/lit/ - Literature

>>13733302
It doesn't disturb me at all, I only object to Buddhist-posters misrepresenting it as some sort of consensus, when in actuality the scholars are fairly divided on what if any is the relationship between the two, I have pointed this out many times only for people to still pretend and lie that there is widespread agreement on the issue.

>Advaita Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism share similarities and have differences,[458][459] their relationship a subject of dispute among scholars.[460] T
>Advaitins have traditionally challenged the Buddhist influence thesis.[486] Modern scholarship generally accepts that Gaudapada was influenced by Buddhism, at least in terms of using Buddhist terminology to explain his ideas, but adds that Gaudapada was a Vedantin and not a Buddhist.[486] Gaudapada adopted some Buddhist terminology and borrowed its doctrines to his Vedantic goals, much like early Buddhism adopted Upanishadic terminology and borrowed its doctrines to Buddhist goals; both used pre-existing concepts and ideas to convey new meanings.[485][458] While there is shared terminology, the Advaita doctrines of Gaudapada and Buddhism are fundamentally different.[298][494]
>According to Sarma, "to mistake him [Gaudapada] to be a hidden or open Buddhist is absurd".[492] The doctrines of Gaudapada and Buddhism are totally opposed, states Murti:[298]
>Nikhilananda (2008, pp. 203–206) refutes the argument for Buddhist influence on Gaudapada's philosophy by arguing that the whole purpose of Gaudapada was to demonstrate the ultimate reality of the birth-less and non-dual Atman, a concept foreign to Buddhism. Scholars such as Murti state that, while there is shared terminology, the doctrines of Gaudapada and Buddhism are fundamentally different.[34][35]
>>Mahadevan states, "At the outset it must be pointed out that, when the critics hurl the charge of pseudo-Buddhism against Advaita, they use the word Buddhism rather in a vague and general sense. The doctrine of unreality of the world, and the theory of non-recognition are found to be common as between the idealistic schools of Buddhism and Advaita. Most critics believe that these are not Upanishadic doctrines, and so, their conclusion is that Advaita must have borrowed them from the Mahayana schools. And the earliest teacher who effected this borrowing, in their view, is Gaudapada."[14]

Most of the examples of quotes on wikipedia are just scholars saying "Advaita resembles X school of Buddhism" without any concrete examples, when they actually do give specifics it's often stuff like Maya or monasticism which already appears in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads.

>>13359221
You still haven't pointed to any specific ideas or teachings that you think Shankara took, you are the one who got exposed as clueless and unable to back up their claims

>>13359227
The scholars Plott, Murti, Mahadevan, Mohanta and Sharma all reject the theory of a Buddhist sources for Advaita or Shankara's ideas from what I've seen. Radnakrishnan and Dasgupta both think he was influenced by Buddhism but themselves also say that those ideas come from the Upanishads anyways to begin with. This claim is typically posted by Buddhists who are upset about Advaita, but they like to misrepresent the position of scholars on this topic which is actually divided, and when pressed they can never back up what the ideas were that were allegedly plaigerized. It's all so tiresome

>>13276352
Okay, I may have been mistaken about Dasgupta, I only included the names of scholars in that list if they seemed to reject the idea that Advaita's ideas comes from Buddhism. Sharma documents this topic extensively in one of his books that I've read and rejects the Buddhist influence argument and he lists some other scholars who do so, I've read some of the positions of other scholars as well. It remains true though that scholars are evenly divided on this question. I originally included Dasgupta because I saw this quote:

>Dasgupta and Mohanta suggest that Buddhism and Shankara's Advaita Vedanta represent "different phases of development of the same non-dualistic metaphysics from the Upanishadic period to the time of Sankara."[39][note 8]
This would clearly imply that whatever the relation of Mahayana and Shankara's Advaita that the ideas stem from the (pre-Buddhist) Upanishads and don't belong to Buddhism. The quote about self-luminosity you posted is clearly wrong as most of the Upanishads unequivocally state the Atma is such both directly and through metaphors including the pre-Buddhist ones.

>You still haven't addresses the fact that Ramanuja and Madhvacharya pinned Shankara down as a crypto-buddhist.
Yes, because they were trying to take Vedanta in a more devotionalistic direction that conflicts with spirit of the Upanishads and Shankara represented a competitor to them and so naturally they would take whatever avenue presented itself whereby they thought they could undermine it. It remains true though that their claims are groundless because all the stuff they accuse of being crypto-Buddhist in Advaita is found in the Upanishads. Monasticism? Enjoined in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads and even the pre-Upanishad portions of the Vedas. Devotional worship? The pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka compares the man who worships the Gods as something other than himself to an animal; and several of the Upanishads say there is no multiplicity whatsoever which eliminates the space for serious devotionalism to an other. Rejection of ritual? The Upanishads reject ritual on many occasions and states that it doesn't lead to liberation. All of their accusations are completely groundless because the stuff they claim is crypto-Buddhist is actually found in the Hindu scriptures they are supposed to fully accept, but don't.

>says the temperamental shankarafag posting his own rage-posts going 'WRONG! WRONG!'
You are the one who came into a thread about Vedanta, made accusations, was unable to substantiate them with specifics, misrepresented the consensus of scholars and made a bunch of ad-hominem attacks while I've calmly refuted you and asked you to back up your words which you failed to do.