Почему тхеравада - не индуизм?

...
Рецензия то в стиле форумной реакции. Явно ведантист, у которого бомбануло. Просто отбрасывает аргументы, борется то есть, не исследует вопрос.

...Мне не нравится, когда научный метод датировки применяется к буддийским тантрам, a к Упанишадам он не применяется.

Bronkhorst’s most important argument against the pre-Buddhist antiquity of the Upaniṣads is based on points regarding the textual history of the important Yājñavalkya-kāṇḍa (that is, Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, chapters 3-4). He claims that this text was known to the grammarians Kātyāyana and Patañjali as a separate work--the “Brāhmaṇa of Yājñavalkya”--and that Patañjali dated it to the time of Pāṇini, i.e., the mid-fourth century BCE. These considerations, Bronkhorst argues, indicate that the text’s passages on karma, rebirth, and liberation postdate the Buddha.

As I have argued elsewhere, however, the evidence from Kātyāyana and Patañjali does not suggest that the Yājñavalkya-kāṇḍa was composed in the mid-fourth century BCE.[2] All Bronkhorst proves is that this text was known and accepted within orthodox circles at this point; but this gives no reason to doubt that it was composed before this, as, indeed, its setting in the pre-Buddhist kingdom of Videha suggests. (Bronkhorst struggles to make sense of this fact [p. 237n35].) Bronkhorst’s rigorous analysis suggests, rather, that this most important part of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad is very old but initially circulated outside the Vedic āryāvarta. If so, there is no reason to doubt that it was an important source for the ideas of karma, rebirth, and liberation.