[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
>> No.15947399 [View]
File: 231 KB, 1306x1326, 1573057888658.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>In which case, yes, you agree with me that the Vedantin claim that the Buddha was actually just plagiarizing Shankara is wrong, not only for the obvious chronological issues, but also for the obvious differences in their philosophies.
I agree with this, although I think there are still some good indications that Buddha was taught and had his teachings be subsequently influenced by the early pre-Buddhist Upanishads; including some of the non-dualist concepts taught by them which Shankara naturally also wove into his theology of Advaita. Many of the key tenets of Buddhism can be found elaborated first centuries earlier in the Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya Upanishads, to say nothing of the other possibly pre-Buddhist ones.

This picture for example, discusses the relevant passages where one can find early versions of the Buddhist 4 noble truths, dependent arising, the eight-fold path and the three characteristics of existence in the pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya Upanishads and some older strata of the Vedas. The general ideas of reincarnation/transmigration, samsara, monasticism and karma also appeared first in the earliest Upanishads and then subsequently in Buddhism. To have all these concepts described in the early Upanishads and then for them to appear in Buddha's teachings by chance a few centuries later with some slight modification seems like an improbable coincidence.

Sometimes people as an objection to this say "well, these ideas were just a part of the general religious culture of ancient India and didn't necessarily have to come from the early Upanishads," but the thing is this is only conjecture and we don't actually have any other ancient texts besides the early Upanishads to point to as alternative sources for these ideas. This doesn't automatically mean that Buddha 'stole' or 'plagiarized' those ideas, when he was traveling around studying under different teachers, he might have listened someone who had memorized some of the Upanishads reciting them without necessarily explaining their whole Vedic background and context.

>> No.15822420 [View]
File: 231 KB, 1306x1326, 1573057888658.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

The main teachings of Buddhism all appear first in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads (pic related) which is where Buddha obtained his teachings from. The Upanishad revelation of the 9th-7th century BC was very influential in the region, and Samkhya, Jainism and Buddhism all initially started as spin-offs of Upanishadic teachings. Buddhism then over the centuries degenerated into a bunch of confused schools propagating foolish ideas, but thankfully Shankara in the 8th century came in to deliver the region from nonsensical teachings by simultaneously exposing all the inherent contradictions of Buddhism while at the same time proving in his masterful exegesis's that the Advaita doctrine is and always has been the true doctrine of the Upanishads.

>> No.15455610 [View]
File: 231 KB, 1306x1326, IMG_5460.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>with the hindus being butthurt that they were 100% rituals and sacrifices so they had to adapt change their texts, like not killing animal for merit nor nirvana

This is simply not true, in fact most of the major teachings of Buddhism appeared first in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads (pic related). Also, the pre-Buddhist Chandogya Upanishad condemns the injuring or killing of animals aside from the special circumstance of Vedic sacrifices in verse 8.15.

>> No.15137449 [View]
File: 231 KB, 1306x1326, Buddhism.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

see pic related, it's a struggle to find anything in the Buddhism of the Pali Canon that doesn't have direct antecedents in the earliest Upanishads

>> No.14990221 [View]
File: 231 KB, 1306x1326, Buddhism.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Buddha mostly just repeated what was in the early Upanishads predating him, see pic related which shows how dependent origination, the 4 noble truths, the 3 characteristics and other Buddhist teachings all appear first in the earlier Hindu scriptures

enjoy brother


>> No.14844186 [View]
File: 231 KB, 1306x1326, IMG_5388.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

The pre-Buddhist Upanishad verses already talking about the 4 noble truths are cited in this picture

>> No.14723568 [View]
File: 231 KB, 1306x1326, Buddhism.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Buddhism is just a rip-of of the Upanish-

This picture exposes why a few Buddhists are so autistic about spamming incorrect claims that Shankara stole from Buddhism, it's because they know that Buddha himself is guilty of this and so they want to muddy the water and take all the attention off of the true theft, which was when Buddha ripped his whole scheme from the early Upanishads predating him

"The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn't help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The Buddhist had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day. Sometimes I stood there thunderstruck. I didn't know what to be more amazed at: the agility of their tongues or their virtuosity at lying. Gradually I began to hate them."

- Rene Guenon (pbuh)

>> No.14607256 [View]
File: 231 KB, 1306x1326, Buddhism.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

buddhism is just crypto-Upanishadic thought to begin with lol

>> No.14545782 [View]
File: 231 KB, 1306x1326, Buddhism.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.14346811 [View]
File: 231 KB, 1306x1326, Buddhism.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>I just don't see the line of influence.
The pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka Upanishad seems to moreso the source of Buddhist ideas than the Chandogya (pic related)

>> No.14272509 [View]
File: 231 KB, 1306x1326, the_source_of_Buddhism.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

It's the opposite. The key tenets of Buddhism all predate the life of Buddha and are found in the earliest Upanishads which almost all academics say are pre-Buddhist. See pic related for an example which is just scratching the surface. I know that this is especially painful to hear for westerners who rejected Christianity/God for Buddhism and who have some sort of complex which makes them harbor an animus against those things; but similar to how early Christianity and the Bible is an amalgamation of influences including Zoroastrian theology, Babylonian mythology, Greek/Platonic philosophy, Jewish cultural roots etc; in almost exactly the same way Buddha during his life taught an amalgamation of Upanishadic, Jain and proto-Samkhya doctrine. The Buddha himself described studying under different teachers and denied coming up with anything original himself. It is only the people who came after him who erected this fantasy that he sat under a tree and came up with the absolute truth which nobody had realized before and then everyone else copied him.

[Samyutta Nikaya 4.117] "Found the ancient path leading to Brahman." "I have seen" says Buddha, "the ancient path, the old road that was taken by the former all-awake Brahmins, that is the path i follow, lost long ago. Just like an overcovered path lost long ago is that which i have discovered"
[Samyutta Nikaya 2.106] "I have not made a new path monks, i have only rediscovered what was lost long ago"

>> No.14122954 [View]
File: 231 KB, 1306x1326, Untitled2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

There very little that is new or original in Buddhism as taught by Buddha, the major teachings of Buddhism all appear first in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads (pic related), all Buddha did was present the teachings of the Upanishads from a slightly different perspective. It is the height of foolishness to accuse Advaita of stealing from Buddhism when Buddhism would have never existed were it not for the Upanishads.

>> No.14008383 [View]
File: 231 KB, 1306x1326, Untitled2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.13820694 [View]
File: 231 KB, 1306x1326, Untitled2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>the Advaita of Shankara is similar to the already established Buddhism of Buddha.
The main reason why that's the case though is because Buddhism was influenced by the Upanishads, and so since Shankara based his system on the Upanishads they are both taking from the same sources. For all the things that people say is "buddhism-like" about Advaita is actually is found in the Upanishads first. Pic related for example shows that one can find most of the main tenets and key teachings of Buddhism already expressed in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads such as the 4 noble truths, 3 characteristics etc. The Brihadaranyaka was enjoining monastic renunciation hundreds of years before Buddha.

>> No.13774479 [View]
File: 231 KB, 1306x1326, Untitled2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

So much so that Buddha had to take his ideas from the non-dualism of the early Upanishads predating him, really activates my almonds

>> No.13557072 [View]
File: 231 KB, 1306x1326, Untitled2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

That's wrong, basically everything that people claim he took from Buddhism can already be found in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads. On the other hand, Buddhism very clearly comes from the Upanishads. Most of the key teachings of Buddhism appear first in the earliest Upanishads (pic related). The Buddhist cries out in pain as he strikes you.


>> No.13519533 [View]
File: 231 KB, 1306x1326, Untitled2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Buddhists may think that they don't care for the Upanishads but Buddhism at its origin was largely just repeating and reworking themes and concepts already expressed in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads, the general concepts underlying the Four Noble Truths, Dependent Arising, the Noble Eightfold Path, and the Three Characteristics all appear in the pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya Upanishads and the early Vedas (pic related), its not mentioned in this pic but the pre-Buddhist Upanishads were recommending monasticism first too.

View posts [+24] [+48] [+96]