Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


Discord Now Fully Linked With 420chan IRC

Eastern & Oriental Philosophy

- Mon, 05 Sep 2016 18:51:55 EST di4PvVP1 No.206706
File: 1473115915971.png -(4451174B / 4.24MB, 1500x1907) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Eastern & Oriental Philosophy
Anyone got any good recommendations on Eastern/Oriental philosophers & works??
Charlotte Clummertid - Mon, 05 Sep 2016 21:59:37 EST +BFEaDp4 No.206707 Reply
1473127177449.jpg -(190001B / 185.55KB, 577x600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Bhagavad Gita. The Prabhupada translation is great, just remember that the Purports are like, his opinion.
Similarly, there is Aphorisms of Shiva, translated by Dyczkowski.
Of course the works of Confucius are all on .edu sites, easily googlable.
Tao Teh Ching is pretty rad, as is I Ching.
I would avoid the later schools of Buddhism, stick as close as possible to Gautama.
How far west is allowed? The Gathas are pretty cool.
Polly Buzzbury - Tue, 06 Sep 2016 04:50:19 EST FSAozKjO No.206709 Reply

>I would avoid the later schools of Buddhism, stick as close as possible to Gautama.

Why do you say that?
Simon Semmernod - Tue, 06 Sep 2016 08:13:25 EST 54PBc7Id No.206710 Reply
Buddhism is stupid. It's philosophy for plebs. It's not the philosophy of Buddha, it's the philosophy of his followers.
Buddha, however, was beyond brilliant, and his philosophy is very much worth reading.
Ernest Fandleridge - Wed, 07 Sep 2016 15:55:38 EST 54PBc7Id No.206715 Reply
I've thoroughly studied Buddhism. I was once pretty Buddhist, until I started to realize the fatal flaws of Buddhism and it's obsession with dogmas and over-obsession with self-sacrifice. Buddhists care waaaay too much about life and peace for people who's end-game is the annihilation of everything (Nirvana). Buddhism stands against quite a bit that Buddha stood for. Buddha was brilliant in terms of philosophy, psychology and science in general, but the path he traveled was completely his own, and what he discovered on his path was coincidentally monumental to humanity at the time, but then others selfishly attempted to copy his style and his adventure, to get closer to enlightenment. If it were up to Buddha, Buddhism probably wouldn't exist.

That being said, I am also very familiar with new-age western Buddhism. It's a complete fucking joke. A real opiate for faux-philosophers in search of a deep hard-on.
the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Thu, 08 Sep 2016 05:49:03 EST vano1wpA No.206718 Reply
One of the finest works of literary philosophy in world history is chapter 2 of the Zhuangzi, the Qiwulun, "The Discourse Which Equalizes". It might not be an exaggeration to say that fully grasping its parables and aphorisms would entail the end of the philosopher's project of inquiry -- just as Wittgenstein claims "the real discovery is the one that lets me stop doing philosophy when I want to."

The Daodejing is so telegraphic as to be uselessly obscure, made worse in translation. Confucius is dry as dust. Read the Zhuangzi. You won't be disappointed.
Nathaniel Cummlebig - Thu, 08 Sep 2016 11:57:44 EST 54PBc7Id No.206721 Reply
Wow, you got me. Oh wait, no you didn't.
>But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, he said, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. Not at the head, where a fatal wound might result. But at some other body part, such as a leg. - Dalai Lama
Look at that. Buddhists refuse to kill even when they're being killed, just like I said, just like this quote also says.

I've never heard of this Zuangzi book, but I do love Taoism so I'm sure I must check it out. As for Confucius, he's literally brilliant. If you wanna know how to be the most upstanding human being you can be, you have to read Confucius. So what if he spends all his time working out things mechanically and practically instead of just purely idealistically.

Enlightenment is a dumb word, like God, or truth; all things that can be conceived but never found.

I think weaklings pursue enlightenment to escape the suffering they face in life. I much prefer the Taoist/Cynic approach to suffering.
Graham Mocklefoot - Fri, 09 Sep 2016 00:49:33 EST PxrRpKT6 No.206723 Reply
mostly good suggestions, but i'd disagree with the last statement.
i find tibetan buddhism v interesting, in particular the nyingma tradition. i especially like chogyam trungpa's writings. he seems to take this psychological approach to buddhism's teachings. i recommend The Myth of Freedom.
i'd also recommend this translation of the Bhagavad-Gita where it's in verse, called the Song Divine. If nothing else, it's an easy-to-remember summary, although it also draws from the Gaudiya Vaishnava school of thought.
the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Sat, 10 Sep 2016 05:15:51 EST vano1wpA No.206730 Reply
There is very good reason to believe the Zhuangzi actually predates the Daodejing in anything resembling its current recension; see A.C. Graham on this. Laozi makes cameos as "Lao Dan", however, and it is altogether possible that Master Lao makes his first appearance as a character in the Zhuangzi. If the literary voice of Zhuangzi is a Daoist, he doesn't know it.
Martha Buzzford - Fri, 23 Sep 2016 06:15:32 EST FSAozKjO No.206909 Reply

Ashin Wirathu is to Buddhism as Terry Jones is to Christianity. They completely miss the point.
Thomas Duvingshaw - Wed, 12 Oct 2016 09:08:04 EST FSAozKjO No.207010 Reply

>Basically it's about rejection of desire. Correct?

It's more about suffering, understanding suffering and finding ways to end it. Letting go of attachment to the impermanent objects of desire is one of those ways
Sophie Clicklespear - Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:24:02 EST 2MEhxJfr No.207011 Reply
That's sort of what I meant.
Suffering is based on desire. Dukkha. You push away what you hate and draw close what you love. This is why you suffer.
Ernest Snodhood - Wed, 12 Oct 2016 15:17:32 EST 54PBc7Id No.207012 Reply
Suffering is a wonderful thing.
Fuck the Buddhists and their aversion to it. Fuck the stoics, too.
Sidney Songerson - Sat, 15 Oct 2016 22:15:13 EST p5NHMmXv No.207060 Reply
You might be interested in Augustine of hippo's literature.
Nicholas Dullerville - Mon, 17 Oct 2016 10:20:28 EST 54PBc7Id No.207063 Reply
Well, as much as we love to feel pleasure and hate to feel suffering, the truth is that both are double-edged swords. Feel too much pleasure and you become imbalanced. Feel too much suffering and you become imbalanced. Too much of either will make you weaker, but getting just enough of both will make you grow greatly. Enough pleasure to keep you going, and enough suffering you keep you on your toes.

And I say fuck the Buddhists because they take a stance against suffering like AA does against alcohol; they essentially ruin a lot of their own life just to avoid something that really isn't intrinsically bad. Stoics are the same way. I see these people as literally crippled by fear, they just get so used to being crippled by fear that they don't even realize they're crippled by fear and they can't feel their own fear.
the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Tue, 18 Oct 2016 02:56:16 EST vano1wpA No.207075 Reply
The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā isn't self-explanatory and was never meant to be. The verses were intended to be memorized by the student and recited back to the teacher, who would then give a lengthy explication of their meaning in an accompanying commentary. A reader coming at Nāgārjuna cold, 2100 years later, without reading a commentary, is going to understand next to nothing.
Phoebe Claydock - Tue, 18 Oct 2016 21:34:58 EST +xn4V4fu No.207087 Reply
>And I say fuck the Buddhists because they take a stance against suffering like AA does against alcohol; they essentially ruin a lot of their own life just to avoid something that really isn't intrinsically bad.
just google the happiest man on earth.
Angus Turveyway - Wed, 19 Oct 2016 10:22:59 EST 54PBc7Id No.207094 Reply
I'm not impressed whatsoever. I could become the happiest man in the world if I wanted, it would just cost me too much. And I don't mean in terms of money. But I'm already extremely happy every day doing what I do in life, even whilst accepting and feeling all my hardships and sorrow.
Angus Turveyway - Wed, 19 Oct 2016 10:25:17 EST 54PBc7Id No.207095 Reply
Like, you can't quantify happiness, so it's stupid to call someone the happiest man in the world, anyway. Literally, if the happiest person in the world was actually sad all the time, no one would even know or be able to tell, they'd just assume he's the happiest guy in the world because he presents himself as such. The outside is different from the inside, and the inside is almost completely unknowable unless you are the inside, itself.
Fucking Dullerbat - Wed, 19 Oct 2016 13:38:02 EST 0+rqkmOa No.207096 Reply
Brain scans reveal French monk has 'abnormally large capacity' for joy - thanks to meditation
Brain scans reveal Buddhist monk Matthieu Ricard has largest capacity for happiness ever recorded

Neuroscientist Richard Davidson wired up the monk's skull with 256 sensors at the University of Wisconsin as part of research on hundreds of advanced practitioners of meditation.
The scans showed that when meditating on compassion, Ricard's brain produces a level of gamma waves - those linked to consciousness, attention, learning and memory - 'never reported before in the neuroscience literature', Davidson said.
The scans also showed excessive activity in his brain's left prefrontal cortex compared to its right counterpart, giving him an abnormally large capacity for happiness and a reduced propensity towards negativity, researchers believe.
Angus Turveyway - Wed, 19 Oct 2016 16:14:45 EST 54PBc7Id No.207097 Reply
If pure happiness is your goal, then fellow this guy's lead.
It's not my goal, therefore I'm not following his lead.
Some of us savor our suffering.
Polly Smallspear - Sat, 29 Oct 2016 09:31:24 EST nrMZmil1 No.207133 Reply

You're trying to act like a total smartass about eastern philosophy and claim to "love Taoism" but you've never even heard of the Zhuangzi? Lol, exemplary of image-board pretension.
Charlotte Pashbetch - Mon, 31 Oct 2016 10:03:01 EST 54PBc7Id No.207135 Reply
>Hey smartass, you've never even heard of Zhuangzi?
>You are so pretentious.

You are so ironic.
Charles Handletod - Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:52:00 EST nrMZmil1 No.207136 Reply

You don't know what pretentious means. Let me give you the basic google definition: "attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed."

Anyone who claims to know a lot about the philosophy behind Taoism but has never even HEARD of the Zhuangzi, is clearly just trying to make themselves seem more well read than they really are.

You pathetic knob.
Shit Goodfoot - Tue, 01 Nov 2016 09:40:44 EST 54PBc7Id No.207137 Reply
You're clearly trying to impress my with your knowledge of a single writer's work out of all the Taoist writers because your opinion is such that this writer is too-significant to miss, so yeah, you're ironically pretentious and hilariously oblivious to it.

But really, what's more pathetic than elitists who'd rather wave around their credentials than actually talk philosophy?
Wesley Murdfuck - Tue, 01 Nov 2016 12:39:45 EST FSAozKjO No.207138 Reply

Expecting the people you're having a discussion with to have a basic knowledge of the thing you're discussing isn't elitism. The Zhuangzi is mentioned in the second paragraph of the wikipedia article on Taoism and is one of the most well-known and influential works of Chinese literature ever written.

Funnily enough the most arrogant posts I see in this thread are from the people who make grand proclamations and denounce things they seem to know little about.
Shit Goodfoot - Tue, 01 Nov 2016 14:17:36 EST 54PBc7Id No.207139 Reply
Don't be an elitist. You can study Taoism without studying Zhuangzi; he's literally one of several key writers. You don't see me talking down to people just for never reading the modern Taoist works like the writings of Bruce Lee or Taoist Koans from all throughout the centuries.
Clara Dondlegold - Wed, 02 Nov 2016 20:28:08 EST nrMZmil1 No.207141 Reply

>modern Taoist works like the writings of Bruce Lee or Taoist Koans

Is this you trying to just troll now that you've realized you're being a dumbass or something?

I just wish image board nerds could approach intellectual discussions with some humility and honesty in seeking after knowledge and not just try to peddle basic opinions on high school reductions of super diverse philosophical schools.
Simon Crobberhall - Thu, 03 Nov 2016 14:19:49 EST 54PBc7Id No.207145 Reply
>I just wish image board nerds could approach intellectual discussions with some humility and honesty in seeking after knowledge and not just try to peddle basic opinions on high school reductions of super diverse philosophical schools.

You mean like discussing philosophy with people who haven't read the exact same philosophers' works as you?

It's easy to start a philosophical discussion, you just have to talk about philosophy and not be like, 'Well, you aren't familiar with this writer, so, shut the fuck up.'

If you love Taoism but you haven't read Bruce Lee, you're missing out. Like, Bruce Lee is a fascinating philosopher, and here you are calling me a dumbass for owning some of his books.

Jesus Christ the egos on this board.
Lydia Crenningkine - Fri, 04 Nov 2016 12:24:40 EST nrMZmil1 No.207152 Reply

You have the big ego here. You should've admitted your relative ignorance a long time ago. I have no interest in actually talking about philosophy with someone who says shit like "Buddhism is stupid. It's philosophy for plebs." I could try to point you towards educating yourself further, that's true. But I don't give that big of a fuck. I'm just here to call you out because your kind of discussion shouldn't be stomached on the internet and people need to make that more clear.

Koans are from Zen Buddhism, not Taoism. The two have close relations, of course.
Caroline Deddlestone - Fri, 04 Nov 2016 15:52:13 EST 54PBc7Id No.207153 Reply
1478289133818.jpg -(63117B / 61.64KB, 600x475) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>I'm just here to call you out because your kind of discussion shouldn't be stomached on the internet and people need to make that more clear.
Oh boy, you've saved the internet today, Sir Knight.

>Admitted your ignorance
My ignorance of one writer makes me unworthy of your discussion time? Yet this level of pettiness is worth your time?

Stop giving such a big fuck and just discuss philosophy. You'd have an easier time expanding your mind if you weren't being so stuck up. I'm here to talk philosophy, not bitch with people like you about petty shit.

Taoist Koans exist, and you'd know that if you'd read them. So do Buddhist Koans. I've read quite a bit of them both.

And I can talk shit on Buddhism all I want. It's an incredibly flawed philosophy. And that has always upset me, because Siddhartha was a genius, and I hate looking at Buddhism because it's such a shitty attempt at merely copying Siddhartha's genius, except only in effort. No one can relive Siddhartha's situation, no one can think the way Siddhartha thought, so it bothers me to see these devout Buddhists trying so hard to get enlightened via the vehicle known as Buddhism. Buddhism is just another crappy religion; and that is what it is at this point, a religion rather than a philosophy.

We're totally free to talk Buddhism and Taoism all you want, if you'd care to actually say anything about either.
Lydia Crenningkine - Fri, 04 Nov 2016 16:56:32 EST nrMZmil1 No.207154 Reply

>trying to call me a white knight for making fun of someone for being ignorant

Nice reach. You don't even know about basic internet culture. It's kind of amazing that you've allowed your call out to be dragged out like this.

Koans are quite specifically a Zen tradition. I mean, I guess people may have made distinctively "Taoist" varieties. They're probably either obscure or just Taoist literature that people have felt the need to label "koans," which sounds like little more than new age homogenizing of Eastern traditions.

You can try as much as you want to make this about how I'm trying to arbitrarily get you for not reading random specific writers. That's only a narrative that you've made up to make yourself feel better, though, because in reality this is just about you not knowing much of the history and ideas behind what you're talking about. Learn before you spout your mouth off, because you're impressing no one.
Charlotte Nusslebune - Sat, 05 Nov 2016 11:48:31 EST shmK6ute No.207157 Reply
The sad thing here is that, while either person in this argument may be correct given my ignorance on the subject, both sound like petty egotistical douches for arguing with the other so extensively and together have thwarted any chance at reasoned discussion and learning.

Since my ego is /pss/sized too, you ought to know that the real biggest man just stops replying or uses delicate sensitivity to garner a productive discussion. That you've both taken to shittalking each other is proof that you suck or something like that etc phlisopholy /board
Henry Blinnerfine - Sat, 05 Nov 2016 12:42:37 EST nrMZmil1 No.207159 Reply

I'm going to call people out for being arrogant douchebags that don't know what they're talking about and I'm not gonna apologize for that. Continue to shitpost and try to muck up drama, though. It's always smart to fuel that fire, right?
Charlotte Lightshaw - Fri, 11 Nov 2016 14:21:34 EST 54PBc7Id No.207194 Reply
>Shit talking
That's cool, except while my opponent was shit-talking me I was busy trying to explain to them the reasons why our logic didn't match up, mainly that we both had different definitions for the same words and that when one of us used a word colloquially the other would use it in a literal manner. I tried to respectfully bridge the gaps in our logic but he insulted me for attempting it so I was like, 'well fuck it.' I practice sensitivity quite a lot in my philosophizing, yet people still respond with that whole fight/flight bullshit when they're faced with information that proves them erroneous, and so they respond angrily no matter how courteous I am.
Hannah Gennerchutch - Fri, 11 Nov 2016 15:54:23 EST nrMZmil1 No.207201 Reply

How fucking pretentious can you get about what was ultimately just you not knowing about Taoist literature.
Charlotte Lightshaw - Fri, 11 Nov 2016 16:10:27 EST 54PBc7Id No.207205 Reply
>How fucking pretentious can you get about what was ultimately just you not knowing about Taoist literature.
Ah get the fuck over yourself. I was talking about my discussion of capitalism as a meritocracy anyway. You know, maybe if you'd actually talk philosophy with people instead of bitching you'd have a better time on this board. Like, why are you even on this board when all you do is bitch at me? I don't see you partaking in any philosophy here. Here's something to philosophize about; Why are you even on this board?

Not to mention I brought up Taoist philosophy/philosophers that clearly you people aren't familiar with, but oh I forgot, apparently Bruce Lee isn't a credible source, even though I'm apparently the only person on this board who even knew he was a Taoist philosopher in his life time. It's just so easy as a philosopher to discredit the works of philosophers you've never read while jerking off over the same shit everyone else reads when they study the subject. Talk about a lack of self-education and critical-thought, just like the stupid fucking kids I had to work with in my Philosophy minor in college. They're all familiar with the philosophers everyone is familiar with and the philosophies everyone already knows like that's somehow impressive.
Samuel Summlestock - Fri, 11 Nov 2016 17:23:48 EST 0aDGMcny No.207212 Reply
As the person who you were arguing with about meritocracy, I just have to point out that I have never posted in this thread, and so am not hiding behind one of the people you are arguing with. If you're using that argument with me to back up what you're saying to this other guy, you're confusing different people. I am, by no means, just bitching at you, and I don't think anyone else is either, they're just responding to your posts. It's easy to imagine all the people arguing against you are some monolithic entity on an imageboard, especially on the spur of the moment if you forget to check the ID.
Edwin Bandlekan - Mon, 14 Nov 2016 09:48:58 EST nrMZmil1 No.207235 Reply

>Ah get the fuck over yourself. I was talking about my discussion of capitalism as a meritocracy anyway.

You're confused. You're getting threads mixed up.

>Not to mention I brought up Taoist philosophy/philosophers that clearly you people aren't familiar with

You brought up Bruce Lee who everyone knows has studied philosophy and "Taoist koans" which I've already expressed my opinion on - that it's something you either made up, read on someone's blog, or some other obscure shit like that - it shows a complete misunderstanding of the history of East Asian spiritual traditions. So mostly you've reinforced that your ignorant of these subjects.

You're a loser. I'm pretty sure you're an anti-semite and a Randroid. Do I take pleasure in pointing out how people like you don't know anything? Hell yeah. Rethink your fucking life.
Shitting Fessletot - Mon, 14 Nov 2016 17:54:12 EST 0aDGMcny No.207237 Reply
Can this thread /thread please? I'm tired of seeing you guys having a pissing match about eastern philosophies always at the top of the board. You're both idiots, happy?
Edwin Bandlekan - Mon, 14 Nov 2016 18:30:30 EST nrMZmil1 No.207241 Reply

I'm pretty sure you're the idiot here. Oh did that feel like me just jumping in to randomly say something? I'm making myself sound real superior here so you should take it to heart.
Shitting Fessletot - Mon, 14 Nov 2016 18:52:12 EST 0aDGMcny No.207243 Reply
You've dedicated the whole thread to arguing with one guy about who is smarter on eastern philosophy, and now you're going to argue that you should continue arguing? If you guys were making points, actually producing a genuine discussion, I wouldn't have a problem. But you are just reiterating yourselves on the same statements, which are all just self-aggrandizement and dick measuring, and so you both end up looking like children. But please, call me an idiot for trying to get you two to settle down and generate a nice long case for why you should keep arguing about why you're right, that will definitely make you look like the more mature one.
Phyllis Suzzletitch - Mon, 14 Nov 2016 20:14:00 EST nrMZmil1 No.207245 Reply

Oh look at that, I called them out and they attempted to instead make an intelligent response. Cute. I prefer the shitposting tenor of your original post, though.

>get you two to settle down and generate a nice long case for why you should keep arguing about why you're right

I have no idea what you're talking about and neither do you.
Alice Hoppertene - Tue, 15 Nov 2016 07:58:24 EST 54PBc7Id No.207247 Reply
Whoops, you're totally right; I totally mixed up the threads in my head the other day and thought I was talking to you when I wasn't. But seriously, clearly everyone here wants us and this other guy to be civil and stop bullshitting back and forth, so I'll say this; let's let by-gones be by-gones and discuss more philosophy going forward. You and I disagree about capitalism, this other guy doesn't want me talking about Taoism, whatever, these disagreements happen, but it's really not worth going back and forth about for weeks on end.

OP wanted eastern philosophy reading materials. Well, I want to recommend, here and now, Striking Thoughts by Bruce Lee.
If you are unfamiliar with Taoism or Eastern thought, I think Striking Thoughts is great for you. It's deep and simplistic, and best of all it's modern. Books like these are really about reshaping how you think about things so as to take a more positive and controlled look at your own life and efforts.
Phyllis Suddlenore - Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:51:17 EST 0aDGMcny No.207255 Reply
Here, here! *applauds*
See, you shoulda been like this guy. Bitching about bitching just creates a simulacrum of bitching. Was that enough shitpost tone for you?

I now take my leave of this shitty thread.
Edwin Brookfuck - Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:10:58 EST 99s04+oS No.207261 Reply
YEss, by being the bigger manm, I can gain trhree inches vicariously throuh yoU
Nathaniel Trotdock - Wed, 16 Nov 2016 14:38:55 EST nrMZmil1 No.207265 Reply

Lol it's not hard in that guy's position to stop this argument since it's just about how wrong he is.
Hedda Hoffingbit - Wed, 16 Nov 2016 15:00:29 EST 54PBc7Id No.207266 Reply
I hope you know you're doing exactly what everyone else was just complaining about. It doesn't matter which side of the argument you're on, the argument is over because it wasn't philosophical, it was just bickering.
Archie Simbleman - Thu, 17 Nov 2016 18:00:29 EST 4do4rcf2 No.207274 Reply
threads like this are why i love this board
Priscilla Blazzlehitch - Sun, 27 Nov 2016 00:14:37 EST kxpuHo+8 No.207319 Reply
Holy crap this thread, only read 1/4 of the way down, but damn guys, damn... Arguments are fun right?

At the risk of inciting another argument, I'd recommend Siddhartha by hermann hesse. Simple outline of a guy's path to enlightenment.

Geez though guys, why we always arguing?
Lillian Fecklenadge - Sun, 27 Nov 2016 02:05:59 EST 0aDGMcny No.207320 Reply
Shitting Foddlechine - Mon, 28 Nov 2016 10:14:08 EST 54PBc7Id No.207323 Reply
>a guy
That guy's Buddha, dude, lol.

But yes, Siddhartha's story is an epic one.

Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.