/lit/ - Literature

>>14122569
>One school of scholars, such as Bhattacharya and Raju, state that Gaudapada took over the Buddhist doctrines that ultimate reality is pure consciousness (vijñapti-mātra)
Buddhism scholars are notorious for making extremely far-fetched claims with little supporting evidence for Buddhist influence on Hindu thought, part of a preemptive effort to distract everyone from the fact that so much of Buddhism comes from the Upanishads. Gaudapada has no reason to take this doctrine from Buddhism (which was never even taught by Buddha but only appeared in the first millenium AD in Yogachara Buddhism) as most of the primary Upanishads describe Brahman as the inner consciousness/awareness. For example the pre-Buddhist Aitareya Upanishad directly states "Consciousness is Brahman" in line 3.1.4.

>"that the nature of the world is the four-cornered negation, which is the structure of Māyā"
There is no serious evidence for this, the Upanishads already describe maya as the power of the Lord and negate the world through various means such as the famous "not this, not this" of the pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka Upanishad or the metaphors in the pre-Buddhist Chandogya Upanishad about knowing the underlying unity behind multiplicity using the examples of gold and bracelets, clay and pots etc. Gaudapada bases his model of the 4 states on the Mandukya Upanishad which lays them out, the same four states are mentioned in the pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka. Gaudapada had no reason to take that from Buddhism because it's already talked about in the Upanishads. Only one partisan Buddhist scholar Nakamura tried to make one very weak claim about Buddhist influence on the Mandukya without offering any evidence and he got btfo by the scholar Michael Comans for doing so. In his book "Yoga: Freedom and Immortality" Mercia Eliade makes the exact opposite claim and writes that the Buddhists took the 4-cornered negation from Hindus who were the ones to come up with it

Are the Buddhists on /lit/ unable to see a thread with Shankara as the picture without freaking out and making a bunch of angry accusations and repeated easily debunked claims by partisan Buddhist hacks? You would think that with spending so much time meditating and reading Buddhist texts that you would be more equanimous but I guess not. It speaks to their complete inability to offer any real critique or refutation of Shankara's ideas.

Maya is the only real answer, everything else is mental gymnastics

Just because Hinduism is famous today in India, it doesn't mean that it was the origin of all other religions and that it is the most ancient. This is like the Texas Sharp shooter fallacy in which a Texan shoots arrows on a white wall, and then paints a circle around it - a visitor later commends the shooter for his accuracy.

Most of the modern Hinduism actually comes from Buddhism. Ancient Hindism (or should I say Vedicism) was more like Zoroastrianism, not anything like Shramanism.

1. The modern Hindu ideas of renunciation come from Hinduism (Shankara adopted the Buddhist monk outlook by initiating his disciples with a shaven head, orange robes and a Monastic institution).
2. Most of Hindu Tantra was taken directly from Buddhist Tantra (Read Benyotosh BHattacharya's work).
3. Bhagavad Gita was written most likely as a Brahmanic response to Buddhism with Krishna replacing Buddha and expounding ideas of renunciation, yoga, karma etc.
4. Puranic Hinduism - which is what modern Hinduism is basically - originated in the medieval times, and is definitely influenced by Buddhist ideas.
5. Early Indo-Aryans did not worship deities in the temples. The most ancient temples of India are temples dedicated to Buddhist gods.

So, no, Buddhist cosmology is not essentially Vedic. On the contrary, Hindu cosmology is essentially Buddhistic.

>>13474017
Shankara did not reject the caste system. When he writes about rejecting ideas of caste in those works and similar ones he is exclusively addressing his fellow people who have renounced everything and become a sannyasa, traveling possessionless ascetics. Part of that process and the instruction one undergoes as part of it is realizing that all difference and multiplicity including caste, gender, one's physical body etc are unreal and are superimposed by ignorance on the Self. Elsewhere in his works Shankara defends the institution of caste. With regard to people who haven't become ascetics he still considered it proper for them to follow the caste rules as laid out by the Vedas and smritis like the Manusmriti etc. It's similar to how Shankara rejected ritual as a means to liberation but still wrote anyway that people who are not ready to become a sannyasin should still follow and carry out the orthodox practices regarding rituals. Abandoning rules/practices concerning caste and rituals in his view are ONLY for those who become a sannyasa.

In Shankara's bhasya on Brihadaranyaka 4.4.22. he writes that the three upper castes (Brahmins, Kshatriyas and the Vaishyas) are equally entitled to the study of the Vedas (but not the Shudras), and in his bhasya on Brihadaranyaka 4.5.15. he goes further as says that it is only the Brahmins who are entitled to the monastic life and not the Kshatriyas and the Vaishyas, despite them being allowed to study the Vedas and carry out rituals. In his bhasya on the Brahma Sutras 1.3.34-1.3.38 he comments on and agrees with the Sutras when they say that Shudras are disqualified from the study of the Vedas, although Shankara adds in his bhasya on 1.3.38 that Shudras can still acquire knowledge of Brahman from the Puranas and the Itihasas; the Ramayana and Mahabharata (which along with the Puranas contain all sorts of spiritual teachings and discussions of Atma/Brahman). Additionally, in his commentary on the Bhagavad-Gita he talks about how Jnana-Yoga (the path of knowledge and renunciation) is meant for Brahmins but that the lower castes can still attain liberation through Karma-Yoga and Bhakti-Yoga because they lead indirectly to knowledge of Brahman. The combination of all these comments leads to the view that it is the Brahmans that are meant to become sannyasa but that the lower castes (except Shudras) can still study the Vedas, and that all of the castes including Shudras can still indirectly reach liberation in a single life through other paths besides Jnana-Yoga. Plus, Vedanta accepts that people who do well spiritually are born in other lives or heavenly realms where liberation is easier to attain due to the circumstances of that birth. The Dashnami Sampradaya differs from Shankara slightly in not having caste requirements for initiation into monasticism but this isn't a serious problem for various reasons.

>>13391460
By understanding that the universe emerges out of, is sustained by and is dissolved back into infinite bliss that transcends all the suffering contained within it