/lit/ - Literature

meditation books on the left are sectarian and poor, and it is a bit controversial whether Nagarjuna is consonant with early Buddhism or not. But it is otherwise good. Focus first and foremost on the nikayas given.

>>22214229
>chart
No.

>>22214229
Humans cannot become gods, that is the devil whispering in your ear

>>22214552
>devil

Any charts on medieval history?

>>22214552
Do christfags really?

Anyone got some psychoanalysis charts? Plox

>>22214241
What are some meditation books that you recommend then?

>>22214241
>it is a bit controversial whether Nagarjuna is consonant with early Buddhism
It's not controversial that your mom is compatible with my penis

>>22214785
Read a sutta on the gradual training and follow that instead.

>>22214238
>Stoner
>Catch-22
>The Golden Bow
>A Confederacy of Dunces
>The Making of Americans
>Heart of Darkness
>The Flanders Road
>Voss
>Middlemarch
>The Trilogy
>Parade's End
>The Grass
>The Grapes of Wrath
>Slaughterhouse-five
>East of Eden
>Riders in the Chariot
>A Glastonbury Romance
>Jr
>Independent People
>Hopscotch
>À Rebours
>The Bell Jar
>The Bethroded
>The Cannibal
>The History of Tom Jones
I've never heard of those books, are they any good?

>buddhism
https://www.bps.lk/olib/bp/bp438s_Karunadasa_Early-Buddhist-Teachings.pdf

>>22214785
>meditation
https://terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/SekidaTraining.pdf

>>22215033
Bait.

>>22214552
Both are evil, atleast the devil is kinda cool about it.

>>22215096
Not really, retard.

>>22215596
Do you honestly think anyone who manages to find their way here has never heard of Catch-22 or The Grapes of Wrath?

It's retarded although I will give it points for not recommending you start with the dhammapada
You should start with The Foundations of Buddhism by Rupert Gethin

>>22215433
Anyone have a good one for more practical outdoor books? Especially if it has a variety of skills and isn't too repetitive

>>22214229
guide deez nuts into your mouth niga

>>22215433
three ecologies is so good it's a very comfy book

>>22216769
shocking behavior

>>22214229
It seems foolish to jump right in with something like the Suttas, give an overview first like Harvey's An Introduction To Buddhism.
>>22217904
Qrd? What is this actually trying to accomplish?

>>22215596
Newfag, then.

>>22216635
Do you think everyone in the world is american?

Can any Nietzsche fans comment on how good this list is?

>>22218104
it's an excellent chart, I followed it and it really worked well. The order of the books - specially the the first two - is great. The Will to Power I'd put anywhere after The Gay Science if you are interested.

>>22218537
Thanks anon, appreciate it

>>22214552
You already are god bro

>>22214229
Why is Christianity and Islam the only religions that bother to have an apologetics field? Eastern religions seem to just take themselves as a given

>>22218911
They do, just not in the same way. Because there isn't a concept of heresy and forced belief the debates are often viewed as being between schools rather than between "religions" because they didn't address it in those terms.

>>22218920
>the debates are often viewed as being between schools
schools of Buddhism? like I said, they seem to just taken their principles as a given.

>>22218911
Faith in revealed scriptures, teachings, and supernatural and metaphysical claims certainly does play a big role in faiths like Buddhism or Hinduism, which can easily be underplayed when they’re appropriated into modernist scientific New-Age renditions for the West, but they are also very practice- and experience-based. (E.g., If you undertake the correct disciplines and yogic meditation properly under a valid lineage/teacher, you reputedly ‘experience the truth of the teachings for yourself.’)

Also, as >>22218920 says there have indeed been texts like ‘apologetics’ in these faiths historically, but often in contradistinction to other teachings or interpretations, such as between different sects or interpretations of Buddhism, or arguments between Hinduism and Buddhism. In China, there was even such apologetics between Buddhism/Taoism/Confucianism, when they were in a more argumentative and sectarian mood and not cheerily fused by some Ch’an Buddhists.

>>22218988
yeesh word salad much
> they are also very practice- and experience-based.
this is what every religion says, its like mormons going door to door saying "read our book and you'll feel the presence of God burning in your chest"

>>22219034
Okay.

>>22219039
low quality post, don't bother replying if you aren't going to contribute

>>22218929
Every religion does, but then people have disagreements about what exactly those principles mean or how to put them into practice

>>22219047
how about "proving" them in the first place, through scientific and historical means like Christianity and Islam at least attempt to?

>>22219055
Ultimately pointless, don't you think? Proven scientific facts are laughed at centuries later for how stupidly wrong they are, putting your faith in logic as the objective proof holds as much philosophical weight as putting your faith in the holy word of a religion

>>22219091
but why would you deliberately choose one that makes no effort over the ones that do?
and I think Aquinas and al-Ghazali would disagree with the assertion that 1000 years later their scientific arguments are now "laughed at" by academics in the respective field.

>>22219108
That depends on what you ultimately choose to hold faith in, if the endeavor is pointless for a matter of proving things objectively than the effort hardly makes a difference.
And I was using that point to demonstrate that holding logic and scientific proof as objectively true is philosophically the same as holding anything else as objectively true, not mocking the efforts

>>22219140
I understand the point that seeking objective truths undermines faith. In Christianity, faith is a supernatural phenomena granted by God. But is it not self evidently more reasonable to allow for presentday truths (even if they may end up disproven in the future) to feed into your faith inasmuch as possible?

>>22219149
Faith is less a supernatural phenomena and more an aspect a person can build for themselves, a choice to make. By holding faith a person is saved, but this ignores most implications, like the fact that by holding faith you will be someone who produces works and follows the law, avoids sin, and seeks atonement for their wrongdoing. Faith is the matter of human will that allows a person salvation through God, but I digress.
Yes it would be more reasonable, and it is a noble pursuit. There have been many things discovered in that effort that have helped many people and advanced humanity as a whole, but ultimately it makes no real philosophical difference into what you hold to be objectively true

>>22219178
>Yes it would be more reasonable
So holding to a Christian or Islamic faith is self evidently more reasonable than a East Asian faith, which is not reasonable at all as there is no effort made for it to be

>>22219045
Okay.

>>22219198
Yes, but it's important to note that using reason as a matter of gauging the philosophical viability of one religion over another is pointless, as previously discussed

>>22218104
>>22218537

I concur. It surprises me how good the Twilight of the Idols is as a book to start with.

>>22219198
Faith is for unreasonable or dull persons who cannot neither grasp arguments/explanations nor induce mystic experience.

>>22219524
everyone makes leaps of faith
when you order food, you have faith that they didn't spit in it.

>>22219530
That's a reasonable assumption. The kind of assumptions you are defending involve paying taxes to nihilists and sex abuse scandals.

>>22219553
>The kind of assumptions you are defending involve paying taxes to nihilists and sex abuse scandals.
dishonest strawman
conversation dropped

>>22215033
Stoner is really good, its prose is short and deadly, like blood meridian but without the elusiveness, the story is masterfully structured and the parts on english literature are entertaining in of itself, the exam especially. From what ive read i would recommend east of eden,, a decent retelling of the classical biblicall story, although a little bit drawn out

>>22218104
Youd need to at least read some of the greeks, his biography and maybe a social history of the 19th century

>>22219721
your volcano demon isn't real

>>22219034
No, it isn't. Abrahamic religions make truth claims according to a very specific epistemology. Non-Abrahamic religions make specific truth claims according to different epistemologies. There is a world of difference between "read this book and then believe that its contents are more real than empirical reality" and "sit down, do X, Y, and Z, and see for yourself" (I'm just using Buddhism here as an example, although this works with basically every religion other than Abrahamisms).

>>22218929
They do https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_India#Schools_of_Philosophy
>>22219782
Oh yeah I heard the Iliad was essential. Thankfully I'm quite familiar with both the greeks and the 19th century but I'll add his biography.

>>22219055
Personal experience of meditation and theurgy is far more scientific than shit like trying to prove the historical jesus or trying to prove god through definitions.

>>22220556
based and William James pilled
>>22219055
>proving
look into Buddhist Modernism (survey by McMahan) and the debates in Sri Lanka between Buddhists and Protestant missionaries (major figure was Anagarika Dharmapāla)

>>22220556
>Personal experience of meditation and theurgy is far more scientific
it isn't, because your mind is far more likely to fool you, than peer reviewed academia
this line of thinking places a schizo that thinks hes emperor of atlantis at same level as the scholar

>>22220702
Sneediputra, in emptiness there is no schizo, there is no emperor of atlantis, there is no scholar

>>22220702
>I saw a tree today
>UM DO YOU HAVE A SOURCE FOR THAT
This is how retarded you sound. The whole system of science founds itself on raw experience, peer review comes afterwards.

>>22220757
>peer review comes afterwards.
yeah but it has to come

>>22220781
That's what a functioning priesthood does

>>22219524
Your faith in reason has as much philosophical weight as anyone's faith in religion.
Only midwits cannot grasp this concept

who has "negate with the gnostisc"?