Post 2/2
Still on some stuff pasted in Ramana's #215:
2. As for the general assumption that Shankara's formulation of Maya was borrowed from Buddhism's take on the pre-existing Hindu conceptualisation of Maya, this too does not seem correct. Again, from what I "understand":
The meaning of the pre-Shankaran Hindu (which is moreover pre-Buddhist) perception of Maya is not wholly the same as that of Shankara, but his addition/extension to its meaning is generally described by (learned) Hindus as Shankara's own novelty, i.e. his own unique contribution, and they explain how he logically came by it. I keep forgetting exactly what this difference was: the details IIRC concerned whether ignorance [of the nature of self] itself is maya, or something, my memory could be wrong.
As for the pre-existing Hindu conception of Maya, this was already there long before Buddhism (and Jainism etc) and got transmitted quite unaffected among Hindus - unaffected by Buddhism/bauddhification etc over the ages. That perception of Maya - on which Shankara's own is founded - is based on the older SaaMkhya (the theistic, pre-classical Sankhya) seen in several Upanishads and the Gita and which consequently continues its existence in Shaivam/Shaktam without even Shankara's influence (as it did since before Shankara's influence).
It is that Maya is Prakriti and it ... - bad terminology perhaps, but I need some analogy - it "projects a reality" around the puruSha. The seemingly individual puruShas tend to identify with the apparent "reality" of their "identities" (their notions of who they are in terms of identification with body, mind and aha~Nkara etc) and of their surroundings, all of which is created by Prakriti. That Prakriti - as known to traditional, untampered Vedanta - is identified with Hindu Maya. That Prakriti/Maya is the "Devaatma Shakti", the Shakti of the ParamapuruSha - it is known to be in itself the Parabrahman because it is in fact the Devi, seen in the Shaktis of all the Devas.
Actually, this is the real reason why Vishnu is called Mohini, though this is understandably also the proper name of his sister Uma, as well as being listed among names that include his wife (Lakshmi's) names. Devi's name as Mohini is often used in a sense that implies the same as Maya, a sort of illusory reality created, that appears to confound/confuse the individual jeevas but which actually (=its purpose) benignly helps them towards liberation from its state of being bound as individual puruShas in projected reality. It is the reason why Hindus' Amman/Devi is known to be herself the very means to liberate the individual puruShas, by lifting the veil/haze she creates around them, and thereby reunite each of these with/help the individual puruSha realise its oneness with the ParamapuruSha, of which nature the Devi herself partakes, being the Paramatman herself too. (In the Upanishads and later in the Gita, the Devi is identical to - else for explicatory purposes described as a "theoretical" part of - the ParamapuruSha. E.g. Krishna explains how he is both the Father - seed of all - and Mother, the Prakriti. This view traces back to older Upanishadic texts, and Krishna repeating his nature as the Paramapurusha merely reinforces this learning and reminds the Hindu of what s/he has learnt elsewhere in earlier Hindu texts.)
And the theistic, pre-classical Saankhya in the MBh appears to me to match all this too, since it further contributes as the seed-origin for Maya in Shaivam (and consequently) Shaktam, as there is a full identity relation between Maya and Uma.
In any case, Buddhism copied the conception of Maya from pre-existing Hindu religion and Bauddhified it. Down to Nagarjuna etc referring to Maya as female and mother. [On the other hand, Nagarjuna etc may have got this from Indian Buddhists influenced by Daoists too - I haven't confirmed - since it's a pre-Buddhist Daoist view/teaching and concerns the nature of the Divine Mother aspect of the Divine Parents. And while we're at it, you can see something akin to the Hindu view of Shiva-Shakti/PuruSha-Prakriti among the Hellenes since ancient times also: Zeus himself is the seed of all things, and eager to bring life - impregnate the material world - with his Spirit as its Father and Materia (the Magna Mater) as its mother. And in Shinto, a Shinto website actually quoted Shinto texts using Shiva-Shakti to explain some matters concerning their Gods that they have always had in their own religion. Though Hellenismos, Daoism, Shinto etc all have these similar views innately, Buddhism's is demonstrably derived and copied from Hindu religion - down to the words and descriptives used - and then Bauddhified and losing its truthful, heathen core.]
(Actually, it's not just that. Much of Hindus' pre-existing Saankhyam was copied/cloned and Bauddhified into Buddhism and Jainised into Jainism. Not just the late "classical" kind of Sankhyam.) I may give examples later and perhaps with it repeat some other stuff I had earlier posted.
So to repeat: Shankara's explication of Maya is the pre-existing Hindu one, but with some additional contributions from his own insights on the matter. That's not to say all Hindus of today follow Shankara's take on Maya - many still keep to the Hindu pre-Shankaran view of Maya - but Hindus are not so ignorant as to imagine that even Shankara's explication of Maya is "actually Buddhist" in influence let alone derivation. As I said, the Hindu scholars who treat of Shankara's specific take on Maya explain/show how his additions are his own, and further show how he *logically derived* his additional views from his tradition's view on Vedanta.
3. And on this:
Actually, christianism is as much obsessed about its conception of the hereafter* as Buddhism/other religions that are purely focused on saving people.
* And this is is the reason why christianism feels compelled to "save" people and - where it meets resistance - feels it is morally consistent to destroy those who won't convert ("they'll go to hell anyway, might as well send them there now, their life is a thorn in the sight of God") and logically leads to the famous christist argument/threat by St Thomas Aquinas in favour of destroying "heretics" in this world just as they would be in the next.
Hindus ought for their own sakes to stop pretending that imperialism is what christianism/islam is truly after and is truly about. Nothing could be further from the truth. Both islam and christianism deeply believe in their non-existent threat ("gawd") and the pedesterian vision of an afterlife it promises/threatens. That's what instigates them into "converting" this world for their gawd, so they may favour his non-existence and win its favour for themselves in the next.
Still on some stuff pasted in Ramana's #215:
2. As for the general assumption that Shankara's formulation of Maya was borrowed from Buddhism's take on the pre-existing Hindu conceptualisation of Maya, this too does not seem correct. Again, from what I "understand":
The meaning of the pre-Shankaran Hindu (which is moreover pre-Buddhist) perception of Maya is not wholly the same as that of Shankara, but his addition/extension to its meaning is generally described by (learned) Hindus as Shankara's own novelty, i.e. his own unique contribution, and they explain how he logically came by it. I keep forgetting exactly what this difference was: the details IIRC concerned whether ignorance [of the nature of self] itself is maya, or something, my memory could be wrong.
As for the pre-existing Hindu conception of Maya, this was already there long before Buddhism (and Jainism etc) and got transmitted quite unaffected among Hindus - unaffected by Buddhism/bauddhification etc over the ages. That perception of Maya - on which Shankara's own is founded - is based on the older SaaMkhya (the theistic, pre-classical Sankhya) seen in several Upanishads and the Gita and which consequently continues its existence in Shaivam/Shaktam without even Shankara's influence (as it did since before Shankara's influence).
It is that Maya is Prakriti and it ... - bad terminology perhaps, but I need some analogy - it "projects a reality" around the puruSha. The seemingly individual puruShas tend to identify with the apparent "reality" of their "identities" (their notions of who they are in terms of identification with body, mind and aha~Nkara etc) and of their surroundings, all of which is created by Prakriti. That Prakriti - as known to traditional, untampered Vedanta - is identified with Hindu Maya. That Prakriti/Maya is the "Devaatma Shakti", the Shakti of the ParamapuruSha - it is known to be in itself the Parabrahman because it is in fact the Devi, seen in the Shaktis of all the Devas.
Actually, this is the real reason why Vishnu is called Mohini, though this is understandably also the proper name of his sister Uma, as well as being listed among names that include his wife (Lakshmi's) names. Devi's name as Mohini is often used in a sense that implies the same as Maya, a sort of illusory reality created, that appears to confound/confuse the individual jeevas but which actually (=its purpose) benignly helps them towards liberation from its state of being bound as individual puruShas in projected reality. It is the reason why Hindus' Amman/Devi is known to be herself the very means to liberate the individual puruShas, by lifting the veil/haze she creates around them, and thereby reunite each of these with/help the individual puruSha realise its oneness with the ParamapuruSha, of which nature the Devi herself partakes, being the Paramatman herself too. (In the Upanishads and later in the Gita, the Devi is identical to - else for explicatory purposes described as a "theoretical" part of - the ParamapuruSha. E.g. Krishna explains how he is both the Father - seed of all - and Mother, the Prakriti. This view traces back to older Upanishadic texts, and Krishna repeating his nature as the Paramapurusha merely reinforces this learning and reminds the Hindu of what s/he has learnt elsewhere in earlier Hindu texts.)
And the theistic, pre-classical Saankhya in the MBh appears to me to match all this too, since it further contributes as the seed-origin for Maya in Shaivam (and consequently) Shaktam, as there is a full identity relation between Maya and Uma.
In any case, Buddhism copied the conception of Maya from pre-existing Hindu religion and Bauddhified it. Down to Nagarjuna etc referring to Maya as female and mother. [On the other hand, Nagarjuna etc may have got this from Indian Buddhists influenced by Daoists too - I haven't confirmed - since it's a pre-Buddhist Daoist view/teaching and concerns the nature of the Divine Mother aspect of the Divine Parents. And while we're at it, you can see something akin to the Hindu view of Shiva-Shakti/PuruSha-Prakriti among the Hellenes since ancient times also: Zeus himself is the seed of all things, and eager to bring life - impregnate the material world - with his Spirit as its Father and Materia (the Magna Mater) as its mother. And in Shinto, a Shinto website actually quoted Shinto texts using Shiva-Shakti to explain some matters concerning their Gods that they have always had in their own religion. Though Hellenismos, Daoism, Shinto etc all have these similar views innately, Buddhism's is demonstrably derived and copied from Hindu religion - down to the words and descriptives used - and then Bauddhified and losing its truthful, heathen core.]
(Actually, it's not just that. Much of Hindus' pre-existing Saankhyam was copied/cloned and Bauddhified into Buddhism and Jainised into Jainism. Not just the late "classical" kind of Sankhyam.) I may give examples later and perhaps with it repeat some other stuff I had earlier posted.
So to repeat: Shankara's explication of Maya is the pre-existing Hindu one, but with some additional contributions from his own insights on the matter. That's not to say all Hindus of today follow Shankara's take on Maya - many still keep to the Hindu pre-Shankaran view of Maya - but Hindus are not so ignorant as to imagine that even Shankara's explication of Maya is "actually Buddhist" in influence let alone derivation. As I said, the Hindu scholars who treat of Shankara's specific take on Maya explain/show how his additions are his own, and further show how he *logically derived* his additional views from his tradition's view on Vedanta.
3. And on this:
Quote:The Christian Reformation and transformation discarded the spirtual world (unlike Buddhism) for the benefits of this world and launched Colonialism and expanded.
Actually, christianism is as much obsessed about its conception of the hereafter* as Buddhism/other religions that are purely focused on saving people.
* And this is is the reason why christianism feels compelled to "save" people and - where it meets resistance - feels it is morally consistent to destroy those who won't convert ("they'll go to hell anyway, might as well send them there now, their life is a thorn in the sight of God") and logically leads to the famous christist argument/threat by St Thomas Aquinas in favour of destroying "heretics" in this world just as they would be in the next.
Hindus ought for their own sakes to stop pretending that imperialism is what christianism/islam is truly after and is truly about. Nothing could be further from the truth. Both islam and christianism deeply believe in their non-existent threat ("gawd") and the pedesterian vision of an afterlife it promises/threatens. That's what instigates them into "converting" this world for their gawd, so they may favour his non-existence and win its favour for themselves in the next.