/lit/ - Literature

>>18460324
The One isn't unintelligible or non-being though is it, it's just anterior to such principles entirely, being and non being, intelligibility and non-intelligibility

>>18460513
>b-b-but any doctrine that won’t let my body, mind, ego and personality be preserved forever so I can play vidya and jerk off eternally is annihilationsm!!!

Bump

>>18460324
>>18460513
>>18460734
Read Michael A. Sells' Mystical Languages of Unknowing. Mysticism demands a moment of nothing. It is indeed nihilist or an-arkhic.

>Jacobi kvetches about Spinoza's nihilism
>all the kids start reading Spinoza
>Hegel declares you are a Spinozist or no philosopher
>Hegel sets in motion the entire 20th century
Struggling only makes it worse

>>18461438
>Sells
I ain't buyin' it!

>>18460734
Well, yes.

>>18460324
You'll like Bolton's The One and the Many.

Most people who promote annihilationist mysticism do so hypocritically, because they have already reified what they consider the One to be and still have a very strong sense of self which they never let go. You can see this in the sheer arrogance monists display. Just look at the haughtiness of Rene Guenon, or how Lloyd Gerson insults his students.

>>18461438
Sorry, I'm new to this whole thing, but why does this matter? I thought that the world of opinions was supposed to get left behind so that the 'real reality', world of forms or whatever, could be lived and experienced? Sure, it gets rid of the ego and all else that is a part of the world of opinions, but you reap all the rewards of the world of forms? Feeling what things really are within oneself as you become one with them, etc.

>>18464102
t. dishonest annihilationist trying to derail discussion

>>18460324
What does he say about Levinas? I know he doesn't like him, but I always thought Levinas was trying to go against annihilationist gnosticism types like Plotinus and Heidegger. But I guess the Spinozist/Buberian impulse is too strong.

>>18464107
Nope, just trying to understand why you guys think and experience this so differently from me. Maybe I am a brainlet, maybe I am missing something. Give me a book rec or point me somewhere and I'll be gone.

>>18464080
What is the alternative to annihilationist mysticism? Isn't all mysticism annihilationist in the end? Can the ego really survive?

>>18464268
There are many non-annihilationist mysticisms if you look beyond the guenonfag psyop.

>>18461438
Care to elaborate? How do you differentiate between annihilation and transcendence, or purification?

>>18460734
You just explained annihilationism. Trying to sell the dissolution of the ego as some kind of profound truth is the very definition of a pseud. Nonexistence is not a pleasant thought, but it is something I can accept with a heavy heart if it came to that. There is nothing profound about nonexistence, it's not an enlightening spiritual truth, it's just a masturbatory concept for the retards on /lit/.

>>18464080
>>18464107
>>18464301
Meds. Now.

>>18464080
>Most people who promote annihilationist mysticism do so hypocritically, because they have already reified what they consider the One to be and still have a very strong sense of self
thats a pretty bit assumption

>>18464323
Write fully formed sentences like a human being.

>>18464324
So is the "Just annihilate yourself, it's good, bro, trust me, dude. Your real you is the void!"

>>18464322
The dissolution of the ego (in a strict and materialistic sense) is a mere prerequisite of transcendence. You don't know what you're talking about. "Annihilationism" is being used here inappropriately, because in order to construct something great, the weeds first have to be destroyed. Destruction is involved in that process, sure, but that does not make it the final aim.

>>18464322
>Nonexistence is not a pleasant thought, but it is something I can accept with a heavy heart if it came to that. There is nothing profound about nonexistence,
The end of the continued existence of the ego isn’t the same as the complete non-existence of you, it’s not the same as entrance into nothingness or the void because according to the contrary position which you dislike you are not just the ego but you are something higher and more pure than the ego, which continues when the egoistic identity is shed by you like a beautiful butterfly emerging from chrysalis. You can disagree with this, but it’s not really a valid criticism of the idea itself to equate it with dissolution into nothingness, because you are making a subtle transition where you are not actually talking about the idea which you are trying to attack anymore, but you’re transforming it into a strawman that is different from what the idea really is talking about and then attacking that strawman.

>>18464338
The point that people are criticizing is whether you are still 'you'. Is transcendence something you are even aware of? Or is it a different 'you'? This realm of thinking to me always seemed like pseudo-oblivion, everything that made you, you, is gone and what happens next is something you aren't even aware of. Is that wrong?

>>18464343
>>18464345

>>18464343
This is also how it appears to me. Losing the ego is just scales falling from the eyes of the soul, a primal identity remains beneath, not a void. Mystics call it ineffable but usually relate it to sensations like love, it's not nothingness.

>>18464345
To mystics who experience it it feels much more like the real you than the ego of every day life does. That's why they then identify themselves with it and say the normal concept of self is illusory

>>18464317
>How do you differentiate between annihilation and transcendence,
The difference between complete annihilation and transcendence is that in complete annihilation absolutely everything about you is ended, while in modes of transcendence that involve ending the ego something (you) survives unscathed by the ego’s falling away, and you continue onwards without any more association with the external paraphernalia that is ultimately superfluous.

>>18464301
Like what? I'm terrified that the pajeets are right and the ego is destroyed eventually

>>18464335
>So is the "Just annihilate yourself, it's good, bro, trust me, dude. Your real you is the void!
Yeah, but they have good reason for talking about that because certain source texts discuss that, that’s not the same as trying to attack your opponents with pop-psychology and then acting as if said attacks shows that such positions are wrong (it doesn’t)

>>18464322
What is defined as you? What constitutes you? Look at a rock or another object separate from you. Is it you? No? That object is not you because it is separate and disconnected from your body. In this instance, your body serves as the basis for “you”.

But what if you cut off your hand, or a leg? Do you stop being you? Become only 75% “you”? If you accept neither of these, your physical body cannot serve as the basis for “you”.

So what about the brain then? If the brain is destroyed, or damaged, will you stop existing, or change? If you are a physicalist, you will most likely stop here.

But the brain is the mind’s image of its own, how can we know it to be reliable? Is the brain not any different than the rock or the limb, an object in front of us, separate by the glass pane of the subject/object distinction? If so, perhaps the mind is more certain than the brain, our senses can deceive us after all, so the mind is the basis for self. But what part of the mind, the thoughts and personality? The consciousness itself? The thoughts and personality are in themselves, objects, that are observed for a subject. Whenever we cognize our own thinking, we say “I was thinking about…” “I was feeling…” and whenever we experience a memory, we think, “I was doing this…”, “I was young…” etc.

All of the contents in our mind are made aware of by the consciousness, foremost. Like the rest of the senses, what we observe in the mind is impermanent, and changes and vanishes every passing moment. Our conception of an ego, a personality, is based off accumulated memory of these mental phenomena, but memories can be lost, selective or sometimes not even be reliable. The memories that constitute one given understanding of ego will be faced with new experience of phenomena and those memories will be superceded by a new set of memories and so forth.

We see that like everything else, the contents of the mind are impermanent objects subject to change. However, in all of our mental states, there is a universal, and it is readily expressed in language. The “I”. “I was doing this, being this…”. The “I” is there because for any given mental state no matter if it is permanent or not, there is necessarily a subject conscious and aware of those mental phenomena. Otherwise they would not verifiably occur. It seems that the best candidate for the basis of “you” then, is the conscious Self, since it precedes everything else within mental phenomena and is the only constant universal.

>>18464345
The "you" you presently know changes all the time, from moment to moment, in ways great or small; the point of transcendence is eliminating this change and solidifying a "you" beyond becoming. This process requires destruction, not as an end, but as a means. Any "you" necessarily tied to transiency (this largely refers to carnal appetites and other problematic aspects of becoming) must be eliminated. Part of the Hermetic magnum opus (very closely linked to Neoplatonism, merely more mystical in its language) is the reestablishment of the newly formed self beyond-becoming, in becoming, although in a way that is fully organized and governed with respect to the principle of the One. There are frequent references in the texts to the danger of "solve", dissolution, without controlled coagulation to prevent the total destruction of ego, which is the destruction you are thinking of.

>>18464345
>>18464355
If the thing that transcends is not something I can currently identify with then it's annihilation. The rest is mental gymnastics.

>>18464383
>I’m going to make up my retarded definition of annihilation that contradicts when the commonly accepted definition is and cope and seethe like a sperg whenever someone corrects me on it

>>18464345
>Is transcendence something you are even aware of?
Yes, just to give one example, in Advaita the ‘you’ which continues is the same awareness that you have now, and this awareness that continues is aware of its own blissful liberation
>This realm of thinking to me always seemed like pseudo-oblivion, everything that made you, you, is gone and what happens next is something you aren't even aware of. Is that wrong?
Yes, because without your awareness, there wouldn’t be a “you”, there would be nobody who is aware of your thoughts and emotions. Your awareness or consciousness is the foundation of your being and everything that you call yourself depends on this awareness being there first being aware of it. So this awareness is essential to makes you “you”, and so if this awareness continues then not everything that made you “you” is gone but the most essential component of it has continued onwards to higher places, and it remains aware of itself in this process and aware of its own entrance into freedom and eternal happiness.

>>18464383
You do identity with it now though, it's always in you, feeling it fully is just like waking up from a dream, a shift in focus, you see clearly that it was always there

>>18464394
The only one coping and seething here is you. I'm not interested in your crypto-nihilism, sorry.

>>18464398
>You do identity with it now though
So then the ego survives. I don't identify with some abstract concept of raw consciousness or whatever.
If the thing that transcends isn't capable of going "I was once Anon, I was such and such" then it's cut off entirely from the previous identity, which means it has no personhood, so as far as I'm concerned it's not me and never will be.

>>18464399
if the most important thing to you is maintaining your arbitrary sense of personality and being able to personally cooooommmm forever after you die, you might just want to be an atheist and forget about religion entirely, because you clearly don’t understand what the fuck you’re talking about.

>>18460513
>the one isn't unintelligible it just is anterior to intelligibility

>>18464407
>If the thing that transcends isn't capable of going "I was once Anon, I was such and such" then it's cut off entirely from the previous identity, which means it has no personhood, so as far as I'm concerned it's not me and never will be.
Okay cool, how do you know that the “you” that recalls a previous “you” is the same you? For all you know you could be an exact clone with duplicated memory. Is that really you or not?

>>18464422
See? Mental gymnastics and more seething. It's all you annihilationists are capable of when called out on your nihilism.
>what do you mean you don't want to obliterate yourself like I do? are you some kind of atheist?
lmao

>>18464429
This is such a dumb fucking argument. Is the transcendent self linked to the previous identity or not? If not then it's not me, it's as simple as that, stop trying to find phenomenological gotchas when what I'm talking about is evident to anyone who isn't insincere.

>>18464407
Well that's the whole point of the idea, that you are more the raw consciousness than its object. Moreover all your attempts to construct an ego are actually a sort of frustrated attempt to return to this basic awareness, which contains within itself the true goal of every worldly desire that is never quite fulfilled. But it's quite aware that you were anon, a specific person, it just more like the awareness is tending to this particular garden of anon for a while, but you become part of a much larger tapestry of being.

>>18464383
>If the thing that transcends is not something I can currently identify
People identify themselves with their own awareness and this awareness that is their self continues, you already identify yourself with your own awareness right now, but you also identify yourself with exterior things in addition to that; namely the changing contents presented to this awareness. So it’s incorrect to say that the thing which continues is something you don’t identify with now because you already identify with it now, its just that this essence which people always identify with continues on without the external and unnecessary things which you had also been identifying with additionally out of habit, according to Advaita.

>>18464436
>This is such a dumb fucking argument. Is the transcendent self linked to the previous identity or not?
see >>18464447

it's not enough that guenonfag annihilates himself...he has to drag down all of /lit/ with him

>>18464436
Kek, you genuinely don’t understand the argument so you just reassert the same position like a sperg. Your basis for you is founded purely off memory alone and I’ve demonstrated why that isn’t reliable basis for self. Especially when the a priori transcendent self is necessary for any mental phenomena to begin with.

Btw, you do currently identify with the transcendental self, if you didn’t, you would be an NPC, but I dunno, maybe you actually are.

>>18464428
Maybe anterior is the wrong word, the One for Plotinus is the highest principle without the use of which intelligibility and being are impossible. The One itself doesn't contain being or intelligibility though because it is simpler and purer than them.

>>18464430
>what do you mean the self isn’t my personality ahhh I’m goonna dieeee and stop existing

>>18464383
>my more learned, well-read and mature self is annihilation because it is not my current self

>>18464443
Okay but does this awareness have an actual identity? Does it identify itself as itself, i.e. is it a higher level of ego? If not then it can't really be said to be self-aware, therefore it can't be said to be me by definition. Descriptions I read of ego death make me think it's the latter, and so that the loss of the ego effectively results in the destruction of everything that makes me "me" even if some form of basic awareness remains.
>>18464447
So there is continuity then? When my ego dies, what happens, practically speaking? Is it a sort of realization that my life, identity and memories are just something extraneous to being purely conscious, while I do retain the knowledge and memories of these things I don't identify with them anymore?
>>18464466
You're not making an argument, just being a smug faggot. Fuck off retard.

>>18464469
This is basically the same One as the demonstration given in Parmenides isn't it?

>>18464470
If it has no personality then it has no personhood, if it has no personhood it can't be said to be fully self-aware because it has no notion of identity, i.e. nothing that separates it from everything else.
And yeah sorry I don't want to stop existing, I guess I don't despise myself unlike you.
>>18464476
>more learned, well-read and mature self
What?

>>18464483
Why would I need to make another argument after you clearly ignored my first one?

>>18464486
Where does Parmenides posit anything that lacks Being? His entire point from what I remember is that it would be completely nonsensical.

>>18464489
You've said nothing of value, just some retarded "bro what if the current you is like a clone dude woah that'd blow my mind jamie pull it up" stoner bullshit. Try again

>>18464492
oh lel nvm you meant the dialogue

>>18464487
>What?
You just stated that annihilation is the positing of 'self' of anything that you cannot identify with "currently." If you were to see your future self, ideally more successful than you are now, you would consider aspiring towards this goal to be annihilationism because you cannot identify with it "currently." It's a really desperate and silly argument.

>>18464496
>>18464492
Yeah the dialogue, was Plotinus using the term in the same way?

>>18464487
>If it has no personality then it has no personhood
Even an NPC/philosophical zombie/android can be programmed to have a personality. They can have the exterior appearance of being a conscious being with receptivity/reaction to external stimuli without actually being aware of anything at all, or lacking an inner world. Personality doesn’t make you not an NPC, consciousness does.
>if it has no personhood it can't be said to be fully self-aware because it has no notion of identity, i.e. nothing that separates it from everything else.
personality isn’t required for distinction, subject/object distinction is already posited before anything else and includes the contents of the mind. I already explained this when I brought up how in language, “I” precedes every other identifier/action.

>>18464508
That is so unfathomably stupid that I wonder how you would even come up with such an argument. There will be an obvious continuity between the current me and the future me; in memories, personality, sense of identity, etc.
Are you trying to pull this sophistic Buddhist shit where you attempt to disregard everything I identify with as "not myself"? Sorry but that's not gonna work, I disregarded Buddhism as nonsense long ago.

>>18464494
Your sense of ego is based off memory and your memory isn’t reliable for multiple reasons, the possibility of being a clone with preloaded memories is one of them, since you can’t distinguish which clone is the real “you”.

>>18464515
>can be programmed to have a personality.
You're dodging. I'm not programmed since I'm aware of my personality. However I am not only pure awareness because this personality, this sense of identity that I have, my relationship towards my memories, thoughts and emotions, these are all a part of me.
>personality isn't required for distinction
For distinction between self-aware beings, it is. I am not just a self-observing object.

>>18464519
>There will be an obvious continuity between the current me and the future me; in memories, personality, sense of identity, etc.
what exactly makes you so confident that there is a definite continuity? your memories are all dependent on previous actions, including memories of having the memory. all of these are subject to change, and there’s no way of verifying if one memory is really the same as another memory. also, you’re reaching tautological levels with even bringing up “personality, sense of identity” etc.

>>18464523
>Your sense of ego is based off memory
Not only that, but memory is a part of it.
If I'm dreaming then wake up, I realize that I was still me in the dream, because I remember the dream and how I perceived it.
If my relationship to my so-called higher self is similar, then fine, I can accept it being an expansion of consciousness into a more lucid and less illusory sense of self, but to say that my ego and memories are going to be destroyed and all that'll be left will be this formless, barely self-aware entity is nonsense.

>>18464080
based. bolton dabs on guenon.

>>18464526
>You're dodging. I'm not programmed since I'm aware of my personality.
Prove it. Prove to me you are conscious, and not a philosophical zombie.
>For distinction between self-aware beings, it is. I am not just a self-observing object.
not only have you failed to understand my point you are also continuing the trend of reasserting your position and counting it as an argument

>>18464533
>what exactly makes you so confident that there is a definite continuity?
Because I can observe it. I am not exactly the same as when I was a child/teenager, but I acknowledge that I was the same person nonetheless. I merely acquired more memories, more knowledge, etc
>reaching tautological
That's because as I said before this stuff is really self-evident. Once you start stripping away the things that make you who you are, you predictably end up with a kind of void.

>>18464542
>Prove to me you are conscious
Is this a real question? I'm done with you.

>>18464483
>When my ego dies, what happens, practically speaking?
See pic related, from Shankara's Mundaka-bhasya
> Is it a sort of realization that my life, identity and memories are just something extraneous to being purely conscious, while I do retain the knowledge and memories of these things I don't identify with them anymore?
What you describe is what it's like while you still live on earth after enlightenment/ego-death as the sentient presence inside the body, illuminating it from within, during this state even after the ego dies you are still aware of the intellect, memories, the phenomenal world etc. Once the physicals body dies then the external contents of awareness viz. the intellect/mind/world/memories stops being presented to the awareness of the enlightened man and their awareness becomes omnipresent eternal undying bliss that doesn't have any content presented to itself anymore, but it simply happily abides and reveals in its own effulgent plenitude forever.

>>18464483
The awareness basically is a pure self-sufficient identity. The ego identity is like so many pale imitations crafted from dead matter to resemble a living thing. You still feel very strongly that 'i exist' it's just that your previous conceptions of self fall away, like they were just blocking you from seeing the real self properly. Obviously you are still aware that you're tied to a particular mind and body, but it feels like you are on a shore between this world and some other, such that you can feel that actual self, the awareness, streaming through into this one despite it necessarily then dividing into the forms of ego and phenomena. Within these images of yourself the primal self lingers in echo but you see how it is obstructed, faded. You realize that your identification of yourself with these images was you grasping for something but never quite breaking through the barrier to reach what is on the other side, the actual self which you saw indistinctly in a direction and went towards but did not reach, staying within the bounds of ego, like a light dimmed by fog. So this rejection of ego feels more like a final fulfillment of the original desire for ego in a way, even though it discards the particularities, or rather sees them for their contingent, ephemeral nature.

That being said there are probably a variety of different experiences which are being conflated here. Some ego death is probably something quite different, I am especially wary of the states people describe experiencing on drugs.

>>18464549
>Once the physicals body dies then the external contents of awareness viz. the intellect/mind/world/memories stops being presented to the awareness
Alright, annihilation then. Thanks for confirming.

>>18464374
Hermeticism is about ego death? I thought the great work was the opposite, about affirming the ego in such a way that it fully transcends.

>>18464552
annihilation is non-existence.

if something continues to exist at all, then there is not annihilation.

see you at kindergarten class tomorrow anon.

>just embrace the void bro
>you are nothinig
>get annihilated
>god is the void beyond being bro
>you will get annihilated and you are gonna like it
>all is void
t.

>>18464519
>That is so unfathomably stupid that I wonder how you would even come up with such an argument.
It's unfathomably stupid because I am drawing conclusions from your own statement just prior. What I stated just there is not what I believe, it is the logical conclusion of your naive assertion.
>There will be an obvious continuity between the current me and the future me; in memories, personality, sense of identity, etc.
So then, what exactly constitutes an "obvious continuity" to you, in its essence and not in its manifestations, all of which merely beg the question? Because this is what I'm trying to get you to understand, which you've just started to realize, hopefully (and no, this has nothing to do with Buddhism). The pure sense of identity is what you see as "continuity." Personality can be changed if you decide your personality has negative traits, yet you will still identify with the changed personality due to the continuity of identity, you still identify with your childhood self despite having an entirely different personality, your childhood self would still identify with your adulthood self despite being different in many, many ways, to the point of being practically unrecognizable in all but "identity", ie "continuity." Memory, rather than personality, is a far better descriptor of this sense of identity. But, even memory is flawed, it is prone to failure in certain circumstances, yet the sense of self remains, even in those blank spots. Additionally, memory cannot account for the future nor the present, because it can only examine the past, so it does not account for future or present identification, and thus we acknowledge it cannot be the essence of identity itself. So while memories are far more relevant than mere personality, they are still not quite the essence of 'self' we are looking for.

>>18464564
>bro everything about you is destroyed but I swear it's not annihilation, there's actually something that survives
>nah man it's got nothing to do with anything you can currently perceive but it's actually you trust me
kek

>>18464534
>If I'm dreaming then wake up, I realize that I was still me in the dream, because I remember the dream and how I perceived it.
no, you remember it was still you because the conscious subject never goes away.
>If my relationship to my so-called higher self is similar, then fine, I can accept it being an expansion of consciousness into a more lucid and less illusory sense of self, but to say that my ego and memories are going to be destroyed and all that'll be left will be this formless, barely self-aware entity is nonsense.
your memories are already being destroyed as we speak. there's plenty of things you've forgotten about, and will probably never remember again, and there are memories that survive because you have memories of those memories, meaning they aren't ontologically the same.

>>18464548
language doesn't express consciousness. nothing can, a robot can be programmed with intelligence and say "I am conscious" without really being aware of anything at all. I'm starting to think you really may be an NPC, anon.

>>18464570
>what exactly constitutes an "obvious continuity"
What constitutes consciousness? Can you demonstrate it? Of course not, this is the same thing. If you're conscious then you know what I'm talking about.
>it cannot be the essence
I never said it was, I said it was a component. Trying to strip away everything that cannot constitute a sense of identity by itself is stupid because identity is composite, you're not going to find any "ground of identity" that doesn't exist in relation to other parts. The essence of self is a combination of factors, not some kind of underlying phenomenon.

>>18464571
>>bro everything about you is destroyed
6 words in and you've already misrepresented my position. try again.

uhh nihilistic bros???? i dont feel so good

>>18464579
That's my point, dumb fuck, what are you even trying to say?
>you're an npc because you're not an annihilationist
Hmm...

uh oh

>Nooooo, you have to love annihilation!

>>18464574
>you remember it was still you because the conscious subject never goes away.
If I have no memories of the dream then I have nothing to remember. Therefore the "I" in the dream is effectively obliterated and therefore has nothing to do with the current "I" anymore. There is no link between them, they are forever separated.
If once I die I have no memories of my life, then the same thing happens.

>>18464543
>Because I can observe it. I am not exactly the same as when I was a child/teenager, but I acknowledge that I was the same person nonetheless.
this is exactly the point I've been making. what makes "you" you is the fact there is an ever present subject.
>That's because as I said before this stuff is really self-evident
begging the question

>>18464587
>>18464595
>>18464597
Ok but what do you propose exactly

guenonfag, butterfly, the white jihadist larper...these people are all destroying the board

>>18464590
only I know I can be conscious. I can't prove that to you, neither can you to me. To merely assert you aren't programmed isn't good proof and you only did so because you were ironically, dodging my intent of the argument

THE ONLY WAY TO SALVATION IS THROUGH COMPLETE ANNIHILATION. THE MEANS TO ANNIHILATION IS REPENTANCE WHICH REACHES METANOIA. ARE YOU THE SAME PERSON YOU WERE A FEW YEARS AGO? MOST LITERAL ANNIHILATIONISTS LIKE BUDDHISTS ARE STILL CLINGY.
ANNIHILATIONISTS TRAMPLE ON THE PRIDE OF THE COMMONERS BUT ONLY WITH ANOTHER KIND OF PRIDE.

WHOSOEVER WILL SAVE HIS LIFE SHALL LOSE IT.

>>18464613
What I'm saying is that pure consciousness itself means nothing, identity is a composite, if you destroy some of its components then everything falls apart.

>>18464608
permabanning guenonfag

>>18464621
Spiritually I mean

>>18464601
>If I have no memories of the dream then I have nothing to remember
Okay? I never proposed that upon waking up you lose all memories of a dream, rather that the presence of a subject precedes those memories and is the only thing that holds continuity between the dream and waking is the self.
>If once I die I have no memories of my life, then the same thing happens.
demonstrably false, as you can live out an entire life in your dreams or a simulation, forget about it shortly after waking up, and still experience being a subject. this isn't annihilation, and it seems like you're shifting goal posts.

>>18464629
get a fucking life, loser

>>18464616
what is in discussion is what orientalists call liberation, not salvation. they seek for 'liberation' as if it was a higher goal than salvation. they consider 'liberation' something for VIP people only, salvation open to all

>>18464617
>identity is a composite, if you destroy some of its components then everything falls apart.
and the conscious self can't be destroyed like memory can. if one thing is still left, then there's still something rather then nothing, hence not annihilation

>>18464630
>is the only thing that holds continuity between the dream and waking is the self.
Only if the dream is remembered.
>forget about it shortly after waking up, and still experience being a subject
It won't be the same subject.
>>18464632
What's the difference?

>>18464637
It's still nihilism because everything is destroyed except something that is essentially a shadow of personhood, lacking in identity. Therefore it implies that this existence is essentially meaningless because everything about it will be forgotten and fade away.

>>18464637
>playing word games is why it's not annihilation

>>18464645
>eastern philosophy summed up in a single sentence

>>18464581
>What constitutes consciousness? Can you demonstrate it? Of course not, this is the same thing. If you're conscious then you know what I'm talking about.
Yes, you're getting closer. Of course, it cannot be demonstrated linguistically just as mathematics can't except through symbology which doesn't make sense without an intuition to refer to, this is a matter for introspection and meditation.
>I said it was a component.
A manifestation (or "construction") is the correct term, as I just pointed out. You seem to think that we are talking about "stripping everything away" when we never said such a thing. Please, show me where we asserted anything about "stripping away." You are the one who has been accusing us of annihilationism without explaining how. I have asserted that negative elements can be reforged into positive elements, which everyone with a moral consciousness is capable of acknowledging; you can improve what you are. That is all.
>, you're not going to find any "ground of identity" that doesn't exist in relation to other parts
I already have, and I've just demonstrated it in the prior post. With proper practice, it is capable to establish this discovery practically without merely examining linguistic and ultimately, comparatively, weak arguments. The hostility here will of course force you to reject my suggestion as possible or real, but I can affirm personally that there is a ground, and the fact that there is one implies the exact opposite of annihilationism, at least as a potentiality for those with the proper aspiration and inherent disposition.

>>18464639
go ask them what liberation consists of. it is literally annihilation. but how can there be something higher than salvation?

>>18464651
>"stripping away."
You say the ego/sense of identity, personality, memories are destroyed. By doing so you're stripping away the components of personhood, leaving only consciousness which is meaningless by itself.
Improving what you are implies taking what you already have and building upon it, not destroying the foundations and calling it an improvement.
>I already have
If it is devoid of everything save for the most fundamental kind of awareness, I equate it with annihilation, so I'm not interested.
>>18464656
And what is salvation according to them? Why isn't it better than liberation?

>>18464639
>Only if the dream is remembered.
where do you get this assertion from? "I" can be a bird flying in the sky or "I" can be a human making retarded posts on an imageboard. There doesn't need to be any concurrent memory between these two for there to be a transcendental self common to these two beings.
>It won't be the same subject
says who?

Furthermore, this entire time, you've vastly overestimated how reliable memory is in the first place. The only way to maintain memories is to think about the same event multiple times, or to remember having memories of such. in both cases, you're essentially taking another photo, or screenshotting an image that was shared to you. in both, neither are the same image/memory. If you screenshot an image enough time, it looks shitty due to jpeg artifacts. same thing with memory, the accuracy/reliability of it decreases with each reiteration of it. This is a shaky thing to base selfhood off of. If your memories are not ontologically the same object then you cannot derive the same "person" from them, meaning that you are constantly experiencing the thing you fear the most, annihilation.

non dualists will never explain why demons shill their beliefs:

possession in eastern practices
http://orthochristian.com/80417.html

>Thousands of men, women and children gathered at this Rishikesh temple to worship this demon. Next to me, a woman's eyes rolled back in her head, arms waving back and forth, tongue wagging pink from her mouth, legs lifting and falling like a puppet on strings. This was clearly demonic possession.

seraphim roses denounces eastern religions as satanic:
http://vladspost.com/pdf/Fr.%20Seraphim%20Rose/Orthodoxy%20and%20the%20Religion%20of%20the%20Future.pdf

read
>The Attractions of Hinduism
>The Power of the Pagan Gods HINDUISM’S ASSAULT UPON CHRISTIANITY
>A Fakir's "Miracle" and the prayer of Jesus

"archons" shilling non dualism to druggies
https://www.dmt-nexus.me/forum/default.aspx?g=posts&t=62070
(there is one user who disagrees only to 3 years later confirm the same experiences. page 7 i believe)

>>18464644
>It's still nihilism because everything is destroyed except something that is essentially a shadow of personhood, lacking in identity.
again, begging the question of your preassumed misunderstanding of what the self is in the first place. the self is the basis for identity since it is the only permanent thing, not memory.
>Therefore it implies that this existence is essentially meaningless
>because everything about it will be forgotten and fade away.
congratulations, you just exposed yourself as being the real nihilist for assuming that because something is impermanent, it is meaningless. go read some nietzsche.

>>18464670
>for there to be a transcendental self common to these two beings.
It's only common if it can be traced back. If there are no memories then the transcendental being cannot identify itself with these experiences.
>says who?
Common sense, if you don't remember a dream it's the same thing as if you had never dreamt it.
>how reliable memory is
It doesn't really matter though, the fact is that rememberance is extremely important in order to assert continuity.

>>18464632
As far as I know buddhists likewise consider liberation open to all, like they say everyone has potentially a buddha nature.
In the end being “reabsorbed” to the source or attaining nirvana is a sort if salvation for there is no other ground and being the ultimate reality. How could you be saved and still not being liberated?

>>18464675
>the self is the basis for identity
Says you.
>I'm not the nihilist, you are!
Yeah I'm not interested in taking this any further

>>18464621
Oy vey! shut it down!

>>18464673
so you're telling me this entire time you were really just a christfag seething that other religions exist and have a different conception of the afterlife. makes sense.

>>18464685
>being “reabsorbed” to the source or attaining nirvana is a sort if salvation
Repulsive.

>>18464692
not an argument

>>18464682
>If there are no memories then the transcendental being cannot identify itself with these experiences.
correct. because they don't even serve as a good basis for selfhood in the first place.
>Common sense, if you don't remember a dream it's the same thing as if you had never dreamt it.
how does this translate to not the same subject? to even imply they are separate subjects as you previously did means the dream would have happened in the first place.
>It doesn't really matter though
there you go again, ignoring the argument.

>>18464693
For them, dude. Youre missing my point.

>cumingham

>>18464686
>>I'm not the nihilist, you are!
>Yeah I'm not interested in taking this any further
go ahead, why do you take the proposition: "everything will end one day" as having the conclusion: "everything is meaningless"? only a literal nihilist thinks like that.

>>18464667
>You say the ego/sense of identity, personality, memories are destroyed
No, I specifically said personality and memories are changeable. I did not say the sense of identity is destroyed. You must admit that it is beneficial to eradicate negative personality traits in favour of superior traits? Strength is favourable to weakness? Your conception of the identity as fundamentally composite would entail that any change in this composite is a change of identity, unless there is a ground to that composite to maintain identity despite changes in outer manifestation. My fundamental point here is that the base of identity, rather than being a goal in itself (which is completely ridiculous for the reasons you mentioned, it is destruction without purpose only to reveal something that we already possess without even needing said destruction), is the springboard for construction of a far superior manifestation. This is the crux of Hermetic and Neoplatonist doctrine. And once again, some things must be destroyed so that better things may arise in their place. This does not mean "all things", and especially not the "self."
>not destroying the foundations
The foundations are not necessarily destroyed (technically speaking, the "foundations" are the physical body and life, not personality, which are manifestations that exist on a further detached level). It depends how rotten they are. Some people are diseased enough that ripping out the foundations is the only possible solution (bodily death). This is not the case for everyone.

>>18464702
i was correct, then.

>>18464707
How does a transcendental being identify itself with an experience it has no memories of? You're not making any sense and redefining things for the sake of argument. Identification implies recollection which implies memory.
>how does this translate to not the same subject?
Say this life was a dream and you woke up from it, then forgot all about it immediately, could you have said to have lived? Could the "awake" being really be said to be the same as the dreamer? No.
>>18464710
No, I understand, I was just voicing my disgust at such a conception of "salvation".
>>18464712
Only a literal nihilist thinks obliteration is a good thing. You're showing your true colors by going from "actually it isn't annihilation" to "well, it is, but it's not actually nihilistic you see"

>>18461438
>he sells? dump eet!

>>18464707
>they dont serve as a good basis
Read >>18464616
Read also Plato and the platonists, Aristotle. Procession and return are connected.

>>18464728
Ah yes. These people can’t see that their rejection of dialectics only ends up affirming it. I am sympathetic with buddhist shunyavada, they just seem to miss the awareness of the emptiness driving dialectics.

>>18464714
>I did not say the sense of identity is destroyed
How do you retain the same sense of identity if the personality and memory are destroyed?
The only thing I want to understand is how this alleged transcendent higher self is connected and can identify itself (after death of the body) to the "illusory" self.
> any change in this composite is a change of identity
The fact that it is constantly fluctuating does not mean that it becomes ontologically different at every moment in time.
>is the springboard for construction of a far superior manifestation.
Okay, so just to be sure you're not arguing about hinduism here but simply about transformation according to hellenic doctrines, right? How does this process go exactly?
>The foundations are not necessarily destroyed
As I said, I only care about some sense of continuity. If I awaken from the dream but don't remember it, then it serves no purpose to me.

>>18464728
>How does a transcendental being identify itself with an experience it has no memories of?
it doesn't. and it isn't necessary to begin with because experience and memory isn't a good basis for what constitutes selfhood. read the last paragraph of >>18464670
>Only a literal nihilist thinks obliteration is a good thing
I don't believe in obliteration. this entire argument is you going
>A: annihilation, the destruction of everything, is bad, and hinduism is annihilationism!
>B: well, hindus aren't annihilationists because they believe one thing will forever survive destruction
>A: BUT REEEEE I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS CONCEPT AND CAN'T IDENTIFY WITH IT THEREFORE IT'S ANNIHILATION
>You're not making any sense and redefining things for the sake of argument.
ironic.

>>18464639
>What's the difference?
The renowned Sufi metaphysician and scholar René Guénon points out in his book 'L'Homme et son devenir selon le Vêdânta' that in Advaita Vedānta Hinduism, 'Salvation' corresponds to gaining entry into the Brahmāloka. This is a heavenly-like state where souls acquire divine powers and their desires are easily manifested, this lasts until the end of the day of Brahmā that the universe is presently in (each day of Brahmā is 4.32 billion years). This is contrasted to moksha, or liberation, where one attains the end of ignorance and realizes one's own identity with Brahman, the Supreme Lord. Moksha is considered to be a higher achievement than the Brahmāloka (salvation) because it totally eliminates spiritual ignorance and forever severs the thread of continued transmigration. Beings who gain entry into the Brahmāloka can attain moksha while they are there, but it's not assured that every soul in the Brahmāloka will attain salvation. At the end of the day of Brahmā all the non-liberated souls in the Brahmāloka along with the transmigrating souls on earth etc are withdrawn into an unmanifest state (except for Brahmā himself, who is liberated) along with the universe, and then after a night of Brahmā is over they along with the universe emerge into manifestation and begin transmigrating into bodies all over again. So, you can attain 'salvation' via entry into the Brahmāloka but if you don't attain liberation while there then after billions of years you'll start transmigrating again and experiencing various forms of suffering relating to that.

>>18464754
>it doesn't.
Cool, that's the only thing I wanted to know but you made it difficult with your word games, the conversation is over now. Have fun with annihilation.

Could any literal annihilationist explain what is the difference between atheistic death and annihilationist afterlife?

>>18464759
Such convoluted and arbitrary bullshit.

>>18464759
>uhhh salvation means you’re not actually saved
Yeah i love guenon but he is really a retard (for buying and not seeing the retardation of nihilism)

>>18464767
>Such convoluted and arbitrary bullshit.
no it's not, lol

Annihilationists are not only nihilists but they are too dumb to take it literally (and failing to realize how it is not different from atheistic death).

>>18464754
>you won't remember it
>you won't identify with it
>"you" won't even be the same "you" as when you experienced it
>but it's still you, trust me bro

>>18464771
>but he is really a retard (for buying and not seeing the retardation of nihilism)

>>18464787
t. Literal atheist

>>18464779
>(and failing to realize how it is not different from atheistic death).
there is no continuance of consciousness in atheistic death anon, there is continuance in Hinduism
>b-b-but....
continuance =/= destruction

>>18464797
Then explain what is the difference between the atheistic consciousness not conscious of anything from life and a hindu consciousness not conscious of anything from life

>OH GOD I'M DISSOOOOOOLVING
Why is this the only option outside of "you go to heaven as you are and get to worship god for eternity"
I want an actually sensible model

>>18464806
Because anything positing literal annihilation is atheistic and you don’t get to know or have consciousness of God nor anything since all hour recognitions occur in life.

>>18464815
Yeah I know but I just think it's unlikely that once we die we just get the exact same identity as we have now resurrected in a perfect body forever. I would expect some kind of change of perspective to occur at least.

>>18464824
Yeah it sure occurs a qualitatively deep change, I think it is much like how we change with a conscious repentance.

>>18464805
>Then explain what is the difference between the atheistic consciousness not conscious of anything from life and a hindu consciousness not conscious of anything from life
That's easy—the atheistic consciousness ceases to exist and has no knowledge of anything, not even itself. A non-existent thing has no knowledge of itself.

On the other hand, the Hindu Consciousness always has immediate and intuitive knowledge of Itself, forever; which no non-existent thing has. It is the eternal light of self-revealing Self-knowledge, It is life itself. What you call "life" is merely a show that this infinite Being, the only living entity, puts on for Itself through the effortless and natural wielding of It's own power.

>>18464848
How can there be recognition of its true form, true identity, true reality if there is nothing to be related to it?

>>18464876
It's true from, It's true identity, It's true reality is always forever and ever self-revealing to Itself. It's being consists of the constant revealing of It's own infinite presence to Itself continuously; this is always going on, even right now. This knowledge of Itself doesn't require anything else other than this presence to simply have intuitive knowledge of itself, which is in fact indicated by the very notion of the word "presence", the notion of a conscious presence that is unaware of itself (unconscious presence) is inconceivable and nonsensical, and this is because conscious presence necessitates that 'presence' be conscious of itself in order that it be a conscious presence at all (unconscious things have no subjective experience of presence).

Presence doesn't depend on external accessories in order to "be" presence; "presence" is by nature, presence that is conscious of itself; and this is immutably true independent of any association of this presence with other things. What you asking implies that presence relies on external accessories in order that it "be presence", which is wrong.

The "realization" of this infinite presence is not a relational notion as in "this A is like B", which would indeed be impossible if there is nothing related to A. Beings in spiritual ignorance already have this presence as their essence, as the ground of all their mental/psychological activity, but they don't realize it because they cover it up from themselves with their ignorance, ignorance has the effect of veiling the Real from the ignorant. When the ignorance is removed, the veil is removed from the Reality of non-dual presence, and this allows what was always there shining as the foundation of our being to clearly shine without any obstruction of ignorance covering it, like the sun seeming to suddenly start shining after the clouds in front of it dissipate, even though the sun had always been there shining even when the clouds were placed in between us and the sun.

Awareness or Consciousness always knows itself immediately, directly, intuitively, without mediation. Realization of this Awareness is the correct knowing of what was already known in the background in an incorrect vague way, it's the ending of it being known incorrectly and the replacement of that with it being clearly and correctly known when the false concepts projected onto it are removed, these false conceptions and their removal alike (both only inhere in the mind, not Awareness) induces no change whatsoever in Awareness itself however, they only impact and change how the mind represents it. When you correctly realize Awareness it becomes clear that it was never affected in the least by how the mind represented it previously.

>>18464984
Ah this tactic again. Revelation implicates a relational determination between what is covered and what is uncovered (revealed). If there is revelation it means there is consciousness of what was covered and what is uncovered.

it's funny how cross-wired both sides are

the anti-annihilationists are right to hate the non-dualist monistic ooey gooey guenon larpers, but don't understand what is really meant by non-being (not a negation of being, but the suspension of the rules of being: other-than-being)

the guenon larpers are embarrassing but they're right that the small self has to die, but by hypostasizing consciousness, they're basically shilling for the demiurge

>>18464876
>>18464984

To clarify a bit further, there are two separate questions which I both talked about without distinguishing between them as clearly as I could have.

Question: How does the already eternally-liberated self-revealing knowledge of Brahman know itself as eternal presence when there is nothing else that is related to it?
Answer: Because 'presence' by definition is conscious of itself, and in doing so it doesn't rely on any external accessory. By asking a question which implies that presence relies on external phenomena to be conscious of itself as presence it's indicating that you haven't clearly thought about what the meaning of presence is.

Question: How does the jiva, the individual soul, recognize this self-revealing presence of Brahman in spiritual realization when this presence has no intrinsic relation with anything else?
Answer: Because all living beings already have conscious presence as the foundation of their being, they already know it in an incomplete way that fails to distinguish it from other things, because their indiscrimination blurs this presence with the unconscious phenomena that are presented to it. When the ignorance inhering in the mind is removed, the self-revealing light of awareness that illuminates the mind as something separate from it clearly reveals itself to itself just as it always has been revealing itself to itself forever, the only difference is that the mind is no longer obscuring this self-revealing with its false conceptions and superimpositions.

>>18465042
Why not just say what you think instead of insulting both sides

>>18465042
Not a single anti-annihilationist thinks afterlife means literally this life. We all know the small self needs to be left and purified. And yes the demiurge knows what he is doing.

>>18465048
>>18465003
Stop repeating the same things over and over again for countless pragraphs

After spending years down various rabbit holes I have to face it, the annihilation materialists were right bros.

>>18465003
>Revelation implicates a relational determination between what is covered and what is uncovered
The very nature of consciousness is undivided self-revelation

>The fact of consciousness is entirely different from everything else. So long as the assemblage of the physical or physiological conditions antecedent to the rise of any cognition, as for instance, the presence of illumination, sense-object contact, etc., is being prepared, there is no knowledge, and it is only at a particular moment that the cognition of an object arises. This cognition is in its nature so much different from each and all the elements constituting the so-called assemblage of conditions, that it cannot in any sense be regarded as the product of any collocation of conditions. Consciousness thus, not being a product of anything and not being further analysable into any constituents, cannot also be regarded as a momentary flashing. Uncaused and unproduced, it is eternal, infinite and unlimited. The main point in which consciousness differs from everything else is the fact of its self-revelation. There is no complexity in consciousness. It is extremely simple, and its only essence or characteristic is pure self-revelation.

>The so-called momentary flashing of consciousness is not due to the fact that it is momentary, that it rises into being and is then destroyed the next moment, but to the fact that the objects that are revealed by it are reflected through it from time to time. But the consciousness is always steady and unchangeable in itself. The immediacy of this consciousness is proved by the fact that, though everything else is manifested by coming in touch with it, it itself is never expressed, indicated or manifested by inference or by any other process, but is always self-manifested and self-revealed. All objects become directly revealed to us as soon as they come in touch with it.

>Consciousness is one. It is neither identical with its objects nor on the same plane with them as a constituent element in a collocation of them and consciousness. The objects of consciousness or all that is manifested in consciousness come in touch with consciousness and themselves appear as consciousness. This appearance is such that, when they come in touch with consciousness, they themselves flash forth as consciousness, though that operation is nothing but a false appearance of the non-conscious objects and mental states in the light of consciousness, as being identical with it. But the intrinsic difference between consciousness and its objects is that the former is universal and constant, while the latter are particular and alternating. The awarenesses of a book, a table, etc. appear to be different not because these are different flashings of knowledge, but because of the changing association of consciousness with these objects. The objects do not come into being with the flashings of their awareness, but they have their separate existence and spheres of operation.

>>18465063
I'll do as I please thanks

>>18465074
That is not what self-revelation means. That is contradictory to what undivided is when self-consciousness is a conscious relation of a thing relating to itself and not simple the thing conscious of a static oneness (this latter is what you are shilling here).
For you there is no difference in revelation and not-revelation for there is no difference from before and after life/ignorance. That is why what you believe is so intimate to atheism, before life and after life for them are the same, just like it is for you.

>>18465079
Oh thank you for admitting you don’t care about truth and reasonability, and that is why you are a dogmatic nihilist.

>>18465003
>>18465074
>>18465063

To add, if you hold that consciousness isn't self-revealing, then consciousness has to be revealed by something else to be known. But unless you are proposing another thing behind consciousness which is also self-revealing, then that 2nd thing also has to be revealed by another 3rd things in order for us to have knowledge of the 1st thing. But as the 3rd thing isn't self-revealing, it needs to be known or revealed by another 4th thing in order for us to know the 1st thing. So it leads to an infinite regress that makes it impossible for us to have knowledge of anything because there is never a point at which the chain can be known by us, because it always has to be known by another additional thing before we can be conscious of it.

So, in order to avoid an infinite regress we must necessarily admit that consciousness is self-revealing. The Advaitin philosopher Citsukha (~1200 AD) points this out in his work Tattva-pradīpikā.

> The main argument in favour of the admission of the category of independent self-revealing consciousness is that, unless an independent self-revealing consciousness is admitted, there would be a vicious series (i.e. an unending regress) in the process preceding the rise of any cognition ; for, if the pure experience of self-revealing consciousness has to be further subjected to another process before it can be understood, then that also might require another process, and that another, and so there would be an unending series. Moreover, that the pure experience is self-revealing is proved by the very fact of the experience itself; for no one doubts his own experience or stands in need of any further corroboration or confirmation as to whether he experienced or not. It may be objected that it is well known that we may be aware of our awareness of anything (anu-vyavasāya), and in such a case the self-revealing consciousness may become further cognized.

>Citsukha’s reply to this is that, when one perceives a jug, there is the mental activity, then a cessation of that activity, then a further starting of new activity and then the knowledge that I know the jug, or rather I know that I know the jug—and hence such a cognition cannot be said to be directly and immediately cognizing the first awareness, which could not have stayed through so many moments[8]. Again, since neither the senses nor the external objects can of themselves produce the self-revelation of knowledge, if knowledge were not admitted as self-revealing, the whole world would be blind and there would be no self-revelation

>>18465129
Now this has nothing to do with our discussion anymore. Are you brainwashed to the point of repeating things unrelated to a conversation?

>>18465104
>admitting you don’t care about truth and reasonability,
I do and I just refuted your argument, see >>18465129 and below

>>18465096
>That is not what self-revelation means. That is contradictory to what undivided is when self-consciousness is a conscious relation of a thing relating to itself and not simple the thing conscious of a static oneness (this latter is what you are shilling here).
There is no such relation in consciousness, a thing doesn't participate in a relationship with itself but you have to have multiple things which can participate in both terms of the relationship in order that there be a relationship to begin with. Presence doesn't have a relation with the subjective experience of being present, but the subject experience of being consciously present as a sentient entity is precisely what is meant by the word "presence", what you are proposing amounts to saying that presence has a relationship with the subjective experience of presence when this is obviously wrong, as this is in fact the exact same thing as presence: they are identical, "presence" and "experience of presence" refer to the exact same thing.

>For you there is no difference in revelation and not-revelation
That's not true, because for me revelation is synonymous with consciousness, and I don't believe that being conscious and not being conscious are the same thing.
>for there is no difference from before and after life/ignorance.
There is no difference in God because He is unchanging, there is a difference in the mind of the human being (which isn't God) such as a difference in terms of no longer being afraid and unhappy and always thereafter being eternally contented and free of sorrow

>>18465180
>Now this has nothing to do with our discussion anymore.
It does though, because you are denying that consciousness is self-revealing or self-illuminating, and I'm refuting your contention and explaining to you why you are wrong and how we can know this through logic.

guenonfog is literally, unequivocally, undoubtedly, mentally ill.

>>18465184
Again repeating things unrelated. If there is no conscious relation and revelation then there is not consciousness of itself as true and as itself. You are denying the consciousness of itself, hence why you are an annihilationist.

>>18465192
I’m not denying it is self-revealing, actually the opposite, I am defending it when I ascribe to it its true sense, as being aware of itself as itself and of what it is not, that is, necessarily not annihilationistic nondualism.
You are just refuting yourself rejecting simple logic and the meaning of the words you employ.

>>18465205
>If there is no conscious relation and revelation then there is not consciousness of itself as true and as itself.
What do you mean by "conscious relation and revelation"?

I am saying that consciousness by nature always has immediate, intuitive, direct, non-discursive, unmediated, undivided knowledge of itself as conscious presence, and that this knowledge of itself is not a separate knowledge which is known by consciousness but that it is the very nature of consciousness, that consciousness is 'reflexive', and that this immediate and continuous reflexive knowledge of itself constitutes the "self-revealingness" or "self-illumination" of consciousness. How can this be construed in any way as me denying that consciousness is "conscious of itself" as you said?

>>18465221
>, I am defending it when I ascribe to it its true sense, as being aware of itself as itself and of what it is not
I am also saying that consciousness is aware of itself, how are you distinguishing your position from mind? Please describe exactly how you consider consciousness to be aware of itself because right now you are being vague

>>18465267
>3 years and he still hasn't moved on past the atman/brahman distinction
oh no no no

>>18465205
>If there is no conscious relation and revelation
Consciousness had no relation with itself, only with other things. What you are saying makes no sense, you are trying to introduce a division where none exists.

The subjective experience of presence (being conscious), is by definition, knowledge of oneself as presence, that it is "subjective" refers to us having knowledge of it at all. The subjective experience of presence is the same thing as presence having knowledge of itself, but you are wrongly acting like they are different and that one has the revelation of the other, they can't when both are identical and refer to the same exact thing.

>>18465042
>the small self has to die
What does that mean exactly?

>>18465475
killing the parts of you that drag you down to worldliness. killing your gravity.

>>18464359
Teresa of Avila, Catherine of Sienna or John of the Cross. How subverted by memes are you that they don't appear on your horizon long before Guenon and pajeets?
That being said even them should be treated with caution for other reasons, and not read without theology behind them.

>>18465415
How does consciousness have consciousness of itself without relating to itself and to its own relation?

>>18465550
>How subverted by memes are you that they don't appear on your horizon long before Guenon and pajeets?
I have very little exposure to western religion because I fell for the buddhism meme a few months back and then didn't bother looking into anything else for a while.

>>18465506
How do you do that?

>>18465613
>How does consciousness have consciousness of itself without relating to itself and to its own relation?
Because the subjective (for a sentient subject) revealing/knowing (as something which is known) of the fact of being conscious is the same thing as being conscious. When you are conscious, the subjective firsthand experience of consciousness which you have as a result of this means that the very fact that you are conscious at all is known to you at every moment, you have subjective, first-hand experience of the status of being conscious, and this is what it means for consciousness to know itself as consciousness.

There is no inherent interior difference in what I'm describing involving two non-identical things relating to each other through some 3rd term which is non-identical to the first 2, but any apparent differences in what I said at the beginning of this post is only due to the fact that I'm only switching between describing on one hand being conscious as a general quality which belongs to entities, and on the other hand describing what it's like to be conscious from a first-hand, subjective perspective. But even while doing this I'm only describing the same exact thing from two difference reference points, me describing it from these two vantage points in no measure induces a real division in the thing I'm talking about.

If you want to say that consciousness relates to itself, you have to identify what are the two terms of the relation and what is the means by which they are related. If there is only one term (being conscious/knowing/being present - all refer to the same thing) then there is no relation and you are confusing the different between referring to consciousness in a general sense as a quality with describing consciousness from a firsthand perspective, but this doesn't correspond to any existing internal difference, bifurcation or internal relation (relations always involve two terms) within consciousness itself but it is only due to differences in how the same thing is described from different perspectives.

>>18465267
As you said it is reflective, it is conscious of something, itself and conscious that itself is conscious (of itself and all things). If it knows (anything at all), if it knows reality, it needs to be conscious of this relation. But the mistake you advaitists make is much more fundamental since you deprive god of any agency and of any true knwoledge by rejecting the whole world as illusory, false, and ignorance, making even god ignorant. Anyhow this is another subject and I have already refuted this in many other different threads.

>>18465835
>As you said it is reflective,
Wrong, I said reflexive, not reflective. Reflexive as in "directed or turned back on itself",

> it is conscious of something, itself and conscious that itself is conscious (of itself and all things).
These are the exact same thing anon, consciousness being conscious of itself is the exact same thing as being conscious that it itself is conscious, the first implies the second automatically, you can't have one without the other

You can't have consciousness being conscious of itself without that automatically necessitating that consciousness is itself aware that it itself is conscious; so it refers to the exact same thing and the distinction is purely verbal.

>If it knows (anything at all), if it knows reality, it needs to be conscious of this relation.
You have not identified any real relation existing in consciousness itself yet, the one mentioned above was the exact same thing being spoken of in two different ways as I pointed out.

>But the mistake you advaitists make is much more fundamental since you deprive god of any agency and of any true knowledge by rejecting the whole world as illusory, false, and ignorance, making even god ignorant.
That's wrong, God doesn't perceive the world in Advaita but He only perceives Himself, only the jivas have the sensation of perceiving the world, God doesn't. God isn't ignorant in Advaita but he is omniscient since He eternally knows all that truly exists, namely, Himself.

>Anyhow this is another subject and I have already refuted this in many other different threads.
You haven't though

>>18465899
>Wrong
Your explanation is basically what I said in the justification of my quoted sentence.

>You have not identified any real relation
You yourself agreed with me, lol. It needs to be conscious of the relation it has with itself otherwise it would not be conscious at all, that's so basic like you don't even read to read Descartes, Husserl to be aware of that.

>He only perceives himself
So he is ignorant of what he is not and the fact that there is a consciousness of what he is not, ignorant of his power maya as generating the world, etc. I already refuted this and I don't feel like going into it again for I wasted days arguing.

>>18465899
>That's wrong, God doesn't perceive the world in Advaita but He only perceives Himself
to add: when in (seeming) association with maya/jivas the Atman is called saksi (witness) but this is not the real form of God/Atman, but when not in any association with maya/jivas its just the infinite Atman without any relation with anything else. And the Atman only seems to be the witness of the maya-phenomena from the perspective imposed by the mind of the jivas, but not from the perspective of the Atman itself.

>>18465899
>he knows everything
>he doesnt know the world
Yeah. This is ajativada. Therefore there is no revelation, no liberation and even ignorance is pure knowledge of brahman. Beautiful.

>>18465956
>It needs to be conscious of the relation it has with itself
Again, if you want to claim that there is an existing relation you have to identify the terms of the relation and the means by which they are related, you still haven't done that so your claim that there is a relation at all is completely unsubstantiated.

What are the two terms? What relates them? Stop dodging the question. To have subjective experience and to know are the same thing, so consciousness by default knows itself because it has subjective experience as consciousness, that's not involving multiple different terms or a relation but it's just describing the same exact thing with different words.

>So he is ignorant of what he is not
What God is not does not occupy God's knowledge because what God is not does not exist, this is not an existing ignorance that taints God but it's an imagined relation that you are supposing God would have with a non-existing thing, but to speak of knowledge or ignorance of something which has no reality/existence is meaningless.

>and the fact that there is a consciousness of what he is not,
Wrong, see above

>ignorant of his power maya as generating the world,
Wrong, see above, maya doesn't exist ultimately either at the highest level

>I already refuted this and I don't feel like going into it again for I wasted days arguing.
Wrong again

Events unfold and things are created through beauty. But there are two kinds of beauty, physical beauty (just a shell) and diving beauty. Physical beauty sometimes awakens us to divine beauty. Divine beauty is when something is inspired by god or or events unfold which are divine/inspired by the divine. If your life unfolds according to the divine you are saved. Does that mean your consciousness is intact? Or you just that your place in the plan is saved? idk. On the other hand we have postmodernism, people subordinate themselves to inanimate things and they are annihilated. they are not part of the plan or they miss their chance. They do not bear fruit. Unironically read Pynchon for a good thesis on neoplatonism. There is a pecking order from god, all the way down to us. There is a masculine/feminine selection system. It is a battle against entropy. Postmodernism is entropy. A system needs divine energy input to not succumb to annihilation.

>>18465976
God in Advaita knows everything that exists, which doesn't include the world because it doesn't truly exist.
>no revelation
God who is consciousness has His own reality as such always be known by Himself, although this is not a relation involve two separate things but its just the first-person experience of consciousness qua presence, this always knows itself without there being any difference between the knower and known or any relation involving multiple terms.
>no liberation
God's nature is eternal liberation
>even ignorance is pure knowledge of brahman
no it's not

>>18466013
>the world doesnt exist bro but uhh you need to follow these specific retarded teachings to be liberated from what doesnt exist otherwise you will always exist in non existence!

>>18464359
Honestly, you should come to terms with it. Because if anything is going to be dissolved, it would be the ego. I'm not saying I know for sure. But logic dictates that if your going to lose anything, the ego is going to be the first to go. Not to mention so many religions and philosophies advocate shedding the ego, or neutralizing the ego.

>>18466013
Also
>no its not
Not even advaitists agree with you, check dnyaneshwar

>>18466093
>so many religions and philosophies advocate shedding the ego
Not really, you have an eastern bias

The soul of /lit/ is caught between theologies/religious philosophies that advocate for annihilationism (Buddhism, crypto Buddhism aka Advaita Vedanta, and apparently Neoplatonism) and those they advocate for the immortality of the soul (abrahamic religions, Vishishtadvaita).

>>18466422
this has been the debate for a long time. original pythagoreans and plato (and numenius, atticus and plutarch) were not monists. it is with the neopythagoreans that monism returned

>>18466422
Neoplatonism is not annihilationist, although it's there is no neplatonism as a corpus of doctrine. Just because they were madmen magicians obsessed with the one doesn't make them annihilationist.
The soul of /lit/ is split between guenon memesters and other posters.

>>18466422
>abrahamic religions, Vishishtadvaita
Damn are there no other options for one who doesn't want to be destroyed after death? What about hermeticism?

>>18466510
What book is this?

>>18466510
>it is with the neopythagoreans that monism returned
And thank the gods for that.

>>18466946
not a book
https://www.jstor.org/stable/310786?seq=1

>these niggas don't know

>>18466988
Thank you

>>18466082
In absolute reality, there is the non-dual Brahman alone without anything else, through Brahman’s omnipotence, maya is sustained at a contingent lower level of existence, although this is only a false appearance and it doesn't have any reality, nor does it exist in absolute reality alongside Brahman. Brahman/Atman/consciousness is always liberated but the maya under Brahman’s effortless and natural control ‘creates’ non-conscious minds and causes in them the false sensation of bondage and liberation; all the while the unchanging Consciousness of Brahman illumining these minds is unaffected by maya and unbound. When the mind created by maya realizes whats going on, it stops obscuring the all-pervasive reality of Brahman which then reveals itself. You qua Brahman are already liberated, the mind which isn’t you undergoes its own “liberation” but this is all just part of the interplay of the maya-objects with each other, none of which are you.
>>18466097
I like Dyaneshwar, but he isn’t classical Advaita, he takes influence from Nath Shaivism and merges it with Advaita. The idea of ignorance being identical in an unqualified sense with pure knowledge of Brahman isn’t philosophical defensible because it violates the law of non-contradiction, in order to make it work you’d have to make all sorts of qualifications and addendumsI have only some read portions of his works and not all of them, I can’t remember reading where he says this, maybe he does adds enough qualifications that make it work but the idea of them being identical in an unqualified sense does not seem sound at all.

>>18460513
That's enough to work with, though

>>18468399
yeah i know all your endlessly repeated discourse, you are even the same person I refuted many times here on lit, whatever it is all tiring and you're a dogmatist

>>18468524
>you are even the same person I refuted many times here on lit
I have never been refuted once on /lit/, you’re just coping

>>18468561
you were just today in this thread repeatedly, read above

>>18468585
No I wasn’t, I pointed out how your explanation of consciousness didn’t make sense and how you were trying to introduce a division into it where none existed and then you stopped replying

>>18468662
you are mentally ill

>>18468662
only corporeal things can be divided; but you agreed with me many times and still missed the point of what I said, or just avoided following my arguments not to contradict yourself. anyhow just try rereading the posts

>>18468693
lol

>>18468710
>and still missed the point of what I said, or just avoided following my arguments not to contradict yourself.
That’s not true

You wrongly claimed that consciousness being conscious of itself is different from consciousness knowing that it itself is conscious and that there was a relation between them, and then I pointed out that this was wrong because they are the exact same thing, because consciousness being conscious of itself (as consciousness) automatically means that it is conscious of itself being conscious - being conscious and being consciousness refer to the exact same thing, i.e. being sentient. Consciousness being conscious of itself means that it knows itself as consciousness and this means that in this very act it knows that it is conscious.

Then you said: “ It needs to be conscious of the relation” after I pointed out that there was no existing relation, you just reasserted the same position that I had just pointed out was wrong, without offering any justification for it, and then you gave up and pretended you won even though you offered no good arguments and failed to explain how they are different and what the relation between them is.

I feel so close to my self being annihilated. I think I've come up with some sort of artificial ego just to hold me together. I keep searching for my old self in my head and I just can't find it. My only hope is taking estrogen to see if I can finally reunite with my self. Isn't it possible to lose your self and personality permanently until you die?

>>18468774
No. You got everything wrong again. The point was simply that consciousness is conscious of something and to know it is real, true, it needs to know difference.

>>18470838
>and to know it is real, true, it needs to know difference.
why? You haven't provided a single reason why anyone should accept this as true

>>18471179
I have multiple times. Literally read the posts about conscious awareness of what is real and true, how knowing itself it knows it is the same as truth and ultimate reality, therefore identity, therefore sameness and difference. But the main issue which you diverge from all the time is that in its awareness of reality it must know what is not (or what was partial) reality otherwise it will not have awareness of what is real as real, thus no absolute or essential annihilation is possible unless you’re an atheist.

>>18471243
>Literally read the posts about conscious awareness of what is real and true, how knowing itself it knows it is the same as truth and ultimate reality,
Consciousness doesn't need to know difference to be aware of itself as true and as ultimate reality, if consciousness itself is the ultimate reality, then in the same constant act of self-reflexive knowledge it knows itself as consciousness and as ultimate reality without any difference playing any role or any difference being apprehended. In order to know difference it would have to apprehend something else that wasn't itself, but when there is just non-dual self-aware consciousness it knows itself as consciousness and as reality without difference playing any role.

>therefore identity, therefore sameness and difference.
Wrong! You haven't identified what the difference is in question and how it's necessary

>But the main issue which you diverge from all the time is that in its awareness of reality it must know what is not (or what was partial) reality otherwise it will not have awareness of what is real as real,
Wrong! That involves distinguishing, distinguishing is a form of volitional thought which inheres in the mind/intellect, consciousness doesn't have thoughts or engage in discrimination which separates one thing from another, it's what observes and illuminates thought. You are confusing the functions of the mind/intellect or antaḥkaraṇa with that of consciousness and conflating them together by incorrectly assigning the functions of mind/intellect to consciousness.

Consciousness is just pure awareness that makes itself known to itself immediately, and by its light it also allows other things to be know such as the intellect/mind, the intellect/mind is what engages in discursive thinking such as thinking "this A is similar B" and "C is not D". The notion of reality and unreality are mental concepts which inhere in the mind, they don't inhere in consciousness.

You are proposing that the disembodied, incorporeal consciousness of Brahman would need to engage in discursive thought involving relations between one thing and another to know itself as reality, this is incorrect because consciousness doesn't perform this function, the mind does; and this is also incorrect because if consciousness itself is the ultimate reality, then in knowing itself intuitively and immediately consciousness also knows ultimate reality. Consciousness wouldn't need to compare itself to unreality in order to know that it itself is reality, but the very act of self-knowledge would make its own status as ultimate reality self-evident without involving any comparison. When you don't have anything else that exists and there is fundamentally only one thing existing, the non-dual infinite consciousness of Brahman, in it's self-knowledge it intuitively already is eternally cognizing ultimate reality in a self-evident manner without the mental concepts of "real" and "unreal" coming into play.

>>18471308
Why you can’t address my posts objectively? Do you need to repeat disconnected things all the time?

Anyway,
>then it knows itself as consciousness and as ultimate reality
Exactly what I told you in eight, nine different posts. This is identity and awareness of identity. But there is no idea of identity/sameness without that of difference, this is a logical necessity. How do you see two equal things and know they are equal without knowing difference?

>advaitist dogmas are explained with logic!
>noo actually this is just beyond everything and its this way because it just is like this

>>18471342
>Exactly what I told you in eight, nine different posts. This is identity and awareness of identity.
When you are talking about non-dual consciousness, they are not two separate things, It is infinite eternal awareness cognizing itself as such non-dualistically without involving the distinction of subject and object, or observer and observed, or identity and a separate awareness that's aware of identity. It's reflexive awareness is identical to It's identity, there are not two separate things or any difference existing here.
>But there is no idea of identity/sameness without that of difference, this is a logical necessity.
Your words betray your misunderstanding, "ideas" of difference or sameness inhere in the intellect/mind and not in consciousness. Consciousness doesn't have any "ideas". Brahman's consciousness simply knows itself as luminous non-dual consciousness, and this self-knowing of it's own identity is never interrupted but is eternal, it's own identity is always self-evident. This doesn't involve the "idea" of sameness or identity, which inheres in the intellect/mind, but the simple act of eternal self-cognizing means that Brahman's identity as awareness is always self-evident and identical with Brahman itself without any discriminatory notions, without relational thought, without comparisons. Brahman's identity as eternal unchanging non-dual consciousness is self-established and self-apparent without involving discursivity. It doesn't need to consider the notion of difference in contrast to identity (which again, only the mind could do this and not consciousness, butt I'm just speaking hypothetically to illustrate the point), because the very fact of It's eternal and unchanging self-knowing presence reveals it's own transcendental unity, there is nothing else apprehended but only a pure unity or unicity apprehending itself forever. This consciousness doesn't examine itself and conclude "there is nothing else but my united eternal consciousness, therefore that's my identity" because this would involve discursivity, but It's identity as non-dual self-knowing presence is beginningless and eternal because it's identical to it's very nature.

>How do you see two equal things and know they are equal without knowing difference?
Here again you are confusing the mind/intellect for consciousness, in order to see two equal things and know they are equal, the mind would have to engage in discursive though via a comparison that attempts to establish whether the two things are the same or different. But when there is just Brahman's infinite non-dual consciousness apprehending itself eternally there are not even two equal things that are seen, nor is there a mind that could compare them using thought.

>>18471470
First of all terms I employed like “idea” should be understood in their due platonic sense.
There is no separation as you think I’m implying, there is a differentiation/movement exactly like the “process” of consciousness being aware of itself implies. Before you say anything, it is obviously non-temporal, it is ontological differentiation, so to speak.

Finally, if you want to say your dogmas are grounded on logic you need to apply discursive reasoning. Period. You can believe whatever you want but can’t say it is grounded on logic.

>>18471470
You say there is recognition but right after you deny the possibility of recognition. How can there be recognition if there is no “movement” from one thing to the other? The word RE-cognition implies exactly this return and awareness of it.
Then you say “apprehension”. How is this apprehension not the apprehension of something? How is this different from what we usually and logically mean by it?

>>18471528
>There is no separation as you think I’m implying, there is a differentiation/movement exactly like the “process” of consciousness being aware of itself implies. Before you say anything, it is obviously non-temporal, it is ontological differentiation, so to speak.
I'm saying that there is no differentiation/movement because the consciousness in question is eternal, beginningless and completely unchanging, there is no point at which any differentiation can be identified in relation to any other point in what I'm speaking about, the same non-dual self-knowing presence is completely undifferentiated, both in the first sense of not undergoing differentiation from a state of non-differentiation; and also in the second sense of not having any separate components which can be differentiated or distinguished from one another. The non-dual presence that intuits itself always is identical with itself, it's intuiting of itself *is* its consciousness, they are not two separate things that can be differentiated from one another.
>Finally, if you want to say your dogmas are grounded on logic you need to apply discursive reasoning. Period. You can believe whatever you want but can’t say it is grounded on logic.
I am applying discursive reasoning and I'm accepting it as valid within the bounds of our debate, I'm just saying that God Himself doesn't apply discursive reasoning, that God does not use discursive reasoning to know Himself, to know His own identity, and I see no reason to assume why He would, especially when talking about a God consisting of non-dual consciousness like I am speaking about.

>>18471553
>You say there is recognition but right after you deny the possibility of recognition. How can there be recognition if there is no “movement” from one thing to the other? The word RE-cognition implies exactly this return and awareness of it.
I actually avoided using the word recognizing for the very reason that there isn't a movement or a return, the only time I used the word "recognize" in all of my posts in this thread was a while back here >>18465048 when speaking of the Jiva realizing Brahman, I didn't use it when speaking about Brahman's timeless/eternal self-knowledge. And even in that single instance I used it, I was using it rather loosely, the fully correct and more specific answer would be that the Jiva would be attaining for the first time correct knowledge of Brahman, and that previously the Jiva only understood/knew Brahman imperfectly and indirectly, but that this realization of Brahman isn't a "recognizing" because that same correct knowledge of Brahman was never had prior to this.
>Then you say “apprehension”. How is this apprehension not the apprehension of something? How is this different from what we usually and logically mean by it?
apprehend just means to understand or perceive, I was using it there just as a synonym of "knowing", and when you have non-dual self-revealing, self-illuming consciousness only knowing itself non-dualistically forever without any other thing and without any difference, there isn't any distinction of a separate knower and know, but just a pure presence whose awareness of itself is identical with and inseparable from the nature of that very presence, that awareness is not a separate act or function that it performs in relation to something. When it's a self-knowing presence, it's presence and self-knowing are the same thing, there is no difference between them.

>>18471761
>>18471767
Non-dual awareness is not discursive, it is illogical. I’m not saying this is inherently bad, but to say your dogmas are logical is just a lie. And that is the difference in our discussion, I’m telling you how logically advaita vedanta doesn’t make sense and you are telling me how it makes but without logic.

>>18464571
>nah man it's got nothing to do with anything you can currently perceive but it's actually you trust me

That's the rub, you are not anything you currently perceive. You are the one doing the perceiving.

>>18471878
>more word games

>>18471817
>Non-dual awareness is not discursive, it is illogical.
No it's not, I've taken apart all of your arguments against it so far with ease.
>and you are telling me how it makes but without logic.
Nothing I have said is illogical

>>18471916
How is it taking apart when you dismiss everything I say as product of mind/intellect and that actually consciousness cannot be defined in these (logical) terms but nondual perception, being logical but also having nothing to do with intellect?

>>18471767
>there isn't any distinction of a separate knower and know
Is the consciousness aware that the knower and the known are the same?

advaita is no different than atheism

prideful guenonfag is just lying to you

>>18465068
What's your view on the hard problem of consciousness?

>>18464383
Your ego is a theophany of the One, so by becoming the One you become what you are. Henosis is the image (a particular being) made into the real (the ground of being).

>>18464436
>Is the transcendent self linked to the previous identity or not?
Yes, because any particular self is an image or theophany of the One. The One is all in all, so any particular becomes itself in becoming the One. Identity is shared by degree, as an icon shares identity with what it depicits.

>>18471885
> Word games
You can't perceive consciousness. That's why worrying about the annihilation of the things you currently perceive is pointless. You are not them, and never were, you are consciousness.

>>18467011
This. You don't have a particular ego that thinks or perceives the world, when you perform an intellective act you are borrowing the active intellect, the monopsychic mind of God all intellectualising beings share. Your ego is a thread on God's CPU running the One's instruction set.

>>18472305
>>18472327
This is annihilation because it tells me I don't actually exist.

>>18472264
>athiesm = the universe has no transcendent source and consciousness is eternally extinct when the body dies
>advaita = the universe originates from a transcendent source and consciousness is eternal and undying, never going extinct
Pretty big difference there kiddo
>>18471937
>How is it taking apart when you dismiss everything I say as product of mind/intellect
I am fairly addressing your arguments, not ignoring them. By pointing out that your argument incorrectly relied on the assumption that consciousness performs that same function as mind/intellect, it shows that what you are saying would be inapplicable to a non-dual consciousness just existing on it's lonesome without the mind/intellect (manas/buddhi). Your whole argument relied on the assumption that discursivity would still take place in a consciousness that exists without mind/intellect, but when there is no mind/intellect and instead there is just consciousness knowing itself non-dualistically in one eternal knowledge that is without beginning or end then it doesn't need discursivity in order to know it's own identity because that knowing of its own identity *as* eternal non-dual sentience is that sentience's very nature and is inseparable to and inalienable from that sentience, it's not *established* of founded on the basis of something else because that would imply the possibility of it being non-established and then being subsequently established but this can't be so when it's the very unchanging beginningless and eternal nature of that sentience, knowing itself/its identity (same thing) in one eternal knowing.
>and that actually consciousness cannot be defined in these (logical) terms but nondual perception,
Consciousness or non-dual consciousness can be defined in logical terms, and this is part of what I have been doing, just because consciousness itself does not engage in discursivity does not mean that my mind cannot use logic and discursive reasoning to explain the nature of consciousness in ways that are rational and which don't violate logic, nothing that I have said so far has contained any inherent logical contradiction. The idea of non-dual consciousness itself is not illogical or irrational, even if the non-dual consciousness itself doesn't engage in logic/discursivity. It can be understood rationally by the mind, but understanding it rationally is not the same as directly experiencing it.

>>18472091
>Is the consciousness aware that the knower and the known are the same?
It's not aware of two separate things that could be considered as being the same, it's not as though the non-dual consciousness is both AA (non-dual consciousness that is the knower) and AB (non-dual consciousness that is known) and these two AA and AB are the same, this is the wrong way of understanding it. Instead, there is just A existing in a perfect undivided unicity by itself whose reflexive self-knowledge is identical with its presence, its knowing is the same as its being, it's redirected back upon itself, but at no point is there any identifiable separation that we can pick out or trace between the knower and the known, at any point you can try to pick out in the non-dual awareness knowing itself every "point" is the exact same thing as any other point, it's all just equally A alike that contains no junctions, partitions, steps, or relations. Any seeming separation is just due to the inherently dualistic nature of all language that we are forced to use to describe it, language being inherently dualistic.

>>18472379
No it doesn't, it tells you that you exist as the One, that you are all in all, and that all existence is you.

>>18472570
>pointing out that your argument incorrectly relied on the assumption that consciousness performs that same function as mind/intellect
No, I'm not relying on this. I'm relying on the fact that every consciousness is conscious OF something. Which your illogical nondualism rejects without explaining logically why.

>Your whole argument relied on the assumption that discursivity would still take place in a consciousness that exists without mind/intellect
I never affirmed such a thing. See above.

> just because consciousness itself does not engage in discursivity does not mean that my mind cannot use logic and discursive reasoning to explain the nature of consciousnes
Holy shit you are really stupid.

Also answer this >>18472091

>>18472576
>he can't answer yes or no to a yes or no question he must force his brainwashing discourse on others all the time

>it is not aware of the knower and the known
So there is no consciousness of itself as both knower and known.

>this is the wrong way of understanding it
This is the logical way. I already said there is no problem with refusing to engage with logic, but just admit it.

>A existing in a perfect undivided unicity
I have the impression sometimes you think consciousness is material. Being conscious of something, itself as knower and known does not imply it is divided.

>, it's redirected back upon itself
Let me guess: but still without realizing it, without having any process of going out and back on itself! Brilliant!

Again, you are not describing consciousness that is conscious, you are describing the literal atheistic nothingness that is itself in perfect symmetric nothingness.

>>18472597
>I'm relying on the fact that every consciousness is conscious OF something. Which your illogical nondualism rejects without explaining logically why.
That's wrong. I'm saying that non-dual consciousness knows itself non-dualistically. I'm not rejecting the premise that "consciousness is conscious OF something", I fully admit that in normal empirical experience in the world, normally it feels as though our consciousness is conscious of other things. What I'm saying is that non-dual consciousness is intuitively conscious *of itself*, this isn't rejecting the premise that consciousness is conscious of things, it's just saying that in non-dual consciousness all that the consciousness in question is conscious of is purely itself without any difference, without any separation between the knower and the known, there is no relation relating them but just one eternal consciousness who "being-conscious" of itself is the exact same thing as the inherent nature of that consciousness who is "being-conscious" of itself. What is does i.e. "being conscious of itself" is the same as its nature and identity, there is no relation linking these things because they are all just different words and terms for the same undivided and undifferentiated self-intuiting presence. It's self-intuiting is the same as its presence which is the same as its awareness.

When Advaita Vedanta talks about the non-dual consciousness of Brahman, they are not talking about the same consciousness that seems to be aware of things in the world. For Advaita this is not even true/real consciousness but for Advaita our normal empirical consciousness is just the reflected consciousness (Chidabhasa) existing in the intellect that is only a semblance of the true consciousness which is the Brahman-Atman.

You can say "but in our normal waking experience consciousness always is conscious of something else" and I would agree that this is how people normally experience things. Pointing this out however is not a demonstration of a contradiction in what Advaita is saying, that's not proving or showing that anything Advaita is saying is illogical. Just because mundane dualistic consciousness is a certain way, doesn't indicate what is possible or not-possible for the incorporeal non-dual consciousness of Brahman. The mere point that we don't normally experience non-dual consciousness in mundane life does not mean that the very concept itself is impossible or illogical. Similarly, the fact that we don't encounter the gates of St. Peter and heaven in mundane life doesn't itself prove that the concept of heaven itself is impossible or illogical. Nothing I have said in my explanation of how non-dual consciousness works is inherently illogical, none of it contains contradictions that violate the rules of logic.

>>18472597
>I never affirmed such a thing.
You made the wrong claim that without the consciousness being able to discursively distinguish itself from what it was not that it wouldn't know its own identity, which I explained was wrong.
>Holy shit you are really stupid.
not an argument, are you confusing mind and consciousness again?
>Also answer this >>18472091
I already did, see >>18472576

>>18472627
>>he can't answer yes or no to a yes or no question
The question was posed on an incorrect basis that assumed that there was a separate knower and a separate known, If I was to answer with either a "yes" or a "no" it would be assenting to something that is incorrect, something which is not taught by Advaita.
>So there is no consciousness of itself as both knower and known.
There are not two things which the consciousness is conscious of, it's only conscious of itself, and there is not two of it that it can be conscious of. it would be more accurate to say that there is only non-dual reflexive knowing as opposed to a duality of knower and known, but this non-dual knowing is not divided into knower and known.
>this is the logical way. I already said there is no problem with refusing to engage with logic, but just admit it.
What I'm saying is logical, you haven't pointed out anything illogical that I have said. I'm using logic to explain how what you are saying is incorrect.
>I have the impression sometimes you think consciousness is material.
I don't, I agree with Advaita that consciousness is immaterial, disembodied, incorporeal
>Being conscious of something, itself as knower and known does not imply it is divided.
Non-dual consciousness isn't conscious of itself occupying two separate roles of knower and the known, instead non-dual consciousness is just reflexive non-dual knowing that doesn't differentiate itself into the two roles or positions of knower and known.
>Let me guess: but still without realizing it, without having any process of going out and back on itself! Brilliant!
It's own eternal non-dual knowing is the eternal changeless constant realization/knowing of itself as non-dual presence, without any process involved. Advaita is brilliant, yes.
>Again, you are not describing consciousness that is conscious, you are describing the literal atheistic nothingness that is itself in perfect symmetric nothingness.
That's not true, because nothingness has no knowing or awareness, while I am talking about something that is sentient and which exists as eternal presence, eternal non-dual knowing. It now seems that you are the one who is failing at basic logic, and who can't understand that nothingness is mutually exclusive with the existence of presence/knowing. Maybe try reading a dictionary and some basic books on logic so you can understand that sentient presence can never be the same thing as nothingness.

>>18472825
I could engage with the other points but it is always fruitless. I'm not saying they are separate, I'm literally sayign what I said in the beginning: reflective/reflexive consciousness of itself. But anything you say deprives consciousness of what it itself is.

>but this non-dual knowing is not divided into knower and known.
None is saying it is divided, I asked: does it know itself as knower and known? Your answer was no because (advaita branwashing wall of texts), admitting consciousness is not conscious of itself and its own process of knowing.

>you haven't pointed out anything illogical that I have said.
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha, holy shit thank you for proving me right, you are dishonest and coping.

>What I'm saying is logical
Nope. As I proved repeatedly in this thread and this post again. Also, why would you care about logic? Guénon says nondual consciousness is beyond reason, logic. Plus, the world isn't even real why care about logic?

>nothingness has no knowing or awareness
And your advaitist consciousness doesn't know itself as knower and known being one.

>>18472864
I'm not saying they are separate, I'm literally sayign what I said in the beginning: reflective/reflexive consciousness of itself. But anything you say deprives consciousness of what it itself is.
No it doesn't. Non-dual knowing is reflexively self-conscious without dividing itself into knower and known, into subject and object. You keep swerving back to pretending that dualistic consciousness is the only kind of consciousness that exists, but that in itself doesn't demonstrate that non-dual consciousness as explained by me is impossible or illogical.
>None is saying it is divided, I asked: does it know itself as knower and known? Your answer was no because, admitting consciousness is not conscious of itself and its own process of knowing.
That's wrong, you have not paid attention or misunderstood.

Non-dual consciousness aka non-dual knowing *is* reflexively self-aware. It's not aware of itself *as both* knower and known, as subject and object. Instead it's reflexively self-aware of itself simply as non-dual knowing, without the two opposing distinctions of that which knows and that which is known. When reflexive non-dual knowing intuits itself, it's aware of itself as knowing but without the distinctions of knower and known, because everywhere knowing turns it just meets itself, knowing. This is at once consciousness aware of itself and aware of its knowing, because they are the same thing, so in aware of itself as pure knowing it's reflexively aware of itself; this is not the same thing as being aware of itself as knower and known, which is incorrect.
>you are dishonest and coping.
I think you are the one who is dishonest and coping, I also think you're a sophist
>Nope. As I proved repeatedly in this thread and this post again.
You have not identified a single thing which I have said which is illogical, you've only misrepresented me or blindly asserted that only dualistic consciousness is possible and valid, but without providing justification for this assertion.
>Also, why would you care about logic? Guénon says nondual consciousness is beyond reason, logic.
It can't be attained via reason and logic, but fallacious attempts to demonstrate that the idea itself is inherently illogical can be refuted with reason and logic.
>Plus, the world isn't even real why care about logic?
Because I derive entertainment from debunking the arguments of sophists like you
Also, why would you care about logic? Guénon says nondual consciousness is beyond reason, logic. Plus, the world isn't even real why care about logic?
>And your advaitist consciousness doesn't know itself as knower and known being one.
It's non-dual knowing that intuits itself as knowing, so it's neither nothingness nor a lack or knowing/presence

>>18472940
>pretending that dualistic consciousness
See. This is not even dualistic. It is dialectical monism. You don't even understand what is the issue here.

>self-aware
>but not conscious of itself, but also conscious of itself
conscious OF something but yet just consciousness without its processes of knowing.

>aware of itself and aware of its knowing, because they are the same thing
>this is not the same thing as being aware of itself as knower and known
So it is not aware of itself as both knower and known, so it is not aware of that which knows and that which is known, therefore not being aware of knowledge itself, meaning not aware of itself. This is atheistic.

>It can't be attained via reason and logic
And it can't be explained via reason and logic, which you said you were engaging with. This already makes everything clear.

this guenonfag guy has got to be psyop and I feel bad for anyone who falls for it

>>18473001
> It is dialectical monism
What reason do you have to admit that its a united whole if it never expresses itself as such? Sounds like crypto-dualism to me

>conscious OF something but yet just consciousness without its processes of knowing.
Wrong, non-dual consciousness is just non-dual knowing/sentience, without the separate distinctions of knower and known, or subject and object, or observer and observed. This is not "not conscious of itself", it is conscious of itself, but as non-dual undifferentiated knowing. Knowing knows knowing, A = A =A, which reduces to just A

>So it is not aware of itself as both knower and known, so it is not aware of that which knows and that which is known, therefore not being aware of knowledge itself, meaning not aware of itself. This is atheistic.
Wrong, do you really think I can't see right through these sophisms? non-dual knowing is aware of itself as knowing, there is no distinction of knower and known but just self-intuiting knowing. So your conclusion "therefore not being aware of knowledge itself, meaning not aware of itself" is totally wrong, since when non-dual knowing intuits itself as knowing, the Atman is knowing its own self-revealing knowledge of itself as non-dual knowing, which means its reflexively aware of itself as knowing, although this knowledge of itself is not a known object thats different from the knower.

Non-dual knowing knows itself as non-dual knowing, and in doing so knows itself. This isn't atheistic since this non-dual knowing is eternal and the source of the unreal appearences of everything else. Again, read a dictionary and learn what atheism means before repeating such dumb statements further.

>And it can't be explained via reason and logic, which you said you were engaging with
It can be explained via reason and logic, just not directly attained. To explain it is not the same as fully understanding it in one's knowledge because complete knowledge/understanding of it can only be grasped directly and intuitively and not expressed in discursive terms. That doesn't mean that we can't speak of it in terms that accord with logic, but when doing so we have to acknowledge that we are speaking of something that is only experienced non-discursively. Do you not understand the difference between grasping something intuitively and directly and speaking of it in discursive terms?

>>18473155
t. brainlet

>>18473537
Wait, it knows it is knowing? I don’t think you can deny this, right?

>it can be explained via reason and logic...but it cannot be expressed discursively
>y-you are a sophist!

>>18465068
It's not literal annihilation

>>18473571
>Wait, it knows it is knowing? I don’t think you can deny this, right?
It's knowing has reflexive non-dual knowing of Itself (knowing) as non-dual knowing, A = A = A, which amounts to just saying "A is", aka non-dual knowing simply is without containing the distinctions of knower and known.

That's different from saying that its knowing of itself is a distinct knowledge that is "known" in contradistinction to a "knower"

>>it can be explained via reason and logic...but it cannot be expressed discursively
Yes, it can be understood on a theoretical and intellectual level in discursive terms, and this theoretical and intellectual understanding of it can be explained in discursive terms, but this theoretical and intellectual grasping of it is not complete knowledge of it. Nothing I wrote is contradicting anything else I wrote, but you seem to think I did. To make it more clear for you, I explain this below.

Complete knowledge = immediate non-discursive knowledge of it through gnosis/jnana/spiritual understanding

Theoretical/conceptual/intellectual understanding = incomplete knowledge = can be understood, expressed and explained in discursive terms, but this only acts as a signifier that can help point the way to complete knowledge of it, it's not a substitute for it.

I never said that conceptual/intellectual understanding of it cannot be expressed in discursive terms, it can. In that greentext sentence of mind which you quoted, I was specifically saying that "complete knowledge" (which can only be the immediate experience of it) cannot be expressed discursively.

every atheist believes in the advaita paradise

>every atheist believes in the advaita paradise

>>18473779
No. You cannot say they follow logic and reason when you do not regard the terms in their logical meaning and their logical implications. You cannot say it is logical just because you add the adjective 'nondual' when this modifies the noun and you cannot explain the very essence of this modified noun. That is why you admit the logical meaning of relation, reflection, consciousness, only to dismiss them with the justification that ''it's just that it is nondual!''. This is not an explanation and it is far from being logical.

What an example? Easy, just in this very post, as you do in all posts:
>It's knowing has reflexive non-dual knowing of Itself (knowing) as non-dual knowing
reflexive = relational identity
knowing = determination between knower and known
itself= reflexive relation
but................. yes! it is just non-dual and therefore all logical implications are null.

You can't explain knowledge of itself without the implication of identity as I already said, all you can do is make the discussion irrational with the world that cannot be explained discursively.

And you have the gall to call others sophists.

>>18474142
>What an example?
Want an example?*

>make the discussion irrational with the world
with the word*

>>18460324
>secondary text
I don't care

>>18464301
Name one.

>>18474142
>No. You cannot say they follow logic and reason when you do not regard the terms in their logical meaning and their logical implications.
I do though, it's just that there is no single word or phrase which perfectly encapsulates the experiential knowledge of non-dual consciousness or non-duality and which communicates it's meaning to one's understanding in an immediate, non-discursive sense. Language itself is inherently dualistic, so when talking about non-duality language will always be insufficient to fully convey the complete knowledge of it (which is necessarily experiential), language can at best only act as a signifier or pointer in regards to non-duality, which is itself ineffable; this doesn't mean that it's illogical however.

>You cannot say it is logical just because you add the adjective 'nondual' when this modifies the noun and you cannot explain the very essence of this modified noun.
I can describe and explain it, but I can't convey experiential knowledge of it through language. I'm sorry if you are disappointed by this, this is not the same as the concept itself being illogical though.

>That is why you admit the logical meaning of relation, reflection, consciousness, only to dismiss them with the justification that ''it's just that it is nondual!''. This is not an explanation and it is far from being logical.
I haven't dismissed the logical meaning of those things. Just because I don't admit that your dialectical monist portrayal of the nature of consciousness is correct doesn't mean that I'm dismissing the meaning of consciousness.

>>18474142
>>18474493

The first definition that Merriam-Webster gives of consciousness is:

"the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself"

What I'm talking about is not dismissing that. When I say the non-dual consciousness is "pure reflexive knowing" or "pure reflexive awareness", that's not contradicting the Merriam-Webster definition of consciousness. The non-dual consciousness I am talking about is aware, just because I say that It's awareness is reflexive and non-dual without any separation of knower vs known or subject vs object is not saying that it's not aware of anything, because it's reflexivity means precisely that it's awareness is self-aware. Presence = reflexive knowing = awareness.

>What an example? Easy, just in this very post, as you do in all posts:
>>It's knowing has reflexive non-dual knowing of Itself (knowing) as non-dual knowing
>reflexive = relational identity
Reflexivity is not inevitably always a relational identity but it's only a relational identity if the very thing which is reflexive is different from the subject who is being considered to be engaged in some act that is reflexive. For example "John perjured himself" describes an agent who engages in a reflexive (directed back upon the knower) act which is different from that agent. What I am talking about is different because what is reflexive in this case is not different from the entity who the word reflexive is being applied to, it's not a separate action or relation, as in the case of John perjuring himself, but the reflexivity is the very nature of the agent or subject it.

>>18474142
>>18474498
Entities don't have relations with that which constitutes their very nature. The meaning of relation according to the 2nd definition in Merriam-Webster is:

an aspect or quality (such as resemblance) that connects two or more things or parts as being or belonging or working together or as being of the same kind (i.e. likeness)

If there is only one thing, it has no relation with anything. Things only have relations with other things, but if there is only one thing then it participates in no relations and any relations we can speak about are purely verbal and imagined with no corresponding reality to them. And an entity is not different from it's essential nature; they are the same, things are their nature, so in no way can an entity be considered as being in a relationship with its essential nature, because that would require that its nature be a different thing from that entity, which is wrong.

When I say that "awareness is reflexive" that's not describing a subject who engages in a reflexive action which is a relation which is different from the subject engaging in it, I'm instead denoting the very nature of the entity; so it's not a relational identity because things don't have relations with their essential nature, they simply are that nature. Reflexivity is the very nature of awareness and not a separate relation. So you are wrong to say that I'm not adhering to the meaning of reflexivity, you just incorrectly assumed that it could only be used to describe relations which are different from the subject engaging in them.

>knowing = determination between knower and known
That's incorrect, the definition of knowing can be both transitive and intransitive. Transitive verbs are inherently dualistic since they presuppose a difference of actions and agents, "knowing" when used in a transitive sense refers to knowing as something which something else does. However, as Merriam-Webster points out, "knowing" also has the intransitive meaning of "to have knowledge", and I'm using it in this intransitive sense, which doesn't automatically mean that the knowing is a relation. So I'm still adhering to the meaning of "knowing" in a non-transitive sense. Non-dual knowledge is self-aware/self-knowing knowledge/knowing that is devoid of any internal distinction or separation of itself into knower and known, it is intransitive knowing.

>itself= reflexive relation
Things don't have relations with themselves, but only with other things, if reflexivity is somethings very nature, it's not a relation because there are not two things which have a relation, but only just one thing.

>>18474493
> this is not the same as the concept itself being illogical though.
It is, I explained why and you yourself are admitting it is obscurely.

>your dialectical monist
You said before my telling you any of it that my understanding was discursive, intellectual, etc. now it is another thing, now I distort things because of this dialectical monism you have no idea about. But no, I was following the common, logical and phenomenological understanding of consciousness and all other terms.

>John perjured himself" describes an agent who engages in a reflexive (directed back upon the knower) act which is different from that agent
How is the agent (John) different from the sufferer (John)?

>>18474502
>>18474498

>i'm not contradicting the merriam webster, but whenever I say non dual it means something different

>If there is only one thing, it has no relation with anything
if consciousness is aware and has no relation to this awareness then it does not know itself.

> Reflexivity is the very nature of awareness and not a separate relation.
No one is saying it is separated, holy shit. When you see an object and are aware of this awareness this is not a separate awareness from your consciousness, this self-relational nature of consciousness is not separate.

>However, as Merriam-Webster points out, "knowing" also has the intransitive meaning of "to have knowledge", and I'm using it in this intransitive sense, which doesn't automatically mean that the knowing is a relation
to have knowledge..... of something you idiot. You are doing now with knowledge what you do with consciousness, both are knowledge of nothing, consciousness of nothing, when these terms are always relational, even to themselves.

>>18460324
what's up with this annihilation poster
why does he keep making threads and ruining others? I have a feeling he's just a shit poster

>>18474627
yeah, someone ban guenonfag already

>>18474543
>It is,
No it's not, ineffability =/= illogical. The experiential knowledge of what it's like to see a color you have never seen before cannot be conveyed through language. If someone is raised in an enclosed bunker which doesn't have any of the color purple, there is no way to convey through language the experiential knowledge of having the qualia of seeing the color purple, that doesn't mean that the concept of seeing the color purple itself is illogical.
>You said before my telling you any of it that my understanding was discursive, intellectual, etc.
No, I'm saying that both of us are limited to engaging with the concept on 4chan on a discursive, intellectual level purely because of the fact that we are employing language. In order to realize it non-discursively one has to immediately intuit it, you can't do this via speech so by engaging with each other via speech we are necessarily limited to the discursive.
>now it is another thing, now I distort things because of this dialectical monism you have no idea about.
I think that your preference for dialectical monism may be why you either have a hard time understanding what I'm talking about, or you maybe do understand it but prefer to instead pretend that it's not logical or understandable on an intellectual level because of your ideological preferences/commitments. It doesn't matter to me either way.
>But no, I was following the common, logical and phenomenological understanding of consciousness and all other terms.
No so, because as I explained in these posts >>18474493 >>18474498 >>18474502 I'm still using those words in a way that accords with the definitions of those terms, they each have multiple listed meanings/definitions and for each word I'm using a valid meaning as given by Merriam-Webster.
>>18474543
>How is the agent (John) different from the sufferer (John)?
Why does it matter? I consider both the notion of willing agency/doership and suffering to both inhere in the mind, not consciousness. For Advaita consciousness is non-volitional, unchanging, and always free from suffering.

>>18474627
It's just Guenonfag. You can tell because of the obsession with reflexivity (ironically considered by Hindus to be the cornerstone of Shankara's sophistry and incoherence).

Good to see that he's uniting Platonists and Buddhists against him, though.

>>18474654
I thought guenonfag was a cool anon
does guenon actually teach anti-annihilationism?

>>18474601
>if consciousness is aware and has no relation to this awareness then it does not know itself.
That's wrong, because it's self-knowing or reflexive knowing is itself it's very nature. It's the very nature of consciousness. Things don't have relations with that which is their nature, they simply are them. So by simply being itself or being it's own nature, consciousness knows itself without having a relation with that knowing, because that knowing is it's very nature instead of something separate from its nature that it has a relation with.
>> Reflexivity is the very nature of awareness and not a separate relation.
No one is saying it is separated, holy shit. When you see an object and are aware of this awareness this is not a separate awareness from your consciousness, this self-relational nature of consciousness is not separate.
The relation between the consciousness and the known object seen through the eye in that case isn't identical to the consciousness itself, it is a relation which links consciousness (the 1st term) and the object (the 2nd term). A relation isn't identical with either of the two terms that it links. Being non-identical, it's something separate from that consciousness. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too here, but its not logical because it conflates a relation with one of the two terms which it links.
>to have knowledge..... of something you idiot.
When "knowing" is used in an intransitive sense it's not used in any connection with a direct object. As an example saying "it is raining" doesn't refer to a relation with another object or noun which has a relation with the verb raining, while the sentence "It is raining cats and dogs" is transitive and refers to a relation between the rain and the cats/dogs. And as Merriam-Webster points out "knowing" has an accepted intransitive use so your argument here is bunk.

When I say that reflexivity is the very nature of awareness/consciousness/knowing, that's not speaking about any existing relation, it's just stating what the nature of one thing is, which isn't a relation. When I say "knowing" in an intransitive sense, it doesn't refer to an object separate from the knowing with which the knowing has a relation.

>>18474640
That person is talking about OP you seething dumbass

>>18474736
I am Guenonfag, I didn't make this thread. The OP of this thread is some retard who is always seething about muh annihilation and who doesn't understand the simple logical concept that a doctrine which says that consciousness continues forever isn't annihilationism because if ANYTHING (including awareness) continues to exist eternally then its not complete annihilation like OP misrepresents it to be.

Advaita and Guenon both reject annihilaitonism, the Advaitin philosopher Shankara condemned Buddhism as annihilaitonism. Guenon refutes in his books the claim that Advaita Vedanta is annihilaitonism.

>>18474767
why do you need so much attention?

>>18474743
>That person is talking about OP you seething dumbass

but it's guenonfag shilling annihilation as cool and hip

>>18474654
>and Buddhists
Advaitins refuted the Buddhist claim made by Nagarjuna and others that consciousness isn't self-reflexive via the argument quoted here >>18465129

>>18474776
I don't, I was just pointing out that I wasn't OP. I never asked to be called Guenonfag, if I really sought attention I'd be a tripfag.

>>18474789
>It's been refuted in my mind

>>18474644
Yeah ineffability is not illogical but it is not logical either.

>limited on a discursive intellectual
then why are you even trying after three fucking days? and still affirming all you say is logical when in fact it i snot as I already explained here >>18474142.

>In order to realize it non-discursively
So we can only truly understand whatever you are saying non-discursively, right. Then shut the fuck up and fuck off and just admit there is no logical ground to it.

>hard time understanding what I'm talking about
It's actually because it is atheistic and not logical.
And you have to say at the same time it is perfectly logical and how it is only non-discursively realized.

>ideological preferences
Dude, I am applying many different senses of consciousness just to prove to you your conception of it and afterlife is atheistic, as I proved in the other posts of mine such as >>18472597
>>18472091
>>18465976
>>18465835
>>18465096
>>18464876

>I'm using a valid meaning as given by Merriam-Webster.
No, lol. You ignore the very definition here of the dictionary saying it is aware of something and say it is but it is nondualistic and so there is no relation to the very relation of consciousness.

>Why does it matter?
LMAO

>For Advaita consciousness is non-volitional
Yes, for atheistic hindu crypto-buddhism there is no intentionality (phenomenology), no relation to its own relational activity (logical sense), no process in itself (aristotle, plato).

>>18474743
See above.
Also already answered here: >>18474543 and >>18474142

>>18474188
Ibn Arabi explicitly calls the advaita/annihilationist position "sleep" and says it's a lower form of mysticism. Unfortunately, there's lots of misconception about Ibn Arabi, a lot of it stemming from Ivan Agueli (Rene Guenon's Sufi teacher) who misattributed an Arabic text he was translating to Ibn Arabi when really it had been written by another Sufi named Balyani. Ironically, Agueli realized that this text had already been translated into English (Agueli was translating into French) as Balyani but Agueli was convinced it was written by Ibn Arabi so he just went ahead with it.

But yes, read Ibn Arabi's Mawaki for this.

what is the god of the annihilationistic monists? it is clear we are talking about a pseudo-mystical class of atheists. some here say 'consciousness' that is unaware of itself and has no will, an asleep entity basically. how do they 'worship' consciousness? of course it is egotistical bs, the desire of self-deification, transcendence PURELY ON SOCIAL (PROUD) TERMS (their public manifestation is a testimony of this)

no wonder even bertrand russell who was an atheist believed in a monistic panpsychism. there is little difference between atheist russell and the /lit/ annihilationist

>>18475100
It's practically atheism. There's nothing to worship, or even do, hence why guenonfag is online 24/7 constantly making threads and bumping them.

I think Sam Harris believes in advaita.

>>18475216
>

>>18474743
>>18474502
>>18474498
>>18474493
>>18474803
>>18474767
>>18472825
>>18472576
>>18472570
>>18471470
>>18471528
>>18471308
>>18468774
>>18468399
>>18465899
>>18465415
>>18465267
>>18465184
>>18465129
>>18465074
>>18465048
>>18464984
>>18464848

See: >>18475386

You are refuted, atheist.

>>18475007
>then why are you even trying after three fucking days?
Just to show that your arguments are wrong because I enjoy it
>in in fact it i snot as I already explained here
I refuted that whole post already here >>18474493 >>18474498 >>18474502
>So we can only truly understand whatever you are saying non-discursively, right.
We can only have complete knowledge of it experientially, which is non-discursive, but it can be demonstrated that the concept is free of logical contradictions using discursive means
>Then shut the fuck up and fuck off
No, because it's too fun to poke holes in your awful arguments, also I just pointed out that your understanding of consciousness is wrong for conflating a relation with one of the two terms that it relates, so in addition to demonstrating that my own position is free of contradictions I just BTFO'd you
>It's actually because it is atheistic and not logical.
Wrong dumbass, look up the meaning of atheism in the dictionary, it's incompatible with what I'm saying
>say at the same time it is perfectly logical and how it is only non-discursively realized.
there isn't any contradiction there, as you yourself admitted ineffability isn't illogicality, I'm just demonstrating your inability to prove its illogical
> afterlife is atheistic
You didn't prove anything, atheism is mutually exclusive with saying there is an eternal God comprised of consciousness, no amount of coping and seething can change this.
>You ignore the very definition here of the dictionary
In the three posts of mine that I already cited in this post, I showed how everything I'm saying abides by one of the definitions given by Merriam-Webster, you just doesn't understand the difference between transitive and intransitive verbs. If the very nature of consciousness is reflexive self-awareness there is no relation but just one thing without any relations with anything else, you have failed to address this point so far because it refutes you.
>there is no intentionality (phenomenology),
Intentionally inheres in the mind, that doesn't prevent Advaita from correctly describing the nature of mind and consciousness as phenomenology attempts to do
>no relation to its own relational activity
Brahman's consciousness has no relation with anything else or with itself because it's the only existing thing, and there needs to be two separate thing for there to be a relation
>(aristotle, plato)
inferior to Shankaracharya (pbuh), they only get part of the way to the complete truth which he elucidates

>>18475100
>what is the god of non-dualists?
"This is the ultimate reality, the changeless eternal, all-pervading like space (but beyond it), free from all causal modification, ever-contented pure bliss, indivisible, self-luminous by nature, untouched by actions in the form of virtue and vice along with their effects, and beyond time in its three tenses of past, present and future; this unembodied reality is called moksha or absolute freedom"
- Shankaracharya

>>18475472
Rene Guenon, Sam Harris...no contradiction.

>>18475472
>Intentionally inheres in the mind
Wrong and you contradict yourself all the time as proven when you said:
>I'm not rejecting the premise that "consciousness is conscious OF something"

This is intentionality. Will you distort its meaning and apply a new nondual intentionality?

>I refuted that whole
Those posts have answers... They were refuted respectively here: >>18474543 and here >>18474601.

>atheism is mutually exclusive with saying there is an eternal God comprised of consciousness
Atheism posits the same kind of indistinct oneness that in the end is not conscious of itself, just like advaita vedanta.

>there isn't any contradiction there
You contradict yourself all the time as I showed in my previous posts and here now.

>inferior to hindu crypto-buddhist numer #38

>Brahman's consciousness has no relation with anything else or with itself
Perfect. ''Brahman is not conscious of itself''. That's it, I don't need to say anything more.
Even Buddhism is closer to truth because it posits no erroneous speculations.

Why yes, I do believe the counter-initiation hates advaita vedanta metaphysics and if our elites believed in it then all of the modern world's problems would be fixed. What gave it away?

>>18475709
lmao

>>18475540
>Wrong and you contradict yourself all the time as proven when you said:
>>I'm not rejecting the premise that "consciousness is conscious OF something"
Ah yes, for a moment I thought you were speaking about willpower. I'm aware that "intentionality is also used to speak of the concept that consciousness is object-oriented, although that's not a term that occurs often in what I've been reading lately and for a moment I forgot that it's also used in that sense aside from the normal meaning of intention.

I reject the premise that consciousness is object-oriented to the extent that it can be taken as implying that consciousness is inevitably directed at something other than itself, this is only true of the Chidabhasa (reflected consciousness) in the intellect which is for Advaita only a semblance of the true, non-dual concourses. This is what you are mistaking for consciousness itself.

I accept that consciousness means to be conscious of something, but not necessarily other things but instead when (non-dual) consciousness is reflexive that "conscious of" is just being conscious of itself/it's own nature (same thing) in one eternal act of self-knowing that is the very nature of that knowing; and there is no separation of knower and known, but just one undivided, undifferentiated reflexive knowing that is self-aware and conscious of itself (and hence not blind and not unconscious) without participating in any sort of relationship, because it's self-awareness is identical to itself.

>They were refuted respectively here: >>18474543 and here >>18474601.
That's wrong you fool, in 18474543 you didn't even put forward any arguments against my position and 18474601 was already refuted by me here >>18474743

>Atheism posits the same kind of indistinct oneness that in the end is not conscious of itself,
The Atman is self-aware, reflexive knowing is self-aware of itself as such due to its reflexivity, I don't get why this is so hard for you to understand this. Is this just you playing dumb because you are coping?

>You contradict yourself all the time as I showed in my previous posts and here now
I haven't state contradictory positions, I was just confused about the way in which you were using the term intentionality. You have a vague way of speaking that is characteristic of ESL people so sometimes it feels like you are not being clear and I have to prod you to get fuller answers.

>>Brahman's consciousness has no relation with anything else or with itself
>Perfect. ''Brahman is not conscious of itself''.
Wrong dumbass, because Brahman's reflexive self-awareness is its very nature, and as I already pointed out, things only have relations with other things and not with themselves or their nature, which amount to the same thing; so Brahman is conscious of Himself without being involve in relations.

>>18475919
>>18475540

>I accept that consciousness means to be conscious of something, but not necessarily other things but instead when (non-dual) consciousness is reflexive that "conscious of" is just being conscious of itself/it's own nature (same thing) in one eternal act of self-knowing
I would add as well that I've noticed that you on multiple occasions have tried to sophistically equate awareness being aware of itself with awareness not being aware of anything. But this argument of your violates basic logic because if in being aware of itself it's aware of nothing that means you are holding awareness itself to be synonymous with nothingness and in that case sentences like "I'm aware that it's raining" become meaningless and nothing you say about awareness makes sense anymore. Awareness isn't the same as nothingness, so to say that awareness is only aware of itself non-dualistically isn't the same as saying it's unconsciousness or that it's aware of nothing. You love to sophistically redefine terms in ways that violate logic. Just like you sophistically claim that the eternal existence of consciousness is annihilationism or that belief in an eternal God comprised of consciousness is atheism. You are nothing more than a sophist and a lot of what you are saying violates basic logic.

>>18475997
addendum:

denying that consciousness is object-oriented doesn't mean that conscious isn't aware of anything because if it's reflexively self-aware, then it's own nature is self-intuiting and has self-knowledge, but without being object-oriented

>>18464102
>>18464317
Good lord, you do not distinguish between annihilation and transcendence. That's the aporia of transcendence. The One can't be transcendent because it cannot fit into a relation between the transcendent and the immanent. It is neither transcendent, nor not-transcendent, the immanent reveals itself as the transcendent and vice-versa.

Mystical nothingness cannot be distinguished from "mere" nothingness, the One is literally no-thing, it is empty, and it is because nothing is in it that everything is from it. Aporia causes the very structures of thought and speech to break down. In that breakdown of thought there is neither subject nor object. All distinctions melt away. It neither is nor is not. It is not even nothing, because no-thing is still positive. All things must be negated. This is the luminous darkness of God. Absolute mystical abnegation. We must pray to God to be free of God.

>>18460734
Retard.

These discussions mostly expose to me how much the "ego/everyday sense of self is just an illusion!" concept is a meme. Or the concept of illusion when it comes to metaphysics in general. It's used as a coping mechanism for nondualists when encountering anything dualistic in existence (i.e. literally everything in existence). Calling it an illusion is the get out of jail free card of spirituality.

>>18478321
This.
It is all an illusion but they need to live as any other person unaware of it. They know it is all maya but can’t achieve jivanmukti.