/lit/ - Literature

>the more she drank, the more she shat

>>15946869
>>15946885
>>15946961

I'm not really in the mood to argue with Guenonfagot in his own thread (it is commendable that this time he does not shitpost in others. Apparently did not find a suitable one), but maybe someanon wants to play. This is roughly what it can be, use:

Look: he fiercely dates the oldest Upanishads in the 800-300 BC range.
This spread is explained by the fact that all the events of ancient Indian history are not dated. The first date that can be accurately dated is the Edicts of Ashoka: about 250 BC, dated by reference to the Hellenistic rulers. And in them, attention: it is said about Buddhism that there were already sutras.(I’m even ready to agree that Buddhism is much younger and Shakyamuni, most likely, lived around the beginning to the middle of the 4th century BC, and not in the middle of the 6th.)

I did not find exact information about the first manuscripts of the Upanishads, but as far as I remember it is about 12-14 centuries AD, maybe the OP will say more precisely. (Everything rots very quickly in India.)
Shakyamuni does not refer to any texts of the Upanishads, does not argue, does not comment, does not quote. That is, the early sutras of Buddhism do not know about the Upanishads.

So the facts:
1. Buddhism existed in India around 250 BC
2. The Upanishadic texts were recorded in the Middle Ages, after 12th AD.

[to be continued...]