/lit/ - Literature

based...

>>14732262
>Chandradhar Sharma is cited in the image. It's apparent you didn't even read it.
I did read it, you try to discredit him to avoid addressing any of the arguments and evidence he writes about by accusing him of holding the position of 'religious advaitins' for saying that the Upanishads already contained the views of 'religious advaitins'. But Sharma is not the first scholar to hold this view but in fact this is a fairly common view among scholars including non-Hindu scholars who've studied this historically. For example Andrew Nicholson in his recent book 'Unifying Hinduism' accuses the influential Indologist Paul Deussen of being a "Advaita apologist" (pg. 25) for saying that he thought that the Upanishads were consistently Advaitin in their ideas and themes. And in (page 6) of the recent book 'Religion for a Secular Age' by Green, the author points out that one of the other most important early Indologists Max Muller also believed that Shankara's interpretation of the Upanishads was the most accurate one that best reflected their ideas. Guenon and Coomaraswamy both read Shankara extensively in Sanskrit and held this view as well

>I am not a Buddhist. Like (it seems to me) many others, I just got tired of seeing you be a horrible prick to people.
It's ironic and amusing that you would accuse me of being a horrible prick to people when you have let loose a constant stream of unhinged personal attacks on me while I have refrained from personally attacking you and have just addressed the subject at hand

>>14678842
>*solves metaphysics*
nothing personal mleccha