/lit/ - Literature

bump

>>18486257
>what if buddhism but we added the upanishads
Behold the originality of medieval Indian theologians!

>>18486687
>buddhism but we added the upanishads
sounds based ngl

>>18486687
>what if buddhism but we added the upanishads
>Gauḍapāda takes it directly from the Upaniṣads and develops it in the light of his Vedāntic tradition.
If he takes it directly from the Upanishads as the author says, it's not "buddhism + something"

>>18486707
Read the OP
>Gauḍapāda agrees with all this, but following his Upaniṣadic tradition, feels the necessity of making explicit the positive ontological nature of the Absolute by using positive characters also in order to help the aspirants and in order to avoid possible philosophical misconception of the Absolute

>>18486715
Yes, he is saying that both Madhyamaka and the Upanishads point to a transcendental reality, but that Madhyamaka only use negative language while the Upanishads combine both negation (neti neti) along with positive statements (that thou art), and as part of the Upanishadic tradition Gaudapada follows their example. That's not Buddhism.

>>18486730
Why did it take centuries of brahmin breaking for Hindus to read this interpretation out of the Upanishads?

>>18486758
We don't know how many people were talking about this beforehand because so many texts were lost. Shankara cites the works of some 99 thinkers before him, many of whom are also cited by other medieval Hindus, and Shankara and other Advaitins interpret some of them as either agreeing with Advaita or holding to an earlier proto-form of it. None of these 99 people's writings survive to the present day.

That you can trace Vedantic ideas in texts from centuries earlier like the Brahma Sutras and Bhagavad-Gita shows that there were clearly people concerned with such matters.

>>18486790
So we've got speculation about the 99 missing theologians as the last resort to absolve Hinduism of being influenced by Buddhism?

>>18486758

>>18486810
>last resort to absolve Hinduism of being influenced by Buddhism?
As the author cited in OP notes, Gaudapada uses both logical arguments and scriptural citations to show that this doctrine was the doctrine of the Upanishads all along, so there is nothing to absolve.

>>18486813
Rent free

>>18486816
>Gaudapada uses both logical arguments and scriptural citations to show that this doctrine was the doctrine of the Upanishads all along
Sure but where was this a thousand years earlier? Why couldn't they shut down the Buddhists then? Bad faith hagiographies tell us nothing about the genealogy of ideas, except that there is a great deal of ressentiment and seething being masked

>>18486818
>Rent free
Cope

>>18486834
>Sure but where was this a thousand years earlier?
A thousand years earlier before Gaudapada would be around the time of the composition of the middle Upanishads, when it was still a relatively closely-guarded esoterism that was kept to themselves by certain circles of Brahmins and not a formalized school that would go around debating people. That it took way longer to emerge into a school that engaged in scholastic-style systemization doesn't itself prove that the doctrine didn't exist before or that it took things from Buddhism. It's a bad-faith argument to act like it automatically does.

>>18486848
>every post-classical Hindu treatise has entire sections dedicated to seething about Buddhism since it took over India for a thousand years and shoved the vedas into the brahmin barn

>>18486858
>mayavada was an unwritten doctrine during the Buddhist period and only felt safe to come out once Buddhism was declining in India proper
Amazing

>>18486867
>coping this hard

>>18486867
based

>>18486912
>t-this time I've refuted buddhism for good
>i sure hope there aren't any big strong buddhists hiding in here waiting to enlighten me

>>18486257
Just because something is nondualism doesn't mean it's advaita. There are other nondual philosophies.
For example, there's qualified nondualism (where brahman has qualities) and nonqualified nondualism (where brahman doesn't have qualities). Both are nondualism, but are different philosophical schools. Moreover, there's material monism (i.e., Parmenides) which is a completely separate tradition with pretty much the same implications. Or there's forms of idealism (e.g., Berkeley) which are functionally the same as nondualism but without the same metaphysics.

>>18486875
>>mayavada was an unwritten doctrine during the Buddhist period
It wasn't an unwritten doctrine, it's talked about all throughout the Upanishads, in the Bhagavad-Gita and in some of the Puranas as well. It appears continuously from the pre-Buddhist Hindu scriptures down to Shankara, it's just that no lengthy prose writings survive which talk about it before Gaudapada, that's not the same in any sense as it being an unwritten doctrine though. It's a pretty safe assumption that at least some of the prose writings which didn't survive to now were talking about this idea which appears in so many texts.

We know that Nyaya, Samkhya, Vaisheshika, Mimansa all existed as schools in the first millennium BC, but we have very few of their prose writings which survive from then either, mostly just a few shorter sutra-style aphoristic texts.

>>18486949
>Just because something is nondualism doesn't mean it's advaita.
In the text which the author cited in OP is talking about though (The Mandukya Karika), the author of it, Gaudapada, uses both scriptural and logical arguments to argue that the Upanishads teach the specifically Advaita-style of non-dualism.

>>18486867
Refuting something isn't seething anon

>>18487027
>scriptural arguments
Basically post hoc rationalizations, no?
>logical arguments
Provide a few.

>>18487027
We are going in circles here. Now the claim is again that the Upanishads taught this all along anyway so we don't need anything to substantiate the advaita view existing during the gap between the Buddhists and Gaudpada/Shankara, we can just assume it was there. But as a non-believer I have no reason to concede this and reject there being any historical Buddhist influence. Of course, a true believer had to reject the Buddhist influence because leaves a bad taste.

>>18487043
>Basically post hoc rationalizations
aka "making rational arguments at whatever point in time they are" That's not a bad thing
>provide a few
He talks about how a logical and consistent exegesis of the Upanishads leads to Advaita here

3.13. Because the scripture says that the individual and the limitless Self are identical and it dismisses diversity it is reasonable to assume its point of view.
3.14.The separateness of the individual soul and the supreme Self which has been declared (in the sruti) prior to the discussion of creation (in the Upanishads), is in a secondary sense in view of the result of the future, for it (separateness) is not in fitness if held in its primary sense.
3.15. When the scripture describes the creation in various metaphors these are not to be taken literally because the purpose of the illustrations is to reveal the common identity of all things. Non-duality, not multiplicity is reality.
3.16. The scriptural idea that there are stages of life is introduced out of compassion for those who wish to be free of duality but who are caught up in time.
3.17. Dualists firmly believe their ideas even though they contradict one another. Non-duality is not in conflict with duality.
3.18. If dualists assert that duality comes from non-duality we do not disagree because a projection needs a substratum to exist.
3.19. The unborn Awareness does not suffer modification. It seems to modify because of the power of imagination. To say that it becomes the world is to say that it is not immortal.
3.20. The ignorant say the Self is born but it cannot be born because it is immortal.
3.21. The immortal can never become mortal and the mortal can never become immortal because a change in one’s nature cannot take place.
3.22. How can the entity that is immortal remain unchanged according to one to whom a thing that is immortal by nature can be born, since it is a product (in his view)?
3.23. The scriptures universally favor the view that creation is not real, that it only happens through Maya. Because the scripture takes this position and because it is supported by reason it is to be taken as the truth.
3.24. Because the scriptures say that multiplicity only seems to be real and that the Self only seems to to be born it is obvious that its birth is through Maya, projected imagination.
3.25. The scripture’s censure of the worship of the world negates the idea of creation. Its statement ‘Who causes the world to be born?’ is meant to negate causality.
3.26. The scripture negates all instructions for Self realization by the teaching ‘Not this, not this’ leaving the Self to reveal itself.
3.27. Birth happens only through Maya. In reality there is no birth. If you think something is born you should know that it can only be reborn.
3.28. The birth of a non-existent thing cannot occur either through Maya or in reality, like the offspring of a barren woman.

>>18487071
>Now the claim is again that the Upanishads taught this all along anyway so we don't need anything to substantiate the advaita view existing during the gap between the Buddhists and Gaudpada/Shankara,
Not just in the Upanishads, but also in the Gita and Puranas as well, even the Brahma Sutras mention maya by name (but not devotion or grace) and talk about certain things being just an appearance. In any case Buddhists on /lit/ always default to talking about influence instead of addressing the ideas themselves because Advaita is logically superior to Buddhism and because the Buddhists were unable to address Shankara's arguments in writing and Buddhists would rather distract with endless and circular discussions of influence. That Buddhists believe Advaita took influence is not itself a refutation of Advaita or an argument against their doctrine.
>But as a non-believer I have no reason to concede this and reject there being any historical Buddhist influence
What Buddhist influence? If you know Buddhism at all then you should already know that Advaita and Buddhism interpret two truths or appearance/reality in a totally different manner. Advaita says that the absolute reality has it's own independent existence/svabhava which is anathema to Buddhist thinking. The mere fact of considering some things as unreal cannot be chalked up to Buddhist influence since the Upanishads discuss this at length, the Chandogya states over and over again that all change is unreal and that the unchanging basis alone is real, cycling through various metaphors involving clay, gold etc to make the point clear.

>>18486813
Based

>>18487159
Yes, brother

>>18487148
>Advaita is logically superior to Buddhism
It's theology. There's nothing to prove or disprove because the principle or axiom underneath it all is just god did it.
>the Buddhists were unable to address Shankara's arguments
Yes the hagiographies say so, never mind the fact that Buddhism in India was well in decline by the time of Shankara. But again, it's theology, belief in Isvara, which Buddhism argued against since day one in the nikayas.
>That Buddhists believe Advaita took influence is not itself a refutation of Advaita or an argument against their doctrine.
Right only the mayavadins have a problem with this genealogy and go to great gymnastic feats to claim otherwise. All the other Hindu schools are well aware of what mayavada was influenced by and attack it on those grounds. So obviously the mayavadin has to argue he has no Buddhist influence and is just reading what was in the Vedas all along

>>18487204
Mumbo jumbo

>>18487204
>It's theology. There's nothing to prove or disprove because the principle or axiom underneath it all is just god did it.
Advaita points out how the Buddhist denial of the Atman of unchanging witness consciousness is contradicted by our experience and logic. They also point out that the Buddhist explanation of dependent origination as the source of the world collapses under critical scrutiny. The Advaitins also refute and demonstrate contradictions in the positions held by Buddhists, these arguments simply refute Buddhism without having anything to do with theology. For example Nagarjuna and other Madhyamakins denied that consciousness is self-reflexive, and this Buddhist position was refuted by Advaitins who pointed out that the alternative necessarily leads to an infinite regress.
>Yes the hagiographies say so,
It's a fact that there are no known Buddhist writings in which Shankara's arguments and refutations of Buddhism are replied to and answered by Buddhists.
>never mind the fact that Buddhism in India was well in decline by the time of Shankara.
It was a process that he helped greatly accelerate
>But again, it's theology, belief in Isvara, which Buddhism argued against since day one in the nikayas.
Totally wrong, the Brahman of Advaita is completely different from Isvara, about as different as it is from the standard Abrahamic conception of God. This is a lame excuse. The arguments against Isvara which Buddhists provided don't apply to the Brahman of Advaita because they all attack flaws which are not found in the Advaita conception of Brahman.
>All the other Hindu schools are well aware of what mayavada was influenced by and attack it on those grounds.
In their descriptions of Advaita they typically get it wrong and fail to understand what it actually says about Brahman and maya, so the other stuff they say about it loses force. I can give examples if you want.

>>18487287
>The arguments against Isvara which Buddhists provided don't apply to the Brahman of Advaita because they all attack flaws which are not found in the Advaita conception of Brahman.
That is because Buddhism refuted the brahmin conception of Isvara. Advaitins built a new system based upon Buddhist philosophy that could stand up against the Buddhist onslaught.

Basically Hindu philosophy is divided between those that have not yet realized that Buddhism refuted them(bhakticels) and those that have(Advaitins).

>>18487391
>Advaitins built a new system based upon Buddhist philosophy that could stand up against the Buddhist onslaught.
No they didn't, they did a straight-forward exegesis of the Upanishads, which never presented the regular Isvara as the source of the universe to begin with. In any case, that's not a valid excuse to not respond to the arguments of the Advaitins which refuted Buddhism, since it's just a way to avoided addressing their arguments and avoid unrefuting Buddhism from its state of refutation which it was cast into by Chadvaitins. Buddhists would rather stay refuted than try to unrefute themselves and fail. Sad!

>>18487409
>arguments of the Advaitins which refuted Buddhism, since it's just a way to avoided addressing their arguments and avoid unrefuting Buddhism from its state of refutation
Buddhism ignores the Upanishads, 'refutes' atman, 'refutes' isvara, and so forth. How does rearranging these once there are too few Buddhists (in India) to care change anything? Oh the atman is actually brahman and life is an illusion cast by brahman but the atman doesn't know? Really refuted those Buddhists huh!

>>18487526
>Buddhism ignores the Upanishads, 'refutes' atman, 'refutes' isvara, and so forth.
Buddha doesn't refute the Atman, I've already explained how the one argument which you have listed is a sophistic one that makes a logical fallacy, the so-called chariot analogy fails to refute the Atman because it's a false equivalency which talks about an unconscious object when trying to refute witness-consciousness, which is a logical fallacy. I'm not aware of any other of his so-called arguments against the Atman, but you're welcome to share them so that they can be refuted.
>How does rearranging these once there are too few Buddhists (in India) to care change anything? Oh the atman is actually brahman and life is an illusion cast by brahman but the atman doesn't know?
the Atman does know, the jivas don't
>Really refuted those Buddhists huh!
You're deliberately ignoring that the Advaitins refuted the Buddhist position with arguments that don't rely on the acceptance of the Advaitins position, which just demonstrate the illogicality of the Buddhist position without saying anything about Isvara, Atman, Advaita etc. Particularly on the question of dependent-origination and the reflexivity of consciousness the Buddhists were refuted that don't require one to accept Advaita as true to see that Buddhism was demonstrated to be wrong.

>>18486257
>advaita is better because they use positive descriptions of the absolute to placate normies and newfags
Sounds like a downside to me. Doesn't seem very compassionate of the vedantists to shackle their adherents with imaginary word stuff. A shiny new spiritual concept isn't gonna relieve their suffering, it will only perpetuate their confusion and give them the illusion of 'getting somewhere'.

>>18487614
>Doesn't seem very compassionate of the vedantists to shackle their adherents with imaginary word stuff.
The Absolute isn't accurately described by negation alone, since it isn't nothingness. If negation is combined with affirmation, it points one to the reality of the Absolute while eliminating misconceptions, the positive alerts one to the nature and presence of the Absolute, the negative removes misconceptions about it in conjunction with this.
>new spiritual concept
Upanishads which do this predate Buddhism

>>18487705
>The Absolute isn't accurately described by negation alone, since it isn't nothingness
You just used negation to prove my point. Negation, by necessity, cannot assert a positive, which "nothingness" is. Negation is neither nothing nor something. The word "nothing" is like "silence", giving form to the formless.
> If negation is combined with affirmation, it points one to the reality of the Absolute while eliminating misconceptions, the positive alerts one to the nature and presence of the Absolute, the negative removes misconceptions about it in conjunction with this.
It leaves residue that becomes very hard to eliminate. If you on one hand use negation to eliminate concepts but use positive description to point someone to the absolute, they become stuck on the definitions of 'the absolute' / 'void' / 'nothingness' / etc. basically it's a short term advantage at the expense of a subtle longterm disadvantage

>>18487739
>a positive, which "nothingness" is.
No it's not, nothingness is itself a negation, "nothing" just means "no thing", an absence of anything. A negation is not a positive, it's the denial of the positive.
>It leaves residue that becomes very hard to eliminate.
This seems to just be Buddhist dogma, but I see no good argument to support this.
> If you on one hand use negation to eliminate concepts but use positive description to point someone to the absolute, they become stuck on the definitions of 'the absolute' / 'void' / 'nothingness' / etc. basically it's a short term advantage at the expense of a subtle longterm disadvantage
Where are the arguments to support this though, you are just offering this as dogma without supporting arguments. The converse position is that the negation that is combined with the positive negates precisely all subtle residues and anything one might get stuck on, while still allowing one to benefit from the affirmation of the positive. You have not given any reason why your position is correct over what I just stated.

>>18487576
>You're deliberately ignoring that the Advaitins refuted the Buddhist position with arguments that don't rely on the acceptance of the Advaitins position
I'm pretty sure having an immortal self-aware permanent consciousness is an Advaitan position, and what you are using to claim the chariot analogy is a failure.

>>18487823
>I'm pretty sure having an immortal self-aware permanent consciousness is an Advaitan position
It is
>and what you are using to claim the chariot analogy is a failure.
Not exactly, most people and schools of Hinduism interpret the Atman as being conscious in some way. Not just Advaitins. The chariot analogy fails because it tries to show that the Atman is superfluous because its not needed for an insentient object to be itself, but this is a false equivalency because basically nobody in Hinduism says that insentient objects like chariots have Atmans or selves, but only living beings.

So it's a false equivalency because Buddha is trying to say that Atman (consciousness) is superfluous because it's not need for an insentient object to be itself, but this is retarded since nobody was saying insentient objects have witness-consciousness or consciousness in general to begin with. In order to demonstrate that it was really superfluous, Buddha would have had to demonstrate how it was superfluous in a *living sentient* being.

In any case, the chariot analogy was not primarily was I was thinking of when I said the Advaitins refuted Buddhist doctrines solely by demonstrating logical contradictions in them that don't involve accepting Advaita positions, I was thinking more of dependent-origination and the alleged non-reflexivity of consciousness by Buddhists.

>>18486257
>given only negative description of the Absolute
yikes

>>18486257
Buddha himself took it from the Upaniṣads

This is completely untrue, there is zero mention of Brahmins holding to these upanishadic ideas anywhere in the Pali Canon (where we get a detailed picture of the philosophical and religious landscape of northern India), in fact the canon says that Brahmin Priest were called "schooled in the three vedas" which would suggest that the fourth veda with the Upanishads wasn't yet widespread in the area the Buddha was preaching.

Obviously, Buddhism didn't exist Ex Nihilo, it copied a lot from other ascetic sramanic sects like Jainism.