Is this the best introduction into Buddhism?

>>1438861
It helped me a lot in drowning out a lot of lay/folk Buddhism I got as a kid muddling up an otherwise pretty sensible soteriology.
I think it's your best bet, as it presents Buddhist philosophy in a logical progression rather than immediately jumping into a jumble of sanskrit words as many other books would.
Text is a tad tiny though, but whatever.

Approaching Buddhism as a philosophy to be learned is lel. Get some experience with practice, meditation, mindfulness, with direct insight into Buddhist principles in your daily life, and save the philosophical overviews for when they actually mean something

>>1438861
Go to your local Buddhist temple and learn there

>>1439060
Eh, true. However, having the basics down before getting into meditation is preferable. Stuff like the four noble truths, eight-fold path, five aggregates, five hindrances, etc, should be at least known, because they will make meditation more fruitful.

>>1439492
I also feel this. Meditation alone won't have a mental framework for you to "get into the spirit" of it, and it will be you just sitting confusedly for an hour or more.

The Siderits textbook provides a good background on Buddhist metaphysics and associated philosophy for Buddhists, quite simply because it starts at ground zero on what "Buddhists think." Of particular use is the explanation of the chain of origination, its links to karma, and subsequently its linkage to the importance of "letting go of small stuff, and ultimately it's all small stuff" theme in Buddhism.

File: 9780190204334.jpg (54KB, 372x400px)

54KB, 372x400px

Pic related is a more recent book on the topic. Shows how Buddhist philosophers can provide interesting insights/solutions/questions to many issues in contemporary philosophy.

>go to a temple/meditate/whatever
Is this completely necessary? If one wants to know how Buddhists view consciousness it's much better to look through the many different writings from the many different philosophers who wrote about it. Aligning yourself to the doctrines of a specific Buddhist school won't help much (remember, there are hundreds of different Buddhist schools of thought. While all will subscribe to 8 fold path, 4 noble truths, etc. there will be differences. Nagarjuna is not the same as Abidharma). But what do I know? I'm more of a hobbyist/casual reader of this stuff. Take my opinion on it with a grain of salt.

Maybe for Buddhism as a philosophy

Read the Wikipedia articles and get the general gist first

Learn the Dharma and shit, then learn the differences between Theravada, Mahayana, and Pure Land

>>1439661
If you are just interested in the theoretical and historical aspects of Buddhism then go for it. If you want to understand to whole of the Bhudism then you need to practice or have similar experience, then Buddhism is more of a practical school anyways and you will never fully understand the doctrine by just reading stuff.

>>1439683
Fair enough. I'm a dweeb that only likes theoretical things. I'm more interested in knowing their metaphysics than in practicing their metaphysics.

>>1439692
Read Doctrine of Awakening by Evola. It's my favorite introduction to Buddhism precisely because it goes so deep into the metaphysics

>>1439661
Meditation is necessary, but only because it works if you are willing to give it something of an open mind.
Don't expect visions of other worlds or New Age crap, but you can expect to make your first steps into actual psychobiology and honestly getting more patience/calm.

I also recommend reading Buddhist mini-dharma comics by Tsai Chih Chung (Zen Shouts of Nothingness is really good and the Heart Sutra as well, and Zhuangdi, while a Daoist, is also pretty good and has several lessons in the same vein).

Going to temple is not totally necessary, but it provides a social amplification for more practice (not necessarily more serious/difficult, but it gives something of a directionality on where to go and also some social networking). As well, what you get out of going to temple is near-entirely dependent on how well you jive with whatever school of thought it's with, and how you relate to the sermons being taught in the style of its priest/nun/whathaveyou.

It depends what you want. I just took a class taught by a pretty famous philosopher of Buddhism/Sanskritist and the syllabus was entirely based around this book. This is probably the best introduction to Mahayana Buddhism qua formal philosophy. If you're looking to debate the philosophical intricacies of Buddhism, this is the best that's out there.

I'm more inclined towards the anthropological end of things and I would say the best intro is "The Story of Buddhism" by Daniel Lopez. It gives a good outline of the history and philosophy of the largest streams of Buddhism. You'll get a lot more of a rounded picture of Buddhism as a religion and as a philosophy, though you're not gonna get the same premise to conclusion formal analysis.

In terms of primary source material, I would recommend starting with Patrick Olivelle's Upanishads to get a footing in indian religious philosophy (read the Brhadaranyaka and Chandogya), then read King Melinda's Questions (also cool from a historical perspective because king Melinda = Menander), then Santideva's Bodhicaryavatara and Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika.

>>1438861

Amy carpenter has a fantastic introduction to Indian Buddhist philosophy.