/lit/ - Literature

>>18485464
>Even Sharma says pic related.
There he is saying that Mahayana copied ideas from the Upanishads, he isn't saying in that image that Advaita took ideas from Mahayana.

In pic related Sharma writes: Gaudapada (not Shankara) agrees with some Mahayana doctrines, because these HAVE BEEN BORROWED FROM THE UPANISHADS AND CANNOT BE SAID TO BE THE ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION OF BUDDHA OR BUDDHISTS.

>>18485447
Yea, there he is saying that Mahayana copied ideas from the Upanishads, he isn't saying in that image that Advaita took ideas from Mahayana.

In pic related Sharma writes: Gaudapada (not Shankara) agrees with some Mahayana doctrines, because these HAVE BEEN BORROWED FROM THE UPANISHADS AND CANNOT BE SAID TO BE THE ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION OF BUDDHA OR BUDDHISTS.

>>18445130
>>18445140
See pic related, Advaita is the doctrine of the Upanishads, and Mahayana borrowed from them which is why Mahayana resembles Hinduism

Go peddle your NPC annihilationist nihilism elsewhere

>>18442493
>again stating a position that everybody in history disagrees with
Not everyone in history disagrees with that, I just named 3 people that don't. Stop lying.
>you mean like sharma thinks he does?
To my knowledge Sharma doesnt say that Shankara agrees with Buddhism, nor does Coomaraswamy, post the exact passage where they say "Shankara agrees with Buddhism" if you want to pretend otherwise.
>except the foundational and most central ones,
That's wrong and I'll explain why once more,

The levels of reality/existence in Mahayana and Advaita are totally different because Advaita actually admits that absolute reality exists as a real reality with its own eternal existence and its own self-nature (svabhava), while Madhyamaka denies this. This completely changes everything and results in the position that Advaita is an Absolutist ontology while Madhyamaka is relativist anti-foundationalism.

If there are any other areas where you think Advaita and Buddhism agree aside from the levels of reality, you can name those and I'll explain why those are fundamentally different as well.

>>18442499
Look at pic related, from Sharma's book "The Advaita Traditon"

Sharma writes here in this picture: Gaudapada (not Shankara) agrees with some Mahayana doctrines, because these HAVE BEEN BORROWED FROM THE UPANISHADS AND CANNOT BE SAID TO BE THE ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION OF BUDDHA OR BUDDHISTS.

>>18442496
I actually get into the details and explain my argument for why said things are wrong, the Buddhists who say otherwise tend to only post the same screenshots of books over and over again without being able to debate the details, if you want to debate the details, then see the first part of this post.

>>16035197
That passage doesn't occur in the section on Buddhism, but occurs in the section on Vedanta, and in pic related from the same book Sharma ends up rightfully concluding that Gaudapada did not obtain any new doctrines from Nagarjuna since those doctrines were already taught in the Upanishads. Are you really going to keep making these seething replies every since time someone posts about Shankara?

>>15463969

>>14973178