/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19698772]

tfw reading this guy ended philosophy for me

idealism? empty
realism? empty
epistemology? empty
morality? empty
ontology? empty
logic? empty

[Anonymous No.19698851]

Gautama, Siddhārtha. Dislike him. A cheap nihilist, insipid and foolhardy. A pied piper, pathological narcissist and a cloying moralist. Some of his modern disciples are extraordinarily amusing. Nobody takes his claims about remembering past lives seriously.
Majjhima Nikāya. His best work, though an obvious and shameless imitation of Yājñavalkya's "Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad"
Dīgha Nikāya. Dislike it intensely.
Dhammapada. Dislike it intensely. Ghastly rigmarole

[Anonymous No.19698883]

>>19698772
The human population is now too dumb to understand Buddhism. Best forget about it, petulous hylics.

[Anonymous No.19699211]

>>19698772
>>19698883
do you have charts about buddhism, I'm interested

[Anonymous No.19699448]

>>19699211

[Anonymous No.19699471]

>>19699448

[Anonymous No.19699490]

>>19699448
Murti cites Stcherbatsky, who is also very good secondary reading. The title of Murti's work is probably something of an homage to Stcherbatsky's The Central Conception of Buddhism

[Anonymous No.19699881]

>>19699211
Please do the needful sir

[Anonymous No.19699961]

>>19699211

[Anonymous No.19700663]

>>19699211
Start with The Awakening Of Faith by Ashvagosha. Its a 2000 year old philosophical summary of Mahayana Buddhism. You might need commentary.

[Anonymous No.19701228]

>>19698772
inexpressibly based, i thought nothing could go beyond shankaracharya; thats the end

[Anonymous No.19701240]

what do you think about the Byung-Chul's Han's book on Zen's Philosophy?

[Anonymous No.19701398]

>>19698772
>yeah like nihilism is the end of philosophy kek why i am so smart?

Die.

[Anonymous No.19701402]

People here are extremely impressionable.

[Anonymous No.19701720]

>>19701398
It's not nihilism to negate delusions.

[Anonymous No.19701839]

>>19701720
Since through the application of the anatman/shunyata method everything can be deconstructed, consequentially all things are empty. Therefore Buddhism leads the atheist and the materialist to complete destruction and voidness. "Emptiness will destroy a dumb person" - Nagarjuna. So for some people negating delusions is nihilism.

[Anonymous No.19701853]

>>19701839
>Since through the application of the anatman/shunyata method everything can be deconstructed, consequentially all things are empty
Correct.

>Therefore Buddhism leads the atheist and the materialist
No. Why would you think that polytheists who believe in an incredibly vast spiritual cosmology in which the material is only a tiny part of reality are "atheist and materialist"?

>complete destruction and voidness
But the Buddha himself argued against annihilationism and the entire idea of a void.

>"Emptiness will destroy a dumb person" - Nagarjuna
Nagarjuna is wise.

[Anonymous No.19702026]

>>19698772
the npc philosophy. only difference from mass npcs is that it is interiorized

[Anonymous No.19702077]

>>19701839
Atheism and materialism are delusions of a sort. But I would expect that a theist would be more shaken by renouncing his belief than the atheist, since theism is usually a cope against nature/reality in the first place

[Anonymous No.19702296]

>>19702077
>But I would expect that a theist would be more shaken by renouncing his belief than the atheist, since theism is usually a cope against nature/reality in the first place
If he is a fundamentalist who believes in a sky daddy or old testament stories about yahweh then yes, but what if his conception of God was formed based upon direct or intuitive insight of ultimate reality?

[Anonymous No.19702327]

>>19702296
>based upon direct or intuitive insight of ultimate reality
Well then he doesn't really care for dialectic, and neither does Nagarjuna, because sunyata is an absolutist concept meant to represent a non-conceptual intution.

[Anonymous No.19702410]

>>19702327
He still cares about dialectic conceptions because he is not enlightened like a Buddha. He can not dwell in non-dual realization of reality during most of his daily life, and because of that a positive conception of absolute reality serves as a mental crux to remind him of absolute suchness. People who don't create an idea of ultimate reality while they make progress in whatever way they develop or practice miss out big time.

[Anonymous No.19702471]

>>19702410
Point being, if one person's mystical experience is God, and another's is the absolute beyond discursive thought, those are a bit different. That said, some forms of Buddhism, e.g. Vajrayana, incorporate deity visualization and theurgy as a bridge to the latter, and this would seem expedient to teach to the former

[Anonymous No.19702508]

>>19702471
>one person's mystical experience is God, and another's is the absolute beyond discursive thought
They are the same to me. Maybe you have a hierarchial understanding wherein one is a lesser to the other?

[Anonymous No.19702543]

>>19702508
God is an entire theological package of assumptions and descriptions and devotions and revelations. You might say this about sunyata. But it has the advantage of transcending god vs not-god

[Anonymous No.19702635]

>>19702543
>God is an entire theological package of assumptions and descriptions and devotions and revelations.
Maybe that's the God of someone who is very deep in illusion. My definition of God is beyond any descriptions and dualities. Ultimately God is indescribable and can not be transcended. If I could somehow transcend God I would know that it (what I perceived as God) was not God. In this way God and ultimate reality are identical, and so would shunyata.