/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19093206]

What are the most important sutras to read after this?
Could someone explain to me in what order I should read all of the commentaries (Nagarjuna's four hundred stanzas, the Madhyamakavatara, etc)?
Also is there any western philosophy with which I can complement my reading on madhyamaka/yogacara?

[Anonymous No.19093264]

>>19093206
The 400 stanzas are Aryadeva's. The root text those comment on is Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika. The Madhyamakavatara is Chandrakirti's commentary on Madhyamaka, Nagarjuna's school of thought. Nagarjuna himself is just systematizing the Prajñaparamita sutra(s). The Heart Sutra also does this but sutra form rather than philosophical verse. Sextus Empiricus has some similarity with Nagarjuna but there's no soteriology to skepticism as in Buddhism. Some similarities also in Spinoza, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Whitehead, etc., but none of them are equivalent, just more classical than medieval in their western-ness, which brings them closer to India.

[Anonymous No.19093318]

>>19093264
So should the reading order be Nagarjuna > Madhyamakavatara > 400 stanzas? Should I also read the Prajnaparamita sutra? I'm really interested in the sunyata, mind only and related stuff but the amount of literature is overwhelming.
>Sextus Empiricus
Really? I found his Outlines extremely dry.
Would you say there is no western philosopher with real proximity to Mahayana philosophy? What about Fichte, Husserl and Heidegger? I see their names thrown around occasionally.

[Anonymous No.19093346]

>>19093206
What you should read next in terms of Buddhist sutras and philosophers depend on which school you are interested in. As for which western philosophers you should study, the Neoplatonists and Schopenhauer come the closest to Buddhist philosophy, particularly the yogachara school.

[Anonymous No.19093362]

>>19093318
Nagarjuna presupposes you are already a Buddhist and has a terse writing style per the karika genre conventions. You should check out the nikayas if you haven't, ie. the sutra collections from the Pali Canon, either the Long or Medium-Length Discourses, or both. Things like dependent origination, nirvana, samsara, lower-case dharmas in the sense of phenomena or existents. Otherwise what Nagarjuna is talking about will be hard to follow. Some people argue Heidegger ripped off Zen. I don't really know. But Zen itself comes from Chan, and Chan comes from Huayan, a Chinese Mahayana school. It will take you a long time to read through all the material that leads to phenomenology and Zen if you are interested in that direction.

[Anonymous No.19093393]

>>19093346
For now, Mahayana in general. I don't really know where to go, the parts of Buddhism I find the most compelling are sunyata, anicca and anatta but past that I couldn't say.
>>19093362
Yup I've read almost all of the Majjhima Nikaya so I think I have a decent enough background to dive into the Mahayana stuff now. I'm interested in Zen as well but that's another thing altogether. In order I'd say I'd like to learn about Madhyamaka and Yogacara first, then Zen, then the rest (Tibetan, Tiantai and Japanese Buddhism)
This is gonna take years but it's an interesting subject.

[Anonymous No.19093463]

>>19093393
Tibetan is interesting, they've got some of the only copies of the Sanskrit Mahayana texts, even for the schools they largely reject or consider inferior.

[Anonymous No.19093563]

As far as these "discrete" sutras go you also have the Lotus Sutra, the Heart Sutra, the Flower Garland Sutra, and the Platform Sutra. The Heart Sutra is super short, though, so even though the first portion of the Diamond Sutra is often said to be just a rehashing of it, you can blast through it quick.

BROADLY, Mahayana falls into two camps: those who dwell on Madhyamaka skepticism, and those who take up something akin to idealism. Dharmakirti and Dignaga both fall into that latter camp.

[Anonymous No.19093591]

>>19093206
the kama sutra cuz it's got hot chicks in it

[Anonymous No.19093594]

>>19093563
I've read the Heart Sutra. I'm not sure which sutra to read next: Lotus, Platform, Lankavatara...? The Avatamsaka sutra is long and I'd rather read Cleary's introduction to it first when I get to Huayen.
>Madhyamaka skepticism
Are there any good authors and commentaries on this, and do any extant sects of Buddhism subscribe to that kind of interpretation?
>something akin to idealism
"mind only"?

[Anonymous No.19093622]

>>19093594
Mainline Tibetan (Gelug) is strict Madhyamaka following Chandrakirti's approach, which Tibetan doxographers call "prasangika," it's where you basically accept none of the opposing view's premises, syllogisms etc.. Everything is immediately deconstructed. How effective that is, is a matter of opinion

[Anonymous No.19093726]

>>19093622
Is Tibetan Buddhism worth studying if you don't have a guru to give you the unwritten knowledge?

[Anonymous No.19093748]

>>19093726
The only Tibetan-original Buddhist I've read is Mipham. I have mostly focused on Indian texts, some Chinese and Japanese.

[Anonymous No.19093783]

>>19093594
>do any extant sects of Buddhism subscribe to that kind of interpretation?
Chan/Zen is pretty hardcore Madhyamaka. There's a big Chan/Pure-Land overlap in China, so I'd almost say that anywhere Mahayana that isn't Tibet could probably have a similar focus on ephemerality and the flaws of language.

[Anonymous No.19093785]

>>19093783
I should add: they aren't skeptical OF the Madhyamaka, they're skeptical BECAUSE of the Madhyamaka. "All Dharmas are Empty" entails a skepticism which rejects making Ultimately True statements, only Conventionally True ones (or at least argues that it's really fucking hard and the slapping people with sticks and pointing at stuff is easier).

[Anonymous No.19093975]

>>19093726
It’s entirely possible to study the Hinayana and Mahayana (exoteric) aspects of Tibetan Buddhism without a guru. However, a guru is definitely necessary to study the Vajrayana (esoteric) aspect.

[Anonymous No.19094216]

>>19093206
>Also is there any western philosophy with which I can complement my reading on madhyamaka/yogacara?
hegel if you have the time, his notion of spirit/dialectics goes really well but concepts like sunyata or anatta

[Anonymous No.19094276]

>>19093346
>the Neoplatonists
aren't the neoplatonics to focused on the dichotomy of the immanent/trascendent worlds?

[Anonymous No.19094797]

>>19094276
Yes. There’s a lot of differences between Neoplatonism and Yogachara, but it is one of the only significant strains of western philosophy that agrees with the Yogachara idea that the multiplicity of being arising from the original unity of being. This type of thinking doesn’t (significantly) occur in the western world again until the German idealists, particularly Schopenhauer.

[Anonymous No.19094808]

>>19094797
>idea that
*idea of

[Anonymous No.19094838]

>>19094797
>Yogachara idea that the multiplicity of being arising from the original unity of being
Is that a weird reading of the dharmakaya concept because otherwise not sure where you're getting it from?

[Anonymous No.19095888]

>>19094216
>goes really well with concepts like sunyata or anatta

sorry for the typota8pw

[Anonymous No.19096240]

>>19094797
>original unity of being
I thought Buddhism wasn't monistic

[Anonymous No.19096946]

>>19094216
also the concept of being by determination, that is, an object is giving being not from a first substance or principle, but by being determinated in relationship with everything else,hegel goes against an ontoogy of substance for one of relations,is really similar to the idea of sunyata

[Anonymous No.19097576]

>>19093264
These huge Buddha/Kannon statues are very visually pleasing