Hinduism General

Resources
>introduction to Hinduism for westerners
archive.org/stream/reneguenon/1921 - Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines #page/n1/mode/1up


>Bhagavad Gita
bhagavad-gita.org/index-english.html

archive.org/details/TheBhagavadGitaByCRajagopalachari
>Upanishads
hinduwebsite.com/upanishadindex.asp

>Vedas
sacred-texts.com/hin/

>MAHABHARATA by C Rajagopalachari
gita-society.com/section3/mahabharata.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiHrferzdbSAhXIQ48KHXpjBfIQFggnMAA&usg=AFQjCNEVJFySM166gELxlwp_gULUgD7yjw&sig2=KRg3OHxt-7NTN7O0TaIkYw

>Ramayan Anime
youtu.be/rAM9x_GF9VY

Other urls found in this thread:

cincinnatitemple.com/articles/HinduIndianNationalism1939.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali_Yuga
ibtimes.com/heinrich-himmler-nazi-hindu-214444
mic.com/articles/120411/how-hitler-s-mein-kampf-became-a-bestseller-in-india#.jgVB9FHmT
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer#Influences
mic
archive.is/282AP
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vimana
webdelprofesor.ula.ve/humanidades/elicap/es/uploads/Biblioteca/bdz-e.version.pdf
jayarava.blogspot.com/2009/11/what-was-buddhas-name.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

"Indian Paganism: The Last Living Expression of Aryan Beauty" - Savitri Devi, A Warning to the Hindus

cincinnatitemple.com/articles/HinduIndianNationalism1939.pdf

>What is Hinduism?

Hinduism is the oldest organized religion in the world. It is the Sanatana Dharma, the Eternal Law. It has no known origin and no founders - it is a synthesis of various Indian cultures and practices from as early as 4000 BCE.

Hinduism differs from Christianity and other Abrahamic religions in that it does not have:

>A single founder,
>A specific theological system,
>A single concept of deity,
>A single holy text,
>A single system of morality,
>A central religious authority,
>The concept of a prophet.

Hinduism is neither polytheistic, monotheistic, trinitarian or henotheistic, yet it is all at the same time.

The development of Hinduism was influenced by many invasions over thousands of years. The major influences occurred when nomadic "Aryan" Indo-European tribes invaded Northern India from the steppes of Russia and Central Asia. They brought with them their religion of Vedism. These beliefs mingled with the more advanced, indigenous Indian native beliefs, often called the "Indus valley culture."

>Hindus
Buddism is the only choice for the West.

>Political Significance of Hinduism in this Age

All the decadence of the world today has been predicted by Hinduism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali_Yuga

Prophesied events during a Kali Yuga

>Rulers will become unreasonable: they will levy taxes unfairly.
>Rulers will no longer see it as their duty to promote spirituality, or to protect their subjects: they will become a danger to the world.
>People will start migrating, seeking countries where wheat and barley form the staple food source.
>At the end of Kali-yuga, when there exist no topics on the subject of God, even at the residences of so-called saints and respectable gentlemen of the three higher varnas [temperament] and when nothing is known of the techniques of sacrifice, even by word, at that time the Lord will appear as the supreme chastiser.

Kali Yuga with regard to human relationships

>Avarice and wrath will be common. Humans will openly display animosity towards each other. Ignorance of dharma will occur.
>People will have thoughts of murder with no justification and will see nothing wrong in that.
>Lust will be viewed as socially acceptable and sexual intercourse will be seen as the central requirement of life.
>Sin will increase exponentially, while virtue will fade and cease to flourish.
>People will take vows and break them soon after.
>People will become addicted to intoxicating drinks and drugs.
>Teachers will no longer be respected and their students will attempt to injure them. Their teachings will be insulted, and followers of Kama(lust) will wrest control of the mind from all human beings.

>implying
Buddism lacks a social structure, which I believe the west requires

>social structure, which I believe the west requires
It's time for that kind of shit to end. A new religion is needed here to break down the tiresome old way. Huxley was the first westerner to convince me of the necessity of Buddhist teaching in the west.
I suspect Buddha was one of the apostle's past incarnations and much of it's teachings go hand in hand with Christ's.

A lot of western philosophy originates from Hinduism, and Buddhism isn't like Christianity in most ways unless you wanna cherry pick really hard

...

...

>implying
Their notion of Hinduism are hilarious

Plenty of good takes on hindu thought and culture by traditionalist writers like evola and guenon. He essay collection Betrayal of tradition has some great takes on aspects of Hindu culture

Modern History Heinrich Himmler and the SS Ahnenerbe ibtimes.com/heinrich-himmler-nazi-hindu-214444 Mein Kampf a bestseller in India mic.com/articles/120411/how-hitler-s-mein-kampf-became-a-bestseller-in-india#.jgVB9FHmT Arthur Schopenhauer on the Vedas en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer#Influences >If the reader has also received the benefit of the Vedas, the access to which by means of the Upanishads is in my eyes the greatest privilege which this still young century (1818) may claim before all previous centuries, if then the reader, I say, has received his initiation in primeval Indian wisdom, and received it with an open heart, he will be prepared in the very best way for hearing what I have to tell him. It will not sound to him strange, as to many others, much less disagreeable; for I might, if it did not sound conceited, contend that every one of the detached statements which constitute the Upanishads, may be deduced as a necessary result from the fundamental thoughts which I have to enunciate, though those deductions themselves are by no means to be found there. Resources

Remember to archive

>mic com/articles/120411/how-hitler-s-mein-kampf-became-a-bestseller-in-india#.jgVB9FHmT
archive.is/282AP

While I am very much into Hinduism, I do think that it's bound up to ethnicity and geographic location. Like you have to be in a caste in India living the Hindu life to be truly Hindu. I love traditionalist writings on Hinduism, I love reading hinduism and I honestly feel that is so much the most accurate and complete world view. But all flirtation and deportation will become syncretic new age garble. Except for people approaching it in a perennial review fashion, most people will end up in some deepok chopra quantum quakery shit

you dont have to put >implying; since its redundant. that's what '>' means. youre basically saying implying implying, which is retarded. so i suppose its exactly what i expect from indians

Thank you. Definitely appreciate and will read.

...

>Christianity in most ways unless you wanna cherry pick really hard
Besides all the shit about reincarnation and enlightenment. Gnostics may be obscure but they were Christians none the less.

Yes I believe Buddism is Hinduism for export.
The concept of God varies very drastically and gnosticism is Jewish larping

God is not a concept, or to be understood in any capacity. Gnostics were closer to Pagans then anything. The Cathars were like Zoroastrian Buddhists.

>zoroastrian
>Buddhist
Ok

...

>duel God
>bad one made world
>reincarnation
>no meat but fish
>no belief in taxes or contracts
They had no belief in the demiurge/shadow on the wall that is Government
If it wasn't for some of the more dumb shit they would be the perfect religion.

Who exactly made the world in Buddism?

u missed the link "how to poo in loo"

Xd

Idk but I don't think it matters in Buddhism. Buddhism is like the lsd of Hinduism. Just drives you straight to the mountain top, gets the point, misses the journey. Not that there isn't a journey in Buddhism, but I do think the world view of Hinduism is somewhat neglected in Buddhism. Buddhism is to Hinduism and Christianity should have been to Judaism. Get straight to the point, here's liberation and enlightenment, here's salvation and redemption. Follow the leader, or practice what he has shown. Rather Christianity got plastered on a flag and converted an entire empire, then informed an entire foreign continental civilization, after being ten times removed from the teachers message.
The bare bones are still there. Of Christianity. But it should ha e been like Buddhism rather than Islam (prosthelitizing and dogmatic)

The concept of enlightenment through worldly detachment was already present in Hinduism but as that won't lead a really productive society, so Hinduism has other methods of attaining enlightenment too that much for productive for society and yes Buddism doesn't have the world view of Hinduism a very important reason it never became popular in India

Buddhism has a sufficient social structure for what the west 'requires'. It is also superior in every way to Hinduism.

The world isn't 'made' in Buddhism it is a natural cyclic process of cosmic inflation and deflation that has existed from beginningless time.

That was a trick question
Your claim of superiority displays your lack on understanding of indic religion

This is probably better suited for /his/.

Since this is Sup Forums though, what do you think of Savitri Devi?

Aurangzaib did nothing wrong!

Why do you guys follow a religion that has been proven inferior to Islam.
The millions of enslaved men, women and children were not enough? They had to steal the riches of your Gods too?
Why are you still allowing a caste system hindering developpement?

Indians could rule the world if they were not too busy eating sacred poop.

Yeah she had her moments and I get better discussions here than /his atleast people here are open to the thought that jungs understanding of Hinduism was garbage and this too

>cow worship
What is soma Rasheed? Next argument is going to be muh idols

If you think Indic religion rules out assessing superiority then you haven't read old texts depicting the Buddha where he does this very thing. He claims his dharma is superior full stop and the only thing that ends samsara.

Furthermore, the Buddha was the first to assert that existential salvation qua nirvana could be had in this life rather than upon death like earlier Brahmanical views.

>your lack on understanding of indic religion

You are barking up the wrong tree poo. Poos are notoriously ignorant about ancient Indic religions, especially Buddhism, you guys lost your lineages.

Let's discuss the superiority of Islamic rulers, almost all their families are starving or in absolute poverty while the Rajputs still have their riches and are in positions of power and military, it really makes me think

God cares deeply for the cattle and other defenseless.
> Jonah 4 11 And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?

They were spot on with the Kali Yuga, so maybe they're on to something.

That was a joke idiot, you're new here?
Speak english please, soma Rasheed just gives me hot indian girls.
For me to formulate another argument would necessitate you answering my previous ones.

Without the Sikhs, ie reformation of the religion, none of that could have happened.
Prooving the inferiority of Hinduism.
Thank God for the Sikhs.

>dharma is superior
He was a Kshatriya his dharma was to protect and rule his people we'll leave that aside for now and you could achieve enlightenment in this life but for achieving moksha death is still necessity in Buddism

Were they really? The Kali Yuga started ~3012 BCE.

Is there any classification or identification on this specific picture along with any other information linked to this specific picture?

Rasheed is a Muslim name and soma is a psychedelic drink I the Vedas
Only western hold the notion of based sikhs I'll give you a Redpill, almost all successful Sikhs have Rajput names as it was a tradition among Rajput to give their first born to Sikhism against the Islamic menace

>his dharma was to protect and rule his people

This is Hindu propaganda that has no basis in Buddhism nor history and in fact is highly insulting to Buddhists. This is no better than claiming Shakyamuni was here to domesticate the 'evil atheists'.

>you could achieve enlightenment

Enlightenment is a word that has no 1 to 1 relationship to any sanskrit word, it was coined by a British dude.

> but for achieving moksha death is still necessity in Buddism

This is exactly false. One of the key innovations of early Buddhism was exactly the claim that moksha could be achieved prior to death.

Search the file name, it refers to this

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vimana

That is what I am saying.
Rajput I suppose is a caste, I am not making this into a race/ethnic matter, but an ideological one.
Hinduism is good to control the masses, while Sikhism is a good weapon.

Well they weren't wrong.

He was born to a hindu king unless you dispute that

>One of the key innovations of early Buddhism was exactly the claim that moksha could be achieved prior to death.
I'm fairly certain that moksha and nirvana carry different connotations between hinduism and buddhism.

Sikhism is a hindu warrior cult, only Western Sikhs like to pretend it's a different religion

Yes moksha means to be free from the cycle of life and death i am not particularly familiar with Buddism so I am not debating him how can that be achieved before death

>He was born to a hindu king unless you dispute that

Hinduism didn't even exist then, it is misleading to conflate extant Brahmanism with Hinduism.

That quibble aside, if we accept the canonical Buddhist mythos, that he was born to a king is not the issue. The issue is the unfounded claim that his teaching was to protect and rule his people, considering the story includes the Buddha dropping out of society and establishing an institutional dropping out of society via the Sangha. He only saw his father once after he left.

In addition, if we apply moder historical criticism, it is very easy to dispute the specifics of the story of the historical Buddha, because the evidence is notoriously sketchy. It may very well be that the story of the Buddha is myth later euhemerized into history following the 'yogic hero' ideal type that was popular at the time, likely borrowing heavily from the earlier Jain story of Mahavira, which shares a striking number of details.

>I'm fairly certain that moksha and nirvana carry different connotations between hinduism and buddhism.

Difference in tangential assumptions, but in the specifics that matter no. Buddhists were reacting to a background of Brahmanical beliefs, most specifically the key liberatory function of moksha.

More specifically that moksha was the attainment of the freedom from the cycle of life and death which is perpetuated by karma. Nirvana in Buddhism is exactly that freedom, nirvana itself in Buddhism can be achieved during life.

This was one of the major innovations of early Buddhism and was of tremendous importance Buddhism distinguishing itself from other contemplative traditions of the time.

>Hinduism didn't exist
>Brahmanism
Ok, did you study in Delhi university?

I'll give you an understanding of Hinduism, we still follow Vedas to the word for every ritual has happened for the past 10,000 years unless you judge Hinduism by western religions parameters it was very much a religion and on the myth aspect, India Isn't America you can trace someones lineage to thousands of years siddharth was born to a hindu king and a lot of historic evidence surrounding his deeds exists today

I think what hes saying is Buddhism was formed out of rejection if what was then, a vedic religion, not modern Hinduism. Which granted, is true just like Jainism.

Put simply, the cycle of life and death is predicated on a root ignorance of the nature of dharmata. You overcome this ignorance through a transcendental wisdom that itself isn't predicated on the cycle itself.

Understanding this means that the Hindus conception is incoherent because it claims that freedom from the cycle of life and death is itself dependent on the cycle in that it is dependent on death itself.

On the contrary if it is truly free from the cycle it won't be dependent on death or life, which is why moksha in Buddhism can he had during life, during death, or in between life and death. Because transcendental wisdom is intrinsically unconditioned by the cycle it transcends by definition.

Is PM Modi paying you to make these threads? If he isn't he should -- RSS should make their own version of Cambridge Analytica or CTR.

Modern Hinduism is almost as vedic as Hinduism of the past leaving Animal sacrifice
Sigh, what is atman

>image
Topkek
RSS is a social works organization desu :^)

Only Hindu scholars retroactively apply the term Hindu onto proto-Hindusim (Brahmanism) and proto-Brahmanism ("Vedism").

Your politics aside, it is just misleading to non-experts to retroactively import the label.

>for every ritual has happened for the past 10,000 years

I'm really not interested in your unsubstantiated claims.

> siddharth was born to a hindu king and a lot of historic evidence surrounding his deeds exists today

I'm sorry, but even as someone who loves Buddhism and the Buddhist mythos, this is just not true. It may surprise you, but we don't actually even know the name of this figure we call the historical Buddha. Siddartha etc. appear to be later inventions.

This world is just a dream of awaken.
Time to burn bunch of Krishnaits alive.

>Sigh, what is atman

Misapprehension arising from the aforementioned root ignorance. A misapprehension that ceases upon vidya of the nature of mind.

Yes the Iranian used that term as a a prank and Inb4 Chinese buddha, and what would you like to clarify about the 10,000 year old claim?

From a western perspective, Vishnu and Shiva dominate modern Hinduism but are borderline nonexistent in Vedism. I fully agree that vedic tradition forms the foundation of modern Hinduism but I would almost certainly consider them separate religions.

>itself isn't predicted on the cycle
Yes but your atman as part for the cosmic conciseness is, Iirc Buddism has the same concept under a different name

hi op im hindu too. what caste are u? where is ur favorite designated shitting street?

Narayan and rudra are present in the Vedas and as most westerns consider God's and devas to be the same thing they make the mistake of thinking the religion has changed

>what would you like to clarify about the 10,000 year old claim?

Nothing to clarify, you make a claim about following to the word every ritual as it has been practiced for 10,000 years, which is something you can't possibly know or demonstrate to be true.

A lot has changed just since the emergence of Buddhism, both in Buddhism and in the series of traditions you are calling Hinduism as it borrowed heavily from Buddhism. So even assessing the probability of your claim in light of your absence of evidence leads to the conclusion of highly implausible.

Keep Hinduism in Hindu countries, Christianity in Christian countries, and Buddhism in Buddhist countries.
Religion is a part of a nation's culture, replacing it is not good.

>an oral tradition spread across a land as big as Europe
>every word matches across the length and breath of India
>no proof
Ok

There is no cosmic consciousness in Buddhism, this is a new-age idea and a Hindu projection.

Though this is part of the problem of reading some Buddhist texts without proper context, for example in some cittamatrin texts you have a presentation that talks about a universal mind in a phenomenological sense, not an ontological one.

Meaning it isn't asserting a universal mind out there in the external world, rather merely that per each individual mind, one's mind is universally among all the apparent phenomena that one subjectively apprehends.

You have similar misunderstandings when people read certain higher tantras they don't have transmission and commentary for.

I'll say again to make very clear, it is a common misconception but there is no universal mind or cosmic consciousness in Buddhism, early Indian yogis and scholars were especially clear about this.

Would you suggest me some books to read into Buddhism?

>muh oral tradition meme

Oral traditions have proven useful for maintaining general things, not highly specific things, especially when it involved assumed implicit context would would have to be spelled out in commentary during later times when such context would be lost or no longer easily assumed.

This shouldn't be surprising considering now with the written word we still have this major issue of interpretational drift and implicit context being lost over time. It surely happened a lot in Buddhism.

>every word matches across the length and breath of India

These words aren't proof of anything poo, just let it go.

You don't understand the usability of sanskrit as a oral language, but I won't expect that from someone who actually believes in the Brahmanism theory

Since you are a student of Hinduism, I don't have to tell you that these are obviously incredibly vast topics that have so many avenues to pursue.

For beginners I tend to recommend a non-paraphrased non-dumbed down introduction that explains the Buddhist mythos and contemplative theory insofar as what it has become in all of its great innovation, from Nagarjuna to Longchenpa.

webdelprofesor.ula.ve/humanidades/elicap/es/uploads/Biblioteca/bdz-e.version.pdf

Perhaps then 'Ornament Of Reason: The Great Commentary To Nagarjuna's Root Of The Middle Way' to understand how Nagarjuna came to be understood in non-gelug traditions.

Then 'Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka: A Philosophical Introduction'.

Nagaruna was easily one of ancient India's finest minds, and in some respects influenced the defining characteristics of what came to be Buddhism more than even the progenitor of Buddhism himself.

Nagarjuna was also the first in world philosophy to take seriously the notion that reality itself may be paradoxical, rather than paradox merely indicating an error or limitation of thought. He was so far ahead of his time.

>Hinduism is the oldest organized religion in the world.

If your religion had any merit, India would not be such an overpopulated shithole today.

The real eternal law is conflict, as written in the animals of nature by God.

>You don't understand the usability of sanskrit as a oral language

I understand the claims surrounding it, I just absolutely don't agree and find it similarly as suspicious as Muslims that claim that their holy book is uniquely profound in Arabic.

>actually believes in the Brahmanism theory

There is nothing to believe, it is a useful taxonomy representing changes in both religious emphasis, social structure, and so forth.

Do you really believe no religious or intellectual innovation has taken place in the last 10,000 years? If there has been innovation or changes in emphasis or social structure, it is absolutely reasonable to demarcate such with different terminology.

If you mean something else by "Brahmanism theory" please explain yourself then before saddling me with beliefs that I may not necessarily hold.

Either way, it has been fun poo.

Also a bit of background of the claim about the lack of evidence in early literature for the Buddha's name.

jayarava.blogspot.com/2009/11/what-was-buddhas-name.html

btw I'm not this faggot.

Arabic is a good poetic language but hardly has the grammar intermixed with pronunciation sanskrit has, Brahmanism atleast here is referred to brahmins ruling hindu society like the Jews something our sjw complain about a lot and I totally agree to introduction of new thought process and philosophy to Hinduism but (((scholars))) use it has a clutch to claim Hinduism isn't a religion cause western religion as based on single books changed for thousands of years

>gautam is a brahmin name
Kek, an interesting read but hard to take seriously as various historian of that time mention him

Of course Hinduism is a religion, but there has been so much borrowing, innovation, changes in emphasis and so forth that it is something highly eclectic and decentralized. Not necessarily a bad thing but something quite distinct from what what emphasized and available 2-3 thousand years ago.

That said, assessing what exactly Hindusim the label actually refers to, as in defining it carefully, can actually be more difficult than one might assume. The same goes for Buddhism or even Christianity. There are religious, sociological, linguistic considerations that make it surprisingly complicated.

For example early Buddhists and hell early Indians had no real concept of Buddhism or India as we think of it, so back-reading these categories in can become misleading.

No, the earliest references to him aren't from historians. Those come much later.

The earliest reference to the name that might be him isn't from historians or even Buddhist texts, it is from a couple of clan treatises that are in agreement about their disdain for the growing numbers of monks following the buddhadharma.

They reference a "gautama the monk" who is a 'dark magician who discovered a secret magic in reality' and is using it to 'seduce the disciples of others'.

The problem is 1. these are still somewhat later 2. there is no indication that the people writing it have ever met or interacted with the man himself, and in actuality are merely complaining about the growing cult around this figure.

In short, it isn't evidence for a historical figure any more than it is evidence for a mythological or visionary figure that a growing elite contemplative group sprung up around.

Don't get me wrong, I am happy to think he existed however it doesn't actually matter to Buddhist history or its contemplative theory or practice. It is rather plausible both ways (historical or ahistorical).

Well unless you consider the ashoka piller as a result of myths too, as you aren't familiar with India I'll give you an understanding, I have a family temple which is around 300 years old it consists of our family tree for the last 500 years, you simply cannot create the myth of a man in India with such an extensive social structure, it was not like lumbhini was lost or something

...

>Well unless you consider the ashoka piller as a result of myths too

Yes, the Ashoka pillar could absolutely be the result of myths, just like any religious structure that was built for well known non-historical figures.

The pillar itself doesn't place anchor a timeline for the supposed life of the Buddha, which is a major problem in establishing historicity. For example if the Buddha was a historical figure, the pillar could have been erected around the time he lived or over half a millennium later. This isn't a small issue.

>you simply cannot create the myth of a man in India with such an extensive social structure

Sure you can. First of all the world was much 'larger' the earlier we go back. I mean that population sizes were smaller and the traveling of information was much slower etc. As such it would be extremely difficult for any individual person or group of persons to definitively verify or disprove a wide range of claims about events and peoples from afar. Even more so if said claims concern peoples and events of the past.

Secondly, there is a problem in overestimating the reliability of the tracking of said trees. I have comprehensively studied lineage trees in Tibet for example, and there is a surprising amount of error, re-writing of history, guess work, and so forth that goes into these.

In short, it is perfectly possible that 400 years ago there was some error made or some gap that was filled into your family tree, it may not be too likely, but surely it is possible.

Furthermore, there is no reason to assume a constancy in reliability over time. Maybe the past 5 generations of your family have been meticulous about it, but it is possible that the 6th and so forth were less so or even careless in their reporting or that they filled in gaps. It is telling that your tree only goes back 500 years and not further, this on its own suggests limitations to this method and that assumptions about constancy are only so reliable.

It goes back 500 years because my ancestors moved to a the part I live in 500 years ago our extended family has the trees even further down and I'll try and explain, let's say you want to get your daughter married it must be in the same caste so an accurate family tree is present from both sides of the family, almost all Member of your caste around your local area will know about your lineage atleast for the last 3 generation, his actions mightve been fabricated to some extent but a Kshatriya named siddharth did exist just because of the way India function and if with so much evidence you question the existence of the buddha, Jesus must be a fictional character too?

to cont. just a little more

To return to the Buddha issue specifically, I find it unlikely that both the Buddha and Mahavira were historical figures.

Both claimed to be born of a royal family, renounced society at the age of thirty to become an ascetic, both practiced in intense meditation and severe austerity for many years, both awoke to dharmic omniscience, then both proceeded to live out their post-awakening lives teaching disciples. Both taught similar principles of non-attachment etc.

Now in the case of Mahavira, it is said that upon death his chief disciple, GAUTAMA, gained dharmic omniscience and prior to that is also credited for compiling Mahavira's teachings into the Jain agamas.

It is perfectly possible that for example Mahavira was historical or was a myth, and details of the story got reworked as they spread across long distances. It is plausible as either unintentional or intentional drift, for example unintentional drift could be the confusion of details in the retelling of the story.

While intentional drift could have been certain contemplatives innovating and giving it their spin as they added their personal contemplative insights into the story. Possibly changing some of the details to show superiority of the new yogic hero. For example Mahavira took 12 years to achieve awakening, while the Buddha in his story only takes 6 years.

following your logic europe should be pagan

Kek

>but a Kshatriya named siddharth did exist

If that is the minimal claim you are making then it is wholly unimpressive. The minimal claim to be impressive would be that there is a Kshatriya named Siddarth who was the historical Buddha and started the buddhasangha.

If that were the case and there is a tree to be found, then you should find this tree. Find the extended family tree for the historical Buddha, because he had a son before he left to retreat.

The problem is that the son and wife joined the sanga afterwards, and so would presumably have no more children. So you would have to go to the extended lines of the father, the Buddha's wife and cousins. Perhaps his chief disciple ananda would help too.

Problem is, none of these trees have been produced, later names are just repeated but no records are available.

You have faith in the system, but I don't find the faith to be well-placed. Especially going back for the length of time.

> just because of the way India function

The issue of constancy is a major one, as mentioned in the trees that I have studied, there are glaring issues when you begin to really go back far.

> if with so much evidence you question the existence of the buddha, Jesus must be a fictional character too?

To be clear, I don't say the Buddha must be fictional. Merely that it is surprisingly plausible. As to the historicity of Jesus, a topic I have studied, absolutely the same applies. For being a supposed historical figure with all this clout and influence, there is not nearly the kind of evidence one would expect of someone of his stature. It is rather plausible he was non-historical.

It's an interesting coincidence that Jainism and Buddhism were never big in India

Except paganism got us nowhere, only divided the west. Christianity preserved knowledge, caused the west to have a unifying factor against things like the muslims and Jews, and provided us with many of the morals we still have today. And before you say "kike on a stick", I'd like to remind you that throughout most of history, Christians hated Jews. This is because by rejecting the messiah, they reject God.

This.
This is the truth of hinduism today.

And never forget hinduism is NOTHING but a fake jewish propaganda.
There is no history of hinduism, the word itself derived from "Indus" which is not a "hindi" name on first place.

When you think about hinduism, always remember : BRAHMINS = JEWS .
Brahmins made a mixtape of already existing numerous beliefs and called it one "hindu" religion in which brahmins themselves are at the top and everyone else is in bottom, and at the same time brahmins do absolutely nothing, they claim they can guide you to success by telling the future(horoscope) or by changing your interior (vastushastra) and they tell shit and leech out money out of you.
To be exact they are more evolved and degenerate version of jews .

There was a stretch of time I think it would be fair to say Buddhism was rather big in India. Post Ashoka there are accounts of East-Asians coming in and documenting rather elaborate communities of monks that in some cases were of very impressive numbers considering the time period.

That said, I agree it is interesting that it never caught on beyond that. To its loss in my opinion, as I sincerely consider Buddhism to be among the greatest intellectual innovations in not only India's history but world history. It is a shame you guys exported your glory to the Tibetans.

On a side note, do you literally believe the old vedic myths as actually happening historically?

(You)
All myths have their basis in reality but the old vedic people were Trippin on some hard stuff so I take the accounts with a grain of salt

first for jhanas

>All myths have their basis in reality but the old vedic people were Trippin on some hard stuff so I take the accounts with a grain of salt

Fair enough. I tend to view most of it as much more myth than anything, with only parts having any basis in reality. I can totally get on board with tripping-inspired religious visions being a major source.