Yes, you're correct. We have the same dates, I just apparently forgot how to do basic math when writing my post
On this question, we have to strike a balance between two mistakes: one mistake is back-projecting the modern notion of a unified Hinduism onto early history when it's inappropriate to do so (as you rightly note), the other mistake is ignoring the substantial continuities of core ideas from the Vedas to the Vedantic rishis of the sramana movement and forward from there. Joanna Jurewicz has done some great work on these continuities.ronnymarsh wrote: ↑Tue Mar 28, 2023 2:49 pm However, it is important to say that the whole Hindu perspective is later than the formation of Buddhism. At the time of the Buddha what existed was Brahmanism and the various opposing movements that we group together and call Sramanas.
Regarding the latter mistake, the notion that Vedic rituals were devoid of philosophical meaning is an orientalist trope—often paired with the corresponding trope that the "real" early Buddhism wasn't a religion and didn't posit anything supernatural, but was simply some sort of rational philosophy or psychological intervention. Jurewicz's lovely analysis of the Rigveda's Nāsadīya Sūkta, for instance, shows how this key Vedic idea forms a key intellectual resource for the sramana movement both among the Vedantic rishis (who develop it) and for the Buddha (who reverses its meaning in his pratītyasamutpāda model).