Was Adi Sankara crypto-Buddhist?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Arguments for:

• Dialectical philosophy
  
• Apophatic
• His Brahman bears a distinct family resemblance to Nagarjuna's sunyata

Arguments against:

• Affirmed the existence of atman

[afleitch]

Most people don't at hand know who who Adi Shankara is. Nor are they familiar with the arguments in favour of considering someone who is perhaps over revered as influential in Hindu philosophy as crypto Buddhist. That would require familiarity with both Hinduism, Buddhism and any overlap between them with respect to their development. You might not get much response on that basis without leaving anything to chew on.

[Blue3]

Most people don't at hand know who who Adi Shankara is. Nor are they familiar with the arguments in favour of considering someone who is perhaps over revered as influential in Hindu philosophy as crypto Buddhist. That would require familiarity with both Hinduism, Buddhism and any overlap between them with respect to their development. You might not get much response on that basis without leaving anything to chew on.

Yeah, I'm probably one of the few on here who even knows who he is without looking him up.

I vote No. While he might have had Buddhist influence, he's definitely Hindu. Buddhism rejects or doesn't concern itself with the existence of an eternal individual soul (atman) and a God/Cosmic Energy Force (brahman). That's a main point of Buddhism. But the existence of atman/brahman (and of atman=brahman) are a main point of Hinduism, and of Adi Shankara's beliefs/philosophy.

[anvi]

It was quite common for Brāhmiṇical philosophers, especially Vedāntins, to cop a few Buddhist arguments in order to critique realist schools inside the "Hindu" fold, like Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika.  And it was also common for Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika opponents in response to label the Brāhmiṇical thinkers who did cop those arguments as "crypto-Buddhists."  But, as Blue3 rightly points out, Śańkara was certainly a genuine Vedāntin given his single-minded determination to establish the reality of ātman.

[Simfan34]

I voted "He who feeds you, controls you". Now I feel silly.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Well I mean obviously believing in, to say nothing out of actively arguing for, the existence of atman pretty much disqualifies you from being any type of orthodox Buddhist, which is why I voted 'No', but I found it interesting that the accusation had been made and, frankly, just wanted to make the poll on this forum because of the guy's name.