/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17525361]

how should i read buddhist literature?
i would like to mainly focus on early buddhism and more secular practice. is there any order i should follow?

[Anonymous No.17525372]

>>17525361
start with the greeks

[Anonymous No.17525432]

>>17525372
fpbp

[Anonymous No.17525474]

The Pali Nikayas used by Theravada (called Agamas in Mahayana) are "early," but translations of Gandhari Buddhist texts indicate non-Pali sources which date to roughly the same period made their way into Mahayana schools. There really is no early Buddhism outside of some reconstructionist envisioning; what is extant today belongs to various later schools. Can you elaborate on what you mean by "secular"? There is plenty of secondary modernist literature about how Buddhism is actually just thermodynamics or neuroscience or psychology or whatever is popular with the scientoid reading public. You won't secularism in the primary material.

[Anonymous No.17525571]

>>17525361
>how should i read buddhist literature?
>i would like to mainly focus on early buddhism and more secular practice. is there any order i should follow?
The pali canon
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/index.html
Saṁyutta Nikāya is the best one.

DN+MN+SN+AN+Snp+Dhp+chinese parallels https://suttacentral.net/sa-2 and https://suttacentral.net/sa-1 can be read in a month is you are a neet.


Don't read any mahayana sutra nor the Upanishads and you'll understand buddhism way better than 99% of all the people.

[Anonymous No.17525709]

>>17525474
>You won't secularism in the primary material.
Are you retarded? Virtually all of buddhism is secular. Meditation is just mind practice.

[Anonymous No.17525734]

>>17525709
Yes if you take a religion to the butcher's shop and ask him to cut it up for you it becomes secular

[Anonymous No.17525783]

>>17525734
You're an idiot. Buddhism is a practice. The buddha didn't introduce any religious doctrine.

[Anonymous No.17525819]

>>17525709
>Virtually all of buddhism is secular

[Anonymous No.17525951]

>>17525783
>thousands of pages of sermons about rebirth and demons and states of religious experience involving superpowers
>it's just a practice bro

[Anonymous No.17526114]

Here OP but secular buddhism doesn't exist
>>17525571
Dumb hyperprotestant poster

[Anonymous No.17527622]

>>17525709
Buddhism IS a religion, ask any monk.

[Anonymous No.17527683]

>>17526114
top quality chart
however the far and away best translation of MMK is Ornament of Reason: The Great Commentary To Nagarjuna's Root Of The Middle Way
also tbf the upanishadic views are wrong view and refuted & rejected by both prajñāpāramitā and yogācāra teachings

[Anonymous No.17527743]

>>17527683
>The Great Commentary To Nagarjuna's Root Of The Middle Way
That sounds like a commentary on MMK. Whose?

[Anonymous No.17527834]

>>17527743
the commentary is written by Mabja Jangchub Tsondru.
It is not only a commentary, it includes an exceptional translation of the original text by Nāgārjuna, and the commentary comes after it in the book.
It is a pre-Gelug commentary so it is much closer to the Prasanga Madhyamaka tradition of medieval India and early Tibetan Buddhism.
Other commentaries by Western scholars tend to fall short since they’re (typically secular) Western scholars after all. Although Siderits isn’t terrible

[Anonymous No.17527846]

>>17527834
Well the chart already has Chandrakirti and Shantarakshita on there. I would suggest them before jumping to Tibet. Someone ought to do a Tibetan Buddhism chart.

[Anonymous No.17527869]

>>17527846
Regardless that particular translation is the best one available today. Jay Garfield said it renders his own translation work obsolete.
The commentary & interpretation in Ornament of Reason is standard Prasanga Madhyamaka no different from Chandrakirti.

[Anonymous No.17528525]

>>17527683
>upanishadic views
Where are there Upanishads on that chart?

[Anonymous No.17528734]

>>17528525
there are none. Mahāyāna view (just like the view of the Buddhist Āgamas) is totally incompatible with Vedānta, Mīmāṃsā, etc. I just said that on the off chance that he was dismissing the earlier poster’s rejection of the upanishads

[Anonymous No.17529241]

Reposting from another thread: I've read a bunch of articles on East Asian Buddhism and I don't get Nichiren, it sounds like a literal cult. Can someone explain?
On the other hand I'm getting more and more interested in Pure Land, especially its Japanese sects. Does anyone know of good resources for this?

[Anonymous No.17530082]

Could someone explain the difference between nondualism and monism?

[Anonymous No.17530157]

>>17529241
Not sure about the Japanese sects, but The Pure Land Handbook: A Mahayana Buddhist Approach to Death and Rebirth is pretty good. Here is a good instructional video on chanting effectively: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ikaogv5ZdA

[Anonymous No.17530185]

>>17530082
Very similar in theory and sometimes just a matter of emphasis. You'd need to go for specific examples to get a good comparison instead of looking at the general. Monism has everything, or all things, roll back to a 'one' while non-dualism takes some pair and denies they are genuinely separate (which could be argued for by means of monism).

[Anonymous No.17531049]

there is only one way to read buddhism. read the dhammapada, memorize the dhammapada, recite the dhammapada fully every morning and every night. Then read the Tao, which is another perspective on the same aspect of reality. It will deepen your understanding of the dhammapada. Rinse and repeat for 5 years. Then, read Path of Purification just for the hell of it.

[Anonymous No.17532036]

>>17531049
The dhammapada is shit and sectarian. The tao is complete carp idolized by the braindead.
Path of Purification is a commentary made up centuries after the buddha.

[Anonymous No.17532041]

>>17528734
>there are none. Mahāyāna view (just like the view of the Buddhist Āgamas) is totally incompatible with Vedānta, Mīmāṃsā, etc.
Mahayana is totally incompatible with the buddhist sutras too.

[Anonymous No.17532157]

>>17532036
>>17532041
>Pali Canon isn't real Buddhism
>Mahayana sutras aren't real Buddhism
I'll bite—what's real Buddhism?

[Anonymous No.17532171]

Buddhist Monk: Come on Acharya! You too teach the unreality as cause of suffering and grief and pain. The world is nothing but an idea – a dream-like construct where nothing is real (Idealism in Buddhism/Vijnanavada). And now why do you criticize our unreality while professing yours?

Acharya: No. You have not understood the true essence of Advaita then. The unreality of external world that I teach is not based on nothing (It is not Nihilist). My unreality does not base on absence of reality – but on flawed perception of reality. Unlike you, I don’t say there is NO reality at all! I say there is reality and only ONE reality, but the way we perceive or take cognizance is erroneous because of Avidya, Ajnaan and Maya. Once the perception of snake goes away from the rope on the floor, there remain to Snake, only a rope! And there was never a Snake at all, it was rope all throughout. So, the unreal (Snake) was real till the true real (Rope) was realized. After realization, there was never a snake. Likewise, after you realize Brahman, you will experience that there was never a World of otherness. There was always Brahman, here there, inside outside. You are Brahman. It is an absolute identity and this is ultimately proved simply by psychological experience. Shruti has maintained "Tat tvam asi" (That art Thou); "Brahmasmi" (I am Brahman). This is no ‘similarity’ as if we should say, "I am something like Brahman", but full and complete identity, “I am the Brahman” and “Brahman is Me”. The Great Tathagata saw suffering, but never endevoured to go deep into its causes. He saw the unrealness of the work-a-day, realized it fully, but he did not realize the true cause (Avidya) and the entity beyond the cause (Brahman). He did not see that strand of argument.

Buddhist Monk: Nah! Sakyamuni did not believe in philosophization or polemics. In Shoola Malunkyovada Sutta, the Tathagata has clarified that he won’t venture into questions of philosophy of suffering, but only the method as to end suffering - "The important thing is to get rid of the poisoned arrow (Suffering) that has pierced your heart, not to inquire where it came from (Source of suffering)”.

Acharya: I know. But then, what did the ilks of Nagarjuna, Vasubabdhu, Asanga, Dharmakirti, Aswaghosa, etc. do? Then why all of them attempted complex philosophisation? No wonder that they failed to bring out a holistic Theory of Being due to inherent contradictions and flaws in the basic tenets. Were they not Vipra Bhikshus (Buddhist Bhikshus at exterior, Brahmin Vedists by intellectual disposition) rather than Buddhists?

I also know the Great Buddha avoided philosophical and metaphysical questions. He did not look deep enough. He just sensed the symptoms of the ailment of suffering and not the true cause. Desire, bondage and attachment etc. are symptoms.

Buddhist Monk: Acharya!

[Anonymous No.17532236]

>>17525361

[Anonymous No.17532281]

I wonder how Buddhists feel about western secular Buddhists.

[Anonymous No.17532327]

>>17532157
Mu

[Anonymous No.17532352]

If you want a book on more secular practice Daniel Ingram’s Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha is a good practical guide to insight meditation. Just ignore the things he says about various traditions of Buddhism and listen to his advice about meditation. He’s not a scholar of Buddhist history/culture and some of his claims are controversial, but when it comes to meditation advice he’s very good in a practical and easy to understand way.

[Anonymous No.17532493]

>>17532157
Arguing on 4chan

[Anonymous No.17532639]

>>17532281
There is no such thing as secular Buddhism

[Anonymous No.17532808]

>>17530157
Thanks.
Since your pic mentions regression up until the eighth level, should it be understood that absolute security in Amitabha is only reached at that point?
How long have you practiced Pure Land for?

[Anonymous No.17532908]

>>17530157
I know why pure land exists (the dharma has degenerated so we can only have faith etc) but are you never bothered by the fact that you are being wholly reliant on the help of a higher power when buddhism is originally about getting out of suffering by yourself?
I do not mean to disparage your faith, just sincerely curious

[Anonymous No.17532937]

>>17527622
see pic rel

>>17525951
Buddhism doesn't draw upon demons or devas for ir's practice. If you had a braincell you could have understood what I said on your own.

[Anonymous No.17533481]

>>17532036
this sounds like the imbecile spoutings of someone who hasnt read the dhammapada. go back to bed kid, its time for the adults to post.

[Jesus No.17533935]

>>17525361
it does not matter. you just kill time without purpose and goal.