From: prh2s@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Patrick Ray Harrison)
Subject: Re: Relevance and Irrelevance of various Indian philosophies
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:31:54 GMT

In article <1jnajpINNh66@gap.caltech.edu> cco.caltech.edu!vidya (Vidyasankar 
Sundaresan) writes in response to an error he perceives in an earlier post of
mine:

>The Upanishadic revival was in the eighth century  
>A.D. brought about mainly by Adi Sankara and his successors at the four  
>monasteries he established. Buddhism flourished from the 5th cent. B.C. to  
>roughly the eighth cent. A.D.. Sankara's main mission was in  
>reconstructing the philosophy of the Upanishads and was directly opposed  
>to Buddhistic philosophy on many points. We are talking of two different  
>periods of history here. 

I'm afraid I didn't make clear what I meant by "Upanishadic revival."  I was
actually referring to the original composition of the Upanishads (forgive my
not attributing to the eternal rishis), usually regarded as somewhere in the
period of 900-300 B.C.E., and thus coincidental with the origins and early
development of Buddhism.  I chose the word "revival" to suggest that the
Upanishads marked a major period of spiritual renewal (revival) in Hinduism.
Sorry for the confusing choice of words.

Vidyasankar is right that the later formulation of Upanishadic teaching by
the various schools of Vedanta often resulted in positions "directly opposed
to Buddhistic philosophy on many points," and in his later remark that
"Buddhism is not Vedanta."  Since we are clarifying ourselves here, I might as
well add that I know the Upanishads alone are not Vedanta, either.  I understand
that I was making some oversimplifications by lumping the Upanishads, Buddhism,
and the various schools of Vedanta together, but I still believe that my
main point is for the most part sound:  the Upanishads represented a break
from the traditional prioritization of ritual and hence implicitly deflated
the role of the brahmin priesthood.  (I can't give volume and page numbers, but
I do know that Swami Nikhilananda, for one, in the notes to and essays in his 
translations of the Upanishads, comments on the non-brahmin slant of the
Upanishadic message.)  I also maintain that Buddhism "paralleled" the rise of
Upanishadic doctrine historically and philosophically, and the two may well
have shared a common ideological underpinning.  I certainly would not wish
to conflate Buddhism and the Upanishads any more than that, since obviously
Buddhism was truly radical, the Upanishads only potentially so. 

The points I had hoped to make were (1) that the texts which form the core
of Vedanta, the Upanishads, were by no means class-biased--in fact,
their non-brahminism had the potential to create a radical political force
in Hinduism; (2) that one movement concurrent with the appearance of the
Upanishads, and in some ways connected to it philosophically and practically,
*was* politically radical (non-Vedic, anti-brahminical), even though the
Buddha's disciples probably regarded political change as a consequence of
their philosophy, not as an objective; and (3) that Vedanta (and I used
the word as a synonym for Advaita Vedanta, since by his references to Sankara
and to the illusoriness of the material world it was clear that it was this
school Sanjeev had in mind) is therefore is proof against any claim that its
origins lay in an attempt by the empowered classes to maintain the status
quo. 

I hope this post clarifies what was (unintentionally) murky in my earlier
article.  Thanks to Vidyasankar for keeping me honest! :)

Patrick
prh2s@faraday.clas.virginia.edu