/lit/ - Literature

>>20306808
Move to another country. Is there any good reason to remain in your native western country? I don't think so. Take your time, make some plans and do it.

If you want Islam then move to Morocco, they have a lot of sufi tariqas from which you can choose and is one of the countries with the least number of salafis, sufism being approved by the state there.

The other option would be to move to India and gain the trust of a hindu householder and he will initiate you without having to be born in any caste, there are many non-dual paths within hinduism so you have a variety of options.

If you are serious then you will find your path. If is just a phase then what can I say... sad.

So, only smelly shithole countries still hold to Tradition? Curious...

The only sensible religions to convert to IMO are Protestant Christianity, Buddhism, or something esoteric like Taoism. Converting to religions like Catholicism, Islam, or Judaism is weird because unless you're born into those religions or marry into them, there's almost no good reason to try and join.

>>20306900
the smelly shithole medieval europe is no longer here so yes

When will the Guenon pseud shit end? It's literally only in the company of schizophrenics that the name is mentioned.

You could try responding to something Guenon actually wrote.
That might be a better start

>>20306922
Why

You will never be a Sufi

>>20306900
you likely live in a city that's 40% black

>>20306808
Why is Catholicism not an option when it has so many orders and rites to choose from (from Dominicans to Carmelites)?

>>20306922
Protestant Christianity isn't a valid spiritual path. Catholicism or Orthodoxy both seem like valid options to me, but not Protestantism.
Buddhism I'm not sure on. Gun to my head its valid but I have some reservations.
Taoism seems legit.
I agree though ideally you marry into Catholicism.

>>20306988
He thought it fell away from Tradition too much by his time.

>>20306988
Ananda Coomaraswamy's son, Rama Coomaraswamy, explored this in great detail. In a post-Vatican II world, only a few strains of Sedevacantism are valid according to him.

Guenonchads,
what is the optimal amount of opium consumption to achieve the perfect Guénonian high state of mind...?

>>20307002
Which book?

>>20307031
Destruction of the Christian Tradition

but you can get a qrd here:
http://www.the-pope.com/sedevacantism2.html

>Now one thing is clear. If we as Catholics believe we have an obligation of obey the pope, then we face a dilemma. If we obey these popes we must give up our Catholic Faith. Hence it is that all sorts of solutions are considered – solutions that avoid recognizing the real issue. The bottom line is one cannot obey these individuals and remain Catholic. Hence it is that one must declare that they have no authority – that they do not speak as one hierarchical person with Christ. It matters little how one labels them – anti-popes, usurpers, materialiter popes, or no popes at all. The bottom line is that they have no authority to speak in Christ’s name.

>>20306808
>Paganism doesn't exist anymore give up boo hoo it's a larp
Hinduism is Paganism with legs.
Fuck you OP. All I need is legs.

>>20306883
it's not that easy, india is full of pseudo-gurus, entire lineages are corrupted or just downright cults, the most clear examples are people like Osho, sri sri ravi shankar, sai baba or sadhguru

and you can say the same in the "sufi" realm, there's A LOT of schizos there, a lot more that you would think, the naqshbandi order for example has some of the most idiotic and deranged characters you can imagine

>>20307001
How so?

>>20306983
based

>>20307060
If you seriously study Guénon and have a good reasoning, it will be much easier to avoid pseuds, this is a topic on which he wrote extensively. Charlatans and deviants are everywhere but in the countries mentioned by me, there are also a decent amount of authentic paths.

>>20306808
I grew up with an Islamic family, please just don't do it. It's such a terrible, restricting, soulless culture. It is the very definition of a hivemind. And yes you will never fit in if you're not full blooded anyways, just go your own way. Why do you need to follow the path some guys a thousand years ago laid out? If you live in a part of the world under circumstances where you can easily choose and then decide to fall back into cults and religion traditions you're a coward.

>>20306983
>no trip impostor
Retard

>>20307046
Wasn't he friends with Malachi Martin?

>>20307002
>Vatican II world, only a few strains of Sedevacantism are valid according to him.
How

>>20307165
yes
and Martin was present when Rama was ordained
and then re-ordained him again just to be sure
http://www.the-pope.com/validity.html

bonus rare audio footage of Rama talking about Martin: https://youtu.be/nSz7bU1xcCw?t=2926
(around 48:46)

>>20306808
Why are you joining these other foreign religions? What do you hope to get from it? Just develop your connection to the Divine where you are. Did you fall in some terrible pit where internet exists but God does not?

Pic just sort of fit thread theme.

I'm European but my parents joined Sant Mat (Indian esoteric faith) before I was born. I was raised in that community but fell away at University. I'd like to go back but because of various attrition it's a very small community. Unless I want to be an ascetic, I can't stay. I won't find a spouse or even food every day. Am I so much better off?

>>20307173
I posted his essay on it here >>20307046

>>20306808
Dago?

>>20307245
im not op
but sup

whomst do I have the pleasure of speaking with? vrillmaster or guenonfag?

>>20307256
Nvm r you monitoring pol and lit like 24/7 ?

>>20307272
yes (but only on weekends)

>>20306883
look at you. posing as a traditionalist who wants to embrace faith. but your mind is so neatly programmed you don't even recognize how you turn religious faith into an accessory to shape your identity. In a way you larping faggots are not so different from trannys. You try to cope with your meaningless existence which is being consumed by more and more slavery by the day by joinging some faith other then the one in which your grandparents believed. How pathetic. You realize that guenon was simply a coping shizo right? The is no such thing as world plan written by the one true god. There is no common god that is worshipped by multiple traditions. Gods and the ethics deduced by them have always been created by human imagination. Why don't you just set yourselfs free of faith in something else and realize that power and knowledge is to be found withing yourself? Don't let yourself be held back by the arbitrary restrictions traditions put on your image of god. Embrace it in the way YOU like it. But beware, you might discover that your biggest problems are caused by being opressed by people who already are powerful precisely because they rejected tradition in the way i just described.
>t. promethean pragmatist

>>20306808
Stick to christianity. And if you're looking to get into esotericism, study the Hermetic Tradition set forth by Evola, but only start if you're gonna go all the way, otherwise you're wasting your time or damaging yourself. Hermeticism proper is totally superior to sufism and many other things, you have no idea.

>>20307314
>shudra dog has entered the chat
You low class swine, get out of here. You disgust me, like a dirty shitskin or a tranny.

>>20307079
He was just disenchanted with it basically, in my opinion. It wasnt esoteric enough. Or its esoteric tradition was weak in the face of Islams.

>>20307200
>Why are you joining these other foreign religions?
Because "foreign" doesn't speak to the validity of a religion

Guenon was too dogmatic. He also didn't actually know everything. You will probably need to go out and look for yourself and guide yourself for a while, as a Westerner, then maybe you can reach some groups eventually. You're lucky, since most people on that path don't have clear rules like the Traditionalists and they get lost.

So basically Evola is correct, at least in practice.

>>20307372
This is true why?

>>20307360
Sure it does. How will you ever believe some faith you picked out of a hat? Either you have a mystical experience or grow up with it. Otherwise you are just trying on new hats.

>>20306883
>Is there any good reason to remain in your native western country
It's your and your ancestors homeland?
It's where you were born and where you should die?
Blood and Soil?
Hello?

>>20307385
based

>>20307314
>Give up your spirit quest, seeker! Sip your corn syrup and sell us more corn syrup! Join the Corn Syrup Sales team or die, seeker!

>>20307402
I read this in valley girl uptalk voice.
Umm, like Hitler?

>>20307385
>ure it does
Ok prove geological location has anything to do with truth

>>20306808
>>hinduism? impenetrable to westerners if not by caste then by rite, too spoopy
plenty of westerners have been initiated into vaishnava, shakta and shaiva sects before

>>20307402
Those aren't good reasons if the faith is wrong though

>>20306995
>>20307002
>valid
>valid
>valid
>valid

>>20307472
post your willy and i'll judge whether you are heckin cute or not
>>20306995
>Buddhism I'm not sure on
picrel

>>20306808
He was writing in a different time. I don't think he could imagine the current state of the west

>>20306808
There's no relevant Sufism that preaches what Guenon preaches. Guenon thought Ibn Arabi = Shankara but Ibn Arabi refuted that position countless times.

Guenon was an idiot talking about things he never experienced and didn't understand.

>What did you call it again? Traditionalism? *laughs*

>>20307408
Brodisatva, give us the CUM

>>20306808
Ive never read Guenon. But sufism seems very different to the rest of contemporary Islam. Nothing like salafism or wahabism.

>>20307509
>Guenon thought Ibn Arabi = Shankara
Where is this written about

>>20307497
who's the guy on the right? And did Guenon actually retract this and agree that Buddhism was sufficiently esoteric or Traditional or whatever?

>>20307509
Or he just wanted to smash brown puss

>>20307408
you are deliberately misunderstanding me. I am not telling you to stop seeking truth, or the good life. But you shouldn't seek it in arbitrary deprivation from life on earth by joining some elaborate LARP group. Practicing slavemorality even more then you already are as a western consumer won't bring you any liberation in life or in death.

>>20307557
>who's the guy on the right?
Ananda Coomaraswamy
>And did Guenon actually retract this
yes
(which specific book? can't remember. it's in the footnotes of the early part of either Intro to Hindu Doctrines, Crisis, or East & West)

>>20307431
You are right, it isn't geographic location. They are foreign because you don't believe them. You're just an atheist going to church to meet girls. Do you really want a relationship with the divine? Go to the place that feels the most sacred to you and pray. Don't talk to anyone, don't eat, just pray until God revealed.

>>20306808
Doesn't Christianity have its own mystical tradition? I don't understand why people like Guenon didn't go for that, maybe it's the exoticism, but you could at least go for Orthodox Christianity in that case

>>20307629
mysticism =/= initiation
for God's sake, can't you people just read Guénon before commenting on him?

>>20307650
Initiation = smoking opium and getting sodomized

mysticism = praying constantly and performing good works and getting close to God

>>20307650
Do the sacraments not count as initiation?

>>20307707
Initiation is a mumbo-jumbo concept that means nothing. Guenon said initiation was some epic robotic secret handshake that conferred magical understanding of Buddhism but he got initiated by literal drug addicts (Matgioi and Ivan Agueli).

It's dumb as shit.

all the esoteric mystical traditions share a lot in common and there is not just "one correct" religious tradition to choose from

christian mystic tradition is still very alive aswell

>>20307707
Christian sacraments is where Guenon is at his weakest because he has a very narrow definition of initiation.
However, Schuon dives into this topic and clearly states that the sacraments are unique in that they are both exoteric and esoteric simultaneously.

However, the question is not whether sacraments count as initiation or not, but rather if the sacraments are VALID.
Nearly all Post Vatican II priests who can offer sacraments are NOT VALID. (In short, there was no valid ordination of the priests thus rendering their spiritual authority useless)

So you see, there is a bit of a crisis going on here...


It should be noted though that not every sacrament requires validity. For example, Rama Coomaraswamy says that baptism doesn't require it (and if iirc you can technically be baptized by anyone), but the Eucharist DOES.

>>20306983
I thought you were dead? Where did you be?

>>20307650
>>20307707
>>20307744
Initiation is just the start. You learn techniques that point the way, not hop in a taxi that does you off at God's foot.

>>20307676
t. hylic

>>20306808
test

PBUH

>>20307744
can't believe that you are still posting, get a life

>>20307676
have some respect
>>20307707
>Do the sacraments not count as initiation?
Not anymore. Initiation is something that can't be given to anyone indiscriminately, like baptism (the other sacrements follow into the same story so you can't separate them). Yet, in the earlier period of Christianity (until the second/third century), there is no mention of baptism given to newborns (indiscriminately) even if the christian communities were present in the greco-roman world for more than one generation, therefore it was originally an initiatic rite which became a purely exoteric one. This shouldn't sound like a surprise if you think about the various adaptations which Christianity made to become an exoteric tradition adopted by the empire.
>>20307955
>You learn techniques that point the way, not hop in a taxi that does you off at God's foot.
Techniques come with initiation but they are not the initiation itself, what is meant by initiation is the transmission of a spiritual influence which comes from a chain that goes back to a prophet/divine source. Ofc this is not the end but is the gate towards the path, without it you can't enter.

>>20308168
>chain that goes back to a prophet/divine source
Says the priest kings. And what does that get you exactly? Divine gonna come to you in or out of xSecretClubx. You think God only wants to talk to the good little children but doesn't really care which magic group you're in?

>>20307955
hahahahaha, yeah and I'm sure tranny pronouns create gender equality too

initiation isn't real, getting molested by Schuon isn't going to give you spiritual XP

>>20308168
There isn't a single picture of Guenon where he doesn't look baked out of his mind on opium.

You typed all that bullshit for nothing.

>>20308310
touch grass

Calvinism has so much potential for a kino esoteric element, maybe you could establish it

>>20308418
It exists and it's called Prosperity Gospel.

>>20308168
Wait, why is this concept of initiation even important in the first place? Shouldn't everyone strive to be a saint?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQh_cgQNJb0

>>20308448
Spiritual opium dens. Massignon was right about Guenon. They get together and have gay sex and do nothing but think they're better than others. There's no point to initiation and it doesn't confer any spiritual XP. That's a dumb LARP and the proof is that Guenon couldn't stop smoking opium and Schuon was a child molester. There isn't a single Perennialist who isn't a degenerate boomer midwit.

>>20308298
Yeah dude, not a single yogi knows a thing about meditation. It's all just a scientology scam.

>>20306808

>>20308475
Worst rebuttal I've heard in a long time.

>>20306808

>the orthodox churches are corrupt facades. especially the Russian Stalin-founded one

Find the lineages of the Saints that exist as the treasure hidden in the field of modern Orthodoxy. They exist to this day. Learn about the Catacomb Church that existed in persecution in the Soviet Era - it exists to this day.

I'm not going to lie to you - the spiritual situation is bad. But it's not completely hopeless.

Here is a bootleg printing of "Russia's Catacomb Saints" that talks about the catacomb Church: https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/a-turner/russias-catacomb-saints/paperback/product-2dzwp8.html?page=1&pageSize=4

here's a blog with a PDF of it, and excerpts as blog post, if you want to read that instead of getting the bootleg https://catacombhistory.blogspot.com/

ROCOR was once the free part of the Russian Church, but they stopped being free when the reuinited with the Stalin-founded Church in 2007 - but there are remnants from it that refused union with the Stalin-founded Church. There are some remnants in the post-union ROCOR that still retain the pre-union mindset, but they are rare. There's many more Churches in the world than the Russian Church, too.

Roosh V had a direct experience with one of the recent Saints in a lineage from Mt. Athos.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRl3THDYN6Q

t. God has led me into one of these rare strands of this lineage, and have been able to worship God in freedom in this time of mass global deception over the past two-three years.

Godspeed, anon. If you don't succumb to despair, and you truly desire the truth above all else, then God will prepare something for you. Don't be self-conscious about being a LARPer - just don't LARP.

>>20307314
>>20307565
You're an extremely confused person

>>20306808
>orthodoxy is as big a LARP for westerners as islam, and the orthodox churches are corrupt facades. especially the Russian Stalin-founded one
I’m Orthodox and this isn’t my experience with churches in America. It’s comfy and lively. Lots of good and smart people there.

>>20308641
>>20308532
Not against Orthodoxy, but OP is someone who doesn't understand Guenon. Orthodoxy will not bring you to Buddhism like Guenon believed the elites of every tradition were.

The biggest flaw with Guenon is that his theory was fucking retarded and inconsistent Buddhism aka Advaita is stupid as shit.

>>20308667

I don't think OP was looking to find a secret Buddhism no matter which tradition he went into - he just wanted to find something that wasn't modern degeneracy to step into.

>>20308703
Fair enough.

>>20307124
i don't know bro, guenon died more than half a century ago, thinks changed a lot this last couple decades

>>20308748
Guenon didn't read the things he wrote about. One of the most glaring examples is what he said about Ibn Arabi and how he believed Sufism was esoterically equivalent to Advaita. He was already wrong in his own time, it should come as no surprise that his proposed solutions have aged terribly.

>>20306808
I am a Shi'a Twelver esotericist. If you want to join Islam for its esoteric traditions, mainstream Muslims and their religion should be of no concern to you. I really am not bothered in the slightest by what wahhabis or mainstream rationalist Shias do. This is by essence an individualized practice. The Shia Imams were a strictly apolitical, prioritizing spirituality over political power. You don't even have to announce your religion to the non-Believers if you think that is more prudent (Q 3:28).

>>20307132
murtad scum

>>20307894
By my understanding, initiation is an ontological event.

>>20308854
Thoughts on Haider Amoli and Mulla Sadra?

>>20308901

In Orthodox Christianity, baptism, chrismation, and your first holy communion are ontological initiations.

>>20308854
so I shouldn’t worry about going to a mosque or anything if I want to practice esoteric Islam?

>>20308904
Both extremely important and beneficial to read. During the time that esotericism was violently sideliend in Shi'ism, Amoli was arguing that the true esotericism in Islam is only the teachings of the Imams. Mulla Sadra is one of the main reasons esotericism is alive in Shi'ism today.
>>20308958
If you want to go to the mosque, you can. You can just as well pray at home. I was born in a Shia family and I've been to the mosque only a handful of times.

>>20309044
Are there any other Shia theologians/mystics you'd recommend? I have one of Corbin's volumes on it and he talks about Ruzbehan (Sunni), Amoli and Semnani. I haven't gotten into Mulla Sadra yet but he's next on the list. As I understand it he's basically what Aquinas is to Catholics but for Shias.

>>20308869
Shut up, zombie cultist

>>20306808
You have accurately described the state of affairs. Now I’ll be monitoring this thread for the solution (inb4 Buddhism)

>>20309053
That would be an apt analogy but unfortunately things are more complicated. People used to accuse Mulla Sadra of heresy and extremism (in this case, spiritual extremism, ghuluw). Nowadays he is sort of respected in the status quo thanks to Khomeini's reforms, but you would still encounter a lot of hylics seething about him. If you read Corbin's En Islam iranien, he discusses all the major ones that I am aware of. I would only add Allama Tabatabai, whom Corbin personally knew and greatly admired. From him I would recommend Lubb al-Lubab ("Kernel of the Kernel) and Risalah al-Wilayah ("Vicegerency"). Above all I would recommend reading the primary hadith literature such as Basa'ir al-Darajat of Saffar, al-Kafi of Kulayni, and al-Tawhid of Saduq. If you want an academic work on esotericism in early Shia hadith, I would highly recommend The Divine Guide in Early Shi'ism by Mohammad Ali Amir-Moezzi.

>>20309101
>I would highly recommend The Divine Guide in Early Shi'ism by Mohammad Ali Amir-Moezzi.

Doesn't this guy now think the Quran was edited down by 75% of the original?

>>20308854
You probably a ismaili right? May i ask where you from? Not iran obviously

>>20309112
It is what early Shias believed, and there are narrations from Shia Imams in al-Kafi saying so, even quoting some of the suppressed parts. Shia orthodoxy today rejects this, but I think there is a lot of merit to it. If you read the Qur'an, you'll see that it has little context and narrative, going from one idea to another. This would be explained if we accept the claim that a lot of it has been suppressed by the caliphal power.

>>20309134
As I said in my post, I'm a Twelver. And yes, I'm Iranian. I do have some unorthodox views though. As I said, I don't care about institutionalized religion or what the orthodoxy dictates.

>>20309152
Do you support musa sadr and Hezbollah

>>20309199
Following the instruction of my Imams, I am strictly apolitical.

>>20307402
My ancestors abandoned their homelands to come to America, the link is severed.

>>20308623
fuck you

>>20308462
>Massignon was right about Guenon
what did he say about Guénon?

>>20308462
>nd the proof is that Guenon couldn't stop smoking opium
no proof at all of that, Sedgewick says the opposite is true
>There isn't a single Perennialist who isn't a degenerate boomer midwit.
Guenon (PBUH) wasnt

>>20307132
Retard and materialist, possibly because of inbreeding

>>20307385
By using logic and reason? Why does this threads always fill up with ignorant idiots? Whats next? Uh, you cant cheat your race/people. Have to have your grandparents religion because... that looks cool. Its a search for god and the religions that have the most pure tradition are simply closer to him, and no muh race or people will make you deny the truth

>>20307402
Huh, dude, you have to keep living in shithole globohomo soulless city because its where your great great great grandfather shitted and had his farm 3 thousand years ago. Times are much much different

>>20307629
Got annihilated after renaissance and reformation. Seriously, i went to a catholic mass the other day and it was the most boring and devoid of content thing i have ever attended to. The only way to christianity get its tradition back is by reviving gnosticism and denying the jew god

>>20307200
Did you fall in some terrible pit where internet exists but God does not?
Yes.

>>20309707
With logic and reason? Really? Not only do you have an argument that proves God but also diagrams out the acceptable traditions? Go ahead, everyone here is very excited to read it.

Pic, please circle acceptable good for me.

>>20309736
Yes, it did seem an unfortunate possibility.

>>20309666
>no proof at all of that, Sedgewick says the opposite is true

Every single photo of Guenon he's got the opium eyes. In Egypt he looks completely baked.

>>20310367
he looks more happy than you will ever be, faggot

>>20307200
I almost forgot how retarded gnosticism is. Urantia Book tier cosmology.

I converted to Hinduism in 2016. I'm now a Kshatriya. AMA

Retards.

>>20308532
>roosh
what is with you christers and being total degenerates?

>>20310595
You will never be a kşatriya

>>20309908
Do you really think i will try to convince you to believe in god in a guenon thread? I dont give a fuck about what you believe, and in fact its better if your hylic ass keep far from god and close to the oblivion because thats where you belong

>>20309152
Do you have any opinions on the Ni'matullāhī order? They operate in my city, so I am curious about their reputation or standing.

What did the traditionalists think of occultism? It feels more interesting to me than most of Christianity, but then everyone looks down on it for some reason

>>20310776
Cope. I experienced direct initiation while binge watching Indian action movies.

>>20306808
Pasta time

Was Guénon a Muslim? No.

"What also surprised me a great deal was the regret that I had no biographical information about myself; this is something I have always formally opposed, and above all for a reason of principle, because, according to traditional doctrine, individualities count for nothing and must disappear entirely ... But, in spite of this, I am obliged at least to rectify erroneous assertions when they occur; For example, I cannot let it be said that I am "converted to Islam", because this way of presenting things is completely false; anyone who is aware of the essential unity of traditions is by this very fact "unconvertible" to anything, he is even the only one who is; but he can "settle down", if it is permitted to express himself in this way, in this or that tradition according to circumstances, and especially for reasons of an initiatory nature. I would like to add in this regard that my links with Islamic esoteric organizations are not something more or less recent as some people seem to think; in fact, they are almost 40 years old...".o
- Letter from René Guénon to A. Daniélou, August 27, 1947, my translation - i'm french and my English is bad so sorry if there are mistakes

Retarded Muslims who try to grab his glory must get out. Guénon was Sufi at the end of his life, for purely practical reasons: he already had links with Sufi organizations and he wanted to leave France. The closest and most convenient was the Maghreb.

99.99% of the Muslims who try to seize Guénon's genius by saying "he converted to Islam lol" are refuted by the master himself in this letter and probably never read him, because they would make apostate any Muslim having 1/10th of Guénon's beliefs. Some points of his belief in brief:

1. that all religions are currently valid to lead to God and that Islam is only the most practical path of our time for a European
2. that deliverance (union with the Absolute, death of the ego, al-fana' ) is superior to salvation (entry into paradise), the latter being there for the masses when deliverance is the way of the elites
3. that the world is a part of God and that there is an Absolute superior to the personal God.
4. that it is desirable to achieve supra-individual states through intiation
5. that there is an esoteric path that transcends religious divisions

The Sufi Islam of Guénon is: yes.

The exoteric Islam of 99.99% of the Muslims on earth: it's no, it's shit, and it's probably the worst exotericism still alive.

There is still Therevada (and Zen) Buddhism. Evola was right, Guenon and Coomaraswamy were wrong. Go read the Pali Canon, asketos

>>20310958
Why would Zen be the only "trad" representative of Mahayana?

>>20306808
Sedevacantism is the real traditional path for Western man

>>20310969
Sounds like Protestantism with extra steps.

>>20310983
Incorrect, it is normie Catholicism that is Protestantism with extra steps

>>20310991
>no pope
>my interpretation of x doctrine is correct
>uh because I said so
>of course I have apostolic authority I read the bible you know
cope

>>20311000
>NOOOO YOU HAVE TO WORSHIP THE COUNTER-TRADITIONAL CHURCH OF THE END TIMEZ!!!11!!!!!11!!!!!!!

stupid muthafucka

>>20311006
What if I have no horse in this volcano? You want to talk about a counter-religion, you can start with the assman, egyptologist Jan Assmann

>>20310958
Theravada 'metaphysics' is absolutely retarded

Guenonfag I know you're lurking
spent the entire day yesterday watching advaita/shankara vids
finished Isa Upanishad yesterday
started Katha Upanishad this morning

my gut reaction?
Why the fuck didn't I start Shankara/core/ earlier?
I can already feel my power levels increasing
I purposefully held off for a long time because I felt it was a saturated market on /lit/ and wanted to explore other Guenonian areas

anyways, im gonna lay low on 4chinz for the next month while I get through all his commentaries
I will have many questions when I get back
o7

>>20307060
>Osho, sri sri ravi shankar, sai baba or sadhguru
aren't these new age?

>>20311150
do you have discord?

>>20311150
>I purposefully held off for a long time because I felt it was a saturated market on /lit/ and wanted to explore other Guenonian areas
So what areas did you study?

>>20311346
DagoItaka#9953
>>20311379
>So what areas did you study?
uhh mainly where /trad/ and /pol/ intersect.
like imagine picrel path of Reign of Quantity's "bonus round" and going deep down the rabbit hole there

>>20311441
Based. Favorite /pol/ + /trad/ book?

>>20311441
Is traditionalism compatible with white nationalism?

>>20311545
Um hard to say. Metaphysics of Power by Evola is pretty good. In general, Evola’s post-war critique of the modern West books are rock solid.
For more recent authors, Olavo and Upton (he has the best understanding of the NWO imo)
>>20311550
Hard to say. I think a white-only Western Brahmin/Kshatriya order is possible.

What do you think?

>>20311550
why not, if understood as essentially a means to maintain a certain social order in place within which cultivate higher life
can't remember the book but Guenon did admit e.g the (social) unity of Chinese civilization being founded upon race, and that ancient Europeans did have similar ancestor worship
of course the situations have diverged, but potentially, at least in the realm of social order, it's not incompatible per se

>>20310776
The Gods disagree.

>>20311674
>can't remember the book but Guenon did admit e.g the (social) unity of Chinese civilization being founded upon race
East & West
And this why I think it is possible too

>>20311687
>East & West
Actually not sure
E&W, Crisis, and Intro are all a blur to me since they repeat about many similar topics

>>20311687
>>20311674
and what does Evola offer for a solution?
basically a Waffen-SS like organization, while incorporating the Hindu/Buddhist (Aryan) tradition, Catholic tradition, and fragments from the Norse + Roman traditions
with the HQ being Rome


no reason it can't be done

>>20311150
>finished Isa Upanishad yesterday
>started Katha Upanishad this morning
>my gut reaction?
>Why the fuck didn't I start Shankara/core/ earlier?
>I can already feel my power levels increasing
Holy based... I'm proud of you brother...

I myself just created the /lit/ guide for him this morning, I wish I had done so earlier

>>20311739
>and what does Evola offer for a solution?
read Ride the Tiger
>basically a Waffen-SS like organization, while incorporating the Hindu/Buddhist (Aryan) tradition, Catholic tradition, and fragments from the Norse + Roman traditions
with the HQ being Rome
lmao he never wrote that

>>20311826
>lmao he never wrote that
He wrote about how muh Rome is the imperial seat all the time

>>20311835
>He wrote about how muh Rome is the imperial seat all the time
not really and definitely not any of that other schizo posting you did

>>20311550
no
nationalism is the enemy of feudalism(trad order)

>>20311851
Im an Evola autist my dude, he most certainly said all that or I wouldn’t have posted it
I could track it down easily but too lazy

Imperial seat = Rome talk is in Revolt
>>20311816
Based and saved

My other reaction was: “damn, I need to put aside whatever intellectual plans I had and learn Sanskrit over the next 2-3 years”

>>20311878
>Im an Evola autist my dude, he most certainly said all that or I wouldn’t have posted it
he didn't and you're making things up

>>20311881
Cope pseud

>>20311882
cope about your fanfic?
you're just making things up as a cope

>>20307557
On Buddhism from the archives, pretty the following was written by Guénonfag, I have developed a way to track him all over 4chan - nevermind that.


>It is true that the majority or perhaps a significant plurality of Mahayana and Tantric Buddhist schools adhere to an understanding of sunyatta and anatta which is fundamentally opposed to Advaita/Upanishads/perennialism etc. This relates to the Mahayana/Vajrayana conception of the "three turnings of the wheels of dharma", each representing a successive stage in the teachings, with the first being the Pali canon, then the teachings on Sunyata and the Prajnaparamita Sutras, and then after this the third turning corresponding to Yogachara teachings and the Tathagatagarbha Sutras.

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

>Most or a plurality of Mahayana/Vajrayana interprets the 2nd turning (i.e. sunyata) to be the highest or absolute teaching, with the first and 3rd wheel being provisional and preparatory teachings or stages. However, there are also schools which disagree with this take. It is to this later category which don't hold sunyata and anatta (as propounded by Madhyamaka or Gelug etc) as the absolute truth that Guenon undoubtedly referred to when he wrote of certain Mahayana and Vajrayana as aligning with the primordial Tradition, and not the Mahayana and Vajrayana schools which adhere to the Madhyamaka positon which Advaita criticized in the first millennium. Some, like the Jonang school of Tibetian Buddhism hold the third turning to be absolute and regard the 2nd turning teaching of sunyata to be provisional. This relates to the debate between Shentong (empty of other nature) and Rangtong (empty of self-nature) in Tibetan Buddhism, wherein Shentong is a more Advaita- or Upanishadic-aligned view and is held to be Jonang and some areas of Kagyu Buddhism, whereas the Rangtong view represents the more Madhyamaka-aligned view which is opposed to Advaita and which is held by the popular Gelug sect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangtong-Shentong

>Outside of Tibetan Buddhism you can find various examples or more Advaita-aligned positions within the various forms of Zen Buddhism and non-Tibetan Tantric Buddhism, i.e. Huangbo's (Chinese Zen) teachings about 'One mind', Jinul's (Korean Zen) teachings about Nirvana being a sublime essence that is present in all beings, or Kukai's (Japanese Tantra) teachings about the non-duality of oneself and Buddha/Mahavairocana. There could perhaps be some quite interesting discussions, if devoted students of these types of Buddhism posted more on /lit/, but unfortunately the majority of the in-depth Buddhist posters on /lit/ seem to adhere to some anti-foundationalist, deconstructionist, post-modernism-aligned interpretation of Madhyamaka which they amusingly often seem to believe to be reconcilable with materialism.

>>20311891
And:

The problem is many Buddhists, namely almost all of Theravada and much of Tibetan Buddhism (rooted in Madhyamaka philosophy) deny this transcendent entity (Upanishadic Atman which is timeless, transcendent, uncreated, etc.) For them liberation is realizing that there was never any person in the first place, there is no transcendent spirit or Atman, there is no Absolute, and that reality is illusion all the way down. That's nihilism.

The good forms of Buddhism are mostly East Asian Mahayana, like Huayan (related to Chan) and Shingon, or the Jonangpas in Tibet. All the others which are at pains to deny reality to any Absolute or transcendence whatsoever and therefore liberation becomes essentially a form of spiritual suicide.

Most forms of Buddhism deny there is an Absolute (like the Hindu Brahman, the Dao of Daoism, the One of Neoplatonism, etc.), and deny there is a transcendent element in man (like the Hindu atman or the shen/spirit/true nature of Daoism or the nous of Neoplatonism), hence for them all of reality is illusion. This is nihilism and it is also nonsensical because one must ask who or what is aware of or cognizes or realizes these truths if there is no self at all? It is a self-negation paradox and completely nonsensical. For them liberation is realizing all is illusion and thereby eliminating future rebirth but since there is nothing which transcends the skandhas, with their final dissolution there is literally nothing at all, hence it is a form of spiritual suicide. Of course this isn't actually what Gautama taught, but it is what Buddhism became.

The forms of Buddhism I mentioned avoid such nihilism by affirming the Tathagatagarbha or Buddha-Nature or an Absolute, such as Shingon's conception of Dainichi Nyorai.

In addition:

Ananda Coomaraswamy held the opinion that the Buddha taught an Upanishadic Atman via apophatic negation. Here are two essays by Coomaraswamy where he argues for that being true, and wherein he cites many passages from the Pali Canon

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lZZwozWViHtwolDHzM8GB1qgWfKbLkOh/view

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ORSdqJ-1LmVMgAHwYiRt0SwqeHIiRM6F/view

>>20311885
Don’t care if you believe me or not, it’s all in his works. cope

>>20311891
>>20311895
Extra:
>Start with some selections of Pali texts like Bhikku Bodhis various anthologies and a basic overview like "what the Buddha taught"

>Then it's good to get an understanding of the two main currents of Indian Mahayana Buddhist philosophy (Madhyamaka and Yogachara).

>For Madhyamaka you can just read Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti and be set. For Yogachara you want to read some of the works of Asanga and Vasubandhu (the early Yogacharins) plus Dharmakirti (the later stage of Yogachara).

>Then you want to read some of the major/influential anonymously composed Indian Mahayana sutras (Lotus, Heart, Diamond, Maha-Parinirvana, Srimaladevi, Angulimaliya, Tathagatagarbha, Anunatva-Apurnatva-Nirdesa etc)

>Then, from there you can move into either Tibetan Buddhism or Ch'an Buddhism, each has their own wide variety of literature. The Tibetan Buddhist literature is more influenced by Madhyamaka and Tantric Shaivism. The Ch'an literature is more influenced by Yogachara, the Tathagatagarbha Sutras and Daoism.

>>20311899
its not though and you're making things up as a coping mechanism
now you're salty you got called out
lmao retard :^)

>>20311816
That is a based reading guide.

>>20306808
>Was Guenon full of shit?
Yes, Orientalism is anti-traditional no matter what way you slice it. He was just a fraud.

>>20311904
you're here seething because your understanding of Evola isn't as high as you think it is.
i'll give you 15 minutes to skim for Napoleon talk to find him talking about Rome being the Imperial Seat in Revolt. He also likely talks about it in the Conclusion

BONUS
just from memory:
the four different traditions making up the western tradition is likely in Metaphysics of War
waffen-ss talk is in both notes on the third reich and sufi of rome


now come back in 15 minutes and apologize to daddy dago or you will be forever a pseud

>>20311918
>you're here seething because your understanding of Evola isn't as high as you think it is.
you're mad you got called out so you're resort to cope seethe dilate when you were caught writing fanfic
but this is typical of evola fags

again you're just pretending evola wrote things he didn't
which is itself a cope

>>20311925
You didn’t call out shit though?

I just gave you the source for each bit
Now you’re seething that you have to eat your words instead of kneeling before a superior man and begging for forgiveness.

Stay mad

>>20311929
you name dropped a few book titles and think that means something?
try harder tranny

>>20311932
T-minus 10 minutes until you are certified pseud

Go to the index and find ‘Bonaparte, Napoleon’

Tick tock pseud

>>20311934
burden of proof is on you discord tranny

>>20311932
What is your problem with Dago and Evolians, every Guénon related thread where evola gets brought up you just spend the whole thread seething, derailing, and delgitamising "evola"
What's the deal, you should he honest here what possesses you thread after thread to do this, it's like that sperg who I've noticed who keeps repeating the
>muh guénon was a baked opium smoker, look at his eyes in every photo!
You're like robot npcs, entertaining nonetheless.

>>20311936
i've done you

>>20311942
well he's just making things up that evola never wrote about so there's that

>>20311942
>it's like that sperg who I've noticed who keeps repeating the
>muh guénon was a baked opium smoker, look at his eyes in every photo!

he keeps doing this for over two years, I think that we should find out who he is and meme him out of this website

>>20311944
>runs away with is tail between his legs
ahahahaha

>20311947
>20311956
you've exposed yourself as a pseud today anon
>he's making it up because I don't recall that bit
is textbook seething 101

no more (You)s 4 U

>>20311968
well at least you admit you're a pseudo writing fanfic lmao

>no more (You)s 4 U
ahh the discord tranny is mad

>>20311891
>>20311895
You should read Buddhists or buddhologists to better understand Buddhism, not hostile polemicists. Stcherbatsky is a valuable secondary source. There is no "upanishadic atman" in Buddhism for the simple reason that Buddhists reject the Vedas as a source of authority. What you are doing is looking for atman equivalents because that is what tardlarp exegesis demands. Your "good forms of Buddhism" list that centers around Yogacara influenced schools seems based on uncritical acceptance of Gelug doxographers reading of these Buddhists' readings of tathagatagarbha as being heterodox to the prasangika Madhyamaka of Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti, and Tsongkapa, from which Tibetan rangtong/zhentong doxography emerged. In any case it would probably take the average person years of study to understand that particular debate front and back. A less Tibeticized way to put it is that the Nagarjuna-Chandrakirti derived schools are more strict about the ineffibility of the absolute, and the Nagarjuna-Asanga derived schools (which is really the last form of Indiam Buddhism, see Shataraksita/Kamalasila) try to explain it through all kinds of categories and logic systems. But both of these views agree that there is no difference between nirvana and samsara, that emptiness is (or enables) form, and so forth. And this is actual non-dualism because it accounts for experiences vs a true reality, while the non-dualism of the Vedantins is between God and the Soul, and these are both nominal or imaginary things that cannot be demonstrated in any case, so nothing is being said about the relation of phenomena and noumenon but instead a non-duality is given of two non-things! It does not matter to someone who does not accept the Vedas, but one could see why it might be useful to preserve the Vedas in India and combine them with influences from a Buddhism that was being replaced

imagine reading Evola and thinking that the geographical center of tradition in the West can be any place other than Rome

lulz

>Was immer erscheint, das hat einen Sinn; und jeder Sinn offenbart sich, indem er erscheint
Did it ever occur to you that the natural world is capable of providing its own initiation and that you don't need any of this nonsense? The panentheists have been right all along, and all this time spent learning arabic could've been spent getting initiated by trees. Chill the fuck out and read eliade or garden or something.

>>20310896
Heard very good things about them. I myself might join later.

>>20311914
what if I told you Christianity was Orientalism for Europeans to begin with

funny who you say like 10 things that are blatant lies but run back to only 1 that could be interrupted as truth
lmao cope

>>20312017
how is it

seething

>>20312031
we know you're seething

>>20312006
It's true. I was initiated by an opossum in my neighbor's yard after reading some suttas. From his subtle mudras I understood the interdependence of all contingencies was itself entry into reality

>n-no u

>cope
>seethe
>dilate

the holy trinity of discord tranny rage

>>20312027
because it came from the east and replaced their traditions

>>20312046
pretty low bar for what constitutes orientalism

>>20312017
This already existed and it was called Neoplatonism; all its major thinkers came from the eastern Greek speaking parts of the empire and were of presumable partial or full non-Roman—and even non-Greek—ethnic background

>>20312055
regardless, precedent was set in tradition, so it's now perfectly traditional for us to leave Christianity for Islam and Hinduism

>>20312061
>it's now perfectly traditional for us to leave Christianity for Islam and Hinduism
why?

>>20312061
What do you mean by "traditional" here?

The topics discussed by these authors are supposed to represent the epitome of spirituality. Then why is it that people who follow them always fall into these immature and autistic arguments with each other? It's as if you have learned nothing from them, or they didn't have anything worthwhile to teach.

>>20312065
because it is the way of our ancestors
come home, Aryan man

>>20312077
>because it is the way of our ancestors
islam and hinduism?

>Evola: while the Waffen-SS lacked any sort of traditionalism but can nevertheless serve as a framework for the Kshatriya Orden Staat I have in mind
>Evola: The Western Warrior tradition is a mixture of the Aryan, Aryo-Roman, Nordic Aryan, and Templar traditions and we shall draw our tradition from here
>Evola: It makes the most sense to have our Orden Staat centered around Rome because it is the traditional seat of the Empire and there is tradition in Rome itself

NO DAGO YOU'RE MAKING IT ALL UP TO FIT YOUR LARP

I've done you.

>>20311441
This chart needs to be updated. Charles Upton recently published yet another book on the ayys.

>>20312082
There are more siculo-arab spritual aristocrats in Staten Island than all of Italy

>>20312080
our ancestors decided to leave their traditions for something new to them, and more powerful
now the cycle continues in the consciousness of the western man, and we look further east

>>20312093
ok but how is this indicative of the validity of islam or hinduism

>>20312101
validity's got nothing to do with it

>>20312107
so you admit being wrong then?

>>20312111
wrong about what?

>>20312085
have you read it?

>>20312082
>makes thing up about evola
>makes up thing #2
>makes up thing #3
I'm wrong?? cope seethe cope cope seethe dilate cope seethe!
#IdoneYou
- dogo

ahaahahah
sad

>>20312111
yes, i was wrong and i'm stupid. so what?

>>20311982
Thanks for the information, could you further elaborate further on the differences maybe between
>"actual" non-dualism
And
>non-dualism

From what I read here:
>"actual" non-dualism:
But both of these views agree that there is no difference between nirvana and samsara, that emptiness is (or enables) form, and so forth.
Which then.
>accounts for experiences vs a true reality...
While I guess the
>pseudo-non-dualism of the vedantins
is between God (Brahman) and the Soul (Atman), and these are both nominal or imaginary things that cannot be demonstrated in any case.

Explain further what you mean by "demonstrated" just above, and by Emptiness(Shunyata)[Non-Being] is or enables form(Rupa)[Maya] and so forth. which I guess you're roughly equating to Being in its relative sense, but not in the sense of Pure Being, anyway you seem really knowledgeable but for all those sentences, you wrote like 2 on the metaphysics in a very vague way, I'm not attacking you I'd just like some further elucidation.

>>20312117
whatever it is you're saying about islam and hinduism
if you're saying anything at all I don't even think you know honestly

You've been done
Any person who has actually read Evola can confirm each bit listed
Clearly not (You)

everyone who has discord give me your usernames

>>20312124
>i was wrong and i'm stupid
lol your concession is accepted

>>20311982
>ou should read Buddhists or buddhologists to better understand Buddhism, not hostile polemicists.
AKC Coomaraswamy was not a "hostile polemicist" but a serious scholar who had mastered both Sanskrit and Pali

>Stcherbatsky is a valuable secondary source.
He actually contradicts himself and in some of his works emphasizes a positive, absolutist interpretation of Nagarjuna and then in other works and reviews attacks this very same interpretation

>There is no "upanishadic atman" in Buddhism for the simple reason that Buddhists reject the Vedas
They don't label it as such or ascribe a Vedic origin to it obviously, however this doesn't change the reality that certain teachings found in Mahayana and Vajrayana like Chinul's 'numinous awareness', the Dharmadhatu that is Jñana that is thusness of the Kalachakra which is partless, all-pervasive and self-aware luminosity, Dolpopa's 'self-cognizing pristine wisdom' and even Asanga's Dharmadhatu in the Sublime Continuum are practically functionally equivalent to the Advaita Atman, even when described in a different framework. When they say this isn't a 'self' they mean it's no equivalent to an ego, they sometimes distinguish it as the 'greater' or 'supreme' self that isn't the lesser-self ego, just like Advaitins do.

>Your "good forms of Buddhism" list that centers around Yogacara influenced schools
Not only influenced by Yogachara, but also by non-Yogachara Mahayana Sutras, as well as by Buddhist Tantras, and then lastly Daoism in the cast of Ch'an.
>seems based on uncritical acceptance of Gelug doxographers reading of these Buddhists' readings of tathagatagarbha
No, it's just based on the recognition of the simple fact that some Buddhist schools take the 2nd turning of the Dharma to be absolute and the 3rd to be provisional, while others reverse that interpretation or understand the 2nd turning in a 3rd-turning-centric manner that differs totally from Gelug.

>In any case it would probably take the average person years of study to understand that particular debate front and back.
You don't need years of study to just read some of these texts and enjoy them, you don't have to read all the arguments for one side or another in order to study and enjoy more Shentong-type thinkers and texts. Stop trying to gatekeep people

>But both of these views agree that there is no difference between nirvana and samsara
Dolpopa attacks the view that there is no difference between nirvana and samsara as being stupid nonsense propagated by idiots. Also, Shantaraksita/Kamalashila wasnt the last generation but there was another generation combining Yogachara/Madhyamaka in a different way like Jñanasrimitra, Ratnakirti and others, thesy are sometimes seen as being Indian precursors to Shentong

>And this is actual non-dualism because it accounts for experiences vs a true reality
The claim that only epistemic non-dualism and not ontological non-dualism is "actual non-dualism" is a laughable partisan dogma

>>20312127
Yes
And also by
>nominal
What qualifies the "non-dualism" of the vedantins between God and Soul as Nominal, these are nor arguments but just statements, so I'm sure my confusion should be understandable to you.

massive cope dogo
guess you've been done
sad

>>20312128
I never made any point about Islam or Hinduism
I was replying to the guy who said Orientalism was anti-traditional

>>20312129
based
Evola bros win again

>>20312170
>resorts to samefagging off of trip code

LOOK AT HIM SSEEEEEEEETTTHHHEEEEEEEE

MMHMMMMMMMMM IT TASTES SOOOO GOOOOOOOOOOODDDDDDDDDD

>>20312127
From the Buddhist pov, there's no atman or Brahman; these both contradict what we can observe about things in their momentariness; both ideas function as eternal sub-stances underlying change and as such are considered mental constructions or projections. A self for instance is inferred but if it is reified from a Buddhist perspective that causes problems because if something is enduringly permanent or eternal it cannot interact with things or have any efficacy, which makes it unreal. And this is actually how some of the Vedantins see their atman=Brahman, as totally aloof, with everything else being maya or illusion. The Buddhist would say Brahman and atman are part of that maya, that you are forming delusions off of illusions—and here the soteriological angle picks up, which that being attached to these flashes of existence and trying to stretch them over moments is what will make you suffer or otherwise be disquieted. So the Buddhist "non-dualism" is between something quite different than the Vedantist "non-dualism". For the Buddhist the elements of our experience (lower case dharmas) are a clouded version of ultimate reality (dharmata), where for the Vedantist it is that your soul (atman) is actually God (brahman) and that is all that exists and everything else is just illusion (maya). Buddhism does have maya but does not view it as an expulsion of God that is altogether not of his substance. The Buddhist maya is more to the effect that all these illusions cause each other and reflect one another without beginning or end, which is an expression of the absolute reality... something with no real divisions or discursiveness or beginning or end etc. Totally non-dual. And this decidely anatman reading is a reading one could derive from the Asanga-Maitreya texts, or the Avatamsaka and Lankavatara sutras—all used by schools the other poster thinks are "good versions of Buddhism" with an "upanishadic atman." Which again I see as proof of the uncritical acceptance of prasangika madhyamaka as the authoritative version of Buddhism.

>discord trannies endless seething
sad

>>20312199
You seem unstable, Dago BTFO you there is no doubt.

>>20312142
>You don't need years of study to just read some of these texts and enjoy them, you don't have to read all the arguments for one side or another in order to study and enjoy more Shentong-type thinkers and texts. Stop trying to gatekeep people
You absolutely cannot dive into this without years of study as someone entirely foreign to it. And there is nothing wrong with something taking time to be understood. You cannot expect to grasp centuries in minutes

>>20306808
>Is there no hope?
Dam, just become a humanist and read the greeks, its that simple.

>>20306883
>Is there any good reason to remain in your native western country? I don't think so.
Nice, the rootless globalist speaks his word, all traditionalists are leftists.

>>20312194
>From the Buddhist pov, there's no atman or Brahman; these both contradict what we can observe about things in their momentariness;
Observing change requires and presupposes a non-momentary consciousness, because an awareness that only lasts for 1 instant has no time to observe change.

> A self for instance is inferred but if it is reified from a Buddhist perspective that causes problems because if something is enduringly permanent or eternal it cannot interact with things or have any efficacy, which makes it unreal.
A pristine Atman that simply illuminates mental-contents with it's light without itself changing is not interacting with things (which involves both parties changing or being affected) or participating in causal relations between phenomena and so there is no problem at all with a luminous unchanging eternal Self. Illuminating things without thereby itself changing wouldn't make it unreal.

>And this is actually how some of the Vedantins see their atman=Brahman, as totally aloof, with everything else being maya or illusion.
If you interpret "unaffected by ignorance and delusion" as "aloof", then yes, the Atman-Brahman is "aloof" because it's forever liberated and untouched by maya

>And this decidely anatman reading is a reading one could derive from the Asanga-Maitreya texts,
Asanga's "perfect nature" or Parinispanna is eternal, unchanging and only empty of the Paratantra and Parikalpa, it's not empty of its own nature. Asanga considered Nagarjuna's model to be insufficient (or the normative understanding of it formed by latter Madhyamakins like Aryadeva and Buddhapalita) which is the whole reason why Asanga came up with his 'three-natures' model instead

>>20312210

>makes thing up about evola
>makes up thing #2
>makes up thing #3
I'm wrong?? cope seethe cope cope seethe dilate cope seethe!
#IdoneYou
- dogo


cope harder dogo

>>20312275
>A pristine Atman that simply illuminates mental-contents with it's light without itself changing is not interacting with things (which involves both parties changing or being affected) or participating in causal relations between phenomena and so there is no problem at all with a luminous unchanging eternal Self
If you actually believe this you are an unironic NPC. Namaste out of my way

>>20312221
>You absolutely cannot dive into this without years of study as someone entirely foreign to it.
Yes, you can, but you just won't be as informed as a scholar specializing in it. But there is no reason why everyone who enjoys studying the subject should have the expertise of a scholar. All you need to understand the gist of later Tibetans and East-Asians interpreting Indian-derived concepts is a basic overview of Buddhism and an understanding of the main ideas of Yogachara and Madhyamaka (which can be gleaned from a single book).
>And there is nothing wrong with something taking time to be understood.
I didn't say there was

>>20312311
>If you actually believe this you are an unironic NPC. Namaste out of my way
The opposite is true, because NPCs have no inner experience/awareness of phenomena, while the Advaitin model does explain that we have an inner experience of phenomena. On the other hand certain Buddhist models deny this and propose NPC theories

Mark Siderits has an essay in the "self, no-self" compilation talking about this where he basically says certain Buddhist theory-of-mind says that we are P-Zombies

>>20312315
Reading a single work of survey literature is not the same as reading the actual texts themselves—that is the actual time consuming effort which would allow you to validate what the survey is saying and have your own critical opinion on the matter instead of merely memorizing who said what meant what

>>20312275
>From the Buddhist pov, there's no atman or Brahman; these both contradict what we can observe about things in their momentariness; both ideas function as eternal sub-stances underlying change and as such are considered mental constructions or projections. A self for instance is inferred but if it is reified from a Buddhist perspective that causes problems because if something is enduringly permanent or eternal it cannot interact with things or have any efficacy, which makes it unreal. And this is actually how some of the Vedantins see their atman=Brahman, as totally aloof, with everything else being maya or illusion. The Buddhist would say Brahman and atman are part of that maya, that you are forming delusions off of illusions—and here the soteriological angle picks up, which that being attached to these flashes of existence and trying to stretch them over moments is what will make you suffer or otherwise be disquieted.
So why can't I just apply the same "argument" to "dharmata" and "dharma" what you're talking about seems like an attack on the "permanence" of the soul so to speaking, in my opinion the soul youre talking about is merely Relative Being which is indeed a "determination" and therefore belongs to the category of falsity, the impermanent phonomena you obseve.- don't know if you mean decay, material impermanence or whatever are part of the world-objectives, falsity they are neither being nor non-being, it'd be easily answered by properly understanding the "metaphysical infinite" Nirguna, "delimited infinite," the three categories
*Being
*Neither Being nor Non-Being
*Non-Being
As
>>20312275
Said
>Observing change requires and presupposes a non-momentary consciousness, because an awareness that only lasts for 1 instant has no time to observe change.
In all honesty your arguments are not the least compelling even to an amateur like me.

>>20312336
>we have an inner experience of phenomena
Not if they are maya and incapable of affecting you because you are just some script that God is passively running while he naps

>>20312344
*world-objects

>>20312311
What is wrong with what he wrote there?

>>20312339
but then I have to learn Sanskrit and shit it's too hard

>>20312339
>Reading a single work of survey literature is not the same as reading the actual texts themselves—that is the actual time consuming effort which would allow you to validate what the survey is saying and have your own critical opinion on the matter instead of merely memorizing who said what meant what
Yes, but none of that is necessary whatsoever to understand how later Tibetan or East Asian authors are interpreting those ideas, especially since those people often quote the relevant portions, explain why they interpret them that way, and provide arguments for why that's the correct interpretation. It seems like you keep reverting back to this incorrect notion that nobody should study these texts or that nobody could benefit from or enjoy doing so unless they do so with same level of preparation as a scholar specializing in that field; that's a kind of unhelpful gate-keeping.

>>20312194
Also I recognise this pic. You are on telegram?

>>20312344
>So why can't I just apply the same "argument" to "dharmata" and "dharma"
Dogmatically speaming there's no atman found among the elements of experience or outside of them. So the relationship between atman and brahman has little to with that of dharmas vs dharmata, which is essentially a partite view of a partless absolute.

>>20312411
Is there some sort of further elaboration somewhere on the Being casting Maya like a "Magic spell" so to speak, from the Advaita point of view?

>>20312344
>In all honesty your arguments are not the least compelling even to an amateur like me.
Well, can you provide a non-absurd explanation of how a consciousness lasting for only a single instant is somehow able to directly observe change, despite all change taking place across time? Because I have never seen a non-absurd attempt at squaring that circle
>>20312345
>>we have an inner experience of phenomena
>Not if they are maya and incapable of affecting you
Incorrect, just because they are maya doesn't mean that a person doesn't encounter them in empirical experiences, maya phenomena are presented as observed phenomena to the 'witness-consciousness' or Sākṣī-chaitanya. The real you isn't the script, the real you is God (Brahman) Himself.

>>20312433
>Is there some sort of further elaboration somewhere on the Being casting Maya like a "Magic spell" so to speak, from the Advaita point of view?
It's discussed periodically throughout Shankara's works in the various contexts that arise. If you want an extended philosophical analysis of the concept you can find it in Sharma's "The Advaita Tradition in Indian Philosophy", which is available for free on archive.org, lib-gen and b-ok.cc

>>20312382
weird hybrid of a naive realism (all objects exist and I just light them up) and aborted pantheism (my awareness of these objects means I am God and they are fake)
>>20312411
I speak from my experience. You can read whatever you like but you will not get it on the same level if you are just taking the surveyor's word on everything and guesstimating what every other sentence means because you've no knowledge base. In fact, you should go back to the survey after you've read the primary texts.
>>20312392
You can get by with many English translations but it is important to learn perhaps 50-100 words of vocabulary and understand which terms are being translated as what. Some of these are more complex than others and highly debated. Others are actually quite simple but still represent a loss of context in translation. For instance, tirthika is sometimes translated as "forder" or "heretic" or "pagan;" this actually refers to a kind of Indian priest who would wade into rivers. So he is literally someone who fords rivers, doesn't follow Buddhist doctrines, and worships gods, but if you didn't know how to recognize "tirthika" in translation that is lost to you. "Forder" might be the least helpful English rendering even though it is literal, but the context of the rest of the sutra or text should at least imply a "forder" is someone who is being criticized. Like I said to the other guy this can take TIME to pick up if you have no knowledge base.
>>20312419
No I got it from here and like the aesthetic

>>20312456
>maya phenomena are presented as observed phenomena to the 'witness-consciousness'
But that's not an atman and it's not brahman, so it also doesn't exist in your doctrines. You have two non-things interacting with each other

>>20312425
>Dogmatically speaming there's no atman found among the elements of experience or outside of them. So the relationship between atman and brahman has little to with that of dharmas vs dharmata, which is essentially a partite view of a partless absolute.
Ah I see, I just understood the gist of the argument as we can't say "atman" or "brahman" because they are "permanent" "concepts in the mind" which "contradict" the momentariness of observation, as if even these are "determinations" of the Absolute, and are therefore insufficient relativisations so to speak, so why opt for as you say the partite view of partless absolute through "dharmas vs dharmata" which are indeed in the same way relativisations... that's what I meant why can't I just substitute your view for this, but how can the absolute have parts on that note? Isn't opting for the "partite" view just a pseudo-atomistic compromise, the absolute by virtue of being Nirguna, is conditionless, not a concept in the mind, beyond Names regardless.
>>20312456
No I agree with you, I was just using that as further evidence. My bad.

>>20312480
Naive realism (all objects exist and I just light them up) I agree. Objects are only known through their union with Subject, but are we monistically objects in all their multiplicitous differentiations, no this to me contradicts rather arbitrarily the unity of being, the Subject "I" permeates them, it is more like the Eternal subject, really like a sun whose rays illuminate, an unmoved mover, so to speak, and say the colours of the rays are modulated by maya, what's wrong with this understanding?

>>20306808
>Is there no hope?
https://youtu.be/QbEpXceeHoM

>>20312518
>so why opt for as you say the partite view of partless absolute through "dharmas vs dharmata" which are indeed in the same way relativisations... that's what I meant why can't I just substitute your view for this, but how can the absolute have parts on that note?
Whole point of the partite bit is that such things do not ultimately exist but are relative and dependent... the observer of these things is not actually grasping anything with an objective referent and is no different from them in that regard. So subject/object is done away with and we enter into what is somewhat inelegantly called "non-conceptual wisdom," that all these designations used in conventional discourse are not capturing the absolute reality but merely cognition. The Absolute is not some substance with actually partite modes (this would be closer to the samkhya philosophy than the Buddhism of Asanga-Maitreya), but the phenomena we grasp are merely incomplete thought-constructs in relation to it

>>20312546
I Disagree*

>>20312546
>the Eternal subject, really like a sun whose rays illuminate, an unmoved mover, so to speak, and say the colours of the rays are modulated by maya, what's wrong with this understanding?
What are the rays illuming and why are they blocked by maya? Is the eternal subject also eternally at war with itself or what?

>>20306808
>Was Guenon full of shit?
Yes
>Is there no hope?
Join Christianity, actually study it and read Christian philosophers
Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine, Bonaventura, the whole late antiquity and middle ages are there for you to rediscover
Want modern stuff too? Pascal, Kierkegaard, Henri de Lubac, Ettienne Gilson

People want to escape and join some other culture but have no idea what they are leaving behind, we take so much for granted you arent even aware of it

>>20306808
Fuck this nigger. First psyop hybrid ayylmao plant.

>>20307314
11/10 bait. You sound just like the real thing and got people to seethe

>>20312496
>But that's not an atman and it's not brahman, so it also doesn't exist in your doctrines.
The sense of there being a witness-consciousness comes from the Buddhi superimposing observership on the Atman, which since its non-dual doesn't actually observe anything. Here we are entering the distinction between the phenomenological and the metaphysical, it's phenomenologically correct to say that we have an inner experience/awareness of the mind's contents (this is the anti-NPC or anti-P-zombie position), and this is true as in 'actually descriptive of our experience in samsara' even when that sense of observership is superimposed on the non-dual reality of the Atman, which is a metaphysical claim which is fully consistent with the phenomenological claim that this is superimposition is *experienced by people as* the sense of having witness-consciousness. So the Advaita position still is the anti-NPC once, since it's saying in experience we have a separate abiding awareness of changing mental contents, and it's saying metaphysically that we have an irreducible and non-negatable self-awareness/sentience forming our core, unlike NPCs and P-zombies which don't.
>You have two non-things interacting with each other
Things within maya are false and not nothingness. Since reality is non-dual and undifferentiated all "interactions" (which presuppose multiplicity) naturally takes place on the realm of false samsara.

>>20310843
The divine is ever present in my mind and life. With every breath, Deus vult. Still a logical argument proving God would be very useful for the world....so do you have one?

>>20310567
Every mythology I've ever read has some pretty dumb sounding parts. It'd be hard to rank the worst to best.

>>20312568
>What are the rays illuming
the contents of the Buddhi
>and why are they blocked by maya?
they aren't
>Is the eternal subject also eternally at war with itself or what?
No, it's unaffected and unconditioned

>>20310595
May you fulfill your Dharma.

>>20312601
>in experience we have a separate abiding awareness of changing mental contents, and it's saying metaphysically that we have an irreducible and non-negatable self-awareness/sentience forming our core
It's that second part that makes you an NPC who cannot engage with anything that changes; you only run a permanent script coded by jeetgod. No more JIRA tickets for you.

>>20312624
>It's that second part that makes you an NPC who cannot engage with anything that changes
Wrong, because when this irreducible and non-negatable self-awareness illumines the contents of the creature's intellect, it allows the human being to walk around, engage with changing things and live life, just like a man requires the sun to rise and illuminate everything so he can go about his daily activities
>you only run a permanent script coded by jeetgod
My true identity that is identical with the transcendent Absolute is that very same jeetgod (PBUH), everything affected by the script is non-self and not actually me. By identifying yourself with the non-self you've already failed the most basic lesson of Buddhism and the Upanishads.

>>20312568
>block
There's no blocking, Maya is itself illumined and known in this way, why exactly? the determination of manifestation, the limitation of corporeality, by Maya and Duality the supra-individual undifferentiated unmanifested is known by a sort of implosion of the rays so to speak, a recalling of them, this would be death which is like the undoing of differentiations and conditionings in the gross sense or the dissolution of corporeality the delimitation of manifestation itself, unless I can literally dissolve and go invisible i wouldn't be able to pass on into this, so death seems like the most plausible door to open to reverse the directions of the rays. The only "evil" is ignorance, the only good is self-knowledge and a sort of unitive unmanifestation so to speak, but really there is neither high nor low, in this sense it's the subject differentiating itself by permeating manifestation.
No the eternal subject is not at "war" but arguably in the same way a war can result in victory or defeat, but is it at the same time undifferentiated in battle, the subject could be called in this sense an eternal battle without victory or defeat, there is no inner-oppisition, no left hand side or right hand side, high or low, so how can it be at war with itself?

>>20312619
>What are the rays illuming
the contents of the Buddhi

What do you think about pic. Related? Is there some sort of Advaita tattva "model" like this? I haven't looked into it, I also find the "five-foldness" of the tattvas with it all corresponding interesting to think about.

>>20312681
Better pic. To demonstrate the "five-foldness" though it excludes the Paramaśiva

>>20311816
Can you make one for Tsongkhapa as well? Pretty please?

>>20312275
I identify as not self
My pronouns are:
>
>
>

>>20312650
Of course shouldn't take what I wrote here as necesserily requiring a gross disintegration by death, or invisibility, I'm pretty sure it can all be done in life via extreme detachment so to speak from the "grossness" sensory organs, elements, ultimately though "manifestation" still is a determination, but it can still be gone beyond, though it is quite obvious that "death" will be like a final release of some kind.

>>20307046
this is just protestantism

>>20312730
no

>>20312646
>By identifying yourself [...] you've already failed the most basic lesson of Buddhism
FTFY

Imagine worshipping cows lmao

>>20312752
explain

>>20312765
We should make women look like cows and act like cows

>>20312784
http://www.the-pope.com/wvat2tec.html

>>20312681
>What do you think about pic. Related?
The distinction between Paramasiva and Siva seems arbitrary. I don't understand if they are positing two types or modes of consciousness or something else. I once tried asking the main /lit/ Shaivism fan Frater Asemlen about this but I got no answer, but he might not have seen my question. I don't agree with the teaching of Kashmir Shaivism that Paramashiva/Shiva needs Shakti to be conscious, not only because I agree with the phenomenological arguments for the position that reflexive/pre-reflective self-awareness is a necessary precondition of all intentional conscious experiences/states, but also because at that point I don't see why it even makes sense to define Paramashiva/Shiva as consciousness instead of as some unrealized potential which is actualized in the presence of Shakti to form consciousness by their union.

>Is there some sort of Advaita tattva "model" like this?
Yes, pic related. This chart places the 'vasanas' in the causal body, but not all Advaita lineages place the vasanas there and some place them in the subtle body instead.

>>20312815
this is just seething the catholic church isn't what you want it to be

>>20312854
I shall repost Rama's quote

>Now one thing is clear. If we as Catholics believe we have an obligation of obey the pope, then we face a dilemma. If we obey these popes we must give up our Catholic Faith. Hence it is that all sorts of solutions are considered – solutions that avoid recognizing the real issue. The bottom line is one cannot obey these individuals and remain Catholic. Hence it is that one must declare that they have no authority – that they do not speak as one hierarchical person with Christ. It matters little how one labels them – anti-popes, usurpers, materialiter popes, or no popes at all. The bottom line is that they have no authority to speak in Christ’s name.

>>20312815
>John Paul II has expressed his full agreement with Paul VI whom he considers as his "spiritual father", and has further stated that the Council was "inspired by the Holy Spirit", and that "obedience to the Council is obedience to the Holy Spirit."[13] Still elsewhere he has stated that the Council is "the authentic teaching of the Church." Clearly in his eyes to refuse to give our assent to the Council is equivalent to "sinning against the Holy Ghost."

>If Evolution and Progress are true, if, as the Council teaches, "the human race has passed from a rather static concept of reality to a more dynamic and evolutionary one", then it follows that the world has changed since the time of Christ, and logically, if the Church is to survive, it must also change. Paul VI in discussing the Council expressed this clearly."if the world changes religion should also change. ...the order to which Christianity tends is not static, but an order in continual evolution towards a higher form" (Dialogues, Reflections on God and Man). If the Church is evolving, so also are her doctrines. And so the Council teaches that "as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward towards the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their fulfillment in her..." Elsewhere she assures us that "new roads to truth are opened." The statement is quite extraordinary in so far as the Church has always taught that the revelation given us by Christ and the Apostles was final and definitive, and to that body of revealed truth nothing has been, or ever will be added. One must of course distinguish between the legitimate development of a doctrine - its being made more explicit and explained in clearer ways - and the evolution of a doctrine - which implies some form of transformation or change in its intrinsic nature. Thus, as we will show, the doctrine on Religious Liberty as taught by Vatican II can never be considered a "development" of previous teaching, but only as an "evolution" into something new. a kind of "ongoing revelation." And as innumerable post-Conciliar theologians have noted, the Council, while not using the phrase, embraced the concept in principle. And why not when Paul VI teaches:


>The new Church "seeks to adapt itself to the languages, to the customs and to the inclinations of the men of our times, men completely engrossed in the rapidity of material evolution and similar necessities of their individual circumstances. This 'openness' is of the very essence of the [new] Church.. The restrictions of orthodoxy do not coincide with pastoral charity".(Talk given in Milan when he was a Cardinal).

Guénon should be mandatory reading for all popes.

>>20312872
when Rama Coomaraswamy taught at the SSPX seminary he used to teach Guenon. iirc 'Reign of Quantity' was mandatory reading

>>20312865
unless your answer is to start your own church and create a schism keep seething

Reminder that if only Brahman exists and there delusion, multiplicity and change in samsara then Brahman himself is subject to delusion, multiplicity and change.

>>20312933
>Reminder that if only Brahman exists and there delusion, multiplicity and change in samsara then Brahman himself is subject to delusion, multiplicity and change.
Incorrect, in Advaita only the intellects of the jivas are subject to delusion and the accompanying deluded perception of multiplicity and change, Brahman isn't subject to delusion and the related perception of x, y and z. The unfolding of the illusion of maya involves the arising of minds within maya, and when these maya-minds receive the light of the unaffected luminous Atman-Brahman, that light illuminates their mind and thereby allows it to do things, experience things, be deluded etc

>>20312966
lol this idiot is only convincing himself

>>20306808
>Was Guenon full of shit?
Isn't it obvious?
>paganism doesn't exist anymore, any attempt to revive it is a tarp
Authentic European - yes. In general, paganism is simply a religion of a decentralized society. Christianity and Islam will become pagan when civilization dies.
>Is there no hope?
Just live, idiot, you can't perceive reality without someone else's optic? Unironically touch the grass.

>>20312971
this man knows

>>20312966
You genuinely believe this to be a good argument?

>>20313051
>You genuinely believe this to be a good argument?
It's just what Advaita teaches, it's not a matter of 'arguments' but I was just correcting a factually incorrect claim about what is taught by Advaita. The person who made that post didn't even provide any 'argument' as to why what he said is a true assertion, instead of just a factually incorrect statement about what a school of thought teaches.

If he was trying to say "if only Brahman exists, then there cannot be separate maya-minds affected by the illusion while Brahman remains unaffected", that would also be a factually incorrect claim, and a philosophical mistake, since it's conflating two different ontologies, namely a 2-way ontology of existence/non-existence versus the Advaita 3-way ontology of existence/falsity/non-existence.

That's a common mistake made by people who know little about Advaita. They read one or two things about it and say "hurr durr if this Advaita claim is true then X (which as X is only true in a 2-way ontology) is true which is... le bad!" even though X isn't automatically true because it only follows if you accept the non-Advaita 2-way ontology instead of Advaita's 3-way ontology; so if you say "X" is the conclusion or result of an Advaita teaching all you are actually criticizing is your own made-up syncretic combination of Advaita and an non-Advaita ontology, you're not actually critiquing anything taught by Advaita.

>>20312845
This is how they explain 36 Tattvas:
>Though inseparable from Paramasiva, this freedom is also considered his Energy or Sakti. Thus, another way of presenting the theology of Trika is the conception of the Saktis, the divine powers both inherent in Parama- śiva and manifesting his activity. Šiva is pure Light (prakāśa), whereas Sakti is the creative reflection of this light (vimarsa).

>Unlike the mäya of Vedānta, the Sakti of Kashmir Saivism is a positive force, which in no way dimin- ishes the fundamental nonduality. Sakti, which is essentially one, is ever united to Šiva (their union is called sāmarasya, "communion of essence"), and yet there are stages of manifestation that are represented by the differ- ent Šaktis. There reality is recognized on the level to which they relate.

>Thus, corresponding to five levels of consciousness are five Saktis, of which the first two are inseparable from Siva: cit (consciousness, corresponding to absolute transcendence or turiyatita) and änanda (bliss, corresponding to the "fourth" state, turya). The last three represent stages of manifestation. Ichā sakti is the first stirring of the will in the womb of absolute consciousness; it corresponds to the level of dreamless sleep (susupti), of the knower (pramātr, subject) in the realm of knowledge.

>Jñäna śakti is the power of knowledge, which can be related both within and outside, corresponding to the stage of dream (svapna), which is the intermediate stage of speech (mad- hyama), where thought is in the process of formulating itself in the mind, a stage preceding every external creation. It relates to the means of knowl- edge (pramāņa).

>The last Sakti is kriyā, the power of activity, manifesting Šiva externally in the universe. It corresponds to the state of waking (jägrat) in which the external world is perceived distinctly (prameya, the object; bheda, differentiation), and in which the transcendental word (vāk) is uttered in gross speech (vaikhari). Although this process of manifestation originates solely in the divine freedom and bliss, it also involves a process of veiling (āvaraņa) the essential nature of the Absolute and of creating the illusion of individual existence apart from divine consciousness. These divine energies which are perfectly pure lose their purity gradually.

>The energy of will or desire (icchã) which in the beginning is only acceptance of the fullness becomes a limited desire; knowledge (jñäna) which is nothing but conscious light of the Self appears as a knowledge which distinguishes between subject and object; activity (kriya) which is the simple stirring of the fullness of the absolute I in itself, unfolds itself in dispersed movements and ends in enslaving action."

>>20313094
Cont.

>This is the stage of anu (literally, the “atom"), the atomized individual, who is limited by the five "coverings" or veils (kañcuka): the limitations of activity (kalā), of knowledge (vidya), of attachment or desire (räga), of time (kāla), and of necessity (niyati ).

I agree with you personally,
>Sakti, which is essentially one, is ever united to Šiva (their union is called sāmarasya, "communion of essence"), and yet there are stages of manifestation that are represented by the differ- ent Šaktis. There reality is recognized on the level to which they relate.

It seems to just be a "theological" particularisation, it's not in the same class as Advaita, as purely contemplative. Pretty much like say the Tibetan tantras which have different deities and companions etc. It's just a sort of ritual exoterism, their esoterism is still the "God conciousness" with all the practice that may entail, some Quotations from various scriptures:

>One with Chit Akasha - the lInfinite Void of Transcendental Consciousness, this entire universe resides etched in God
Consciousness as the very limbs of it's Own body. I All of these wondrous states of existence have arisen in this way as one with the supreme void of universal God Consciousness. I bow down to Lord Shiva who has frightening eyes.

>Entering into us as our very form, with His own universal Being He removes the obstacles which bind us, which themselves are nothing other than His own Being. Let individual Shiva take recourse to Para Shakti, supreme self - cognition, bowing down in surrender and attaining perfect Oneness with universal God Consciousness, Supreme Shiva.

>Here is a link to The anuttarāṣṭikā - a hymn of eight (aṣṭikā) verses by Abhinavagupta, on the method of anupāya (no method) in the light of the highest reality–anuttara.
>The teaching on anupāya, as elaborated in this hymn, have been revered by Kashmir Shaiva Pandits since their inception by the illustrious Shaiva Master Abhinavagupta, who devoted the second chapter of his magnum opus – Tantrāloka – to the method (upāya) known as anupāya, which literally means ‘no method’.

>>20313101
Link: >https://telegra .ph/ANUTTARASTIKA-02-08

Works Of Acharaya Abhinavagupta:

1) Tantrāloka; His most important work was Tantrāloka, "Lok or Look, here, transliterates into "To throw Light on Tantra", a synthesis of all the Trika system.

2) Tantrasāra ("Essence of Tantra") is a summarized version, in prose, of Tantrāloka, which was once more summarized in Tantroccaya, and finally presented in a very short summary form under the name of Tantravaṭadhānikā — the "Seed of Tantra".

3) Devotional hymns; Abhinavagupta has composed a number of devotional poems:

>Bodhapañcadaśikā - "Fifteen Verses on Consciousness";

>Paramārthacarcā - "Discussion on the Supreme Reality";

>Anubhavanivedana - "Tribute of the Inner Experience";

>Anuttarāṣṭikā - "Eight Verses on Anuttara";

>Krama-stotra - an hymn, different from the fundamental text of the Krama school;

>Bhairava-stava - "Hymn to Bhairava";

>Dehasthadevatācakra-stotra - "Hymn to the Wheel of Divinities that Live in the Body";

>Paramārthadvādaśikā - "Twelve Verses on the Supreme Reality" and
Mahopadeśa-viṃśatikā - "Twenty Verses on the Great Teaching".

>Another poem Śivaśaktyavinābhāva-stotra - "Hymn on the Inseparability of Shiva and Shakti" was lost.

4) Philosophical works;

>Īśvarapratyabhijñā-vimarśini ("Commentary to the Verses on the Recognition of the Lord")
and

>Īśvarapratyabhijñā-vivṛti-vimarśini ("Commentary on the explanation of Īśvarapratyabhijñā").

>Śivadṛṣtyā-locana ("Light on Śivadṛṣṭi") (Another commentary on a Pratyabhijña work — is now lost.)

>Padārthapraveśa-nirṇaya-ṭīkā and Prakīrṇkavivaraṇa ("Comment on the Notebook") referring to the third chapter of Vākyapadīya of Bhartrihari. (Another lost commentary)

>Kathāmukha-tilaka ("Ornament of the Face of Discourses")
and

> Bhedavāda-vidāraṇa ("Confrontation of the Dualist Thesis").

I may try collect links to these and make a copypasta sometime and read through them may be fruitful.

>>20312845
>I don't agree with the teaching of Kashmir Shaivism that Paramashiva/Shiva needs Shakti to be conscious, not only because I agree with the phenomenological arguments for the position that reflexive/pre-reflective self-awareness is a necessary precondition of all intentional conscious experiences/states, but also because at that point I don't see why it even makes sense to define Paramashiva/Shiva as consciousness instead of as some unrealized potential which is actualized in the presence of Shakti to form consciousness by their union.
Yeah it has to do with this
>theory of reflection
Which ive seen described
" https://www.lakshmanjooacademy.org/the-theory-of-reflection-pratibimbavadah-as-explained-in-the-paramarthasara/ "

Anyhow it just seems primarily "personal" and "experiential" all very practical, but I don't see why it would be incompatible with a personal advaita viewpoint, metaphysically speaking Advaita seems to be the most "pure" as I said.

>>20313132
Seems to have no lineage aswell if I'm not mistaken.

>>20313094
My mistake also, didn't mean to write 36 tattvas there, anyway these are the dogmatic explanations I guess.

>>20313088
You just keep repeating the broken argument.

>>20313210
Why is it broken?

>>20313228
Here we go. You get critiqued and respond with an argument that is just repeating what was critiqued. Then when someone points this out you act stupid and say "How so? How so? How so?" Never ending cycle of stupidity. I guess Advaita is correct. Atman is Brahman is and Brahman is a fucking retard.

>inb4 "I don't have to prove anything" because it's true

>>20313237
>that is just repeating what was critiqued
Nothing that is taught by Advaita was actually critiqued there, instead, a description was given of one of the consequences that follow if you attempt to collapse the 3-way ontology into a more simplistic non-Advaita 2-way ontology. However, Advaita doesn't collapse this 3-way ontology and without this more refined ontology it's not even Advaita anymore; so it's pointless to present that as a critique of Shankara.

What you are doing is like trying to remove the theory of forms from Plato and then saying "Platonism/Plato is illogical when you remove the theory of forms" and then when people say "Plato's teachings but with the forms artificially removed from them isn't Plato's teachings anymore" you reply with "hurr durr, stop ignoring the problems that result from removing the forms". It's really that inane

>>20313585
>the 3-way ontology
This doesn't make sense to begin with. Why would you insert "falsity" in between existence and non-existence? Is non-existence not a case of falsity? It would seem this only exists to solve some obtuse dialectical issue, probably between the Advaitans and some other school.

>>20312845
If you are who I believe you are, not only did I see it, but I was in the middle of writing a reply when the thread archived, I’ll try to answer(though I will link here again my essay breaking down and explaining the tattvas since it’s covered there as well. https://pastebin.com/AjzfzFTk))


>The distinction between Paramasiva and Siva seems arbitrary. I don't understand if they are positing two types or modes of consciousness or something else.

Your error is in your definitions, Shiva isn’t consciousness, not in the manner you’re speaking of it at least, rather shakti is conscious insofar as conscious of something, awareness of something, awareness in general, to be conscious, thus the dynamism of shakti, rather shiva is the conscious in the sense that it is the unified nature and identity of the conscious, the transcendental ego, that which is the possessor of the conscious, he who is conscious. The distinction between para shiva and shiva is this, Shiva is self/unity/transcendental ego as conscious and self conscious of itself, thus immediately it arises at once with shakti, which is awareness, thus shiva and shakti are codependent, because shiva as in the shiva tattva, is really the conscious experience of the conscious one, the Adumbration of what is beyond awareness as it is reflected perfectly in the mirror of awareness.

Parashiva however is beyond all of these, though mind you shakti and maya are not seen as reductive but as revelation forces in this, thus the para shiva is the actual Identity of God which needs nothing, it is not right to speak of the tattvas as somehow lower, for shiva tattva, the awareness/conscious experience of God/I is nondual to and is there revelation of the actual God/I, and each subsequent tattva is simply a kind of further elaboration and unfolding of what who this and what this deity is, we see a remarkably similar conception in Hegel and Wagner, wagner seeing art as a kind of process where the platonic ideals are folded on each other to create more-than-true aesthetic realities, and Hegel seeing the begrif/concept of all becoming completed by becoming actual (thus rational, thus revealed, thus concretized in time as a thing in time, as the idea.)


>I don't agree with the teaching of Kashmir Shaivism that Paramashiva/Shiva needs Shakti to be conscious,

Error in definitions, Parashiva is the Identity of God as it is, Shiva is the transcendental ego which is the mirror of God in conscious, shakti is the conscious-awareness, shiva and shakti are not actually separate things, simply being the conscious one and his conscious.

The actual ultimate deity is bhairava, who is the fullness of the tattvas, the sole difference between parashiva and bhairava is one is God fully concealed ane the other fully revealed via awareness.

>>20313673
>This doesn't make sense to begin with.
It does..... if you just read their works instead of posting online about something you haven't studied
>Is non-existence not a case of falsity?
No, because complete and total non-existence is the same as nothingness, and this never appears as an object or phenomena of experience, unlike illusions which by definition appear to a conscious observer.
Why would you insert "falsity" in between existence and non-existence? It would seem this only exists to solve some obtuse dialectical issue, probably between the Advaitans and some other school.
It's accepted both on scriptural grounds because the Upanishads present ignorance/maya as it's own metaphysical category that they don't identify with either Brahman or nothingness; and because there are complex philosophical arguments for why it's a more coherent understanding of how reality works, which includes pointing out how 2-way ontologys that cast everything as being being/non-being face too many contradictions and paradoxes when trying to explain how illusions, mistaken knowledge and negations works:

Ajñāna defined as the indefinite which is neither positive nor negative is also directly experienced by us in such perceptions as “I do not know, or I do not know myself or anybody else,” or “I do not know what you say,” or more particularly “I had been sleeping so long happily and did not know anything.” Such perceptions point to an object which has no definite characteristics, and which cannot properly be said to be either positive or negative. It may be objected that the perception “I do not know” is not the perception of the indefinite, the ajñāna, but merely the negation of knowledge. To this Vedānta says that had it been the perception of a negation merely, then the negation must have been associated with the specific object to which it applied.

A negation must imply the thing negatived; in fact negation generally appears as a substantive with the object of negation as a qualifying character specifying the nature of the negation. But the perception “I do not know or I had no knowledge” does not involve the negation of any particular knowledge of any specific object, but the knowledge of an indefinite objectless ignorance. Such an indefinite ajñāna is positive in the sense that it is certainly not negative,but this positive indefinite is not positive in the same sense in which other definite entities are called positive, for it is merely the characterless, passive indefinite showing itself in our experience.

>>20313722

If negation meant only a general negation, and if the perception of negation meant in each case the perception of a general negation, then even where there is a jug on the ground, one should perceive the negation of the jug on the ground, for the general negation in relation to other things is there.

Thus negation of a thing cannot mean the general notion of the negation of all specific things ; similarly a general negation without any specific object to which it might apply cannot manifest itself to consciousness; the notion of a general negation of knowledge is thus opposed to any and every knowledge, so that if the latter is present the former cannot be, but the perception “I do not know” can persist, even though many individual objects be known to us. Thus instead of saying that the perception of “I do not know” is the perception of a special kind of negation, it is rather better to say that it is the perception of a different category namely the indefinite, the ajñāna. It is our common experience that after experiencing the indefinite (ajñāna) of a specific type we launch forth in our endeavours to remove it. So it has to be admitted that the perception of the indefinite is different from the perception of mere negation.

The character of our perceiving consciousness (sākṣi) is such that both the root ajñāna as well as its diverse forms with reference to particular objects as represented in mental states (vṛtti-jñāna), are comprehended by it. Of course when the vṛttijñāna about a thing as in ordinary perceptions of objects comes in, the ajñāna with regard to it is temporarily removed, for the vṛttijñāna is opposed to the ajñāna. But so far as our own perceiving consciousness (sakṣi-caitanya) is conceived it can comprehend both the ajñāna and the jñāna (knowledge) of things. It is thus often said that all things show themselves to the perceiving consciousness either as known or as unknown. Thus the perceiving consciousness comprehends all positives either as indefinite ajñāna or as states of knowledge or as specific kinds of ajñāna or ignorance, but it is unable to comprehend a negation, for negation (abhāva) is not a perception, but merely the absence of perception (anupalabdhi).

>>20313728

Thus when I say I do not know this, I perceive the indefinite in consciousness with reference to that thing, and this is not the perception of a negation of the thing. An objection is sometimes raised from the Nyāya point of view that since without the knowledge of a qualification (viśeṣana) the qualified thing (viśiṣṭa) cannot be known, the indefinite about an object cannot be present in consciousness without the object being known first. To this Vedānta replies that the maxim that the qualification must be known before the qualified thing is known is groundless, for we can as well perceive the thing first and then its qualification. It is not out of place here to say that negation is not a separate entity, but is only a peculiar mode of the manifestation of the positive.

Even the naiyāyikas would agree that in the expression “there is no negation of a jug here,” no separate negation can be accepted, for the jug is already present before us. As there are distinctions and differences in positive entities by illusory impositions, so negations are also distinguished by similar illusory impositions and appear as the negation of jug, negation of cloth, etc.; so all distinctions between negations are unnecessary, and it may be accepted that negation like position is one which appears as many on account of illusory distinctions and impositions.

Thus the content of negation being itself positive, there is no reason to object that such perceptions as “I do not know” refer to the perception of an indefinite ajñāna in consciousness. So also the perception “I do not know what you say” is not the perception of negation, for this would require that the hearer should know first what was said by the speaker, and if this is so then it is impossible to say “I do not know what you say.”

>>20313736

So also the cognition “I was sleeping long and did not know anything” has to be admitted as referring to the perception of the indefinite during sleep. It is not true as some say that during sleep there is no perception, but what appears to the awakened man as “I did not know anything so long” is only an inference; for, it is not possible to infer from the pleasant and active state of the senses in the awakened state that the activity had ceased in the sleep state and that since he had no object of knowledge then, he could not know anything; for there is no invariable concomitance between the pleasant and active state of the senses and the absence of objects of knowledge in the immediately preceding state.

During sleep there is a mental state of the form of the indefinite, and during the awakened state it is by the impression (saṃskāra) of the aforesaid mental state of ajñāna that one remembers that state and says that “I did not perceive anything so long.” The indefinite (ajñāna) perceived in consciousness is more fundamental and general than the mere negation of knowledge (jñānābhāva) and the two are so connected that though the latter may not be felt, yet it can be inferred from the perception of the indefinite. The indefinite though not definite is thus a positive content different from negation and is perceived as such in direct and immediate consciousness both in the awakened state as well as in the sleeping state.

The presence of this ajñāna may also be inferred from the manner in which knowledge of objects is revealed in consciousness, as this always takes place in bringing a thing into consciousness which was not known or rather known as indefinite before we say “I did not know it before, but I know it now.” My present knowledge of the thing thus involves the removal of an indefinite which was veiling it before and positing it in consciousness, just as the first streak of light in utter darkness manifests itself by removing the darkness[1]. Apart from such an inference its existence is also indicated by the fact that the infinite bliss of Brahman does not show itself in its complete and limitless aspect.

If there was no ajñāna to obstruct, it would surely have manifested itself in its fullness. Again had it not been for this ajñāna there would have been no illusion. It is the ajñāna that constitutes the substance of the illusion; for there is nothing else that can be regarded as constituting its substance; certainly Brahman could not, as it is unchangeable. This ajñāna is manifested by the perceiving consciousness (sākṣi) and not by the pure consciousness. The perceiving consciousness is nothing but pure intelligence which reflects itself in the states of avidyā (ignorance).

>>20313722
>scriptural grounds
yes I suspected as much, otherwise there would be no need for such a thing as falsities that are neither existent nor non-existent

>>20313691
>Your error is in your definitions, Shiva isn’t consciousness, not in the manner you’re speaking of it at least, rather shakti is conscious insofar as conscious of something, awareness of something, awareness in general, to be conscious, thus the dynamism of shakti, rather shiva is the conscious in the sense that it is the unified nature and identity of the conscious, the transcendental ego, that which is the possessor of the conscious, he who is conscious.
I understand this and it seems fairly reasonable so far, it seems like what KS calls shakti would be for Advaita the 'chitabhasa' or 'reflected consciousness' that inheres in the Buddhi when the light of the Atman illuminates it. However with the rest I am not sure I understand it.

>The distinction between para shiva and shiva is this, Shiva is self/unity/transcendental ego as conscious and self conscious of itself, thus immediately it arises at once with shakti, which is awareness, thus shiva and shakti are codependent
Is Shiva ever not conscious of Shakti in any part of human life? What does KS say happens in dreamless sleep and what Shiva and Shakti and Paramashiva are doing then? What justification is offered by KS to call Shiva and Shakti co-dependent if we never experience consciousness "arising", since that would imply an already conscious observer present who was watching the non-arisen thing subsequently arise?

>because shiva as in the shiva tattva, is really the conscious experience of the conscious one, the Adumbration of what is beyond awareness as it is reflected perfectly in the mirror of awareness.
When you say 'adumbration', do you mean the active disclosure to awareness of the specific changing qualia in a manner that changes in accordance with the mode of qualia or do you mean the fact of consciousness being intrinsically self-disclosing or self-revealing being a fact that is disclosed to consciousness itself as the specific unchanging passive nature of consciousness and which is always found in all instantiations of consciousness as the very essence/nature constituting it and qualitatively characterizing it? The former depends on the changing qualia but I don't see how the latter can be characterized as dependent on anything else in any manner whatsoever if it's the very basic nature of consciousness.

>>20313691

>Parashiva however is beyond all of these, though mind you shakti and maya are not seen as reductive but as revelation forces in this, thus the para shiva is the actual Identity of God which needs nothing, it is not right to speak of the tattvas as somehow lower, for shiva tattva, the awareness/conscious experience of God/I is nondual to and is there revelation of the actual God/I, and each subsequent tattva is simply a kind of further elaboration and unfolding of what who this and what this deity is
You say "beyond all of this", but I don't quite see how Parashiva and Shiva are different, can you please elaborate further on whether Parashiva's consciousness is different in mode or behavior or nature from Shiva? Is Parashiva both of their natures combined in a unity or something different? Or is Shiva's the luminous self-awareness of the Parashiva and that way non-different from Parashiva as it's nature like how an entity and the nature constituting it can be spoken of as different figuratively despite being one?

>Error in definitions, Parashiva is the Identity of God as it is, Shiva is the transcendental ego which is the mirror of God in conscious
If Shiva is the transcendental ego which I assume you hold to account for self-awareness, is Parashiva self-conscious without it? If the answer is "no, because Shiva is the non-alienable nature of Parashiva", how can you say that the self-awareness of God is the mirror of God unless God himself be unconscious? Saying that his self-cocniousness "is a mirror" is imply it's somehow not already the most fundamental nature, that there is some prior more fundamental thing being reflected... If God is intrinsically conscious, wouldn't that remain true both in the presence and absence of a mirror?

>shakti is the conscious-awareness, shiva and shakti are not actually separate things, simply being the conscious one and his conscious.
If Shiva is the self-awareness or transcendental Ego, and Shakti is the intentional outward-directed awareness of objects, where does that leave Parashiva, is he unconscious without Shiva and Shakti, or a third type of consciousness altogether that would remain conscious without them?

>>20313806
>otherwise there would be no need for such a thing as falsities that are neither existent nor non-existent
If you collapse illusions and existence together into one category, you place illusions about things that aren't taking place on par with the tangible existence of objects in the world which is contradictory. If you collapse illusions and nothingness into one category, then you'll contradict yourself when calling illusions with specific unique characters that can be distinguished from each other "nothingness" or "non-being" even though as a category "nothingness" has no gradations but is just an all-encompassing negation that doesn't permit there to be any internal modes to be distinguished. Both of these approaches are seen by Advaita as logically and philosophically unsatisfactory, hence it's seen as correct to admit a third ontological category, which just so happens to accord with the supernaturally revealed texts of the Upanishads, which are a means to suprahuman knowledge.

Falsity is at best an epistemological, not an ontological category lmao. Guenonfag, of course, is making it up as he goes, but he has to come up with this bogus “ontological category” to avoid the blatant contradictions in his system.

>>20313895
>Is Shiva ever not conscious of Shakti in any part of human life?

Again misdefined, shiva cannot ever be conscious of anything, it is not the conscious, it is the light within the conscious which is to say, the transcendental ego, you cannot add any quality or characteristic to it, it is not conscious it is the unity of conscious, it is he/the person in question. To speak of shiva being conscious of anything without shakti then is impossible because shakti IS that awareness, shakti IS that conscious, conscious as in being conscious of a thing is what shakti is.

>What does KS say happens in dreamless sleep

Complex question but the tldr is that the three, waking, dreaming and sleeping, reflect the trinity of shiva shakti and empirically created identity, with dreamless sleep being akin to shiva as shiva without shakti, thus shakti/conscious is indrawn and hidden as nirguna.

>What justification is offered by KS to call Shiva and Shakti co-dependent if we never experience consciousness "arising",

We do insofar as, we only know of the unity of conscious from being conscious of it, consciousness as a dynamic process (shakti) reveals shiva(that unified within the conscious ) and the unified would not be itself if not revealed by the multiplicity of consciousness, to be aware of the unity of consciousness the moving existence of consciousness is essential, thus they are co-dependent.

> do you mean the fact of consciousness being intrinsically self-disclosing or self-revealing being a fact that is disclosed to consciousness itself as the specific unchanging passive nature of consciousness and which is always found in all instantiations of consciousness as the very essence/nature constituting it and qualitatively characterizing it.


Close but you need to divide the conscious from the transcendental ego insofar as it is the transcendental ego which is being disclosed and IS the conscious, this revelation of transcendental ego is dependent on shakti because it is a revelation, this is why secretly the highest shakti is the shiva tattva, in account that all of the tattvas are shaktis, which is to say, conscious reflection in this manner.

Thus to give the schema in simplistic English terms.

Tattva=principle perceived, aspect of God cognized.

Tattva 0 = parashiva = God (who is I)
Tattva 1 = Shiva = I (who is God revealed.)
This immediately causes
Tattva 2 = shakti = who am I, what am I.

Cont

>>20314038
Thus shakti is the objectification, the awareness of the thing, the shakti tattva is implicit in the shiva tattva thus the actual essence of shakti is the shiva tattva, but on account of I being nondual to the process of perception, immediately perception/awareness arises that may say “I” and by extension “not I” thus shakti tattva is the ultimate origin of Tamas guna, darkness, and other such, for evil and otherness and objectivity are simply when the conscious does not see I/shiva in the thing.

> You say "beyond all of this", but I don't quite see how Parashiva and Shiva are different,

They ultimately aren’t, for to ascend in this system and descend does not lose or gain anything, the sole bonding factor being the individual’s lack of realization.

>can you please elaborate further on whether Parashiva's consciousness is different in mode or behavior or nature from Shiva?

To speak of them in this manner is impossible, for the moment we speak of conscious we bind it to shakti, to summarize they are absolutely identical save that Parashiva is totally without revelation, totally without shakti, without conscious, no mode can be spoken of, shiva tattva is when IS revealed by the light of conscious as the very light of conscious, that is to say, the transcendental ego, thus they are the same simply with differing levels of revelation.

>Is Parashiva both of their natures combined in a unity or something different?

They’re unified at every tattva, thus why the tantriks do not shill a nirguna ending but rather an embrace of maya-as-shakti.


>Or is Shiva's the luminous self-awareness of the Parashiva and that way non-different from Parashiva as it's nature like how an entity and the nature constituting it can be spoken of as different figuratively despite being one?


This is the closest, Parashiva is the God, Shiva is the light of that, shakti is the experience of that light, and that light is the light of revelation, thus the God the revelation and the experience are one thing.

> If Shiva is the transcendental ego which I assume you hold to account for self-awareness, is Parashiva self-conscious without it?

He is never without it, he is it, it is the revelation of him.

> how can you say that the self-awareness of God is the mirror of God unless God himself be unconscious

Cont

>>20314056
The shiva, the transcendental ego, is unconscious insofar as it is the unity, whereas shakti is the light reflected upon the light, which is to say, the conscious awareness, that is the throbbing vibration of it, no different from tzimtzum.

> where does that leave Parashiva

The one who is the I of I, who is conscious and one is conscious of, and all of the tattvas his opulence, para shiva is not a category to correspond to like the tattvas can be constituted, it is instead the totality of the categories and contents. To speak of Para shiva as lacking the powers and attributes of any of the tattvas would make it no longer shiva, for Parashiva must be both the fully revealed (thus bhairava, who is the Jivan who has realized/recognized his own heart as the revelation.) and necessarily he must be the one revealed thus the hidden, thus the absolutely concealed.

>>20313927
>If you collapse illusions and nothingness into one category, then you'll contradict yourself when calling illusions with specific unique characters that can be distinguished from each other "nothingness"
Something can be an illusion or not truly exist without being "nothingness." They are called phenomena. No such thing as nothingness anyhow. This triple system is something you've set up to comply with some highly specific issue in your scholastic tradition.

>this thread has been blessed by the presence of of Frater Asemlen

based

>>20314005
>Guenonfag, of course, is making it up as he goes, but he has to come up with this bogus “ontological category” to avoid the blatant contradictions in his system.
Every single comprehensive book on Advaita by a scholar specializing in Advaita or Vedanta generally says that falsity/maya/illusion is a unique ontological category outlined in Shankara's works as neither existence nor nothingness. Stop pretending that you have read what you are talking about, because people who actually have read it can tell

>>20314093
>Something can be an illusion or not truly exist without being "nothingness." They are called phenomena.
If phenomena both don't exist and are not nothingness, that's smuggling the 3rd category in under another name you clown

If I only really care about politics should I start with Evola or Guenon?

>>20314725
Guenon didn't care about race and politics

>>20314725
You should stop caring about politics.