of Rama.

So what?

Non-mention of x in bhAshya does not imply non-acceptance. How can anyone aver this? If I have not mentioned X in my writing, does it mean that I don't accept it?? 

Also, acceptance by Shankara of x (PurANa), while x accepts y (BuddhAvatAra, VarAhAvatAta, SitA-RAmayOh DAmpatyam), implies acceptance by Shankara of y.

I cannot understand this obsession on explicit mention by Shankara. Kuch dimaag hamlog khud bhi laga sakte hain.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

Namaste Sri Sudhanshu ji

Varaha and Ramayana were not the subject topics addressed by Sri Shankara.

But Buddhist arguments and Buddha were very much the subject topics addressed by him. 

Therefore, I find your analogy unconvincing.

Best Regards 

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Kalyan ji 

Buddha's avatara-hood is not the subject matter either. The correctness of his teaching is.

Sir, tell me - how can you logically hold -- non-mention of x by Shankara in his bhAshya implies non-acceptance of x by Shankara. 

Give some cogent reply.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/9e45f5fb-d852-42a7-803c-fa1354bbb083n%40googlegroups.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

 

But Buddhist arguments and Buddha were very much the subject topics addressed by him. 

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

I read somewhere that the popular buddha who is the originator of buddhism is not the same buddha mentioned in dashAvatAra…Any source/useful information is appreciated. 

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

Namaste Sudhanshu ji

>Sir, tell me - how can you logically hold -- non-mention of x by Shankara in his bhAshya implies non-acceptance of x by Shankara. 

I do not hold that above position. I only say this - If someone claims Sri Shankara accepted Buddha as an incarnation of Vishnu, the evidence needs to be presented directly from his bhAshyas. 

Best Regards

[raj Rathore]

Namaste 

I already have shared a piece on this - whether Buddha mentioned in Itihāsa-Purāṇa is Gautama or not, will just paste that here.

In summary, śāstras do mention Siddhārta Gautama being avatāra of Viṣṇu, the idea of him being not that buddha is modern day thing for various reasons.

> smaryante ca purāṇeṣu dharmaviluptihetavaḥ / kalau śākyādayasteṣāṁ ko vākyaṁ śrotumarhati // [ Kumārila's Tantravārttika (1.3.6) ]

*It's vidita from Purāṇas that Śākya (i.e. Śākyamuni Buddha), etc. would be dharmaviluptikārakas, so who would listen to their vacanas?* 

Here, Kumārila refers to the Purāṇas, stating that they mention Śākyamuni Buddha, etc. would appear in Kaliyuga and would do viplava of dharma, so who would listen to their vacanas ? This isn't meant to state that no one listens to Buddhavacana in Kaliyuga but that Buddhavacana isn't worth listening to, because of its being dharmaviruddha.  Actually, if one tries to see among the vacanas and pakṣas of pre-modern pūrvācāryas, none of them seem to hold that Śākyamuni isn't Buddhāvatāra or that Buddhāvatāra is some other Vedavādī Buddha (which is viruddha to what's stated in Purāṇas and a nonsensical pakṣa). The 2-Buddha theory (that Śākyamuni Buddha isn't Purāṇokta Buddhāvatāra) was propagated first by Indologists, it wasn't (& isn't) traditional (paramparāpravartita & śāstrokta) Hindu position though some think nowadays that it's traditional just because some ācāryas of our time uphold it. Yes, Purāṇas may speak of more than one Buddhas (because there're >1 Buddhas), but Śākyamuni is Purāṇokta and *not* āpta and pūjya (of course). And it's not difficult for us to accept that there may be mention of more than 1 Buddha in Purāṇas because of the kalpabheda resolution.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/VI1PR06MB6638AE8CAF2CBED89DE7EB4484FDA%40VI1PR06MB6638.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Subbu-ji,

 

// Rama: Raama wept and ran hither and thither in the grove round the cottage. The leaves and flowers on the trees had faded. Seeta was nowhere to be seen. He wandered about like one mad. His eyes were bloodshot. He cried, “Alas, have they eaten her up? Have they carried her away. O, how she must have trembled in terror! I cannot bear the thought of it.”

After wandering and weeping in vain for a long time, he fell on the ground moaning, “Ha Lakshmana! Ha Seeta!” He cried like an elephant trapped in a pit. //

Even if we allude to His Vishnutvam (and that He knows Himself so) at other places in Valmiki Ramayana (are there such examples?), in these places that you have quoted it is clear that Rama experiences grief in a genuine manner at the manifest body-mind level. 

If someone wants to dismiss Rama's grief as not possible because He is Vishnu avatara, then they would have to resort to logic and external pramanas. Then the argument runs along the lines of leela, where Rama is merely playing along like a mother does with her child. But, the child here need not only mean the jivas and their minds; it can be body-mind that pertains to Rama Himself. 

When we watch a cartoon movie, we play along with the motions of our mind and not merely to the children watching with us. We have a semblance of joy when the "hero" wins and a semblance of fear/aversion/hate towards the villain and grief when he seems to win. Of course, it is a sport with our mind that we go along with, without ever losing our awareness of reality - while the children believe the movie to be real and therefore in ignorance, imagine "real grief/joy" over the happenings.

Our dvesha for the villain is as unreal as our prema for the hero; yet at the mind-level, there is the flow of such superficial emotions that we can attach to, to "participate" in the movie-experience, without losing our higher consciousness. 

The same can be said about both avataras and jnanis who we are identifying with body-minds. 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

Aranya Kandam sarga 63:

स लक्ष्मणं शोकवशाभिपन्नं शोके निमग्नो विपुले तु रामः।
उवाच वाक्यं व्यसनानुरूपमुष्णं विनिश्श्वस्य रुदंत्सशोकम्।।3.63.2।।

[putran M]

Even if we allude to His Vishnutvam (and that He knows Himself so) at other places in Valmiki Ramayana (are there such examples?), in these places that you have quoted it is clear that Rama experiences grief in a genuine manner at the manifest body-mind level. 

meant particularly the red parts: are there places in Valmiki Ramayana where He indicates His Ishvaratvam or being Vishnu etc.?