/lit/ - Literature

bump

bump

bump

>>14560476
Buddha was but a wet-behind-the-ears newborn pup compared to the venerable pre-Buddhist Upanishads revealed by the Supreme Being to the Vedic sages of yore

>>14560635
i dont see arguments

bump

yes, it goes like this

>early vedas (rituals, normal paganism)
>late vedas (there is a cosmic order of some kind)
>brahmanic period (let's manipulate the cosmic order without caring about it other than that)
>earliest upanishadic period (general breakdown of brahamanic hegemony, many parallel nonbrahmanic influences and traditions are now in dialog, some without much background in the vedas)
>buddhism and jainism come out of the above, probably without much vedic influence (although they did talk to people within the vedic milieu), many different ideas in this period (pantheism, emanationism, nihilism, atomism, scepticism) both within and outside of the vedic circles
>late upanishadic period (now heavily influenced by those traditions and debates outside of brahmanism, as well as by internal brahmanic/postbrahmanic developments), in this period the upanishads are broadly pantheist but also include other strains
>several centuries
>nagarjuna's buddhism comes up with a form of sceptical nondualist idealism, this becomes a tradition with a certain style of logic/debate to prove buddhist nondualism
>several more centuries pass
>gaudapada (the first advaita, shankara's grand-teacher) openly and intentionally copies nagarjuna, often praising him and praising buddhism in general, but says that brahman is the supreme reality underlying the nondual idealism
>shankara (800CE or so) takes gaudapada's (ie nagarjuna's) whole system and tweaks it a bit more, and begins claiming this system was always the SOLE system of the entire upanishads and ancient vedic worldview
>all other hindus go "lol so you're just a buddhist bro"
>a thousand years pass
>modern scholars go "yep shankara was basically a buddhist, advaita is not in the upanishads, although the upanishads do have a lot of pantheism"
>modern advaitins go "no, shankara was right, his nondualism was the original philosophy of the upanishads bro"
>modern scholars go "no that's not true, but you are entitled to think that because as your religious belief of course"
>modern advaitins go "BUT HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS PASSAGE IN THE CHANDOGYA UPANISHAD THAT CLEARLY CONTAINS ALL OF NONDUALISM THEN????"
>modern scholars go "not only does philological and historical scholarship interpret that passage differently, even other hindu schools interpret it to mean the opposite of what you think it means, proving at the very least that it's not an open-shut case"
>modern advaitins go "YEAH BUT THEY'RE WRONG, HOW CAN YOU LOOK AT THIS PASSAGE AND SAY IT DOES'T MEAN NONDUALISM???"
>modern scholars go "again that's very nice, that's your religious belief, but not only do scholars disagree with you, other hindus disagree with you.."
>modern advaitains reply "LOOK AT THE PASSAGE, IT IS CLEARLY NONDUAL, I DON'T AGREE WITH THOSE OTHER INTERPRETATIONS, MINE IS RIGHT BECAUSE IT'S OBVIOUSLY RIGHT"
>modern scholars shrug and walk away

>>14560860
You think pre-Nagarjuna Buddhism wasn't non-dual?

>>14560476
Even Schopenhauer attested to the greatness of ancient Buddhist thought.

>>14560896
it's not just Schopenhauer, there are a lot of other great names who were interested in Dharmic thought. Schrodinger, the father of quantum metaphysics, was passionate about vedanta.

bump

>>14560476
Yes and I love it how humans beings were as intelligent and as capable of complex and subtle thoughts as we are, and meditated on psychological and existential problems and such things that some consider “first world problems” (anxiety etc.).

a lot of you are stupid and immature, arguing for the sake of arguing. it genuinely seems hopeless to waste all this time arguing about various ontologies and metaphysics to the path to god, if you're just in it purely for the intellectual aspect like a western philosopher. if your personal goal isn't your own liberation and the liberation of others, why even bother with any of it?

>>14561141
who is that anon

>>14561177

>>14561179
i only know the other krishnamurti

>>14561179
>chrome

>>14561300
not based

>>14560886
It's surprisingly hard to reconstruct the development of Indian philosophy, either Hindu or Buddhist, between 1000BC and 1000AD. Extremely murky period.

Buddha wasn't real and his writings are a results of centuries of thinkers altering what "he" said

>>14561683
source:

The vertical spiritual wisdom is more important than the horizontal process of time.

>>14562128
bump

bump

>>14561169
All living beings will be liberated when cyclic existence is ended. All else is meaningless.

>>14560476
‘Buddha’ is a way of addressing someone who had died, the “the man that was”.

Al Ghazi means The Ghazli, in the Arabic form. Addressing him this way was to address him singularly.

Now take the word Allah. In the Arabic that is how they address God.

>>14560904
Carl Jung also spoke about the importance of studying Buddhist texts.

>>14560476
The Indians were a very ahistoric people. The passage of time meant nothing at all to them, thus reconstructing their ancient history is a great challenge. They are a stark contrast to the Chinese who wrote down literally everything, to the point that Sima Qian's accounts of the first Zhou kings from 3000 years ago are considered reliable.

>>14563441
>Sima Qian's accounts of the first Zhou kings from 3000 years ago are considered reliable.

I don't think that's true.

people who promote eastern philosophy sound evil when they talk. arrogant evil.