/lit/ - Literature

>>15912434
How many books do you want to read?

>>15912483
Just enough to not be a moron. I can read a lot it's interesting. Preferably 1-3 books on Hinduism and bhuddism each. I want the one's one can't rightly ignore, or the most informative/well written/most important content.

>>15912434
I'll create a chart later. You can read in this sequence.
First you should read introductions:
1. Philosophies of India, from Heinrich Zimmer
2. Introduction to the Study of Hindu Doctrines, of Guenon
3. Doctrine of Awakening, of Evola

Now, major primary sources:
Hindu:
Upanishads
Bhagavad Gita
Brahma Sutras

Buddhist:
Majjhima Nikaya
Lotus Sutra
Mulamadhyamakakarika, from Nagarjuna

>>15912560
This is a good post.

>>15912560
>Upanishads
>Bhagavad Gita

I see these mentioned all the time when hindu philosophy is discussed. I understand that they are a small part of the vedas, main hindu religious texts. What about the rest of it (the Vedas)? What is it made of?

>>15912434
just find a secondary source that covers the history of indian philosophy, the one by radhakrishnan is fine. otherwise there is the dasgupta one

>>15912560
Thanks and based

>>15912434

Hinduism and Mahyana, ZEN, Vajaryana are a monistic Universalism: the totality exists and nothing else. There is no multiplicity, everything is absolutely identical. THis is qualified of ''acosmatic''
They mix this view with a huge amount of symbols, incantations, rituals, worship, idolatry, mantras, deities, chanting,entertainment with lengthy Scriptures with thousands of verses, sacrifice and sacred objects, and rules for lay people in order to create a religion.
For the Hindus and mahyanaists, people have the knowledge that they have a true nature, but people are misguided on what they take as their true nature. This is why the Hindus say that people are already enlightened, they just do not know about it... The true nature of people is not the 5 senses or their objects, but the mind itself with theworld [loka] itself identified with the cosmos, or their deification of this, ie their Brahma or their Buddha or non-duality, and when people realize this they are enlightened. The way to realize this is by relying on lots of sacrifice, chantings and rituals, also on material objects which magically purify the minds for them, like sounds, logic, mantras, little beads, amulets.

It is only when there is a alledgedly good creator [a god or just ''nature''] that it makes sense to ask the usual question ''why the cosmos produce things which do not know that they are the cosmos?'' ie ''why some good god did not get people to be born directly enlightened? instead of being born unenlightened which produces lots of suffering?''
So far the Hindus have no answer to this ''problem of evil''. The Hindus keep replying with their main thesis, ie ''because people do not know their true nature, which is pure being and cannot be described'' and that's their answer...


in Buddhism, there is no non-duality, people do not have a true nature, people are not the cosmos, people are not Brahma, people do not come from Brahma, people are not nibanna, people do not come from nibanna, people are not Buddha, people do not come from a buddha, people are not their mind, people are not loka, people are not born already enlightened. In Buddhism there is only craving for pretty things and the pretty ideas of having ''a true nature'' and there is a lack of craving for pretty things and pretty ideas. People get enlightened when they stop craving for those. The way to get enlightened is to purify the mind, however not with useless incantations and rituals nor with magical objects, unlike the Hindus do, but with the mind itself, ie all the time inclining [with the mind] the mind towards what the buddha calls good qualities and then directly knowing the mind as it really is, which is anicca, dukkha, anatta [contrary to what the hindus say], which is the condition for dispassion, dispassion which is the condition for liberation, liberation which is the condition for direct knowledge that dukkha is ended.

>>15912713
>>15912699
>>15912560
Philosophy is not compatible with Buddhism and Jainism. Philosophy is compatible only with Hinduism, because it was made by philosophers, which makes it sterile circle jerk btw.

>>15912658
you should just search the archive if you're going to ask basic bitch questions

>>15912513
My intro to Buddhism as a western reader was
1. Siddhartha by Herman Hesse
2. A Buddhist bible by Dwight Goddard (Currently reading)
3. Lotus sutra (next on my list)

>>15912658
Bhagavad Gita is part of the Mahabharata. The Upanishads are not originally part of Vedas. The Vedas deal with rituals mostly. The Upanishads came later and were annexed as an ultimate approach through Veda, thus being also called Vedanta (end of Vedas) as doctrine.

>>15912513
What the Buddha Taught OR In the Buddha's Words. Pick one, they're both Theravada, simple stuff.
Follow it up with Red Pine's Heart Sutra translation and commentary. He includes commentary from several other historical figures on it. This is Mahayana, big brain stuff, serves as a good introduction to further topics. It serves as a good gateway to Buddhist philosophy.

>>15912434
https://old.reddit.com/r/badEasternPhilosophy/wiki/index
inb4 >reddit, still useful.

Try the based Buddhism of Pannobhasa Bhikkhu...

http://www.nippapanca.org/

>>15912434
You claim you are bored with Western philosophy, when you obviously have never seriously studied it, because if you had you would not go on 4chan to ask for introduction books and source text, you would be smart enough to figure them out yourself by starting at wikipedia or an standard reference work.

>>15912658
There are four traditional divisions of the Vedas
1. Sanhitas: mostly hymns and spells. These are still universally used in Hindu rituals
2. Brahmanas: describe and explain the ancient fire rituals, they are basically irrelevant today outside of historical background
3. Aranyakas: a midpoint between Brahmanas and Upanishads
4. Upanishads: mystical texts that first introduced reincarnation

Almost nobody will read "the Vedas" because even the core texts are a vast corpus of literature with lots of repetition and redundancy. Nevermind the supplementary texts like Shrauta Sutras (instructions for public rituals) Grihya Sutras (instructions for private rituals) and many, many others specific to certain Vedic schools.

>>15912993
>dogmatically
>picture of dogs