/lit/ - Literature

>>12311772
>Is Buddism the Islam of Catholic(or Catholic of Judaism)?
If you mean "is Buddhism to Hinduism what Islam is to Catholicism/Judaism?", then only in the vague sense of coming after the other had already begun and in being influenced by it, Buddhism is not a continuation of earlier Hinduism though and represents a more radical break.

>How could Veda be relevant if it totally outdated by the budda?
They are not outdated by the Buddha, he rejected them and taught different ideas. There is a large amount of material in the Vedas+Upanishads (included in them) which gave rise to numerous schools and sub-schools of Indian philosophy which discuss things far beyond what Buddha taught. Buddha did not make this outdated because he doesn't even address much of it, so he is not superseding or completing it in any way. The pre-Buddhist Upanishads already contain much of the insights and ideas of Buddhism, Buddha mostly just repackaged them in a new way that make them simpler to understand and more accessible to average people.

Also, the idea of 'out-dated' is just relative to whoever is asking it and what camp they identify with. Many Hindus would would consider Buddhism more or less as an outdated outgrowth of Hinduism that was superseded by later Hindu schools such as Vedanta which wrote elaborate critiques of Buddhist doctrines.

>>11914055
No, the Gita does not focus on the Kali Yuga. The Yuga is mostly discussed in larger texts like the Mahabharata and Puranas. For the purposes of understanding the Kali Yuga's relevance for the Traditionalist authors, those authors secondhand summaries of it in their works do a sufficient job of conveying the idea, at least to the degree you need to understand what they say about it; although if course its always good to read the primary texts too. I recommended the Gita because having some experience reading eastern 'mystical' or 'metaphysical' texts helps more with the Traditionalists than stuff like the Yuga and other anti-modern ideas (they do play their part but the metaphysical ideas are more important).

>>11272514
>Christfags had the fpbp

Except they weren't by far the first post. Christianity just arose as a heterodox branch of Judaism, which itself was almost entirely plagiarized from the Zoroastrian Persians after the Persians freed the Jews from slavery in Babylon in the 6th century BC.

Before then Jews were just another typical Semitic tribal/city cult and after that suddenly a bunch of Zoroastrian doctrines like heaven/hell, good vs. evil, angels/demons, a final resurrection and judgement appear in Judaism. The Persians probably remade Judaism in the image of Zoroastrianism as they were known to do with other subject peoples.

Zoroastrianism itself split off from the same primordial proto-Indo-European traditions that eventually came to form Hinduism. So Hinduism is by far the FPBP, it greatly precedes Christianity, which itself is just another iteration in a long chain of degenerated offshoots going from Indo-European traditions > Zoroastrianism > Judaism > Christianity/Islam.

>>11272506
>>Indian philosophy doesn't even consider epistemology as a field of study

Indian thought covers it extensively but (rightfully) doesn't consider it of being a much value compared to the higher domains of thought

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-india/

>>11195661

I am presently working on the definitive /lit/ guide to Hinduism, I have a pretty busy life atm but should have it ready in a week or two. Until then as follows (rough outline but you get the idea)

1. Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines by Guenon (essential)

2. general intro texts - Bhagavad-Gita, Dhammapada, Tao Te Ching, Analects of Confucius, the Quran

3. intermediate stage - Various Buddhist Sutras like Heart, Diamond and Lotus, Zhuangzhi, Bhikku Bodhis 'in the Buddhas words' or his books containing longer discourses of the Buddha, Avestas, various Confucian scholars, Ashtavakra Gita (richards or chinamayandas translation), Yoga Vasistha, Bhagavata Purana (not Prabhupatas translation!), the works of various Islamic thinkers like Avicenna, Al-Ghazali etc according what interests you (I'm not as familer with Islamic thought but there is a lot of interesting blending of mysticism, neoplatonism, Aristotle etc)

4. deep end - I Ching, Ibn Arabi's writings, Sankaracaryas prasthanatrayi commentaries

5. ascended master level - Siribhoovalaya

>>11126929
You seem to be fundamentally mistaken about some of the most essential doctrines of Metaphysics (especially if you are the same poster who has been autistically arguing about Aryans throughout this thread), so I will take some time to explain it to you. I get the sense that you have mostly read Evola and have read little if any of Guenon or other traditionalists.

First off you should understand that Metaphysics, the Sanatana Dharma, the perennial truth ever remains unchanging and the same, the only change being the form through which it's expressed and to what extent its taught openly or cloaked in esoterism. Almost all of the major traditionalists including Guenon agreed on this point and also on that Advaita Vedanta was one of the purest expositions of Metaphysics that there is (vishishtadvaita being also orthodox but just with a different emphasis). The ultimate lessons of the various traditional forms like Hinduism, Daoism, traditional Buddhism, the esoteric side of the Abrahamic traditions and so on all points towards non-dualism, either more or less directly, either more or less esoterically. Non-dualism is the ultimate metaphysical truth, and without understanding this you have no chance of understanding any of the serious traditionalist writings. This doesn't mean that every little aspect of Advaita is the absolute infallible truth, it just means that the minor areas where Advaita, Daoism and Sufism differ from eachother are just examples of differing ways of expressing and emphasizing the same truths (e.g. the creator architect aspect of the Abrahamic gods just has to do with universal manifestation).

What this means is that if something deeply contradicts a central tenet of Advaita, then it's almost certainly not true, that it's pseudo-metaphysics. The concept of the 'Aryan soul' is one of these things. There is no scriptural evidence to support it and has more to do with Evola absorbing the rhetoric of (the thoroughly anti-traditional) Nazi Germany racial ideology. These are the reasons why your (and his) understanding is wrong:

1/2

>MFW SEMITE KEKS AIN'T GOT NOTHING ON HYPERBOREAN ARYAN PRIMORDIAL WISDOM