/lit/ - Literature

You should have started with the Bible.

Seriously. It's underrated. If you started with the greeks and got a platonic notion of virtue and justice you're in for a treat. Kneechee and evola and the rest of the later retards don't hold a candle to the original hebrew scriptures. It's not just an expression of inner psychological processes, that's a 20th century cope. Scripture is literally the foundation of all of western civ and the promise of YHWH is real, and it may be we've interpreted it wrong all along. Not saying talmudic scholars inverting the word are right, but they're not automatically wrong either.

The word comes to the patriarchs.

>>20221960
>literally the foundation
>supports its physical weight
You goddamned retard

>>20221970
>he doesn't know how Being works

>>20221975
>confuses the bible for god himself

>>20221960
lol
I'm glad I never fell for these retarded memes

>>20221960
>You should have started with the Bible.
I did. And now I find myself returning to it.

>If you started with the greeks and got a platonic notion of virtue and justice you're in for a treat.

Next on my list. I am told the greeks are essential, irrespective of neetch shatting a collule stool on socrates

>>20221979
>irrespective of neetch shatting a collule stool on socrates
You are so far behind, you're just at the beginning of wisdom. You still believe socrates can be btfo. He tells you so himself.

>>20221978
Spend a few years getting good.

>>20221977
Are you telling me the bible does not faithfully record the word of YHWH?

>>20221992
>You still believe socrates can be btfo.
I didn't say that. I haven't even read socrates yet

>You are so far behind, you're just at the beginning of wisdom.
ur a nigger how about that

>>20222006
>ur a nigger how about that
ok

>I haven't even read socrates yet
you won't

>>20221944
I just went straight to the Nikayas and became a Buddhist because they won all the debates on this board. When asked by my friends why, "Because I was convinced through sound argument" they all gagged at the expression yet I smiled knowing the separation I welcome. I am letting go of all those Quaker fools.

>Jung
>Nietzsche
>Evola
You're a tool, sorry OP.

>>20222030
You're effective and reliable, OP
>ChUd
You're confident and balanced with the masculine, OP

>>20222026
>became a Buddhist because they won all the debates on this board.
Most pathetic thing I ever read.

>>20222026
>t. read his sacred texts in translation (and poor quality translation at that) and abandoned his own tradition for that of the monkey men of the orient
i would lmao but this is actually quite sad

>>20221992
>faithfully record
Lol, you weasel. You used the word literally incorrectly, and that's that.

>>20222046
>You used the word literally incorrectly, and that's that.
read aristotle

>>20222037
Nope, every single one of these people he listed were coomers and/or degenerates.

>>20222047
>reads aristotle
>turns out, a literal book was literally holding up the physical world literally
holy shit

>>20222026
What moral are you trying to convey here

>>20222030
>>20222050
>Listed writers are bad
Are you going to explain why faggot?

>>20222051
just stop replying, you aren't educated

>>20222038
>>20222040
>His own tradition
That was an enslavement I rejected. An illusion that disgusted me by appealing to feminine emotions and the subjugation of moneyed powers. I now am edified with the bleeding edge business acumen of CHINA and India.
I will learn Pali. I might even forget English. I might even take karate lessons and wear cringe robes. Goodbye, West. Goodbye, East? Hello, world
Print purpose;
"I have found the unbullshitable jobs, get rekt you slowly boiled frog posting Amerigroid"

>>20222059
>I have found the unbullshitable jobs, get rekt you slowly boiled frog posting Amerigroid
kek

>>20222057
I'll rape you

>>20222059
this post is art, congratulations anon

>>20222056
>Jung
Schizo, occultist, adulterer, luciferian, gnostic
>Nietzsche
Coomer, effeminate perpetually angry manchild, atheist
>Evola
Coomer, actually an atheist who hides behind spirituality for muh aristocracy

Read the Saints.

>>20221992
>getting good.
At deluding myself? I'm good thanks

>>20222069
Not sure why I forgot to mention Evola being an occultist and luciferian as well but regardless you get the point.

>>20222069
>>20222078
Stop larping as a fundamentalist christian on an anime forum

>>20222083
Every post here is a LARP. Marxists are LARPers, Fascists are LARPers, what's your point?

>>20222085
Every time I LARP as a racist, I get banned

>>20222059
Underrated

>>20222050
>were coomers and/or degenerates.
And?

>>20222059
You're pathetic because you think you about /lit/ discussions after you close the tab, and you even rate them on merit and trap yourself in your myopic little bubble. You're making a life-altering decision based on how much a certain type of poster appeals to your ego, think about that.

>>20222085
>others people do it so it's fine
You're cancer

>>20222095
I was being rhetorical. "LARP" doesn't mean anything anymore, especially when you use it to defend literal sorcerer men and a weak sickly man who wrote about masculine conquest for cathartic release.

>>20222085
This is what I hate about this board. Even /x/ is more sincere. Everything here is just larpers baiting larpers. The christian shit is the most obnoxious but everyone is guilty of it really

>>20222094
Smile and wave at the anti-aryans, boys

>>20221960
>You should have started with the Bible.
Start with Sumerians and Akkadians.

Adam and Eve discovering sex after eating a fruit? Myth about Inanna (Ishtar), becoming sex goddess via ripping a fruit from the tree of god Enki.
Cain and Abel? Myth about Inanna, preferring a shepherd Dumuzid instead of a farmer.
Song of Songs? Dumuzid-Ishtar love songs.
The Flood? Atrahasis
People made from clay? Atrahasis
Having to labour after leaving Eden? The inversion of Atrahasis motive, where people were created by gods for slave-labor.
Moses being found as a baby in a basket? The Legend of Sargon.
Moses having horns and shining when receiving laws from YHWH? God of laws Suen was also the god of moonlight, while having horns was a mesopotamian attribute of divinity.
etc.

>>20221960
>the promise of YHWH is real
https://ixtheo.de/Record/1575973030/Description#tabnav
>Yhwh is an imperfect hiphil verbal form from the root *√hwy ("to be")
>the Semitic concept of a *√hwy deity, a deity's whose name is formed from this root, began in the East when Enki, the Sumerian god of subterranean waters, acquired the Semitic name Ea. To this day Ea, written e2-a, is conjectured to derive from the Proto-Semitic root *√ḥyy ("to live"),

Enki is real. Bible is a huge plagiarism.

>>20222026
> I just went straight to the Nikayas and became a Buddhist because they won all the debates on this board.
What do you mean? As far as I’ve seen the arguments of Buddhists have been defeated by Guenonfag in debates every single time they argue, he has shown repeatedly how the Buddhist doctrines such as anatta and others are illogical and contradict our experience

>>20222026
>I converted to religion because it won low iq debates in somalian pirate forum
I'm sure you will reach enlightenment.

>>20221944
My religious turn happened years ago without the aid of literature. I just realized people tend to not like the cringy fedora guy who yells at people when they say "god bless you" after someone sneezes.

>>20221944
>>Jung
>>Evola
Complete retard.

>>Discover Jung, learn religion is a symbolic expression
>>Realise reality itself is inherently meaningful
Discover neuroscience, learn you can conjure apophenia out of your ass.

>>Read Evola
i.e. "People like skiing, because katagogic movement downwards, hurr durr, civilization doomed"

>>Read Nietzsche
Obviously, you have not read him well enough.

>>The answer was in front of my eyes all along
The answer is: religion is a biological group selection mechanism. Because retards should not be allowed to think.

>>20221944
Great story friend - I had a very similar experience where at some point I just started reading spiritual texts and saw the genre of religion and then I found Christ.

>>20221944
Yes, except I was never religious to begin. It started with the Book of Job for me.

>>20221960
nice shekels there rabbi

>>20222249
This - it's also strange because Job gives the origin for Satan in the OT but it made me realize a deity was possible.

>>20222231
Would you mind detailing your experience anon? Curious.

>>20222235
Nothing you just wrote has any substance

>>20222241
Elaborate?

>>20222249
>>20222254
Why Job?

>>20221960
You’re right. One of the craziest moments in my life was when I read the Republic, the Socratic Dialogues, Nicomachean Ethics, etc., and came to the sudden realization that I should have started with the Bible.

But what other posters have neglected to mention is that, while the Old Testament may have a distant Mesopotamian heritage that lingers over the horizon, the New Testament represents its utter fulfillment. This is the ancient story of perennial philosophy. Read the Mesopotamians, the Egyptians, the Chinese, and the Hindus for a closer glimpse at its earliest foundations and for closer exposition of hard-to-appreciate nuggets of wisdom. But none do better than the New Testament, since it includes everything and then some as the capstone of perennial philosophy.

>>20222217
Link?

>>20222259
>Nothing you just wrote has any substance
Because when you see THE meaning, you recognise it as such, right? Because clearly, you are exceptional, your beliefs are the correct ones, and you have definitely won the Magical Lottery Ticket.
The universe was created by an intelligent designer specifically for *you* (a furless ape on a moving rock in some shithole corner of some galaxy) to be meaningful.

Oh, wait~
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anosognosia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exformation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derealization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection_illusion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_bias
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misattribution_of_arousal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Wegner#The_illusion_of_conscious_will
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain

>>20222217
T. Guenonfag

>>20222235
>People like skiing, because katagogic movement downwards, hurr durr, civilization doomed
correct: he argues in Meditations on the Peaks that skiing has no value in terms of spiritual realization, unlike mountain climbing
you cannot refute this

>>20222272
Because life is suffering, and Book of Job explores why we carry on and try to do the right thing. I wasn’t a believer, but I was already “primed” intellectually to accept the premise. God is the ground of all things—do the right thing for its sake, we couldn’t have the good things without the bad.

We read it in class in high school, and I was horrified by the indignant reactions of my classmates—most who weren’t that great of people desu. “You didn’t give me enough, so I will not obey! What a horrible God!” No attempt at allegory.

It made me think about where liberal society was heading without God and the modern condition where nobody is born grateful for anything or obligated to anyone. That’s not a rigorous argument for conversion. But that’s what got me going.

>>20222103
>literal sorcerer men
Kino
>a weak sickly man qho wrote about masculine conquest for cathartic release
My son *cough*, listen to me *cough* final words
*cough*
Just
B
Urself
*dies

>>20222315
Interesting thanks for sharing fren. I think many would agree that the evident decline in society on every level is a big part of what provoked personal introspection that lead to later understanding.

>>20222325
kek

>>20222310
Linking fallacies in lieu of an argument is a fallacy. So is using a bunch of snarky adjectives without addressing the claims.

Here’s the facts. God is real. Man is fallen. You have a moral obligation to look for the most likely and complete source of divine revelation that you can find. And I’ll cut to the chase to make it easy for you—it’s the Bible, augmented by compatible spiritual practices of other traditions. This is all self-evident if you think about knowledge, meaning, and existence for even a split second.

I know you’re going to ignore it and come up with some other bullshit cope. Not everybody can be saved. But maybe some onlooker will get it and be helped. That’s good enough for me.

>>20221944
>read Nietzsche
>realise reality itself is inherently meaningful
You didn’t read a single word from him lmao

>>20221944
That is one of the generational experiences of current 20-30 year old men. I went through quite similar path, and I think it has been a good route to take. There are some problems with Jung and Evola, but I personally like them in spite of them.

>>20222315
>You didn’t give me enough, so I will not obey!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_ancient_Roman_religion#do_ut_des

Indeed, just keep doing what the priests tell you to. Your betters clearly know better what is 'right'. Who are you to dare to think?

>>20222310
Why yes, God loves me! How could you tell?

>>20222217
There is no three Jewels of Guenon

>>20222336
>thus spake zarathustra
You can leave now

>>20222336
Sounds light footed and throaty bowel yodel enough

>>20222291
It’s been a constant series of debates for years with dozens upon dozens of threads, you’d have to search some combination of ‘shankara’ ‘Advaita’ ‘refuted’ ‘Buddhism’ ‘regress’ ‘self’ etc in the archives going back years to see all the debates

>>20222354
I dared to think, so I became a Christian. I seriously considered everything else first.

>>20222365
That makes sense. I figured it’d be somewhere along those lines. Why isn’t Advaita Vedanta more popular in India then?

>>20222333
>it’s the Bible, augmented by compatible spiritual practices of other traditions
>>20222137
>>20222144
"augmented" == "plagiarism"? Potatoe, potato?


>Here’s the facts. God is real.
Indeed. Prove to me that *your* God is God, and not some lovecraftian Azathoth

>Man is fallen.
Indeed. Not enough gibbous frenzy around. Azathoth disappointed.

>>20222310
What the fuck are you talking about? I never said I know everything or the truth or anything like that. Your words have no substance because you didn't say anything relevant to the actual works that you criticised. You just called them retards then proceeded to project + seethe kek

>>20222366
the vast majority of atheists don't think, they're the modern equivalents of medieval peasants listening to their pastor, except it's bill gates and obama

>>20222362
> My ego taught me a new pride, I teach it to mankind: no longer bury your head in the sand of heavenly things, but bear it freely instead, an earthly head that creates a meaning for the earth!

> Humans first placed values into things, in order to preserve themselves – they first created meaning for things, a human meaning! That is why they call themselves “human,” that is: the esteemer. Esteeming is creating: hear me, you creators! Esteeming itself is the treasure and jewel of all esteemed things.
Only through esteeming is there value, and without esteeming the nut of existence would be hollow. Hear me, you creators! Change of values – that is the change of creators. Whoever must be a creator always annihilates.

Seriously read a book from him.

>>20222333
>Here’s the facts. God is real. Man is fallen. You have a moral obligation to look for the most likely and complete source of divine revelation that you can find. And I’ll cut to the chase to make it easy for you—it’s the Bible

Trips confirm

>>20222382
Stinky athiest eternally btfo

>>20222366
>I dared to think, so I chose to stick my head in sand and not to think anymore
Great.

>>20222382
>Potatoe, potato?
nigger do you pronounce potato 'po-tah-to' or are you just retarded?

>>20222373
>Why isn’t Advaita Vedanta more popular in India then?
Because it's an elitest doctrine by default, you can only be traditionally initiated into it if you become a renunciate sannyasin monk, which is traditionally considered the dharma/destiny/responsibility of the Brahmins, which are small slice of the population. It tends to dominate among sannyasins and Brahmins though, which was noted by many of the 18th and 19th Europeans who visited India. There are some Advaita naga sadhus who smear their bodies with ash, carry weapons and go around naked, they trace their initiatic lineage to Advaita too and take non-Brahmins but understandably less people want to do this out of the already small pool of people willing to become lifelong celibate monks.

Advaita says that non-sannyasins are supposed to practice karma-yoga instead of the direct path of jnana-yoga which is for monks alone; but there are not a lot of Advaita material/writings aimed at this crowd of people who believe Advaita to be true but who remain non-monks, so naturally in these circumstances people will gravitate towards schools that are orientated towards householders, and which offer the full range of their initiations/teachings to householders. Despite all of this, Advaita temples attract wide crowds to their services and there are still millions of Hindus who are householders and who are not initiated into Advaita, but who are still avid consumers of various modern and neo-Advaita content like Vivekananda, Ramana Maharshi etc.

>>20222336
>read author
>disagree with one of his views
surely unfathomable

>>20221944
christcucks are so cringe

>>20222397
The first quote literally asks the reader to create meaning for the earth instead of the heavens.

The second discusses how valuation itself is something humans do, and value isn't necessarily inherent in objects. But it's not implying life is meaningless you tard, neetch is saying this to encourage the self directed valuing of the right path.

How does either of these refute my statement that neetch's works support the perspective that life is inherently meaningful?

>>20221944
>>>Realise reality itself is inherently meaningful
okay so what is the meaning of reality

>>20222217
a bourgeois atheist completely lost and going thru NPC religions, like roasties go to the supermarkets, will never manage to kill buddhism lol

also logic is jsut mental masturbation in buddhism
and it's anatta contradicts your direct experience, and you have to follow the path to get the supramundane knowledge

>>20222333
>>20222403
Please stop larping, I beg of you. Your posts make me physically cringe

>>20222439
See seagulls, disappearing just before the storm? That's their souls foretelling them to, they can read the signs. Vertical time, man.

>>20222333
>Here’s the facts.
Prove it
Fuck, the level of hubris and self delusion required to make a post like this are worrying. I really hope you're just baiting

>>20222439
lol, lmao

>>20222439
Life. Period.

There is no secret.

Ask yourself, what does "meaning" actually mean to you? What does it mean in your heart?

This desire for "meaning" can be sated from the pure experience of life alone. You don't need anything else.

>>20222449
>>20222456
samefag

>>20221960
Sad little slave of the Demiurge

>>20222469
Seethe harder larper

>>20222438
Creation/reevaluation of values as opposed to inquiry of inherently disposed values/marks that give meaning. Are you retarded or just have never read Nietzsche and is pretending to have? Nietzsche’s emphasis has always been on internal disposition against external influences (this is one of the main critiques of Darwinism he makes). Also check his remarks on nihilism and how it can be a sign of strength.

Again, read a book.

>>20222026
Based. Just look at all those seething replies

>>20222447
>if something contradicts both logic and your immediate experience you just have to accept it anyway and hold out until you received the unproven "special knowledge" which may never arrive and which you just have to have faith that it exists
this is the sort of thinking that cult members use to rationalize staying inside the cult

>>20221944
I never fell into complete nihilism though I was lost for a time. Jung also brought me back to Christ.
>>20221960
>It's not just an expression of inner psychological processes
Jung would agree. It is that of course but not JUST that.

>>20222485
>this is the sort of thinking that cult members use
What about saying "everything is an illusion except God, and I am God," that doesn't sound cult-like?

>Realise reality itself is inherently meaningful

this is literally meaningless.

>>20222468
>Ask yourself, what does "meaning" actually mean to you?
Ask yourself, how can one see the seeing?

>>20221960
>Scripture is literally the foundation of all of western civ
What's the deal with christers taking credit for everything that isn't nailed down? When a normal person steals something they don't brag about it constantly and claim they owned it all along.

>>20222439
>what is the meaning of reality
https://web.archive.org/web/20190704070817/http://www.xenosystems.net/hell-baked

"The logical consequence of Social Darwinism is that everything of value has been built in Hell.
It is only due to a predominance of influences that are not only entirely morally indifferent, but indeed — from a human perspective — indescribably cruel, that nature has been capable of constructive action. Specifically, it is solely by way of the relentless, brutal culling of populations that any complex or adaptive traits have been sieved — with torturous inefficiency — from the chaos of natural existence. All health, beauty, intelligence, and social grace has been teased from a vast butcher’s yard of unbounded carnage, requiring incalculable eons of massacre to draw forth even the subtlest of advantages. This is not only a matter of the bloody grinding mills of selection, either, but also of the innumerable mutational abominations thrown up by the madness of chance, as it pursues its directionless path to some negligible preservable trait, and then — still further — of the unavowable horrors that ‘fitness’ (or sheer survival) itself predominantly entails. We are a minuscule sample of agonized matter, comprising genetic survival monsters, fished from a cosmic ocean of vile mutants, by a pitiless killing machine of infinite appetite. (This is still, perhaps, to put an irresponsibly positive spin on the story, but it should suffice for our purposes here.)
Crucially, any attempt to escape this fatality — or, more realistically, any mere accidental and temporary reprieve from it — leads inexorably to the undoing of its work. Malthusian relaxation is the whole of mercy, and it is the greatest engine of destruction our universe is able to bring about. To the precise extent that we are spared, even for a moment, we degenerate — and this Iron Law applies to every dimension and scale of existence: phylogenetic and ontogenetic, individual, social, and institutional, genomic, cellular, organic, and cultural. There is no machinery extant, or even rigorously imaginable, that can sustain a single iota of attained value outside the forges of Hell.
What is it that Neoreaction — perhaps I should say The Dark Enlightenment — has to offer the world, if all goes optimally (which, of course, it won’t)? Really, the honest answer to this question is: Eternal Hell. It’s not an easy marketing brief. We could perhaps try: But it could be worse (and almost certainly will be)."

>>20222485
ngmi

>>20222510
Going "I made this" with everything is the only thing that allows them to stay relevant and rope people into the cult

>>20222426
You mean the most essential of his views on which all others depend? Surely, unfathomable

Most people are religious no amount of "cope" coming from seething atheists is gonna change that. Your mom probably reads the bible, as does mine.

>>20222476
>Creation/reevaluation of values as opposed to inquiry of inherently disposed values/marks that give meaning.

Encouraging self directed creation of value and an internal disposition doesn't imply nothing has inherent value, kek.

Neetch saw nihilism as a sign of strength because it meant you could bring yourself to face what you saw as truth, and didn't run from it. Again, bizarre to take this as meaning neetch believed life wasn't meaningful and nihilism was correct.

Please continue to cope with ad homs

>>20222523
Most people are superstitious*
ftfy

>>20222523
Neither of my parents have ever read the bible despite both being raised christians
People don't give a flying fuck about religion anymore. You live in a bubble

>>20222404
Christianity is the thinking man’s religion. Remember, the Book of John gives us license to do philosophy. λόγος

>>20222543
Doesn't Paul denounce philosophy as sinful pride? Yahweh never asked you to think, merely to obey

>>20222456
I could say the same about you. If 100% proof could be offered for morality, then it would be inevitably reduced to contracts and moral desserts, and a good universe would be impossible.

Did you ever think about the big picture for even a second? What do you even want?

>>20222538
I'm sure I do and you live glued to your uncles penis, pederast

>>20222553
In many ways, it is. The whole point of philosophy is to find wisdom. Once you’ve found it, then why let it go?

>>20222555
>inevitably reduced to contracts and moral desserts
like the old and new covenants are from the get go?

>>20222382
God is God. He is who He is. What you should be asking is what tradition provides the best and most complete revelation.

>>20222555
>If 100% proof could be offered for morality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic
Morality is heuristic. It need not be true. Just useful enough given *specific* environmental conditions. Tweak the environment, and all this beneficial 'don't think, just do it, motherfucker' toolkit will immediately start shooting you in the leg.

>>20222570
>old covenants
… which we couldn’t follow, even though we knew they were true.

>>20222571
>He is who He is.
>>20222144
Sumerian trickster-god Enki?

>>20222528
Thinking Nietzsche viewed nihilism as correct is just as retarded as thinking Nietzsche viewed life and the world as inherently meaningful. Nihilism as Nietzsche himself says is just a means. Self directed creation means no inherent meaning, holy fucking shit. None is saying that Nietzsche wanted to posit meaninglessness as an inescapable objectivity you dumbfuck, but precisely because there is no objectivity, there is a path away from meaninglessness.

>cited Nietzsche more than four times
>”yer copeing with ad homs”

So here’s more:

>Values and their changes are related to increases in the power of those positing the values. The measure of unbelief, of permitted "freedom of tbe spirit" as an expression of an increase in power. "Nihilism" an ideal of the highest degree of powerfulness of the spirit, the over-richest life-partly destructive, partly ironic.

>nihilism, as the denial of a truthful world, of being, might be a divine way of thinking.

Also, the Genealogy of Morals is literally about how this position of inherence is the condition of the reverting back of the soul, idealism posited.

>>20221944
I was religiously muslim during my youth. As I grow up I increasingly became critical of the religion and just before the turning point I prayed to Allah that he would take my soul before I blaspheme. Eventually I did. Then I read some guys as you did and saw things in a different light ad you did. I try to accept things as they are now but things like praying and thanking god as you do now seems weird to me. I think our understanding of hod are very childish. Why do we need pray to something belittle ourselves prostrate ourselves?
I like this quote from Meister Eckhart:
> The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God's eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love.

>>20222561
Seethe harder

>>20222555
And? Nothing you said is an argument.

>>20222573
Or, to clarify:
Morality is a lie (fiction).
Lies (neglect of real causes) are vital for our existence. You do not double-check whether there is really a predator lurking in the bushes, you just trust your fellow's vocal signals and run for the hills.

>>20222543
>the Book of John gives us license to do philosophy.
>gives us license
That doesn't sound good as you think. Why do you need to find a license for philosophy? It would be one thing to say it doesn't amount to anything, but the need of license is pretty gay.

>>20222626
It's Harrison Bergeron as a religion. Excelling at anything other than self-abasement is sinful

>>20222644
Especially with your parents painfully boisterously setting up obstacles to merit development.
>SON, THE PRIDE OF LIFE THIS THE LORD HATES
>THE LORD HATED ESAU AND LOVED JACOB
>THE LORD HATED THE BEAUTIFUL DANCER AND LOVED THE UGLY AND MEEK
>THE LORD HATED THE STRONG LAD AND LOVED THE WEAK
>OY VEY SON, SHMELIEL DEVOURER OF FORESKINS DEMANDS TRIBUTE! I HAVE A SHOTGUN I HAVE MUH RIGHTS!

>>20222589
>Thinking Nietzsche viewed nihilism as correct is just as retarded as thinking Nietzsche viewed life and the world as inherently meaningful.
Then you shouldn't have used nietzsche's perspective on nihilism to support your argument. I also didn't say nietszche viewed life as inherently meaningful, I said reading his philosophy helped me come to that conclusion.

>None is saying that Nietzsche wanted to posit meaninglessness as an inescapable objectivity
Except you did.

>Creation/reevaluation of values as opposed to inquiry of inherently disposed values/marks that give meaning.

You are presenting the creation of values Nietzsche writes about as an opposite to inherent meaning, implying Nietzsche believes there is no inherent meaning, which is false.

Your whole argument revolves around the idea that nietsche's works somehow contradict life having inherent meaning.

>precisely because there is no objectivity, there is a path away from meaninglessness.

Nietszche never said this and it makes no sense either. He criticised flowery religious beliefs but he never said objectivity doesn't exist.

You may want to stop projecting and actually, perhaps, read one of his books ;)

>>20222496
>What about saying "everything is an illusion except God, and I am God," that doesn't sound cult-like?
No, it's actually liberating

>>20222685
> Then you shouldn't have used nietzsche's perspective on nihilism to support your argument.
You missed completely my argument, you idiot.

> I also didn't say nietszche viewed life as inherently meaningful,
You implied that and after being confronted you did.
> implying Nietzsche believes there is no inherent meaning, which is false.
And you keep insisting on it.

You can’t even agree with yourself, you dumb nigger. No wonder why you miss everything I try to say.

> Except you did.
I didn’t, this is just another cause of your being too dumb to recognize categorical subtleties. I explained how there is a difference between meaninglessness as means and as end (as objectivity which is denied by Nietzsche).

> he never said objectivity doesn't exist
> Conversely, the apparent objective character of things: could it not be merely a difference of degree within the subjective? - that perhaps that which changes slowly presents itself to us as "object- ively" enduring, being, "in-itself" that the objective is only a false concept of a genus and an antithesis within the subjective?

> What is the objective measure of value? Solely the quantum of enhanced and organized power

>win back for the man of knowledge the right to great affects! after self-effacement and the cult of "objectivity" have created a false order of rank in this sphere, too. Error reached its peak when Schopenhauer taught: the only way to the "true," to knowledge, lies precisely in getting free from affects, from will; the intellect liberated from will cannot but see the true, real essence of things.

>facts is precisely what there is not, only interpretations. We cannot establish any fact "in itself": perhaps it is folly to want to do such a thing.

None of the above is only about flowery religious beliefs. The fact that you ignore his criticism of positivism, idealism, etc. is proof you never opened a book of his.

Literally impossible to discuss anything with a dumb retard who wants to discuss things never read.

>>20222590
I can garantee you Meister Eckart prayed and would want you to pray.

>>20222496
"I am god" is about as far from cultlike as you can get

>>20222822
The various god-kings of antiquity would like a word

So we're all larping as Thai Buddhists for the Songkran water fight?

>>20222595
Nah I know I'm right you just choose to be ignorant, and that's fine. Reading wasn't cut out for you, and I guess comprehension wasn't either, to add insult to injury

>christianity is TRUE
i thought religions were about personal belief? this must mean that christianity is not a religion

>>20222851
they can be but I'm sure all religions are true. atheism is a negative rights conception, so it shouldn't garner the same protection as "freedom to" rather than "freedom from"

>>20222851
Sounds like someone needs to read Jan Assmann

>>20222835
Keep crying fag

>>20222851
Correct.

>>20222040
>>t. read his sacred texts in translation (and poor quality translation at that)
As opposed to your sacred texts being only related to you by proxy for 1000 years before the printing press and writing of the bible in common languages? What language do you think the Bible was written in? What language did you read it in?
>>and abandoned his own tradition for that of the monkey men of the orient
Where do you think "your" traditions come from? Either you are a spiritual semite or these traditions are yours only insofar as they have deviated and become unrecognizable to the original teaching

What compels you people to argue against Christians?
Would you argue with heaven's gate faggots? Just let them be

>>20222040
stop pretending that you aren't an autistic larping zoomer with convert zeal

>>20221960
Funny how this single post caused so much seething. Christchads win again

>>20222821
I don’t doubt that. I just wrote the quote to better explain the point I was making within a specific context. For me praying seems to stem from a psychological need rather than theological. I just don’t think it makes sense to have a master servant relationship with God. I find it self degrading.

>>20222949
> I just don’t think it makes sense to have a master servant relationship with God. I find it self degrading.
Islam has tainted your mind. In Christianity, God is love, Jesus calls His disciples friends, language of mystical marriage is used between God and His Church. This is completely different than the master-slave dynamic of Islam.

>>20222914
If you let them be they convert every last gullible or opportunistic person in your society and then compel you to pay lip service to their inane anti-civilizational ramblings until they burn themselves out and get conquered by a stronger people, who will, unfortunately, also pick up the majoritarian religion, but restore some vitality to it

>>20222956
The entirety of the Old Testament would like to have a word with you.

>>20222965
>Assman
Fedorachads I kneel.

>>20222970
Start with the Assmann, egyptologist Jan Assmann

>>20222976
Giddy up!

>>20222956
You just love the master slave dynamic. That is your bias.
>>20222966
Rekt and Phillistined

>>20222934
>Say something retarded
>other posters call out retardation
>s-s-seething

>>20222965
Who cares? Let retards be retards

>>20222994
The dictates of honor require one mount a token defense of an indefensible position

>>20222832
I LARP as an Indian, Assamese, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Bhutanese, Burmese, Sri Lankan, Nepalese, and Batmanese all at the same time. You know what they all have in common? Me paying attention.

As much as Buddhist philosophy makes sense to me, the culture does not

>>20223054
>paying attention
I noticed you were careful not to say Tibetan or Lao.

>>20223100
Are they Chinese or Japanese?

>>20223111
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_CaZ4EAexQ
WHAT OCEAN?

>>20222965
>>20222976
You’re a coward philistine.

>>20223126
larper seethe

>>20223126
They were probably the good guys if our only literary source on them is people who hated Egyptians, Romans, Persians, etc.

>>20222956
And the Apostles would call themselves "slaves of Christ" in their letters.
>>20222949
To degrade yourself, you have to lower something from its proper rank, if you simply restore something to its proper rank from a place of excessive esteem, you are simply observing the objective relations in rank that exist. It becomes obvious when examinging God, who is this ultimate and final being who is so indiscribable and unfathomable in His immensity which trangresses all bounds and in His perfection, His literall all-goodness, and in observing man, who can at once be so divine and so base, that it is only through capitulation to this uncreated perfection that man can ever hope to achieve anything higher. That is the essence of humility. I do not see how you can hold such high esteem for humanity, at least in comparison with the Creator.

>>20222315
So you twisted your slave morality into a virtue because it made you feel a sense of superiority to other retards who saw through the slave morality sham? You're the worst kind of contrarian dipshit. No wonder you're here.

>>20223163
>I do not see how you can hold such high esteem for humanity, at least in comparison with the Creator.
This is just nihilism with extra steps, because the thing you are valuing is a negation of all that actually is

>>20223174
More like the Book of Jabroni

>>20222108
/x/ may be more sincere in their retardation yes
At least /lit/ pretend to be smart

>>20222397
>Nietzsche's worldview and philosophy is contingent and non contradictory
He contradicts himself all the time retard, stop thinking you have him figured out. Gay science and Zarathustra are highly spiritual works

>>20223211
>At least /lit/ pretend to be smart
That's not a good thing

>>20221944
Read Moby Dick, OP

"And once gone through, we trace the round...."

>>20221944
>pray every morning thanking god
Why? For what?

>>20221944
I wasn't raised religious but I rejected atheism after the teenage edgelord phase and got into things like Jung and Evola and eastern beliefs but ultimately ended up at Orthodoxy

>>20222511
The first half is spot on.
>there is no machinery extant...
From here onward you get into some dogmatic bs. The history of the species up until this point doesn't mean we are incapable of pivoting. Especially when the potential to literally fabricate an entirely different reality completely detatched from the origin reality is within our grasp. Who are you to decide what is or isn't meaningful based on its connection to the law of nature? I am a hopeless case, because I have been born into the system, but that doesn't mean we lack the possibility of subjecting future humans to an illusion where different laws rule.

Imagine a reality where your physical characteristics were tied to your actions. If you sang more, your voice became more beautiful to others. If you exercised your body became more beautiful to others. Every action you took would have a physical manifestation on your body. However, since this is an illusion, what you see is not the Other's real body. While you might have red hair because the sum total of your actions has made you desirable to an Other who desires blonde hair you appear as blonde to them. When they describe your blonde hair you hear it as red. What power would nature have over such a reality where everything is an illusion?

>>20223277
>Imagine a reality where your physical characteristics were tied to your actions.
Based and Avatamsaka pilled

>>20222026
Not a Buddhist but I love this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLbSlC0Pucw

>>20223225
Where did I imply he’s free of any contradiction? What do you even mean by “spiritual” lmao, he uses the term Geist on many occasions, but do you know what he wants to convey with it? So here you are pressing on your own projected quibbles, ignoring the retard who claimed Nietzsche was for inherent meaning in life/world, for objectivity/positivism. This place worsens every day.

>>20223301
Not a Buddhist but I love this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3l7fgvrEKM

Just ask God, if He is real, to guide you into the truth - and, in case you are subconsciously afraid or resistant to that truth (whatever it may be), ask Him, if He is real, to purify your intentions, open your mind, and give you courage. Then, go on a hero's journey.

It really isn't so difficult, as long as you are honest with yourself. If you are dishonest to yourself, just keep asking God, if He is real, to form you into a version of yourself who is open to His guidance.

>>20223099
it's a dick with a cape

>>20222235
>Discover neuroscience, learn you can conjure apophenia out of your ass.
> What is psychologism?
Admittedly Jung, Evola and Nietzsche are morons, you got that right.

>>20222083
Wise words. A lot of people need to hear this, desu.
>>20222069
Pretty sure Nietzsche advocated for nofap before it was a thing so idk if calling him a coomer is accurate. All the claims you made are questionable, desu. I doubt you have read Jung, Nietzsche, or Evola. I doubt you’ve read anything by these “Saints” either, desu.

>>20222602
The argument is that asking for proof, or at least the level of proof that you want, robs the morality out of morality. You do what’s good for it’s own sake, not because of the rewards you get. A moral universe *would* tend towards rationally-discernible rewards, sure. But these would be probabilistic, never certain, and would ultimately boil down to what kind of life you want to live with the one life (that you know of) you have.

>>20223477
>Pretty sure Nietzsche advocated for nofap before it was a thing so idk if calling him a coomer is accurate.
There's a difference between advocating nofap as a lifestyle and not being able to get it hard because of your weak constitution. Nietzsche was so sickly, any change to his daily diet or routine could send him back to bed for the day.

>>20223426
>do this
>nothing happens because it's bullshit
>"n-no you didn't do it right"

>>20221944
People in this thread who are coming from esoteric stuff like Jung or Evola but who aren’t Christian yet might enjoy Tomberg’s Meditations on the Tarot. He also talks about Guenon, letter on the Wheel of Fortune deals with Nietzche, letter on the Hermit touches on Buddhism. The whole book is pretty weighty but each letter is self contained and there are pdfs out there so it’s “free to try.” Gives you good eyes for rereading lots of the Bible too. Hope you all make it.

>>20222217
>Buddhists have been defeated by Guenonfag in debates every single time they argue

not really, most debates end up with guenonfag falling into blind dogmatism, and not adressing the fundamental points the buddhist make, not to meniton the huge logical problems advaita has, like the problem of maya(a lot of advaita practicioners also think this is a problem on their doctrine),which he always answer with "because god wants it that way" or the problem of how a thing can be and not be at the same time(brahman), which break the law of non contradiction, also he never could prove the existence of god or pure awarness which is the main point of the anatta doctrine, his answer is that you just have to use it as an axiom, which maybe work for advaita but not for the more empirical epistemology of buddhadhamma,also the probem of how shankara changes his critic of the theory of moment mid argument is never addressed on his arguments on shankara
he just repeat guenon arguments against buddhism without reasiign all of them where refufet centuries ago, any true schoolar of asian studies can tell you that

>>20223163
It is not about humility. What is the point of creating something that is inferior to you? Children must surpass their parents.

>>20223301
20 minutes in and the physicist is such an insufferable smug faggot. I hope the Buddhist has more interesting things to say

>>20223271
This is exactly my route except I stopped short of orthodoxy because I began dating a trad cath woman. I intend to get her to check out orthodoxy someday but her family is very Catholic so there will be some resistance. Not sure if I have the will or the right to steer that beehive too. They’ve been Catholics for generations while I’ve been atheistposting and then guenonposting until very recently.

>>20222310
based

anyone else experience all of these? (at one point or another)
made religion too difficult to believe

>>20223751
>What pussy does to mf

>>20221944
Nietzche is fantastic, reading HATH right now.
>evola
Yeah I'm not reading this meme shit. Nice try though.

>>20222310
You wouldn’t refrain from giving people instruction manuals for how to think and live if you could, would you? faggot.

>>20223731
How can you surpass perfection? All Good flows from Him, being diluted along the way. Mankind's destiny, however, is to return to his original primitive state of excellence and to unite with God.
You'll have to ask God why He did what He did, but what matters is how things are now, which is that we are infinitetly inferior, so why not pray?

>>20223780
try living with mental illness or brain damage, then accept religious beliefs shoved down your throat lol

>>20223786
Why should anyone be content with being called inferior to your delusions and you demanding they grovel? Your posts expose the servile origins of your cult and its revolt against nobility

>>20223539
>noo he had migraines
Who cares. Go away with your ad hom. The man was a genius and his peers, and mentors all recognized him. He was very distinguished before he ever started taking philosophy seriously too.

>>20223805
Such LARP

>>20223862
>you are infinitely inferior to my volcano
>s-stop larping!
>he'll smite you i swear

>>20222510
Oh they take credit for what’s been nailed down too

>>20223982
They start worshiping—err, 'venerating'—the nails too.

>>20222282
>But what other posters have neglected to mention is that, while the Old Testament may have a distant Mesopotamian heritage that lingers over the horizon, the New Testament represents its utter fulfillment.

Not really, considering the ethics of the New Testament is the rehashed thoughts of rabbi Hillel, which is itself a rehashed version of the code of Hammurabi

>>20222956
In Christianity, God is love, Jesus calls His disciples friends, language of mystical marriage is used between God and His Church.

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay

>>20222137
>Moses having horns and shining when receiving laws from YHWH? God of laws Suen was also the god of moonlight, while having horns was a mesopotamian attribute of divinity.
that's a mistranslation of hebrew by Saint Jerome, who wrote the Vulgate.

you were doing so well until you discredited all of your examples

>>20222739
>Then you shouldn't have used nietzsche's perspective on nihilism to support your argument.
>You missed completely my argument, you idiot.
>> I also didn't say nietszche viewed life as inherently meaningful,
>You implied that and after being confronted you did.
>> implying Nietzsche believes there is no inherent meaning, which is false.
>And you keep insisting on it.
>You can’t even agree with yourself, you dumb nigger. No wonder why you miss everything I try to say.
>> Except you did.
>I didn’t, this is just another cause of your being too dumb to recognize categorical subtleties.

Useless word salad without any actual substance

> Conversely, the apparent objective character of things: could it not be merely a difference of degree within the subjective? - that perhaps that which changes slowly presents itself to us as "object- ively" enduring, being, "in-itself" that the objective is only a false concept of a genus and an antithesis within the subjective?
> What is the objective measure of value? Solely the quantum of enhanced and organized power
>win back for the man of knowledge the right to great affects! after self-effacement and the cult of "objectivity" have created a false order of rank in this sphere, too. Error reached its peak when Schopenhauer taught: the only way to the "true," to knowledge, lies precisely in getting free from affects, from will; the intellect liberated from will cannot but see the true, real essence of things.
>facts is precisely what there is not, only interpretations. We cannot establish any fact "in itself": perhaps it is folly to want to do such a thing.

Everything here is correct and I agree with it. Objectivity as a concept attracts a certain cultish following that worships an objectivity that is really just their own subjectivity. There are only "interpretations". But, this is a recognition of human limitation, not a statement that objectivity doesn't exist. Neitzsche obviously beleives interpretations have an objective order of rank, with some more valuable than others. Thus spake zarathusta literally revolves around zarathustra teaching the values of the superman.

But this is besides the point. You have still not provided a compelling argument that Nietzsche's works collectively oppose the concept that life has any inherent value. Thus far your argument consists of stating Nietzsche's self directed creation of value, discourse on nihilism and criticism of objective reason somehow implies he thinks life has zero inherent meaning. This is a brainlet take that you could only come to if you read those quotes in isolation from his whole works.

>pic related

>>20222333
triple double!

>>20221960
The Bible is really good literature but I find it heavily lacking as an independent source on the search for knowledge, nor do I accept many of its religious claims. Lots of great stuff in there, though.

>>20222511
>Hell
One could argue that this is heaven just as well. While objectively right about the mechanisms of life, this excerpt puts an emotional and poetically dogmatic spin on it. Unironically you just have to learn to love it.

>>20223720
ESLanon, you’ve already exposed yourself multiple times as a dishonest liar who makes up random bullshit about people you dont like. The latest time you did this was in the Guenon thread today where you wrongly claimed, with the same retarded way of misspelling words, that he wasnt initiated when he wrote his books and that this shows when in fact he had been initiated into both Sufism and Taoism before he published his first book. Everything you just wrote about Advaita is made-up bullshit as well. I have called you out for lying before and will keep doing so.

> not really, most debates end up with guenonfag falling into blind dogmatism,
This is proven wrong by the threads themselves, a common issue is how the Buddhist model of mind cant account for the unity of the conscious subject, and it sometimes leads to a retarded
infinite regress (like with nagarjuna)
>not to meniton the huge logical problems advaita has
There are none
>like the problem of maya(a lot of advaita practicioners also think this is a problem on their doctrine)
Its not a problem to begin with and traditional Advaitins dont say its a problem, thats another lie
>which he always answer with "because god wants it that way"
No, Brahman has no wants, it just has a nature that exists in a certain way, just like Buddhists cant explain why samsara or sunyata exists in the way that they do
>or the problem of how a thing can be and not be at the same time(brahman), which break the law of non contradiction,
Another lie, Brahman doesnt “be and not be at the same time”, thats bullshit that you made up. Brahman is pure absolute transcendental existence alone and not “also non-being” which is nonsense.
>also he never could prove the existence of god or pure awareness
He doesnt have to for his philosophy to be consistent, because the complete realization of it is the same as the realization and attainment of the Absolute, and Buddhists dont provide any proof that their Absolute of Nirvana exist either.
>which is the main point of the anatta doctrine
Wrong, anatta means “not-self”, its meant to tell you to not identify with the body or mind but buddhist nihilists misunderstood it as denying the existence of an Atman which Buddha never actually does.
>maybe work for advaita but not for the more empirical epistemology of buddhadhamma
Buddhism requires you to accept plenty of axioms and dogmas
>also the probem of how shankara changes his critic of the theory of moment mid argument
He doesnt do this, thats another lie you made up
>all of them where refufet centuries ago, any true schoolar of asian studies can tell you
No Buddhist thinker ever composed a reply to Shankara’s arguments because they were unable to do so, he decisively btfos them, some of the same problems with the standard Madhyamaka position on consciousness were noted by Buddhists themselves like Shantaraksita, Mipham etc who note how the denial of reflexivity leads to an infinite regress.

>>20223731
>he has never heard of regression to the mean
not even going to pass statistics 101, let alone the pearly gates

>>20225156
I just want to state that the three Jewels IRL over rule the value of an epic win on the chans, pleasant and enlightening as it may be.
No matter how a particular buddhist performs in a thread, there is something inherently dishonest about Guenon's Islam and personal life that makes him an improper religious figure. Buddha and Buddhism gives a tangible refuge, resource, and community.

guenonfag is still doing this? damn that's sad, what a petty person

>>20225264
> there is something inherently dishonest about Guenon's Islam and personal life that makes him an improper religious figure.
Why? Because he practiced Sufism as a Muslim? Thats not dishonest since he openly wrote about how he though different esoteric traditions were different ways of approaching the same spiritual summit.
> Buddha and Buddhism gives a tangible refuge, resource, and community.
So do almost all religions, Buddhism is
not special in this regard

>>20221944
>read Evola
>still be Christian
I think you missed the point of Evola.

>>20225292
>Because he practiced Sufism as a Muslim?
Because he did not adhere to the exoteric demands of Islam which require faith in the real historical person of Muhammad as the unique prophet of Allah

>>20225156
This thread is now blessed by Jamgön Ju Mipham Gyatso. Understanding that Consciousness and Emptiness are non-dual will rise from the ocean of nectar like a white lotus, but only if you post "/lit/ forced guenonfag to read a book" in this thread

>>20225351
did he really read one? sharma doesn't count.

>>20222231
do you really think the only two options are christfag and obnoxious 16 year old atheist?

>>20225347
>Because he did not adhere to the exoteric demands of Islam which require faith in the real historical person of Muhammad as the unique prophet of Allah
??? He did believe that Muhammad was a prophet of God, he also believed that God had sent previous revelations to humankind, which is stated in the Quran when it says 'We sent a messenger to every community, saying, ‘Worship God and shun false gods. Among them were some God guided; misguidance took hold of others. So travel through the earth and see what was the fate of those who denied the truth.' - Surah An-Nahl (16:36). Guenon writes about in his books about how Hinduism was the oldest and most primordial revelation from God, and that Islam is the last revelation from God during this stage of cyclical time.

The Hanafi and Maliki madhhabs have recognized Hindus as dhimmis before which is implicitly acknowledging that they can enter into Paradise, there is a history in Islamic theology of holding that dhimmis or people of the book can enter into paradise if God sees that they are righteous.

>>20225354
At some point after arguing with Buddhists here who mentioned them he added Shantarakshita and Mipham to his roster of copypasta responses. Mipham is a 19th century Tibetan scholastic and has a commentary on on Shantarakshita's presentation of a Yogacara-Madhyamaka synthesis in which he briefly mentions the beliefs of Advaita Vedanta and argues against them. Guenonfag thinks Mipham is wrong of course, but is now no longer able to say Buddhists never responded to AV.

>>20225365
>Guenon writes about in his books about how Hinduism was the oldest and most primordial revelation from God, and that Islam is the last revelation from God during this stage of cyclical time.
That's just his own theosophistesque bullshit

>>20225323
I read him but I really only though his negative view of existentialism was of any worth and I still consider myself somewhat of a Christian. I dunno where that lands me. maybe I'm a unwitting Neoplatonist. who knows.

>>20225371
>Mipham is a 19th century Tibetan scholastic and has a commentary on on Shantarakshita's presentation of a Yogacara-Madhyamaka synthesis in which he briefly mentions the beliefs of Advaita Vedanta and argues against them. Guenonfag thinks Mipham is wrong of course,
Yes, because he makes the exact same mistake as Shankaraksita and wrongly attributes sahopalmba-niyama to Advaita which Advaita actually rejects, which undermines his and Shantaraksita's whole argument. This is an article published in a Buddhist scholarly journal documenting Shantaraksita's mistake and how it undermines his argument, the exact same extends to Mipham

https://digitalcommons.linfield.edu/iijbs/vol21/iss1/3/?fr=operanews

>but is now no longer able to say Buddhists never responded to AV.
Except I can because that's literally what happened, neither Shantaraksita nor Mipham nor anyone else ever actually addressed or replied to Shankara's arguments, which is departing from the previous Buddhist standard where they would actually quote the exact lines and arguments of figures like Kumarila Bhatta and Nyayikas and reply to them in detail in a way that acknowledged their actual arguments. When you don't actually acknowledge and respond to someone's arguments and instead attack some strawman version of their doctrine, that counts as "not responding to Shankara's/Advaita's arguments"

>>20225351
>/lit/ forced guenonfag to read a book

>>20225365
Imagine the strange looks a bunch of Arabs are going to give that a Vedanta scholar polemic author is nearby. Islam is basically QURAN. DONE AND NONE ELSE. OBEY. Openness to experience is not that receptive in the Muslim world, I doubt Guenon is a household name in MENA countries. Guenon is the most extra hipster shit to ever bubble up in print. The weirdest shit about this is the dissimulated disbelief. It's like the ignorant disbelief of male gynecologists. YOU'RE BEYOND A PUZZLING SENSATIONAL BOUNDARY, MR CREDENTIAL. As if Islam is tone deaf to tribal instinct. Muslims often berate whites that Mohammad is better than Jesus and insult Jesus because it is overlooked that Jesus is a prophet of Islam. The exoteric reality is a huge deal. We're not grading papers here, we're living where we eat.

I use Guenon as a personal litmus to how one can study so much and live among others. It's such a huge deal that for me in Buddhism, I will have my most difficult time living in harmony among monks who expect me to be vegan while I'm bulking despearately for physical labor gains but I will have a great time and even be a role model to lay disciples. I sincerely believe in the Buddha and His Dharma but I have to make trade offs that are not agreeable in things like diet and difficult interpersonal issues. I have my own diet issues as Guenon did so I recluse. I have yet to meet lay disciples and I doubt that harmonious living will even come to me at all in this age with anyone but myself.

>>20225399
*sahopalambhaniyama

>>20225405
forgot pic

>>20225377
>That's just his own theosophistesque bullshit
Nice buzzword, regardless of what it is, it's not dishonest, it can be reconciled with Islam in an honest way.

>>20225401
>I doubt Guenon is a household name in MENA countries.
Not a household name, but he is well-known/influential among intellectuals and religious scholars in something like half a dozen Islamic countries, in particular Egypt, Turkey, Iran and Pakistan, as this article documents:

https://traditionalhikma.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/The_Influence_of_Rene_Guenon_in_the_Isla.pdf

>>20225432
Thank you for the answer and pdf

>>20225399
Yes, there were no Hindu pandits around to correct them on this nuance about something they don't believe in. No matter how many times theologians rearrange the atman and brahman concepts they were already refuted in the earliest days of Buddhism and as far as Buddhists concerned those still stand. Mipham's main purpose was not to debate the latest iteration of Vedanta in any case, but to defend Buddhist texts that had fallen out of favor with the prasanghika-Madhyamaka Gelug sect, such as those associated with Yogacarins, whose views on consciousness were considered too similar to atmavadins by Tibetan doxographers.

>>20225432
>it can be reconciled with Islam in an honest way.
No, one of them is very clearly not Islam and the other is Islam. Only a detached and secularized academic surveyor could conclude something so antithetical to what actual believers of those religions believe

>>20225468
>No matter how many times theologians rearrange the atman and brahman concepts they were already refuted in the earliest days of Buddhism and as far as Buddhists concerned those still stand
The Upanishadic Atman/Brahman has not been refuted once ever in all of history, from Buddha onwards the arguments suck, like when Buddha has to rely on his alleged superpowers in the sutta where he meets Brahma instead of actually being able to explain why Brahma is wrong (its like a joke). When the Buddhists historically argued against God they just argue against a conditioned changing Isvara who has likes and dislikes, none of the Buddhist arguments refute the transcendent Supreme of Vedanta, Neoplatonism, classical Theism etc. Similarly none of the Buddhists refute partless reflexive foundational awareness.

>>20225476
>Only a detached and secularized academic surveyor could conclude something so antithetical to what actual believers of those religions believe
This is refuted by the actual history of India, in which there are plenty of examples of Muslims who viewed Hinduism or Vedanta as approaching from the same truth as Sufism/Islam, from a Mughal emperor (Dara Shukoh) to various Sufi teachers. You can seethe but it doesn't change the fact that certain traditional Islamic schools of jurisprudence recognized the Hindus as dhimmis, which has significant implications.

>>20225497
>certain traditional Islamic schools of jurisprudence recognized the Hindus as dhimmis
What, to prevent a peasant revolt over taxation? Seems a tad dishonest

>>20225491
>When the Buddhists historically argued against God they just argue against a conditioned changing Isvara who has likes and dislikes
Yes. But the theologians kept god and applied it to...
>none of the Buddhist arguments refute the transcendent Supreme of Vedanta, Neoplatonism, classical Theism etc.
Which is just an absolutist concept arrived at by rearranging atman and brahma(n), one Buddhists arrived at themselves anyhow, but since theirs is immanent it avoids most of the problems the theists have with linking their supra-reality to the actual reality we live in
>Similarly none of the Buddhists refute partless reflexive foundational awareness.
Nothing to refute, that's just scripture and you have pointed out before it doesn't have to be proven or demonstrated, so certainly it does not warrant a refutation

>>20225511
>What, to prevent a peasant revolt over taxation? Seems a tad dishonest
Recognizing people as Dhimmis permits them to pay taxes and abide by dhimmi rules instead of facing the choice of slaughter or conversion, so the opposite is actually true, recognizing them as dhimmis led to them paying taxes that otherwise would not have been imposed upon them had they converted to Islam. Regardless, you don't know the reasons why they did it since you weren't there, and its dishonest of you to act as though you have access to their motivations and decision-making process and that you know it was for purely financial reasons, especially when there are numerous examples of various Indian Muslims writing and talking about how Hinduism was pointing to the same truth, there are entire books written on this topic that goes through the many many examples aside from the most well-known ones like Dara Shukoh.

>>20221944
>Anyone else?
yeah, somewhat
I had the same path as you up to a point, but I'm too young to say upfront what's next
regardless, now I'm somewhat stuck at the leap of faith after reading too much dosto and being indoctrinated by the greek's idea of virtue
I think I'll eventually get schizophrenia and turn into a religious nut

>>20225520
>Yes. But the theologians kept god and applied it to...
Not an argument
>Which is just an absolutist concept arrived at by rearranging atman and brahma(n)
No, it's a common insight that multiple traditions arrived at independently, both in the east and west, it's detailed extensively by the Upanishads, which predate Buddha, and which Buddha swiped countless things from.
>one Buddhists arrived at themselves anyhow, but since theirs is immanent it avoids most of the problems the theists have with linking their supra-reality to the actual reality we live inA
There is no problems with the transcendent Supreme of Advaita, the Mahayanist Buddhist model is actually contradictory because Buddhists can't answer the contradiction of why if samsara is nirvana why the absence of suffering (nirvana) is the same as suffering (samsara), which violates the LNC. If you say "the samsara is just the wrong view of nirvana" then you are stuck with the same contradiction, because then the next question becomes "is that wrong perception the same as Nirvana or different", if it's the former that still violates the LNC, if it's the latter then samsara is no longer nirvana.
>Nothing to refute, that's just scripture and you have pointed out before it doesn't have to be proven or demonstrated, so certainly it does not warrant a refutation
A fundamentally dishonest reply, In pretty much all Indian and Buddhist philosophy it has always been considered the norm that to refute something you actually have to demonstrate a contradiction in their doctrine, either through logic or through it directly violating experience, and that simply pointing out that it's not proven isn't sufficient.

>>20225527
So it is actually worse than I originally thought. I was mixing up my terms. Recognizing them as dhimmis would allow them to pay jizya taxes instead of being killed; I had remembered it incorrectly as releasing them from those taxes for being 'people of the book'. In other words, this was a cope by the conquerors of a new region with too few Abrahamists, who didn't want to do the needful genocide the religion stipulates, because there wouldn't be anyone left to be slaves. The economic interest is very much a real thing, and Islam is literally nomadic war machine the religion. Read Deleuze, Bataille, etc. Went from caravan raiding to empire conquering, all within a couple of generations, all for booty.

>>20225552
Appealing to rules of logic is fundamentally dishonest for someone who cites scripture as evidence for his smoking gun argument against all opponents

>>20225556
A dishonest reply, since you are asserting that you know the motivations of people from another culture in another century, which you actually don't.
>>20225563
The Pali Canon is the Buddhist scripture, and Buddhists cite it to make dogmatic claims all the time. And the citation of the Upanishads isn't Shankara's argument but he attacks the Buddhist doctrine on logical and phenomenological grounds by noting how its illogical and is refuted by our experience, these arguments of his don't rely on the Upanishads, which is easy for anyone to confirm, that was a lie you just told, which violates the Buddhist precept of right speech. Not very Bodhisattva-like, you won't bring people to Buddhism by lying.

>>20225573
>how its illogical and is refuted by our experience, these arguments of his don't rely on the Upanishads
There is no partless awareness in experience which is non-dual with God and an eternal self that is also God. Stop lying yourself while you are at it. Awareness is always of something, always partite, etc. Otherwise, what would you be describing awareness of, an infinite regress of awareness that is awareness of awareness that is awareness of awarenes... Where is your fidelity to avoiding logical contradiction now? Or is logic just the continuation of dogmatism by other means? Or if the Upanishads said we had green skin and purple horns, would that would accord with experience too?

>>20225609
>There is no partless awareness in experience which is non-dual with God and an eternal self that is also God.
There is partless awareness, but it is not "in experience" because that would imply duality and limitation. You've just never realized it. Nor is it an awareness of awareness, I'm not sure where you got that idea from, maybe the other anon erroneously implied it somehow. Shankaracharya uses the analogy of the knife not being able to cut itself to refute the assertion that non-dual awareness is awareness of awareness (which would imply duality, ie only true from a contingent, limited perspective).

>>20225625
>There is partless awareness, but it is not "in experience" because that would imply duality and limitation.
Ok so it's literally just you rearranging atman and brahman again, neither of which are demonstrable or have anything to do with what can be discoursed upon. If you just want to have non-duality, have it be empty of all thises and thatses. Doesn't have to be "the Brahman that is Atman that is redefined-term-that-is-obviously-not-being-used-to-refer-to-what-it-refers-to." The Buddhists got this right. Read the Vimalakirti Sutra. Rejoice at silence.

>>20225641
>If you just want to have non-duality, have it be empty of all thises and thatses
It is, you might want to read Shankaracharya. It is fundamentally apophatic, which is ultimately non-duality. This is why they tend to label themselves, where required, as non-dual, rather than unity (monists) or theists. Non-dual is a mere negation, the positing of unity would be a limitation of Atman=Brahman, and therefore there would be no identity between the two.
>what can be discoursed upon
They cannot be discoursed upon from your current perspective.

>>20225573
>you are asserting that you know the motivations of people from another culture in another century, which you actually don't
Why should anyone care about a French theosophist's opinion of an imaginary syncretic Hindislam while we are at it? Clearly wasn't living in Mughal India

>>20225663
All right where do I start with this Nagarjuna guy

>>20224539
>that's a mistranslation of hebrew by Saint Jerome
That's a correct translation of hebrew words, retard. Which is a conscious wordplay, just like Adam is a wordplay on soil (adam - adamah), and snake's wisdom on nakedness (arum - arumim).

https://aish.com/moses_horns/
"The Hebrew word for radiant is "keren," which is also the Hebrew word for "horn.""

https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/why-even-some-jews-once-believed-moses-had-horns-1.5949749
"In one of the poem’s verses God tells Moses, “I placed horns of majesty on your head so that if an angel comes near, you will gore him with them.” In another poem, this one in Hebrew from 9th-century Ashkenaz, Moses taunts the angels, saying, "I will not descend, I will not descend, until I prove myself a hero, until I gore your bodies with my horns.""

>you were doing so well until you discredited
Go fuck yourself, cretin.

>>20225609
>There is no partless awareness in experience which is non-dual with God and an eternal self that is also God.
It's not a lie that we have a partless reflexive foundational awareness that is non-dual with Brahman, it's a metaphysical claim which you are unable to refute. You on the other hand told a blatant lie by making a demonstrably false claim about Shankara's arguments against Buddhism by saying they rely on presupposing the Upanishads to be true in order to advance their point (they dont and anyone can verify this). It's not very Buddhist-like to falsely accuse someone else of lying when you yourself are calling out for telling a lie, that's another violation of the right speech precept by you anon. You are a liar and hence a poor Buddhist. Have you no shame or self-awareness?

>Awareness is always of something,
That people normally encounter thoughts and sense-perceptions alongside their awareness doesn't refute the premise that people have a pure partless awareness as the foundation of that, because when objects are present alongside pure partless non-dual awareness the undiscriminating won't notice this awareness because it's extremely subtle and they focus on the things with form and complexity instead. It takes a trained mind to discriminate this pure awareness from thoughts etc.

Nor does the point that people encounter an object alongside their awareness in mundane experience refute the premise that non-dual awareness can exist eternally on its own after liberation, because the limits of future possibility are not determined by past experience, if this were true then it would be impossible to either die or learn anything ever, because that experience of death or the new knowledge would never have occurred before and hence would be impossible, so you can see how this sort of reasoning is inherently flawed.

>always partite, etc.
Incorrect, awareness is always impartite, anything you call a "part" of awareness upon analysis inevitably turns out to be an insentient object of awareness and not awareness itself, which is quite easy to show. You can't even describe or cite the existence of anything you'd want to call a "part" of awareness until it has first presented itself to your awareness as an insentient object of it, which allows you to witness and then describe it.

>Otherwise, what would you be describing awareness of, an infinite regress of awareness that is awareness of awareness that is awareness of awarenes...
Incorrect, because there is simply just one partless undivided non-dual reflexive awareness without any bifurcation into subject or object. When awareness is reflexive it's intrinsically self-disclosing without that involving a bifurcation of subject and object, i.e. the awareness and the disclosure are the exact same identical thing and not two different things.

>>20226278
*falsely accuse someone else of lying when you yourself just got called out for telling a lie

>>20225641
>have it be empty of all thises and thatses
It is, partless reflexive awareness is non-discursive and hence empty of this and thats which are discursive ideations, however we have to speak in some form of positive language to even communicate that we are talking about awareness and not something else, speaking in these positive terms doesn't fully delimit our self of awareness but it is used as a helpful pointer. speaking in these terms doesn't change the fact that our actual Self of pure awareness is effortlessly present as spontaneous non-dual non-discursive awareness always. Discursive terms are used like signposts to help people awaken to their own non-discursive awareness.

>The Buddhists got this right. Read the Vimalakirti Sutra. Rejoice at silence.
Nobody who denies that we have a self has ever gotten it right, that we have a self is the most self-evident thing to everyone. Even when you deny it your self is right there aware of you denying it.

>>20226325
>It is, partless reflexive awareness is non-discursive and hence empty of this and thats which are discursive ideations, however we have to speak in some form of positive language to even communicate that we are talking about awareness and not something else, speaking in these positive terms doesn't fully delimit our self of awareness but it is used as a helpful pointer. speaking in these terms doesn't change the fact that our actual Self of pure awareness is effortlessly present as spontaneous non-dual non-discursive awareness always. Discursive terms are used like signposts to help people awaken to their own non-discursive awareness.
cope

>>20226325
>Nobody who denies that we have a self has ever gotten it right, that we have a self is the most self-evident thing to everyone. Even when you deny it your self is right there aware of you denying it.
if you have a self then you can control it : here is a challenge : make it disappear for 3 minutes , then make it appear again

>>20226680
>muh witty
not an argument

>>20226766
>if you have a self then you can control it :
Incorrect, you cannot control it because it's perfectly immutable as the always-present awareness that always reveals whatever our mind is doing. You can only control the mind and body, but whatever you do and whatever decisions you make the self will be there regardless, as the inner light revealing what your mind is doing.

>>20222026
Based.

>>20226830
Muh witty destroys your retarded word salads that you use to justify neo-brahmansim against actual philosophical refutations.

>>20226878
>Muh witty destroys your retarded word salads
No he doesn't, that's stupid. Your "argument" here amounts to acting like people are too stupid to understand the difference between a signifier and the thing that is signified, but human beings aren't actually this stupid, as proven by the existence in many cultures of symbolism and similar things which presuppose being able to understand the difference between a signifier and the thing signified, i.e. it's demonstrably true that humans are capable of understanding the distinction between a signifier and the signified, so there is no reason why this cannot be used to help point out the presence of non-discursive awareness within oneself. Moreover this is totally hypocritical of you to maintain as your position since there are endless things in Mahayana and Vajrayana that uses symbolism and hence rely on that distinction. You are just making a fool of yourself by pretending that people can't understand the distinction (only when talking about schools you dont like, but not in buddhism)
>against actual philosophical refutations.
there *are* no philosophical refutations of Advaita

>>20226278
>It's not a lie that we have a partless reflexive foundational awareness that is non-dual with Brahman, it's a metaphysical claim
>demonstrably false claim about Shankara's arguments against Buddhism by saying they rely on presupposing the Upanishads to be true in order to advance their point
Which is it? Can't both be true. What are the brahman and atman which are also your highly specialized redefinition of "awareness" if not revelation? Otherwise demonstrate these things so we may discuss them

>>20226977
>Which is it? Can't both be true.
Wrong, both *are* true, because Shankara doesn't reference or presuppose his specialized Advaita understanding of consciousness while refuting Buddhism, he just refutes Buddhism by noticing logical contradictions in its doctrines and by noting how certain things about it contradicts people's everyday normal experience.

>>20226990
If Buddhism is "refuted" because "there is simply just one partless undivided non-dual reflexive awareness without any bifurcation into subject or object" that is very obviously reliant upon "specialized Advaita understanding" and not "people's everyday normal experience." You can stop lying whenever you're ready.

>>20223277
>Imagine a reality where your physical characteristics were tied to your actions. If you sang more, your voice became more beautiful to others. If you exercised your body became more beautiful to others.
Uhh this one?

Theist copes are insane lmao.

Buddhism is the ultimate anti-theist argument and it works so effectively in dismantling theistic world's entire made up nonsense. Buddhist also just happens to also dismantle the materials atheists nonsense as well. So it kills two ends of the spectrum arguing over the existence of incoherent invisible rope.

>>20221944
Literally me, with the exception that even as a kid I wasn't dumb enough to take religion seriously

>>20226948
>there *are* no philosophical refutations of Advaita
Advaita refutes itself by positing a being beyond experience and then preteding to defend such a position. There are no refutations because there is nothing to refute, as Advaita posits nothing that can be the object of discourse. It's a horn on the head of a rabbit.

>>20221944
>Indifferent as a kid
>Edgy atheist as a teen
>Indifferent in 20s
>"There must be more to life" post 30
>There's a decent life philosophy behind Tolstoy's take on Christianity

>>20227001
>If Buddhism is "refuted" because "there is simply just one partless undivided non-dual reflexive awareness without any bifurcation into subject or object"
That's not Shankara's argument against Buddhism, he actually refutes Buddhism on logical and phenomenological grounds without relying on an assertion of a non-dual Atman as part of that, which anyone can easily verify.
>You can stop lying whenever you're ready.
You are the one who is repeatedly lying by implying that the above is Shankara's argument when it's not. You are telling lies that anyone who picks up Shankara's works or a book about Shankara can find out is an incorrect lie. You are still violating the right-speech precept by lying you failed buddhist!

>>20227283
>Advaita refutes itself by positing a being beyond experience and then preteding to defend such a position
Brahman is present in all experiences as the witness-consciousness which they presuppose

>>20221944
isnt it kinda pathetic though that this probably took 5 years from your life?

>>20222333
Checked. God is real, bless you brotha.

>>20227328
Blessed are the peacemakers, indeed.

>>20227409
>Brahman is present in all experiences as the witness-consciousness which they presuppose
Witness counsciousness is intentional and does not exist outside being a counsciousness of something. Anything else is sophism.

>>20227409
>on logical and phenomenological grounds
Yes I'm sure those have nothing to do with his own position. Logic and phenomenology are purely neutral and objective things when it comes to topics like these. You have to be stupid or dishonest to believe that so which is it?

>>20227481
>Witness counsciousness is intentional and does not exist outside being a counsciousness of something.
When non-intentional consciousness occurs alongside objects and reveals them, to the undiscriminating it appears to be intentional, the appearance of it being intentional is just generated by the coincidence of it with the object. Without the object being present alongside it there is nothing left to indicate that the consciousness is actually intentional.
>Anything else is sophism.
A baseless unsubstantiated claim
>>20227491
>Yes I'm sure those have nothing to do with his own position. Logic and phenomenology are purely neutral and objective things when it comes to topics like these.
His arguments against Buddhism don't involve presupposing an Advaitic consciousness but just rely on the everyday normal experience that people have, it takes 2 seconds to confirm it, I don't know why you keep lying about this and why you keep violating the right speech precept despite professing to be Buddhist

When Shankara writes:

>But one might go further and ask the Nihilist why he does not feel thoroughly ashamed to go on recognizing himself as the agent in every successive cognition right up to his dying breath, and to remember all his past cognitions from birth on as having had himself as agent, while continuing to adhere to his doctrine that everything goes to destruction the moment it arises? He might perhaps rejoin that all this comes about through similarity. One might then reply to him that the notion ‘this is like that’ shows that similarity involves two entities. But as the Nihilist cannot admit that there is a single perceiver who could perceive the two similar things, his claim that recognition is based on similarity is just babble. If, on the other hand, there were really a single perceiver able to perceive the similarity of two moments, then there would be one person persisting during two moments, which would contradict the principle of universal momentariness.

That doesn't presuppose the Atman but is just noting how the Buddhist claim of momentariness is nonsensical, all of his arguments against Buddhism are like this

>>20227597
>But one might go further and ask the Nihilist
Should I even bother continuing with this polemic? "The Nihilist"? He sounds like he was completely filtered

>>20227603
The labels he calls Buddhists are ultimately irrelevant, I'm just demonstrating how he refutes Buddhism on logical and phenomenological grounds with presupposing an Advaitic Atman in his argument, as the below passage also shows, exposing you as a liar when you said all his arguments presuppose and Advaita Atman

>Further, because the Nihilist (Buddhist in general) holds that everything is momentary, he must hold that the perceiver, too, is momentary. But the perceiver cannot be momentary. And this is so, as the Sutra puts it, ‘On account of remembrance of one’s past experiences’. Remembrance means in this case the reproduction of an experience one had in the past. It can take place only if the one remembering is the same as the one who had the experience, for we do not find that one person can remember the experience of another. How, for instance, could one have such experiences as ‘Formerly I saw that, now I see -this’, unless it was one and the same person seeing on both occasions? Indeed, everyone in the world is familiar with the experience of recognition in the form ‘It is the same I who formerly saw that who now sees this’, which amounts to a direct perception that the one who now sees and the one who formerly saw are one and the same. If the agent had been different in the two cases, the feeling would have been, ‘It is I who remember, and it was someone else who saw’. But no one ever has this feeling. When such a feeling does arise, people feel that the one who remembers and the one who saw are different, and express it by saying, ‘I remember that he saw that’. But in the other case, even the Nihilist (Buddhist in general) himself recognizes himself as the one sole agent in the remembering and the seeing, and says, ‘I saw this’. He can no more deny his own act of seeing and say, ‘It was not I’, than he could deny that fire was luminous and hot. And this being so, the Nihilist cannot very well deny that, as the connection of one and the same person with the two separate moments ofseeing and remembering has been established, it will follow that the doctrine of universal momentariness has been undermined.

>>20227612
*he refutes Buddhism on logical and phenomenological grounds WITHOUT presupposing an Advaitic Atman in his arguments

>>20227597
>>20227612
More Shankara BTFOing of Buddhists in a way that doesn't presuppose an Advaita Atman

>He might perhaps claim that the notion ‘this is like that’ was just a fresh cognition, and not based on the perception of an earlier and a later content. But this would be wrong. If we had to reckon with a fresh cognition revealing similarity which was quite different from what was meant by ‘this’ and ‘that’, this would render the sentence ‘this is like that’ meaningless. All we would be able to do would be to assert similarity (without specifying what was similar to what). For if a body of people engaged in a discussion decide to reject what is otherwise universally accepted as true, then no demonstration or refutation that is made within that circle will constitute an intelligible proposition, either for the speaker himself or for the other disputants. One should only advance that of which one can say, ‘This is verily so’.

>Anyone who speaks of anything else is merely proclaiming his own verbosity. Nor, indeed, can any empirical experience (which depends on recognition of ourselves and objects) be explained on the basis of similarity. For in recognizing a thing, what we recognize is the thing itself, and not something like it’. It is true that in the case of external objects we are liable to error and might sometimes have the doubt ‘This is either that same thing or something like it’. But in the case of ourselves as knowing subjects we never experience any such doubt as ‘I am either that same “I” or something like it’. For we have the definite conviction ‘It is that same I who saw something yesterday who remembers the fact today’. So this is another way in which the Nihilist (Buddhist) doctrine breaks down.

>>20227622

Similarly, when he attacks the Buddhist denial of a separate witnessing consciousness, he is not making a dogmatic claim based on the Upanishads but is noting the conclusion of a separate witnessing consciousness is what you get if you make inferences about consciousness in accordance with our empirical experience, instead of making inferences that contradict our experience:

>Now, if consciousness (of objects and thoughts in the intellect) is revealed by an intelligence, which consciousness is it?—the one that is revealed (the consciousness of the intellect), or the one that reveals (i.e. the consciousness of the self)? Since there is a doubt on the point, we should infer on the analogy of observed facts, not contrary to them. Such being the case, just as we see that external objects such as a lamp are revealed by something different from them (the self or the awareness of the seer), so also should consciousness (of the intellect)— although it reveals other things like a lamp—be inferred, on the ground of its being revealed by an intelligence, to be revealed not by itself, but by an intelligence different from it. And that other entity which reveals consciousness is the self—the intelligence which is different from that consciousness (of the intellect).

Elsewhere, he argues against a materialist notion of identifying one's consciousness with the mind, and this argument also applies to Buddhists who do the same thing, this argument is based purely on logic (criticizing how it posits something as both the subject and object of itself in a dualistic relation which is illogical) instead of being a dogma-based argument

>Moreover, the Materialist ought to be asked what is the exact nature of that consciousness which he supposes to be exuded from the elements (of the body). For he does not admit the existence of any other principle apart from his material elements. He will perhaps try to define consciousness as consisting in the mere fact that the elements and their products are experienced. But then they would have to be its object, and it could not be a property of them at the same time, for it is contradictory to suppose that anything can act on itself. Fire may be hot, but it cannot burn itself, and not even the cleverest acrobat can climb up on his own shoulders.

>And, in the same way, the elements and their products cannot form objects of consciousness if consciousness is their property. A colour does not perceive its own colour or the colour of anything else. And yet there is no doubt whatever that the elements and their products are perceived by consciousness, both inside and outside the body. Because, therefore, the presence of a consciousness which takes the elements and their products as its objects has to be admitted, it follows that it has likewise to be admitted that consciousness is distinct and separate from them (i.e. those elements and their aggregation into the physical body)"

There doesn't have to be an enduring or permanent agent to perceive things. Shankara is ignoring dependent origination and treating momentariness as if there were no causal relationship between the moments. Oh and also calling the opponent a nihilist. So his "refutation" is polemical and very much informed by him being a Hindu theologian

>>20227597
>Without the object being present alongside it
There is no way of proving there is any "it" after you remove all objects from counsciousness, and, as direct experience shows, removing counsciousness itself. Whatever you want to postulate outside of our experience is dogmatism and sophistry.

>>20223174
I don't see it as a form of slave morality, no.

And yes, I think people who are only willing to work for the good if they're guaranteed something in return, as if morality is a business contract, are inferior people.

Besides, what's wrong with hanging out on /lit/? This place has been edifying, thought-provoking, and refreshing compared to what I normally have to deal with.

>>20222626
>That doesn't sound good as you think.
You're right, it isn't good. But doing philosophy when you're in need of revelation is better than doing nothing at all. The point is to acquire wisdom and thus no longer have a need for philosophy.
>need a license
I think you're reading too much into it. Philosophy is a natural part of man, given that we have the capacity for reason, which sets us apart from other creatures. All I meant to do was reassure you that philosophy isn't incompatible with Christianity.

>>20227888
>people who are only willing to work for the good if they're guaranteed something in return
If you are enjoying something, you get dopamine produced by your organism in return. That means you are not doing it altruistically, you are doing it because you are an egoistical drug junkie.
If you were truly altruistic, you would only do the things you absolutely hate. But you won't, because you'd find them abominable.

>>20227906
>If you were truly altruistic, you would only do the things you absolutely hate. But you won't, because you'd find them abominable.
What if I find doing selfish, morally objectionable things abominable and selfless, morally righteous things wonderful?

>>20227926
>What if I find doing selfish, morally objectionable things abominable
Then your whole existence is abominable, retard. For if you enjoy "selfless" things, then you are not doing them selflessly, but to appease butterflies in your stomach. You are doing it for a reward, albeit a pervertedly fetishized one.

>>20227902
>The point is to acquire wisdom and thus no longer have a need for philosophy.
Do you even know what words mean or is your brain mush from praying to the volcano?

>>20227984
>Would I do the right thing, even if it made me unhappy? Yes.
What if the right thing were to be a Kantian disembodied reason machine?

>the right thing
>I'm born with a vast array of adaptable neurotransmitter networks
Then, there is no "right" or "wrong" thing. There are just heuristic adaptations, tuned to a specific environment.

>There's a natural harmony between living the fulfilled, virtuous life and being happy.
>Do I feel guilty that I rarely feel "bad" for doing the right thing? No. And I view that as a blessing
Do you view it as a blessing, that a smiling face on a robot could mean absolutely any-fucking-thing? And that a swarm of junk chatbot AIs could keep cueing your behavioral scripts?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Madison#Fake_female_bot_accounts

>>20227949
Why is my existence abominable if I only do good things? Because doing good things makes me happy? That's not the default state of man, anon. I've trained myself to do that. I can't ignore the fact that I'm an embodied creature with emotions. But now it pays me dividends because my emotions work with me in service of the greater good.

I'm familiar with the Kantian-Dostoevskian fantasy of being a "tortured soul" who thinks every act of duty ought to be an onerous burden in order to be noble. And not onerous because of the strains of the burden itself, but rather because of our own mental resistance. It's laughably melodramatic and filled with romantic vanity. "MY MISERY IS GOOD!"

Guess what? The whole point of morality is to do good things. And living in a constant state of self-imposed misery only confines you to a lower state of virtue, complicating your intentions and impeding your ability to do good things. Refusing to rise above this pedantic egoism and failing to take responsibility for your own character is more selfish than anything else.

>>20228011
What's the point of philosophy? To love wisdom. It's in the name. Once you have wisdom, you don't need philosophy anymore.

>>20228021
>What if the right thing were to be a Kantian disembodied reason machine?
Then we wouldn't have bodies, and we wouldn't need to worry about the "problem" of happiness. But we do have bodies. So, obviously, virtue is something that we must be concerned with. If you're constantly worried about the reward of "being happy" for doing the right thing, instead of understanding that you have the responsibility to choose what makes you happy through habituation, then you'll always be at a base level of virtue.

>Then, there is no "right" or "wrong" thing. There are just heuristic adaptations, tuned to a specific environment.
I don't understand your point. There is right and wrong. Your emotions are not fully calibrated to what is right and wrong. You have to train it be like that.

>Do you view it as a blessing, that a smiling face on a robot could mean absolutely any-fucking-thing? And that a swarm of junk chatbot AIs could keep cueing your behavioral scripts?
Could you explain your point further? I don't see how this is relevant.

>>20228027
You've identified wisdom with kowtowing to a reanimated corpse so it's not really accurate coming from you

>>20228048
That's not an argument. That's just snark, and you didn't even address the point either.

>>20228027
>Why is my existence abominable if I only do good things?
Because you claim "good" things exist in the first place.

>Because doing good things makes me happy?
Νο, because you can't differentiate them from bad things.


>>20228045
>I don't understand your point. There is right and wrong.
1. You have no objective criteria to claim that the things you perceive as "good" are actually "good". Have you never made an error in estimating the outcome of something?
2, If things you consider "good" can happen regardless of your intentions, then your intentions and judgement don't matter. What if some counter-intuitive monstrous shit would produce "good" results, while your desire to help ruin everything?

>virtue is something that we must be concerned with.
>Could you explain your point further?
Try being happy from being virtuous in an environment that is deliberately constructed to miscue your behavioral responses into you shooting yourself in the leg.

>You have to train it be like that.
Train your eyes to stop perceiving Necker Cube illusion as an illusion.

>>20228058
i suppose Paul was being snarky when he associated philosophy with sinful pride. You are commanded to obey Yahweh and uphold his covenant, not to ruminate about metaphysics

>>20228091
You can't call me abominable if you don't believe that good and bad things exist. There's no meaning to that label then.
>what if you make mistakes
Then I learn from them. Experience helps.
>what if robots try to deceive you?
I really, really do not understand your point here. Do you think people aren't capable of thinking in second and third order abstractions? Appearances don't always match reality. And, again, we're talking about intent here.
>your sense-perception is just like your emotions
Now you're just thinking sloppily for the sake of it. The former is a necessary part of your condition, the other is malleable.

>>20228105
I agree with Paul's point, and it's not in conflict with John's point. Philosophy brought me to Christ. I don't see the point in engaging with it for its own sake anymore.

>>20228130
>Do you think people aren't capable of thinking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice_architecture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_theory
They aren't.

>You can't call me abominable if you don't believe that good and bad things exist.
And you can't speak about a patient, suffering from perceiving demonic clowns, if you yourself aren't hallucinating demonic clowns.

>Then I learn from them. Experience helps.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
What would you learn from a Trolley Problem? That killing one man is better than five via indirectly pressing a button?

>Now you're just thinking sloppily
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes%27_Error
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misattribution_of_arousal
Your judgement is based on emotions. Emotions are heuristics.
Showing visual sense-perception heuristics is just more vivid and, thus, easier to show.

>>20227902
Philosophy is a love of wisdom, and according to the bible, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Basically you can't philosophize without accepting Christ, and if revelation wipes away the need for philosophy, philosophy becomes pretty much useless. So giving license to do it is pretty redundant.
>All I meant to do was reassure you that philosophy isn't incompatible with Christianity
I know, and its true I might be overthinking this, but it seems you haven't thought this through.

>>20228165
You're not arguing anything clearly here.
>if I control the possible choices, I can control outcomes
Sure, but they're still choosing. And again, you have this habit of straying far from the beaten path. This subpoint was initially about the ability to discern appearances from reality. And if you don't think you have the ability to do that, not even as a skill that could be trained over time, then we will have to agree to disagree.

>And you can't speak about a patient, suffering from perceiving demonic clowns, if you yourself aren't hallucinating demonic clowns.
How is that remotely a comparable analogy? If you don't believe in objective value judgments, then you can't ascribe an objective value judgment in good faith. This has nothing to do with empathy, lived experience, or whatever you were trying to say.

>What would you learn from a Trolley Problem? That killing one man is better than five via indirectly pressing a button?
An abstract thought experiment is not experience. It's strange that you even thought it was.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes%27_Error
I like how you brought up Damasio, considering how much I love his work. He's fully on board with the notion that we're not "disembodied reason machines." And if you read the Stoics like Chrysippus, you'll realize that emotions are a form of "inertial" logic, complete with axioms, probability assumptions, etc., of their own. You can train them in the long-term.

>>20228211
>philosophy becomes pretty much useless
It was useful for me to find Christ despite growing up in an atheistic household in a liberal city. There will always be a need for philosophy as long as there are minds who need help in grasping revelation.

>>20222310
>Oh, wait~
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anosognosia
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosia
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exformation
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derealization
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection_illusion
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_bias
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misattribution_of_arousal
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Wegner#The_illusion_of_conscious_will
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain
KEK the atheist religion

>>20228212
>Sure, but they're still choosing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Wegner#The_illusion_of_conscious_will
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain#Visual_test

They *claim* they do.

>This subpoint was initially about the ability to discern appearances from reality.
Can you, if you can't even tell that 'your' choices are 'your own'?

>How is that remotely a comparable analogy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectionism
I don't need to believe in "good/bad" categories, to observe someone performing "good/bad"-talk.

>An abstract thought experiment is not experience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_rationality
It is a manual for any "choice architector" on how to tweak an environment.

>He's fully on board with the notion that we're not "disembodied reason machines."
I never claimed we are. I claimed, you have to think you are, if you gurgle things like "good" or "bad" as if they exist.
>You can train them in the long-term.
You can change environment in the short-term.

>>20228286
Prove to me that "good" and "bad" don't exist.

>>20228316
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_rationality
I repeat:
-either we are talking about heuristics, and then we are talking about specific behaviors adapted for a *specific* environment (vikings were cool with raiding).
-or if you claim that objective morality exists, you'll have to go full Kant, which you cannot, since it would proclaim you an abomination for failing to confirm to it. (because -once again- environment affects your choices)

>>20228353
>if you claim that objective morality exists, you'll have to go full Kant
Why? Kant is not the only person who advocates for objective morality. I've been applying Aristotelian virtue ethics this entire time.

>>20228353
Anon we get it you're a midwit. Can you stop spamming Wikipedia now?

>>20221960
Look at all the seething edgelords responding to this post. Once again, they offer nothing in response, just "uhhh heckin Christianity bad lol" and "Christianity bad cause Jewish" and "CHristianity bad because similar to other religions". Incredible how these shills never fail to show up.

>>20228364
>Why?
Because Kant is a "disembodied reason machine". He doesn't give a fuck.

>I've been applying Aristotelian virtue ethics
Your 'free will' is experimentally shown to be compromised. You'll consider any-fucking-thing 'virtuous'.
Your judgement of outcomes is compromised. You'll get a catastrophe for trying to play an honorable white knight.

>>20228423
>Because Kant is a "disembodied reason machine". He doesn't give a fuck.
What if he's wrong? You're forcing me to stick with a lesser ethical theory when I could use a greater ethical theory without giving me a solid reason for it.

>Your 'free will' is experimentally shown to be compromised. You'll consider any-fucking-thing 'virtuous'. Your judgement of outcomes is compromised. You'll get a catastrophe for trying to play an honorable white knight.
Do you think ethical judgment can improve over time? If not, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

By the way, thank you for admitting that man is fallen in secular terms, lol. I'm telling you, the more you read philosophy and science, the more you'll realize you should have started with the Bible...

It happened to me. And if you care about living a good life, it will happen to you.

>>20228462
>you should have started with the Bible
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliolatry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Bible
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Christianity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Jesus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_domestic_violence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_violence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Christianity

>>20228494
A Gish gallop of Wikipedia links that you probably haven't even read is not an argument.

>>20228462
>What if he's wrong?
He is. There's no such thing as "good".
But if there were, you hopelessly suck at it.

>Do you think ethical judgment can improve over time?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection#Multilevel_selection_theory
There is no such thing as "ethical judgement". Either you are filtered by environment, or you don't.

>thank you for admitting that man is fallen
Man is a biorobot. It is not a question of "falling". It is a question of eugenics and/or cybernetics.

>>20228543
>There's no such thing as "good".
Source?

>>20228553
>>20228353

>>20228554
How is that proof that morality doesn't exist?

>>20228555
Prove to me that it exists in the first place, retard.

>>20228578
Seems like neither of us can prove whether it exists or it doesn't exist. And yet we both can conceive of the possibility of it existing, with all the implications that it brings. Interesting.

Don't you think that it's worth erring on the side of caution?

>>20228587
>And yet we both can conceive of the possibility of it existing, with all the implications that it brings. Interesting.
We can conceive the possibility of a dragon existing, with all the implications that it brings. Interesting.

>>20228597
Dragons would be concrete, particular creatures of some sort. Morality is an abstract, universal concept. If morality exists, it would color all of your past, present, and future actions. If you don't think it exists, you better be damn sure.

>>20228618
>Dragons would be concrete, particular creatures of some sort. Morality is an abstract, universal concept.
I.e. product of your brain, a concrete, particular thing.

>If morality exists, it would color
>>20222310
What part of "intentions do not exist" you do not understand?

>If you don't think it exists, you better be damn sure.
What if there's a magical invisible nigga in your wardrobe, that fucks you every night after you fall asleep and erases your memory and any signs of his presence afterwards? If you don't think it exists, you better be damn sure.

>>20228642
>i.e. product of your brain, a concrete, particular thing.
But the product is not concrete nor particular. And this sidesteps the whole "invention versus discovery" debate, too. If morality were real, then it would be akin to mathematical truths, which existed long before any man was able to understand them.

>you do not understand?
The fact that I can perceive my own intentions in real time. Why do you think you can debunk the human condition with a Wikipedia article? lol

>What if there's a magical invisible nigga in your wardrobe, that fucks you every night after you fall asleep and erases your memory and any signs of his presence afterwards? If you don't think it exists, you better be damn sure.
Again, you're confusing the concrete and particular with the abstract and universal.

>>20228663
>The fact that I can perceive
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotard_delusion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatoparaphrenia
Yet, your perceptions are manipulable shit.

>If morality were real, then it would be akin to mathematical truths,
i.e. a physical brain-thing?

https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/speculative-musings/mathematics-and-the-russian-doll-structure-of-like-the-whole-universe/
"The great debate in mathematics, for instance, is between the constructivists (formalists) and the Platonists, those who see mathematics as an artifact of the human brain, and those who think it’s a kind of conceptual perception, a way of grasping things that exist independently of the mind.
The question boils down into whether there’s any mathematics absent our experience of it. The prior question should be whether there’s any such thing as mathematics as we experience it at all. What if mathematics as we experience it is neither constructed nor discovered, but imposed by the severe structural and developmental constraints faced by the thalamocortical system?
This is what the BBH suggests.
From a metaphysical standpoint, the idea would be that the universe possesses a Russian Doll structure, that *what we perceive* as ‘structures’ are conserved and recapitulated across vast differences in scale.
A neurostructural recapitulation is simply a neural circuit, distributed or not, that is capable of interacting with intermediary systems so as to enable systematic interaction with some other structure. You could just as easily say that the recapitulation is distributed across the entire system, and that each recapitulation harnesses circuits shared with all other recapitulations. In this sense, the brain could be seen as a *recapitulation* machine, one capable of morphing into innumerable, behaviour-to-environment calibrating *keys*. In this sense, there need be no ‘one’ representation: differentiating fragments could be *condensed*, waiting to be ‘unzipped’ in a time of need. There need be no isomorphism between recapitulation and recapitulated, simply because of the role of *process*. In all likelihood, recapitulations are *amoebic*, dynamically forming and reforming themselves as needed."

>>20228691
>Yet, your perceptions are manipulable shit.
And? Manipulable perceptions are still existent perceptions.
>it is neither constructed nor discovered, but imposed by the severe structural and developmental constraints faced by the thalamocortical system?
You would be discovering the structure of the universe then. Thank you for proving my point.

>>20228663
>The fact that I can perceive my own intentions in real time.
How would one know you are? If someone created a sophisticated enough chatbot, it would also make claims it perceives.
And if you retort, that it merely learned some appropriate contextual phrases, then how did *you* acquire your language in your childhood?

>I can perceive
Define "can", define "perceive"

>>20228745
Don't look to me for the proof. Look inside yourself. Are you perceiving?

Even if there's something flawed about it, can you identify the act of perception in your conscious experience?

>>20221960
Remember when Socrates was executed for questioning the stories of the gods? Neither do Christians apparently.

>>20228494
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Christianity
That's a pro-argument, though