/lit/ - Literature

>>16907349
based and non-dualism pilled

>>16907349
Based. Allahuakbar.

>>16907349
I have a fondness for him in particular, with the philosophy of Ibn Arabi and the attitude towards life of Nasreddin one can find a modicum of peace I'd say. I guess the secret tenth person in this pic would be Nasreddin.

>>16907527
you forgot guenon (pubh) in your pic

>>16907573
I have not read Guenon, though I plan to eventually

>>16907349
Muslims can never understand love or peace.

>>16907621
Pure amerimutt right here. Disgraceful.

what is a good translation? and is it better to start with him or ghazali?

>>16907349
is that pic ibn arabi or is that abbad ii al-mu'tadid?

>>16909261
From what I've heard, Ibn Arabi can be pretty autistic and difficult at times. Ghazali has a way of succinctly describing difficult things and concept, so go with Ghazali first.

>>16909322
any recommendation on where to start with Ghazali?

>>16907621
I can smell the neocon Israel supporter on you.

>>16907360
Dualism >>> Non-Dualism

Heretic, loved by christcucks for this reason

>>16907349
Blasphemy

>>16909341
no

>>16907621
How can one person be so ignorant?

>>16907621

>>16909532
He's right, have you ever read their book?

>>16909462
>shankaracharya
>not crypto-dualist
retard

>>16907621
Non Sufi Sunni's*

>>16909614
Oh and I take it Non Sufi Non Sunni's can?

>>16907360
This

>>16907621

>>16907349
The Bezel of Wisdom is kind of cool but Ibn Arabi was full of himself and his mystical theology is a lived contradiction imo. Maybe Ibn Khaldun was right to say that post-Ghazali Sufism is a degeneracy. Louis Massignon also saw in Ibn Arabi a transition to a Sufism of navel-gazing and detachment while earlier Sufism was much more engaged in the community.

Univocal depersonalized mysticism that stresses the importance of saying God is beyond anything meaning or existence is not for me.

>>16909341
This. Modified non-dualism is good also.

>>16909623
Shia's are 100 times more human than s*nnis, so yes.

>>16909677
Based and Ahl al-Bayt pilled

>>16909655
All these mysticisms seem to become satanic when they devolve to individualistic intellectual quests for salvation through gnosis as a mean of self deification. I suspect the same is what caused the Barlam-Palamas controversy. In the end Palamas won in the east though.

>>16909462
The Buddha isn't a dualist retard

>>16909726
Buddhism is dualism. Nirvana-samsara duality, exactly like Brahman-Maya of the advaitins, why do you think one accuse the other of copying their teachings?

>>16909734
Nirvana and Samsara are the exact same thing.
t. Nagarjuna

>>16909734
>exactly like Brahman-Maya of the advaitins
I thought advaitins were non dual

>>16909746
whence difference? you know this will lead you to eleatic simplicity, dont you?

>>16909756
thats what they say obviously, but they cant explain maya in any way. everything they say about it makes a case for the dualism mentioned.

>>16909765
Indeed

>>16909326
al Ghazalis main esoteric work which it would be good to read before Ibn Arabi would be the Mishkāt al-Anwār (Niche of Lights)

>>16910129
>al Ghazalis main esoteric work which it would be good to read before Ibn Arabi would be the Mishkāt al-Anwār (Niche of Lights)
Where to find it? Also how much preq is needed? The Greeks? Or can I just start with it right away?

>>16909756
they are
>>16909765
maya doesn't exist on the level of absolute reality but Brahman permits maya to exist on a contingent level of existence as Brahman's limiting adjunct (upādhi), ergo it's not dualistic

>>16910145
>as Brahman's limiting adjunct (upādhi)
tell me more

>>16910144
It's online here

https://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/mishkat/index.htm

It would be helpful but not needed to read the Quran first. The same goes for Sanai's 'The Enclosed Garden of the Truth'. The Greeks are not needed to understand Sufi works.

>>16910145
every time i speak with an advaitin they affirm something different about maya. incredible.
so maya is not brahman's power? so it is not coeternal with brahman? it is not like they say: the sun emanating its light? if maya does not exist in brahman itself, where does maya come from?

>>16910145
if there is something other than absolute reality, i.e., the contingent, there's not one but two, no matter how many word salad you throw to nullify the value of the contingent

>>16910152
what would you like to know about it

>>16909655
>Univocal depersonalized mysticism that stresses the importance of saying God is beyond anything meaning or existence is not for me.
It's good to keep in mind so that we don't put limits on him. That way as much light as we get we know he is greater. Then we can rest forever because he can't be exhausted. As long as we keep in mind that there is also a positive revelation of God the dark blinding light of God won't be our enemy.

>>16909761
>The Tathagata is the (ultimate) dharma devoid of birth and death; how could one seek to know His (ultimate) nature through prapanca (conceptual constructions) (of "is" and "is not")? If one seeks (to see) the Tathagata through prapanca then one will not see Him. But if by this one should hold that there is no Tathagata at all, then one would fall (again) into perversion. Therefore it is not proper to seek the Tathagata through the prapanca of "is" and "is not". Whatever is the nature of Tathagata is also the nature of all things; whatever is the nature of all things is also the nature of Tathagata. The nature of the Tathagata is complete sunyata; that is also the nature of all things.

>The ultimately true nature of the Tathagata is neither going nor coming. The ultimately true nature of Subhuti is also neither going nor coming. Therefore it is that Subhuti is born in the same way as the Buddha. The ultimately true nature of the Tathagata is the same as the ultimately true nature of all things; the ultimately true nature of all things is itself the ultimately true nature of the Tathagata. It cannot even be (conceived) that within this ultimate reality there is any other ultimate reality.

>Again, the ultimately true nature of the Tathagata eternally stays. The ultimately true nature of even Subhuti eternally stays. The ultimately true nature of the Tathagata has no change, no division. The ultimately true nature of the Tathagata and the ultimately true nature of all things are in truth but one reality, not two, not divided. This ultimate reality is unmade; it will never be other than what it always is. It is therefore that this ultimate reality is not two, not divided. (The same is the case even with the ultimately true nature of Subhuti and, in fact, of every being). It is altogether devoid of imaginative constructions and devoid of divisions

>>16910162
If everything exists in some ultimate reality then ultimately everything is of that Ultimate Reality.

as if the rays of the sun are somehow independent of the sun itself

>>16910153
>The Greeks are not needed to understand Sufi works.
Thanks for the link anon. I was just wondering if there's anything that will be over my head if I don't have some kind of philosophical background

>>16910160
>so maya is not brahman's power? so it is not coeternal with brahman?
Maya is both Brahman's power and upādhi. Brahman's omnipotence permits maya to co-eternally exist at a contingent level of existence as Brahman's power existing at that level. To deny that Brahman can do this is to deny that Brahman is omnipotent. But any being who is the cause of all the universes and time, causation, etc is omnipotent. That Brahman's power is not existing at the level of absolute reality of Brahman Himself though does not make the power of maya completely external to Brahman though, because Brahman is infinite and unlimited and all the contingent existences are included within the infinity of Brahman as virtual existences within Him which don't taint their transcendent substratum.
>it is not like they say: the sun emanating its light? if maya does not exist in brahman itself, where does maya come from?
The sun is a metaphor used to indicate the unchanging nature of Brahman, it is not meant to be taken literally and imagined as though Brahman is a physical object and maya another object. The absolute reality of Brahman Himself is omnipotent and omniscient, through this, maya is permitted to have a contingent co-eternal existence on a lesser level of reality which is contained within Brahman's infinity, not outside of Brahman which is impossible.
>>16910162
False, because when absolute reality was attained it is seen that the contingent never truly had any truly real existence. In any case what you are doing is not of any concern to Advaita, since Advaita has never said "there are no conditional and contingent hierarchies within our metaphysics" but quite the opposite. Advaita is only non-dual in the sense that Atman = Brahman and that on the level of absolute reality alone there is no duality remaining. It's only outside of this absolute reality that duality is encountered. When people nitpick over whether X in Advaita is dualistic they often forget this point and think they have identified some flaw then they really haven't and they are just splitting hairs over something which is irrelevant to Advaita.

>>16910222
how could the atman being brahman get imprisoned in the non being of contingent reality

>>16910178
Yes. The problem is: this has nothing to do with what I pointed. This does not address the problem of nirvana (or tathagata, absolute, or whatever you want to call it) and samsara. We have a change from the absolute, we have samsara. Where does this change, difference, come from?

>threads about ANY form of non-dualism will devolve into Advita Vedanta debates

>>16910252
not long ago there were even some pro-advaita claiming there's no right or wrong as that would imply duality. now you are saying the non-duality refers only to the supreme self and there's distinction in the rest.

>>16910269
meant to reply to >>16910222

>>16910266
Damnit and they have their own threads too, guess not too many people are interested in discussing Islam on 4chan so that checks out. Still lame.

>>16910252
It's not imprisoned. The Atman-Brahman is totally unaffected whatsoever by maya. The Jiva which is beginningless like maya merely superimposes doership, agentship, enjoyership etc onto the Atman-Brahman which doesn't actually possess these attributes/status.

>>16910222
>Brahman's omnipotence permits maya to co-eternally exist at a contingent level of existence as Brahman's power existing at that level.
Wait what? Brahman's omnipotence is Maya, it is from Him and it IS Him.

>Maya is permitted to have existence
Do you know what permission implies? Will and power, which are the same thing. Therefore: there is no permission but natural of Brahman. This is the equivalent to energy-essence relation. They are one.

That advaitins reject Maya as illusion is rejecting Brahman's power and will. In this way this envolves a dualism where Maya is all omnipotence and Brahman a dead, inert absolute.

>>16910284
guess not too many people are interested in discussing Islam
why so?

>>16910284
Still plenty of material out there, just /lit/ doesn't seem to be the place to discuss it without particularly biases, shame really

>>16910265
difference? i see no difference

>>16910265
In one religion it is said God made all things out of nothing. In the same religion it said he made all things through his word. Emptiness is an interesting word. It can imply that that which is empty has no real existence of itself. It can also be seen to represent freedom since freedom is before things due to it being a deeper part of being. In the Kabbalah it is said that God emptied himself to create. Ultimately I think Emptiness is the pure power of God, that's why it could also be said that Nirvana is empty. Emptiness and nothing are words that can be used to describe a higher order of being. but if all is from the Ultimate Reality then all is ultimately empty. Since no words can describe reality we might as well call it empty.

>>16910309
Why can't you cite those thinkers to engage in the current debate, and bring it back full circle?

>>16910269
>not long ago there were even some pro-advaita claiming there's no right or wrong as that would imply duality.
That guy wasn't me, but in Advaita it's held that at the level of undivided absolute reality morality isn't something that truly exists in absolute reality, as is the case with such distinctions as time, inside/outside, relations between things; all these pertain only to the lesser contingent realities. Any sort of relation which would imply a multiplicity of factors and actors or value judgements is not true at the level of absolute reality of pure Being-Consciousness-Bliss or Saccidānanda alone that is Brahman, there being only one existing entity or thing there. Morality exists on the level of our universe though, which ties into the concept of dharma, pre-arranged universal harmony.

>>16910266
It's not the fault of Advaitins that not enough people read Ibn Arabi to have detailed discussions about him, I'm the same guy who recommended al-Ghazali, and who was posting pics from the Burckhardt book the other day

>>16910284
>Damnit and they have their own threads too, guess not too many people are interested in discussing Islam on 4chan so that checks out. Still lame.
It's silly to think that reality can be reduced to one religion. I very much want to hear what Muslims have to say since I'm sure I can find some Unity with them.

>>16910322
>I'm the same guy who recommended al-Ghazali, and who was posting pics from the Burckhardt book the other day
you are a good anon, and yes it is not their fault, more people should read these authors, they are excellent

>>16910307
Most people on this site believe that Islam is spiritually and philosophically bankrupt.
>>16910309
I'm reading a great book at the moment, Sufism and Deconstruction: A Comparative Study of Derrida and Ibn 'Arabi, I imagine most of the fags here would find it interesting. The library from the Occultism and Magick general on /x/ really is something.

>>16910342
>Sufism and Deconstruction: A Comparative Study of Derrida and Ibn 'Arabi
thanks for the rec

>The library from the Occultism and Magick general on /x/ really is something
Only good thread on /x/ for that very reason

Can any of you lads rec me some Sufi or Shia philosophy books? I only read literature coming from the Muslim world so far.

>>16910322
What advaitins believe that happens after death? What criteria is "used" to divide those whose atman will rejoin the supreme being and those who will reincarnate?

>>16910293
>Wait what? Brahman's omnipotence is Maya, it is from Him and it IS Him.
Wrong, Brahman's omnipotence and omniscience is what allows maya to take place.
>Do you know what permission implies? Will and power, which are the same thing. Therefore: there is no permission but natural of Brahman.
I was using the word permit loosely, but I am not bound to it. I can also just say allows which doesn't automatically imply will, just as rain allows plants to grow and gravity allows us to stand on the ground without floating away. The allowing of maya by Brahman's omnipotence and omniscience doesn't involve an act of will, it is beginningless.

>>16910342
'Paths to Transcendence: According to Shankara, Ibn Arabi & Meister Eckhart' by Kazemi is also a good read, I recommend you check that out

>>16910342
Most people on this site are mindless bigots but if you can't wield the ideas of the thinkers you vouch for in a conversation like this, I have to question how much you really comprehend them.

>>16910326
I believe the formation of religion is something like an alchemical process of increasing perfection, in Islam it is almost as if the world's end has come in terms of the end of the Prophetic age with the Prophet (PBUH). Are there truths to be found in other faiths? Absolutely, divinity as a concept seems somewhat consistent across cultures. Personally though, I find the differences between the different traditions to be the most interesting part of studying them. Personally I find Buddhism and Taoism more interesting than Hinduism but to be honest that is partially because the Hindu tradition seems so dense it's kind of daunting.

>>16910326
[repost, I swear every time I quote the Quran my posts get disappeared]

>All that dwells upon the earth is perishing yet still abides the Face of thy Lord

>>16910375
It was thru Buddhism that Islam finally clicked for me.

>>16910368
>Most people on this site are mindless bigots but if you can't wield the ideas of the thinkers you vouch for in a conversation like this, I have to question how much you really comprehend them.
That's definitely fair, I am not confident unless I'm certain I have a strong case and usually I am not. I can foster conservation sometimes but I usually step back when it requires coherent argumentation.
>>16910366
Oh that sounds cool, thanks I'll check it out.
>>16910346
>Only good thread on /x/ for that very reason
Fair honestly, the nobody autism truly makes ya wonder what these people are like in real life.

>>16910348
Bumping myself because I'm a lazy shit and don't want to start another thread

>>16910386
> I am not confident unless I'm certain I have a strong case and usually I am not
Im the same, I come to these threads to learn rather than debate

>the nobody autism truly makes ya wonder what these people are like in real life
Thank God for filters

>>16910388
>>16910348
>>16910309
There is this list, if that is what you guys want

>>16910359
answered here

>>/lit/thread/S16455508#p16456171

>What criteria is "used" to divide those whose atman will rejoin the supreme being and those who will reincarnate?
The criteria is basically just a combination of your spiritual attainment (or lack thereof) and your karma in life. If you become enlightened and attain moksha then you expand so to speak into the omnipresent Atman-Brahman at death instead of transmigrating further, anything short of enlightenment leads to further transmigration, either immediately or after a sojourn in Brahmaloka

>>16910382
I like that quote. It matches my experience.

>>16909462
Dunno. The real adi shankara looked more like a wojack bloomer than a Chad but ok

>>16910375
This

>Personally I find Buddhism and Taoism more interesting than Hinduism but to be honest that is partially because the Hindu tradition seems so dense it's kind of daunting
It is a HUGE tradition, but Hinduism is one of the most fascinating faiths I have studied. For me you have to be more scholarly in your approach, whereas with Taoism what it taught seemed to be more intuitive

>>16910382
I like the full quote
>"Which is it, of the favours of your Lord, that ye deny? There cometh forth from both of them the pearl and coral-stone. Which is it, of the favours of your Lord, that ye deny? His are the ships displayed upon the sea, like banners. Which is it, of the favours of your Lord, that ye deny? Everyone that is thereon will pass away; There remaineth but the Countenance of thy Lord of Might and Glory." (Quran 55:21-27)

>>16910366
This guy also wrote a book called the Common Ground Between Islam and Buddhism, which is certainly worth a look. I've read quite a few passages from it but I still have some other books to finish before I reach it on my reading list.

>>16910405
Doesn't this mean that there is an absolute morality that is not absolute being as well? Because it would seem it would be an absolute good to do this, but if you say it doesn't matter if one rejoins the Brahman or if he gets reincarnated as a plant then advaita is nihilistic and nothing matters, not even Brahman.

>>16910429
That book is excellent

>>16910365
>Brahman's omnipotence and omniscience is what allows maya to take place
I thought Maya was Brahman's power... energy cannot be separated from its essence, anon, one refer to the other.
This is the first time I see an advaitin arguing on the relation between Brahman and Maya this way. But this makes even more evident what I think advaitins fail to recognize: Maya's power and its reality is willed by Brahman. Only this way there will be nonduality. Whenever illusion is predicated of Maya, its separation from Brahman is manifest, and thus, is dualistic.

> I can also just say allows which doesn't automatically imply will, just as rain allows plants to grow and gravity allows us to stand on the ground without floating away.
Is rain omniscient? Is gravity conscious? In this case there is no will in allowing their consequences, indeed. But isn't Brahman conscious of its power and of its effects? If he allows it knowing it then his will is implicated.

Yes we are not speaking in time succession but ontological.

>>16910396
>I'm the same, I come to these threads to learn rather than debate
Sometimes I make the mistake of saying one of the few things I know and then leaving when I have no knowledge past that one thing, but yeah that's my general attitude as well.
>>16910385
Funnily enough I've met someone who had the same experience, though they eventually returned to Buddhism.
>>16910416
>It is a HUGE tradition, but Hinduism is one of the most fascinating faiths I have studied. For me you have to be more scholarly in your approach, whereas with Taoism what it taught seemed to be more intuitive
I used to think the Upanishads were the only other texts than the Vedas and when I learned I was wrong I was kinda overwhelmed lol.

>>16910311
then there is no buddha, no realization, no enlightenment, no samsara, no nirvana. what is the point of buddha's teachings, then? did he teach nothing?

>>16910461
no-thing, the unconditioned, the absolute

>>16910435
I think you don't necessarily need morality if you are compared to the ultimate. Morality itself is not supposed to be the highest thing about religion. But how would one be if they are self-identified as the cause of all reality?

>>16910460
> I was kinda overwhelmed lol
not something you can rush, takes a long time to study, but it really is worth it, it enlightens you, not just about Hinduism itself but other faiths as well

>>16910405
Why would the fate of atman be decided upon behavior if the behavior is only under the judgment of a contingent morality

>>16910470
You do need morality if you want to shatter the vessel. But how would the shattering be decided by its own nature?

>>16910408
I would doubt that statue is 1300 years old and was actually modeled on him, granted he probably didn't have huge bulging muscles either
>but if you say it doesn't matter if one rejoins the Brahman or if he gets reincarnated as a plant then advaita is nihilistic and nothing matters, not even Brahman.
It's not that nothing matters since here in transmigration we experience misery at times but the liberated Brahman is free from all misery and is unsurpassable bliss. So from the perspective of attaining happiness and avoiding suffering there is a point to it.

>>16910451
>I thought Maya was Brahman's power... energy cannot be separated from its essence, anon, one refer to the other.
I disagree, as does the entire tradition of Eastern Orthodox theology, there is no basis at all for you to simply assert this claim of yours is correct. I suggest you try reading through this and the sources it references

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence%E2%80%93energies_distinction

>But this makes even more evident what I think advaitins fail to recognize: Maya's power and its reality is willed by Brahman. Only this way there will be nonduality.
Simply stating this belief of yours doesn't make it true anon
>Whenever illusion is predicated of Maya, its separation from Brahman is manifest, and thus, is dualistic.
But not on the level of absolute reality, only on the level of contingent reality, thus the non-duality remains intact, I can swat down this sophistry all day buddy
>Is rain omniscient? Is gravity conscious? In this case there is no will in allowing their consequences, indeed. But isn't Brahman conscious of its power and of its effects? If he allows it knowing it then his will is implicated.
No Brahman is undivided undifferentiated non-dual consciousness, if Brahman were cognizant of It's powers as something different from It's apprehending consciousness in a subject-object relation then Brahman would not longer be non-dual

>>16910472
>not something you can rush, takes a long time to study, but it really is worth it, it enlightens you, not just about Hinduism itself but other faiths as well
That's definitely fair, the similarities between how the the court ritualistic Vedic traditions came into conflict with and were influenced by the Śramaṇa movement and the the way non-Sufi Muslims interacted with Sufis, both eventually became the orthodox position as well (though Sufism hasn't been considered the Islamic orthodoxy since around the 19th century).

>>16910549
Indeed

>though Sufism hasn't been considered the Islamic orthodoxy since around the 19th century
Sadly so, but accepted orthodoxy does not mean it is not the true heart of the faith

>>16910529
>You do need morality if you want to shatter the vessel. But how would the shattering be decided by its own nature
If Only God Can know God then that which cannot stand before him shall be destroyed. Destruction itself is of course a kind of purification.

>>16910491
The Atman is eternal and unchanging and already liberated, it has no fate. It is merely the illuminating background reality which allows the Jivas to subsist within the continent reality. The Jiva is working out its own fate. For whatever reason, even though morality doesn't exist in absolute reality, Brahman still made it so that acting out in ways we consider immoral (i.e. murdering people etc) leads the Jiva farther from enlightenment/liberation and into more miserable births as plants or mosquitoes etc. Whether this is because of the moral implications themselves or whether it is a more mechanistic "you receive the consequences of the energy you put out" I don't know, but it is not really important.

>>16910549
>(though Sufism hasn't been considered the Islamic orthodoxy since around the 19th century).

Does the 2004 Amman message which forbade declaring Sufis apostates which was signed by 200 Islamic scholars from over 50 countries not count?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amman_Message

I hear that Sufism is taught as orthodox as al-Azhar as well

>>16910555
I wouldn't say it's sad or joyous, religion is a living organ within social anatomy. A tradition dying out is no more saddening than a flower withering, because inevitably something will be created from the theological conflict and debate. Sufism will become something greater with time if all goes well.

>>16910555
>the true heart of the faith
Enough with christcuck-like sophism. Was Muhammad or any prophet a sufi? No. Case closed.

>>16910599
*at al-Azhar

>>16910599
>Does the 2004 Amman message which forbade declaring Sufis apostates which was signed by 200 Islamic scholars from over 50 countries not count?
Not being considered apostates and being the orthodox position are not the same thing imo.
>I hear that Sufism is taught as orthodox as al-Azhar as well
To be fair there are some areas where most of the Muslim population is Sufi, the Caucasus used to be like that until the recent Salafist proselytization, and much of west Africa is currently like that.

>>16910603
>A tradition dying out is no more saddening than a flower withering, because inevitably something will be created from the theological conflict and debate. Sufism will become something greater with time if all goes well.
I hope you are correct, but it is not in our hands ultimately. I'm glad we have so much material to study for ourselves though.

>>16910577
If the shattering occurs there will be no more "I" to love God, only God. Why would I want to cease loving God so that the atman would return to brahman? Even if you say there is no I other than brahman's.

This is nihilism. This is not brahman interacting with brahman, but our imperfect selves. It would still be better for our imperfect selves to love God, even though He doesn't need our love, than a to shatter our egos in a nihilistic reality.

>>16910604
>Was Muhammad or any prophet a sufi?
According to the Sufi's he was the first Sufi.

>>16910644
So in other words no

>>16910604
>Enough with christcuck-like sophism. Was Muhammad or any prophet a sufi? No. Case closed.
Was he a Sunni, Shia, or Ibadi either? I guess the only true position is to be nondenominational by that logic. As for whether the Prophet was a Sufi or not, I mean he meditated in caves and lived a very simple life, whether or not he was an ascetic is up to interpretation but it isn't unreasonable to think so. That being said, I personally don't believe in a thing such as the "true heart of the faith", as the truth is not a fixed universal when analyzing creation.

>>16910650
The way I understand it from what they say, he understood the natur of the heart and the love for Allah. Though he wasn't a part of their exclusive circle jerk, but he did allow them to hang around him.

>>16910650
Why tho

>>16910632
>I'm glad we have so much material to study for ourselves though
We'd best have at it, lest it be lost to time

>>16910661
>I personally don't believe in a thing such as the "true heart of the faith"
As the sufi's say sufism is an inner dimension of Islam, the way of love towards Allah, but it's not the only dimension.

>>16910680
Indeed, God be with you anon

>>16910435
meant to quote you in my reply to you here >>16910548

>>16910661
Sunni means follower of the sunna. Did Muhammad follow his own sunna? Simple logic tells us yes.

>>16910673
>he did allow them to hang around him
There weren’t any sufis in his time. The poors who wore woolen clothing weren’t sufis

>>16910703
>Sunni means follower of the Sunnah
>Other Muslims don't follow the Sunnah tho, only Sunnis do
>Implying our notion of what the Sunnah is and how to follow it is anything like one of the people who added to the Sunnah
Braindead sectarianism

>>16910548
>I disagree...
Again: they are distinct but not separated. The point you advaitins make is that Maya is something foreign to Brahman, when like the Sun, its emanation of light is not foreign to it. The energy can never be foreign to its essence (to which it refers).

>Stating this belief
It is a logical conclusion. You are the one repeating dogmatic assertions and I'm showing how weak their foundations are.

>level of absolute reality
yes, you guys posit the dualism of absolute reality-maya, you guys accept no willed gradation, which would be the only thing making sense. this utter rupture between brahman and maya is what accounts for the dualism in the advaita vedanta system. the contigency is all put on maya when in fact it is brahman too.

>brahman is....
this is dogmatic and illogical. that is why prakashavimarshamaya is superior ti advaita vedanta. the brahman you posit is a brahman ignorant of everything, including himself. it is a dead principle.

>>16910684
>As the sufi's say sufism is an inner dimension of Islam, the way of love towards Allah, but it's not the only dimension.
Yeah basically what I'd say is it's one step along the process of finding the inner dimensions of Islam.
>>16910696
You as well anon.

>>16910720
>is anything like how one of the people who added to the Sunnah perceived it*
Forgot what I was trying to say mid-sentence lol

>>16910720
Sunnism isn’t a “sect”, the others are.

>>16910726
>Yeah basically what I'd say is it's one step along the process of finding the inner dimensions of Islam.
I wouldn't even say stap as it implies a linear progression from one to the other

>>16910720
>wasting time debating with wahhabis

>>16910755
Concession accepted liberal.

>>16910739
>Shia Islam isn't a sect, it's the strict adherence to the beliefs set forth by the Ahl al-Bayt
>Ibadi Islam isn't a sect, it's the strict adherence to the doctrine of Tawhid in a way that is more faithful to the concept than the Sunni and Shia ideas of what Tawhid is
Next you'll tell me the Khawarijs thought Allah commanded them to kill Ali. Stop it with the nonsense, your not being devoted to the principles of Islam, you've fetishized Islam and perverted it to serve your own neuroses. Anyone can do this mind you.

>>16910641
I think that there are two main forms of mysticism and both can be experienced at the same time. One is personal and one is beyond personal. Destroying me would be to poke God in his eye. Nothing is lost, only completed. But I do not know how long becoming would last. If God is eternally contemplating becoming and becoming is the same as the rest of him then right now and forever I am lost in him. Even He Who is is lost in himself but only he can be found. Bodies are fun but what is existence without a body? But my small worship of him is his very love.

>>16910755
I'm a master at wasting time
>>16910767
Wahabism is a modernist trend as well, one the western governments are quite fond of

>>16910782
>Wahabism is a modernist trend as well, one the western governments are quite fond of
This, nothing has been better at destroying Islamic tradition apart from the Mongols perhaps

>>16910789
>nothing has been better at destroying Islamic tradition
You mispelled the West's colonisalism and imperialism

>>16910703
>sufis
Prophets by their very nature are Mystics. Those who are close to God are what they are.

>>16910770
>the strict adherence to the beliefs set forth by the Ahl al-Bayt
Did they deviate from the ones of the Ahl Al Sunnah? Then they’re not valid. They didn’t? Then there is no distinction

>the strict adherence to the doctrine of Tawhid
Can’t get any more strict than the Ahl Al Sunnah definition I’m afraid.

>>16910799
No they aren’t liberal.

>>16910789
By “tradition” you mean bidah I assume?

>>16910721
>The point you advaitins make is that Maya is something foreign to Brahman, when like the Sun, its emanation of light is not foreign to it. The energy can never be foreign to its essence (to which it refers).
No it's not, maya is not foreign to Brahman but is sustained by Brahman's omnipotence and omniscience, I have already stated this once in the thread and explained why it is not foreign. I don't know why you keep repeating things I have already explained are wrong.
>Maya's power and its reality is willed by Brahman
>It is a logical conclusion.
No it's not. Willing acts being willed into existence by the willing sentience is a duality (will vs the sentience who wills). Brahman does not need to will maya into existence but it always has been arising beginninglessly out of Brahman's omnipotence forever without any act of will.
>yes, you guys posit the dualism of absolute reality-maya
This is not a dualism which exists in absolute reality, ergo its not dualistic
>you guys accept no willed gradation, which would be the only thing making sense
Making sense to you =/= making sense
>this utter rupture between brahman and maya is what accounts for the dualism in the advaita vedanta system.
It's not dualistic when there is no rupture on the level of absolute reality, all rupturing is contingent on a higher undivided absolute non-dual unicity; ergo its not a real dualism.
>the contigency is all put on maya when in fact it is brahman too.
wrong
>this is dogmatic and illogical. that is why prakashavimarshamaya is superior ti advaita vedanta. the brahman you posit is a brahman ignorant of everything, including himself. it is a dead principle.
Brahman is not ignorant of itself but is self-revealing sentience, Svaprakāśa, that always intuitively and immediately knows itself. It is Kashmir Shaivism which has a long laundry list of like 20 or so major logical contradictions in its doctrines as Chandradhar Sharma explains in pic related. Advaita Vedanta is free from internal contradictions, Kashmir Shaivism is not.

>>16910804
There isn't a Muslim that denies the Sunnah, every Muslim is the Ahl Al Sunnah.
>Did they deviate from the ones of the Ahl Al Sunnah?
No.
>Can’t get any more strict than the Ahl Al Sunnah definition I’m afraid.
Ibadis believe saying God has attributes isn't strictly adhering to Tawhid, by their definition your faith is lax and unscrupulous. How shameful.

>>16910817
>Someone who follows an anthropomorphizing sheikh that got thrown in jail for his opinions saying others have committed bidah
You have Jahiliyya in the deepest crevices of your heart.

Here come the libs crying about “Wahhabis”!

>>16910857
Libs love nothing more than a good Wahabist group to destabilize the Muslim world and destroy all of the beauty the Ummah has worked to create. Truly the Islam of Yajuj and Majuj.

>>16910836
Tawhid simply means the oneness of God, sophistically splitting hairs about “attributes” is... not sure what the proper term is but halal it ain’t

>>16910847
Not an argument, also who is that

>>16910867
Stability is for low test cuckolds and corrupt oil monarchies

>>16910820
>No it is not...
Can you think before you type? This is exactly what I am implying. There is no strangeness between both. Maya is not something ''alien'' and superimposed on a passive, unconscious, dead Brahman.
>Brahman's omnipotence
Explain how Brahman's omnipotence is different from Brahman's power.

>Brahman does not need to will maya into existence but always arise out of Him bla bla bla
You look like an npc repeating the same things when they are contradictory and already pointed out to be by me. This is the manifestation of the very advaita dualism. Maya comes out of a sudden from brahman which is dead and knows nothing. How does Maya arise if it is not willed and has nothing to do with brahman?

>if I say the word absolute therefore it is impossible to be dualistic
your system is dualistic and you cant even perceive this.

>akshuallyyy making sense is subjective!
yes, advaita vedanta ends up in nihilism.

>on the level of absolute reality
we have maya don't we? or are you going to deny that maya is even a thing. you say maya is allowed by brahman, that it is brahman's power, beginingless, but now there is nothing but some absolute... if all there is is the absolute, what are you arguing about?

>chandradhar sharma
materialistic interpretation. he can't even understand basic epistemology of revelation/anamnesis.

>>16910872
>Tawhid simply means the oneness of God, sophistically splitting hairs about “attributes” is... not sure what the proper term is but halal it ain’t
>My conception of what Tawhid is is correct, as I am more intelligent than every Muslim scholar who has said otherwise
Tawhid literally means association.
>>16910872
>Not an argument
>Ha sbeen saying lib over and over as if he isn't one himself
You are literally the Muslim version of the teenager that becomes a Tradcath to be contrarian.
>who is that
Ibn Taymiyyah, who is considered the greatest sheikh of all time by many of your kind.

>>16910867
>Libs love nothing more than a good Wahabist group to destabilize the Muslim world and destroy all of the beauty the Ummah has worked to create. Truly the Islam of Yajuj and Majuj.
It's not the wahabist groups that are doing that, It's the Islamic obsession with trying to absorb anything ''West'' due to their sociotechnological advantage

>>16910877
>Stability is for low test cuckolds and corrupt oil monarchies
>"Yeah that's right burn that village down America, your Wahabist allies approve!"
Brilliant.

>>16910895
>It's not the wahabist groups that are doing that, It's the Islamic obsession with trying to absorb anything ''West'' due to their sociotechnological advantage
>As if that's not what Wahabists are doing
They're more influenced by 19th century Anglo Protestantism than any semblance of orthodox Islam.

>>16910877
>Stability is for low test cuckolds
t. spiritually dead white salafi convert

>>16910897
I’m not a “wahhabist” and Saudis are cuckolds same as you liberal “Muslim” shitskins.

>>16910916
>spiritually
Nice christcuck buzzword.

>>16910932
>Believing in God is christcuck shit, I believe in being BASED and REPILLED
Unironically got his understanding of Islam off of 4chan, you need to be 18 to post on this sie kiddo

>>16910955
Swing and a miss. Next you’ll tell me Aisha wasn’t really 9, aka the biggest libshit apologist cope

>>16910883
>This is exactly what I am implying.
What you are implying is wrong, maya is sustained by Brahman, is contingent on Brahman and is included within Brahman's infinity, ergo it's not foreign to Brahman, as I have explained. You should stop repeating yourself
>Maya is not something ''alien'' and superimposed on a passive, unconscious, dead Brahman.
This is not what Advaita teaches and is not what I have said, don't play stupid
>Explain how Brahman's omnipotence is different from Brahman's power.
Omnipotence = all powerful
maya = power of Brahman

Being omnipotent allows Braham to wield His power without being constrained in any way. Omnipotence refers to Brahman's unlimited ability/potential, maya refers to those abilities as they are eternally actualized within the contingent existence.

>You look like an npc repeating the same things when they are contradictory and already pointed out to be by me.
Nothing I have said is contradictory, you are nothing but a sophist who keeps moving the goalposts around and repeating himself, I see right through you anon
>This is the manifestation of the very advaita dualism. Maya comes out of a sudden from brahman which is dead and knows nothing. How does Maya arise if it is not willed and has nothing to do with brahman?
Maya does not come out all of a sudden but has always dead, Brahman is not dead but is a living entity which has immediate and self-aware sentience, what you are saying just isn't true. What Kashmir Shaivism says about Advaita isn't true and its claims are directly contradicted in Shankara's writings. Maya arise without being willed because the omnipotent non-dual consciousness has always allowed it to do so, as is Brahman's inherent nature. It is not true that maya has nothing to do with Brahman because maya is Brahman's power/upadhi, I don't know how you expect people to debate with you when you ignore what they say minutes earlier and just repeat the same thing over and over which isn't even true despite people explaining to you how those claims aren't true.
>your system is dualistic and you cant even perceive this.
I have refuted your every sophistic attempt to substantiate this
>we have maya don't we? or are you going to deny that maya is even a thing.
In Advaita there is absolute and relative/contingent reality, we have maya at the level of contingent reality. Unless you understand this distinction you are incapable of even arguing effectively against Advaita.
>you say maya is allowed by brahman, that it is brahman's power, beginingless,
Yes, with this taking place on contingent level, but not at absolute reality.
>but now there is nothing but some absolute... if all there is is the absolute, what are you arguing about?
Yes, there is nothing but the absolute, at the level of absolute reality
>materialistic
dismissing something as materialistic is not a real argument or refutation he still points out like 20+ logical contradictions in Kashmir Shaivism regardless

>>16911283
*all of a sudden but has always been

>>16911283
>Omnipotence = all powerful maya = power of Brahman
then maya does not depend on brahman and brahman without maya is powerless, how can power be contingent by powerless ''being''
you are saying that brahman and maya are not foreign to each other, maya is the power of brahman but is sustained by brahman and therefore its power is contingent. at the same time you say brahman cannot be conscious of maya and maya is expressed by itself because brahman cant will and therefore is powerless.
dude your system is a mess, contradictory
you are just repeating dogmas without any profound understanding. if you understood you would see all the gaps in the system.

>you are a sophist who keeps moving goalposts
i'm pointing all the time the same thing: the dualism in your system. you can call me whatever you want, it wont change the fact that you are contradicting yourself all the time.

>brahman has self-aware conscience
contradicting yourself again. if he has conscience of himself he has conscience of maya (which IS HIS POWER) and thus would will maya to express the world.

>Maya arise without being willed because the omnipotent non-dual consciousness has always allowed it
>allowed
>not willed
>allows consciously something
>not willed
>inherent nature
>no relation to essence-energy
holy shit you dont even know what you are talking about

>dismissing something as materialistic isnt an argument
i said why it is materialistic, peabrain

>>16911283
>Yes, there is nothing but the absolute, at the level of absolute reality
yet you cant explain why there is non-absolute reality
>inb4 because it is contigency of maya
you still cant explain maya
>inb4 because it is allowed by brahman
so the absolute is conscious of the contingent? and is powerless to avoid the manifestation of a illusion of himself?

>>16911549
>then maya does not depend on brahman and brahman without maya is powerless, how can power be contingent by powerless ''being''
Brahman is not powerless but omnipotent, there is no Brahman who is not eternally wielding maya but maya always occurs eternally (on a conditional/contingent level of existence), maya does depend on Brahman for its contingent existence because it perpetually arises out of and is continually sustained by Brahman's omnipotence. Do you see how there is a total disconnect between what you are saying and what I am and that you just keep repeating yourself without any comprehension of what I am saying?

>you are saying that brahman and maya are not foreign to each other, maya is the power of brahman but is sustained by brahman and therefore its power is contingent. at the same time you say brahman cannot be conscious of maya
Yes, this much so far is correct
>and maya is expressed by itself because brahman cant will and therefore is powerless.
False, Brahman is undifferentiated non-dual consciousness that doesn't have a will, willing presupposes duality. Maya does not express itself by itself but has always been expressed out of Brahman's omnipotence and omniscience. Because it has always been expressed without beginning it did not need an act of will to set it in motion but Brahman has always been perpetually allowing it to exist. You are fallaciously attempting to use will and power as if they are synonymous when they are not. Brahman is not powerless because He is the cause of maya, time, the ether, causation etc but these arise perpetually without any will involved.
>dude your system is a mess, contradictory
No, you just are a sophist who repeats himself and ignores every time when I explain how there is no contradiction

>>16911688
>the dualism in your system
All dualism in Advaita is only conditional and not occurring at the level of absolute reality, ergo it's not a real dualistic system. Kashmir Shaivism is dualistic insofar as it contains real dualisms which are not only conditional but real, like Shiva and Sakti. What you are saying is not even a logical contradiction in Advaita since Advaita never said there are no dualisms at any level but only that there is none in absolute reality. Meanwhile there are very real contradictions in KS as Sharma points out which are not a matter of semantics like your objections to Advaita are.

>contradicting yourself again. if he has conscience of himself he has conscience of maya
False, Brahman's sentience has immediate self-revealing awareness of Himself, Brahman is not identical to maya, ergo to say that Brahman is aware of Himself is not the same as to say that Brahman is automatically aware of maya, you are failing at basic logic

>holy shit you dont even know what you are talking about
Yes I do, Advaita like Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't accept that energy and essence are the same. Brahman always allows something to happen out of Brahman's omnipotence and omniscience without a specific willing involved. Once you understand that Brahman is omnipotent non-dual consciousness which doesn't have a will (which presupposes duality) there is no contradiction.

>i said why it is materialistic, peabrain
That is not the definition of materialist anon, you can't just give words made up meanings which they don't have, at least not if you want to be taken seriously in a debate. Sharma is not a materialist but accepts the existence of God.

>>16911565
>yet you cant explain why there is non-absolute reality
Yes I can, because it is Brahman's nature to always allow it to arise out of his omnipotence without any action or will, ergo there is no contradiction
>you still cant explain maya
Yes I can and that's what I've been doing in this thread, ergo there is no contradiction
>so the absolute is conscious of the contingent?
No, Brahman is not conscious of the contingent as a distinct thing different from Brahman, if it were so then that would be a duality of subject and object and then Advaita would not be a true non-dualism, it would then become a dualistic non-dualism like Kashmir Shaivism and Vishishtadvaita are.
>and is powerless to avoid the manifestation of a illusion of himself?
Brahman automatically avoids maya in the sense that Brahman is forever unaffected and untouched by maya, to say that Brahman is powerless to avoid wielding maya (his own power) is meaningless, it is through maya being Brahman's power that it even has a contingent existence. Without Brahman wielding his power in an omnipotent manner there is no maya.

>>16907527
>bataille
i havent read this dude yet, what's he about?

>>16911688
i ''repeat myself'' because you are all the time saying the same things. look at this retardation:
>brahman is omnipotent
(you repeated it like 10 times). then i ask you what is omnipotence. you answer: all powerful. i ask you what maya is. you answer: power of brahman. then i point to you how then is brahman necessarily all powerful without his power being himself, here i mean the ontological status of power/energy which is in relation to essence (brahman). you proceed to repeat the same thing without addressing the point raised.

>this is correct
so brahman is not aware of his power nor his omnipotence and if he is not aware of it he is not omniscient.

>false brahman is ....
and here YOU JUST FUCKING REPEAT YOURSELF for the millionth time look at this shit dude.
if brahman is not conscious of HIS POWER he is not conscious of HIMSELF then there is no consciousness at all. brahman must be conscious of himself (thus of his power because it IS HIMSELF) and therefore he will wills himself willing maya's power/emanation/creation etc. if you deny this there will be dualism. this is my point that i need to repeat all the time beacuse you cant understand and start repeating the same dogmas like a robot.

>>16911697
you said
>Maya arise without being willed because the omnipotent non-dual consciousness has always allowed it to do so, as is Brahman's inherent nature
now you say
>Brahman is not identical to maya, ergo to say that Brahman is aware of Himself is not the same as to say that Brahman is automatically aware of maya
>Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't accept that energy and essence are the same
they don't posit a separation though. there is a fundamental relation between the two. in your case brahman is ignorant of his own power as if it were an alien entity.

>made up words
if you don't know what platonic epistemology is obviously you wont understand anamnesis and obviously will buy the retardation of Sharma's sophistry against pratyabhijna.

>>16911743
>it is Brahman's nature to always allow it to arise out of his omnipotence without any action or will
he needs omnipotence to allow it to arise
you said omnicepotence is all powerfullness
maya is brahman's power
therefore: brahman depends on maya to be omnipotent and to allow it itself to arise and emanate

>No, Brahman is not conscious of the contingent as a distinct thing different from Brahman
see my post above, he is aware of maya as himself.

>>16911962
>then i ask you what is omnipotence. you answer: all powerful. i ask you what maya is. you answer: power of brahman. then i point to you how then is brahman necessarily all powerful without his power being himself,
Brahman is all powerful without His power being Himself in the same way that Zeus is not identical to his thunderbolts, or how the workman is not identical to his tools. To say that Brahman is His power would be to say that the same thing is both the wielder and the thing being wielded, which is a contradiction.
>so brahman is not aware of his power nor his omnipotence and if he is not aware of it he is not omniscient.
Brahman is omniscient in the sense that Brahman's non-dual consciousness itself possesses the ability to perpetually give rise to the universe, time and causation, which only an omniscient all-knowing being could do. Brahman is also omniscient in the sense that He is the only knower, He is the all-consciousness in which everything else takes place. All creatures are imparted the light of awareness by His light. The very concept of an omnipresent consciousness alone without any other consideration implies omniscience. The Saguna Brahman engendered by maya fulfills the more classical definition of omniscience, but in the above ways Brahman is still omniscient. Omniscience doesn't automatically entail a mind engaged in a dualistic subject-versus-object relationship.
>if brahman is not conscious of HIS POWER he is not conscious of HIMSELF then there is no consciousness at all.
False, once again you have failed at basic logic, here, I will make it more easy for you

Brahman's sentience = A
Brahman's power = B

Brahman's sentience having immediate and self-revealing awareness of itself non-dualistically = A being aware of A
Brahman's sentience having awareness of Brahman's power = A being aware of B

In the first sense, Brahman is conscious of Himself. period. That's all that needs to be said to establish that Brahman is consciousness and conscious of Himself, your sophisms cannot refute this.

>brahman must be conscious of himself (thus of his power because it IS HIMSELF)
False, because the energy-essence distinction is real, ergo Brahman is not His powers. When you deny this you land yourself in contradiction by saying that the same thing is both the thing wielded and at the same time the wielder who wields it, but this is a contradiction in terms.

>>16912019
>they don't posit a separation though. there is a fundamental relation between the two. in your case brahman is ignorant of his own power as if it were an alien entity.
To be aware of something as different from one's self is a dualistic relationship of subject-and-object, if Brahman were aware of His power as a distinct entity, then that would be dualism, but Advaita is non-dual so Brahman is not. Just because Brahman is unaware of maya as a distinct entity doesn't make maya an alien entity, just like how a human in pre-modern times being unaware of their bodies power to do something like attack a virus or enter into a coma doesn't make that capability of their body an alien entity to themselves.

>if you don't know what platonic epistemology is obviously you wont understand anamnesis and obviously will buy the retardation of Sharma's sophistry against pratyabhijna.
I didn't say that anamnesis was made-up, I was calling you out for giving the word "materialistic" your own made-up definition which doesn't correspond to what it actually means, please don't play dumb (you might actually be this dumb though I'm not sure)

>>16912046
>therefore: brahman depends on maya to be omnipotent and to allow it itself to arise and emanate
Incorrect, because Brahman's omnipotence is inseparable from itself, while maya is not.
>see my post above, he is aware of maya as himself.
False, because that implies energy = essence which is rejected by Advaita and which is itself a contradictory notion as I explained here >>16912137

>>16912228
*Brahman's omnipotence is inseparable from Himself

>>16912137
>Brahman is all powerful without His power being Himself in the same way that Zeus is not identical to his thunderbolts, or how the workman is not identical to his tools. To say that Brahman is His power would be to say that the same thing is both the wielder and the thing being wielded, which is a contradiction.
if you really think that brahman and maya are two different entities, then where does maya come from? it can only arise from brahman if it is his nature to emanate the very energy related to its essence (ALL ENERGIES REFER TO THEIR PARTICULAR ESSENCES AND ALL ESSENCES ARE RELATED TO THEIR PARTICULAR ENERGIES. read plato and aristotle for fucks sake).
the relationship would be more like the intellect having intellective power and the intellective power referring back to the intellect. if this is not the relation between brahman and maya then there are different entities and maya must come from something that is not brahman himself. hence dualism.

>Brahman is omniscient in the sense that Brahman's non-dual consciousness itself possesses the ability
once again implying potentia, energy, will, power.... i dont think you know any of these mean.

>brahman's sentience = b
>brahman's power = b
see. you have no idea about the relation of essence and energy. consciousness it conscious of something (in the case of God, Himself) and His power is the very power of his own ''consciousness-energy''. the very relation of essence and energy is the same of consciousness ''conscious-ing'' itself. or consciousness sciring itself, that is prakashavimarshamaya which chandradhar sharma misinterprets like jivas having self-awareness.

to be aware implies having the ability, power, will to be aware and effect a consciousness

>>16912228
because Brahman's omnipotence is inseparable from itself, while maya is not.
you yourself said that omnipotence is all powerful and maya is power BRAHMAN NEEDS his power to be omnipotence holy shit
just lobotomize yourself with this sloppy dogmatism. pseudo metaphysics. it falls apart with the least rigorous thinking.
you will just keep repeating yourself like the very npc you are, there is no way to make you understand anything. good luck.

>>16912492
>if you really think that brahman and maya are two different entities, then where does maya come from?
Maya is not an entity (definition of entity = something that has a distinct and independent existence), it is a merely virtual effect caused by the only existing entity, within the infinity of that entity, without that effect having any impact upon the entity which is maya's transcendent substratum and origin. It is neither completely identical to Brahman nor completely distinct from Brahman.

>it can only arise from brahman if it is his nature to emanate the very energy related to its essence
The only way that maya-energy is related to Brahman's essence is that it is Brahman's nature to always be wielding maya as His power, but the maya-energy does not take on or retain the same nature of Being-Consciousness-Bliss which is Brahman. Brahman's power must be different from Brahman or you face the contradiction in terms which I have already described.

>(ALL ENERGIES REFER TO THEIR PARTICULAR ESSENCES AND ALL ESSENCES ARE RELATED TO THEIR PARTICULAR ENERGIES. read plato and aristotle for fucks sake).
As I have said, I hold to the energy-essence distinction as does Eastern Orthodox theology, citing Plato and Aristotle means nothing to me, I don't accept everything they say uncritically and in my opinion Shankara goes farther and penetrates further into the truth of things than either of them. Just restating this is only circular thinking (X said this so it must be true!) on your behalf but its not a real argument.

>the relationship would be more like the intellect having intellective power and the intellective power referring back to the intellect. if this is not the relation between brahman and maya then there are different entities and maya must come from something that is not brahman himself. hence dualism.
False for reasons adduced above

>>16911697
Dualism does operate the absolute level. How do you know it doesn't?

>>16912492
>once again implying potentia, energy, will, power.... i dont think you know any of these mean.
Brahman does have power/energy, Brahman does not have will because Brahman is undifferentiated non-dual consciousness. Brahman is unchanging so it always actualizes its abilities, if Brahman changed in any way Brahman would be mutable and hence not eternal.
>you have no idea about the relation of essence and energy
I do, I just disagree with you, who seem to be incapable of using anything but circular thinking. >consciousness it conscious of something
False, consciousness as such is self-revealing, the objects of consciousness are different from consciousness. The immediate fact of self-knowing consciousness as such is independent of any association with objects.
>and His power is the very power of his own ''consciousness-energy''.
Then the wielded thing is the same thing as the wielder who wields it, which is a contradiction in terms
>the very relation of essence and energy is the same of consciousness ''conscious-ing'' itself
conscious-ing is not a word
>to be aware implies having the ability, power, will to be aware and effect a consciousness
No it doesn't, consciousness is itself self-sufficient unto itself and self-established and doesn't require will
>>16912511
>you yourself said that omnipotence is all powerful and maya is power BRAHMAN NEEDS his power to be omnipotence holy shit
Brahman's maya is included under the range of possibilities which can be produced by the all-powerful omnipotence of
Brahman, without maya being one of these possibilities, Brahman is not omnipotent. But maya is included under these possibilities so Brahman is omnipotent. Brahman itself is omnipotent, but Brahman itself is not maya. Comprende? What you are saying here amounts to "If Brahman wasn't omnipotent (by virtue of not having this important thing included under His omniscient abilities) then Brahman wouldn't be omnipotent" which is a pointless truism.
>you will just keep repeating yourself like the very npc you are,
You are the one who keeps failing at basic logic and who can't make any arguments which don't involve either
a) making unsubstantiated appeals to authority
b) presupposing your Kashmir Shaivism definitions to be true in a circular manner and then faulting me for not accepting them when you never justify these to begin with

>>16910385
how does that work?

it's possible that I remember this wrong, and God forgive me if this is so, but I seem to recall there being at least one part of the Quran where a function of the stars in the sky is that they confound any devil that seeks to steal wisdom from heaven. Exactly how I don't know, but I like to think (God knows best) that they are like jewels that catch the eye of the would-be thief, and so he runs after a star for a while until he loses his stamina, and he stops. then he looks up, sees another star and runs after that. in the end he is stuck in a cycle of "almost getting it".That feeling then being a trick from God to keep the proud busy. I feel like this is a pertinent immage what with all this "mysticism" going on in this thread.

And God knows best.

Why would you bother with the works of someone as irrelevant as Ibn Arabi that is only followed by like 0,01% of muslims? Both orthodox (where orthodox is defined as anyone who isn't Ibn Arabi himself or some of his followers) and academics confirm he was a crypto-buddhist.

>>16912511
>just lobotomize yourself with this sloppy dogmatism. pseudo metaphysics. it falls apart with the least rigorous thinking.
OH NO NO NO NO NO NO

Then why did Abhinavagupta copy the Maya of Advaita only to make it less logically consistent?

Shiva, the absolute Self, for shear joy (ananda) and sport (lila), manifests the entire universe by His free will on Himself and within Himself. The projected world is His abhasa or manifestation and is real, because it is within Him and one with Him. It has been shown above that pure consciousness appears as creative will due to its apparent association with avidya and when avidya is removed by immediate experience, the world of manifestations disappears with it. Kashmira Shaivism is wrong in holding that immediate experience dispels only the false notion through which the manifested world appears as external to and different from the manifesting consciousness. This amounts to an impossible attempt to separate the form from the content of consciousness and retain the form and reject the content. Vijnanavada also makes such an attempt but it confines it to empirical consciousness alone and treats transcendental consciousness as utterly and eternally free from subject-object duality. Kashmira Shaivism admits that the world appears as objective and external to consciousness to a finite self labouring under innate Ignorance, but this very world on removal of this Ignorance would continue to exist, eternally and really, within the supreme Self as one with Him.

>>16912876
This is highly illogical, for it separates the content from the form of consciousness and rejects the content and retains the form even at the level of transcendental consciousness of the supreme Self. The distinction between the content and the form of consciousness is made in thought, when the nature of an illusory or dream object is analysed; in fact its content and form are inseparable, so inseparable that they always appear or disappear together and are never perceived as two. Hence the attempt of Kashmira Shaivism to reject the world as external to and different from the pure Self, and to retain it as a real manifestation within the Supreme is impossible. It may be argued by the Kashmira Shaiva that he is not trying to make the impossible separation between the content and form of consciousness, that he also admits that to project anything is to project it as objective, and that he is not opposed to the objectivity of the projected, but to its externality to the projecting Consciousness. He may say that the projected idea or image is necessarily perceived as objective, but it need not always be perceived as something material, as something external to and different from Consciousness. Due to our innate Ignorance (ajnana or anava-mala) we (mis)take the world as material (Jada), as finite (parichchhinna), as external to and different from the manifesting Consciousness {chit-shakti), but when this Ignorance is removed, this very world will be perceived in its true nature as one with Consciousness. The liberated self will realise his essential unity with the Supreme Self as well as with the manifested world. In the pure Self, there is a complete union of subject and object. The pure Self is both the subject and the object, the manifestor as well as the manifested, the perceiver and the perceived; there is nothing else except Him. As the subject-object duality is transformed into a wonderful unity in the Supreme Self, the world of diverse manifestations will be perceived as objective, but as one with the Supreme, The whole universe will be realised as manifestation by, on and within the Supreme and as non-different from Him. But all this is untenable.

>>16912882
The Kashmlra Shaiva is trying to make another impossible distinction between ‘objectivity’ and ‘externality’. Externality, he too admits includes materiality, finitude and difference. But he forgets that objectivity necessarily means otherness. The object is that which is different from or other than the subject. Thus objectivity means ‘difference’ or ‘otherness* from the subject or consciousness. This difference of the object from consciousness is the fundamental difference to which all other differences among the objects may be traced. The subject or pure consciousness can never be presented as an object, not even to itself. Its indubitable certitude is implied in its self-luminosity and its being the foundation of all our experience. It is self-shining and self-proved, though never an object. The notion of objectivity is due to transcendental Illusion or avidya. That which can be presented as an object is, for that very reason, something different from or other to or external to the subject, and therefore something non-consciousness or material, finite, and super-imposed on the subject; it is mere appearance and so ultimately false. To try to retain subject-object duality in any form in the pure Self is to give up its reality as foundational Consciousness.

Kashmlra Shaivism says that abhasa is like an image reflected in a mirror. The mirror has a capacity to receive reflection and the reflected image is identical with the reflecting mirror (darpana-pratibimba-bhava). The self-luminous Self, unlike a mirror which is an object and therefore needs external light for reflecting images in it, reflects everything by its own light. The Supreme Self by His power of vimarsha projects the world on His transcendental aspect of prakasha and the world reflected therein is one with the Self, though appearing as external through innate Ignorance. Creation is without any material cause. The pure Self is perfect freedom and creates the world by the sheer force of His will without any material. The Lord paints the multi-coloured world-picture without any canvas, brush or colour simply by His perfect will. There is no original to be reflected, no object to be pictured, no arche-type to be copied, nothing to be mirrored, except the Lord Himself. This means that the Lord Himself, through the force of His perfect will, projects Himself as the world of diverse manifestations on His pure Consciousness, wherein these manifestations shine as identical with Him and are perceived by Him as brought forth by His Power revealing His absolute freedom, His glory and grandeur.

>>16912891
Now, the least that can be said against this abhasavada is that if there is nothing except Him, He need not indulge in this futile act of projecting Himself on Himself and perceiving His reflections as identical with Him and thereby realising His freedom and greatness. As He is pure consciousness, which is at once pure being and bliss, He does not stand in need of creation to realise His being and bliss. If He does, He would be imperfect Hence, self-consciousness, will, creativity, etc., cannot be really attributed to the pure Self; these must be traced to avidya. The pure Self, due to avidya, appears as this world of plurality. As its reality, the Self is immanent in it; as its background on which it is super-imposed, the Self is transcendent to it. Hence abhasa can mean only appearance, not a real manifestation. The abhasa in Kashmira Shaivism, when philosophically analysed, turns out to be nothing but adhyasa in disguise. If there is no other reality except the Supreme Self and if all difference is due to innate and beginningless Ignorance as Kashmira Shaivism itself is keen to emphasise, then the reality of the manifestations cannot be admitted. When the pure Self is realised by the removal of this innate Ignorance, the whole world of subject-object duality will vanish. It cannot be said that only the false notion of difference due to which we mistake the world as different from the Supreme on which it is projected will vanish, while the world will continue to exist within the Supreme as His real manifestation and will be perceived as non-different from Him.

For, if all difference is due to Ignorance, the basic difference between the subject and the object cannot be retained in the Absolute and the manifestations cannot be perceived as objective within the Absolute. The removal of innate Ignorance will not only destroy the difference between the Absolute and the world, but also the difference among the manifestations and among the liberated selves. Hence in the Absolute, there would be no individual self to perceive and no manifested world to be perceived. The removal of innate Ignorance will at once remove all the difference and along with the externality, materiality and finitude of the world, its objectivity, its character of being manifested and the plurality of manifestations within the Absolute would vanish.

>>16912900
The manifestated Universe (even within consciousness) is superimposed on the ground reality of the Supreme Self as pure consciousness and its rejection leads to the reaffirmation only of its ground, i.e., pure consciousness of the Supreme Self. The individual selves and the manifested objects can be retained only as one with the pure Self. This means that the pure Self is the reality of the individual selves and of the manifested objects which are superimposed on it due to avidya. When avidya is destroyed, the superimposed vanish as unreal, leaving only their ground as real. Creation, projection or manifestation cannot be taken as ultimately real. Only the ground of this manifestation can be ultimately real. Kashmira Shaivism is opposed to mayavada of Advaita Vedanta, but its abhasa turns out in the end as ‘adhyasa* in disguise. It says that maya or avidya cannot be taken as transcendental Illusion which hides the Real and projects the unreal on it. Nor can maya be defined as ‘indefinable either as real or as unreal or as both, for this is self-contradictory. It rejects ‘anirvachaniya-khyati’ or the Vedantic view of error as indescribable either as real or as unreal. Its theory of error is called ‘apurna-khyati* which is a form of ‘akhyati*, according to which error is treated as imperfect knowledge or as ‘non-apprehension* and not misapprehension. But it has to admit that during illusion even the false appears in knowledge and should be treated as non-different from the projecting consciousness. Now, if the ‘rope-snake’ which appears in knowledge is said to be due to imperfect knowledge and is accepted
as ‘real’ in the sense of being non-different from the projecting consciousness and as ‘unreal* in the sense of being an object out there, then even the so-called real snake, by the same logic, is due
to imperfect knowledge and must be rejected as unreal in the sense of being different from the universal consciousness which projects it.

>>16912906
From this it follows that everything, whether real or imaginary by our empirical standard, is equally ‘real’ as a manifestation of consciousness and equally ‘unreal’ as an object different from consciousness. This removes the logical distinction between error and knowledge, between empirical error (pratibhasd) and transcendental error (vyavahdrd), and also between empirical reality and transcendental reality. Vijnanavada Buddhism also places empirical and transcendental error on an equal footing (parikalpita), but it does maintain the logical distinction between error and truth and also the distinction between empirical consciousness (paratantra) and transcendental consciousness (parinispanna). And Kashmira Shaivism has not gained anything by obliterating the aforesaid distinction, for in the end by its own logic everything, real or imaginary, turns out to be unreal as experienced by us in our empirical life. Advaita Vedanta says that everything as experienced by us in our empirical life turns out to be ultimately false because it is a superimposition by maya, but it has the advantage of safeguarding its empirical reality.

In ‘abhasavada’ the world ultimately turns out to be false and there is no emphasis on its empirical reality. In its zeal to preserve the reality of the world, Kashmira Shaivism Wants to take the whole world into the Absolute and after shedding off its materiality, externality, finitude, etc., clings to its reality as the manifestation of the Absolute within and non-different from itself. But the reality of the world even as manifested within Consciousness as weSiave seen above cannot be upheld. Thus abhasa turns out to be adhyasa, vivarta or maya minus its advantage of preserving empirical reality. Again, inspite of its opposition to maya or avidya, Kashmira Shaivism has to accept all the characteristics of maya in some form or the other. In Advaita Vedanta, maya is transcendental Illusion which hides the Real and projects the unreal on the ground-reality. It is the principle of objectivity, externality, difference, limitation, finitude. All the characteristics of maya are accepted in Kashmira Shaivism in some form or the other.

Is being terminally autistic a prerequisite for believing in Advaita Vedanta?

>>16912920
This system frankly admits maya-tattva as the sixth in its list, of thirty six tattvas. To distinguish it from the Vedantic maya, it is called a tattva or reality. It is said to be an aspect of Shakti. It is the first manifestation of impure creation. It is the principle of externality and difference. It is the power of obscuration (moha), because it acts as a veil on the unity of the Self. It is the root-cause of all limitation and finitude. In it the objectivity (visayata) is fully manifest. Shakti is treated as pure transcendental objectivity which remains in eternal union with the transcendental subject, so that the pure Self is at once self-consciousness or will, who enjoys his own bliss and creates the world through his free will-power. This Shakti called svatantrya, vimarsha, dnanda etc. is responsible for projecting the world. That aspect of knowledge-power (jhatrtva-shakti) which is responsible for exclusion and differentiation through thought-forms is called Apohana-Shakti. That aspect of the willpower (ichchha-shakti) through which the Supreme conceals His own nature is known as svarupa-gopana-shakti and is called maya}

>>16912932
And, above all, basic innate beginningless Ignorance or paurusar ajhana is also admitted and called 4anava-mald (the innate impurity of the Self). Though beginningless, it is removable by right knowledge. It conceals the real nature of the self and leads to the consciousness of its supposed imperfection and limitation (Apurnam-manyata). It obscures the free will of the self and makes it ignorant of the fact that this freedom belongs to it. It sprouts into samsdra} In addition to these Prakrti tattva is admitted as the principle of materiality (jadatva). Thus we see that though openly avoiding the Vedantic concept of maya, Kashmlra Shaivism has to accept it in so many forms.

Kàshmïra Shaivism admits jivanmukti, emphasises the ultimate reality of the pure Self alone, traces all difference to innate Ignorance, treats bondage and liberation as ultimately unreal, takes everything as the manifestation of the Real, regards immediate spiritual experience as leading to moksa, admits màyà shakti as veiling the Real and as the root-cause of all difference, finitude and limitation and emphasises the need for spiritual discipline to realise the Self. Pratyabhijnâ glides away in aparoksànubhüti of Vedanta. There are many passages in the classical works of this system emphasising the transcendental unity of the Supreme Self and condemning all difference in unmistakable terms. Inspite of all this, this system has a bias against the inactivity of Brahma and the theory of màyà as advocated in Advaita Vedanta and wants to preserve the reality of everything by treating it as the manifestation of the Supreme. We have seen that it is not possible to do so. The School of Kàshmïra Shaivism appears to be a house divided against itself and its inner contradictions can be removed from the standpoint of Advaita Vedanta, which is often implicitly contained in it.

>>16912669
Because the Upanishads don't say so, they say that Brahman is partless, undivided, and exists in one form only.

>>16912759
>Brahman's maya is included under the range of possibilities which can be produced by the all-powerful omnipotence of
Brahman, without maya being one of these possibilities, Brahman is not omnipotent. But maya is included under these possibilities so Brahman is omnipotent. Brahman itself is omnipotent, but Brahman itself is not maya
how does it work for an omnipotent being to be actually omnipotent when its power, which characterizes its omnipotenec, (and condition for omnipotence) is potential?

>>16913340
> when its power, which characterizes its omnipotenec, (and condition for omnipotence) is potential?
It is not merely potential but the power of maya is always forever and ever actualized without any beginning

>>16913682
but i dont undersstand how this power is a possibility among others that is actualized by the omnipotence that precedes its very all-powerful-power. how can there be the possibility of production by the all-powerful omnipotence of brahman if its very power is a possibility (and therefore in need to be actualized for it is potential - possibility)?

I like it

>>16913748
Omnipotence doesn't precede all-powerful, to be omnipotent means to be all-powerful. Brahman is omnipotent ergo Brahman is all-powerful, Brahman existing as an omnipotent entity precedes in an ontological sense the power which is contingent on Brahman being omnipotent. I'm not sure exactly what point you are trying to make.

>>16913848
it is not a point, im genuinely interested. but i cant understand how ''power'' is not predicated of ''all-powerful''. how is something all-powerful before having the power to be all-powerful?

>>16909331
>>16907621
>>16909532
All, I repeat ALL Muslims I've dealt with that weren't alevi, sufi or shi'ites were absolute nuisances to have around. Uppity, sanctimonious and always convinced that they were right (and if you could pay really close attention you might notice a tiny sprinkle of victimhood and shamelessness here and there).

Whereas getting to know other peoples like Blacks and Indians more intimately, familiarizing with Muslims actually made me MORE hateful on them than before. Their struggle is completely their own doing and, more so, they actively added more fuel to the fire by being what they didn't claim to be. Their book, while not being candid with the "KILLEM" narrative the Old Testament often displays, is full of revenge fantasies about how their god will punish non-believers and how in warfare the most heinous deeds are warranted.
I'll extend an olive branch and admit that the CIA and other groups have had their hand in the development of modern day Islam, but that's as far as I'm willing to go. Muslims are the textbook definition of angry retards.

To keep it civil, if any Muslim cares to rebuke me or use some muslim pilpul (inferior in every way) I'll start posting the images of another lit anon dismantling their retarded religion verse by verse.
And no, I'm not biased, it's just the truth.

>>16913864
I am using all-powerful to refers to the unlimited capacity for acts or exercises of power, and I am using power to refer to the actuating or operating of that capacity

>>16913901
I've talked to you before, and you're not any better than the Mudslimes. You have the smugness of a Christcuck who pretends to be innocent, but you're both the same shit at the end of the day. Go eat shit.
Christianity is a stupid religion too. Thinking endless about an irrelevant conniving Jew, become a Jew. Think endlessly about a goatfucking, inbred Bedouin, become a Bedouin. You both feed into each other.
Also, all Muslims irrespective of sect are shit, just like you pestersome Christcucks.

>>16913931
I'm not Christian though, but I will take your ad hom as a compliment since you obviously couldn't do much more than that.

>>16913945
I could be mistaking you for someone else. Your writing styles are similar. Anyways, if you're not him, I apologize.
If you're not that surly Christcuck, then I agree with you 100%, but I would go a step further and say other Muslims aren't great either. However, a lot of times their children do leave behind the religion.

>>16913928
then what is the difference between brahman's omnipotence and brahman's power (maya)? if the latter is the ''extension'', the activity, of the former?

>>16913956
We agree on christianity being bad.
I'm not sure about the latter though, some sects are kind of chill and don't really proselytize much (maybe in part due to being a persecuted minority in their own right).

>>16914091
Why do you think Christianity is bad?

>>16914091
I don't like any of the Abrahamic religions because they all become obsessive over trivial events that transpired in the Levant. In my opinion it makes more sense to begin with metaphysical inquiry rather than describing a bunch of historical events. Eastern religions don't have this problem, which is why I respect them more in general.
Also, I agree the Middle East is fucked up not just because of CIA. However, I think it has to do with how powerful petroleum is, and given how many leaders can become corrupt, it has to do with how they manipulate the populace for greed. Even if the Middle East were Christian, it would have much of the same problems.
Now if it were Buddhist, things might be different.
I don't blame Middle Eastern instability on race though outside of the Gulf Arab regions, which mixed with nigger a lot.

>>16914036
Omnipotence is something that Brahman possesses as something intrinsic to Himself, whereas maya is something taking place on a contingent and virtual existence

>>16914184
yes i agree. but then it follows that they refer to the same thing of brahman: his powers, no? one in relation to brahman's ability or capacity, a kind of power, and the other in relation to maya as externalizing this power. is this right?

>>16910172
>It's good to keep in mind so that we don't put limits on him.... keep in mind that there is also a positive revelation of God

This is why univocal depersonalizing mysticism is bad is because it's not consistent. I'd argue the vast majority of akbarian Sufis/absolute non-dualists actually have a conception of the ineffable Absolute and part of their ego they never renounce. In the end, it's inconsistent and contradictory, more of a subjective mood that you try to shill on to others with bad language and worse argumentation.

Just read all the cringe stuff Ibn Arabi said about how he was the seal of the saints, how Muhammad dictated to him The Bezels of Wisdom, how he had sex with a djinn and conceived a book etc...Not too mention ALL non-dualists have to write thousands of pages explaining the Supreme Ineffable and demarcating the Universal with autistic categories of higher and lower modes of being.

Anyway, Non-being is limited by Being for non-dualists but they're too stupid and stubborn to admit it.

>>16914107
Smug followers and the Church being a place of corruption.

>>16914550
Ah anon, but this is common among humanity. Do you hate all men? The Church is a two millenia old institution. There will be always corrupt men, there will be always egoistic men. Listen to what Socrates said in Phaedo.

>>16907349
>Thoughts
I do not even think. In fact, I rarely think or thunk anything at all.

Based and advaita pilled.

>>16907349
>unity
Is there any actual argument for this

>>16913901
Shut up jew.

>>16910145
>ergo it's not dualistic
Ah but absolute and and 'contingent level' is still a dualism.

>>16910222
>don't taint their transcendent substratum.
fag

>>16910286
if you believe this you have worms for brain man

>>16910581
so jiva = brahman but jivas are stupid but brahman isnt?

load of shit

>>16907621

>>16914184
can you answer me anon? omnipotence is the power intrinsic of brahman and maya is this power externalized??

>>16910145
>>16910365
>>16910548
>>16910820
>>16911283
>>16911743
>>16912228
>>16912759
>>16912876
>yes brahman exists but so maya coeternal with brahman because brahman allows maya to exist so yes there is absolute and contingent reality coeternally
>NOOOOO THIS IS NOT DUALISM!!! NOOOO BRAHMAN DOES NOT ALLOW MAYA WILLINGLY!!!!!!

>>16913901
Yes Islam is unashamedly unfiltered and undiluted. If you don't confirm to Islam guess what? It doesn't like you and is classes you as a heretic and if they are organised enough (like during the early Islamic expansions) they are going to decimate any opposing culture and absorb the people. Islam doesn't try to reinvent itself to pander to Western degeneracy like Christianity and it doesn't try and be sneaky and underhanded and subversive like Judaism. It's in your face loud and proud based as fuck.

>>16913901
The irony in this post is quite sharp. You are implying muslims to be angry assholes because of their scriptures, (which by my estimation, can be very true),
however you are not able to access your own biases and anger that is in parallel exactly to those of the muslim.
Non spiritual vindictiveness and a total lack of empathy coupled with self-righteousness.
Especially the part about "lit anon dismantling Quran" which is hilarious because it probably doesn't hold weight intellectually.
Anyone that thinks a /lit/ pastas hold any actual weight and contains new argument that was not addressed by centuries of scholarly tradition and scrutiny can be said to be quite a naive person.

>>16913901
Your post is nothing but sōyish whine and as such does not need a rebuttal, only mockery. Christshit.

>>16913901
>Hurr durr muslims are retards
>Rebute me
Rebute what?

>>16917849
What do expect? Literally every anon on here has either a surface level understanding of subjects or most times a less than surface level understanding. To them pastas, infographics, charts, PNG etc... are the height of knowledge.

>>16916614
Jivas are an appearance of Brahman
>>16917761
Yes, I would say so, I would hesitate to call omnipotence itself a power, to me it makes more sense to say it is the limitless capacity for power, which can itself be regarded as a quasi-power, but not in the same sense as the actual power being utilized. Shankara doesn’t specify this as far as I can remember but that is what seems to be implied in his works

>>16917954
>capacity for power
but this is already a power, anon.........

It's amazing how piss poor Guenonfag's arguments in favor of Shankara are.

>>16913901
>All, I repeat ALL Muslims I've dealt with that weren't alevi, sufi or shi'ites were absolute nuisances to have around.

based and true

>>16917998
How is the capacity for something equal to the thing itself? Surely we wouldn’t say that the musicians capacity to produce wonderful music isn’t the same thing as him actually playing his instrument

>>16918161
If you have the capacity to stand up from your chair, to move, you have the power to stand up and move. Likewise in your example, you have the power to produce wonderful music. Without this power you wouldn't even have the capacity to do the things which you have the power to do. You are just playing semantics because you know very well what it implies in your system.

>>16918181
even if we use the same word for both, having the ability to do something is not the same as doing it

>>16918242
one is power in potential and the other power in actuality. both are powers, dunamis and energeia. keep coping with your dogmatic contradictory phantasies. metaphysics is not for everyone

>>16918263
Yes, there is a distinction between them, hence there is no contradiction for Advaita

>>16918381
there is a distinction in the direction of the power, but the power itself is the same and must be actualized otherwise the capacity, ability to externalize this power will be a capacity for the capacity, the ability of the ability to externalize this power. the ability and capacity are always predicated on a power (actualized). what is potential is a particular direction of this power for a particular activity.
i'm actually satisfied that you need to cope this bad. you could just admit you worship a false dogma and move on

>>16918478
so what is the contradiction in Advaita doctrine supposed to be?

verbal sophisms dont a logical contradiction make

>>16918991
>aktually there is a power that is not that power, this power is different from the very power that actualizes it
>the nature having the power to keep being this very nature? what you talking about maya just springs from its nature... but maya is not brahman it is contingent yeah the contingent comes from the absolute... how? because of its power... but this power is not that natural power!!!
>NOOOO YOU ARE THE SOPHIST!!!!
all my replies and from other people here in this thread shows exactly this.
if you cant see how retarded your dogma is there is no salvation for you. you are already brainwashed and it is a waste to keep trying.

>>16910309
Granted this is the only thing I've read on here but Sufism: A Bridge Between Religions was a trite and universalist, which was a shame since given the description I thought there'd be a significant theological argument in it. Was almost New Age-tier.

>>16919302
>Sufism: A Bridge Between Religions
Didn't read it but sounds like it's based on universal sufism or western sufism which is based on sufism by Inayat Rehmat Khan who brought over Indian sufism but separated it from it's islamic root in order to fit in the west. I've seen those guys and they're embarassing, they believe in every religion and no religion at the same time

>>16919302
>>16919332
Probably this, universal sufism is absolute shit, Harare Krishna's of Islam

>advaita filtering people this hard
Advaita is non-dual you bunch of retards, maya is inside a greater whole that is Brahman, yeah yeah out of the monad comes dyad and then harmony then matter and all that but all is Brahman

>>16919349
the contingent is in the absolute? then how is it absolute?

>>16919349
how does duality emerge from nonduality?

>>16919257
You are trying to create contradictions where none exist

Some retard was trying to imply Brahman *is* His powers, but maya is qualitatively different from Brahman in every way. Brahman is unchanging, formless, non-contingent consciousness. Maya is changing, characterized by form, contingent and without consciousness. Ergo maya is not identical with Brahman.

Neither is maya identical with Brahman’s omnipotence, because that is like saying a painting produced by Cézanne is identical with Cézanne’s general talent as an artist; when this is obviously wrong. Before an individual painting is produced, at the moment it is being produced, and after the painting has been produced, at all three times the painting is a separate thing from Cézanne‘s talent as an artist, it is a product of his talent. In the same way, maya is different from Brahman’s omnipotence as its product. Playing games of verbal semantics cannot change this and they cannot induce real contradiction where none exists.

It’s funny how you have to go to these absurd lengths and play semantic games to even allege that there is a contradiction in Advaita whereas with things like Kashmir Shaivism there are pages and pages detailing dozens of logical contradictions in its doctrine, which are well-argued for and are not mere semantics.

>>16919868
>that is like saying a painting produced by Cézanne is identical with Cézanne’s general talent as an artist; when this is obviously wrong
and how is his talent recognized if not in the painting produced?

>>16919868
>Before an individual painting is produced, at the moment it is being produced, and after the painting has been produced, at all three times the painting is a separate thing from Cézanne‘s talent as an artist, it is a product of his talent
holy shit you are retarded and trying to cope as if you were trying to save your own life. the talent and its production are not separable, there is only a talented production because of the talent and there is only talent because he is capable of externalizing this talent in a talented production.
and you have the nerve to accuse other people of sophism

>>16919868
>Playing games of verbal semantics cannot change this and they cannot induce real contradiction where none exists.

>the talent has nothing to do with the talented production!!!!! they are all different, separated things!!!!
cope more you sophist

>>16919868
>Kashmir Shaivism there are pages and pages detailing dozens of logical contradictions in its doctrine, which are well-argued for and are not mere semantics.
Incorrect. There is mere ten pages offered by Chandradhar Sharma, who admitted Buddhism's influence in Advaita, and who is a biased indian scholar not taken seriously by any other academic. Chandradhar Sharma does not understand the Pratyabhijna doctrine which is reminiscent of Platonic anamnesis, this way he offers a deturpation of Pratyabhijna, a strawman, and still is only able to attack it with materialistic arguments.

>>16919868
do you mean that maya is brahman's power in a way, but the internal and natural power of brahman that produces maya is something different from this produced power? if there is no continuation between the power and the power produced (supposing this distinction makes sense) why is this power of contingency natural and inherent, and not something foreign to what is absolute (the production of his power)?

>>16917810
You can say the exact same thing about the village idiot, he is all those things you said: loud and proud, and closed to suggestion.
It follows as no surprise that Muslims follow an idiot as well, who couldn't even get third grade math right (trigger word: inheritance laws).

>>16917849
>it probably doesn't hold weight intellectually.
I'll let the posters of this chat decide.
The absolute arrogance to think that only le scholars can express thorough scrutiny towards a book so easy to deboonk. The Qur'an has math errors in it, you don't need to be a scholar to disprove that.

>>16917863
>Christians criticize Islam
>therefore everyone who criticizes Islam is a Christian
post-golden age Islam has never been good lmao.

>>16920882
Atheists are just lazy christcucks
Or are you one of the pajeets ITT?

>>16920892
You completely missed the point in which I described how fatuous it is to
a) lump critics of your religion in groups with ulterior motives
b) use it to ad hom

And not only do you miss my post's point, you take no further effort to examine it (because you could never be wrong ofc).
I can't believe you managed to find this board, it's hilarious.

>>16920932
>ad hom
>NOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST CALL ME NAMES IT'S WROOOOOOONG
fuck off with your gayreek shit

>>16920944
Fuck logic bro, just fuck it, okay?
Now pick your containment hive of preference: YouTube comments or /pol/

>>16920959
you pick reddit or suicide, preferably both

>>16919393
By the godhead who in his joy is himself and who gives birth to himself, looks upon himself and thinks things about himself. So Creator is higher than creature but God is before Creator even though he is also creator. Duality can come from non-duality because what is finite can come from what is infinite. So the true nature of what is finite is the infinite. The true nature of Duality is non-duality. People should stop fighting over words. this is why other religions obscure their esoterism so much. Esotericism naturally becomes exoteric. Secondary knowledge only has so much Authority. We must for ourselves know the truth by being the truth.

>>16917849
someone post the image, I've seen it before but I'd be interested to see how people criticize it

>>16920985
>angryposting
I win :)

>>16910322
>Burckhardt

isn't Burckhardt more Ibn Arabi than al Ghazali?

>>16910342
>A Comparative Study of Derrida and Ibn 'Arabi

Reminder that Advaita Vedanta even in Sufi form is still Buddhist nihilism. Ibn Arabi = Shankara = Derrida

>>16919929
>and how is his talent recognized if not in the painting produced?
If a painting was identical with the painters talent, then it should exist before the painting was produced, just as the painters talent existed before that painting was produced, because if they don't exist at the same time, then they are not identical but there is a difference between them because one exists and the other doesn't.

We infer an artists talent from viewing their works, but the thing inferred is not the same as the basis we use to generate that inference. That is like saying if we look at animal tracks and use their size and shape to infer the animal who made them, that the tracks, which are non-living imprints in the ground, are identical with the living animal who made them (which would mean those tracks *are* an animal), which is not true.

If an artist was extremely talented but deliberately chose to make a poor or shoddy work of art, then that product of their talent being identical with their talent should reflect their refined artistic talent, but if they made it poorly on purpose then it wouldn't, but it would still be the product of an entity possessing that talent regardless.

Do you see how many absurd contradictions results from saying that the product is identical with the talent or omniscience that produces it? When we take the position you advocate and apply it to real life examples it produces an unfathomable number of contradictions, which is how we can tell that it is wrong.

>>16919944
>there is only a talented production because of the talent and there is only talent because he is capable of externalizing this talent in a talented production.
nonsense, see above
>>16919953
see above

If the infinite one divides himself then he is still himself. He would also be his own separation. if he emptied himself or thought himself he would still be himself. That people will try to use words to tell him he cannot be both non-dual and dual because their logic is a limited capacity does not then nullify and change what he is. That you are illogical to him and that he is illogical to you, is his own power. I think some of you are merely dancing around a change of clothing he wore at one time or another. That even enlightened people can fight over each other is proof of the incomprehensibility of God and proof of the uniqueness of the experience of enlightenment. They may know in themselves but they may not recognize in others, like two different fingers. Does this show that some are less and some are more realizing the truth? It seems that the soul is not destroyed, as shown by their remaining subjectivity and how they express what they experience. That each Mystic lays down a path experienced and that others then come along and say what that path is is obvious. That God would give so many different systems that seem to contradict but that this is also for better comprehension is good. people are captured by or have their own perceptions and desires. That this is part of God knowing himself is obvious. So how do we know who is more set free and enlightened and who is less? If we are enlightened we are still here talking about things, using language and experience which is a secondary thing. If I had no body I could not speak to other bodies. So an enlightened body is something less than Enlightenment itself, like a finger is less than the whole body.

if I was enlightened and I told you false things to show you that you are captured by an image of the truth, would you transcend me or would you simply become my slave?

>>16921182
how can you besmirch members of your own tribe like that

>>16921021
ok anon but this has nothing to do with advaita vedanta, for advaita there is no creation

>>16921228
and other people employs sophistry! at least i tried, you are irredeemable.

>>16921517
I just explained how the reasoning you were using is nonsensical, I don’t see why that would make me irredeemable

>>16921517
>the product cannot be separated from the capacity possessed by the entity which forms the product, they are the same!
>w-w-what!?!? No! You can’t just apply that logic to real world examples to see if it holds up consistently as any logical principle should, t-thats.... sophism!
Advaita Derangement Syndrome is a real thing

>>16921469
Well yes that's because it's generally talking about higher parts of reality. Before creation or creatures there is creativity and before creativity there is creator. Creativity and Creator are one and so creature is also one if you choose to include that. In the end dynamic reality is part of the unchanging reality existing as an absolute and eternal now, precontaining everything in it and thus what can be is only that absolute of absolutes that nothing can describe. Since only it is and nothing ever exited it or started from it since there is nothing outside of it, only God is real. Everything else is his ideas or Parts, they are real but compared to him they're not real. So it's right to call them illusions and it's right to call them real. It's right to call them the effects of God's programming language. It's right to call them nothing.

All words and descriptions are only an image of the truth at best. The image is not the truth compared to the truth. That is the difference between the law and the spirit of the law. But most of you are silly and you think that words are the truth and so when the correct words are not used you say to me it is not the image of the truth so it is not the truth.