e seventh
century. It is hardly to be expected that the reaction against the
Buddhists would commence when their religion was already in a state of
decay. No great religious teacher or reformer would waste his time and
energy in demolishing a religion already in ruins. But what evidence is
there to show that Sankara was ever engaged in this task? If the main
object of his preaching was to evoke a reaction against Buddhism, he
would no doubt have left us some writings specially intended to
criticize its doctrines and expose its defects. On the other hand, he
does not even allude to Buddhism in his independent works.

Though he was a voluminous writer, with the exception of a few remarks
on the theory advocated by some Buddhists regarding the nature of
perception, contained in his Commentary on the Brahma-Sutras, there is
not a single passage in the whole range of his writings regarding the
Buddhists or their doctrines; and the insertion of even these few
remarks in his Commentary was rendered necessary by the allusions
contained in the Sutras which he was interpreting. As, in our humble
opinion, these Brahma-Sutras were composed by Vyasa himself (and not by
an imaginary Vyasa of the fifth century after Christ, evolved by Mr.
Weber's fancy), the allusions therein contained relate to the Buddhism
which existed to the date of Gautama Buddha. From these few remarks it
will be clear to our readers that Sankaracharya had nothing to do with
Buddhist persecution. We may here quote a few passages from Mr.
Wilson's Preface to the first edition of his Sanskrit Dictionary in
support of our remarks. He writes as follows regarding Sankara's
connection with the persecution of the Buddhists:--"Although the popular
belief attributes the origin of the Bauddha persecution to
Sankaracharya, yet in this case we have some reason to distrust its
accuracy. Opposed to it we have the mild character of the reformer, who
is described as uniformly gentle and tolerant; and, speaking from my
own limited reading in Vedanta works, and the more satisfactory
testimony of Ram Mohun Roy, which he permits me to adduce, it does not
appear that any traces of his being instrumental to any persecution are
to be found in his own writings, all which are extant, and the object of
which is by no means the correction of the Bauddha or any other schism,
but the refutation of all other doctrines besides his own, and the
reformation or re-establishment of th