/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19510452]

Required fucking reading

[Anonymous No.19510458]

not reading this and reading this is the exact same thing

[Anonymous No.19510479]

Why does my brain get filtered so hard by Hindu and Buddhist terminology? Even the names for yoga poses dissolve immediate after my eyes register them. Too many sanna pannahanas in the wikis and I can't conceptualize any of it. How to overcome this?

[Anonymous No.19510480]

>>19510458
Ohh he's read the book. Look guys he read the book

[Anonymous No.19510483]

>>19510479
Start with Zen Koans.

[Anonymous No.19510490]

>>19510452
I bought the Jay Garfield translation I'll read it soon. Have you read Sextus Empiricus anon

[Anonymous No.19510914]

>>19510452
For me? its the Mulamadhyamakakarika

[Anonymous No.19510925]

>>19510914
>Mulamadhyamakakarika
based and nagarjuna-pilled

[Anonymous No.19510999]

After reading>>19510490 and OP's book. Both provide very valuable insights although Westerhoff may be more systematized in his commentary and therefore accessible to a beginner. I highly recommend David Kalupahana's books on this as well.

[Anonymous No.19511014]

>>19510999
>>19510914
>>19510452
>>19510925

Reminder that Madhyamaka is not part of the 8 fold path and that The buddha's teaching is way better than the brahmin Nagarjuna's mental masturbation.
Brahmins will never understand dependent origination and their retarded idea of interdependence is not what the buddha teaches.

[Anonymous No.19511040]

>>19511014
> Brahmins will never understand dependent origination
What did Nagarjuna get wrong about it?

[Anonymous No.19511113]

>>19510479
Because they only use one fucking vowel

[Anonymous No.19512093]

>>19511014
Kek

[Anonymous No.19512113]

Saved my life.

[Anonymous No.19512649]

based Lord Nagarjuna poster

[Anonymous No.19512661]

>>19512113
Nice cover.

[Anonymous No.19512683]

Read the sweets of refutation

[Anonymous No.19512699]

>>19512649
Big brained

[Anonymous No.19512707]

>>19510452
Need to start with the jeets, Nagarjuna assumes you've read them. Heart or Prajñaparamita Sutra especially

[Anonymous No.19512721]

>>19511014
Nagarjuna was responding to abhidharmikas, who by definition were not the Buddha either but a later school themselves. But i suppose you're the expert right?

[Anonymous No.19512770]

ABSOLUTELY DESTROYED BY KANT

[Anonymous No.19512775]

>>19512770
it's the other way around

[Anonymous No.19512790]

>>19512775
t never read Kant

[Anonymous No.19512815]

>>19510452
Very happy to see another anon enjoys this. Westerhoff has gotta be my favorite living philosopher. His new book on anti-foundationalism is wonderful.

[Anonymous No.19512818]

>>19512770
>>19512775
There is a great interview of Jay Garfield (with Robert Wright?) where we discusses how Tibetan monks actually were enthralled with learning Kant for his own sake and the sake of comparison to the Yogacara and Madhyamika traditions.

[Anonymous No.19512823]

This is fascinating
The author tries to put Nagarjuna in his sociopolitical context

[Anonymous No.19512845]

>>19512823
I read this many years ago. Can confirm with this poster, it is interesting to read about the context Nagarjuna arises in, especially considering how divided the Buddhists were after the Buddha's death.

[Anonymous No.19512909]

>>19512770
*blocks your path*

[Anonymous No.19513017]

>>19510479
>How to overcome this?
Just keep reading. Also all these terms are understood only if you do practice.

[Anonymous No.19513018]

>>19512818
Interesting, I’ll look it up.

[Anonymous No.19513028]

>>19512909
???
Nietzsche literally builds on Kant, of course Kant’s mora philosophy is retarded, but Nietzsche was deeply influenced by him.

[Anonymous No.19513077]

>>19513028
???
And you could argue that Nagarjuna is a less retarded form of Kant.

[Anonymous No.19514600]

>>19511113
Holy shit that's probably it
>>19513017
Yeah I'm gonna power through because the philosophy is worth it

[Anonymous No.19514652]

What's the point of buddhism? Just the existence of dharma and karma proves the existence of God.
Embrace advaita vedanta, you are only a half step away.

[Anonymous No.19514702]

>>19514652
>vedanta proves god
No it proves Buddhism can be made compliant with the Vedas if you do a find and replace of sunyata with brahman

[Anonymous No.19514708]

>>19514652
Anon, they don't exist, not really. That's the liberating insight here.

[Anonymous No.19514771]

>>19514652
They are conventional terms for usage. They do not exist as having Svabhava or basically true "objective" or noncausal essence or substance. Do your reading!

[Anonymous No.19515313]

>>19510452
Why is so important anon?

[Anonymous No.19515605]

>>19512770
please elaborate?

[Anonymous No.19515636]

>>19510452
i read it but it just seems like a lot of blather, id rather stick to something simple and aphoristic like the vegetable root discources

[Anonymous No.19515659]

>>19514652
nah, dharma and karma proves there's an ultimate reality, which is something pretty much every philosophy agrees on, parmenides being, heraclitos logos, descartes res infinita, kant nopumena, hegel absolute spirit and so on, there's nothing new about that

you don't need a god for a trascendental reality to exist, in fact a god is a gross reification of ultimate reality created by narcissists who can't handle the inherent non personal aspect of it, buddhist in that sense are a lot more corageous and are ready to deal with the more hard aspects of metaphysics, while advaita need to give it a name and a "soul" in order to create a childish and forced intimacy with what they hope is absolute reality, and by doing so they get really defensive and insecure when someone points out how naive and dogmatic they are, which is inevitable when you need to believe there' a divine daddy at the end of your life

[Anonymous No.19515678]

>>19514708
>>19514771
NOOOOOOO THAT’S NIHILISM

[Anonymous No.19515734]

>>19515678
Our boy has written on that too. Exhilarating stuff.

https://www.academia.edu/49303182/An_argument_for_ontological_nihilism

https://www.academia.edu/44962255/On_the_Nihilist_Interpretation_of_Madhyamaka

[Anonymous No.19515913]

>>19515678
>>19515734
This has been written as well to dispel the idea of nihilism inherent in dependent origination. https://philpapers.org/rec/MATODI

[Anonymous No.19516493]

>>19515659
>>19514708
>>19514702

brahman is the ultimate reality, brahma is Sky daddie.
if there is dharma, if there are karmic consecuences you are recognizing de facto there is an absolute transcendental being.
Maybe not a personal god, but the buddhist building is crumbling with this ultimate reality.