Hinduism has no problem in saying that it took 4,000 years to evolve from 3,000 BCE to 1,000 CE (or even as late as 1500 CE). Unlike Buddhism the schools did not split up (Therevada, Tibetan Mahayana, Chan, Zen, Nichiren ..) .. but stayed together compared notes and moved on.Idappaccayata wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2018 3:50 amThe Yoga Sūtras of Patañjali are 196 Indian sutras (aphorisms). The Yoga Sutras were compiled prior to 400 CE by Sage Patanjali, taking materials about yoga from older traditions.No_Mind wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2018 3:01 amUh .. it is Hindu Yoga Sutra of Patanjali .. as Hindu as it getsIdappaccayata wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2018 2:47 amI think your intentions are misleading. What are you asking? Are you or the author really claiming that what you quoted is Hinduism? It's obviously recycled Buddhism. If you want to "compare the practices", why don't you start by sharing a practice that is actually Hindu?
That doesn't make them original to Hinduism. Almost 1000 years after the Buddha. Saying Hinduism is too broad of a term. What tradition of Hinduism are you referring to?
Today is a very important festival in most of India .. Maha Shiva Ratri .. no Hindu will have a problem with admitting the fact the proto-Shiva is found as Pashupati in Indus Valley seals (3,500 BCE) then as Rudra in Vedas (1,500 BCE) then as Shiva from 1,000 CE onwards .. does not matter .. end goal of worshipping Rudra or Shiva is same and that is enough ..
Patanjali is variously placed between 200 BCE and 400 CE.
I think next argument I see coming is that Patanjali was a prachanna Bauddha (stole Buddhist ideas) to which the reply would be as Saengnapha put it .. the ideas were floating around the subcontinent .. no one had a copyright .. no one has ownership .. how do you know Buddhism did not come from the same fountainhead of ideas as well .. and Hindus take Patanjali Yoga Sutra as development of Samkhya philosophy
Instead of arguing (Allah vs Yahweh type of never ending argument) is it not better to read both and take away what is constructive.