/lit/ - Literature

>>18665359
>Can I start Plato's works after it?
You want to read all of Plato and Shankara and preferably also the important works of Aristotle before reading much of Buddhism. That way you won't fall for the common crypto-materialist readings of Buddhism so many people get stuck on for an unfortunate length in their early exploration of eastern philosophy before overcoming such views, if you read these figures first then you'll already be 'red-pilled' on the soul so to speak and will immediately disregard the BS and glean what's valuable from the those Buddhist texts that are interesting or which may have valuable ideas (usually late-Vajrayana stuff that seems to be partially derivative of tantric Shaivism but at any rate I'm not complaining as I enjoy reading some of them)

>>18665637
Buddhism comes before Shankara and lives rent-free in all subsequent Hindu philosophy. Kind of important.

>>18665359
Why not? Mishima would approve of the Italian Fascism aesthetic.

>>18665637
Is there somewhere that explains the false take on Buddhism you mentioned? Sounds interesting

>>18665793
Not him but check out a book sympathetic to what he's against called American Dharma. That will give you a really good grasp of how moralistic therapeutic deists turned atheists, ie hyperprots, read Buddhism.

No you can't wtf?
You need to read nikaya's first

>>18665810
>hyperprots
Hyper-protestant? Hyper-proletariat?

>>18665897
Protestants. It's where you just pick up the received text and go "oh this is what this meant originally everyone else is wrong about it," which may in fact be correct on your part if only because the alternative has in fact corrupted it, but this is a kind of presumptious antinomy of exegesis taken far too lightly too often about serious questions of interpretation.

>>18665813
Reason?

Bump.

>>18665637
This is a good take, don't fall for the annihilationist bullshit, definitely acquire a solid basis by reading Phaedo, Phaedrus, the Republic and so on.

>>18665359
Buddhism is an enormous tradition, it's not summarized with just the Dhammapada. What the Buddha Taught and the Heart Sutra get recommended here, but if you're actually reading the Dhammapada then read the Heart Sutra afterwards. It's short, you can fit it in a 4chan post, I can summarize it in this thread if you'd like. Having said that, "Eastern Religion" also includes Confucianism, Taoism, and Shinto at minimum, all of which are gigantic traditions themselves. This isn't even touching Hinduism and Islam.

If you literally just want to read Plato, there's zero point in starting with Buddhism. Platonism and Buddhism have totally different goals, radically different metaphysical systems, and vastly different cosmologies. They also, interestingly, don't really interact with each other at all. There's no real analogue to The Forms in India or China, and there's no real analogue to Sunyata in Europe. Platonism more or less dies in Europe after Christianization, and Renaissance Neoplatonists had never heard of Buddhism, and it isn't until long after Platonism's third death that the British orientalists actually start reading Buddhists texts and stop jerking off about monastic hierarchies and lineages. Pyrrho's thought implies a form of Sunyata, but Pyrrhonism never really got off the ground and just ends up being radically misinterpreted by Christians (culminating in Augustine literally believing that Pyrrhonists believed exactly the opposite of what they believed). The closest you get is Cratylus, which again, is actually mostly in line with Buddhist thought barring a few areas. As said, there's no real equivalent to the realm of the forms, or even dualism (as we Westerners use the term), in Eastern religion. Manicheanism was never taken seriously. This means that what Plato was getting at never really comes up in Buddhist thought. This also sort of applies to Aristotle.

If you want to do some kind of East v West thing, then by all means. Dhammapada, Heart Sutra, move on into Plato. Then go back to Buddhism and view it from a Platonic lens, then go back to Platonism and view it from a Buddhist lens.

If you want to see a very bad example of East vs West dialogue, I can link you to an article by Edward Feser wherein he completely misunderstands a criticism of Nyakain philosophy by the Buddhist Dharmakirti, wherein Dharmakirti attacks the Nyayakin idea of Isvara (which, Feser, being a midwit leftcath, treats as some kind of nu-atheist screed). But again, it's a really shitty one, and Feser ends up completely misunderstanding Maimonides alongside Dharmakirti AND the Nyakins. But then, Feser writes articles criticizing books he hasn't read, so it's to be expected.

>>18667416
Plato refutes Shankara in Cratylus, ironically.

>>18667571
>Plato refutes Shankara
I've never read Shankara and I never will so I don't really care. I was just saying it's good to read Plato before reading the Buddhists rather than the opposite, from my own personal experience.

>>18665649
Advaita Vedanta comes before Buddhism and lives rent-free in all subsequent Buddhist philosophy. Kind of important.

>>18665359
Ive been trying to do this too

>>18667571
>Heart Sutra
Translation?

>>18665793
>Is there somewhere that explains the false take on Buddhism you mentioned?

http://tibetanbuddhistencyclopedia.com/en/index.php/Anatta,_Anatman,_No-Self,_Soulessness_and_other_Nihilistic_bullshit_your_local_retarded_''buddhist''_will_tell_you_about.

>>18667571
>Plato refutes Shankara in Cratylus, ironically.