/lit/ - Literature

Cringe. No one can refute Guenon or the Vedas. Shankara proved that you can't disprove Shankara. Source: Shankara

>>14929695
t. never read kundakunda

>>14929697
>>14929687
I'm very skeptical, can you post some of his arguments which ostensibly refutes these things you list?

>>14929713
Samayasara

>>14929687
>refutes guenon
Literally impossible. You ousted yourself as a brainlet.

>>14929741
t. never read kundakunda

>>14929687
Jainism is fucking gay.

>>14929765
a brahmin hands written this post

>>14929765
>Jainism
Oh, he’s a gay-in? That explains all. Hurr durr don’t eat garlic. Uh, ok.

>>14929687
Cringe, the great Shankaracharya refuted Jainism in his Brahma Sutra commentary by pointing out how contradictory and nonsensical it is, pic related

>>14929726
His argument there does not apply whatsoever to Advaita Vedanta, which holds that the Self in its true nature is not an agent and is without any volition and change

>>14929775
>he thinks it's only garlic that jains avoid

>>14929778
>shankara
>advaita

shoo shoo cryptobuddhist

>>14929687
Based.

>>14929778
>Cringe, the great Shankaracharya refuted Jainism in his Brahma Sutra commentary by pointing out how contradictory and nonsensical it is, pic related
Absolutely destroyed and banished to the hellish realms (naraka) by his Holiness.

Brothers...... OP says that this man "refuted the Vedas"..... This is nonsensical.... The Vedas are revealed truth.... And therefore indisputable.... We can only elaborate on the truth of the Vedas.... We cannot question it......

>>14929687
He looks fat and a giant baby with Down’s syndrome, therefore he’s wrong

>>14929687
I have just realised.... This hylic said "refutes Guenon"......
This is impossible.... The hylic is stating impossibilities......
Piss be upon him

>>14929821
>>14929786
>>14929778
>>14929795
>>14929797
How did you exactly experience Brahman and Atman? What is the source of your delusion?

>>14929859
He touched my peepee

>>14929882
I think that was Guenon

>>14929890
It’s monsieur Guenon to your you fucking pleb

>>14929907
>f*enchman

>>14929907
A thousand apologies brother.... Monsieur Guenon (pbuh) should be honored at all times..... I have erred in my actions this day....

>>14929916
Based. Guenon (pbuh) is all merciful, all wise.

The hylic hasnt a leg to stand on brothers.........Guenon (PBUH) is with us........

>>14929963
Based!

>>14929859
cringe.........................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

>Kundakunda
kunda means cunt in my language
there, btfo

>>14930016
Based philological refutation.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

>>14929859
>How did you exactly experience Brahman and Atman?
in spiritual realization

>>14930097
Based intuitive apprehension of truth........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

>>14929775
Jainism is even worse. It is slave morality on steroids. It manages to make Protestantism look badass.

>>14929687
His body looks pretty soft. I'm skeptical.

>>14930277
its the vegetarian diet, and if you're from india, being fat is a sign of wealth and abundance.

>>14929778
>Advaita Vedanta, which holds that the Self in its true nature is not an agent and is without any volition and change
cringe

>>14930298
that's right keep cringing without offering any counter-arguments you baby

>>14930298
More like cling... to the sensual world.

>>14930321
>>14930355
(for you)

>>14930535
Cringe, you always do this my friend, you seem to be completely incapable of writing anything out in your own words, you only ever post screencaps or quotes from random sections of platonists and then act as if those are sufficient arguments in themselves when they aren't even talking about Hinduism and most of the time it's not even related to the topic of discussion. Please post an actual logical argument that one can follow and explain how it's relevant to the topic of the conversation, otherwise you're just wasting our time.

>>14930355
>>14930321
ignore
>>14930535

>>14930588
>ignore
I ignored both ;)

>>14930568
>>14930597
The One is beyond rest and motion, beyond self and otherness, beyond unity and difference.
Likewise the Unified/Being, is both rest and motion, both self and otherness, both unity and difference. As Plato proved in his Sophist (243-249d)and Parmenides and Philebus.

Choice is good, the mystery of choice begets the capacity for evil.
Therefore there is evil for otherwise Necessity would enslave us, and herself then be evil.
The power and mystery of choice has made each soul that is here to be here longer than it was meant to be according to Necessity.
These choices produce pain, for we have in a way fallen from heaven (or so it appears to our now far more limited souls).
This pain is nothing but the innate "knowledge" that there is more, that we could be more. The irony is that it was the exact same Will that made us decline from what we believe is heaven.
The One is infinite, we can always rise higher, closer—and every step up the ladder of love is ecstasy, and seeing the step above is suffering (for suffering is nothing but the memory of a better state).
The absence of pain shall itself beget pain, for it is stagnation, and Life is movement.
Embrace True Tradition pseud.

>>14930267
Buddhism is more slavish. Jainism makes a proper distinction between the ascetic life and the life of a layman. Buddhism gives the same precept to the laymen, only fewer of them.

>>14930588
What book is this and does Plotinus(pbuh) ultimately btfo Shankara?

>>14930804
I guess it was actually Damascius. The questions stands

>>14930831
>>14930631
>no counter against real fucking tradition
>>14930804
It's from one of the works of the peak of Ancient Philosophy, if not all Philosophy; showing indeed how Plotinus, and Plato and revelations from the Gods themselves before him, btfo him and the monkey.

>>14930631
I don't uncritically accept Platonism to be correct like you do and so simply stating what the Platonist position is does not constitute an argument

>The One is beyond rest and motion, beyond self and otherness, beyond unity and difference.
Not according to Plotinus, who himself repeatedly refers to the One as being the first Self (autos) in Enneads VI.8.14. and V.1.1. Plotinus also in Ennead IV.8.6. defines "acquiring identity with the Divine" as "awakening into myself". Plotinus writes in Ennead VI.9.10. "When one beholds the First Principle, one does not behold it as different from one's self, but as one with one's self"

>Likewise the Unified/Being, is both rest and motion, both self and otherness, both unity and difference. As Plato proved in his Sophist (243-249d)and Parmenides and Philebus.
I don't agree that Plato proved anything, stating that he did means nothing to me. You'll have to cite the exact arguments for anything you want to claim.

>>14930858
>You'll have to cite the exact arguments for anything you want to claim.
Correction, you already did cite them, but you'll have to either reproduce them or summarize them here and explain why they are relevant to the discussion.

>>14930843
>It's from one of the works of the peak of Ancient Philosophy
Alright which one.

Glad to see Guenon have finally been dethroned. Truly is a joyous day and I for one will welcome the rising Sol Invictus tomorrow with libations as thanks. How wonderful the workings of lady Fortune can be. I shall keep and preserve this blessing the best as I can and whenever; if-ever, the glorious lady deems it righteous to rescind her blessing I shall thank her once more for the loan.

Who here into Guenon (pbuh)??

>>14930831
The various strands of Neoplatonism actually have many parallels with Vedanta, the poster you are talking with has his own idiosyncratic understanding of Neoplatonism which differs from a lot of sources that I've read, I've started to discount most of what he says about it. For example he will strenuously deny that it is monism but we read in the Stanford article on Neoplatonism

"Neoplatonic philosophy is a strict form of principle-monism that strives to understand everything on the basis of a single cause that they considered divine, and indiscriminately referred to as “the First”, “the One”, or “the Good”

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neoplatonism/

If you want a good resource that compares and contrasts Neoplatonism and Advaita Vedanta I'd suggest reading this Ph.D. dissertation on the two which is linked below. I have yet to see anything from Neoplatonism that would constitute a real 'btfoing' of Advaita

https://dbnl.org/tekst/staa009adva01_01/staa009adva01_01.pdf

>>14930920
The visage of The Good Doctor blesses this thread. PBUH

>>14930858
>reads beyond self
>ignores beyond otherness

>>14930975
Indeed brother may we all aspire to be like him. What the hylics see as a disgusting fat slob we see as an avatar of Guenon himself!

>>14930908
Damascius Problems and Solutions
>>14930858
Every life is a thought which, like life itself, may be more or less true. The truest thought is also the first life; and the first life is identical with the first Intelligence. Consequently, the first degree of life is also the first degree of thought; the second degree of life is also the second degree of thought; and the third degree of life is also the third degree of thought. Therefore every life of this kind is a thought. Nevertheless it is humanly possible to define the differences of the various degrees of life without being able to set forth clearly those of thought; men will limit themselves to saying that some (of these degrees of thought) imply intelligence, while others exclude it, because they do not seek to penetrate the essence of life. We may observe that the remainder of the discussion brings us back to this proposition, that "all beings are contemplations." If the truest life be the life of thought, if the truest life and the life of thought be identical, then the truest thought must be alive. This contemplation is life, the object of this contemplation is a living being and life, and both form but one.
Since both are identical, the unity that they form became manifold because it does not contemplate unity, or it does not contemplate unity so far as it is one; otherwise it would not be intelligence. After having begun by being one, it ceased being one; unconsciously it became manifold as a result of the fruitful germs it contained. It developed to become all things, though it would have been better for it not to have desired this. Indeed, it thus became the second principle, as a circle which, by developing, becomes a figure and a a surface, whose circumference, centre, and rays are distinct, occupying different points. The origin of things is better than their goal. The origin is not equivalent to the origin and goal, and that which is both origin and goal is not identical with that which is no more than origin. In other words, intelligence itself is not the intelligence of a single thing, but universal intelligence; being universal, it is the intelligence of all things. If then intelligence be universal Intelligence, and the intelligence of all things, then each of its parts must also be universal, also possess all things. Otherwise, intelligence would contain a part that was not intelligence; intelligence would be composed of non-intelligences; and it would resemble a conglomeration of things which would form an intelligence only by their union. Thus intelligence is infinite. When something proceeds from it, there is no weakening; neither for the things that proceed from it, for this is also all things, nor for the intelligence from which the thing proceeds, because it is not a summation of parts

>>14931041
9. (8). Such is the nature of Intelligence. Therefore it does not occupy the first rank. Above it must be a Principle, whose discovery is the object of this discussion. Indeed, the manifold must be posterior to unity. Now intelligence is a number; and the principle of number is unity, and the principle of the number that constitutes unity is absolute Unity. Intelligence is simultaneously intelligence and the intelligible; it is therefore two things at once. If then it be composed of two things, we must seek what is prior to this duality. Could this principle be Intelligence alone? But Intelligence is always bound to the intelligible. If the Principle we seek cannot be bound to the intelligible, neither will it be Intelligence. If then it be not Intelligence, and transcend duality, it must be superior thereto, and thus be above Intelligence. Could it be the Intelligence alone? But we have already seen that the intelligible is inseparable from Intelligence. If this Principle be neither Intelligence, nor the intelligible, what can it be? It must be the Principle from which are derived both Intelligence and its implied intelligible.

>>14931041
>>14931048
But what is this Principle, and how are we to conceive it? It must be either intelligent or not intelligent. If it be intelligent, it will also be Intelligence. If it be not intelligent, it will be unconscious of itself, and will not be in any way venerable. Though true, it would not be clear or perspicuous to say that it is the Good itself, since we do not yet have an object on which we could fasten our thought when we speak of it. Besides, since the knowledge of the other objects in all beings who can know something intelligent, occurs through Intelligence and lies in Intelligence, by what rapid intellection (or intuition) could we grasp this Principle that is superior to Intelligence? We may answer, by that part of us which resembles it; for there is in us something of it; or rather, it is in all things that participate in Him. Everywhere you approach the Good, that which in you can participate receives something of it. Take the illustration of a voice in a desert, and the human ears that may be located there. Wherever you listen to this voice, you will grasp it entirely in one sense, and not entirely in another sense. How then would we grasp something by approximating our intelligence (to the Good)? To see up there the Principle it seeks, Intelligence must, so to speak, return backwards, and, forming a duality, it must somehow exceed itself; that means, it would have to cease being the Intelligence of all intelligible things. Indeed, intelligence is primary life, and penetration of all things, not (as the soul does) by a still actualizing movement,194 but by a movement which is ever already accomplished and past.

>>14931054
>>14931048
>>14931041
Therefore, if Intelligence be life, which is the penetration of all things, if it possess all things distinctly, without confusion—for otherwise546 it would possess them in an imperfect and incomplete manner—it must necessarily proceed from a superior Principle which, instead of being in motion, is the principle of motion (by which Intelligence runs through all things), of life, of intelligence, and of all things. The Principle of all things could not be all things, it is only their origin. Itself is neither all things, nor any particular thing, because it begets everything; neither is it a multitude, for it is the principle of multitude. Indeed that which begets is always simpler than that which is begotten. Therefore if this principle beget Intelligence, it necessarily is simpler than Intelligence. On the theory that it is both one and all, we have an alternative, that it is all things because it is all things at once, or that it is everything individually. On the one hand, if it be all things at once, it will be posterior to all things; if on the contrary it be prior to all things, it will be different from all things. For if the One co-existed with all things, the One would not be a principle; but the One must be a principle, and must exist anteriorly to all things, if all things are to originate from it. On the other hand, if we say that the One is each particular thing, it will thereby be identical with every particular thing; later it will be all things at once, without being able to discern anything. Thus the One is none of these particular things, being prior to all things

>>14931064
>How does manifoldness issue from Unity? Unity is everywhere; for there is no place where it is not; therefore it fills everything. By Him exists manifoldness; or rather, it is by Him that all things exist. If the One were only everywhere, He would simply be all things; but, as, besides, He is nowhere, all things exist by Him, because He is everywhere; but simultaneously all things are distinct from Him, because He is nowhere. Why then is Unity not only everywhere, but also nowhere? The reason is, that Unity must be above all things, He must fill everything, and produce everything, without being all that He produces.

>>14931083
>>14931064
>>14931054
>>14931048
>>14931041
1. The One is all things, and is none of these things. The Principle of all things cannot be all things. It is all things only in the sense that all things coexist within it. But in it, they "are" not yet, but only "will be." How then could the manifoldness of all beings issue from the One, which is simple and identical, which contains no diversity or duality? It is just because nothing is contained within it, that everything can issue from it. In order that essence might exist, the One could not be (merely) essence, but had to be the 'father' of essence, and essence had to be its first-begotten. As the One is perfect, and acquires nothing, and has no need or desire, He has, so to speak, superabounded, and this superabundance has produced a different nature. This different nature of the One turned towards Him, and by its conversion, arrived at the fulness (of essence). Then it had the potentiality of contemplating itself, and thus determined itself as Intelligence. Therefore, by resting near the One, it became Essence; and by contemplating itself, became Intelligence. Then by fixing itself within itself to contemplate itself, it simultaneously became Essence-and-Intelligence.

>>14931113
>Suppose, now, that we leave the further discussion of these matters as evident, and consider again upon the hypothesis that the one is, whether opposite of all this is or is not equally true of the others.
By all means.
>Then let us begin again, and ask, If one is, what must be the affections of the others?
Let us ask that question.
>Must not the one be distinct from the others, and the others from the one?
Why so?
>Why, because there is nothing else beside them which is distinct from both of them; for the expression 'one and the others' includes all things.
Yes, all things.
>Then we cannot suppose that there is anything different from them in which both the one and the others might exist?
There is nothing.
>Then the one and the others are never in the same?
True.
>Then they are separated from each other?
Yes.
>And we surely cannot say that what is truly one has parts?
Impossible.
>Then the one will not be in the others as a whole, nor as part, if it be separated from the others, and has no parts?
Impossible.
>Then there is no way in which the others can partake of the one, if they do not partake either in whole or in part?
It would seem not.
>Then there is no way in which the others are one, or have in themselves any unity?
There is not.
>Nor are the others many; for if they were many, each part of them would be a part of the whole; but now the others, not partaking in any way of the one, are neither one nor many, nor whole, nor part.
True.
>Then the others neither are nor contain two or three, if entirely deprived of the one?
True.
>Then the others are neither like nor unlike the one, nor is likeness and unlikeness in them; for if they were like and unlike, or had in them likeness and unlikeness, they would have two natures in them opposite to one another.
That is clear.
>But for that which partakes of nothing to partake of two things was held by us to be impossible?
Impossible.
>Then the others are neither like nor unlike nor both, for if they were like or unlike they would partake of one of those two natures, which would be one thing, and if they were both they would partake of opposites which would be two things, and this has been shown to be impossible.
True.
>Therefore they are neither the same, nor other, nor in motion, nor at rest, nor in a state of becoming, nor of being destroyed, nor greater, nor less, nor equal, nor have they experienced anything else of the sort; for, if they are capable of experiencing any such affection, they will participate in one and two and three, and odd and even, and in these, as has been proved, they do not participate, seeing that they are altogether and in every way devoid of the one.
Very true.
>>>Therefore if one is, the one is all things, and also nothing, both in relation to itself and to other things.
Certainly.

>>14931152
and lets top it of with scripture 1000 years older than the oldest pooloo text

>>14931206
Wake! Wake! O [deceased], wake! See what your son Horus has done for you, hear what your father Geb has done for you; he has set your foes beneath you for you. Go up and bathe in the Lake of Life; what is evil on you will be purged in the Lake of the Firmament. You have come into being complete as any god; your head is Re, your face is Wepwawet, your nose is the Jackal, your lips are the Twins, your ears are Isis and Nephthys, your eyes are the twin children of Re-Atum, your tongue is Thoth, your throat is Nut, your neck is Geb, your shoulders are Horus, your chest is He who pleases the spirit of Re, the great god who is in you, your flanks are Hu and Khopri, your navel is the Jackal of the Double Lion, your back is Anubis, your belly is the Double Lion, your arms are the two sons of Horus, your back is the Extender of the Sunshine, your legs are Anubis, your buttocks are Isis and Nephthys, your feet are Duamutef and Kebhsenuf, and there is no member in you which lacks a god; raise yourself, [deceased]!"

>>14931298
Endless mental masturbation and bullshit on god,reality is quite tiresome and doesnt compare to intuitive understanding from profound inner realization, deep meditative experiences.
You can read endless books or philosophy but you will never truly know until you experience it.

>Wake! Wake! O [deceased], wake! See what your son Horus has done for you, hear what your father Geb has done for you; he has set your foes beneath you for you. Go up and bathe in the Lake of Life; what is evil on you will be purged in the Lake of the Firmament.
True from personal experience.

>>14929687
why he naked

>>14931206
At least the poos take scriptures from their own people though. Greek larping as kangz and talking about being older and shieeet is pretty cringe

>>14931627
The Sumerians agree with us.
The Hellenes agree with us.
The Egyptians agree with us.
The Persians agree with us.
The Vedas agree with us.
As do many looless.
The Norse agree with us.
The One is not the denial of the All, but their cause, their affirmation, and their Good.

>>14931041
whenever you are ready to have a debate or conversation where we actually address each others points instead of just posting quotes from texts I'll be ready, just let me know

>>14931692
Give me your Neo-Platonic commentary on the Havamal please

>>14931692
>The One is not the denial of the All
Real in Advaita is used in the absolute sense, it means "absolutely real, eternal, unchanging, always and everywhere", only Brahman or in Neoplatonism the One can be real in this sense, nothing that undergoes change can be this real. You are essentially complaining that Advaita doesn't afford the same degree of reality to everyday objects and our changing experience that Neoplatonism would afford to the One; but no major Neoplatonist affords the everyday objects which emanate from the One the same degree of reality that they afford the One, which just goes to show that you don't really know what you are talking about.

>>14931697
all of this is mine
>>14930631
Suffering is nothing but the sensation, and/or knowledge, and/or intuition, that your present situation is worse than it has been or could be.
There can't be Time, Freewill and value (God being the Good), without there being suffering. It is the presence of potential for improvement.
Do you wish to exist without the option for progression? You can't have free will without the reality of change, you can't have change without loss. One can even say that to exist as an individual implies that you have a will, otherwise you'd would only be a cog in the wheel and not actually exist (qualia is then illusory), this then implies that evil does not exist because perpetrator and victim don't exist.
One can of course argue that the magnitude of suffering is unfairly high, but absolute freedom and the lack of a ceiling of ascension of good = the lack of a bottom of pain.

If there is but the One, then there's nothing for you to do or not do, or do instead of something else.
If there is something other than the one, then this comes from the One and is good.
And the purpose of being can not solely be to return to the One in an existential state.
Starving to death on your ass is not the Good.
God is every life and every pain, every joy and every death.
Every wound will be healed, every tragedy is redeemed in beauty.

Say: “I am the child of Earth and starry Heaven;
But my race is heavenly; and this you know yourselves.
I am parched with thirst and I perish; but give me quickly
refreshing water flowing forth from the lake of Memory.”

>>14931754
that barely takes you to Plotinus' Nous
Time is the moving image of eternity.
The One is beyond permanence and impermanence.
this is what the ineffable one does to your brainlet absolute simplicity
https://youtu.be/29jdVA8fBfw

>>14931906
Could you recommend a good intro and/or reading list for Neo-Platonism?

>>14931041
>>14931048
>>14931054
>>14931054
>>14931064
>>14931083
>>14931113
>>14931152
>>14931854
>>14931906
there is not only one One but three Ones operating from the Ineffable; the One is not completely unindigent, it ends up being indigent of its own emanations/processions

ITT: serious case of One-itis

>>14930920
>>14930994
>fat fedora LARPer is into guenon
LMAO this if the person calling himself 'based' over and over again...

>>14931955
Homer
Orphic Hymns
Barnes Early Greek Philosophy
Uzdavinys - The Golden Chain
And his - Orpheus and the Roots of Platonism
And - Philosophy as a Rite of Rebirth
Plato's dialogues except Philebus, Parmenides, Timaeus-Critias, Theaetetus-Sophist-Statesman, Republic, or Letters
Iamblichus - The Mysteries
"The Way of Hermes" and "Asclepius: The Perfect Discourse of Hermes Trismegistus"
Aristotle Organon and Metaphysics and De Anima
Plato's Parmenides, Theaetetus-Sophist-Statesman, Minos-Laws-Epinomis, Republic, Philebus, Timaeus-Critias
Plotinus Enneads
One of Proclus' Commentaries or his Essays on Republic/whichever you can afford.
Damascius' Problems and Solutions
Damascius Commentary on Phaedo and Philebus
And let's hope his Commentary on the Parmenides has been translated by now.

>>14932036
The three Henads are the One. In them the One dissolves into the Ineffable.
We only see the One when we stand in the waters of night's darkness, waiting for the dawn on the horizon. But all we wait for is our own arising reflection upon the formlessness of our immanent self. One, in unknowing, flowing down, indefinite, turning, Beholding the Flood of Being that was ourselves, ourselves yet to be.
>>14930631

>>14932163
thanks friend

guenonposting makes me laugh every time

Never thought I would say this but I am glad that Guenon posting has retvrned to tradition (multi-paragraph spergfests). The last couple of weeks have been really lackluster.

>>14933035
This was anti-guenon posting

>>14934138
Anti-Guenon posting is also Guenon posting.

>>14934152
Based.....both are united in the Supreme Principle of Guenon PBUH

>>14931546
Digambara monks actually go through with not having possessions. Not having clothes is part of it. Sadly there can be only male Digambra monks as women are incapable of achieving moksha.

>>14929687
>Jains
>EVER based
Disgusting tbqh

>>14934167
t. brahmin

>life denying eastern mysticism like Neo-Platonism, Jainism and Advaita
Didn't Nietzsche already refute these doctrines of slave morality with their anti-Aryan otherworldliness

>>14934171
t. digambara

>>14931906
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4rlE1KhNHs
Is Buddhism closer to Plotinos than Advaita?