Success contra buddhus

Claim

Did shankara have a major impact in the Astika-buddhist philosophical fight?
He might have helped v1s with buddhist leanings remain vaidika-friendly, due to his acceptance of vivartavAda. But consider the more common claim that he actually defeated buddhus and turned them into vaidikas.

The philosophical idea is-

बौद्धास्तु विज्ञानात्मवादिनः आसन् ।
विज्ञानात्मानस् तु जीवात्मानः ।
एतादृश नानात्म-वादापेक्षया
एकमात्मानम् अङ्गीकृत्य
तस्यैव ज्ञानानन्दमय-परम-पुरुषार्थ-रूपत्व-स्वीकारे
तस्यैवोपाधि-भेदेन जीव-भेदाङ्गीकारे च
सौलभ्यं प्रदर्श्य
क्रमेण तेषाम् अपि एतादृशाध्यात्म-निष्ठत्वम्
अतीव चातुर्येण साधितम् ।

So, nirvisheSha-brahma-vivarta-vAda is an improvement over “nirvisheSha-shUnya-vivarta-vAda” of the bauddha-s.

Evidence

There is no contemporary evidence of this happening.
Even his “defeat” of maNDana-mishra is mythical (as admitted by kuppusvAmi shAstri himself, as reported by subrahmaNya shAstri in ब्रह्म-सिद्धि intro).

Historically, we find buddhism continuing with strength in their centers such as nalanda. If anything, tAntrism (of Astika origin) may have subverted them - but they’d “domesticated” that as well. Ultimately, they were downed by the muslim invasion from afghAnistAn to bengal, despite collaborating with them against their hated “tIrthaka-s” (eg. McLean thesis on sindh here).

Similar cases

So, let us look at other similar cases.
Whatever is “cool”, some people try to find them in “vedas” etc. -

  • Feminism
  • “Social justice”
  • Mundane equality
  • Cow protection
  • Beef eating
  • Atheism
  • Gender fluidity
  • …

Similarly, it is not impossible that S and his predecessor gauDapAda (who explicitly, comically, needed to clarify - “तथा ज्ञानं नैतद्बुद्धेन भाषितम् ॥ ४.९९ ॥” in his kArika extension) tried to do the same with the vivarta-vAda of mAdhyamika bauddha provenance.

Does such an attempt succeed in bringing contrarians into the orthodox fold?

  • One doesn’t see brahmo samAj (protestant christianity superimposed on H) being successful contra christians.
  • dayAnanda-sarasvatI’s similarly oriented attempt (Arya-samAj) was markedly more successful against muslims - even at grassroots levels.

Evaluation

So, was S’s attempt successful like the latter?

  • dayAnanda & followers actively engaged with and criticized buddhist texts. There is no evidence that shankara did that.
  • Even if he did argue with buddhists, why would they leave their buddha and sangha for something which is basically the same advaita (but philosophically more messed up, being avidyA + brahman rather than just the former)?
  • One must note that dayAnanda actually believed in what he wrote. This is contrary to the theory (by a parakAla yati, YT) that shankara’s writings were a subversive operation against buddhists (ie. he himself did not believe in what he was writing).

Contemporarily, we find the example of chinna-jIyar of telangAna/ AP foisting “social justice” (mild “wokism”) on to rAmAnuja - this was apparent in the “statue of equality” website. Some claimed that this helped bring some antagonistic people into the tradition. However, we find that people who actively engage with inimical narratives (eg. “shiva shakti” in the same AP & TE) being far more credibly successful.

Conclusion

Similarly, one can estimate that udayanAchArya and jayanta bhaTTa (even kumArIla the mImAMsaka?) having a far greater impact against the bauddha-s than shankara.
Popular bhakti poets like jNAnasambandha and the ALvAr-s must have done the same (esp. with jaina-s) - directly or otherwise by weaning away popular support.