/lit/ - Literature

>>18718322
Explain your pic it looks very interesting

>>18718359
>Saint Barlaam of Antioch died in 304 A.D. He was an uneducated, elderly peasant living in a village near Antioch. During the persecution of the Roman Emperor Diocletian, he was arrested and detained for a long time in a dungeon. He was eventually sent before a judge who at his trial had him severely scourged, bound him on the rack and had him tortured to force him to renounce his faith in Christ as well as sacrifice to the idols. Instead he was meek in answers and showed joy in his countenance. The judge then had an altar lit with a fire and had Barlaam's right hand held over the hot coals. This he hoped, would force Barlaam to recoil his hand and the incense he held to fall on the pagan altar which will be an act of sacrifice to the idols. Instead of doing this, Barlaam endured the pain and held his hand steady until it burnt completely off. The judge then ordered his immediate death.

>>18718322
Stop spamming this thread.

>>18718322

How can anyone who has enjoyed the felicities offered by the heavenly creeper of Sankara's commentaries, abounding in the tender leaves and flowers of literary beauty and philosophic wisdom, entertain, even through infatuation, an attraction for other teachers' apology of commentaries, which, with their hollow contents and laboured styles, are a blot on Saraswati, the Goddess of learning? Literary men in general have their minds rendered weak by the numerous shafts of sensual passions inflicted on them by the hunter Cupid.

Their writings are, therefore, useless in releasing man from his bondage, or in giving, any true and ennobling enjoyment. What wonder is there if such writings do not command the respect of those whose minds have been purified by the non-dualistic outlook advocated by the Acharya's writings? If one tries to produce a work in imitation of the Acharya's writings, which, by their clarity, sweetness and power, surpass a river of nectar, what one achieves will only be an artificial channel with a lean flow, utterly insignificant before the current of the mighty Ganga issuing from the matted locks of Siva. By his hymn of Kanaka-Lakshmi he brought prosperity to a poor family; by his hymn called Soundaryalahari he has revealed the unique glory of the Divine mother; by his Siva-bhujanga he has produced a cure for the obsession of fear in men. How wonderful and varied are his works!

They present a veritable Devaloka, the heaven of Indra. For, the flow of words in them is a rain of flowers from celestial trees; the grandeur of their meanings is the glow of rubies worn by celestial women in their hair; and the abundance of implied wisdom they contain is like the limitless delicious milk in the udder of the heavenly Kamadhenu.

His works are, indeed, like a bunch of luscious banana fruits - their meanings, the hunger-appeasing capacity; their implications, the attractive flavour; and their sweetness of diction, the delicious juice. Even a single fruit of a verse from that bunch of his writings is enough to give the highest delight and satisfaction to wise men and spiritual aspirants. Possessed, they are, of matchless beauty of form like a bouquet of jasmine flowers, pregnant with meanings like a newly blossomed lotus full of nectar, and carrying the aroma of sanctity like the fragrance of the flowers of the celestial tree, his works will provide thrills of deep joy and spiritual inspiration to all who approach it.

>>18718702

It is said that, animated by jealousy and ill-win on hearing such glorious praise of Sankara's commentary, some followers of Gautama's Nyaya philosophy inhabiting some region of the Ganga's banks, once went to Sankara for a controversy. They held the view that inference is the only way to knowledge. Their confrontation with the Acharya was excelled in stupidity only by the attack of moths against fire. Such controversies and attacks of critics only helped to highlight the excellence of his commentaries. For, see how the lustre of gold is only enhanced when subjected to heating and hammering. The moon of commentaries that rose from the milk-ocean of the Acharya's genius rained its nectarine light on all the world of learning. The lunar light it shed, while satisfying the Chakoras of the wise, drove away the darkness of sophistry from among scholars. The Amrita of his commentaries, churned out of the eternal milk-ocean of Vedic wisdom, saved spiritual aspirants from the senility and old age of ignorance, and conferred on them the immortality of divine knowledge.

The light shed by the sun of his commentaries caused the blossoming of the heart-lotus of good men, the removal of the darkness of ignorance, and· the expulsion of the owls of sceptical critics. The Amrita of Sankara's commentaries, born of the milk-ocean of the Vedas, on being churned with the Mandara mountain of logical thinking, confers immortality on wise men who consume it even in this life. The holy Ganga issued only from the feet of Vishnu, whereas these commentaries flowed from the mouth of Siva. The former only drowns the earth and its inhabitants in its floods, while the latter saves men drowning in the flood of Samsara. The sage Vyasa offered to the world a collection of golden beads of Vedic wisdom strung together with his Sutras (meaning 'string' as also 'aphorisms') into a necklace. But scholars could not go in for it, as its Artha (signifying 'value' as also 'meaning') was beyond their capacity. But today these have been brought within their reach through the liberality shown by the Acharya in writing his commentaries on them. The sage Vyasa, too, must be happy to see the necklace of the Sutras made by him on the necks of so many scholars. Wonderful is the benevolence of this great teacher!

>>18718322
>>18718400
are these murals byzantine?

>>18718707

His commentaries are like a garland of jasmine decorating the coiffured tresses of the damsel of Vedas. They are like a fortune, a treasure, come into the possession of the Goddess of Learning. They are the fruits of the long prayers and austerities of sages. They are the manifestation of the indescribable sweetness and sanctifying quality of Vyasa's great work. All Jivas who have taken their last birth will certainly seek them. The great sage's work is like the mighty Mandara mountain in churning the ocean of Vedas and bringing out the nectar of wisdom contained in them, to the great edification of all wise men. By casting around the brilliance of his dialectical thought, they have not only scattered the accumulated darkness of perverse doctrines for travellers trudging along the high ways of spiritual seeking, but also revealed that clear path for all good men to traverse. The doctrine of Brahmavidya that Sankara preached, which confers salvation through the elimination of all duality, reigns victorious over the country-from Rameswaram in the South, where Rama built his bridge dividing the seas, to the northern boundaries marked by the Himlalaya mountains which bowed down with its peaks to Siva at the time of the conquest of the Tripuras; and from the Eastern Mountains where the sun rises, to those of the West where he sets.

>>18718702
>>18718707
>>18718715
> They are like a fortune, a treasure

>>18718702
>>18718707
>>18718715
Extremely cringed.

>>18718702
>>18718707
>>18718715
Extremely based and checked 187187

Guénon and other "gnostics", as your type usually calls them, led more people to christianity than internet zealots like you. Imagine thinking being interested in advaita is "idolatry" lmao.

>>18719939
>hotshit take on Buddhism
>full of 5th grade atheist redditor mistakes and falsehoods
This really serves no one, don't you monists have a teaching against wrong speech?

>>18719939
Christianity is not non-dualism. You've ruined your ability to understand differences by reading too much perennialist bullshit written by disinterested secular moderns for whom all religions are alike

>>18718322
I agree with you that non-dualism is garbage, but I worry that as a mainstream Christian, the conception of God accepted by you and most Abrahamics is not much better. Do you accept or reject divine simplicity about attributes? Cause once you accept divine simplicity it becomes impossible to even say that God exists, or apply any predicate to God, and he is reduced to a pure nothingness of the sort Pseudo-Dionysus might worship, or Paul Tillich. Thus your God and the nondualist God are all the same nothings.

>>18718322
History has still yet to provide any sort of tangible argument, let alone thesis, against monism.

>>18718322
Your words are foolish, your books are corrupt, your teachers are liars. You praise prophets, but the real prophets, your fathers killed them. The Gospel of John, though worked over by liars and blasphemers, tells us enough: The flesh of Christ is not the bread, but the Spirit, and his bllod is not the wine, but it is the Word. I say that unless you take the motes out of your eyes you shall taste death.

>>18720773
>Christianity is not non-dualism
Yes it is.

>>18718322
because Western Christianity has devolved into empty rituals and inane dogmas and fantasy fairy tales, and no one really cares about the truth behind the fairy tales. Whereas Buddhism and Advaita at least have some exemplars who describe the reality of realization that even the Pope is clueless about.

>>18719939
>Guénon

>>18720904

From the icons in the OP, I assume that OP is an Orthodox Christian - and you're right, that mainstream idea you see promoted abotu God is identical to atheism, and so we do not believe in that form of Absolute Divine Simplicity. We call what you have said "Absolute Divine Simplicity". We do believe that God is simple, since God is not composed of parts (since persons are not parts), but the kicker is that the reason we can say this is because we have retained the Essence/Energies distinction, the distinction between what something is, and what something does.

The heterodox Christians believing Absolute Divine Simplicity conflate the attributes/energies of God with the essence of God. The Orthodox Doctrine is that every attribute of God is an energy of God, and these energies are personally experienceable and knowable directly (like the light on Mt. Tabor, or appearing to Moses, not just by analogy from created effects) and that the essence of God is what is unknowable and utterly transcendent.

The unknowability of the essence of God is not a problem for actually getting to personally know God, since persons are experienced according to their energies.

The Orthodox Saint who is most famous for defending the true doctrine of God's essence & energies, and refuting Absolute Divine Simplicity, is St. Gregory Palamas. If you're curious about reading a refutation of the ideas you recognise as wrong from 700 years ago, read his works "The Triads" and "Dialogue between an Orthodox and a Barlaamite". Here's a link to the Triads, I can't seem to find a PDF of the dialogue at the moment.

The Triads: https://www.agape-biblia.org/orthodoxy/Gregory_Palamas_The_Triads_Classics_of_Western_Spirituality.pdf

>>18722696
This is the only good defense of Christianity I've seen. Whenever Catholics start to bloviate about God, I always get the impression that they're talking about a monad, not about the Abrahamic God.

>>18721190
>Your words are foolish

>Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become “fools” so that you may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”; and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.” So then, no more boasting about human leaders! All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God.
(1 Corinthians 3:18-22)

>>18723030

That's because they literally are just talking about a monad. Roman Catholic theology fell to pagan philosophy since Aquinas rejected the theology of the Church Fathers in favour of the theologies of the Greek Aristotle and the Jew Maimonede, and attempting to bolt divine revalation ontop of it.

>>18721026
Everything in our modern understanding is pointing towards some form of qualified nondualism, mystical experiences do too, at this point I don't understand how one can still reject nondualism.

>>18723077

I have literally never seen an explanation of vishishtadvaita that did not ultimately reduce to advaita with relativism bolted on top. None of the vedics I have talked to were competent enough in their own metaphysics to actually explain their metaphysics to me.

>>18723077
>our modern understanding
>I don't understand how one can still reject nondualism
I reject your modern understanding.

>>18723086
I said qualified because there appears to be multiplicity that remains in spite of the unified nature of reality, but I'm not saying advaita is false. Some form of nondualism seems to be true either way.
>>18723113
This is a huge cope. All rational analysis leans heavily towards a nondual understanding of reality. You reject it because it contradicts your faith, then go on to say your faith is the most rational even though you disregard rationality when it doesn't suit you, you are a hypocrite.

>>18723127
>rational analysis
I reject this.
>your faith is the most rational
My faith is above rationality , though not irrational.
>disregard rationality
Yes, because God is prior to rationality. He is not limited by it or subservient to it.

>>18723134
How convenient. As I said, you are a hypocrite.
>rationality is good except when it applies to my religion, then it's bad because my beliefs are above rational scrutiny!
This is why people don't take you seriously and why atheist bugmen are in charge of the new status quo.

@18723139
>you are a hypocrite
What is hypocritical in my post?
>except when it applies to my religion
It is only good when it is applicable by definition. If you can't apply it to a topic, then it's useless for discussing that particular thing. You can't apply rationality to discussing certain things about God because He is prior to rationality.
>why atheist bugmen are in charge of the new status quo
It is because of the rationalistic outlook replacing the supra-rational belief in Christ. Non-dualism is just another form of rationalism, elevating the fallen human mind above all.

>>18723150
Lol, why is belief in Christ supra-rational?

>>18723154
Because you can only come to believe in Christ by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit acts in a way beyond mere rationality. You can use rationality to arrive at Christianity being one of possible truths, but fully believing in Christ and everything He taught isn't possible with a solely rational viewpoint.

>>18723158
>believing in Christ and everything He taught isn't possible with a solely rational viewpoint.
Wtf are you talking about, of course it is? What is irrational (and thus requiring supra-rational understanding) about Christ?

>>18723163
For example, that Christ is the incarnate Logos and not a mere "buddha"-like human (or even part divine) teacher who got to a "secret" truth. You can't understand this merely by a rationalistic study of Christianity, which can easily lead you into believing various false and cringe apocrypha as truth.
> What is irrational
Supra-rationality isn't irrational. It is above rationality or irrationality.

>>18723127

So then if advaita is true, then the nature of God (that everything shares) is subject to maya, and there is no guarantee at all that any degree of "liberation" isn't just yet another layer of maya.

>>18723127
>appears to be multiplicity that remains in spite of the unified nature of reality
Yes, that is because of the mystery of the Holy Trinity and how God (the creator of reality, the One who makes reality real, if you will) is both absolutely One and in some sense multiple.

>>18723150
>@
Act less like a child and maybe I'll humor you.
>>18723177
That would appear to be the case but I'm not an expert on vedic religion, just drawing parallels.
>>18723189
You can apply a Christian viewpoint to this, but it isn't required, and is in fact superfluous and unnecessary because the multiplicity can be understood without the trinity.

>>18723176
In order to need supra-rational understanding, something has to appear irrational to the rational mind. Hence, you are implying that belief in Christ is irrational.

>not a mere "buddha"-like human
Except he was.

>You can't understand this merely by a rationalistic study of Christianity
Except you can.

Let me guess, you haven't read the bible.

>>18723222
>You can apply a Christian viewpoint to this,
That is the bugman modernist trap, where you think there are different pluralist viewpoints you can apply to a default and neutral reality to understand it. There is no real and true understanding of reality without Christianity, since reality itself is deeply connected to Christ.

>>18723228
>There is no real and true understanding of reality without Christianity, since reality itself is deeply connected to Christ.
Pure bloviation.

>>18723227
>Except he was.

>>18723240
hehe you lost

>>18723245
>NOOOO Jesus was a teacher of Advaita!!

>>18723246
>this is what supra-rational understanding looks like

>>18723228
>christianity is true because christianity cannot not be true
I am in awe.

>>18723255
>Why yes, I do am a Buddhist Christian, how could you tell?

>>18723258
>X is true because it being false is a contradiction
This is just one of the definitions of "true". If Christianity is true, then you necessarily have to believe that.

>>18723261
>@zoomer_catechumin
>Nationalist, Traditionalist, Catholic, Groyper

>>18723266
You're saying "Christianity is true because it just is" which is failing to convince me
Your assumption that "Christianity being false is a contradiction" is not based on any evidence except passages from scripture which feeds into this nonsensical loop I'm talking about

>>18723222

The multiplicity in reality must be understood from the Orthodox viewpoint, since only the Orthodox doctrine explicates and distinguishes the three ontological categories - essence, person(hypostasis), and energy.

Essence is what something is, person(hypostasis) is who something is, and energy is what the person does, proper to their nature.

I'm using "who" in the sense of "I am a specific human person", as well as "That onion is a specific onion". Both onions and humans are considered "persons" in Orthodoxy, since personhood is not the same category as essence.

A person with a human essence is capable of rational thought, since rational thought is an energy proper to human essence, but a person with an onion essence is not capable of rational thought, since rational thought is not an energy proper to onion essence.

The distinction between essence and energy, in the vast majority of non-Orthodox worldviews, is collapsed and reduced to the same thing - reducing the worldviews into absurdity, as God becomes unknowable and therefore truth is unknowable (if you are not God, since you have come into existence in time), or all of experience is illusory since it is bound by time, and truth correspondingly becomes unknowable in this case as well (if you are God, since you must be eternal).

>>18723267
Omg! So much this! We should be more OPEN to look for forms of Truths in different religion...

>>18723285
>we shouldn't look for truth but already assume we have it
Why are tradlarpers advocates for anti-intellectualism?

>>18723283
>The multiplicity in reality must be understood from the Orthodox viewpoint
No, the orthodox viewpoint is unnecessary and just makes conjectures which you fail to see because you already believe it's the truth
The multiplicity can be explained in various conflicting ways

>>18723285
How do we tap in to this level of supra-rational understanding, bros? It seems like it's exclusive to zoomers.

>>18723291
>various conflicting ways

>>18723302
>>18723288

>>18723293
So much THIS! Yasss! I hate the exclusive view of Truth as well. I believe in Multiple Truths... We each have our own Truth to believe in... We just cannot know What is True....

>>18718451
This kills the "Christianity is the most rational doctrine!" larper
Now watch the soiposter seethe

>>18723307
Cringe. Christ is King pagan. Frfr tho, Catholicism is fire. Shadilay.

>>18723310
Wow! Just wow! I too believe in a Single Truth being deeply harmful and hateful. What do you say?

>>18723321
>we need to bring back muscular Christianity

>>18718322
>Why are so many young people on this board so obsessed with Buddhism/Advaita non-dualism, Hinduism, Esotericism, Gnosticism, Guenon and other idolatries?
It's not really a lot of people, just a couple of die hard retards.

>/lit/erature on how to fight this impulse in the West and return the young people to a better state for their soul?
Literally every Catholic document you can get your hands on. Papal encyclicals, catechisms, books of theology written by canonized saints and Doctors of the Church, etc. Attend a traditional Latin Mass. Participate humbly and devotedly in real mysticism.

>>18723328
>Participate humbly and devotedly in real mysticism.
But that contradicts the rest of your post :^)

>>18723337
>you told me to do one thing then another, aha i got you now
you can do two things anon, they don't contradict each other

>>18723341
The point is that "real mysticism" is not to be found in Catholicism, which you may know had a tendency to execute its mystics by the way
Orthodoxy is fine but you're not going to find genuine nondual experience in the west anyway

>>18723291

>various conflicting ways

The fact that they all conflict with each other, coming from the same shared family of propositions, is proof enough that none of them are correct. It's vain to refute any one of them - since they all refute each other, with none of them left standing.

Only Orthodoxy remains standing, as the divinely revealed truth.

>>18723346
>coming from the same shared family of propositions
Nope
And they conflict with orthodoxy and refute it. You are extremely biased and fail to see that your religion is just another religion

>>18723343
>genuine nondual experience
sounds kinda cringe to me. can you elaborate?

>>18723353
What is mysticism if not nonduality? What else is there?
There are many mystical traditions but the most incisive into the nature of reality I've seen so far is the practice of rigpa in dzogchen

>>18723343
>The point is that "real mysticism" is not to be found in Catholicism
loooool okay have a nice day hindu larper

>>18723363
You can seethe all you want but it's true. Not a hinduist by the way

>>18723358
>rigpa in dzogchen
did you experience it yourself? what deepths about reality did you personally discover? I'm sorry, but I can't help but think that all non-dualist talk is just intellectual masturbation.

>>18723352

>they conflict with orthodoxy and refute it

A lie conflicting with the truth does not mean that the lie is true.

I've actually demonstrated how the worldviews you've proposed self-refute, in both the deistic and monistic cases, but all you've done is claim that Orthodoxy has been refuted, without demonstrating it.

Is that all you can do, make empty claims? or are you going to back up your claim with actual logical proof?

>>18723389

It literally is intellectual masturbation.

Dzogchen is just "you are already enlightened, do whatever you want, and think about how you are a buddha doing the things you are already doing", plus the regular standard meditation, and if he's doing dzogchen it's likely he's dabbling in tantra, which if he's doing it authetnically will eventually lead to literal masturbation.

Orthodoxy is the only path with legitimate mystical experience, both negative and positive, since you can experience getting attacked by demons(most common, demons are assholes), or of seeing the uncreated light of God (far rarer, but Saints in living memory have been seen floating in the uncreated light).

>>18723030
I mean, the Christian God *is* a monad, and even a henad in some sense depending on the theologian you're reading. I think the problem is when you don't have a sort of counter-balancing doctrine that distinguishes the Christian Monad from the neo-platonist ones, such as the ability to directly experience the monad in some way, how the monad is relatable to human beings to the point that you can even be friends with Him, as really weird that sounds. Catholic Christians do try to underscore direct experience with God in some sense, they won't typically go out and say "yea God can't be experienced by us lol shame" but I suspect that it does reduce to it. At least Thomism does, like with Aquinas' strong emphasis on the beatific vision being an intellectual apprehension that might ultimately be just God being a quasi-formal cause for created minds. But that might be our modernist tacit assumptions (like when a mind 'perceives' something it's creating a copy of the object of thought as a thought from its self) being projected upon ancient or medieval writers that believed that when our minds do think of a form they are directly perceiving that form its self, much like how in direct realism our perception really is perceiving things out there.

>>18723412
>I think the problem is when you don't have a sort of counter-balancing doctrine that distinguishes the Christian Monad from the neo-platonist ones
it's called revealed wisdom, aka scripture

>>18720904
Why say that it's impossible to say that God is some sort of pure-nothingness in St Psd. Dionysius? It becomes possible to say that God exists still, you just need to qualify it by saying that God's existence isn't the same as ours. It's an utterly uncreated existence, an atemporal existence, one that has no becoming in its self. You can apply predicates, just understand that while they are completely true, they aren't 'fundamentally' true. Pic related helps explain what I'm talking about.

I think you're interpreting the utterly unknowability and imperceivability of God as a complete darkness. The better way to understand it is as an absolutely blinding sun that you cannot see directly, but you could feel its warmth upon you and perhaps see indirectly with some construction of yours, but it'd be an image instead of the thing its self. You can directly experience it, you still feel its warmth. You can know its effects, it shines light on your surroundings. But your mind can't quite grasp it, so it has indirect ways of doing its best.

>>18723414
Well, yeah, but I was thinking more in my mind about mysticism in general. Obviously there's that in the Bible, and mystical experiences themselves can be revealed wisdom.

>>18723412

>But that might be our modernist tacit assumptions (like when a mind 'perceives' something it's creating a copy of the object of thought as a thought from its self)

You're actually diagnosing the problem correctly, but the historical order is reversed - our modernist tacit assumptions have their origin in the Roman Catholic scholastic nominalist tradition, which is exemplified in the debate between St Gregory Palamas and the Barlaamite, mentioned in this post >>18722696 which I have now uploaded here https://www.mediafire.com/file/cggvs6grwvhozwx/Palamas%252C_Gregory_-_Dialogue_Between_and_Orthodox_and_a_Barlaamite.pdf/file

This is actually one of the reasons why the Barlaamite that St. Gregory Palamas debated didn't care about the filioque (a heresy about whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from only the Father, or both the Father and the Son), is precisely because he didn't believe that it was possible to have a direct experience of God, since we can only experience created thoughts of God in our own mind, and our thoughts are composite according to our created nature, and the divine nature absolutely simple and uncomposite, then it is meaningless to talk about whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from just the Father or the Father & the Son, since this is not a question that, my metaphysical definition, is possible to know the answer for.

St Gregory Palamas's whole argument in his debate, was that it was in fact possible to have a direct experience of God, not mediated by thought-constructs in our minds, and therefore *personally* verify divine reality about the relation of the persons in the Holy Trinity.

. St Gregory Palamas said that if the West continued to believe Nominalism, and their pagan-monadic belief in God, then the West would degenerate into atheism. Considering the absolute state of the West now, he would be right.

>>18718715
I am literally crying

>>18723397
>when something conflicts with my doctrine, it is a lie
You're the one making empty claims, retard.

>>18723404
You have no understanding of dzogchen nor tantra.
How does your doctrine explain the rainbow body by the way? Go ahead, I'm waiting. I bet the answer will involve "demons" kek

>>18718322
>/lit/erature on how to fight this impulse
Fuck off relicucks, you have no business here

Christianity fails to recognize the apparent fickleness of perceived reality. All non-abrahamic religions have acknowledged the nature of the world and recognized it for what it is, illusory and not ultimately real. Only the abrahamics are lagging behind by clinging to naive cosmology and metaphysics, going through endlessly complex mental gymnastics to justify their position, when the truth has been available all along in its incredible simplicity and beauty.

>>18723472
>illusory and not ultimately real.
I refute it thus.

>>18723480
The eternal cope.

>>18723472
>beauty
>broo.... You are like... GOD! Everything is an ILLUSION!
Truly beautiful.

>>18723472

>Illusion fails to fall for the illusion of the apparent fickleness of perceived illusion. All non-illusion illusions have fallen for the illusion of the illusion of the illusion and fallen for the illusion of what it is, illusory and not ultimately real. Only the illusions are lagging behind by clinging to illusion, going through endless illusion to justify their illusion, when the illusion has been available all along in its illusory illusoriness and illusoriness.

FTFY as if it were possible to believe what you say you believed

>>18723472
Was your realisation of the world being illusory and not ultimately real also illusory and not ultimately real?

>>18723485
See >>18723483
>>18723489
>his only retort is pilpul and word games because he is scared of the truth
It's liberating, not scary. Of course, if you bought into abrahamic fear-mongering tactics, you will see it as satanic and whatnot, but you need to stop falling for the meme.
>>18723491
You're closer to getting it than you realize.

>>18723483
>gets btfo in real time, in four words
>"cope"
you have to be 18 to post here

>>18723500
You made no argument. The illusory nature of sensory experience is a fact at this point, not even conjecture, but I know tradcath larpers like you like to pretend everything that contains the word "science" is satanism and cringe, so you will deny it.

>>18723503
>The illusory nature of sensory experience

>>18723512
I accept your concession.

>>18723503
>not even conjecture
Demonstrate it.

>>18723503
What is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

>>18723530
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_argument
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle#High-level_summary
I have more if you want but you're not going to read either of those two or respond to them honestly so who am I kidding.
>>18723535
>doesn't dismiss christianity
Hypocrite, if you're go the positivism route at least do it properly

>>18723543
>dismiss Christianity for lack of evidence
>but you get to keep your the-universe-is-a-hologram notion
there's tons of evidence for Christianity's claims. where's yours?

>>18723543
yeah I'm gonna say 'cringe' on this one

>>18723555
I accept your concession.
>>18723554
>there's tons of evidence for Christianity's claims.
You mean testimonies from several millennia ago, and your personal interpretation that amounts to "people are willing to die for it, so that means it's true"? Not convinced.
I "get to keep" that notion because it makes sense theoretically and maps on extremely well to reality whenever applied, which is more than I can say for Christianity.

>>18723554
>>18723559
By the way "evidence" for Christianity would be somewhat acceptable if it were the only religion to ever produce so-called miracles, but your tunnel vision makes you brush under the carpet all the other equally valid testimonies of miracles of supernatural phenomena performed in other religions. How interesting.

>>18723559
>I "get to keep" that notion because it makes sense theoretically
lol ok retard

>>18723571
I accept your concession.

>>18723569
>How interesting.
You talk like a fag, and you don't know the first thing about anything. Keep living in hologram world kiddo. You're so simplistic you think God performs miracles only for people who believe in him, as if everyone else in the world is mere chattel not involved in his plan. Read a book.

>>18723581
>ad hominems and seething
I accept your concession.

>>18723586
like whoa
like whoa
like whoa
like whoa

>>18723595
Cool gif

>>18723456
>rainbow body
What is that? Not even joking right now, but it sounds demonic.

>>18723602
A "miracle".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_body

>>18723604
>the dying person starts to shrink until he or she disappears
>Usually fingernails, toenails and hair are left behind
>typically accompanied by the appearance of lights and rainbows
Yep, textbook demonic influence. Demons love to deny the bodily resurrection of Christ, so this makes sense.

>>18723615
Yeah, I got the answer I expected.

is there anything more pretentious, more attention seeking, than a Christianity denier? he does not seek truth, he is satisfied with believing that other people think him wise. despicable. the worst part is he probably thinks the fedora does not fit him. but it does, perfectly.

>>18723663
You're still seething? You can let it go, people don't believe in your religion because it's not convincing, deal with it.

>>18723669
>Christianity is "not convincing"
have you considered this may be due to you being a fool?

>>18723673
>u don't believe in my religion? u dumb lol
Is this the height of Christian rhetoric? lmao

>>18723678
Being -- it's a surprisingly big topic, anon.

>>18723669
>it's not convincing
Why not? Because it is the only religion that goes against deluded paganism in all its forms?

>>18723663
seethe

>>18723686
It's not convincing because what it presents as factual is stupid and can be easily dismissed if you stop being biased and look at your dogma objectively. Also, as seen ITT, the main "argument" for Christianity is that "it's true because according to itself, it's the truth" which is laughable.

>>18723686
>because it is the only religion that goes against religions that disagree with it
Are you sure about that?

>>18723689
>stupid and can be easily dismissed
How though? What is the most "stupid" thing it presents in your view?
>>18723699
Absolutely. Every denial of Christianity is some form of idolatry of paganism.

>>18723701
>he doesn't understand "paganism" only makes sense within the scope of christianity
>he doesn't understand that it can therefore be disregarded by non-christians and doesn't constitute valid criticism

>>18723449
Since I haven't read enough of Aquinas or other scholastics to judge whether their view of God is that close to Barlaam's, I'm going to remain silent. I said that I might be projecting my modernist thinking because it's possible that there's less or different disagreements between Aquinas and Palamas than we might think, 'we' being basically internet apologists lol.

>>18723701
Fresh off twitter, bud?

>>18723703
How so? You can pray to an idol even if you haven't heard about Christ.
>>18723706
I don't use that website, sorry.

>>18723705
>it's possible that there's less or different disagreements
This is ironically more of an internet apologist position, since it assumes that the respective churches were just too stupid to see that their positions are actually the same and not in any severe conflict

>>18723701
>What is the most "stupid" thing it presents in your view?
>"see, a wrathful and jealous personal aspect of the ineffable creator of the earth chose some tribe for some reason to carry his message but the tribe acted like retards so he got mad and this goes on in circles for hundreds of years until he decides to send his son to earth but the tribe doesn't like him so instead of focusing on the tribe the son agrees to give the rest of humanity a chance, but then the tribe kills him but he comes back from the dead later on, we have testimonies of this from a couple dudes who were part of his following 2000 years ago so this means the story is real and undisputable"
>"also if you don't believe the son of the father aspect of the ineffable creator came to earth in the countryside of some roman territory 2000 years ago in order to forgive you for something you didn't commit then depending on the interpretation you'll either be obliterated or will be burned alive for eternity, also if you think any other religion's tenets make more sense than this, then that means you are being tricked by demons and are going to get assfucked in gehenna or whatever"
>"this is all part of the plan by the way and you're not allowed to question it"
This sounds perfectly reasonable to me

>>18723711
Are you this fucking dense? "Paganism" doesn't make sense to non-Christians, just like "icchantika" doesn't make sense to non-Buddhists, the term doesn't apply outside of your religion, nobody who isn't a Christian gives a fuck if you think they're "pagan"

>>18723726
>"Paganism" doesn't make sense to non-Christians
It does. Paganism is just a form of idolatry, which has been seen in every single culture.

>>18723729
No, this is not the definition of paganism. Not that it matters anyway, not everyone who isn't a Christian practices idolatry.

>>18723723
>>"see, a wrathful and jealous personal aspect of the ineffable creator of the earth chose some tribe for some reason to carry his message but the tribe acted like retards so he got mad and this goes on in circles for hundreds of years until he decides to send his son to earth but the tribe doesn't like him so instead of focusing on the tribe the son agrees to give the rest of humanity a chance, but then the tribe kills him but he comes back from the dead later on, we have testimonies of this from a couple dudes who were part of his following 2000 years ago so this means the story is real and undisputable"
>>"also if you don't believe the son of the father aspect of the ineffable creator came to earth in the countryside of some roman territory 2000 years ago in order to forgive you for something you didn't commit then depending on the interpretation you'll either be obliterated or will be burned alive for eternity, also if you think any other religion's tenets make more sense than this, then that means you are being tricked by demons and are going to get assfucked in gehenna or whatever"

>>18723731
Concession accepted, my seething friend

>>18723730
>not everyone who isn't a Christian practices idolatry.
How is that? Even the buddhist bugman worships his mind. He doesn't even need to make sacrifice to a physical idol.

>>18723743
the absolute state

This is the lame, "body and soul" type of dualism. I dont wanna talk about that kind. The "good vs evil" dualism is way better.

>>18723743
>what isn't Jesus is an idol
You are so fucking stupid it pains me. We're going back to >>18723726, "idolatry" in that context makes no sense to anyone else than Christians.
Buddhists don't worship their mind by the way you dumb faggot

>>18723750
>Buddhists don't worship their mind
They do though. They think their mind to be the highest form of being, thereby giving it undue worship. That's not even touching upon the literal idol-worshipping normie-buddhist who gives sacrifice to a created spirit.

>>18723748
>The "good vs evil" dualism is way better.
Also made useless in face of Christ's revelation.

>>18723755
>They do though.
No. Read actual texts and stop openly displaying your ignorance, you have no idea what you are talking about.

>>18723755
>t. Hasn't read the bible

>>18723757
>expecting tradcath larpers to read their own scripture
You're asking for a lot here

>>18723756
>No
So the 4chan buddhist does not believe in non-dualism?

>>18723764
Buddhists are non dualists because they see no difference between subject and object because both are interdependent and thus empty of their own inherent being. The mind isn’t worshipped because the mind they possess is a result of karmic (causal) result and is subject to flux and empty nature. Retard.

>>18723764
Nondualism is not a worship of the mind. Only a few branches of buddhism practice worship in the sense that is commonly understood by abrahamists. Please stop embarrassing yourself, it's obvious you've never read a single buddhist text at all and take all your "knowledge" from what you've been told by fellow tradcaths

Some of these caths are so trad that they returned to the state of a medieval peasant.

>>18723768
>no difference between subject and object
So their mind is seen to be not different from the "monad". Thus they give it undeserving worship.

>>18723770
>it's obvious you've never read a single buddhist text at all
To be frank, I have seen a few Buddhist twitters and blogs in the past.

>>18723776
>what is this, a contradiction to my worldview?
>must be demons
I can't fathom the unsalvageable state of mind required to come to such retarded conclusions

>>18723768
>everything is subject to flux and empty nature.
So epic! So deep! It's like what Jordan Peterson said!

>>18723779
>everything is subject to god's authority and christ is king
So epic! So deep! It's like what @whiteracesavior1997 said!

>>18723717
That's not what I implied at all. I didn't mean to say that the Churches themselves weren't that correct about their differences, although I could see that as a possibility due to the fact that Aquinas, for an instance, can't exactly deny or accept the energies and essence distinction because the Latin analogues operatio, actu, actualitas etc didn't have a sufficient correspondence with energeia. Especially because of the lack of contact with the middle, neo and patristic platonists.

Severe conflict is still very much possible, and personally I have an inkling it's more in the mysticism or the possibility of that. Or theophanic realism, or the multiplicity of divine acts. But I think things get very difficult when trying to, say, compare the patristic conceptual distinction with Aquinas' virtual.

>>18723778
>To be frank, I have seen a few Buddhist twitters and blogs in the past.

>>18723778
They come from twitter where they jerk each other off with likes and retweets all day.

>>18723785
How is that different from tradlarpers jerking off each other all day here? LE BASED LE REDPILLED
Jesus fucking christ

This thread has both dharmists and abrahamics so I'll ask here: what is the simplest and most barebones religious metaphysical system there is? For me if something has endless debates about terminology that isn't even verifiable like >>18723783 then it's worthless and can't be true, so what is the simplest system possible? I believe this is where I will find truth.

>>18723768
>is subject to flux and empty nature
How is this deep or insightful? Isn't it self-defeating?

>>18723755
>Also made useless in face of Christ's revelation
That's why I want threads about it, so I can redpill anons on this :)

>>18723787
At least here you have to read someone calling you a faggot and making fun of you if you want to participate. On twitter they immediately go for the block button. Blocking someone makes them feel like inquisitors executing heretics.

>>18723785
Post your twitter here, my Buddhist brother. I will like your Dharmic repost.

>>18723800
So you admit that it's shameful to have a twitter account?

>>18723790
"Empty" means interdependent, not independently self-existent. It doesn't mean "nonexistent".

>>18723802
I think twitter is a very Multiplistic website. Much like the many faiths which all have Truth in them. So I love it.

I am @theDharmicGamer there.

>>18723777
No buddhist "worships" their mind. Unless you are using "buddhist" as a synonym for fedora, which in the context of non-readers posting on /lit/ about how based christerism is, in which case sure, many atheists have convinced themselves that thinking a specific religion is dumb makes them intellectuals.

>>18723806
what a cope

>>18723788
I'm that anon, why do you say it's unverifiable? I think it's difficult, not quite suited for just a casual deboooter but it's definitely possible. We have the history, we have the doctrine, the issue is in interpreting it correctly.

I also don't know why the most simplest would be better. Truth should be imaged like a deep, vast ocean. It's hard to find the particular piece of truth you need in such a space, but with the right tools you can find it if you put your mind into it. But to answer your question still, perhaps Aristotelian theism?

Why do I need to chant names of weird spirits to reach enlightenment in advaita?
How is that not idolatrous?

>>18723874
>How is that not idolatrous?
Yes, it goes against Christian doctrine. Got any more ground-shattering takes for us?

>>18723777
Buddhists don’t believe in a monad retard

>>18723851
Because you're talking about concepts you can't actually really experience, it's all theoretical conjecturing and debating over concepts. People like Meister Eckhart or Dogen didn't spend their time arguing about theological principles, they experienced the nature of things fully for themselves. Personally I'm not interested in doctrinal debate at all, words probably fail to do justice to the real thing which is why a simple approach is probably best
Simplicity is also better in all aspects of life compared to overcomplicating things, so this would apply to spirituality too.
>Aristotelian theism
I will look into it thanks

>>18723790
Literally read Nagarjuna

>>18723882
But why do I have to pray to a lesser spirit if this is a rational and scientific doctrine?

>>18723900
I'm not intellectual enough. I'm a simple person. Can you distill it in a simple way?

>>18723900
nagarjuna-anon, please. stop. you've been spamming that name here for YEARS. i opened the first page and his first principles were contradictory. he's a moron.

>>18723902
>why do I have to pray to a lesser spirit
You don't, you're purposefully spinning things in a way that back up your initial retarded assumptions. Stop being an insincere faggot and voice your disagreements clearly instead of acting like some dirty jew.

>>18723911
>You don't,
Okay, so meditation and mantras are unnecessary? Should I not try to emulate the people who got enligthened if I want to achieve it myself?

>>18723917
Meditation is necessary. Methods vary, I am not an expert in advaita but it seems to value knowledge and insight over faith and liturgy/worship.

>>18723906
>The Logicians, upon becoming aware very early of Nagarjuna’s thought, brought against his position of emptiness (sunyata) a sharp criticism. Certainly no claim, they insisted, should compel us to give it assent unless it can be known to be true. Now Nagarjuna has told us that emptiness is the lack of a fixed, essential nature which all things exhibit. But if all things are empty of a fixed nature, then that would include, would it not, Nagarjuna’s own claim that all things are empty? For one to say that all things lack a fixed nature would be also to say that no assertion, no thesis like Nagarjuna’s that all things are empty, could claim hold on a fixed reference.
> This, as said above, was Nagarjuna’s first response to the Logicians’ accusation that a philosophy of emptiness is fundamentally incoherent. There is however, Nagarjuna famously asserts, another pettito principii in the Nyaya charge that the thesis “all things are empty and lack a fixed nature” is incoherent. The statement “all things are empty” is actually, Nagarjuna says, not a formal philosophical thesis in the first place! According to the Nyaya rules of viable logical argument, the first step in proving an assertion true is the declared statement of the putative fact as a thesis in the argument (pratijna).
>Now in order for something to qualify as a formal philosophical thesis, a statement must be a fact about a particular object or state of knowable affairs in the world, and it is a matter of doctrine for Nyaya that all particular objects or states of affairs are classifiable into their categories of substances, qualities, and activities. Nagarjuna however does not buy into this set of ontological categories in the first place, and so the Logician is being disingenuous in trying to covertly pull him into the ontological game with this charge that the idea of emptiness is metaphysically unintelligible. The Brahminical Logician is insisting that no person can engage in a philosophical discussion without buying, at least minimally, into a theory of essences and issues surrounding how to categorize essences. It is exactly this very point, Nagarjuna demurs, that is eminently debatable! But since the Logician will not pay Nagarjuna the courtesy of discussion on Nagarjuna’s terms, the Buddhist replies to them on their terms: “If my statement (about emptiness) were a philosophical thesis, then it would indeed be flawed; but I assert no thesis, and so the flaw is not mine.”
https://iep.utm.edu/nagarjun/

>>18723897
Well, "overcomplicating" is already assuming the premise. What about oversimplification? And while I agree that experiental knowledge in religion is better than rational, to have a proper one, to know that you're having a genuine one instead of a false one takes rational doctrinal knowledge. To know how to even get one also requires rational knowledge, and that's already erroneously implying that one should seek spiritual experiences. To know what you're experiencing also should take doctrine.

On a note about Aristotelian theism, there's several ways to interpret Aristotle but I like Dr. Bradshaw's way the best in Aristotle: East & West. It's not a work primarily about Aristotle but devotes a large enough portion to defending his interpretation of it, but he will concede certain logical errors in Aristotle's reasoning. However, his interpretation has the most interesting God instead of the vague mainstream "self-recursive thought" and it's one with a clearer relation to the world. But this relation doesn't include experiental knowldge. In fact, it overemphasizes contemplation as the way to be like the divine Prime Mover. Not what you're seeking probably after all, but it's my best guess. Have you looked into Eastern Orthodox mysticism though? The book includes both neo-platonic and EO mysticism and religious experiental knowledge a bit.

>>18723986
I just think this tendency of constantly nitpicking details about metaphysics is counter productive and doesn't lead anywhere. Everyone agrees genuine mysticism is impossible to describe with human concepts anyway so all the systems that are being debated aren't actually the real thing.
>genuine one instead of a false one
I'm sure the criteria vary depending on the tradition anyway.
>overemphasizes contemplation
I'd rather not spend too much time intellectualizing, I haven't looked at EO, for now I'm looking for a metaphysical system and will look at praxis later though

>>18724012
If those details do have overreaching influence, then they should be solved. Like the 'details' I was talking about, about the virtual distinction. It's a pretty important debate, since it's literally about the nature of our direct (or not) perception of God, and therefore our experience of Him.

>I'm sure the criteria vary depending on the tradition anyway.
It sure does, which is why it's also important to get that out of the way in order to not deceive yourself.

>I'd rather not spend too much time intellectualizing, I haven't looked at EO, for now I'm looking for a metaphysical system and will look at praxis later though

Well, a barebones metaphysics might as well give you barebones praxis. But if you're interested in serious praxis, you should have the serious theory to justify and explain it.

>>18724276
>It sure does
But there's no way to really know which tradition has it right so at that point it's just guesswork.

>>18723874
>Why do I need to chant names of weird spirits to reach enlightenment in advaita?
You dont, the path to enlightenment in Advaita involves renunciation, self-control and the study of scripture under a guru. Mantras, hatha-yoga, visualization practices etc may be taken as meditative aids which may help one train one’s mind or purify one’s intentions etc, but the realization of the Absolute is not produced by mantra-repitition. It’s realized when the teaching imparted by the scriptures is fully and directly grasped.

>>18718322
I guess it's just a natural evolution of Religion. It went from Animism to Polytheism to Monotheism. It seems that Monotheism is giving way to Monism. This seems to have been in the works for centuries and it doesn't seem to be stopping.

I don't see how monotheism could possibly give way to anything other than monism.

>>18724538
What comes after monism?
I believe this is one of the few things some new agers like Steiner got right, there is a definite spiritual evolution of humanity and the fact that some (abrahamic religions) don't want to let go is just a detail in the larger picture that is the overall movement from monotheism to monism or panpsychism.

>>18724556
>What comes after monism?
I don't know. I don't know if there even will be. It's kind of like asking a polytheist to explain monotheism. But even at that, Monism does bear a significant resemblance to animism.

> the fact that some (abrahamic religions) don't want to let go is just a detail in the larger picture that is the overall movement from monotheism to monism or panpsychism.
I agree.

>>18724643
>Monism does bear a significant resemblance to animism.
>it was a loop all along
This prompts a lot of questions regarding the meaning of religion itself and if it can make any reasonable claims to truth in the first place.
Or does it imply that religious "trends" simply correspond to the current level of humanity, spiritually speaking, in its attempt to express something which by essence is impossible to express? Probably, but this would mean animism is not necessarily the next step, were humans to evolve even past monism (and not regress into animism in a kind of cyclic degradation).

>>18724304
That's a hard one, but I think there are certain ways. Such as an appeal to beauty, which tradition is more beautiful and more proper. Checking out internal coherence is another, ideas that lead to absurdities or ideas that contradict each other that cannot be reconciled are also another reason for not accepting that tradition. Perhaps also testimony of saintly people? You could compare the ideal saints of the traditions and try to judge which ones are the most saintly.

>>18724689
No serious religion contradicts itself.

>>18724703
Why not? They probably aren't all perfectly, robustly internally consistent and coherent. The contradictions don't have to be that obvious either, but still there to be found through rigorous reasoning and argumentation.

>>18724716
Because the important religions (Christianity [this includes mystical branches that incorporate neoplatonism and hermeticism], Buddhism, Hinduism) have been debated for thousands of years and by now they've smoothed out inconsistencies.

>>18724684
It's complicated. I do believe that man hasn't changed much in tens of thousands of years if not even before then. I always like to think that deep down inside, we're all just cavemen. We may have running water, comlex language, and access to perhaps the highest form of technology in the universe, but we're still cavemen.

To me, the progress of humanity seems Illusory, almost like man never changed. Obviously we evolved from unicellular organisms and biologically developed but how can that be properly reconciled with any type of religion, from animism, monotheism, and even monism? Were we always as we are? If so, what distinguishes man from animal and even moreso, man from rock?

>>18724779
Reminds me of Princess Mononoke

>>18724792
You didn't understand Princess Mononoke.
It was more about how the natural world, including its spirit (in an animist sense), is irreconcilable with the industrial world.
It was about anything he said... What distinguishes man from animal is that man actively destroys the vitalistism of nature with his abstractions and technology. In this sense, Ludwig Klage's philosophy more closely resembles Princess Mononoke, which is a very good movie.

>>18724930
>was about anything
wasn't about anything*

>>18724930
Yes, I agree there were anti-industrial themes throughout the movie but there still is the underlying absurdity that man is a part of nature. Saying that man is unnatural is absurd.

Princess mononoke didn't portray man as inherently evil. The source of strife was ignorance and confusion. It clouds our perception of reality but if we are to live in harmony with nature, we have to see past it. Man may be one of nature's finest creations. In my opinion what makes man different from other animals is our burden to bear. To be the wisest of all the animals, one must have to capability to be the most ignorant.

>>18724722
Really? I don't think so, for one Buddhism is more nominalist but Christianity is usually essentialist. Those two cannot be in agreement on a fundamental level. If nominalism is somehow incoherent, then that would be shown in Buddhism. If essentialism is bunk, that could be shown in Christian philosophy. What Hermeticism is is already hotly debated whether it's a sort of middle-platonist thing, a pantheist thing or whatever else, can't even begin to talk of inconsistencies there. I know that there is debate between Hindu philosophers and Buddhists, iirc some of it is from Hindus criticizing Buddhism for being too nominalist or skepticist? I'm not even small on far eastern philosophy, but that's my current understanding from speaking to some of its adherents here and there. Why say that the inconsistencies are only now smoothed out? What if it takes a longer time? What if we went full circle somewhere? It's not like the Scotists and Thomists have finished debating with each other, or that Palamites are in full agreement with Latin teachings of divine simplicity.

>>18725262
That's my point, all these different systems (nominalism, essentialism, realism, eternalism, annihlationism, etc etc etc) are in conflict with each other but there's not one of them that's been shown to be more true than the others so far, it's a matter of taste and belief pretty much. I find religious people are reluctant to admit this and most of the time will tell you their beliefs are informed by reason but at the end of the day whether you're a nominalist or essentialist isn't a matter of truth and falsehood but rather of personal preference.

>>18718322

How do any of these excerpts refute non-Dualism? The penultimate one in particular is totally unrelated.

>>18725364
They don't, nondualism cannot be refuted. Jesus taught nondualism by the way

>>18725185
That's the message of the Nausicaa manga, which I didn't like, but Princess Mononoke was showing man had forsaken his link to nature and, thus, is no longer a part of it.
Most people are metaphysical abominations of great evil, which is why a great cleansing and eugenics are needed.

>>18725346
>but there's not one of them that's been shown to be more true than the others so far
What makes you say this? How much of philosophy have you already read and examined in order to say this? Why can't there be in a future a compelling argument for either of them?

>>18725396
Go ahead tell me, which philosophy is right and what makes you say this?
>Why can't there be in a future a compelling argument for either of them?
This shit has been going on for 2500 years, let it go

>>18725262
>>18725346
Nominalism will always be one step ahead of essentialism because the former doesn't believe it knows everything to be exactly as it is while the latter ends up preserving the view of a specific time and place until it totally decays and is replaced by nominalism or a new essentialism.

>>18723040
>For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight

How would one distinguish the wisdom of the world from the wisdom of God? Is this not the very intellectual feat that the excerpt claims to condemn?

I completely cringe when I see someone advocate for idolatry because it's more "intellectual" to them.

>>18725376
Doesn't the very fact that Ashitaka and San saved god or whatever defeat the whole notion of man being forsaken? I thought the two were supposed to represent humanity at it's highest form. If you think man and industry = evil, then you missed the whole point of the movie. There were no bad guys, no one who embodies the essence of evil. If you had watched it to the end, you'd find that even Billy Bob Thorton's character is not evil by nature, just misunderstood and confused.

Tell me this then, who was the Villain of the story? If you ask me, it was just ignorance.

>>18725430
>>Is this not the very intellectual feat that the excerpt claims to condemn?

>Then, seeing that he bade men so urgently withdraw themselves from it, he adds the cause, saying, For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For not only it contributes nothing, but it even hinders. We must then withdraw ourselves from it, as doing harm. Do you mark with what a high hand he carries off the spoils of victory, having proved that so far from profiting us at all, it is even an opponent?

>And he is not content with his own arguments, but he has also adduced testimony again, saying, For it is written, Job 5:13 He takes the wise in their own craftiness. By craftiness, i.e. by their own arms getting the better of them. For seeing that they made use of their wisdom to the doing away of all need of God, by it and no other thing He refuted them, showing that they were specially in need of God. How and by what method? Because having by it become fools, by it, as was meet, they were taken. For they who supposed that they needed not God, were reduced to so great a strait as to appear inferior to fishermen and unlettered persons; and from that time forth to be unable to do without them. Wherefore he says, In their own craftiness He took them. For the saying I will destroy their wisdom, was spoken in regard to its introducing nothing useful; but this, who takes the wise in their own craftiness, with a view of showing the power of God.

>>18725476

This does not answer my question.

>>18725419
I've tried to larp as an essentialist/realist for years but eventually the cognitive dissonance became too much. I love Plato's dialogues but nominalism just makes sense.

>>18725438
>christian is anti-intellectual
color me surprised

>>18725411
That's a pretty blatant dodge that only serves to just repeat what you claim.
> Go ahead tell me, which philosophy is right and what makes you say this?
I can't answer because I don't have a well-thought out worldview yet. I think I can have one if I study well enough though.

>This shit has been going on for 2500 years, let it go
So? That doesn't mean that when people moved on from something it was because they were fully justified in doing so. For an example, you got Eric Perl arguing that Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus etc were mischaracterized and basically we mainly refuted inferior caricactures such as "platonic realm platonism". You got Oderberg trying to demonstrate in modern and modern-ish philosophy a mischaracterization of essentialism/substantialism. You got Bradshaw giving an interpretation of Aristotle that solves some of the aesthetic and metaphysical problems and oddities in Aristotle as opposed to the mainstream views. When Aristotle's works arrived in the west, they read him without much if any contact with Plato, the middle platonists, the neo-platonists, the patristics etc that all developed or critiqued Aristotle in different ways not anticipated in the west. You have linguistic issues also taking part, such as the ambiguity with the Greek word ousia denoting concrete or abstract nouns. You're just doing low-effort skepticism.

>>18725495
>You're just doing low-effort skepticism.
Yeah. Sorry but I can't be bothered spending years autistically figuring out the minute differences between various -isms and trying to figure out which one is slightly truer than the other. Philosophy is cyclical, trends come and go, some things make perfect sense to some people and are utter nonsense to others.

>>18725419
I don't think essentialism had ever essentially (he he) claimed that it could know any or all essences like that. In fact, it's a bit scientific because it does allow for reconsidering essential definitions in light of new empirical, mathematical or even theological knowledge. Maybe there were versions of essentialism like that, but continual improvement shouldn't have to be controversial (even if not always the case like I just argued here >>18725495)

>>18725502
Who said anything about minute differences? Bruh, you brought up the example of essentialism vs nominalism, that's not minute at all. That's not one being slightly more true or different from the other, that's pretty fundamental. If you don't want to do philosophy, fine, but your rhetoric isn't accurately representing philosophy at all.

>>18725511
>continual improvement shouldn't have to be controversial
So the formerly essentialist doctrines become replaced over time, a la ship of theseus, making essentialism into a de facto nominalism? Just saying

>>18725519
>That's not one being slightly more true or different from the other,
No, the minute differences I refered to were what you brought up in your post with various reinterpretations of ancient philosophers and conflicts over what they really meant and whatever. I know nominalism vs essentialism isn't a small problem. Even then we have no answer and the essentialists will tell you they're obviously right and here's why while the nominalists will do the exact same.

>>18725419
This. Realism/Essentialism has been weakening for centuries but we insist on keeping them for whatever reason.

>>18725534
I for one look forward to the dialectic between simulationists and holographists which /lit/ seems to be increasingly tilting toward

>>18725534
>but we insist on keeping them for whatever reason.
>for whatever reason
Need it really be stated, anon?

>>18723788
>what is the simplest and most bare bones religious metaphysical system there is?

Reincarnation, golden rule.
As bare bones as you can get, unless you want to just put the golden rule.

>>18725527
"Replaced" is a strong word, and ship of theseus analogy implies we took out a bunch of parts out of essentialist theories in the past and can continue replacing more until it's all replaced. I'd rather stay on "improved" and "made more precise", because the nature of essentialism still says in so far as we have mind-independent commonalities in reality.
>>18725528
Those weren't minute differences either, and were meant to show that appealing to muh 2000 years just isn't interesting or compelling at all. Neither do essentialists that aren't dunning kruger effected e-apologists will tell you that it's so obviously correct. Philosophers, or at least good ones, commonly admit unfavorable implications or problems that they have yet to solve but will try, because they believe that they are likely on the right path. This kind of characterization makes me think that you haven't really looked into this all that much.

>>18725553
>the dialectic between simulationists and holographists
Seems to me they'd agree on most things. Simulationists would take the place of "physicalists" and holographists the place of "idealists" and you'd have the same kind of debates between them.

>>18725527
Yup. Well actually, more like essentialism tries to integrate nominalism into itself. It's why the west is so concerned with social constructs, race, gender and the like. The world's being driven into an identity crisis as we're constantly trying, and failing, to reconcile them with each other.

>>18725566
>This kind of characterization makes me think that you haven't really looked into this all that much.
I haven't read much modern philosophy, no. Honestly why should I? Reading the Greeks, the pajeets and a few others brought me valuable knowledge but it didn't bring me any answers. In the end people who look at philosophy for answers are doing the reverse of what they should, you should look inside for answers and then read philosophy to refine your point of view and perhaps challenge it. But getting fixated on which interpretation of Plato's doctrine is the right one according to various different scholars won't lead you anywhere, unless it's just your hobby because you enjoy aporetic philosophy and wish to pursue it for itself, which is fine too.

>>18723432
Well since your pic quotes Sider. and I've read Sider's book and agree with him on some important things, I'll just say, if the predicates we use to talk about God are true, just not fundamental, that still implies the existence of fundamental predicates, but they're predicates no less, grammatically-speaking, and corresponding to (Sider's way of putting it) natural or joint-carving or fundamental properties. And that still mutilates God the same way as the so-called non-fundamental predicates would if taken as fundamental. So nothing has been solved.
>>18722696
My personal confusion with the essence/energies distinction is that if knowing the energies is knowing God, then they must be divine, so either we're back to collapsing the distinction, or you've created two gods, one knowable, one unknowable. But if the energies are indeed energies, they ought to be logically dependent (like creations but not created in time) on the essence, and separate from the essence, which makes them seem as much creatures as ourselves. In any case I appreciate that Orthodox people recognize the problem with what you call absolute divine simplicity.

How do nominalists explain math? Or mathematic platonism.

>>18725566
i guess you can say improved but to me it becomes a question of gradation, how much does something get improved before it changes state to another level of performance the old system couldn't even handle?
>>18725578
Right there is something of a constant movement or tension but I do think generally the nominalist has a head start unless he squanders it. For instance suppose advances in communication or the development of a new medium causes a rapid change in attitudes and perspective, usually the essentialists are the ones knocked off balance and have to fight a reactive battle but it may be that the nominalists get equally disrupted and the changes in mass attitude consciousness actually favor dissemination of essentialist views in response to the change, since that represents something more stable than nominalism

if there are an infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 2, where does 2 get it's value?

>>18725757
for>>18725671

>>18725757
I don't understand how this is a response to the realist view that mathematics exists independently of reality as an abstraction yet is not subjectively interpreted

>>18725797
Numbers are not real but are relative to the number 1. The relation to the number 1 is what I called mathematics. So math, or the relation is real but the numbers themselves aren't. 1 becomes 2 whenever we say so. Numbers in actuality are undefined in themselves. Everything is relative to the number 1.

>>18725868
So what does this say about the intrinsic existence of the number 1?

>>18725635
Sorry, I'm not getting the response that there is still a mutilation of God even with the fundamental/non-fundamental distinction. Can you somehow rephrase it?

> My personal confusion with the essence/energies distinction is that if knowing the energies is knowing God, then they must be divine, so either we're back to collapsing the distinction, or you've created two gods, one knowable, one unknowable.

Why either or? Knowing God doesn't mean knowing the essence.

> But if the energies are indeed energies, they ought to be logically dependent (like creations but not created in time) on the essence, and separate from the essence, which makes them seem as much creatures as ourselves.
Well, creatures cannot not be created in time Id think but without going into that, I can easily agree that there's a dependence of the energies on the essence since after all, energies are just broadly defined as the essence making its self manifest to us. I'm just not getting where the separation comes from. What about the analogy of our own subject and our act of running? The act of running isn't totally identical to our own self, but they are also inseparable and the act depends on the subject.

> i guess you can say improved but to me it becomes a question of gradation, how much does something get improved before it changes state to another level of performance the old system couldn't even handle?

A lot if it keeps the essential thesis

>>18726227
my dumbass forgot to click on >>18725704

>>18725671
1+1=2 is possible precisely of nominalism. If 1 and 2 were separate unchanging discrete things that were totally uniform then math wouldn't be possible, you'd just have these discrete things floating around never interacting. Relationships period are a demonstration of nominalism.

>>18725757
>>18726750
t. has not done enough math

First of all, you have to understand two things. First, the numbers are established by a hierarchy of set relations. The Naturals are established by succession, the Integers by making addition induce a group structure, the rationals by making multiplication induce a field over the Integers, and the Reals by introducing the Irrationals by means of Dedekind cuts or a similar process (look it up). Each larger set relies on properties of the first set and some other equipment, usually a function of some kind, in order to be created.
>how does 2 get its value then
2 gets its value by being the successor (in set terms) of 1. The numbers in between 1 and 2 get their value by means of operations on 1, 2 or some other natural number.
>1+1=2 is possible precisely because of nominalism
No, it is possible because of human choice. The statement you have given is eternally true in virtue of the relation it expresses between arbitrarily created objects. You can just as easily express the statement by considering any permutation of the given symbols as its own object, and as long the formalism covers the same content as is given here, the relationship is the same.

Nominalism assumes a total arbitrariness which mathematics does not know. The objects are arbitrary, but the relationships between them never are.

>>18726845
N-nominalistbros...?

>>18726845
>t. was "smart but lazy" in high school
lol

>>18726849
Calculus. Keep in mind, the Realist position is that Calculus is impossible.

>>18726750
>1+1=2 is possible precisely of nominalism.

>>18726845
>No, it is possible because of human choice
so then nominalism lmfao

>>18727029
>>18726849
This is so painful. Calculus depends on five things:

1. The reals
2. arithmetic
3. the absolute value function (or any concept of distance, absolute value is just the simplest one over the reals that I know of)
4. The logical principle that the following two formulas:
>For each A, some B exists
and
>There exists a B such that for all A
are not equivalent.
and
5. The infinite sequence.
That gives you calculus.

>>18727055
It's okay anon, calculus is hard for most Americans. You can stop embarrassing yourself.

>>18725937
The only definite thing that exists is 1. If 1=/= 1 math cannot exist. 1 just is. For there to be nothing there must be a thing and that thing is 1. 1 is the only thing that can exist becaise it just is.

>>18726845
You still haven't addressed the issue. The integers have to be established by those relations. They don't exist in themselves, they depenend on the number 1. Yes, 1 can relate to 1, that is true via a priori so every other number is just a place holder for 1. I'm not denying that that are any relations, only that without the relation, the numbers wouldn't exist in themselves.

It's literally the same premise as Zeno's paradoxes which still haven't been solved. And just as non-dualism has never been refuted in history, neither can this. Why because it just is. Unless you can somehow prove that 2 can exist independent of 1, which by definition doesn't, you simply cannot refute it.

>>18727043
No. The choice is to assemble the arbitrary objects according to formal rules, and the choice of which objects to use to express which relations. You could express the same relations with different symbols or even different underlying objects, but you can find logical equivalence between the ones that all express the same relation.

Mathematics is something you do, like woodworking or a writing. You choose to start doing it and you choose how to approach it, which tools to use, etc. The truths obtained are relations between objects. Choose different objects, get different relations. The relations are true, but their explanatory utility is dependent on the objects chosen. This is not a nominalist position.

>>18727066
No. 1 is the successor of 0, which is precisely that set that contains the empty set and no other elements.
At some point, you need to choose a set of hypotheses that deal with whatever problem you have formulated. Thats another thing that people seem to forget; mathematics is a historical science, in that it is formed in fundamental ways around particular problems that mathematicians want to solve. This rarely has anything to do with the historical state of the world, but math does have an internal history.

Zeno's paradox about Achilles and the tortoise is actually solved by the convergence definition. He has to run an infinite number of distances, but the problem presupposes that those distances are bounded above at a certain point (the finish line). Since both Achilles and the observer can both observe that bound, and the fact that he can run at all, and so the solution is as follows:
>Can Achilles run half of the course?
>Yes
>Is the first half equal to the second half?
>Yes
>So between the halfway point and the finish line there is a finite distance?
>Yes
>So any distances we describe between the halfway point and the finish line MUST ADD to a finite distance?
>Yes
>Even if we describe an infinite number of them?
>Yes
>And since Achilles can run a distance he has run before, does it matter that we can describe that distance with an infinite sequence of ever smaller distances, provided we specify that the sequence converges?
>No I suppose not. But does the sequence really converge?
>Why yes, since we have established a closed interval of its possible values and since the sequence as defined strictly decreases, then we know that the sequence converges, and indeed converges to the finish line

>>18727431
>No. 1 is the successor of 0
Nope. nothing can come from nothing. zero cannot equal one by referring to itself. You cannot say that one is the absence of zero because there is no absence of nothing. nothing doesn't exist by itself, it needs to refer to something.

Obviously yes, Achilles crosses the finish line. We can observe that. But in order for him to cross that finish line,
>Achilles must be running infinitely fast
>Infinity =/= infinity ( why, because infinity is undefined. you cannot say that infinity is equal to infinity)
>The empirical speed of Achilles and length of the course must also be undefined.
This would imply that we assume that the value of a number is known. We clearly have a warped perception of reality. numbers have no inherent bearing on reality and cannot describe it for how it is. I'm not saying Achilles cannot cross the finish line, I'm saying that numbers do not sufficiently describe reality. It just is what it is.

Based.

>>18718322
>bible is right because bible says so
abrahamists are being left in the dust by everyone else and don't even realize how retarded they are; they seethe about other religions while other religions don't even care that they exist
like that mad men meme

>>18728324
succession is not equality. If zero is the set that contains the empty set as its only element, then 1 is the set that contains zero and the empty set as its only element.

What are you talking about? Why are those conditions necessary? I explained above that the convergence definition on the real sequence of distances from Achilles' current position to the finish line is strictly decreasing in a closed interval, and there is a theorem of analysis that says such sequences converge. Thus the elements of the sequence added together are equal to a finite value. Why is this not registering?

>>18729156
*only elements
sorry Im tired

>>18718322
You don't need an “esoteric” example. Read a nice historical description in
https://rentry.co/12theses

>>18723776
If only that were possible.

>>18722696
>the reason we can say this is because we have retained the Essence/Energies distinction
Why are you acting like the Latin Church innovated away from an Eastern theological Palamist development that didn't occur until after the great schism? At the end of the day, you have a poor understanding of Thomism, which is fair, because I have a poor understanding of Palamism - but at the least, I am not falsely characterizing your position as having innovated away an ancient apostolic understanding - which would be easy to substantiate, as there are many ancient fathers speaking about divine simplicity. See St. Irenaeus here, for example:

"He is a simple, uncompounded Being, without diverse members, and altogether like, and equal to himself, since He is wholly understanding, and wholly spirit, and wholly thought, and wholly intelligence, and wholly reason, and wholly hearing, and wholly seeing, and wholly light, and the whole source of all that is good— even as the religious and pious are wont to speak concerning God." (Against Heresies, 2.13.3)

There is literally nothing inconsistent about God being divinely simple, or pure actuality.

>>18729156
Look at it like this. 1-1=0. But 0-0 or 0+0 cannot equal 1. Zero is relative to one. You simply cannot refer zero to any number other than zero. Logically speaking, every number depends on one.

The problem is that the convergent property doesn't actually address the issue at the core. It's still a paradox because there is infinity within a finite space. That's why I said there are an infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 2. 2 only gets it's value when we say it does otherwise, everything is literally infinite and is undefined. The only thing we know is that said object exists. Any sort of measurement or numerical value is relative and has no weight in objectivity.

Doesn't christianity have some nondual mystics like Eckhart who had very similar ideas to some eastern metaphysics

>>18730317
If you take the poetic descriptions of almost any Eastern mystic, and compare them with the same from a Christian mystic, you would be hard pressed to tell which is which.

For example: can you identify which of these is from the East, and which the West? All mentions of God/Ultimate Reality have been replaced with "Brahman".

Hard mode: no Google.

1. "Unknowing is not ignorance or absence of knowledge as ordinarily understood, but rather the realization that no finite knowledge can fully know Brahman, and that therefore He is only truly to be approached by unknowing, or by that which is beyond and above knowledge."

2. "Let nothing disturb you. Let nothing frighten you. Everything passes away except Brahman."

3. "We should blunt our sharp points, and unravel the complications of things; we should temper our brightness, and bring ourselves into agreement with the obscurity of others. How pure and still the Dharma is, as if it would ever so continue! I do not know whose son it is. It might appear to have been before Brahman."

4. "I cannot say that I know Brahman fully, nor can I say that I know him not....Nor do I know that I know him not.”

5. "In order to be united with Brahman, the will must consequently be emptied of and detached from all disordered appetite and satisfaction with respect to every particular thing in which it can rejoice."

6. "The center of Atman is Brahman. When it has reached Brahman with all the capacity of its being and the strength of its operation and inclination, it will have attained its final and deepest center in Brahman, it will know, love, and enjoy Brahman with all its might."

>>18730317
If you take the poetic descriptions of almost any Eastern mystic, and compare them with the same from a Christian mystic, you would be hard pressed to tell which is which.
For example: can you identify which of these is from the East, and which the West? All mentions of God/Ultimate Reality have been replaced with "Brahman".
Hard mode: no Google.

1. "Unknowing is not ignorance or absence of knowledge as ordinarily understood, but rather the realization that no finite knowledge can fully know Brahman, and that therefore He is only truly to be approached by unknowing, or by that which is beyond and above knowledge."

2. "Let nothing disturb you. Let nothing frighten you. Everything passes away except Brahman."

3. "I cannot say that I know Brahman fully, nor can I say that I know him not....Nor do I know that I know him not.”

4. "In order to be united with Brahman, the will must consequently be emptied of and detached from all disordered desire and satisfaction with respect to every particular thing in which it can rejoice."

5. "The center of Atman is Brahman. When it has reached Brahman with all the capacity of its being and the strength of its operation and inclination, it will have attained its final and deepest center in Brahman, it will know, love, and enjoy Brahman with all its might."

>>18730944
>>18730859
Let me venture a guess:
1. West (cloud of unknowing?)
2. East, sounds buddhist
3. West
4. This one eludes me, I'm gonna say West
5. East?

>>18730951
1. Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite
2. St. Teresa of Avila
3. The Upanishads
4. St. John of the Cross
5. St. John of the Cross

>>18731081
Holy fuck you were right. OP btfo

>>18731092
I don't think this experiment BTFOs OP - I think it does the opposite. It shows that many Westerners who idealize and admire Eastern mysticism, do so because of their preconceived mysterious and foreign cultural associations with the East, and not because the metaphysical or philosophical content is actually superior.

>>18731129
OP's point is that nondualism is wrong, though.

>>18730188
>>18729156
>>18728324
>>18727431
>>18727066

>tfw Math major reading this pseudointellectual nonsense

>>18731225
Yes. Now go back to masturbating to abstracts.

>>18731163
When one is in the experience of mystical union, all is one, and thus non-dual. Yet, from a phenomenological perspective, we must recognize a certain duality between the ultimate reality, and the created order, for one is infinitely greater than the other. Thus it must be dual in a certain sense - for the ultimate reality does not just consist of all the totality the material universe (as in pantheism), as any mystic will tell you, for this ultimate reality is more than the totality of materials - and yet ultimate reality transcends even the idea of panentheism, because while divinity "intersects" with all creation (as it is contingent upon ultimate reality to have being - "in Him all things hold together"), creation is not a "part" of the ultimately transcendent divinity.

As Meister Eckhart said: "Theologians may quarrel, but the mystics of the world speak the same language". When you get to a certain point, discussing God is more poetry relating an intuitive truth, than rational dialectic - and I am poor at poetry.

I am not sure if this is making any sense. It is hard to put a mystical reality into words. Personally, while rejecting perennialism, I can say that mystics from almost all religions speak of some aspect of the ultimate reality, and to put labels on it like "non-dual" or "dual" is missing the point, because the ultimate reality that can be named and labelled is not the ultimate reality, besides that one can derive characteristics of it from what it is not. It is not created, it is not finite, it is not material, it is not mindless, it has no potentiality, it is not my soul.

TL;DR non-dualism is wrong and not wrong, God is a paradox, putting a label on ultimate reality will inevitably fail to capture the essence, which is beyond all words.

>>18731225
>pseudointellectual nonsense

If you actually are a math major then
1. you have no excuse for not knowing what succession in the natural numbers is
2. you should know about the convergence definition that Im using to solve Zeno's paradox, its right at the beginning of any analysis course

Go ahead and flex more, I just graduated with a math degree but whatever. The philosophy underlying mathematics is important to think about, because you are going to run across some shit (especially in abstract algebra) where you just ask yourself "What the fuck am I even doing right now?" and if you dont have an answer your motivation is going to be seriously undermined.

Plus, even though that other anon is wrong, he is making a good point in the sense that the concept of thought-singularity, which he is conflating with the number one, does seem to be elemental in some transcendental way. However the number one is just an object like other objects, in fact its just this:

let 0 represent the empty set

then 1 = {0,{0}}, or the set that contains only the empty set and the set that contains only the empty set

>>18731453
I think I understand what you mean. There still remains and an aspect of dualism in a "non-dualist" view. Those terms aren't good at actually describing what actually is. I remember an anon in another thread once say that dualism and non-dualism weren't exactly opposites. He said monism is like describing a coin while dualism is describing the sides of the coin.

>putting a label on ultimate reality will inevitably fail to capture the essence, which is beyond all words.
This is just like Taoism. "The Dao that can be said is not the true Dao." Taoism is both dualist and non-dualist, they hold the Taiji and Taijitu to be correct.

what verses prove that Christianity advocates for Non-Dualism?

>>18731453
>non-dualism is wrong and not wrong

I think a janny is behind all of this posts and anti-guenonian propaganda. I keep reporting this anti-nondualism threads for spam and nothing happens.

>>18732116
what the fuck is wrong with you
stop reporting, the discussion is clearly ongoing

>>18732100
filtered.

>>18732149
Dont just say
>filtered
explain it to him

>>18730944
based and perennialpilled

>>18731694
Yeah, if you try describing any mystical experience, you will soon realize that words cannot explain it, as much as you cannot understand it. If you understood it completely, it couldn't be ultimate reality, and so most attempts to describe it are futile. I think Thomism is the most adequate metaphysical system to work within, but the mystical writings of other systems are useful for poetic and didactic purposes. Siddhartha and Shankara experienced the same thing, but for one, it proved no-atman, and for the other, it proved atman. If you take a given mystics words as irrevocable truth, your metaphysical and epistemological system will be incoherent, unless you have some sort of reason to epistemologically favour one truth-claim over the other. This is what led me to Christianity.

>>18730317
Yeah and they were either outright declared heretics or just barely escaped it(like Eckhart who just happened to die before a formal declaration of heresy could be issued)

If Christianity can be termed non-dual then "non-duality" loses all its meaning and the term becomes absolutely useless. Stop trying to destroy all distinctions, stop trying to smooth out all the edges, and stop trying to pull down all the distinct traditions into your ideal perennial gray mush.
>tl;dr you are ghey
Both Christianity and non-dualism can not be true. Take a leap and become a zealot for either tradition, or perish like a dog. Perennialism is a form of spiritual sissification.

>>18732211
>become a zealot for either tradition

evolatard detected, may Christ bless and save your soul from the traditionalist pan-heresy

>>18732211
>t. has not had a mystical experience
Non-duality is term used by some mystics to describe what they felt from their mystical experiences. There are Christian mystics who say the exact same thing, when describing their mystical experience. Non-duality is true in some sense, and duality is true in some sense - God is non-dual, creation is not a part or extension of the ultimate reality. Thus, dualism and non-dualism are partly true, in different situations.

I am an orthodox Catholic.
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

>>18732211
>become a zealot
lol direction brain faggot

>>18732226
Never read him. But I've read and experienced enough to know that the urge to think "iN a WaY we'Re aLL rIghT! :D:D:D:D:D::D muh roads to the mountaintop!" is pure faggotry.

Shankara would smother you out with his poo stained hands and Jesus would scratch out your eyes with his claw-like hands for nonsense like this.
>imagine seeking wisdom and ending up spending the rest of your life not looking for what distinguishes wisdom from ignorance and with manly perseverance defending the former and fighting the latter but rather desperately trying to find ways to shuck and jive yourself into believing there is no difference

>>18732250
>god is non-dual and *squints* creation is other than god therefore the world is dual which means both are correct :DD:D:D:
I mean this is the sort of mentally retarded stuff you people are forced to say just so you can continue viewing yourself as an enlightened dabbler in everything and nothing.

>>18732100
>>18732158
It happened in one of those problem of evil threads. The monist said that God transcended morality and didn't actually care about suffering or evil. The dualist said good and evil could not coexist without each other. The overarching conclusion was nonetheless the same, that good and evil didn't exist in themselves but together as a whole. That's why the world isn't all-good all the time, because the two are linked as one.

>>18732250

> There are Christian mystics who say the exact same thing, when describing their mystical experience.

Except the mystical experience of Orthodox Christians is specifically of the uncreated light of the Holy Trinity, and if you were actually Orthodox, you would know that having a mystical experience that feels nice or "non-dual" or whatever is not proof that it isn't a demonic experience, especially if that experience is outside of the context of the Orthodox Church.

Do you know what prelest is? Prelest is spiritual delusion, either fooling yourself that you're having spiritual experiences, or falling for the spiritual delusions of demons, when in reality you are not very spiritual at all. It is very easy for demons to counterfeit spiritual experiences if you want to spend your time looking after them, instead of actual repentence. This is a core part of the ascetic tradition of the faith, and accepting non-Orthodox "mystical experiences" as legitimate experiences of God shows that you have zero capacity to discern the boundaries of legitimate and illegitimate spiritual experience.

Read Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future. It covers the topic of charismaticism, "non-dualism", and other demonic spirituale phenomena that are happening today. https://www.mediafire.com/file/jvi937riuy7v0rm/Orthodoxy_and_the_Religion_of_the_Future_by_Hieromonk_Seraphim_Rose_%2528z-lib.org%2529.pdf/file

>>18732498
>a demonic experience
*yawn*
stopped reading

>>18730162
If god is pure actuality whence potentiality? This is basically the question about creation, isn't it? Why and how does God create, how there is something that is not what is? Genuinely asking.

I thought this was the mormon board.

>>18732498
>Rose
i have no respect for this man because he taught the heretical doctrine of tollhouses

>>18732751
That will be /pol/ within the next decade or too. This place can go basically anywhere within months

>>18732773
>or two
I am way too tired, sorry

>>18730162

We do believe in divine simplicity. Everything St Irenaeus said is perfectly Orthodox, and is exactly what St. Gregory Palamas has taught - since everything he has said, has been about the energies/operations of God.

However, the Aristotelean and Maimonedean idea of *Absolute* Divine Simplicity, where the energies/operations are identical to the essence of God, has been clearly refuted by the Church Fathers historically - a clear example is in letter 234 of St. Basil.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202234.htm

"But God, he says, is simple, and whatever attribute of Him you have reckoned as knowable is of His essence. But the absurdities involved in this sophism are innumerable... The operations are various, and the essence simple, but we say that we know our God from His operations, but do not undertake to approach near to His essence. His operations come down to us, but His essence remains beyond our reach."

I think it would be hard to say that the belief God's essence is equal to his attributes is a historical belief of the Church, when the great Cappadocian Doctor, St. Basil the Great, one of the key Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council, says that this is a sophism, and the absurdities of this are innumerable.

Besides, since we are made in the image of God, the principles behind actus purus should naturally affect our understanding of human human nature. This article, though not academic, since its scope is for a more general audience, covers that: https://mindofthefathers.wordpress.com/2021/06/19/the-scholastic-bojack-horseman/

The conclusions of actus purus make God unknowable. You should read the dialogue between St. Gregory Palamas and the Barlaamite, linked earlier in the thread. It's not like St Gregory Palamas wasn't familiar with the territory - he was so proficient at Aristotelean philosophy that the pagans he studied with in his teenage years thought that he was the reincarnation of Aristotle.

Besides, "Palamism" doesn't exist - all he does is repeat what the Church has always believed. As St Aranaius said in his discourses against the Arians, as Christians we name ourselves after Christ, not any teacher, or Bishop. It should be concerning that Thomists call themselves Thomists, and not just Christians, - they are following after the trend of Arians, of naming themselves after the founder of their thought, as a confession that the founder of their thought isn't Christ.

>>18732867
different anon here but where would the Will of God find itself between essence and operation/energies?

>>18732767

Every single Saint that has taught on the soul after death is unanimous on the so-called "Toll-houses". Here is just one example, from St John Maximovitch, a Saint that all Orthodoxy recognises, and who was so holy that he walked through walls to give people holy communion, and healed: https://www.orthodox.net/articles/life-after-death-john-maximovitch.html

If you want the most thorough treatment on this topic, just get this book and read it. Even just the intro, with all the references to scripture, is enough to completely seal the case: https://stanthonysmonastery.org/products/the-departure-of-the-soul

The idea that the toll houses were not a patristic doctrine was the sole invention of Lazar Puhalo, an insane rambler who also denies the accuracy of scripture, believes in evolution, and is pro-LGBT.

I've even read Lazar Puhalo's book, "The Soul, The Body, and Death" where he tries to explain how the toll houses are a "gnostic, heretical" doctrine. There are countless errors, of even the most basic scholarly kind (references to the wrong documents) - but the worst errors are where he misquotes the Fathers and takes them out of context. One key example, is that he quotes a homily of St. John Chrysostom, saying "The souls of the dead do not travel outside of their bodies", but ignores that he was saying this in the context of refuting a pagan myth in his time that the souls of the dead become demons and haunt the living after their die.

The "Departure of the Soul" book also offers an extensive and heavy refutation of Puhalo's writings.

TL;DR, So-called 'tollhouses' are patristic, and the Saints are unanimous on them.

>>18732881

The will of God is an energy of God - since we can, to some degree, know the will of God as He reveals His will to us.

>>18732916
>Every single Saint that has taught on the soul after death is unanimous on the so-called "Toll-houses"
lol

"
“If a man distinguish in himself what is peculiarly human from that which is irrational, and if he be on the watch for a life of greater urbanity for himself, in this present life he will purify himself of any evil contracted, overcoming the irrational by reason. If he has inclined to the irrational pressure of the passions, using for the passions the cooperating hide of things irrational, he may afterward in a quite different manner be very much interested in what is better, when, after his departure out of the body, he gains knowledge of the difference between virtue and vice and finds that he is not able to partake of divinity until he has been purged of the filthy contagion in his soul by the purifying fire” (St. Gregory of Nyssa, Sermon on the Dead)

“That there should be some fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, through a certain purgatorial fire” (St. Augustine, Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Charity 18:69).

>>18733082

You could, at the very least, read this article and see all of the other Saints that have been quoted in support of St John Maximovitch's article. https://www.orthodox.net/articles/life-after-death-john-maximovitch.html

St. Basil The Great (4th century) explains it this way: "Let no one deceive you with empty words; for destruction will come suddenly upon you; it will come like a storm. A grim angel (i.e., a demon) will come to take and drag violently the soul that has been tied to sins; and your soul will turn toward here and will suffer silently, having already been excluded from the organ of mourning (the body). O how you will be troubled at the hour of death for yourself! How you will sigh!"

St. Macarius Of Egypt writes of this: "When you hear that there are rivers of dragons and mouths of lions (cf. Heb 11:33, Ps 22:21) and dark powers under the sky and burning fire (Jer 20:9) that crackles in the members of the body, you must know this: unless you receive the earnest of the Holy Spirit (2 Cor 1:22; 5:5), at the hour when your soul is separated from the body, the evil demons hold fast to your soul and do not suffer you to rise up to heaven."

St. Gregory The Dialogist writes: "One must reflect deeply on how frightful the hour of death will be for us, what terror the soul will then experience, what remembrance of all the evils, what forgetfulness of past happiness, what fear, and what apprehension of the Judge. Then the evil spirits will seek out in the departing soul its deeds; then they will present before its view the sins towards which they had disposed it, so as to draw their accomplice to torment. But why do we speak only of the sinful soul, when they come even to the chosen among the dying and seek out their own in them, if they have succeeded with them? Among men there was only One Who before His suffering fearlessly said: 'Hereafter I talk not much with you: For the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in Me (John 14:30)."

>>18732916
St Mark of Ephesus says literally nothing about the toll houses in his comprehensive document on the Orthodox doctrine of particular judgement prepared for the Council of Ferrara, before they realized it was an attempt to coerce the Church. Furthermore, the whole thrust of Father Seraphim's argument is that the basis of these doctrines, and indeed any doctrine of the Church, is based on theoria-visions given to the saints; no mention of councils, no mention of the decision procedures necessary to maintaining the unity of the Body of Christ, or finding any basis for this in Holy Scripture.
>inb4 if you deny the Saints you deny Christ

The Saints and Holy Fathers are members of the Body of Christ. Individual sanctity by itself does not impart infallibility of doctrine. The Church has literally never worked that way. The great Ecumenical Councils did not receive collective theoria-visions and then make their decisions, they were guided subtly by the Holy Spirit to reach views together.

Take the example of St Maximus the Confessor. When he taught the doctrine of the two wills, it did not immediately and infallibly become Church doctrine. It was not until the Sixth Ecumenical Council that the doctrine became one of the bounds of salvation.

Even if a doctrine is promulgated by a great miracle worker, it does not become imperative until the Body of Christ as a whole comes together to settle the question. Until then, we are free to speculate within the bounds of the Holy Fathers without fearing for our salvation, as far as I have been taught. Holy Tradition is not a perfectly exact plumb line, it is an inverted triangle, with the doctrine becoming more and more exact and refined as the Body processes it collectively.

>>18733114
At the very least, you could not make the false claim that the patristic sources are "unanimous" on the doctrine of tollhouses. It is incredibly contentious, and by no means universal.

>>18718322
i started this 3 day fight and im incredibly proud

>>18733118

>The great Ecumenical Councils did not receive collective theoria-visions and then make their decisions, they were guided subtly by the Holy Spirit to reach views together.

Completely false - it's not an either-or situation, the Holy Spirit both guides the Church subtly, and with theoria-visions.

How was Christ's divinity revealed to the Apostles? Did he convene a council to write up legal documents affirming by conciliar consensus that he was the messiah, or did he perform miracles and reveal to them His uncreated divinity in the light of Mount Tabor, on the way to his crucifixion and resurrection, and ascension?

After St Nicholas was defrocked for punching Arius in the face, why was he immediately re-instated? Because Christ & the Theotokos appeared to the other bishops in a vision, telling them to re-instate St Nicholas.

At the Third Ecumenical Council, why did the Fathers write two confessions - one of monophysitism, the other of dyophysitism, and gave them to the relics of St Euphemia to discern? Because they relied on God, in his Saints, to reveal which of the doctrines was true - and she trampled the monophysite confession underfoot: https://orthochristian.com/116085.html

How did St. Joseph the Hesychast learn that the Old Calendarists were going down the wrong spiritual path, despite the fact that they were fully and completely canonical in their logic about keeping to the old calendar? Direct theoria and vision of God - As recorded his life written by Elder Ephraim of Arizona.

>Take the example of St Maximus the Confessor. When he taught the doctrine of the two wills, it did not immediately and infallibly become Church doctrine. It was not until the Sixth Ecumenical Council that the doctrine became one of the bounds of salvation.

>The truth wasn't true until a council formalised it

So it wasn't infallible Church Doctrine that Christ is the uncreated Son of God until the First Ecumenical Council was convened? Completely absurd legalism. It is eternally true that Christ is the Son of God, whether or not a council is convened to correct an error to the contrary.

There is no reason to call any council to clarify doctrinal truth that is already plainly understood by all believers in the tradition, unless there are heretics leading the faithful away with deviations from Holy Tradition, like in Arianism - then, the explicit council is convened to clarify the dogma, and refute the error.

Before the First Ecumenical Council, Christ being God was the accepted Tradition, and completely infallibly dogmatic. If your argument was true, it would be acceptable to refuse to worship Christ before the first ecumenical council, which is completely insane.

Repent of your doctrinal nominalism.

>>18718715
This is why I think Sanskrit is so cool, because you can import stylistic techniques directly into English (or any other IE language, for that matter), given its analogous grammar. I mean idk if this is a translation or your own work op, but the number of "bahuvrihis" adds to the verisimilitude.

>>18733144

There has never been contention about the toll houses until extremely recently. The Church has always plainly believed that, after death, if the soul still retains passions from living life, then demons have the authority to take hold of the soul, and prevent it from reaching heaven.

Prayers regarding that reality are everywhere throughout the divine services - It is impossible to listen to the divine services and come out of them disbelieving that plain spiritual fact.

Whether you want to call that reality analogically "Toll houses" or not, does not make any difference about whether this is a spiritual reality or not.

>>18723907
actually his principles were neither contradictory nor uncontradictory.

>>18732916
>The idea that the toll houses were not a patristic doctrine
>believes in evolution, and is pro-LGBT
these things always seem to come together for some reason...

>>18733322
You are ignoring the dissent between fathers who believed in a purging fire before entry to heaven, and never spoke of tollhouses, and fathers who believed in tollhouses, and never spoke of a purging fire.

>>18733118
>does not become imperative until the Body of Christ as a whole comes together to settle the question
Sounds like extremely legalistic Roman church stuff.

>>18731453
I was having this argument with a buddhist the other day actually, about "ultimate reality" being differentiated from conventional reality, and that all mystical and religious practice lead to this same "truth", but I thought it was a very "have your cake and eat it too" approach to religious thinking, in that you can both have a sort of mystical, inscrutable "truth" of religion that is verified by independent practices, while also saying that conventional reality which would be used to discuss it is ultimately illusory. I think its lazy, honestly, because it implies your basic assumptions are in the end ineffable, but yet codifies that ineffability in the very "conventionality" of language itself. Which is why I said to him, as your friend I agree, but that can't pass as an actual theological argument.

>>18733566
>verified by independent practices,
How do you know that the 'truth' shared by all these practices is actually what you want to be aiming for? (given the patently demonic nature of such experiences)

>>18733573
I mean exactly that, as well. It's a notion very much attached to its own indescribability.

>>18733341

>reflexive relations are inherently illogical when Nagarjuna wants to argue against essentialism but they're magically allowed when he wants to say that consciousness/awareness can detect or see its own conditionedness/emptiness despite this being a reflexive relation

>Nagarjuna tries to argue (in the MMK) that whatever has extension is divisible, composite, not permanent and not real; this idea of his disagrees with the consensus of other schools that Akasha is ubiquitous and indivisible. When Nagarjuna (later) tries to refute the idea of Akasha his argument presupposes his denial of real things having extension which itself can not be admitted until after he has disproved the thesis that Akasha is extended and indivisible

>>18733585
you know the IEP is not the end all be all, one of my profs wrote an article for it too and I don't fully agree with him. That being said, I don't know much about Nagarjuna outside of it, I'm planning on reading him on my own when my Sanskrit is up to snuff.

>>18733573
This. The buddhist idolator thinks it's a "gotcha" that all these different religions record the same experiences, while to the Christian it is already clear and to be perfectly expected, since they all come from one source throughout the ages.

>>18733566

It is very much a "have your cake and eat it too" approach, these types of belief systems are absolutely predicated on a fundamental contradiction - of having things one way to prove what they want, and having things the opposite way at the same time to prove the opposite things that they want.

>>18733554
>Repent of your doctrinal nominalism
That is a totally unfair accusation to make, and you are not qualified to make it.

First, the issue of the divinity of Christ is literally the center of our faith. It is not comparable to the questions of monophysitism and monothelitism, and I think you know that. The latter two are highly technical questions that simply werent even explored until centuries after our Lord's ascension. I didnt say that the truth isnt true until brought before a council, I said that belief in this particular doctrine is not imperative until brought before a council. Arius was an innovator and clearly wrong, but the debate about the natures and wills was not nearly so clear cut.
That is the entire purpose of calling a council-- to clarify points that are unclear and settle disagreements once and for all. Are we seriously to believe that the monothelite heretics who died before the Sixth Ecumenical Council was called were punished as heretics, when there was no opportunity for the Church to show them the error of their ways and call them to repentance? That would damn the dead of half the Church for decades! As you say, completely insane.

>>18733213
Like I said above, Im distinguishing between whether it is true, and whether it is necessary to salvation. The issues decided by the Councils are clearly necessary to salvation ONCE THEY ARE DECIDED, but to say that they are necessary before that is to damn everyone who never considered the problem in the first place.

>>18733726

>The latter two are highly technical questions that simply werent even explored until centuries after our Lord's ascension. I didnt say that the truth isnt true until brought before a council, I said that belief in this particular doctrine is not imperative until brought before a council.

Who has actually decides which truths are "not imperative before brought before a council"? I have never seen a single Saint cited to back this idea up. I have only seen random academics arbitrarily draw lines between "non-essential technical questions" and "essential centers of the faith". Have the Church Fathers who defended the Orthodox Doctrine against these heresies like monophysitism described them as simply technical questions, or did they defend them as something essential to the faith?

Do you believe that it is valid to seperate communion from someone because of a "technical difference" that has not yet been officially condemned at a council? If no, then you have extreme problems if you want to rely on the testimony of St Maximus the Confessor.

St Maximus refused to enter into communion with any confessor of monothelitism, prior to the conciliar condemnation of monothelitism, because he plainly saw that it was not the same faith that he believed, since it did not have the same center of the faith.

If you believe that something like monothelitism is something "highly technical" and not necessary for salvation prior to an official canonical condemnation, then why is St Maximus the Confessor venerated for seperating communion with confessors of monothelitism, prior to their conciliar condemnation?

>That would damn the dead of half the Church for decades!
>The issues decided by the Councils are clearly necessary to salvation ONCE THEY ARE DECIDED, but to say that they are necessary before that is to damn everyone who never considered the problem in the first place.

Completely dishonest. Lack of explicitly talking about the technicalities of an issue does not equal being in error about a specific issue. The errors

Dyophysitism was always implicitly believed by the pre-Chalcedonian fathers, even if they did not use the exact word "Dyophysitism". How do we know this? All of the Chalcedonian Fathers referred to the prior Fathers as evidence that dyophysitism was already believed by the church! This video covers this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EYte-9BgXA

Why did they already implicitly believe dyophysitism? They lived a properly ascetic, spiritual life in Christ. Correct belief follows from a correct spiritual life, but your entire approach inverts this order - and subjects the accuracy of spiritual life to the refinement of explications of doctrine.

This is exactly why I say that you believe in doctrinal nominalism.

Whether it's "unfair", or whether I'm "qualified"(
You're anonymous, dude. No-one knows who you are, and no-one knows who I am. Just plainly speak the truth) has nothing to do with whether or not what I said is true.

>>18733869
Alright, you know what, I apologize. I am still a beginner in the Church and I still have several questions to work out.

>Correct belief follows from a correct spiritual life

Youre right. I am going to focus on that side instead first, and have faith that all these difficulties will be smoothed out in time.

>>18720773
Protestantism is dualist, but Christianity isn’t. Imagine thinking Christ was sacrificed to appease Satan, or that evil was anything other than the privation of good.

>>18734062

That's all right. We're in an era of completely unprecedented mass delusion - Thank God that he's led you to His Church, through this massive web of lies.

You should for certain read "Russia's Catacomb Saints", there's a bootleg printing on Lulu here: https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/a-turner/russias-catacomb-saints-hardcover/hardcover/product-kgwz88.html?page=1&pageSize=4

and if you don't want to buy the bootleg, there's a blog with the pdf and its chapters as posts, here: https://russiascatacombsaints.blogspot.com/

Fr. Peter Heers has been doing a series of lectures from this book, which are good to listen to, as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXyrRmTdLss

I think it's absolutely required reading to understand the context of the faith in our dark times, since it puts a lot of things in perspective: It shows you what the spiritual life of the confessors of Orthodoxy were like during the Russian Revolution, and how the bishops who suffered persecution handled the subversion of Metropolitan Sergius, when Sergius handing over the rest of the Orthodox Church in Russia over to the Communists for their slaughter.

>>18734127
Dualism and non-dualism does not in this context refer to some simple statement that there is only one god or two.

Fucking retard.

>>18718322
“...we can understand the real meaning of the word Nirvāṇa, to which so many wrong interpretations have been given. This word literally signifies extinction of the breath or of agitation, therefore the state of a being no longer subject to any agitation, ever free from form.

At least in the West, it is a very widespread error to believe that when there is no more form, there is nothing, whereas in reality it is form that is nothing and the formless that is everything. Thus, far from being annihilation, as certain philosophers have contended, Nirvāṇa is on the contrary the plenitude of being.”

Rene Guenon - The Demiurge

>>18735463
>Rene Guenon
Highly cringe.