*plagiarises buddhism*

>*plagiarises buddhism*

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Shankaracharya_(film)
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>*tries to ressurect the original buddhism because by the 8th centry it no longer had anything to do with what the buddha said*
Fixed

why is he sitting on a flattened cat?

Because it would be extremely uncomfortable if it wasn't flat

why is all indian art so weird?

this, he's basically the Buddhist Calvin

I suppose when it comes to depicting saints and most gods purity plays a greater role over depictions of suffering and vulgarity even when they are being executed or have been slain. This is a religious system which see's suffering as a great hindrance to liberation.

wrong. all the sramana philosophies are part of the vedic tradition, it allowed them to happen outside its official limits so they could develop new insights that would be later incorporated to the tradition in order to strengthen it and perpetuate it.

he didnt plagiarize nor fixed, he just assembled what was there.

Now do one with Caitanya Mahaprabhu

that movie is top kino

what movie

>all the sramana philosophies are part of the vedic tradition
lmao the Buddha, along with virtually every other shramana, rebuked the vedic tradition and denounced its practice of ritual sacrifice. That's why they are Nastika philosophies (ie non-vedic).

>it allowed them to happen outside its official limits so they could develop new insights that would be later incorporated to the tradition in order to strengthen it and perpetuate it.
aka dey wuz hinduz n shit

Hey

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Shankaracharya_(film)

first film made in full sanskrit

>lmao the Buddha, along with virtually every other shramana, rebuked the vedic tradition and denounced its practice of ritual sacrifice. That's why they are Nastika philosophies (ie non-vedic).

Nastika ideas are still part of the wider vedic substrate, they just have different views

well of course thats the official version, but someone doing something truly heterodox would simply die or go unknown.

those people were educated in the tradition even if afterwards were allowed to try new paths. what counts is the starting point, cause it defines the basic tools with which you will face experience.

i mean, just look at the sannyasa aryanaka and all that stuff in hinduism. where do you think all that came from

please a serious answer to this

for the cat or for the sage?

Koshka provides more support than gras.

it's a tiger, adi shankara is considered an incarnation of the god shiva who is often depicted with the pelt of a tiger

He didn't plagiarize anything none of the Vedantists did, there was no fucking Buddha or Arhats you stupid niggers. There's zero historical evidence any of them ever existed. These were syncretic teachings, the word Buddhism comes from Buddha Dharma and was literally invented by orientalists and philologists in the 19th century. There is no unified school of buddhist philosophy, no unified buddhist beliefs. Even Theravada and Mahayana barely mean anything. A bunch of Nepalese, Tibetan, Chinese people just took shit they heard from heterodox Brahmins and incorporated it into existing pantheist and polytheist beliefs. For fuck's sake why do we have to play this game? Buddhism isn't a real religion, it has no unified bodies or real doctrines and it was manufactured by Easterners and retarded Occidentalists in the last 200 years to make money and sell books.

That obvious Catholic posting.

>there was no fucking Buddha or Arhats you stupid niggers. There's zero historical evidence any of them ever existed
Is this the new edgy meme of saying Jesus didn't exist, but the Oriental version now?