>rips off everything for his religion from the Brahmins>gets called wise and deepWhat are some other examples of writers just taking something and making it dumb dumb for general consumption and taking credit for it afterwards?
>>23544800It’s the other way around.
SAAR PAJEETS ARE BOOTKICKING THEMSELVES ITT ONCE AGAIN.
The amount of seething Buddhism produces in the minds of jews and Hindu fags is unreal. For the jews, see how much they barge in any buddhist discussion to talk about their jewish god and how it's super important to love Jewsus.For the Hindus, Check the Sri Kalki Purana, in the very first chapter when discussing the Kali Yuga it explicitly highlights how Kalki will reincarnate and first start killing Buddhists
It's the complete opposite, the Upanishads may have influenced early Buddhism, but the Śramanic religions developed philosophy and popular devotion to the point where much of Hindu metaphysics is rephrased Buddhist epistemology. Just read the Vedas and tell me the Vedic religion was the same as today. I don't see why this is a bad thing, since the truth knows no paltry bounds, and the real dharmik can appreciate both traditions, just look at Trika tantra.t. Shaivite
>>23544800It is not ripping off it is reforming it. Because whole point of Buddhism is that it disagrees on how to achieve enlightment. And the practises of the Brahmins as wrong and counterproductive.
>>23544900Jews don't believe in Jesus. They only believe in Moses.
>>23544800It’s the opposite>Hinduism is just some indo European pagan shit at first>Copies all the philosophical metaphysical shit from Buddhism
>>23544900>For the jews, see how much they barge in any buddhist discussion to talk about their jewish god and how it's super important to love Jewsus.Christians and Buddhists get along more than any other religions get along. It's not close to related to the homegrown rivalry in India like it has with Hinduism. The world doesn't revolve around some shitposts you read.
>>23544900>Check the Sri Kalki PuranaThe Puranas are never a good source to make a unified judgement on, at least try to hide your motives
>>23544800they all ripped it off from the atlanteans who ripped it off from the hyperborean who ripped it off from whoever it was in the last manvatara who ripped it off from whoever it was in the last kalpa so who cares
>>23544864kek>>23544800GOOD MORNING AUNTIE
>>23545738That's untrue, Hindus barely think about Buddhists and it is mostly with good intentions when they do. Even historically only a few Hindu dynasties like the Senas of Bengal persecuted Buddhists, and the extent of persecution is debatable there as well. Meanwhile Christian missionaries tried to actively proselytize and assimilate Sri Lankans and were succeeding until getting BTFO in a debate by some learned monk with an unpronounceable name. Don't let this board spoil your understanding
>>23545757Or rather, if you're trying to say there was competition between priesthoods that's obvious, but it is not any worse than between say Hindus and Muslims. In fact, Buddhism is far closer to Hinduism than any other religion, sharing many gods or grouping them with Bodhisattvas, not to mention closeness in puja and dhyana.
>>23545757Consider what's normative. That's all I'm saying. Not saying to not be critical, but making mountains out of molehills is unhealthy. Then again, if you're Indian yourself, that seems like a high calling. It's precisely what Indians do. Always making the insignificant into something triumphant. They magically all think they're CEO of Microsoft because one Indian is CEO of Microsoft.
>>23545724Good post, yeah this is the general consensus in the scholarship. Even the earlier major writers agree on it, like Deussen and Dasgupta. Nakamura also agrees. Basically, the only Upanishads that are almost certainly earlier than Buddhism do contain philosophical elements and strong tendencies toward monism but they are NOT the Vedanta we associate with the post-Shankara revival of Vedic studies well over a thousand years later. 95% of systematic Hindu philosophy derives from Shankara's school, probably around 800 AD. This new systematic philosophy mostly developed as commentaries, starting with Shankara's massive one, on the Brahma Sutras and on certain Upanishads. But all of this happened in the context of centuries of Buddhism being the major philosophical tradition in India, and developing the epistemology and metaphysics (e.g. Yogācāra) characteristic of "Hindu/Vedanta" nondualism and qualified nondualism. The Brahma Sutras themselves were composed in this context and mention Buddhism and Jainism explicitly, and Shankara's work shows not just vague similarities with Buddhist ideas but direct transposition of Buddhist talking points and metaphors into a Vedanta nondualist context, with the Upanishadic Atman/Brahman interpreted (controversially among Hindus) in the light of a realist interpretation of Madhyamaka idealism. Shankara reveres a predecessor named Gaudapada, who wrote a commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad, and that commentary is well-known for being incredibly similar to Madhyamaka ideas, especially the later parts which are practically direct quotations of them. I agree that I also don't see what the problem with this is. The śramaṇa tradition is obviously an Indian one and one of the greatest creations of the human race. It encompasses and absorbs BOTH "Hinduism" and Buddhism, and many other things too. Any recommendations for getting into Trika?
>>23545738Why be enemies when we could be friends?
>>23545796
>>23545738>Christians and Buddhists get along more than any other religions get along.Have you ever heard of any of the other Asian religions? They get so well along with Buddhism that they aren't even mutually exclusive. Hell, Shinto is such close buddy of Buddhism that they often get lumped up together as Shinto-Buddhism.
>>23545824That anon didn't mention other religions. I'm just addressing what he said. I'm Thai myself (or Hapa at least), so I'm aware a bit, yes. Buddhists don't get along with Islam much. Not as bad as Burma, but in Thailand, they all reside in the South. Or rather, they're closer to Malay. And Thais have been saying Indians stink well before it was cool on the internet. Despite incorporating their myths.
>>23545787>Consider what's normativeI am not seeing what you're implying with this. How is making and defending a claim not normative? Also, I wasn't the one you were first replying to if you're confused.>They magically all think they're CEO of Microsoft because one Indian is CEO of Microsoft.What a pointless digression. Why make absurd statements in a normal post?>>23545791>95% of systematic Hindu philosophy derives from Shankara's schoolThank you for praising my post, but this isn't quite true. While I agree that a large amount of systematic philosophical terminology derives from Hinduism, the dialectic of the various Hindu schools and traditions is quite different from Buddhism. You're also giving Advaita too much credit compared to say Samkhya or indeed to tantra.>with the Upanishadic Atman/Brahman interpreted (controversially among Hindus) in the light of a realist interpretation of Madhyamaka idealismCould you give some sources for this idea? I haven't seen this claim made before, unless it just means that the metaphysical conclusions of both are similar. That couldn't exactly be called a realist approach, because even Nagarjuna wasn't really a pure idealist like the Yogacara and mind-only schools were so it feels like a bit exaggerated dichotomy.>Any recommendations for getting into Trika?Sure thing. Here is an excellent list I actually found looking through the /lit/ archive for old Hindu threads some time ago:>Mahanirvana Tantrahttp://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/maha/>Vasugupta's Shiva Sutras with Bhaskara's commentaryhttps://archive.org/details/AphorismsOfSivaTheSivaSutrasWithBhaskaraSCommentary>The Spanda Karika with four of the classic commentarieshttps://akaksha.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/95421991-mark-s-g-dyczkowski-the-stanzas-on-vibration.pdf>Pratyabhijnahridayamhttps://archive.org/details/PratyabhijnahridayamTheSecretOfSelfRecognition.Kshemaraja.Tr.J.SinghDelhi1980600dpilossy>Vijnanabhairavahttps://archive.org/details/Vijnana-Bhairava-Tantra>Abhinavagupta's Tantrasarahttps://archive.org/details/TantrasaraOfAbhinavaguptaHNChakravartyBorisMarjanovic>Devi Mahatmyahttp://www.vedicastrologer.org/mantras/chandi/chandi_inner_meaning.pdf>Devi Bhagavata Puranahttp://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/db/index.htmMost of the links for this are dead, but it isn't very difficult to find online copies for any of these and physical copies are fairly easy for some like the Siva/Shiva Sutras. The Siva Sutras in particular are a fundamental text of the tradition, so I would say start with those (make sure you have the version with commentary, very hard otherwise). Hope you enjoy, bless you.
>>23545898>I am not seeing what you're implying with this.What's hard to understand? Coming into a thread and immediately complaining about other threads as some kind of informative point about religion is goofy. >>23545898>What a pointless digression. Why make absurd statements in a normal post?Just by chance that I'm talking to a Indian, I have to consider any advice about specifics vs generals will fall on deaf ears. It's an alien concept to them. If it doesn't apply to you, it doesn't matter.
>>23545898>derives from Hinduism*derives from Buddhism>>23545919>Coming into a thread and immediately complaining about other threads as some kind of informative point about religion is goofy.Again, the one you replied too >>23544900 was not me, I only entered the debate to clarify that the rivalry you imagined existing between Hinduism and Buddhism doesn't really exist.>Just by chance that I'm talking to a IndianI am Indian and you really seem to have the wrong idea. Just because there are many poorer and/or unlearned people in India today who take comfort in national pride doesn't mean you can generalise things like this.
>>23545724> where much of Hindu metaphysics is rephrased Buddhist epistemology.This is not true at all. Abhinavagupta draws from Dharmakirti’s epistemology while claiming to refute it at the same time but none of the other major Hindu philosophers rely on Buddhist epistemology for anything.
>>23545734> >Copies all the philosophical metaphysical shit from BuddhismAll that philosophical metaphysical stuff is already found in multiple early Upanishads which predate the life of Buddha.
>>23546380>Abhinavagupta draws from Dharmakirti’s epistemology while claiming to refute it at the same timeSo just like Gaudapada with Nagarjuna? This is a pitiful attempt to demean my tradition while making yours seem better Guenonfag, I thought you had matured somewhat.>none of the other major Hindu philosophers rely on Buddhist epistemology for anything.Yes they do, and this is well accepted by contemporary scholars (who you reject and accept when it suits you) based on solid evidence particularly for Gaudapada, as I demonstrated a year or so ago.>>23546383Do you really want to do this again? You were BTFO last time, and I doubt you have much new to say this time.
>>23546584Adding on to this, I find it rather petty behaviour by specifically bringing up Sri Abhinavagupta when I mentioned that I was a Shaivite, even though it doesn't really offend me since I'm not a Trika. It's not as if I'm singling Advaita out whenever I see an Advaitin, so why behave such?
>>23546584> So just like Gaudapada with Nagarjuna?Gaudapada doesn’t rely on Nagarjuna’s epistemology at all kek. Nagarjuna doesn’t even lay out any clear theory of epistemology to draw from in the first place. His idea of two truths is not a theory of epistemology (how knowledge occurs) but is just an epistemological distinction about one particular topic, and Gaudapada’s distinction about Absolute vs illusion is not epistemic but is a metaphysical distinction and it’s propounding an idea which is taken directly from the Upanishads and which is the opposite of Nagarjuna, who is not proposing any existing Absolute. >This is a pitiful attempt to demean my tradition Not at all, the difference is that Abhinavagupta openly cites Dharmakirti/Yogacharins as the basis for certain ideas and he creatively engages with their position and is transparent about doing so while regarding his own as distinct. Gaudapada and Shankara on the other hand don’t claim anywhere that they obtained anything from Buddhism, in Gaudapada’s Karikas he writes about all his ideas as coming from the Upanishads and he mentions that some Buddhists happen to have a similar idea even though there are other important differences that make. The idea that Gaudapada is taking an idea from Buddhism that isn’t already found in the Upanishads is not demonstrable and its only inferred by some people on grounds which are themselves questionable.> You were BTFO last timethis is your imagination
>>23546657> I find it rather petty behaviour by specifically bringing up Sri Abhinavagupta 1) He is the only major Hindu philosopher afaik who openly/transparently integrates ideas from Buddhism, so its not like highlighting him is uncalled for2) Trika authors wrote about all systems and beliefs being different stages of the disclosure of Shiva’s self-knowledge in a spectrum that culminates in Trika, so if you believe this then influence from other doctrines is natural and nothing to be upset about in the first place.
>>23546687>Gaudapada doesn’t rely on Nagarjuna’s epistemology at all kek...So you really are doing it again. Will you never learn?>His idea of two truths is not a theory of epistemology (how knowledge occurs) but is just an epistemological distinction about one particular topicThis is a reductionist framing, the particular topic in question here is of sufficiently large scope (the very nature of reality broken into conditioned vs. absolute) for the Two Truths doctrine to qualify as a proper theory of epistemology.>is not epistemic but is a metaphysical distinctionOf course it isn't, like you said Madhyamka is necessarily epistemic because it denies the presence of a supreme Absolute while Vedanta and tantra accept it. But this difference is only nominal, and given that beyond philosophical justifications the a priori conclusions of both Madhyamaka and Advaita are the same, you haven't actually proven anything.>it’s propounding an idea which is taken directly from the UpanishadsMissing the point as usual. As another another earlier >>23545791 said, the philosophical justification used to demonstrate the existence of the Atman-Brahman is borrowed from the Buddhists, as proven by comparative analysis of the language of the karikas. I already cited sources to this effect the last time we had this argument, so refer to those.>in Gaudapada’s Karikas he writes about all his ideas as coming from the Upanishads and he mentions that some Buddhists happen to have a similar idea even though there are other important differences that makeEven if we accept the Upanishadic monism as the sole basis of Advaita (doubtful), the linguistic evidence for Buddhist influence is undeniable, only made more convincing given that Gaudapada was active in the Buddhist-dominated region of Bengal. Again you are going to deny this, and there's little I can do if you ignore reality, so I advise you not to prolong this pointless debate.>>23546731>He is the only major Hindu philosopher afaik who openly/transparently integrates ideas from Buddhism, so its not like highlighting him is uncalled for>>23546731You're missing the point for why I was annoyed. I have no problem with accepting influence from other doctrines, but to single out Kashmir Shaivism for Buddhist influence while claiming that the undebatable influence in other sects does not exist is a rather arrogant and misinformed assertion.
>>23546773>the philosophical justification used to demonstrate the existence of the Atman-Brahman is borrowed from the BuddhistsTo clarify in case you somehow manage to obfuscate this and waste time quibbling, I mean to say that while Advaitins can legitimately claim connection to the nondualistic passages of the Upanishads, said passages largely lack the philosophical framework which Gaudapada and Shankaracharya employ in karikas. Given that the Madhyamaka school pioneered much of said framework, it is not a very far reach (especially given the research of Routledge, Nakamura etc.) to say that there was decisive Buddhist influence in the composition of the first proper Advaita works. If you want to refute this, you should direct your attention towards the researchers in question, because they have made fairly solid arguments on this topic.
>>23546773> This is a reductionist framingNo, it’s getting right to the heart of why they are saying two different things. You seem to be confusing epistemology and metaphysics.>for the Two Truths doctrine to qualify as a proper theory of epistemology.It has indirect epistemological implications but it isn’t a theory of epistemology since its not saying anything about how knowledge takes place. Vedantic epistemology centers around the Atman and its relation with the mind-body composite, Advaitic epistemology is mostly shared with Samkhya-Yoga despite differing metaphysics. Nagarjuna’s position is not a theory of epistemology either (unlike Vedanta, he has none), but it’s an epistemic distinction about knowledge while Vedanta is making a metaphysical distinction about the nature of reality as it exists in itself.> given that beyond philosophical justifications the a priori conclusions of both Madhyamaka and Advaita are the same,They are not the same, Madhyamaka presupposes standard Buddhist dogmas like anatta, anicca etc and the Buddhist idea of rebirth while Advaita presupposes standard Hindu dogmas like the validity of the Vedas and so on. They each start with different presuppositions and each reach different conclusions (the Absolute has its own existence vs it doesn’t)> the philosophical justification used to demonstrate the existence of the Atman-Brahman is borrowed from the Buddhists, as proven by comparative analysis of the language of the karikas.That’s not true at all, Gaudapada doesn’t even try to provide any logical demonstration of the Atman-Brahman’s existence in his karikas in the first place, Im not sure how one could get confused and think otherwise. Have you even read the Karikas? It sound like you haven’t with the incorrect info you are writing. > the linguistic evidence for Buddhist influence is undeniable, Not in terms in adopting ideas, at most it suggests that Gaudapada was aware of certain terms that were used more often in Buddhists texts.
>>23546818> said passages largely lack the philosophical framework which Gaudapada and Shankaracharya employ in karikaDebatable, even from the very first Upanishad onwards they speak about Brahman being the unchanging basis of the illusion.> Given that the Madhyamaka school pioneered much of said frameworkThey wrote about a different idea entirely, and what’s more the Upanishads, Smriti texts and both Hindu and Jain writers were already writing about that distinction. >it is not a very far reach (especially given the research of Routledge, Nakamura etc.) to say that there was decisive Buddhist influence in the composition of the first proper Advaita works. The reasons adduced for this seem quite questionable, often they amount to question-begging. It’s not true that there is a consensus either and Karl Potter for example calls the whole idea absurd.
>>23546981>No, it’s getting right to the heart of why they are saying two different things. You seem to be confusing epistemology and metaphysics.Dogmatic rubbish again, the Absolute cannot be contained in words so why try and force it into a philosophical category? For Buddhists it's epistemological, for Hindus it's metaphysical, but the result is essentially the same.>next two paragraphsSee above.>Gaudapada doesn’t even try to provide any logical demonstration of the Atman-Brahman’s existence in his karikas in the first placeI agree that I overstepped there because you can't exactly prove presence of Atman-Brahman beyond faith, which is why my clarification post was more generally referring to language. Sorry about that.>the restAs I said, if you're not going to agree with me on the proof of framing methods then there's not much I can say. I agree with Nakamura regarding the Buddhist influence behind Advaita, with Buddhist logic being repurposed for Gaudapada's project, but you are unwilling to accept the evidence so we'll have to leave it at that.
>>23547009I don't think this discussion will go on much longer unless you find something else you want to argue about since neither of us want to listen to each other, so I'll just put something I cited last time: https://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/essay/mahayana-buddhism-and-early-advaita-vedanta-study/d/doc627420.htmlWhile this isn't a perfect argument, a large part of the evidence is good and given the cultural context of Gaudapada's time (doesn't really matter when since society was relatively similar in his proposed range of life) it seems like the most reasonable argument to accept that Gaudapada learned and adapted select Buddhist rhetoric/philosophical devices for the purpose of his faith. You don't have to respond if you're just going to call it question begging, but at least consider the possibility
>>23547009>the Absolute cannot be contained in words so why try and force it into a philosophical category?Epistemology and metaphysics are two different things. All that conflating these does is introduce unneeded confusion for no gain.>For Buddhists it's epistemological, for Hindus it's metaphysical, but the result is essentially the same.Is that why the only Buddhist school to interpret the two truths in a roughly similar manner to Gaudapada (Jonang) is the black sheep of Tibetan Buddhism that makes all the other schools seethe?
>>23547024You know, part of the issue for internet debates on Hinduism and Buddhism like this is that there is no prior set of rules as to what is and is not allowed, so opponents can often end up simply disagreeing on something with no way to logically resolve the issue. For the most part I respect your views although I have some issues with your explanation of them, but I simply cannot agree with them. My view is closer to this excellent post I saw a while ago:https://warosu.org/lit/thread/23398564#p23413153Nirvana and moksha are two sides of the same eternal, sublime truth. Those who understand this have nothing to fear, I feel the utmost devotion to Sri Ramakrishna also for this reason, for he understood this like perhaps no other
>>23547059I honestly can offer you nothing but to read Gurudev at this point, so I'll be leaving now. Hope you have a nice day.
