A note on Hindu pre-Buddhist history - Discussion
I have found enough ignorance (from my point of view) on this topic on this website, so let me put a different view on the topic. I'm not interested in arguing with you. Much false information has been spread by the woke lefties, academics, and people of other religions. There are various views of Hindu History, for example, leftist view, Buddhist view, etc. I suggest to those who want a balanced view to check out a Hindu view of the same.
1. Most people are not aware what Vedas are. They think of Vedas as Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samveda, Atharvaveda. However, there are 4 vedas and each Veda has 4 branches: Samhita, Brahmana, Aranyaka, Upanishad. Thus, for example Rigveda has the Rigveda samhita, associated Brahmanas and Araynakas and associated Upanishads, example Kaushitaki. The same holds for the others.
2. This is a point which I have found Westerners incapable of comprehending: Hindu History is not like the history of the fight between Christians and Jews. Hindus view Vedas as the authority and Vedanta and other branches of Hinduism have come forth with time. Hindus, of every branch, take the Vedas as authority and go on from there. Thus, there is a mix of rituals and higher knowledge, both at the same time. Thus, statements like Vedanta/Upanishads were a reaction against the Vedic rituals (the technical word used is Brahmanism) is nonsense. It is the growth of knowledge that happened over centuries.
3. There's a view floating around that the Hindus were responsible for the death of Buddhism in India. Again, I suggest that you check out a Hindu view of History for those who are interested in a different view of the same.
4. One of the most famous Upanishads is Brihadaranyak Upanishad, composed in pre-Buddhist times (check out Wikipedia for the dates of composition). One of the most important sages in the writings of this Upanishad is Yajnavalkya. As an example of his thought: because all perception, audition, thought, imagination and so forth, take place only when there is as-it-were an `other', in the absence of such `other' such acts of perception and the rest would be impossible altogether.
5. Much of what has been done by Kant and Schopenhauer has already been anticipated in Hindu history. Deussen claims (his book, Elements of Metaphysics -- a very good book) Kant proved that space, time, causality are constructs of the mind and that the thing in itself can't be known. Then he goes to Schopenhauer and starts with the intuitive atman, where by there is no proof but only intuition -- his proofs break down. All this has been anticipated by Brihadaranyaka and Sankara -- here, I suggest that you read the Brihadaranyak Upanishad and other principle Upanishads, Upadeshasahasri of Sankara, and Sankara's commentary to the Badarayana Suttas.
6. The Buddha took the Vedic view of re-birth, and took it to it's end, and pointed to a reality beyond space-time -- this is something that has already been anticipated, again, in the Brihadaranyaka Sutta. This is called the intuitive experience of the Brahman.
7. There are those who claim that Hindu history has been shaped by the Buddhists. The Hindu view of the same is that this is mostly nonsense. Vedanta has had it's own independent development. Check out various sources and you will find the Hindu view of the development of Vedanta. Of course, you will also find the Buddhist view and other views floating around.
Again, I'm not interested in arguing with you. Take whatever view you like of History, it's none of my business. For those interested in this view, check out the sources mentioned. I won't be responding to any messages on this thread though I might edit this particular post from time to time.
1. Most people are not aware what Vedas are. They think of Vedas as Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samveda, Atharvaveda. However, there are 4 vedas and each Veda has 4 branches: Samhita, Brahmana, Aranyaka, Upanishad. Thus, for example Rigveda has the Rigveda samhita, associated Brahmanas and Araynakas and associated Upanishads, example Kaushitaki. The same holds for the others.
2. This is a point which I have found Westerners incapable of comprehending: Hindu History is not like the history of the fight between Christians and Jews. Hindus view Vedas as the authority and Vedanta and other branches of Hinduism have come forth with time. Hindus, of every branch, take the Vedas as authority and go on from there. Thus, there is a mix of rituals and higher knowledge, both at the same time. Thus, statements like Vedanta/Upanishads were a reaction against the Vedic rituals (the technical word used is Brahmanism) is nonsense. It is the growth of knowledge that happened over centuries.
3. There's a view floating around that the Hindus were responsible for the death of Buddhism in India. Again, I suggest that you check out a Hindu view of History for those who are interested in a different view of the same.
4. One of the most famous Upanishads is Brihadaranyak Upanishad, composed in pre-Buddhist times (check out Wikipedia for the dates of composition). One of the most important sages in the writings of this Upanishad is Yajnavalkya. As an example of his thought: because all perception, audition, thought, imagination and so forth, take place only when there is as-it-were an `other', in the absence of such `other' such acts of perception and the rest would be impossible altogether.
5. Much of what has been done by Kant and Schopenhauer has already been anticipated in Hindu history. Deussen claims (his book, Elements of Metaphysics -- a very good book) Kant proved that space, time, causality are constructs of the mind and that the thing in itself can't be known. Then he goes to Schopenhauer and starts with the intuitive atman, where by there is no proof but only intuition -- his proofs break down. All this has been anticipated by Brihadaranyaka and Sankara -- here, I suggest that you read the Brihadaranyak Upanishad and other principle Upanishads, Upadeshasahasri of Sankara, and Sankara's commentary to the Badarayana Suttas.
6. The Buddha took the Vedic view of re-birth, and took it to it's end, and pointed to a reality beyond space-time -- this is something that has already been anticipated, again, in the Brihadaranyaka Sutta. This is called the intuitive experience of the Brahman.
7. There are those who claim that Hindu history has been shaped by the Buddhists. The Hindu view of the same is that this is mostly nonsense. Vedanta has had it's own independent development. Check out various sources and you will find the Hindu view of the development of Vedanta. Of course, you will also find the Buddhist view and other views floating around.
Again, I'm not interested in arguing with you. Take whatever view you like of History, it's none of my business. For those interested in this view, check out the sources mentioned. I won't be responding to any messages on this thread though I might edit this particular post from time to time.
