Sankara et al.

[Jonathan Bricklin]

On Thu, 22 May 1997, Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote:
> >
> > Jesus had many allegiences
> > with the beliefs of the Pharisees, but he brought a conceptual
revolution
> > nonetheless.  Citing commentators that weave Shankara with the
Mimamsakas
> > does not address the issue.  There are Jews for Jesus who keep kosher.
>
> There are major historical, doctrinal and social differences between the
> two situations that are being compared here.

Absolutely!
>
> The Pharisees and their later successors, the Rabbinical Jews, do not
> accept the New Testament and Jesus as a new covenant that God made with
> the chosen people. Therefore, the scriptures of the Jews and the
> Christians have different content.

Well, its not quite as neat as that.  Cut pages came to replace scrolls so
that citations and events in the New Testament could be readily checked
against the Old Testament.  Half the scriptures of Christianity are
identical with those of Judaism.
>
>>
> >From the point of view of the Pharisees, Jesus must have been just one
of
> the many Jewish preachers of the time. From the point of view of the
later
> Christians, Jesus was the promised savior.
>
> In contrast, the mImAm.sakas would never have seen Sankara as just
another
> mImAm.saka with a different interpretation of the vedas. Both mImAm.sakas
> and vedAntins were quite clear on what Sankara's role was, namely an
> interpreter of vedAnta teachings.

Well, lets not be too quick to assume that for some Christians, not to
mention Jesus himself, who never heard the word Christian in his life, the
promised saviour was not saving by interpreting the Old Testament.
Ultimately crucified for the "blasphemy" of claiming to be the son of God,
Jesus had narrowly escaped stoning by the Jews for an even bolder claim:
"I and the father are one."  He escaped that death only by reminding the
angered Jews of their own Biblical text;  "You are Gods."  What did his
accusers understand by that reminder?  While the God of the Old Testament
(the God whom Jesus invokes) may, like the Greek Gods, seem too angry , too
jealous, too human, to be an agent or agency of a mystical dissolution of
self, it is worth remembering that the name Yaweh, or Jehova, derives from
the Hebrew root hayah, or hawah, meaning "to be."  Don't get me wrong.  It
is ludicrous to belabor a comparison between  Jesus and Sankara, especially
with respect to the aftermath of their teaching.  But there is more
comparison than you seem to allow.  Both, after all, made radical breaks
with how the path of liberation was being pursued.  Jesus wnet around
turning over the tables of the money lenders, and emphasized that the
kingdom of God was within.   Sankara taught (against the Mimasakas) that
not only is action futile with reference to release, but also the cause of
evil, in so far as it will create obstacles in the way of release.  It
might be possible to draw as many comparisons as you've drawn contrasts,
but your first statement definitely rules.
>
> Finally, Jews for Jesus who keep kosher are not accepted as Christians by
> the Christians,

This is not correct.  You wouldn't believe how hard the Christians are
working at accomodating Jews these days.  "We don't want a world without
Jews," said the head Baptist proselitizer for Jewish converts recently.
"We want a Jewish world."

Most of what I've left out of your reply I found interesting, by the way,
and instructive.  Thank you