/lit/ - Literature

Dear anon, it's been awhile since I read it, can you remind me what Evola says about the similarities between the theistic temperament and Zen?

>>23076451
From someone who's read a lot of Evola, Doctrine of Awakening is significant in his oeuvre for two reasons:

1. Buddhism gives the clearest instructions on how to train and achieve spiritual detachment, which is kind of what Evola's philosophy is all about. He also will have written this book for Italian soldiers fighting, what was by then, a hopeless war so that they find peace and die heroically.

2. He's reconciling Nietzsche's idea of the übermensch with asceticism, which Nietzsche explicitly attacks in Genealogy of Morals. Evola believed in a transcendent, spiritual übermensch that would come about through esoteric practices rather than one that returns to nature like Nietzsche advocated.

PS the stuff about reincarnation is him attacking theosophy and anthroposophy which were popular in his day.

>>23076451
well, both of those statements are accurate, so you'd have to elaborate on what issues you're having

>>23076451
Retards read Evolva because they he spoon feeds them what they want to hear and if they hit something they don't like, they cry foul and jump onto the next fringe faggot author.

>>23076451
Posting some opinions from /x/'s Buddhism General:
I'm biased because I got into spirituality mostly thanks to Evola and into Buddhism by reading The Doctrine of Awakening.
I think it's the best possible introduction for westerners, despite Evola's obvious mistakes. That's because it demolishes both the mainstream and the nietzschean view of Buddhism, while giving a pretty solid basic understanding of its core philosophy and, most importantly, practice. I particularly appreciate his effort to offer parallels with western philosophy's concepts, making them more digestible.
The best and at the same time worst aspect is that he's quite persuasive at arguing that you can simply take the teachings of the Buddha and skip the parts about compassion and benevolence. Personally, I'm pretty sure that without this notion I would have never started practicing, but at the same time practice is slowly leading me towards compassion and right view.

Agreed. Evola is very good at exposing the "essence" of what he covers most of the time, but sometimes he does pour some bias in. I think his disregard for the compassion part of Buddhism was in part because of his own predispositions, and in part as an overcorrection against the western interpretations that lean too hard on the humanitarian aspects. I also think his reasoning was that universal compassion might have contraddicted what he viewed as universal doctrines like the hierarchy of beings, but compassion does not necessarily entail ontological egalitarianism in the way Christian doctrine did - which I think was at least partly responsable for tainting the concept in his mind.
I also agree on the parallels with western philosophy, they really make certain concepts click.

Very good, actually it's what got me into buddhism. There are issues, for one he didn't have the best pali resources (e.g. he mistranslates asava as "intoxication" or "mania") and he sometimes veers into teaching Evolism instead of Buddhism. The worst of this is one point where he claims nibbana is the negative formulation of the Absolute and atman is the positive formulation—though he doesn't inject that into the discussion of anatta, which is actually good. But on the whole, he gets the essence of pre-sectarian Buddhism if not the form. I do also like his criticism of Mahayana as mostly a degeneration of the original teachings, since the literature overflows with the opposite polemics against "hinayana".
I believe his book also inspired Nyanamoli to ordain (through his friend Nyanavira), so it's historically significant in that respect.

>>23076451
>authentic, non-westernized introduction to buddhism
>author is a literal Italian nigger who didn't know a word of the languages that the buddhist canon is written in and solely relied on most likely inaccurate early 20th century English-language translations (while not even being fluent in English)

>>23076451
transmigration predates Buddhism and is found in the earliest Upanishads, which come from Brahamnical circles and not Dravidians

>>23076451
>this was my first book from evola, expected better tbqh
If you are interested in Julius Evola, keep reading. If Buddhism, it’s better to read “What the Buddha Taught” / “In the Buddha's Words.” (not to mention the sutras) That is, books written by practicing Buddhists or professional Buddhist scholars and orientalists. Evola did not practice Buddhism and was not a historian/philologist.
>>23076601
I don’t agree with a "nigger", the rest is yes.

>>23076451
You didn't think Budda was Chinese did you? Indian? lmao

>>23076580
>>23076848
>we wuzz buddhists n shieeet

>>23076578
>one that returns to nature like Nietzsche advocated
You should read both Nietzsche and Buddhist literature themselves directly and avoid filtration through /pol/ reading list authors; Nietzsche thought living in accordance with nature, i.e. the message of the Stoics, was a fake and gay idea. I can't imagine how much worse your reading of Buddhism is.

>>23076591
>Retards
>They he
Okay

>>23076822
He was Sicilian (I'm Italian myself so I have the pass)

>>23076578
God I hate Nietzsche. Why did anyone take that faggot seriously. Fucker has his claws in everywhere. Didn’t the other traditionalists all think Nietzsche was a degenerate modern

>>23077021
>the other traditionalists
There's like what, two or three of them? And they became Muslims (Arabization). De-gen-erate indeed. Perhaps the only thing hot wheels has going for him is not converting to turbo semitism

>>23076451
The practical part is actually pretty good. He is one of the few writers on Buddhism, I think, which puts such a deep focus on the sila/discipline of practice, and doesn't turn the path into one of concentrating on one's nostrils. And his interpretation of jhana as the natural onset of sila seems to be the most consonant with the suttas. He benefits as well from a good knowledge of the most supramundane aspects of various traditions - this helps him much more accurately interpret things like the formless dimensions which he fits nicely onto the planes of non-manifestation in the hierarchy of being. Modern writers who have little experience with transcendent states instead reduce things like the formless dimensions to simple mundane meditative states where one 'spreads' a percpetion of spaciousness after concentrating on the breath for a sufficient amount of time.

He certainly overly Evola-icises things at times, especially in the first half where he over focuses on the warrior aspect of the Buddha. But the image he gives is certainly more accurate compared to the humanitarian wishy-washy we all inherit through modern Buddhism - the Buddha of the sutta was a rather straight forward, no-bullshit man, who didn't shy away from calling large swathes of people worthless, and didn't hide away from the fact that the vast majority of householders attached themselves to nothing but their own suffering.

For someone looking for the essence of the early Buddhist teachings, I really can't think of a better book. Obviously not for your average normie who wants feel-good Buddhism, and not for your average lay follower who shies away from fathoming the extent of the world's impermanence (his chapter on the 'vocation' for followers of the Buddha is good on this topic). Books like 'What the Buddha Taught' etc. are more like apologetics for Theravada orthodoxy than a straight-forward reading of the suttas. For a direct sutta anthology, 'Life of the Buddha' by Bhikkhu Nanamoli is very good, and he himself was inspired to Buddhism like Nanavira through Evola's book.

>>23077046
What the fuck are you supposed to read to get to the primary sources. Why don’t Buddhists have a clear main text that you’re meant to read like Christians do

>>23077053
>Why don’t Buddhists have a clear main text that you’re meant to read like Christians do
We do, lurk moar.

>>23077053
The pali suttas bro, it's pretty simple. The majjhima nikaya, digha nikaya, anguttara nikaya, and samyutta nikaya are the main ones.

>>23076451
It's Evola, what were you expecting? That's like reading Moby Dick and not expecting it to be about dick and gay sex and cum and whale facts.

>>23077072
>muh jizz muh nigga yeah
>digga nigga yeah
>in gutter a nigga yeah
>semiotic nigga yeah

What did they mean by this

>>23077072
Give me a good edition IN ONE BOOK, not 50

>>23077053

>>23077127
Just get the majjhima nikaya bro. "The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha" translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi. You won't get it all in one book because its about 5000 pages.

>>23077053
>Why don’t Buddhists have a clear main text that you’re meant to read like Christians do
filtered

>>23076940
>Nietzsche thought living in accordance with nature, i.e. the message of the Stoics, was a fake and gay idea.
Not quite. Nietzsche thought the Stoics didn't live in "accordance" with nature because they wouldn't have needed to impose any form of unnatural law upon themselves if they actually were to live in according with nature. However, Nietzsche did indeed think man should live in accordance with nature.

>>23076578
>He's reconciling Nietzsche's idea of the übermensch with asceticism
Evola's argument is weak as shit. He basically only presents his thesis and that's pretty much it. Nietzsche would have regarded Evola as a platonist and destroyed him accordingly.

>>23077245
Except Nietzsche couldn't even destroy Plato. He rejects every transcendent possibility, insists on "affirming life", says there is no world but this very Earth. Then on the other hand he bemoans the Earth's inhabitants for being human-all-too-human, and at the same time complains that any of the millennia-old systems of practice that transcend humanity are "life-denying".

>>23077245
>they wouldn't have needed to impose any form of unnatural law upon themselves if they actually were to live in according with nature
It's misleading to parse him as saying "live according to nature." He upholds nature as a reversion to what was opposed by Christian nihilism or world denial. But here we run the risk of perhaps platonizing Nature, or of becoming Spinozists. Rather it is the anti-natural that should give us pause in our evaluations. For instance where the critique of asceticism comes into place, because the opposition to life or to nature, unless it is coming from a position of (Greek) abundance where such temperance is necessary, is for Nietzsche an ulterior or subterranean movement, one which seeks to employ reason to undermine a stronger, healthier opponent. Someone who lives by reducing himself, to create an impression of holiness, is to be suspect. Nietzche has a very specific view here in his terminology—we might consider his denunications of alcoholism in Germany to be a call for ascetic practice, but they in fact highlight to us he means something else entirely from the layman. And his affinity for Dionysus suggests alcohol, or at least wine, is not inherently "bad." This is no call for a universal ethics as you must know. According nature—whose?

>>23077046
>which puts such a deep focus on the sila/discipline of practice
This is very common in Tibetan Buddhism in general. Read any lamrim text like Tsongkhapa's Lamrim Chenmo, Gampopa's Jewel Ornament of Liberation, or Patrul Rinpoche's Words of My Perfect Teacher.

>>23077046
>calling large swathes of people worthless
Do you have any quotes? What do you mean by worthless?

>>23076451
>.....this as an authentic, non-westernized introduction to buddhism,

you goddamn morons

>>23077815
It really shits on the traditionally western interpretation.

>>23077245
>Nietzsche would have regarded Evola as a platonist and destroyed him accordingly.

Based. The only spiritual doctrine compatible with Nietzsche is Mormonism

>>23077385
In Genealogy Nietzsche demonstrates quite convincingly that the traditionalist metaphysic is an inverted nihilism. Once you see it you can't unsee it. I think he was wrong in his criticism of Parsifal tho