/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14388852]

>plagiarizes buddhism

[Anonymous No.14388859]

>>14388852
Buddhism AND Advaita is Neovedantic.

[Anonymous No.14388864]

>

[Anonymous No.14388868]

>>14388864
I'm sick of these damn threads too.

[Anonymous No.14388871]

>>14388852
of course he did

pic related

[Anonymous No.14388981]

>>14388871
Based

[Anonymous No.14389096]

>>14388871
whoa wtf

[Anonymous No.14389223]

>>14388871
>>14384370 #
It's nonsense. Everything that people accuse of being "buddhistic" in advaita appears first in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads (such as the Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya) and this is easily demonstrable.

The doctrine of Maya? It's first mentioned by name in Brihadaranyaka (2.5.19) and alluded too many times elsewhere in the same text and in Chandogya. Monasticism? The Brihadaranyaka praises it and describes it as the course that Janaka follows after becoming enlightened in (4.4.22 & 4.5.2). The self-luminosity of the Self being taken from Yogachara? The Brihadaranayka describes the Self as self-luminous in (4.3.6). Advaita idealism being taken from Buddhist idealism? There are countless quotes from Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya pointing at an idealistic ontology that I can quote if you'd like but the Aitareya Up. (which according to a review by Olivelle et al is pre-Buddhist) directly says "consiousness is Brahman" in (3.1.4.).

The unborn doctrine? The Brihadaranyaka states that Brahman is unborn many times in (4.4.22., 4.4.24. & 4.4.25.), and says that Brahman is only seen as manifold because of Maya (2.5.19) and says that really there is no diversity in Brahman and that people who see diversity go from death to death (4.4.19). The Chandogya says in line (6.1.4.) "By knowing a single lump of earth you know all objects made of earth. All changes are mere words, (existing) in name only. But earth is the reality" and then repeats the message with the example of clay, gold etc in other lines. Hence, the pre-Buddhist Upanishads deny that change, multiplicity etc are real and attribute it to maya and ignorance, and they say that he underlying reality which is the basis of those illusions is unborn and unchanging.

The distinction between absolute knowledge and non-absolute knowledge? The Mundaka Upanishad while not pre-Buddhist mentions supreme and non-supreme Brahma-knowledge in line (1.1.4.) hundreds of years before Nagarjuna who is the first Buddhist to mention higher and lower knowledge (Buddha never did). The pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka also makes an identical distinction in line (2.3.1.) when it says that Brahman should be known in two forms, the one gross, mortal, limited and definite and the other subtle, immortal, unlimited and indefinite.

That's a quick summary of everything people claim Shankara took from Buddhism, but as you can see it all appears first in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads, if anything it would indicate the Buddha himself and Buddhists like Nagarjuna obtained concepts from the early Upanishads. You can keep spamming these easily debunkable allegations but it won't change the fact that Shankara totally demolished Buddhism and vanquished it from India.

[Anonymous No.14389413]

bump

[Anonymous No.14389686]

>>14389223
>What you call truth is one. There cannot be two truths, three truths, four truths, five truths, etc. There is only one truth – satyameva jayate. II.12, 5th Brahmana - Br Up
What you call truth is one. There cannot be two truths, three truths, four truths, five truths, etc. There is only one truth – satyameva jayate. II.12, 5th Brahmana - Br Up

advaita plagiarizes 2 truths doctrine despite Upanishads contradicting this

[Anonymous No.14389757]

>>14389686
As I have already explained to you multiple times, it's a misnomer to refer to it as the two truths doctrine, there is really no 'two truths doctrine' in Advaita. Shankara never refers to it as such and only talks about higher/absolute knowledge and lower knowledge, Shankara doesn't say there are two truths which is why he says the world is unreal. That line does not in any way disprove the point that the Mundaka and the pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka both make the distinction between absolute and non-absolute knowledge hundreds of years before any Buddhist thinker did (Nagarjuna may have stole it from the Mundaka). That line you are quoting is not relevant because such a distinction was never considered by Advaita to be a doctrine of 'two truths', the label is the invention of modern scholars who are appending to Advaita doctrine a label that was never accepted by Advaitins themselves. I've explained this to you multipe time before but you are a seething schizo and just pretend that it never happened. There is no two truths because only absolute knowledge/reality is absolutely true, the empirical and non-absolute is ultimately false in the final analysis. The Brihadaranyaka denies that there are two ultimate truths (as does Shankara) while maintaining that there is nevertheless the distinction of absolute and non-absolute knowledge.

[Anonymous No.14389812]

>>14389757
cope

>What you call truth is one. There cannot be two truths, three truths, four truths, five truths, etc. There is only one truth – satyameva jayate. II.12, 5th Brahmana - Br Up
What you call truth is one. There cannot be two truths, three truths, four truths, five truths, etc. There is only one truth – satyameva jayate. II.12, 5th Brahmana - Br Up

[Anonymous No.14389823]

>>14389812
You're the fucking one coping you little shit. Every time he responds to you with a carefully thought out and completely irrefutable post you just spam your stupid garbage again. What will get it through your thidk skull that you are wrong? Are you just too retarded to even realize you are retarded? Do you know how much of a fool you look to each and everyone on this board?

[Anonymous No.14389844]

>>14389823
>