/lit/ - Literature

>>23314001

>>23050300

>>21964461
Hegel. Shankara stole all his shit from Buddhists.

>>20760161
I would be careful about reading Advaita Vedanta interpretations such as Shankara's as a commentary to the Upanishads, they are extremely reliant on Buddhist philosophy (Shankara is called a "cryptobuddhist" by most Hindus, and most scholars agree). If you want to read the Upanishads, work through them with editions and commentaries that aren't sectarian, or at least read an interpretation that is closer to the original meaning of the Upanishads, rather than Shankara's 9th century AD quasi-buddhism.

>>20754698
>"crypto-buddhism,"

There is nothing wrong with pointing that out.

>>20750908
I would be careful about reading Advaita Vedanta interpretations such as Shankara's as a commentary to the Upanishads, they are extremely reliant on Buddhist philosophy (Shankara is called a "cryptobuddhist" by most Hindus, and most scholars agree). If you want to read the Upanishads, work through them with editions and commentaries that aren't sectarian, or at least read an interpretation that is closer to the original meaning of the Upanishads, rather than Shankara's 9th century AD quasi-buddhism.

>>20332054
>Buddhists were heckin advaita vedantists
Other way round

>>20331196
>Buddhism and Crypto Buddhism
>Remarkable similarities :)
>The Status of the World

>The world, according to Shankara, is mithyā or false. It is simply an adhyāropa or adhyāsa or false imposition on Brahman due to ajñāna or nescience just as a snake is a false imposition on a rope.

>In none of the Upaniṣads which form the original and real Vedānta, the rajju-sarpa or rope-snake analogy is to be found. Nor anywhere in the Upaniṣads has the world been designated as adhyāropa or adhyāsa. Shankara has borrowed it from NĀGĀRJUNA.

>The problem for Advaita is: ‘How does the one Brahman become many” Sri Aurobindo rightly says that Shankara cut the Gordian knot by dismissing the world as illusion. Mahāmahopādhyāya Dr. Gopinath Kaviraj says that according to adhyāsa, Shankara’s Advaita becomes exclusive advaita, an advaita by excluding the world.

>For Advaita śaivāgama, the world is an ābhāsa, but ābhāsa or appearance is real. The ābhāsas only prove the glory and richness of śiva. The world lies only as a potency in śiva, just as a banyan tree lies as potency or śakti in the seed. Manifestation only means making explicit what is implicit. Variety is not contradictory to unity. Advaita śaivāgama maintains that Pariṇāmavāda and Vivartavāda are not the exhaustive theories of manifestation. Manifestation is brought about by the svātantrya or the autonomy of śiva.


GuénonFag seething and BTFO

>>20079607
>The Advaita interpretation is not a result of a dialectic with Buddhism

>>19607993
advaita has been called crypto buddhism for thousands of years
you don't need to pretend that someone else is replying to me btw, no one else but you seethes about this topic

>>19421194

>>19416394
I would be careful about reading Advaita Vedanta interpretations such as Shankara's as a commentary to the Upanishads, they are extremely reliant on Buddhist philosophy (Shankara is called a "cryptobuddhist" by most Hindus, and most scholars agree). If you want to read the Upanishads, work through them with editions and commentaries that aren't sectarian, or at least read an interpretation that is closer to the original meaning of the Upanishads, rather than Shankara's 9th century AD quasi-buddhism.

>>19367852
I would be careful about reading Advaita Vedanta interpretations such as Shankara's as a commentary to the Upanishads, they are extremely reliant on Buddhist philosophy (Shankara is called a "cryptobuddhist" by most Hindus, and most scholars agree). If you want to read the Upanishads, work through them with editions and commentaries that aren't sectarian, or at least read an interpretation that is closer to the original meaning of the Upanishads, rather than Shankara's 9th century AD quasi-buddhism.

>>19187511
I would be careful about reading Advaita Vedanta interpretations such as Shankara's as a commentary to the Upanishads, they are extremely reliant on Buddhist philosophy (Shankara is called a "cryptobuddhist" by most Hindus, and most scholars agree). If you want to read the Upanishads, work through them with editions and commentaries that aren't sectarian, or at least read an interpretation that is closer to the original meaning of the Upanishads, rather than Shankara's 9th century AD quasi-buddhism.

>>19114283
I would be careful about reading Advaita Vedanta interpretations such as Shankara's as a commentary to the Upanishads, they are extremely reliant on Buddhist philosophy (Shankara is called a "cryptobuddhist" by most Hindus, and most scholars agree). If you want to read the Upanishads, work through them with editions and commentaries that aren't sectarian, or at least read an interpretation that is closer to the original meaning of the Upanishads, rather than Shankara's 9th century AD quasi-buddhism.

yes

>>19088538
hinduism = mahayana + brahman

I would be careful about reading Advaita Vedanta interpretations such as Shankara's as a commentary to the Upanishads, they are extremely reliant on Buddhist philosophy (Shankara is called a "cryptobuddhist" by most Hindus, and most scholars agree). If you want to read the Upanishads, work through them with editions and commentaries that aren't sectarian, or at least read an interpretation that is closer to the original meaning of the Upanishads, rather than Shankara's 9th century AD quasi-buddhism.

I would be careful about reading Advaita Vedanta interpretations such as Shankara's as a commentary to the Upanishads, they are extremely reliant on Buddhist philosophy (Shankara is called a "cryptobuddhist" by most Hindus, and most scholars agree). If you want to read the Upanishads, work through them with editions and commentaries that aren't sectarian, or at least read an interpretation that is closer to the original meaning of the Upanishads, rather than Shankara's 9th century AD quasi-buddhism.

>>19000137
I would be careful about reading Advaita Vedanta interpretations such as Shankara's as a commentary to the Upanishads, they are extremely reliant on Buddhist philosophy (Shankara is called a "cryptobuddhist" by most Hindus, and most scholars agree). If you want to read the Upanishads, work through them with editions and commentaries that aren't sectarian, or at least read an interpretation that is closer to the original meaning of the Upanishads, rather than Shankara's 9th century AD quasi-buddhism.

>>18970709
seems like most sources say shankara is copying mahayana through gaudapada

I would be careful about reading Advaita Vedanta interpretations such as Shankara's as a commentary to the Upanishads, they are extremely reliant on Buddhist philosophy (Shankara is called a "cryptobuddhist" by most Hindus, and most scholars agree). If you want to read the Upanishads, work through them with editions and commentaries that aren't sectarian, or at least read an interpretation that is closer to the original meaning of the Upanishads, rather than Shankara's 9th century AD quasi-buddhism.

I would be careful about reading Advaita Vedanta interpretations such as Shankara's as a commentary to the Upanishads, they are extremely reliant on Buddhist philosophy (Shankara is called a "cryptobuddhist" by most Hindus, and most scholars agree). If you want to read the Upanishads, work through them with editions and commentaries that aren't sectarian, or at least read an interpretation that is closer to the original meaning of the Upanishads, rather than Shankara's 9th century AD quasi-buddhism.