He solved ontology

DESCARTED DID EVERYTHING WRONG

To the contrary, he made a bunch of unfalsifiable metaphysical claims without providing any justification for them, in the process only sketching out the barest outline of an ontology and ensuring that there would arise dozens of competing versions of his ontology such that nobody even really knows what his ontological model was

That's why you need to practice the eightfold path. Unbecoming is not available to the unprepared.

>you need to agree with something to agree with something

>he made a bunch of unfalsifiable metaphysical claims
Pretty much everything he claims is logically sound. Dependent origination, which is the foundation of Buddhist ontology, only requires the assumption of karma. All of the stuff with gods and demons, heavens and hells, and supernatural powers are probably bullshit, but that's a vestigial part of Hinduism

There reaches a point where one has to admit that there are limits to the quality of knowledge derived from pure empiricism alone, and that in order to really reach the truth of things one has to be prepared to accept the existence of an unconditioned truth of things in order for anything to make sense (less they succumb to their idea that everything is just a chaotic mess of arbitrary information.)

>Pretty much everything he claims is logically sound.
That depends on what you believed he claimed, which is widely disputed by Buddhists themselves. Dependent origination, rebirth, karma, Nirvana, and the two marks of existence other than Dhukka are all unfalsifiable metaphysical claims. This in itself is not necessarily a bad thing, but absent any internally consistent explanations for WHY those things are the way they are (such as one finds in humungous amounts in some of the main writings of Vedanta or Sufism, or even late Mahayana with regard to their respective metaphysical claims for example, and I bring this up because Buddha never addressed a number of key points and questions); than you can't seriously claim that Buddha solved ontology (which is what OP claimed and is all that I was objecting to); because absent consistent explanations which can be explained to and evaluated by neutral 3rd parties there is just "lol just accept/practice it and it becomes self-evidently true that it solves ontology" which is retarded because everyone says that about their pet doctrine too.

>Dependent origination, which is the foundation of Buddhist ontology, only requires the assumption of karma.
>All of the stuff with gods and demons, heavens and hells, and supernatural powers are probably bullshit, but that's a vestigial part of Hinduism
No matter how many times I see it the "Everything that my materialist and rationalist western views disagree with wasn't actually taught and believed by Buddha and the first Buddhists" ploy never fails to elicit a smile on my face. It's ironic that you say this when the entire metaphysical framework of early Buddhism largely comes from the pre-Buddhist Upanishads, Hindu Samhkya and Jainism (which itself also largely takes from the first Upanishads) Dependent origination taken as anything other than a partial part of a larger and more central explanation for existence is incoherent and illogical and amounts to the reification of cause and effect as some sort of quasi-Demiurge comprised of causality (which is what happens if you say it's why there is samsara/existence but without explaining why or how this exists in the first place which is what Buddha did according to the PC). Nevermind that much of Mahayana views it as a lesser conditional explanation and reject causality at higher levels of doctrine. There are various other things one can point to as illogical that Buddha (may have) taught; and there are innumerable critiques of these ideas by Hindu thinkers and various Buddhist thinkers critiquing other Buddhist sects they disagree with who claim to be elucidating concepts that group believed he taught; so you'd have to identify a specific sub-school and which era of its doctrines you consider to be without major flaws in their logic before we could go deeper on that subject.

>All of the stuff with gods and demons, heavens and hells, and supernatural powers are probably bullshit, but that's a vestigial part of Hinduism
Bhuddism isn't Lokoyata.
In fact early Bhuddism heavily disagreed with them.

It's fine if you practise Lokoyata but don't call it Bhuddism.

Based. Sorry for basic question, but where do I /begin with Buddhism/? Can you tell me a specific text and translation, if possible? Could you also tell me where Buddhism and Advaita disagree with eachother?

>What is Enlightenment, you ask? Well, my child, how does one contemplate the Noble Paths when one has a shoe on thy head and not in thy foot? Verily, the cat ate the grasshopper, and all was one hand clapping. (Diamond Sutra 3:21a)

Buddha is a fucking hack

Attached: GettyImages-577093095-565cc1ce3df78c6ddf6800dd.jpg (768x512, 45K)

It makes sense to begin with basic Theravada generally because much of the material the Theravada is based on (e.g. the Pali Canon) is also found in the various canons collections (albeit with some small differences in content) accepted in Mahayana. The Mahayana schools generally also have additional texts as part of their canon (or if not in the official canon as highly revered texts) which they hold that the Buddha taught or that were composed very early on based on that principles he taught. These additional texts add further concepts onto the already existent base teachings shared by all schools. This is somewhat of a simplification and generalization; but Theravada is more of an extended exegesis on the Pali Canon (PC) and what doctrines and types of meditation etc can be deduced from it; while the greater variety of texts/concepts accepted in Mahayana and its record of interaction with tantra/daoism/etc means that there is much deeper and more complex philosophical/metaphysical tradition with less of an exclusive emphasis on the PC (which is not to say that there isn't a deep well of Theravadin writings but that they broach a much smaller range of ideas).

To begin with the 'base' concepts from a Theravadin perspective, you can read "What the Buddha Taught" by Walpola Rahula and/or "In the Buddha's Words" by Bodhi. The first of these is a well-written concise intro to the main concepts with brief portions of the PC. The second is a more dense and in depth intro/explanation of the main concepts, but is done more by a number of long selections of texts from the PC that speak for themselves. If you are not used to reading Buddhist literature/doctrine it may be better to start with Rahula's and move onto Bodhi's, but you could also start with Bodhi's too. If you also want a very easy and short primary text the Dhammapada is good, its meaning is so simple and obvious (and thus hard to mess up by mistranslating) you could just order whatever translation is rated the highest on amazon tbqh.

Once you read these if you want to explore Buddhist writings/philosophy/metaphysics more in depth I'd highly recommend (once you are already appraised with the basics) Mark Siderites "Buddhism as Philosophy" which at once gives a rough history of the various major schools, their major doctrines and intellectual developments, and has many illustrative comparisons to western philosophy. From reading about all the different types of Buddhist thought in his book, you'll be able to figure out what seems the most interesting to you and from there you can begin to research what texts to read from that school.

>Could you also tell me where Buddhism and Advaita disagree with eachother?
It entirely depends on what Buddhist school you mean, they range from being almost complete opposites to nearly identical,