/lit/ - Literature

>>17267681
Christianity is a Dharmic religion, you're just not initiated.

Perennial philosophy is a Zoom call with Neo-Platonism, Advaita Vedanta, Sufism, and Kashmir Shaivism. Buddhists are not invited.

>>17267685
How is Christianity Dharmic?

>>17267681
Are there esoteric sects of Christianity that still keep Jesus Christ and his teachings as the central focus, not delving into weird fanfiction aka gnosticism?

>>17267749
The Orthodox Church

>>17267685
>Christianity is a Dharmic religion
lel

>>17267749
Mormonism

>>17267729
>He doesn't realize the curse of the tree of knowledge was really the illusion that separated mankind from the divine perfection
>He doesn't realize the faith in jesus discussed in John is simply an expression of one's inherent godnature
Idk, I'm just making shit up but one could imagine

>>17267681
Read the Dhammapada and some of the Pali sutras, and figure out if it speaks to you on a deeper level than the Gospels.
That's it. Everything else is mental gymnastics, just experience things for yourself and determine which faith you are meant to follow.

>>17267681
If you believe in the perennial philosophy then what's the problem? Should you not be feeling joy that you can find truth and beauty in all the various traditions? What do you mean by tempted?

>>17267696
*enter CHADmaraswamy*

>>17269930
I believe in Christianity. I started off just learning about indo european history on YouTube, I ended up reading the Bhagavad Gita, learned about perennial philosophy, and now I'm partway through the Bow and the Club by Evola and I'm having a crisis of faith

>>17270423
>indo european history on YouTube
Be careful when ''educating'' yourself with Youtube.
Also what causes you to doubt legitimacy of Christian religion?

>>17270864
I was watching Survive the Jive, he does pretty thorough research and cites all of his sources. As for my doubts in Christianity it's with the Christian notion of a linear timeline as opposed to the Dharmic notion of a cyclical timeline. Basically everything in the world happens in cycles, so why wouldn't the entire universe as well?

>>17267749
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mysticism

>>17270423
There are many higher truths that are share roots. The Bhagavad Gita and other eastern scriptures are worth reading, but you can delve into the esoteric side of things without losing your Christian faith.

>>17270939
Christian timeline has cycles in it as well. Moses leads the Jews out of Egypt, angels leading Lot out of Sodom and Gomorrah, and plenty of other stories in bible repeat many ways, and they all are prophetic, foretelling what will come to pass.
But why would you have a religion if everything is never ending cycle? Even the gods are not immortal, depending on the religion you are interested in. Its all meaningless change, or cycle.

>>17271238
This, also Guenon, Schuon and Coomaraswamy shows in their books and essays how the Abrahamic faiths can be reconciled with Dharmic religions as both pointing to the perennial truth, Evola does so the least of all of them

>>17270423
>Evola
There's your problem. Drop that thing and read some actual decent Christian or Buddhist philosophy. Let me break you in on a little secret, OP. Perennial philosophy is right in that all mystical experiences are referring to the same thing, called non-dual awareness or minimal phenomenal awareness. Read comparative experiences by pretty much all traditions and Brahman, Nirvana and a vision of God can be boiled down to the same thing, the breaking down of the distinction between an observer and an observed world. That's Buddhism's Enlightenment, Hinduism's dissolving into Brahman, the core of the Gnostics' Logos, etc. Everything else is just window dressing.

However, non-duality experiences can apparently be induced if you whack the brain hard enough, or take the right cocktail of drugs, so whether they're a taste of the ultimate reality or just your brain glitching hard it's up to you.

>>17267681
The only help you want is to be told that you should follow your heart. This means you're a little bitch since you already know that yourself or you wouldn't have asked. Figure it out yourself, OP.
>>17267749
No.
>>17267842
Based reply.
>>17270423
>>17270939
I am a similar case to you. I started reading Evola and then after a few months I could simply no longer content myself with simply "reconciling" Christianity with Tradition. I have to suggest that you should keep a critical mindset when you watch Survive the Jive, though. He seems to know his stuff when it comes to ancient history and genetics, but I would not assign too much value to his religious analysis. Stick to the Traditionalists for that. If you're reading the Bow and the Club, I think you should soon run into some difference with Jive on things like Deus Pater, for example.
>>17271327
You have never read Evola.
Also drugs aren't some sort of shortcut to enlightenment. Drugs can induce both spiritual and demonic experiences and changes depending on the user's spiritual constitution.

>>17271404
Evola is a fucking hack that tried to co-opt spirituality for political purposes and his reading of Buddhism is abysmally skewed and would be deemed plain wrong view by any sect. Enlightenment might not even exist outside of being a very altered state of consciousness anyway, you might as well give psychedelics a try.

>>17271420
>Evola is a fucking hack that tried to co-opt spirituality for political purposes and his reading of Buddhism is abysmally skewed and would be deemed plain wrong view by any sect.
Ask me how I know you haven't read the book.
>Enlightenment might not even exist outside of being a very altered state of consciousness anyway, you might as well give psychedelics a try.
Do as you like and I will do as I like. Just don't complain if drugs backfire on you.

>>17271431
>reee you haven't read it
I have. It's absolute wewuzery full of "hyperborean" nonsense, a hodgepodge of misinterpreted Indian philosophy and the usual homoerotic subtext of his writing despite calling gays a product of the kali yuga in his "third sex" chapter while pretty much arguing the ancients smashing what we'd call boypussy was fine and virtuous. His Tradition is fucking pathetic, nothing more than a hateful little man trying to hold on to his views of masculinity and equating them with cosmic principles.

Also, I don't even do drugs, but ask anyone that has taken DMT in a comfortable setting if he didn't find the Absolute, felt one with God, etc. Psychedelics aren't a shortcut to the truth, if such a thing exists, but they can induce the same base mystical experiences that will be interpreted differently by everyone afterward. The question of whether that implies we've been kidding ourselves for thousands of years or not and ascribing to nonduality some meaning it doesn't have outside our own minds is a question that might be too disturbing for people too invested in some beliefs, but that I believe is well worth pondering.

>>17271420
>Evola is a fucking hack that tried to co-opt spirituality for political purposes and his reading of Buddhism is abysmally skewed and would be deemed plain wrong view by any sect. Enlightenment might not even exist outside of being a very altered state of consciousness anyway, you might as well give psychedelics a try.

you started with a sentence that's completely right and ended with one that's completely wrong

>>17271552
>le ebin physicalist
Jesus christ fuck off

>>17271294
>the Abrahamic faiths can be reconciled with Dharmic religions as both pointing to the perennial truth
Why do so many modernist pseuds believe this? A basic study of history would demonstrate this view is completely false and not how these religions think of themselves, let alone what they think of each other. Sure if you discard all the contextual baggage of a religion and conduct a dispassionate secular synthesis of the most philosophical strains of them you get that 'all' 'religions' teach the same experience-denying sublime quietude, but this to me says more about sages working in contexts which may be hostile to them than it does about the religions. A better question than what do all religions teach in common is who produces the most sages, as opposed to moralists, sentimentalists, beserkers, etc., or whose teachings point in that direction most consistently?

>>17271792
All people are working with more or less the same brains, they're bound to reach similar conclusions.

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

>>17271810
>everyone is the same
Modernist. Pseud.

>>17271814
Cry more, evoloser.

>>17271828
He's a modernist pseud as well. Read actual texts from the "traditions;" none of them say what the perennialists are saying. If they did half the planet wouldn't be the product of holy wars.

>>17271244
Repetitive genre hyperfiction in the Old Testament is not the same as cyclical time. Cyclical time is a metaphysical consequence of believing in metempsychosis, as per India and Ancient Greece. Since Christians believe their deity-pact gets them into a heavenly realm for all eternity they are clearly not aligned.

>>17267749
Not in the sense that you're thinking (like Shingon or Tibetan lineages)

There's a huge corpus of mystical material within the Church that fits that bill, but its mainly individual practitioners that produce it, and it's not really systematic

>>17267681
>it's another episode of Buddhist/Hindu syncretist tries to stir up doubt or dissatisfaction in the hearts of Orthodox (not Catholic or Protestant, cutting directly to the true faith here) by pretending to be one

>>17271874
What's the difference between eternal recurrence and eternity? Once you've seen one eternity, you've seen them all. Or am I in error, and the cyclical time they believe in is different?

Eternity is not an infinite period of time starting at [insert hour of death], it's more of a moment. An eternal beginning, an eternal end, and the in-between we call life.

>>17271911
Take your meds

>>17271992
*once you've seen one cycle, you've seen them all

Just, what's the end goal?

>>17271992
Eternity isn't an infinite amount of time, it's a state of timelessness.

>>17272047
That's just what I said; it's not a loooooong stretch of time leading into infinity, it's something in its own league, like a moment perhaps, or a monument.

god it feels so good being a BHVDDIST

>>17272065
Eternity in any flavor doesn't appeal to me, personally. By definition nothing can happen, nothing can change. Buddhists love to shit on the conditioned, impermanent world, but I just can't see the appeal of a deathless stillness over a good life.

>>17272071
I've seen eternity described not as eternal stasis but as eternal exploration into a limitless God; whatever you find, there is always more yet to seek. Of course, it's an incomparable state, but many people prefer to remain with the impressions they believe they learned from some Protestant Sunday School when it can be anything and more.

A good life? A mere, good life?

>I can't see the appeal of stinky poo poo strawman state versus a "good life"
>deathless stillness = evergreen eternity in communion with your creator in a changed Earth

It's like you gained your idea of Heaven from this one video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MV5w262XvCU
>>17272069
Does it also feel good to be overly concerned with how things look?

>>17271992
>What's the difference between eternal recurrence and eternity
Not sure these are helpful terms but in any case the former is usually associated with Nietzsche, but if you are using it to refer to patterns you may as well just call them patterns. Also, your division of eternity into beginnings and ends would seem to defeat the purpose of the word itself. The eternal would be something outside of temporal observation, not affected by time nor our perception of time, or of things given in time. My understanding is that the Kingdom of Heaven as revealed by Jesus is meant to be eternal, or for eternity ("his kingdom will have no end," and so forth). It has no dependence on your lifespan for it to exist, but having been delivered there, the believer is thus saved. There are no past, future lives, merely an afterlife. This is demonstrably different from Indian religions (and ancient Greece), which teach a succession of births rather than a progression from nothing to something to absolute.

>>17272109
But that video illustrates my point perfectly. One man's heaven is another man's hell. Eternity in the way you describe it would be nice, but I'm not sure it isn't just some strawman in itself if you actually sit down to ponder the meaning of a timeless infinite. In any case, we have no way to verify if it even exists, and such things transcend human concepts to begin with. I can see from the way you write that you're too hung up on certain prejudices and views, though. I hope you can resolve those and find peace.

Said the Lord:

What, Sati, is the nature of this consciousness?

Sir, it is that speaking and sentient (Self)
which experiences the ripened fruits
of good and bad conduct
in this or that earlier existence.

Pray, to whom, foolish man,
do you aver that I ever so taught the Doctrine?

Have I not, foolish man,
laid it down in many a figure
that consciousness only arises by causation
and that, without assignable conditions,
consciousness does not come about?

And yet you, foolish man,
employ what you have misunderstood [185] not only to misrepresent me
but also to undermine yourself
and breed for yourself
a store of demerit, -
to your lasting hurt and harm.

Turning then to the Almsmen, the Lord said:

What think you?

Has this Sati, the fisherman's son,
got even a spark of illumination
in this Doctrine and Rule?

How could he, sir?

For, it is not the fact.

Hereat, Sati sat silent and glum,
with his shoulders hunched up
and eyes downcast,
much exercised in his mind
but finding no words to utter.

Seeing him in this plight,
the Lord said to him:

And now, foolish man,
you shall be shewn up
in respect of this pernicious view of yours;
I will question the Almsmen.

Accordingly, the Lord said to them:

Do you understand me ever to have preached the Doctrine
in the sense of this Almsman Sati,
who employs what he has misunderstood
not only to misrepresent me
but also to undermine himself
and to breed for himself
a store of demerit, -
to his lasting hurt and harm?

No, sir.

For in many a figure
has the Lord taught us
that consciousness only arises by causation
and that, without assignable conditions,
consciousness does not come about.

Quite right;
you rightly understand my teaching;
for, indeed, I have, as you say,
so taught in many a figure.

Yet here is this Sati, the fisherman's son,
who employs ...
hurt and harm.

Whatsoever form of consciousness arises
from an assignable condition,
is known by that condition's name.

If the eye and visible shapes condition consciousness,
that is called visual consciousness;
and so on with the senses and objects of hearing,
smelling,
tasting,
and touch,
and of mind with its mental objects.

It is just like a fire,
where that which makes the fire burn
gives the fire its name.

Wood makes a wood-fire,
sticks a stick-fire,
grass a grass-fire,
cowdung a cow-dung-fire,
husks a husk-fire,
and rubbish a rubbish-fire.

In just the same way, every form of consciousness [186] arising from an assignable cause
is known by that condition's name.

>>17272848
>>17272850
Based suttaposter

>>17267681
another mental tranny tells the world how he/she/zhe self identifies. I am %label%.

>>17271911
I am not a Buddhist, Hindu, or syncretist. For what it's worth I'm even opposed to ecumenism with Rome

>Ortholarper can't cope with reality
Just call yourself Manichean. Very larpy, has Jesus, has Buddha, even has Zoroaster. And few people know enough about it to call your errors out.

>>17267681
>Celtic From the West
>The Buddha From Babylon

>>17269972
>actually Buddha didn't teach no-self but it was just a split-off of Upanishadic teachings, and the thousands of years of autistic Buddhist scholasticism about no-self should just be rejected
yeah, Buddhists are not invited

>>17271552
>Also, I don't even do drugs, but ask anyone that has taken DMT in a comfortable setting if he didn't find the Absolute, felt one with God, etc.
I have taken many psychedelics and have also had states of mystic or metaphysical intuition, and I can assure you they are noticeably different despite their superficial similarities

>>17273686
>maybe if I strawman hard enough people won't realize I don't know what I'm talking about

>>17273704
How would you describe their differences? Are psychedelic experiences less authentic or something?

>>17273742
Coomaraswamy pushes the “Buddha didnt deny the self, anatta is apophatically pointing to the Paramatman” take. There is some evidence for it, but it’s hardly an open and shut case. For a Buddhist to accept this though would be to accept that their entire religious tradition for the last 2,500 years totally misunderstood an essential point of Buddha’s doctrine aside from a few small Mahayana or Vajrayana schools, and that almost all of the most important Buddhist patriarchs and other Buddhist authorities misunderstood this as well. And to most Buddhists this is anathema and they will never accept it, hence why they are not really invited.

>>17273883
Not true. Anatta has always been "not self", not "no self", and there is much more to Buddhism than this doctrine. People who don't know much about Buddhism tend to put aside the other marks of impermanence and the four noble truths and focus on anatta because their misunderstanding of it offends their sensibilities.

>>17273883
>their entire religious tradition for the last 2,500 years
Buddhism isn't a religion

>>17273883
Gotama Buddha himself have forseen the corruption of dhamma within 500 years, and he was right. Also, Citta=Atta, Cittavimutti=Brahman, Tathagata=Tat Tvam Asi

>>17273950
Only westernized """secular""" buddhism is not a religion. Actual Buddhism definitely is.

>>17273967
Eastern Buddhism is a religion because it is not based on the original presectarian corpus before the latter day commentary has corrupted the interpretation of various Pali terms, only the panchanikayas by itself is taintless. Buddhaghosa is to blame for the corruption of many core concepts like samma. Theravada and Mahayana both base their nonsense on misinterpreted concepts that is reduced to mere moralism.

>>17274011
What is "true" Buddhism then?

>>17273967
No it's not. It's a smarna or dhamma not an establishment of metaphysical principles wprship of deities etc.
Also people who talk about secular western buddhism are retards with zero knowledge of buddhism

>>17274021
>Also people who talk about secular western buddhism are retards with zero knowledge of buddhism
explain

>"Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?" "Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?" "No, lord." "And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'"
This one sutta completely shits on the Perennial interpretation of Buddhism's stance on self. Coomaraswamy's argument is purely semantic and has no basis in Buddhist thought.

>>17274091
Western buddhism is a broad field with all sorts of movements including very religious ones. People who speak of western buddhism as one sect don't actually know buddhist practice in the qest and just come from hippies bad.
The main marker of contemporary buddhism isn't secularism but emphasis on laymen. And all those developments are happening similarly in the east because more financial freedom and education allow more people to engage more openly with ideas.
That folk religious elements merged with buddhism and are not part of the dhamma is generally accepted and I never heard a buddhist criticise "western secular buddhism" for it.

>>17274019
True Buddhism can only be known through reverse engineering the crypto buddhist concepts by advaita vedanta as means to evade the mistranslated terms pushed by Buddhaghosa and all other Buddhist scribes after him, in order to see how even the earliest two upanishads are in agreement with various concepts as outlined in the five nikayas. However, neither the Advaitin nor the modern Buddhist can grasp this sublime truth even if they were capable of reading the source material of the five nikayas in Pali.

>>17274111
Eternalism is misinterpreted here, it is Perpetualism. Nathatta isn't anatta but you rely on faulty translations that in English is indistinguishable between Nathatta and Anatta, nuance is lost and so is your understanding fettered.

>>17273957
>Citta=Atta

then explain

Samyutta Nikaya 47.42

citta arises when name and form arise, citta ceases when name and form cease

>>17273929
>Not true. Anatta has always been "not self", not "no self", and there is much more to Buddhism than this doctrine
Yes, but if you reject this doctrine than you also have to mostly reject or take a heterodox interpretation of the whole history of Buddhist scholasticism, most of the non-PC early Buddhist texts and thinkers, Milinda Pandha, Buddhaghosa, Nagarjuna, etc, they all seem to adhere to a “no-self” interpretation and they all have these massive textual traditions of lengthy arguments for why no-self is correct, why the Atman doesn’t exist, and so on. If you want to claim that Coomaraswamy’s explanation of Buddhism is correct then you are some 21st century dude claiming to know better about ‘real Buddhism’ than the entire 2,500 years of past Buddhist exegesis and scholarship. I actually think there is a decent chance Coomaraswamy is right, but this is such a radical and unappealing idea to most Buddhists that it will never be accepted but will always be seen as fringe and heretical by the vast majority of them. It’s like someone saying “this is the true meaning of Christianity, 99% of the Church Fathers were actually wrong about this one thing”, people who have devoted themselves to Buddhism and who steeped in it will just stare at you incredulously as if you were telling a Christian that Yahweh is actually Satan and that Christ was not of him. You guys would be better off trying to form your own new pro-Atman Buddhist sect and letting people come to you instead of spending time fighting the unwinnable battle of trying to convince the worlds Buddhists that Buddha didnt reject the Atman.

>>17274137
I agree that the 4 noble truths, 3 characteristics and so on can be found in the pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya Upanishads, but I would disagree that Advaita is crypto-Buddhist. For everything in Advaita that people call crypto-Buddhist also appears in those very same two pre-Buddhist Upanishads, from monasticism to the unborn doctrine, to the doctrine of absolute vs conditional existence; thus establishing them as non-Buddhist in origin.

>>17274170
>Nathatta isn't anatta but you rely on faulty translations that in English is indistinguishable between Nathatta and Anatta, nuance is lost and so is your understanding fettered.
I already know that Nathatta means no-self and Anatta means not-self, the sutta clearly states that Atta (just like Nathatta) do not conform to the idea of Buddhist notion of Anatta. Perennial thinkers usually like to argue semantic tidbits about what the Buddha meant by atta whether it was 'higher Atta' or 'lower atta' and draw false conclusions about the Buddha's position. It's clear as day what he meant.

>>17267681
Christ is the only way to the Father
Do not rely on the wisdom of men but rely on the Wisdom of God
Also pray the Jesus prayer a lot and talk to your priest or spiritual father about this :)

I thought we all agree Jainism is the gold standart.

>>17274111
>>17274316
It's clear as day that it's apophatism and isn't even a question you should be pondering because it's not useful to realization.

>>17274348
>It's clear as day that it's apophatism
Nice headcanon

>>17274379
Nice argument

>>17271552
>>17271420
You have quite literally never read anything.
how do I know?
Because Evola's book on buddhism was praised by the Pali Society, and regarding psychedelics, he was one of the first ones in the world that experimented with them.
He got into esoterism and tradition in the first place after his trips, which he did when he was only 21 years old

>>17274432
>praised by the Pali Society,
Source?

>>17274432
>tfw I got into spirituality at the exact same age as Evola
Maybe I can make it, bros

>>17274429
Thanks for conceding.

>>17274291
>Yes, but if you reject this doctrine
did you ever go to school or was at least homeschooled?

>>17274345
Jainism was retroactively refuted by Shankaracharya (pbuh)

>>17274462
I was raised by wolves and taught myself to read by stealing newspapers sent to rural farmers

>>17274452
Ok retard

>>17274465
>Shankaracharya
Retroactively refuted by His Holiness Rāmānuja

>>17274465
No it wasn't.
>contradictory attrivutes cannot exist in the same entity
Dumnest shit I've read all day and I was on /lit/

>>17274465
I would be careful about reading Advaita Vedanta interpretations such as Shankara's as a commentary to the Upanishads, they are extremely reliant on Buddhist philosophy (Shankara is called a "cryptobuddhist" by most Hindus, and most scholars agree). If you want to read the Upanishads, work through them with editions and commentaries that aren't sectarian, or at least read an interpretation that is closer to the original meaning of the Upanishads, rather than Shankara's 9th century AD quasi-buddhism.

>>17274490
Based (pbuh)

>>17271404
I did LSD and I've been fascinated by perennialism, Advaita Vedanta, neo-Platonism etc. ever since despite having absolutely no prior interest.

>>17274501
why

>>17274505
Psychodelics are the only thing that makes brainlets realise their perception of the world may not be the only one.

>>17274489
Try to give an example that would prove him wrong

>fire is never hot and cold at the same time
>the sun is never luminous and non-luminous at the same time
>living beings are never dead and alive at the same time

>>17274436
"Evola e la Pali Society" by G. Monasta. It's also in the prefacevof The doctrine of awakening.
Whenever people say that Evola distorted tradition etc for his political aims, he commits an error, since Evola wasn't interested in politice in the slightest before he got into esoterism first (due to his psychedelic use in his early twenties) and in Tradition later, which made him develop a political thought consequently

>>17274447
It's an hard path and it could make you go mad. Don't start it, because going back is not easy
>>17274472
Well, apparently the wolves didn't teach you to understand texts, because you didn't understand the other anon in the slightest.
Anatta means "not-self" and every single buddhist, theravada, Mahayana and vajrayana believes in anatta.
Anatta DOESN'T MEAN, or even imply, non-self. This is enough to make the rest of your longpost not only not relevant, but pointless as well. Don't reply until you understand exactly what I said

>>17274524
t. 15 yo tradzoomer who thinks atheism is cringe and wants to tell everyone about it

>>17274538
>It's an hard path and it could make you go mad. Don't start it, because going back is not easy
There is no alternative, though. It's the only path I can see myself taking.
I follow my own intuition though, it's not like I have a reading list of authors to get acquainted with.

>>17274111
Has any perennialist addressed this sutta in detail? Because it seems like a pretty damning indictment on the idea of a hidden Atman within Buddhism.

>>17274563
I suggest that you become as psychologically strong as possible first, which means also being in peak health (i.e. lift, diet, testosterone, cardio, stretching), but also developing the ability to focus. Do non occult physical and mental training for a year before you begin the path

>>17274535
>fire is never hot and cold at the same time
Fire can have widely different temperatures. While fire is hot compared to one thing it is cold compared to another.
Hot isn't an attribute it's a comparison of it's temperature to a referential.

>>17274572
Could you explain why? I haven't begun any actual practices, I'm just reading right now. What could fuck me up that badly if unprepared?

>>17274538
Pali society disavowed him. You should read his book. His engagement with terms like Aryan is so retarded it borders parody. General consensus is that universal compassion is and was a mainstake of Theravada/Pali canon-derived buddhism

>>17274544
No idea where you got that from. You should probably take a break

>>17274599
I know it might sound like a meme, but you know the "oh no I'm going insaaaane" trope from Lovecraft?
It's a real thing. There's danger everywhere

>>17267681
>tempted

because it's the truth

>>17274600
They disavowed him after WW2 for irrelevant, political reasons. They disavowing him means literally nothing.
btw, the buddha used the term aryan too :) he also calls a brahmin a filthy "black hobgoblin mutt"

>>17274608
Stop answering for others, dumbass.

>>17274572
>testosterone
based incel larper

>>17274611
So far I haven't read anything especially distressing and I've been getting into some pretty schizo tier shit

>>17274487
Ramanujas anupapatti has been refuted multiple times by Advaitins, from the ones of the medieval era to more recently on /lit/

>>/lit/thread/S16777277#p16778473

>>17274630
Testosterone in human males has psychologically protective functions, and it's an important health marker. It gives more energy and clearer thoughts.
You are projecting your lack (and consequent obsession with) masculinity unto others, since I didn't reccomend him to become more "manly", but to become healthier
>>17274633
some books are dangerous on themselves but most of the time the provlems are with the practices themselves. For example what happens when you fail initiations

>>17274622
>They disavowed him after WW2 for irrelevant, political reasons.
Baseless assumption.
>They disavowing him means literally nothing.
It does and I explained how it does.
>btw, the buddha used the term aryan too
Yes and in a different way from Evola that's what I said
> :)
Holy shit lol. Are you that desperate?
>he also calls a brahmin a filthy "black hobgoblin mutt"
Hmm I don't recall that part. Not that it has anything to do with the evaluation of Evola's scholarship on buddhism. But you already know you're wrong don't you?

>>17274538
>Anatta means "not-self" and every single buddhist, theravada, Mahayana and vajrayana believes in anatta.
Yes, but most of them also believes in ‘no-self’, which is what I was referencing. The intention and meaning of my post was quite clear enough but you decided to throw a hissy fit over semantics.

>>17274648
>some books are dangerous on themselves
Which ones?

>>17274641
>some schizo in a Sumerian clay whirling forum said something
cringe, did not even read

>>17274648
>Testosterone in human males has psychologically protective functions
Source? All the sages were vegetarian hermits not cucks larping as hypermasculine.
>You are projecting your lack (and consequent obsession with) masculinity unto others
But anon that was you.

>>17274348
>>17274379
>apophatism
Just because this is /lit/'s favorite word does not make it the reasoning behind not-self. Self is a kind of hypostatization, not some ineffable true reality. You are supposed to give up turning your thoughts into ultimately real things, and the self is no exception, hence anatta/anatman

>>17271552
No, you haven't read it, because:
1) Evola's aim was to rediscover the meaning of the ancient Pali texts, not to adopt this or that view of an orthodox post-Pali sect.
2) There is nothing particularly political in the book.
If you can't read Indo-Aryan words without popping a blood vessel, it's you who is hyper politicised, not the book.
>the usual homoerotic subtext of his writing despite calling gays a product of the kali yuga in his "third sex" chapter while pretty much arguing the ancients smashing what we'd call boypussy was fine and virtuous
This is bullshit and also has nothing to do with his book on Buddhism?
>His Tradition is fucking pathetic, nothing more than a hateful little man trying to hold on to his views of masculinity and equating them with cosmic principles.
cry more
>Psychedelics aren't a shortcut to the truth, if such a thing exists, but they can induce the same base mystical experiences that will be interpreted differently by everyone afterward
The "interpretation" is hardly irrelevant. In fact, the effect the experiences have on you is precisely the most important part. There's an antithetical difference between feeling the One and feeling one with the universe.
>>17274501
You are lucky and I am happy for you, but drugs don't work out well for everyone.
>>17274600
>General consensus is that universal compassion is and was a mainstake of Theravada/Pali canon-derived buddhism
Yes? Where does Evola contradict that? Did you even read his book?

>>17274742
>Did you even read his book?
Yes. What kind of faggot are you?

>>17274651
>Baseless assumption.
It's not baseless in the slightest. After WW2, anything that might have been even slighted correlated with personalities of the Axis became a taboo. They praised him as soon as DOA was publicated, there was no issue with it until WW2. Since the book didn't change in the slightest, since the pali canon didn't change in the slightest, and since the buddhist religion didn't change in the slightest between world wars the only logical explanation is that the disavowal was made for political reasons. Arguing against this is pathetic
>Yes and in a different way from Evola that's what I said
Yes, buddha was being literally racist and discriminatory, while Evola didn't gave it a biological ratial connotation in that book, and used it as an analogue of noble
>Hmm I don't recall that part.
no surprise since you never read anything
I forgot to add that love and compasion were the pinnacle and "hardest trials, that only the best could manage to complete" in Evola's "system" (if we can call it that). You don't know this because you don't read
>>17274656
It's not semantics: your argument against non-self is irrelevant because it's not part of buddhism

>>17274659
won't put you in danger

>>17274665
>Source? All the sages were vegetarian hermits not cucks larping as hypermasculine.
You can read the scientific literature about it. The reason for which vegetarianism is practiced in esoteric practices belongs to the sphere of the subtle body, not your physical, fleshy one. I also didn't tell him to eat a carnivore diet, nor it is relevant if I did, because gave him an advice on what to do before beginning the path, not during it.
The sages you talk about were more obsessed about virility you, and even moreso me are.
>But anon that was you.
It wasn't, because I never mentioned masculinity or virility before you replied to me.
Testosterone has a sexual role in many animals, but it's not the "manly hormone". That's popscience for people who don't have the time or the ability to study the required biology; testosterone is an anabolic hormone, used by animals for health reasons. You conflate health with manliness because you have issues with your own self worth and masculinity, like a closeted homosexual who sees faggots everywhere

>>17274751
Where does he contract it? :)

>>17274751
>Yes. What kind of faggot are you?
Okay. Then tell me why you thought your (obvious) observation about universal compassion was worth sharing.

>>17274583
>Fire can have widely different temperatures.
different temperatures are not contradictory, heat and the absence of heat are contradictory. Fire having different temperatures at different points are just different gradations of heat, but those are not contradictions as they are variations of heat. Cold fire doesn’t exist.

>While fire is hot compared to one thing it is cold compared to another.
In that case it would just be less hot than the other thing. A fire is never cold
>Hot isn't an attribute it's a comparison of it's temperature to a referential.
Maybe so, but all this has done was show the inadequacy of one of the three examples I gave, but you didnt refute the other two examples, or give an example of two contradictory attributes existing at the same time in the same entity, so I still stand correct and my position unassailed.

>>17274759
>won't put you in danger
Even if I promise to not read them until I've gone through proper initiation?

>>17274777
yes.

>>17274664
John Grimes also has a book on the anupapatti called ‘The Seven Great Untenables’ wherein he explains how they are wrong and how they fail to actually point to any contradiction in Advaita doctrine

>>17274759
>You conflate health with manliness because you have issues with your own self worth and masculinity, like a closeted homosexual who sees faggots everywhere
I'm not sure if this is a joke or you're just gay. If you wanted to make a case about hormonal bslance you could have said that instead of just dude testosterone lmao.

>>17274759
>Yes, buddha was being literally racist and discriminatory
Strange you didn't provide the source I asked for
>no surprise since you never read anything
>I forgot to add that love and compasion were the pinnacle and "hardest trials, that only the best could manage to complete" in Evola's "system" (if we can call it that). You don't know this because you don't read
So you're really into this "i bet you never read it lol" thing aren't you? Yeah I guess it's easier than to substantiate your claims.

>>17274808
the hormonal system is very cplicated, testosterone is one of the hormones we know more about, and we know how to stabilize its optimal levels, and by doing so we optimize the whole bodily health, both through the steps necessary to achieve it and the results of doing so.
You saw a whole hidden dimension in my advice due to your own insecurities.

>>17274767
>so I still stand correct and my position unassailed
Because you say so? My flashlight is luminent at the top and dark at the bottom. You're ignoring the question at stake to jerk off to your example.

>>17274835
>due to your own insecurities
Keep repeating this if it eases your conscience ;)

You're a chantard. Don't really see how your can resolve this with being a Christian or a buddhist.

>>17274822
But you know you didn't read it.
you are psychologically almost able to force yourself by telling yourself two three things:
a) you read some quotes of the material we are talking about (Evola's writings and the pali canon) online
b) you've read opinions and synthesis about those topics online
c) you think that the material itself is not that deep and worthy of actual complete reading
but you actually didn't read the books. You know you didn't, and so do I.
even if you deny it, you'll still know deep inside you didn't read.
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arya_(Buddhism)
Evola uses it with the same meaning, because he took it from the pali canon (which he read in it's entirety in his early twenties, while graduating in mechanical enginery)

>>17274785
Are they in any /lit/ charts?

>>17271125
cheeky cunt, this

>muh evola
The Buddha was not interested in cyberwarfare between different groups of racially schizophrenic amerimutts when he gave his sermons, so you are going to have to interpret the texts yourself eventually.

>>17274839
The lightbulb at the end of the flashlight is luminous, the plastic casing surrounding the flashlight is a separate thing that is non-luminous. Try again, that example fails.

>>17274679
Apophatism only makes sense when you are pointing to something via negation ie God from Un-God. In Buddhism, there is nothing to apophatize because there isn't a something behind the nothing (ie sunyata itself is sunya). This is why many wrongful attribute apophatism as a methodology to Buddhist doctrines, there are only negative arguments but an 'Atman' should never be presumed. The Buddha himself admonished this kind of reading between the lines of his Dhamma in AN 2.23-2.25, a sutta which ironically formed the basis of the 2 truth doctrines which would later be developed by the Abhidammikas.

>>17269972
why must everything be Traditionalized? Why can't trad LARPers just admit that there are major traditions that don't subscribe to a universal template?

>>17275086
Traditionalism is an inherently Modernist idea. It's Cybernetics applied to religion: make the most efficient religion by cobbling bits and pieces of other religions together, discarding the rest. This, by its very nature, must be universal. Everything must be sifted through, lest some minor amount of efficiency not be put to use.

More to the point, Traditionalism supposes a radically modern view of history as a linear process, so all religions MUST by their very nature extend out from one ur-religion. To put it another way, you literally cannot have a tradition that doesn't come from Tradition, in any sense of the word. Anything that people have done for a long period of time MUST derive from Tradition, even if it's a tradition that patently has a start date (see: literally anything involving Islam and Christianity).

This second point is a major criticism of Traditionalist metaphysics, which is in many ways just reheated pseudo-Platonism used to justify stasis.

>>17275136
>It's Cybernetics applied to religion: make the most efficient religion by cobbling bits and pieces of other religions together, discarding the rest.
This seems more like Theosophy than Traditionalism though

>>17275157
There's an enormous overlap. Guenon word-for-word plagiarized fucking Blavatsky on numerous occasions. Advaita Vedanta went from being an obscure Hindu heresy to being a slightly less obscure Hindu heresy by courting Crowleyites.

The only meaningful differences between Traditionalism and Theosophy (Some autists make a distinction between Traditionalism and Perennialism, but you get the point) is that the former say that the Tradition always existed and that we're just unearthing it and that Modernity sucks, but the latter say that the Tradition is yet to exist and we must create it and that Modernity is great. Everything else springs from this fork.

>>17275136
They remind me of Marxist thinkers who attribute every historical development to a unique materialist dialectic which 'must' have been the case.

>>17267681
>>>/x/

>>17275216
Marxism too is a deeply Modernist ideology. There's a sort of irony to Traditionalism in that for all it shouting about Modernity, it's one of the most Modern intellectual projects there is, and not only could only come from Modernity, but only makes sense under it.

perennialism appeals to agnostic materialists who can't commit to theism or sainthood

>>17271907
>christian mystics were mostly individuals
Maybe in rome, but there was an organized initiatory monasticism from the very first centuries of christianity with full continuation in the east today, that initiates monks in the secret of the name, the eye of the heart and the path towards direct contact with the uncreated light, so I don’t know what you are on about.

>>17275136
Mostly agree but that's a bit of an insult to cybernetics. Cybernetics in religion is more like the development of Tibetan kalachakra's prophecy of millennarian holy war against mlecchas in response to waves of abrahamism cruising through India and Central Asia to knock on the gates of the Tarim Basin, not a bunch of secularized moderns reacting against mechanized nihilism by picking all-religion instead of no-religion. Actually now that I think about it, maybe that is cybernetic, just not cool cybernetics.

>>17275349
Perhaps my usage of "cybernetics" in that post was a bit fast and loose, I would agree. I'm more so referring to the entire project of efficiency. The idea of finding the "best" religion as opposed to the "true" religion, or even just "religion". By virtue if it being everywhere, and in everything, the necessary sincerity that comes from actually partaking in religion is removed entirely. You never have to, to put it another way, open yourself up to the weakness of actually believing anything at all. It lets you pick and choose what you like and dislike, but never never requires you to admit that what you like and dislike is in fact what your like or dislike; it never challenges you to like things that you may dislike, or dislike things that you may like.

It turns religion into an object, rather than a facet of human life and experience. An object can be studied and distanced as needed.

>>17275414
Perennialism is architectonic without self-awareness. No I'm not building my own special protestantism I'm just rediscovering the original Tradition that got buried by mutant tradition. The sales pitch overtakes the scholarship so you get people defending Evola or Guenon as commentators instead of actually reading the Pali Canon or the Old Testament or a history book.

>>17275448
Precisely. It becomes commentary divorced from activity. It leads to people commenting on meditation and prayer without actually partaking in meditation and prayer themselves.

>>17271552
Dilate

>>17275500
>It leads to people commenting on meditation and prayer without actually partaking in meditation and prayer themselves.
how would you know? Its not like you know many IRL

>>17275754
>Its not like you know many IRL
How would you know?

>>17275261
>perennialism appeals to agnostic materialists who can't commit to theism or sainthood
Amazing to think there are people dumb enough to not only produce such a sentence but then also barf it out into the world's contempt

>>17274742
>>1) Evola's aim was to rediscover the meaning of the ancient Pali texts,
well he completely fails to reach this goal

>>17275448
>reading the Pali Canon
I'd like to but it's too fucking long

>>17275995
The Long Discourses and the Middle Discourses more or less cover everything you would need from the canonical sutra literature as a layman. And there are always the more standalone Mahayana texts if you prefer that route.

>>17276049
What about the interesting niche stuff that aren't found in the Long/Middle discourses?
>Mahayana texts
I read the Heart sutra and honestly I was unconvinced. I get the appeal of the mahayana idea of emptiness but it just doesn't speak to me. Should I try other Mahayana scriptures?

>>17275028
>AN 2.23-2.25, a sutta which ironically formed the basis of the 2 truth doctrines which would later be developed by the Abhidammikas.
there is nothing about the two truth invention in those sutras.

>>17275136
Your post is the most wrong thing I've read today and that's an achievement given the thread we are in. This, however, is beyond commentary:
>More to the point, Traditionalism supposes a radically modern view of history as a linear process, so all religions MUST by their very nature extend out from one ur-religion.
How on earth are you seeing "linearity" in Traditionalism? The Traditional method is a way of studying religions, not history. It's not that every religion is derived from some super ancient religion, but that they all draw on the same source; they represent the same truth in many different ways. If Traditionalism is anything at all, it is definitely not "linear".
>>17275184
You know nothing about Traditionalism or Theosophy.
>>17275980
I'd probably be more interested in seeing why you believe he failed if you had actually read the fucking book, lol.

>>17267729
The variety of Christianity that would pass down into time was the Christianity of the Romans, which borrowed much more than just holiday dates from the pagan religion of Rome. Since at the time of Rome's adoption of christianity it was undergoing a shift towards monotheism within it's own pantheon, to Sol Invictus. Protestants react against catholicism but that doesn't mean they ever left the context that Rome created.

>>17271420
>Evola is a fucking hack that tried to co-opt spirituality for political purposes
The dude didn't give a fuck about politics, closest he ever came was going "hey I hope that SS thing becomes something generative".

>>17271327
>However, non-duality experiences can apparently be induced if you whack the brain hard enough, or take the right cocktail of drugs, so whether they're a taste of the ultimate reality or just your brain glitching hard it's up to you.
That's the problem

>Traditionalism is about discovering the primordial truth that all religions inherently know by examining them all

I see this idea expressed more in descriptions of Traditionalism than by actual Traditionalist authors.

>>17276067
pls respond

>>17275313
>but there was an organized initiatory monasticism from the very first centuries of christianity with full continuation in the east today, that initiates monks in the secret of the name, the eye of the heart and the path towards direct contact with the uncreated light,
Source

>>17276091
The abidhammikas cite those suttas when they developed the two truths doctrine

>>17276067
Heart Sutra is probably the most marketed English translation of any Mahayana literature but for something more argumentative you'd have to read Nagarjuna, Aryadeva, Chandrakirti, Asanga/Vasubandhu, the Hua-Yen masters, Kukai; anyone who wasn't writing sutras.

>>17276118
>Traditionalism is anything at all
Ah this would explain why these debates are so terrible; it's just whatever the tradzoom happens to like at the moment

>>17276416
People kept telling me it was the cornerstone of mahayana thought. I don't know if argumentation is the issue here, the ideas themselves don't appeal to me as much as what I read in the dhammapada or the few pali suttas I've read.

>>17276245
>we should have some sort of neo-atlantean hyper-varna system that arrests degeneration from the sacred ancestry of the space races
>but that's enough about politics
I mean maybe you are right and /pol/ likes him for his unrelation to anything politically practical

>>17276438
The prajñaparamita/madhyamaka reading of canonical works is what gave rise to the Mahayana synthesis of emptiness as the central teaching of the Buddha(s). Generally speaking the alternative is abdhidharma reading, a kind of atomism favored in Theravada. I'm not sure what your reading has been of course but those are the major currents, both produced from the oldest teachings available.

>>17276490
Could you explain the abidharma reading?
The heart sutra gave me the impression of sunyata being the central, most important concept in mahayana by far but I don't like how basically every single concept of buddhism eventually boils down to "this too is empty".

>>17276350
Then you need to read more.
>>17276427
What a non-sequitur. Dilate.

>>17276515
>my beliefs are what I like and I call this Tradition

>>17276263
Please answer this anons
People have same experiences with 5-meo-dmt

>>17276512
Everything is made up of lower case dharmas that are the building blocks of phenomenal experience. So while Nagarjuna makes a point of demonstrating the emptiness of not merely phenomena but the sense bases and aggregates which seem to cause them, abhidharmikas would view these as necessary for the arising of phenomena. The counterparty to the Mahayana literature on this would I think be Buddhaghosa's Visuddhimagga but I haven't read that myself.

>>17276537
The Traditionalist school is a group of intellectuals with well defined views and a plethora of texts that describe their positions. The whole point of using capital T in Traditionalism is to refer to them, not to some vague word. Dilate.
>>17276552
What answer do you want? Your spirit naturally experiences reality through the body when you are human. Close calls with death, sudden trauma and drugs can disrupt the natural functioning of your bodily experience and therefore offer a glimpse into some of the other possible ways your spirit can experience the world. These are not necessarily good, particularly when you are dealing with drugs.

>>17276584
So the theravadin view is that emptiness does not extend to the dharmas which are the building blocks of reality?

>>17276587
Yes, their position being that the non-dual interpretation found in various religious traditions—often heretical vis a vis prevailing orthodoxies at different points in the given religion's history—being the interpretation that they like, is the true primordial Tradition which makes all the religions the same, a view yielded from irreligious anti-contextual modernist exegesis.

>>17276595
In the absence of a Theravadin to argue otherwise, I would say so. My own readings have been secondary literature->Pali Canon->Mahayana texts and further secondary literature; hence my conclusion.

>>17276636
I see, thanks

>>17271552
>pretty much arguing the ancients smashing what we'd call boypussy was fine and virtuous.
Based

>>17276595
Pretty much. They also take issue with the claim nirvana itself is empty.

>>17275825
>immediately resorts to insult

you have no argument

>>17276617
The only reason you're complaining is because the "interpretation that you like" is the dualist one and you can't imagine being wrong so obviously what the Traditionalists are doing is some form of atheistic modernist secularist blah blah blah. What position embodies spiritual perfection, the dualist or nondualist one? The Traditionalists establish that since dualism is contained in nondualism but the opposite is not the case, then nondualism is the superior position with higher possibilities for spiritual realisation. This does not mean that dualism has zero spiritual merit, but only that dualism is derived from nondualism - which is true. This nondualism is the source of transcendental truth which can be expressed in many different and varied forms. The reason you take issue with this claim is probably that you stubbornly stick to some dualist doctrine and desperately want to prove its supremacy vis-a-vis other religions.
Another thing. Traditionalism does not declare that all religions are "the same". Not even close. This is why Evola was moderately opposed to Christianity, for example. Traditionalism simply claims that all religious forms draw on the same source and represent the same truth, in one form or another, to one extent or another.
>>17276672
You don't have an argument either, but you are also lacking a brain.
>t. not that anon

>>17275825
Just read the account of the Evola reader in here. Literally can't commit to a religion so he finds comfort in misty deist monist perennialism.

>>17276595
>>17276636
The Theravada today reject the atomism of the Abhidharmins. They view it as a very useful tool, but to say that the dharmas that make up the world, and you (dharmas are also mental, and spiritual, so when you see something blue there is a "blue dharma" present, it's not the same kind of atomism as the Pre-Socratic atomism), are not Dependently Originated is wrong.

The Theravada were rejecting this fundamental atomism around the same time Nagarjuna came around, albeit divorced from him. Deep scholastic Abhidharma study is still core in Burma, but as a tool and structure. SEA contact with Europeans resulted in a largescale shakeup of Buddhism, with many reform movements seeing the scholasticism of the Abhidharmins as being a rigid cage that kept Buddhism stagnant. The Thai Forest Tradition is broadly about rejecting the scholasticism, but not the tools, of the Abhidharmins in the wake of these largescale shakeups.

>>17276552
"Correctness" and "Incorrectness" are constructed concepts. If you get hit in the head and no longer experience the Ego, is this damage, or a true state being unlocked? A better question is, will you be more likely to die painfully, and what other effects will this change cause? The Buddha says not to do drugs because they are dangerous, and cloud your judgement. Brain surgery would be similar. It's safer to just do things the hard way.

>>17276691
non-dualists can't explain the purpose of life, nor can they adequately cope the term "maya", they can't explain how real the Intellect is, they differentiate too sharply between cause and effect, most of what they say about limits is just ideology and not argumentation, and they can't remain consistent in their description of nirguna brahman with respect to their core metaphysical beliefs (here is where they will do exactly what they fault other metaphysics for doing)

it's all around a very overrated metaphysics that can only appeal to confused teens or burned out adults who can't commit to theism and sainthood

>>17267681
Don't. Spinozism is peak modernity. Can't believe I have to point this out. It's like thinking become a Calvinist will make you anti-modern.

>>17276691
Never argued for dualism so it's not resentment on my part. Perennial philosophy would have gotten you violently laughed out of a room in a genuinely religious and dogmatic society practicing a tradition in accordance with its oldest texts. Now, if you are saying all religions are modes of the same truth given different form, you are in fact saying they are the same, but also different, just that the differences are not essential. Pretend for a minute you aren't a modern person who grew up in a secularized culture; can you even imagine thinking this way? Yet the further back in time we go in recorded religion (and thus closer to the original source!) the more apparent the intolerance and anti-oecumen is, especially among the Islamic and Christian religions that trads can't shut up about.

>>17275754
Because if we're taking the Traditionalists at their word, they weren't. They were Orientalists commenting on things. The very fact that they were "Traditionalists" as opposed to Muslims, Buddhists, Solar Imperial Neopagans, or whatever, is a testament to this.

>>17276118
I've seen people recommend starting with Ride the Tiger, or Mystery of the Grail, hell I've even seen people recommend Bow and Club. For someone like you who is completely new to this, I'd honestly just say to pick something, stick with it, and then look at the rest of Evola's oeuvre for where to go from there.

As for your point about linearity, it's literally required. Once, before time, there was Tradition. Then, something bad happened, and we've been degenerating ever since. This is the basic historical process of Traditionalism, which seeks to gather up as much Tradition as it can so that the Aristocrats Of The Soul can ride out the Kali Yuga until the Gods come back (I'm using Evola's terminology here for simplicity).

This is a deeply Modern conception of reality. The word "Modern" actually has a meaning, it doesn't just mean "things were better in the past".

>>17276716
I genuinely want to understand how one can at the same time posit a Dharma and a ''correctness and incorrectness are constructed concepts'' statement.

>>17276778
>Because if we're taking the Traditionalists at their word, they weren't.
Wrong, most of them emphasize genuinely following a tradition and its teachings and practices in their writings, >They were Orientalists commenting on things.
You are just using this as a meaningless pejorative buzzword, the Traditionalist school has nothing to do with the 19th century Orientalists other than that they both wrote about Asian religion
>The very fact that they were "Traditionalists" as opposed to Muslims
The philosophical school which they are identified as belonging too is not mutually exclusive with their religious identity

>>17276716
>The Thai Forest Tradition is broadly about rejecting the scholasticism, but not the tools
Doesn't the thai forest tradition strive to avoid dogmatism by going for the 'only direct experience begets absolute truth' approach?

>>17276692
There is no antithesis between religious practice and ascesis on the one hand and Traditionalism on the other. Guenon was an initiated Sufi lol. Take your meds.
>>17276726
Those aren't arguments, you are just making baseless assertions. Nondualists maintain the absolute primacy of spirit over matter and that whenever matter does make an appearance, it is only with the permission of the spirit. This does not prevent nondualists for describing and understanding every phenomenon that dualists also observe.
>>17276764
Nothing in this thread has anything to do with Spinoza.
>>17276771
>Perennial philosophy would have gotten you violently laughed out of a room in a genuinely religious and dogmatic society practicing a tradition in accordance with its oldest texts.
Sure. Is dogmatism good? What is the purpose of dogma? What is its function and its uses? Dogmatism is what you get once spiritual proficiency degenerates so much that the only way people can navigate it is through rigid handholding. People like that will naturally react violently to a doctrine like perennialism with its high requirements.
>Now, if you are saying all religions are modes of the same truth given different form, you are in fact saying they are the same, but also different, just that the differences are not essential.
No, that is entirely wrong.
>B is derived from A
>C is derived from A
>B and C are both representations of A
>are B and C the same?
>obviously not
>Pretend for a minute you aren't a modern person who grew up in a secularized culture; can you even imagine thinking this way? Yet the further back in time we go in recorded religion (and thus closer to the original source!) the more apparent the intolerance and anti-oecumen is, especially among the Islamic and Christian religions that trads can't shut up about.
You're full of shit. The farthest you go in your analysis is the nascence of Wahhabism and post-French Revolution Catholicism. Christianity was pluralist all the way up until the Schism and there were neoplatonic academies open in Byzantium until the 6th century and in Egypt until the Ottoman conquest in the 14th century. Andalusian scholars deeply engaged with classical pagan thinkers, as did the early Christians. "Fundamentalism" and "dogmatism" are very recent and very suited for the plebeian, homogenised and massified world that we live in.
>>17276778
You responded to the wrong guy, I think. I don't need any recommendations, I've already read most of Evola's books.
>linearity
This is completely wrong. We still have Tradition today. Tradition exists in all eras. It's accessed through the spirit and can be discovered or rediscovered independently. Tradition and degeneration always exist. Guenon makes that clear at the start of Reign of Quantity.

>>17275775
2, myself included

>>17276854
Dharma isn't a series of propositions. It's far closer to a fundamental vibration, or a Way. As in Taoism, any attempt to put it into words won't do it justice. Buddhism is a raft at reaching it. Can things be closer and farther? Yes. But "correct" and "incorrect" imply some initial true pure state to compare to, and that just doesn't exist. Dharma is not correct, it just is.

>>17276925
Yes.

>>17276896
>>17276946
This was addressed here >>17276778
Specifically
>I've seen people recommend starting with Ride the Tiger, or Mystery of the Grail, hell I've even seen people recommend Bow and Club. For someone like you who is completely new to this, I'd honestly just say to pick something, stick with it, and then look at the rest of Evola's oeuvre for where to go from there.

>>17271792
I agree with this. I'm reading Hindua scriptures right now, there is no way to reconcile ancient Hindu thought with Jewish or Christian thought. The endless identifications between gods, cosmos, and humans in the Vedas is nowhere to be found in the Bible unless you really stretch some verses like God (YHWH) making man in his image. There is an absolute gulf between God and his creations in Jewish and Christian thought which isn't there in the Vedas.

>>17276896
>19th century Orientalists
Yeah, like Renee Guenon, who spent his time LARPing as a Sufi and plagiarizing Blavatsky, or Evola, who spent his time studying Buddhism and meditating.

>>17276979
When one say that Dharma, or Law, conditions all things it implies a character of objectivity. Saying also that having no ''correct'' or ''incorrect'' is - ok, maybe you will not admit that it is correct - but as you said, closer to the Law, that is, how things are, positing a dualistic, crass understanding of ''correct'' and ''incorrect'' will not be incorrect, but only ''farther''.
In the end it is logic that is at hand. If what it is fails logic (like what the Dharma is, perhaps) the way you explain and teach it must not necessarily fail logic, otherwise no opinion will be correct nor incorrect, neither farther nor closer, which already implies a sense of objectivity.

>>17267681
what's the problem? do you care about truth?

>>17276992
I have no idea what this post is supposed to mean, refer to or address.

>>17277056
I'm saying that you should read a book before having an opinion on its contents.

>>17277074
Are you sure you're not confused anon? You might be getting the posters wrong. I've already read copious amounts of literature by the Traditionalists. Nothing in my post you tagged me for here >>17276992 would suggest the opposite, either.

>>17276245
didn't he describe himself as an ultra fascist?

>>17276946
>You're full of shit. The farthest you go in your analysis is the nascence of Wahhabism and post-French Revolution Catholicism.
No such mention made.
>Christianity was pluralist all the way up until the Schism
Not even remotely close to being true! They didn't have dozens of councils and synods and condemn heresies because they agreed with one another, and the Christians of Syria and Egypt didn't welcome the Muslim conquerors because they enjoyed the primacy of Constantinople. And of course, who (other than you apparently) could forgot the violent extermination of paganism
>there were neoplatonic academies open in Byzantium until the 6th century and in Egypt until the Ottoman conquest in the 14th century
Yes until the based and redpilled theologians apparently following the same Tradition as Plato closed them
>Andalusian scholars deeply engaged with classical pagan thinkers, as did the early Christians.
Destroyed most of it and kept the parts they liked, you mean
>"Fundamentalism" and "dogmatism" are very recent and very suited for the plebeian, homogenised and massified world that we live in.
Agree and what could be more fundamentalist or dogmatic than all religions being modes of the same truth

>>17276996
To make Judeo-Christianity Indian you would need to destroy 2000 years of self-interpretation. Rather than God creating the world twice in a row in Genesis being an irrelevant quirk or two stories stapled together by Babylonian scribes because they liked them both for their symbolic or literal value, it would become the most important doctrine.

>>17276946
>there were neoplatonic academies open in Egypt until the Ottoman conquest in the 14th century
source. platonic islamic universities were not ''neoplatonic academies''.

>>17277021
>plagiarizing Blavatsky
cite the plagiarized passages with page numbers or shut up already

>>17277301
If I had to guess this is a bizarre extrapolation of Ottoman jihadist propaganda against the Mamluk sultans, who were accused of being Shiites since Shia Islam had previously predominated in Egypt.

someone who gonne deep and made a great work, in my opinion is Olavo de carvalho.

He wrote this, a few years ago.

If you use translator, could have some use to.

https://olavodecarvalho.org/as-garras-da-esfinge-rene-guenon-e-a-islamizacao-do-ocidente/

question for anons, not directly related to thread but since we are on the topic of traditionalism. I heard that Guenon disliked Plotinus and Neoplatonism, is there a reason for this?

>>17277323
no idea what you want to convey with this reply but platonic ''tradition'' could only survive within christian and islamic circles and perhaps jewish ones too

>>17277405
The claim is that the islamo-platonist academies went away after the Ottomans. One justification the Ottomans used in conquering Egypt was that the country was riddled with Shiite heretics, making the Mamluks illegitimate Muslim rulers for failing to obey the expectations of Islamic law. I am not familiar with there being genuine academies in the Platonic sense in Muslim Egypt, though there were Arabic translations of mainly Aristotle and Plotinus (who was thought to be Aristotle in some cases) studied more generally in the Islamic world (as a result of having conquered Greek speaking peoples under the pretext that they were not following the only true religion). So probably the intellectual climate introduced by the Turks was not as accommodating to these studies, but that is so strange since we know all religions are modes of one truth.

>>17277251
>No such mention made.
Presumably because you know very little about the dogmatism you claim to describe.
>Not even remotely close to being true! They didn't have dozens of councils and synods and condemn heresies because they agreed with one another, and the Christians of Syria and Egypt didn't welcome the Muslim conquerors because they enjoyed the primacy of Constantinople. And of course, who (other than you apparently) could forgot the violent extermination of paganism
Anon, I... What do you think the purpose of councils is? Do you know the Old Believers heresy? Well, they came very close to being considered properly Orthodox. The only reason they aren't is because the highest clergy pushed needless reform too aggressively, so they broke communion with them. Christianity had great diversity of custom and belief. As to Muslims, no, Christians didn't like being conquered, but Muslims certainly went out of their way to interact with Christians, Jews and European pagans.
>Yes until the based and redpilled theologians apparently following the same Tradition as Plato closed them
No, until Justinian the peasant with his plebeian dogmatism decided to close them. Refer to what I said earlier about dogmatism.
>Destroyed most of it and kept the parts they liked, you mean
Not really? If you want me to break into an anti-Christian polemic, I could do that, but it's undeniable that the Christians interacted intensively with Plato, Aristotle, etc.
>Agree and what could be more fundamentalist or dogmatic than all religions being modes of the same truth
You don't know what either "fundamentalism" or "dogmatism" mean.
>>17277301
I am not talking about Islamic universities that taught Platonism, but a Greek pagan neoplatonic academy in Alexandria.

>>17277517
>greek pagan neoplatonic academy in alexandria
after the 6th/7th century? again: source

>>17272848
>>17272850
Why is this shit so unreadable in translation? Is the language just that more complex than English, or is it the reverse?

>>17277504
Oh I see.
>all religions are modes of one truth.
all religions are modes of a half-truth, except by one, that shows the truth.

>>17277517
I mean apparently Celsus so thoroughly btfo Christianity we don't even have copies of him, just a seething response. But sure, the Christians of the late Roman period who codified the faith were very charming and tolerant people who wanted to learn from all the different traditions, much like the 20th century writers reheating the romanticism of the 19th century for a more globally integrated world who thought all religions spoke truth.

>>17277565
>I mean apparently Celsus so thoroughly btfo Christianity we don't even have copies of him, just a seething response
Read Origen's book. Also if your ''argument'' to sustain your resentment against Christianity is ''if it is lost it means it was destroyed...by christians and therefore it is right!'' we have many christian texts lost... were they destroyed by gnostics? pagans?

>>17277612
If TRADITION were true and not just a modernist narrative we would not have all these examples of the religions destroying each other. That's the point here. There would be no need to exterminate people for worshipping the wrong god or to destroy libraries or even the possibility of making theology a casus belli. Yet we see Christianity, Islam and similar religions do this incessantly throughout history.

>>17277547
Buddha was just a bad public speaker, Sanskrit is a more advanced language than Pali/Prakrit, but Sanskrit texts from before and after Buddha’s time are much more poetic and inspiring.

>>17277547
>>17277656
Sutta literature in Pali is literally built around mnemonic aids and oral tradition. The sutRas in Sanskrit don't arrive until Buddhism becomes more assimilated to later Indian imperial/high culture which conducts its affairs in Sanskrit

>>17277540
I looked around for a bit but atm I can only find information about Ismaili Neoplatonism and nothing about Hellenism. A handful of the resources I found seem to cite some Paul Walker's book about early philosophical Shiism. This seems to tie in with what this anon >>17277504 said.
>>17277565
Context, anon. The late Roman empire was a demonic shithole. Seething mobs of Christians and other subversive were butchering and destroying whatever they deemed to oppose them. This, by the way, isn't normative. As soon as Christianity instituted itself firmly, it started operating a far more intelligent model, even as it still retained most of its prejudices. As I mentioned earlier, the councils and the communion between the different churches is extremely impressive. I don't know why you are trying to stress this point so much. I dislike Christianity, it's not like I want to defend it, but you are wrong if you think that every religion ever revolved around dogmatic, fundamentalist screeching and cutthroatery. Even Christianity does not fit this model.
>>17277642
There is no "need" to do any of those things, they are simply done. Neither spirituality nor religion necessarily imply some sort of blind seething hatred of variety in form. Moreover, you are overlooking the fact that two models can draw from the same source but still compete in the context of human life.

>>17277547
Bad translations, most of them coming from the late 1800s. Also, the Pali Canon is composed in a style that is mean to aid memorization as part of oral tradition. A lot of it follows a style of
>oh monks, said the great one, the wise one, is it not holy, is it not pious, is it not beautiful, to do the A of whatever?
>yes, oh tathagata, oh great one, it is wonderful, it is pleasing, it is joyous to do the A of whatever
and then he'll go through like seventy other things in a list. This style is designed to make it easy to memorize and fill in the gaps, not to read for fun.

>>17277656
>advanced
This is incorrect, Sanskrit is is an intentionally crafted language that has more conjugation and declension, but it is not more "Advanced". There is no concept in a natural language that cannot be expressed in another. The Buddha literally says why he's communicating in Sanskrit: to spread the Dharma to all sentient beings, not just Brahmins so they can wank off about it.

>>17277760
>This is incorrect

>The Sanskrit language is much older than Pali.
Pali is an innovative language, just like Buddhism is an anti-traditional philosophy/religion
>The Pali language is considered to be a composite language having several dialects
Pali is a creole/mutt language, just like Buddhism is a mishmash philosophy/religion
>When comparing the two languages, Pali is considered to be simple.
Pali is the language of the simple-minded, just like Buddhism is the religion of the dim-witted urbanite
>The grammar is also considered to be similar, but Pali has a simplified grammar.
Pali has simplified grammar for brainlets, just like Buddhist teachings are a collection of slogans and repetitive phrases for easy consumption

Read more: Difference Between Sanskrit and Pali | Difference Between
http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/culture-miscellaneous/difference-between-sanskrit-and-pali/#ixzz6ZaDeqSXF

>>17277711
>As I mentioned earlier, the councils and the communion between the different churches is extremely impressive.
Not to the Gnostics, Manichaeans, Arians, Marcionites, etc. Why didn't the official Christians understand they were all teaching the same perennial wisdom?

>>17277847
>Not to the Gnostics, Manichaeans, Arians, Marcionites, etc. Why didn't the official Christians understand they were all teaching the same perennial wisdom?
Because the Christian hierarchy only had mastery of Christian theology, not Tradition. Thankfully, we now have the Traditionalists who have created a formal school of thought based around a type of understanding that, while to some extent common, was hardly ubiquitous in the past.

>>17277952
>these old ideas merely appear to be different but are in fact devoid of difference when it comes to absolute reality
>buddhists aren't allowed in my clubhouse because they are anti-tradition
This is why I don't take perennialists seriously. Do they have any idea who they sound like?

>>17278003
>>buddhists aren't allowed in my clubhouse because they are anti-tradition
Didn't Evola say Buddhism was traditional?

>>17277711
so yeah, no ''greek pagan platonism'' after 6th/7th century

>buddhists aren't allowed in my clubhouse because they are anti-tradition

>>17278028
>>17278028
He likes it for the very reasons other traditionalists don't, something about being an aristocratic religion instead of a priestly religion. But in any event, the perennialist assimilation of all the non-Buddhist religions as conditioned exponents of the one absolute truth echoes an attitude found in Madhyamaka, the so-called central philosophy of Buddhism. It's very ironic.

>>17277642
>>17277711
>Neither spirituality nor religion necessarily imply some sort of blind seething hatred of variety in form.
so wrong. it is violence itself that affirms the need and perennial character of religion and the latter's expulsion of it and establishment of order and peace.

>>17277711
>you are wrong if you think that every religion ever revolved around dogmatic, fundamentalist screeching and cutthroatery
wrong again! first: you can only have a unitary, common religion when there is peace and order established, hence dogmatism, laws, interditions, rites and all its preparations are fundamental and must be followed strictly, otherwise there will be no religion and therefore no society, no culture, no civilization.
second: even within an already established civilization/culture, with its laws, religion and other institutions, ''mysticism'' can only work having in mind the very dogmas wherein it blooms. just like the modern man cannot understand the necessity and essence of religion, the rationalist, scholar, metaphysician cannot understand the necessity and essence of dogmas.

>>17278003
>>these old ideas merely appear to be different but are in fact devoid of difference when it comes to absolute reality
Not what I said. The religious forms are different, they are absolutely different. They do, however, draw from the same source. You could say that they share the same substance, though as you might have guessed, the form may either help or hinder the manifestation of the substance.
>>buddhists aren't allowed in my clubhouse because they are anti-tradition
I've said nothing like this either. In my eyes, Buddhism is one of the purest and most brilliant formulations of Tradition, given the context.
>>17278097
Coomaraswamy is also friendly to Buddhism, as another anon said earlier. Apart from Guenon, I am not aware of any Traditionalist scholar that particularly dislikes Buddhism.
>>17278130
>so wrong. it is violence itself that affirms the need and perennial character of religion and the latter's expulsion of it and establishment of order and peace.
I genuinely have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
>wrong again! first: you can only have a unitary, common religion when there is peace and order established, hence dogmatism, laws, interditions, rites and all its preparations are fundamental and must be followed strictly, otherwise there will be no religion and therefore no society, no culture, no civilization.
You do not need a "unitary, common religion". None of the things you mentioned depend on that, otherwise the Islamic world would never have existed.
>second: even within an already established civilization/culture, with its laws, religion and other institutions, ''mysticism'' can only work having in mind the very dogmas wherein it blooms. just like the modern man cannot understand the necessity and essence of religion, the rationalist, scholar, metaphysician cannot understand the necessity and essence of dogmas.
Dogma is something written by rationalists for rationalists, my objection to dogmatism lies precisely in its rationalist and inorganic nature. Dogma is a useful support when there is need for support, but in itself it does not bring even a sliver of enlightenment - it can at best light the way. Spiritual enlightenment is always something experiential or "mystical" (insofar as we use the word "mysticism" in its original sense, referring to the mysteries and the understanding of mystery). Dogma is good when it aides understanding and it is bad when it is used as some sort of IKEA construction manual.

>>17267681
noooooo, you have to keep worshipping semitic desert demons!

>>17278237
>You do not need a "unitary, common religion". None of the things you mentioned depend on that, otherwise the Islamic world would never have existed.
how can anything be built without unanimity?

>dogma is something written by rationalists for rationalists
1) you said earlier dogmas were to the uncouth peasants
2) again, the unanimity religion offers is not fruit of rationalism, the religion's laws are not rationalized or, like its myths, are never born out of rationalizations at all.

>Dogma is a useful support when there is need for support
yeah, when there is need... like in the origin, duh. and it is not a a mere support, because it offers establishment of order, peace, it is essential.

>it does not bring even a sliver of enlightenment
the dogmas of rites say more than you think, to the very essence of religion and the sacred.

>mystery
Yeah, religion revolves around mystery, I agree. But in the same manner I can't dismiss the pertinence and power of metaphysical mystery, not a single man can dismiss its anthropological mystery (that is, how it is the foundation of every-thing).

>>17278869
>how can anything be built without unanimity?
Hierarchically.
>1) you said earlier dogmas were to the uncouth peasants
Rationalism and peasantism are pretty strongly related desu.
>yeah, when there is need... like in the origin, duh. and it is not a a mere support, because it offers establishment of order, peace, it is essential.
Not really, you can have entirely non-dogmatic institutions in charge of order etc.
>the dogmas of rites say more than you think, to the very essence of religion and the sacred.
They do, but only because people use them in sacred ways. In and of itself, dogma is lifeless and pointless.
>Yeah, religion revolves around mystery, I agree. But in the same manner I can't dismiss the pertinence and power of metaphysical mystery, not a single man can dismiss its anthropological mystery (that is, how it is the foundation of every-thing).
That's the thing though, isn't it? If you are looking at dogma as a sort of bridge between society and metaphysics, yes, it has its place and importance, but it is still only important by proxy because of its function. That's what I am trying to say.

>>17279111
>hierarchically
how can there be without a unanimous acceptance of this hierarchy, genius? hierarchy already implies order
>rationalism and peasantism are related
arbitrary nonsensical claim
>non-dogmatic institutions in charge of order
like a non-dogmatic law about incest to preserve the most atomic constituent of a society not to fall into the violence sex naturally attracts?
>dogma is lifeless and pointless
i'm showing to you they arent and all you do is repeating in a very dogmatic way your own religious fancies
>only important by proxy because of its function
so it has a function now? you said literally in the statement above they are ''lifeless and pointless''.
your incoherence rests the case. good night.

>>17279495
>how can there be without a unanimous acceptance of this hierarchy, genius? hierarchy already implies order
That's not the same as uniformity or homogeneity.
>arbitrary nonsensical claim
Labourers and merchants form the materialist classes and rationalism is the bourgeois ideology par excellence. People are driven to rationalism by the desire to make things safe, comfortable, sensible etc. Obviously, rationality is important for every functional human being, but rationality as the driving principle; rationalism - that is for plebs.
>like a non-dogmatic law about incest to preserve the most atomic constituent of a society not to fall into the violence sex naturally attracts?
It is difficult for me to understand some of the things you write. I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Are you bringing up the Christian anti-incest system, for some reason? Are you trying to suggest anti-incest dogma is necessary? I can't tell what you are saying or why you are saying it.
>i'm showing to you they arent and all you do is repeating in a very dogmatic way your own religious fancies
What are my religious fancies? All I am saying is that dogma, in itself, is lifeless and pointless. Which it is. In the first place, even if we assign axiomatic value to dogma, it means nothing until people start to follow it. Once again, it boils down to the spiritual discipline of the individual, not to a dogmatic rule book.
>so it has a function now? you said literally in the statement above they are ''lifeless and pointless''.
I refer you to what I said here: >>17278237
>Dogma is a useful support when there is need for support, but in itself it does not bring even a sliver of enlightenment - it can at best light the way.
There is nothing special about dogma. Dogma doesn't do anything. People do things, according to dogma, but not for the sake of dogma.
I didn't put that "in and of itself" bit in that sentence just to make it sound better - I put it there because it's important.

>>17274490
based

>>17276726
>non-dualists can't explain the purpose of life
most don’t think there is a need to
>cope with the term maya
whenever Maya is discussed on here it’s so clear how fucking nobody actually understands it as a concept. Maya is not illusory in the sense of a cloth covering an object, or a cloud obscuring the sun, Maya is like a rope misperceived as a snake. Maya IS the ultimate reality, we as observers just focus on one part of it at a time and miss the actual nature of it, like how one sees a net to be a multiplicity of holes when it is in fact, just a single string interconnected in such a way that it appears to be a multiplicity

>Defending Tradlarpism this much
You're all going to hell

>>17279585
>schizo chart

>>17267749
Christian Hermeticism, bud. There are still some tied in/secondary stuff of alchemy and the like, but it posits Christ as the prime inheritor and saviour and is, effectively, a further contextualization of his teachings.
Also BTFOs Gnostics.

>>17267685
absolutely based actually.
Buddhism is the truth, and Jesus was a blessed bodhisattva.

>>17267681
Oh my
This thread is so fucking long

>>17275247
A tradition is progressive and organic, that is anything that flowers in the present and has strong roots in the past.

This applies to the Enlightenment, but not to traditionalism.

>>17276427
Traditionalism hasnt any concrete opinions about economics, politics, technology, society either. That in itself makes it suspect and midwit tier. Or worse, decadent. No doubt the ideology is purposefully being shilled to divert peoples attention away from politics.

as always, music is most discussed topic by deaf morons.

>>17282418
what is the point of getting out of the bed every morning?

>>17282255
>Jesus was a blessed bodhisattva.
I don't think a bodhisattva would ever say things like "the only way is me" or whatever.

>>17282439
t. liar believing lies

I have a question to people who know about buddhism: is there a notion of sanctity of the body for buddhists, or is that a purely abrahamic conception?

>>17277642
Its even worse, we know what a traditional religion would look like, we have plenty of old texts including the Veddas who all have their origin within the Indo-European culture.

A number of elements of this religion:

1. There is no supreme God.
2. There is nothing outside of Nature.
3. All the gods are seperate beings.
4. All the gods are a part of nature.
5. All the gods where born from an chaos.
6. You honor the gods through war and sacrifice.
7. This will give you wealth and power.
8. There is no morality, only the tribe.

Everything after that is just mutt religiosity. The modern capitalist West sits closer to the original mindset then does Islam, which is why its more powerful

>>17282452
>is there a notion of sanctity of the body for buddhists,
no of course not, the best case of sanctity is consciousness, harming other is bad karma, but harming rocks and trees is neutral (yet useless to get englihtened), so atheists women seethe when they hear abortion is no go in buddhism.

>>17271244
That's a repeated motif, that doesn't make it cyclical time. Abrahamism teaches linear time because it views time as a line between two unrepeatable events, Creation and Consummation of All Things/Armageddon, and then time eternal. This is not the same as the Dharmic view of time being eternal and made up of ever smaller recurring cycles, which is how Traditional Man naturally viewed time. Linear time is a forced construct

>>17279781
>whenever Maya is discussed on here it’s so clear how fucking nobody actually understands it as a concept. Maya is not illusory in the sense of a cloth covering an object, or a cloud obscuring the sun, Maya is like a rope misperceived as a snake. Maya IS the ultimate reality, we as observers just focus on one part of it at a time and miss the actual nature of it, like how one sees a net to be a multiplicity of holes when it is in fact, just a single string interconnected in such a way that it appears to be a multiplicity

that's the cope, thanks for proving my point...you guys really are like clockwork

>>17277377
>https://olavodecarvalho.org/as-garras-da-esfinge-rene-guenon-e-a-islamizacao-do-ocidente/

quick rundown?

>>17276946
Spinoza = advaita vedanta = buddhism = modernism

>>17283297
Spinoze =/= Advaita Vedanta =/= Buddhism =/= Modernism. None of those things are related.

>>17282461
This is partially why Guenon, among all of the Traditionalists, is the most ludicrous.

>>17283336
>spinoza =/= modernism
retard

>>17282461
>within indo-european culture
no such thing. literally there is no traceable independent indo-european culture that can be defined if not within another cultural group

>we know what a traditional religion would look like
no, lol, you don't even know what are the fundamental elements that constitute a religion (ignorance of them is one element, ironically enough, that has permitted religions to exist and be deeply related).

>>17283409
>no such thing
Why get upset about a topic you've never read anything about?

>indo-european culture that can be defined if not within another cultural group
Then there are by your definition no cultures at all.

>>17274208
still waiting on an answer Mr. 'Real Buddhism'

>>17282461
There are many verses from the Vedas which state the opposite of the things you listed

worthless faggots obsessed with words

>>17283414
everything known to be of indo-european origin can only be asserted within a different culture from the indo-european.
>then there are no cultures at all
so you think all cultures, including those that predate supposed indo-european one, must have indo-european elements?

>>17283502
Buddha was a worthless faggot who avoided words because his teachings weren't logical and metaphysically sound so he fooled people by not explaining any of the deeper basis for any of it so people wouldn't realize his teachings were baseless

>>17283532
>logical and metaphysically sound
>deeper basis
You're proving my point, midwit

>>17281781
Cope, cringe, dilate etc.
>>17282461
You are a total moron and haven't read a thing in your life.

>>17283536
his teachings don't make sense, but he avoided giving the full explanation of them so people wouldn't realize this

"Read" Plato's Parmenides, Philebus, Sophist, and Book 10 of Laws. This will blow the fuck out of the water all Eastern thought, and this is just the beginning. Although these four are also where you'll return at the end.

>>17283582
>Plato
refuted by Lao-tzu

>>17283582
lmao

>>17283521
Your ludicrous definition of a culture as being some discrete thing that has no connection to anything else is just that: ludicrous. There are no other cultures in that case. We can zoom out further, Indo-European culture is just a variety of Nostratic culture (I would not postulate this level of granularity, but it works), and ultimately all culture is just part of "human culture".

Ignoring that, no one has ever claimed that there was ever a singular "Indo-European culture". "Indo-European" is an adjective, not a noun. The Proto-Indo-Europeans were indeed a coherent culture (or rather, a coherent cultural lineage existing in the same area) for a few thousand years before various migrations work. However, to say that they were a single "thing" with no impact from anything else is ludicrous (the PIE would probably be several very closely related cultures, as all cultures are upon examination).

>>17283584
>>17283590
not him but Platonism is superior to all far eastern thought. care to actually say anything substantial? otherwise be silent

>>17283601
>not him but Platonism is superior to all far eastern thought.
care to actually say anything substantial? otherwise be silent

>>17283532
What books have you read that have given you this opinion?

>>17283570
Alright, let's do a little exercise:

Dyeus Phter, the head of the Indo-European pantheon, says that human sacrifice is bad. Not only is it immoral, but he and all the Gods not only don't want it, but have explicitly told you not to give it to them. It's an insult. So don't fucking do it. Human sacrifice is bad.

Yahweh, the head of the Semitic pantheon (as far as you are concerned, as he is your Baal), says that human sacrifice is good. He wants you to burn your firstborn son, alive, as an offering to him. Not only does he say that this is a meritorious act, but he explicitly told you that he wants it. Human sacrifice is good.

So which is Tradition, and which is Satanic Innovation?

>>17283612
It is my careful conclusion reached after years reading all sorts of eastern philosophy and after interacting and speaking with manifold types of buddhists, I cannot attribute it to any one source

>>17283628
So you haven't read anything, got it.

>>17283598
>Your ludicrous definition of a culture as being some discrete thing that has no connection to anything else is just that: ludicrous
You are not reading what I'm posting. See again >>17283409 where I tell you about ''fundamental elements that constitute a religion''. This here implies a common ground for all of them. What is discrete is their own particular, conditioned elements that will differ from each other.

>''Indo-European'' is an adjective, not a noun.
Yes, exactly and do you know what an adjective is? A modifier. It modifies a noun, therefore saying, as you said, ''Indo-european culture'' posits a discrete, particular indo-european culture. You said it and now deny what you said.
>The Proto-Indo-Europeans were indeed a coherent culture
Yeah like all cultures. There is no culture without coherence.
>for a few thousand years before various migrations work
Again, just like egyptian, sumerian, harappan, etc, etc.

>to say that they were a single "thing" with no impact from anything else is ludicrous
no idea what you mean here, are you ok?

>>17283628
If you haven't read anything on this topic, then why have an opinion on it? You've fabricated an opinion on a topic you don't understand so that you can get angry. Surely you can see that this is unhealthy.

>>17283639
This was already discussed here >>17283598.

>>17283644
I'm sorry anon, but you appear to be arguing that subject-object duality is just a human construct. If that is the case, then how do you explain Hebrew Grammar? Hmm? Bet you didn't see that one coming, it's okay, most don't. My blade is reason, and it has been honed on the bodies of a thousand non-dualists like you.

>>17283601
>far eastern thought
Depending on what you include in this term I would be inclined to agree

>>17283644
are you retarded? I just answered all you wrote there. Reply to my post like a man.

>>17283625
>muh deus pater
Survive the Jive is not the be all and end all of religious analysis.
To address your question anyway, assuming that obedience to divine codes is followed faithfully and diligently with a view towards the sacred, in both situations the spiritual practitioners experience piety. The form and practice is simply a means to an end, the end being spiritual fulfilment. That some forms are more flawed than others is besides the point.
>>17283653
Not that anon, but are you serious? Grammar is a human construct too, anon.

>>17283625
>Dyeus Phter, the head of the Indo-European pantheon, says that human sacrifice is bad
Source. You're probably the same anon so I will tell you again: everything Indo-European can only be inferred to be Indo-European within other different cultures. So now we have, for example, the Hindu/Vedic tradition with Indo-Aryan elements. There was human sacrifice. Ancient Greece? There was human sacrifice.

>Yahweh, the head of the Semitic pantheon (as far as you are concerned, as he is your Baal), says that human sacrifice is good.
Where? In Genesis there are TWO instances of YHWH replacing human sacrifice with animal sacrifice.

>He wants you to burn your firstborn son, alive, as an offering to him
Again: where is it said? There is a passage that refers to the circumcision of children. How can there be millions of passages of YHWH condemning human sacrifice and he himself demand it?

>>17283641
nice false assumption chump

>>17283807
>Ancient Greece? There was human sacrifice.
lol

>>17283690
He's making fun of the other anon for unironically doing the "nouns are ontologically real because Sanskrit" cope in a thread about Buddhism.

And no, this is not something Survive the Jive came up with, I'm not sure why you'd think that given that the study of language predates him by centuries and all historians accept the Indo-European Hypothesis because of the mountains of linguistic, genetic, and archaeological evidence. Well, no, the Turkish government does pay historians in Turkey to say that all languages derive from Modern Turkish, but that's a digression.

As is you dodging the question. Is human sacrifice Tradition, or Innovation? Not piety, not religious experience, human sacrifice.

>>17283532
why are rationalists seething at people who shit on them from the empirical facts that mental masturbation by intelelctuals is useless beyond becoming a larp in academia?

>>17267681
why are americans like this, picking and choosing their religions like fashion accessories?

>>17283807
>the ancient greeks did human sacrifice
No they didn't. Are you retarded? Have you read literally nothing on this subject?

>>17283864
>empirical facts that mental masturbation by intelelctuals is useless beyond becoming a larp in academia?
how do you establish that empirically?

>>17283850
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmakos
Not to mention the manifold references to it explicitly in their myths

>>17283872
see >>17283878

>>17283868
There's nothing wrong with choosing to follow another religion than the one you were raised in. Spirituality is personal.

>>17283860
>And no, this is not something Survive the Jive came up with, I'm not sure why you'd think that given that the study of language predates him by centuries and all historians accept the Indo-European Hypothesis because of the mountains of linguistic, genetic, and archaeological evidence. Well, no, the Turkish government does pay historians in Turkey to say that all languages derive from Modern Turkish, but that's a digression.
I did not claim that Survive the Jive is the only person to ever discuss Deus Pater, but he is probably where you got this idea that Deus Pater was the "head of the IE pantheon". I disagree with his interpretation.
>As is you dodging the question. Is human sacrifice Tradition, or Innovation? Not piety, not religious experience, human sacrifice.
I already answered your question. "Human sacrifice" in and of itself is peripheral and at best a formal manifestation of a superior and anterior spiritual principle. In and of itself, it carries no meaning - it gains meaning, positive or negative, when it is placed in the context of a sacred tradition. Your specific example is based on false premises so I can not really address it, but my point is that "human sacrifice" can be understood in a Traditional way or in an Anti-Traditional and demonic way depending on its context. Transcendence can not be identified with any one object or practice, but only with the experience of an object or practice.

>>17283878
>>17283883
The Pharmakos doesn't get sacrificed, though. They just put on a costume and get driven out of the city. They then come back in. If you want to go full sociologist and say that it's a ritual display of patriarchy or whatever and is a relic of a prior ritual where the pharmakos was actually killed, fine, but actual historians don't do that, because there's no evidence to support this.

Secondly, yeah, human sacrifice does show up in Greek Myth. As a bad thing that you aren't supposed to do, in morality myths about not doing human sacrifice. Agamemnon does it and gets shit on by the Gods for it. Every time someone does it, they get shit on by the Gods for it. Because the Gods don't want it. Because you're not supposed to do it.

>>17283903
>I disagree with his interpretation
You're disagreeing with all actual scholars then, as there is no evidence to support an alternative conclusion.

>superior and anterior spiritual principle
Right, and this is the answer that I've been looking for: you're taking religion and turning it into an arbitrary series of propositions to assent or dissent to, for the purpose of arguing. This is what anon was making fun of you for, and this is what I was making fun of you for, and this is what that guy up thread babbling about Modernism was making fun of (I assume).

The very fact that you refuse to take a position on human sacrifice, just in case you need to cobble some bit of support for some proposition from a religion that condones it, is telling.

>>17283903
i think its hilarious that you are trying to make linguistics and comparative mythology look bad by relating them to stj as a defense of traditionalism, when stj is himself a traditionalist following evola.

>>17283918
the pharmakos also isnt a human sacrifice under the definition of a "sacrifice" in indo-european religion. even if they were killed, nobody is "getting" the sacrifice.

in semitic religions yeah that is what human sacrifice is ("yahweh said to burn your babies so you have to, he doesnt get anything out of it"), but we arent talking about semitic religion.

>>17283918
>The Pharmakos doesn't get sacrificed, though
Open the fucking link and read the article, holy shit.
>They just put on a costume and get driven out of the city. They then come back in.
No, lol. Again, read more about the pharmakos in ancient greece. First of all the pharmakos is never ''in'' the city. They are always peripherically disposed. Second, their expulsion is to avoid a direct killing and any danger of violent, critic contamination. Just like they don't kill Socrates directly, but by his own hands. There are a lot of cases where the pharmakos was put in situations that they did not kill him but could not escape from being killed or killing himself.

>As a bad thing that you aren't supposed to do, in morality myths about not doing human sacrifice.
Yes, this is also true but as you yourself said it is a relic of ''a prior ritual''. Anyhow, there are a lot of historical evidences supporting this, you just don't want to read about it.
>Agamemnon does it and gets shit on by the Gods for it. Every time someone does it, they get shit on by the Gods for it. Because the Gods don't want it. Because you're not supposed to do it.
It is not so much for the gods as for the very community where the sacrifices are practiced.

>>17283952
this crass and fantastical moral dualism is inexistent to any person who actually understands what religion is. you are driven by an irrational ethnocentric bias. beginning with your ''indo-european religion'' as if there was a discrete, particular instance of it without being mixed with other local cultures.
this was already explained here:
>>17283807
>>17283639
>>17283521
>>17283409

>>17283502
I d love to gather all these experts in theology in one huge room, lock it, give everyone a weapon, and let them out when they all agree on something. broadcast live stream, become rich.

>>17283929
>You're disagreeing with all actual scholars then, as there is no evidence to support an alternative conclusion.
Cope.
>Right, and this is the answer that I've been looking for: you're taking religion and turning it into an arbitrary series of propositions to assent or dissent to, for the purpose of arguing. This is what anon was making fun of you for, and this is what I was making fun of you for, and this is what that guy up thread babbling about Modernism was making fun of (I assume).
I have no idea what you mean by "arbitrary series of propositions". This spiritual principle is elusive and inaccessible - it is through religious form that it is made accessible to the broad majority of people. Religion is important, but it is the exoteric and limited manifestation of this spiritual principle and many religious features are wholly contingent and dependent on the environment the religion is formulated in. It's easy to see why this view is fundamental to perennialism, which explains the validity of religion in terms of the spiritual wisdom that all religious forms attempt to convey.
>The very fact that you refuse to take a position on human sacrifice, just in case you need to cobble some bit of support for some proposition from a religion that condones it, is telling.
You didn't ask me to "take a position" at all, the question was "which is Tradition and which is Satanic innovation". I explained that since Tradition is present within all genuine religious Traditions, it is necessary to look for the universal element behind the various traditions, which is the element of experience. As to my own personal position - if we are dealing with some totalising and completely inarticulate idea of "human sacrifice" - then obviously I am opposed to it, but that's completely irrelevant to the debate.
>>17283943
I have not spent much time watching Jive, but from what I have seen he makes many crucial mistakes in his analyses which leads me to believe that he hasn't engaged with the Traditionalists properly. As I mentioned earlier in this thread here >>17271404, Evola had a very different opinion on Deus Pater.

>>17283929
>The very fact that you refuse to take a position on human sacrifice, just in case you need to cobble some bit of support for some proposition from a religion that condones it, is telling.
If you think that the other anon's take on human sacrifice is this you have absolutely NO UNDERSTANDING AT ALL of what the religious and sacred are and obviously will have no idea what sacrifice suggests and how it functions.

Choose the religion that best suits your identity.
Ask the question what do I want my identity to be?
Since everybody wants to have a good identity.
The books you read make up your identity so differentiate between books good for your identity and bad for your identity.

Think for a while what being a Buddhist entails. I don't think it's the correct religion but that's only because I'm schizophrenic so my personal experiences make me believe otherwise.

>>17284256
>Ask the question what do I want my identity to be?
I don't care about my identity, I want knowledge, insight into the higher truth.

>>17284256
>but that's only because I'm schizophrenic so my personal experiences make me believe otherwise.
Based schizoposter. Whenever I see one of you guys in the wild I always pay close attention. You've got interesting takes. I even saw a Buddhist schizo once who was very far down the ascetic road and was relying on shamatha to overcome his schizo hallucinations. I was super impressed.
>>17284290
Why should the two be separate?

>>17284353
>Why should the two be separate?
I didn't say they should; I said that I didn't care for having a specific identity.

>>17284290
It goes against the first commandment to have other God's before you. So God's with different ethic property values and metaphysical properties are different then the Christian God so it is heresy to study them.
Buddhism does mention different deities that his followers believe. So Christianity won't let you study other religious philosophy.
I think you are naive if you don't think there is a difference between pure philosophy and religious philosophy. A true philosopher doesn't rely on belief to get his points across.

>the very existence of Buddhism makes tradLARPers seethe

>>17284468
Not true, I like Buddhism.
>t. "Tradlarper"

>>17284506
Same
T. also a "Tradlarper"