/lit/ - Literature

>>17563742
>Doesn't that come after Buddhism?
The Upanishads describing the Atman as effulgent infinite non-dual consciousness predate Buddha, the systemization of this Upanishadic doctrine by multiple Hindu philosophical schools comes later after Buddha
>Some of the very late Buddhists do, e.g. Shantarakshita.
Shantaraksita did not study the Advaita he tried to criticize and his arguments fail because the things he criticizes are not actually taught by Advaita, see this thread here to see an explanation of why Santaraksita’s arguments are fallacious

>>/lit/thread/S16894953#p16904797

>Some Tibetan commentators do as well.
If you speaking about Mipham, he also misunderstands Advaita and all his arguments against it fail for that reason, he makes some of the same misconceptions about it and mistakes that Santaraksita also made, you can see it explained here in this thread why Mipham’s arguments are wrong.

>>/lit/thread/S17461767#p17466352

Every time the Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhists tried to criticize Advaita Vedanta they didnt bother to do their homework properly and they attacked positions which are not actually taught by Advaita.

>But the arguments are not hard to imagine regardless, against some transcendent uncaused god.
Practically every time I see a Buddhism argument against this concept it strikes me as being sophistic, I have never seen one that withstood critical scrutiny.

>>17563817
>The Buddha's demonstration of Atman as being inherently incoherent applies to Advaita Vedanta,
Buddha never demonstrated this though because he never explained why the Upanishadic Atman was incoherent or wrong anywhere in the Pali Canon, if you are referencing the “chariots and atman” argument, that argument actually involves the logical fallacy known as a false equivalency, it doesn’t actually refute anything or demonstrate the incoherency of anything. You can try posting whatever argument you think Buddha had against the Atman in this thread and I will point out exactly why it fails as an argument and which logical fallacies it involves.

> Nagarjuna also, ironically, pre-emptively refutes Shankara
No he didn’t, there are none of Nagarjuna’s arguments that refute any of Shankara’s positions, if you want to claim otherwise then you should post some of his arguments which you think apply here, but you probably wont do that because it would reveal Nagarjuna for the sophist that he is and remove some of the mystique that you clowns try to build up around him.