/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16036637]

>>16029461
>>16027236 (You)
>>has been to affirm multiplicity in face of the real existence of the One
>Affirm multiplicity in what way? If you don’t explain why it’s a meaningless statement. Affirm multiplicity as something which has a contingent existence which is dependent on its source, which we perceive in our consciousness, and which exists in its own right independent of our perception of it? Shankara also affirms all those things about multiplicity.
>Or do you affirm multiplicity to be absolutely real, just as real as its ultimate source, eternal, beginningless, undecaying and immutable? To apply these labels to the changing world of composite objects results in many contradictions. If you don’t affirm these about multiplicity as Shankara does not, than what even is your point of contention?
>results in many contradictions
how tiny shankara's mind must have been

Plotinus:
This life, however, is more clear and is the primary Life and primary Intellect, and these are one. And so the first life is intellection and the second life is a second kind of intellection, and the last life is a final form of intellection. And so all life is of this kind and is intellection. People might perhaps say that there are different kinds of life, though they do not say these are different kinds of intellection, but rather that some are instances of intellection, others not intellection at all, doing this because they do not investigate what life in general is. But we really must point out the following, that our argument demonstrates once again that all beings are a by-product of contemplation. So, if the truest life is life with intellection, and this is identical with the truest intellection, then the truest intellection is alive, and contemplation and the object of the highest kind of contemplation are alive and are life,and the two are together one.

[Anonymous No.16036647]

If, then, these two are one, how can this one also be many?
In fact, it is because it does not contemplate what is one. Since even when it contemplates the One, it does so not as one. If this were not so,it would not become Intellect. But beginning as one, it did not remain as it began, but, becoming many without noticing it, in a way ‘weighed down’34 it unfolded itself in its wish to have everything – how much better it would have been for it not to want this, for it became second–as a circle comes to be by deploying itself; shape, plane, circumference, centre, radii, some parts above, others below. Hence,the starting points are better, the end points inferior. For the goal is not of the same kind as the origin-and-goal nor again the origin-and-goal the same as the origin alone.

And, to express it differently, Intellect is not the intellect of one particular thing, but Intellect as a whole. And being Intellect as a whole, it is the Intellect of everything. And so since it is all Beings and belongs to all Beings even its part must possess all Beings. If this is not so, it will have some part that is not Intellect and it will be composed from non-intellects; and it will be a heap gathered up waiting to become an intellect out of all things. For this reason, it is unlimited in this way and, if anything comes from it, there is no diminution, neither of that which comes from it, because it, too, is everything, nor of that from which it comes, because it was not a composite formed from parts.

§3.8.9. This, then, is what Intellect is like; for this reason, it is not the first, but there must be what is ‘ beyond’35 it – the previous arguments also lead up to this – first, because a multiplicity comes after unity. And while Intellect is Number,36 the real One is the principle of Number and Number of this kind. And this Intellect is also at the same time intelligible,37 so that at the same time there are two. But if there are two, we must grasp what is before the two. What, then, is it? Is it just Intellect on its own? But the intelligible is yoked to every intellect; so if the intelligible is not to be yoked with it, Intellect will not exist either. If, then, it is not Intellect, but shuns duality, what is before these two transcends Intellect.

[Anonymous No.16036653]

Why, then, couldn’t it be the intelligible?
In fact, it is because that which is intelligible, too, is yoked to Intellect. Then, if it is to be neither Intellect nor intelligible, what could it be? We will say that it is that from which comes Intellect and the intelligible that is with it. What, then, is this and what sort of thing are we to imagine it to be? For it is certainly going to be either something that thinks or something that is without thought. If, then, it is thinking, it will be Intellect, but if it is without thought it will be ignorant even of itself. What, then, is dignified in that?38 For if we were to say that it is the Good and is the most simple thing, we will still not be saying anything clear and distinct, even if we are saying what is true, so long as we do not possess a firm foundation for our discursive thinking when we speak.
For, again, if knowledge of other things comes about by means of intellect and it is by intellect that we are able to know Intellect, with what sort of concentrated apprehension will that be seized which transcends the nature of Intellect? We shall say to the person to whom we must make clear how this is possible that it is by means of that in us which is the same as it.39 For there is something of it even within us.40
In fact, there is nowhere where it is not, for those able to partake of it.41 For wherever you place that which is able to possess what is omnipresent, it is from there that you possess it. Just as when a voice fills an empty space or human beings, too, as well as the space, in whatever part of the empty space you place your ear you will receive the voice as a whole and yet not all of it.

[Anonymous No.16036662]

Except that Shankara is nearly universally regarded as one of the most important Hindu philosophers and that most of the people who take the time to learn both Greek and Sanskrit (Coomaraswamy etc) generally say that Advaita is on the same level as Neoplatonism if not on a level above it

[Anonymous No.16036670]

>it's another schizothread
oh boy, surely THIS one will have great insights from the titanic minds that inhabit /lit/!

[if you want one of the footnot(...) No.16036674]

What, then, is it that we receive when we apply our intellect?
In fact, the intellect must, in a way, retreat to what is behind it and somehow let go of itself to what is behind it, since it looks both ways, and in the intelligible world,42 if it wants to see the One, it must be not entirely intellect. For Intellect is itself the primary Life since it is activity engaged in its progression through everything, not a progression which is progressing but one which has progressed. If, then, it is indeed both Life and is progression and possesses everything precisely and not in a general way – for it would then possess them imperfectly and in an inarticulate way – it must itself come from something else which is no longer in progression, but is the principle of progression, the principle of Life, the principle of Intellect and of all things. For all things are not a principle, but all things are from a principle. And this is no more all things, nor any of them, to enable it to generate all things and not be a multiplicity, but the principle of multiplicity. For that which generates is everywhere simpler than that which is generated.
If, then, this generated Intellect, it must be simpler than Intellect. And if someone were to suppose that the One itself is everything, either it will be each one of everything one by one or all together. Now, if it is all gathered together, it will be subsequent to everything. But if it is prior to everything, everything will be other than it and it will be other than everything. And if it is itself and everything at the same time, it will not be a principle. It must, however, be a principle and be prior to everything so that everything can exist after it. And if it is each one of all things separately, first any one will be identical with any other and next, all will be together and nothing will be distinct. And for this reason, it is none of all things, but prior to all things.43

[Anonymous No.16036712]

>>16036674
I have this book, lol

[Now for the juice. OOOOOOH No.16036720]

>>16036670 I'm answering a question.

§3.8.10. What indeed is it? {The One} It is the productive power of all things.44
If it did not exist, neither would all things, nor would Intellect be the primary total Life. And that which is beyond Life is cause of Life.45 For the activity of life which is all things is not primary, but is poured forth as though from a spring. Think of a spring which has no other source, but gives all of itself to rivers while not exhausting itself in the rivers but quietly remaining itself, while the streams which go forth from it are still all together before they flow their separate ways, yet at this point they already each know as individual rivers in what direction they will release their waters; or of life in a huge plant passing through its entirety while the source remains as though seated in the root and is not scattered around it all. So, this source presents life in its total multiplicity to the plant, but itself remains non-many. And this is no great wonder. The wonder is, rather, how the multiplicity of life has come from wha tis not a multiplicity and how the multiplicity would not exist unless what preceded the multiplicity was a thing that was not a multiplicity. For the source is not divided into the whole, since if it had been so divided it would have destroyed the whole as well; nor would the whole continue to exist if the source did not continue to remain in itself and different.46 For this reason, in all cases [of multiplicity], the ascent is to a one. And there is some one in each case to which you will trace it back; and this whole you will trace back to a one before it, not an absolute one, until you come to the absolute One; and this no longer [goes back] to another one.
But if you take the one of the plant, and this is also its source which remains, the one of a living being,the one of the soul, and the one of the universe, you take in each case the most powerful and valued thing. But if you take the One belonging to true Beings, their ‘principle and source’47 and power, are we to lose faith and suppose it to be nothing?
In fact, it is none48 of the things whose source it is, yet is the sort of thing which, because nothing can be predicated of it, not Existence, not Substantiality, not Life, is a thing beyond them. And if you grasp it after removing Existence from it, you will be amazed. Cast yourself towards it and encounter it taking rest within it; unite your thought with it more and more by knowing it through immediate contact with it and by beholding its greatness through what comes after it and is caused by it.

[Anonymous No.16036738]

>>16036712
i have the pdf from scribd

[Anonymous No.16036785]

Can you btfo Advaita using your own words?

[Advaita leads to something wor(...) No.16037085]

>>16036785
>he wants to steal my inspired words and call them his own
I've posted these online anyway:
...transcendence beyond the heavens, isn't dissolution but reification.
This 'Me' is one unique reflection among an infinity of reflections. To seek dissolution like a drop in the ocean, is to seek the destruction of what the "Over-Man" eternally wills, that is, God.
The One-Being is the Harmony of all multiplicity, not a confusion.
True transcendence is to be a spotless mirror, reflecting what shines upon you and gives you being. Why one might use the phrase "our dissolution" is because when the mirror is spotless then the light that passes through you is undefiled and to distinguish between you and the light is impossible. But this is, again, not your destruction for it isn't the Manyness of the All or Matter that is evil but [freely chosen] Privation is.
To find and be what one is, that is Good, and what it means to become a god. Which is also why Plato says clinging to the Vision of the Good cannot be allowed, for this too is a privation—and impossible—since the vision is wisdom, love, beauty, and truth, and to have and be these is to know that you have the duty to stop your ascent and allow the sun to pass away from your sight, for those who've yet been saved and still remain in the night. And while this makes the vision unapparent by our focusing on the world, to willingly fall from on-high is to be closer than ever to God: It is only now that you are that very-same spotless light shining in the world, while before you were only filling your own self with light. And this is, too, what it means to “transcend all knowledge”, to enter the ineffable darkness of the heavenly adytum. To pass beyond, is to joyously pass below.
And why exactly is it impossible to rest in the beatific vision"?
Because no one can absorb the light of God without overflowing like a sun...

Being is Rest and Motion, Likeness and Unlikeness, One and Many.
But the One is beyond Being, beyond Rest and Motion, beyond Likeness and Unlikeness, beyond Sameness and Difference.
This is solved in Plotinus’ use of Hypostasis. (Which are three, and They are clues of the three primary Henads revealed by his successors.)
Nous/Being and Soul is the One, but the One is not Nous nor Soul.
This is further purified in Damascius' Henads, the Ineffable One is all things yet not all things; all things are, yet there's only the One; the One is not, there's only the All; threefold nothingness, a threefold allness, a threefold singularity—the Ineffable; "don't count the Intelligible on your fingers" for they are not numbered, not as One, not as Three.
Unity with the One is not to disappear in "Monism" and lose your individuality, but to find your 'telos', your beauty in the hierarchy of being, this then is your fulfillment. And your Perfection is your Overflowing into Mind, into Soul, into the Cosmos, into Body, into Matter, and return, recur...

[Anonymous No.16037195]

>>16036637
so the Trinity

[Advaita leads to something wor(...) No.16037198]

>>16037085
If Plotinus defines the one as the Pure Active Will to overflow and freely cause all realities, in truth being the Arche of Multiplicity as the All-one, and even Shankara says his "Brahman" by its very unwilled? nature "shines" Maya from itself, then how could he delude himself to think Unity with the One would be cessation of our own active causing? Wouldn't becoming most like God, as so many says is the purpose of Philosophy, be to also be overflowers? Emanators, co-rulers/creators as Iamblichus says, partakers of "the active powering of all things" if we paraphrase Plotinus. To transcendentally work with the Will of the Good not against him, since he willed us to first be but we willed to be what we are—as if it would be hard for a god, if you reach the Blessed Isles, to simultaneously with their Nous contemplate the Good and energize beauty in the world, it would be effortless for the impulse to overflow that his light engenders is wont to be shared.

>And what about the uneducated who have no experience of truth? Isn’t it likely—indeed, doesn’t it follow necessarily from what was said before—that they will never adequately govern a city? But neither would those who’ve been allowed to spend their whole lives being educated. The former would fail because they don’t have a single goal at which all their actions, public and private, inevitably aim; the latter would fail because they’d refuse to act, thinking that they had settled while still alive in the faraway Isles of the Blessed.
That’s true.
>It is our task as founders, then, to compel the best natures to reach the study we said before is the most important, namely, to make the ascent and see the good. But when they’ve made it and looked sufficiently, we mustn’t allow them to do what they’re allowed to do today.
What’s that?
>To stay there and refuse to go down again to the prisoners in the cave and share their labors and honors, whether they are of less worth or of greater. Then are we to do them an injustice by making them live a worse life when they could live a better one? You are forgetting again that it isn’t the law’s concern to make any one class in the city outstandingly happy but to contrive to spread happiness throughout the city by bringing the citizens into harmony with each other through persuasion or compulsion and by making them share with each other the benefits that each class can confer on the community. The law produces such people in the city, not in order to allow them to turn in whatever direction they want, but to make use of them to bind the city together.
That’s true, I had forgotten.

[Anonymous No.16037223]

>>16037195
>1000+++ BC

[Anonymous No.16037226]

>>16036637
>>16037195
Just to be clear anon. I'm not saying your incorrect.

Just that you have to understand the medium and the capacity of the human condition's patience.
Hence the importance of compressing knowledge into building blocks that can unfold epistemic truths.
Hence the memes.

[Anonymous No.16037245]

>>16037223
Now take all this knowledge and simplify it to the smallest unit that is still truthful.
Then work it back up.

If you can do that, then you've discovered a coherent epistemological system.

I'm just giving you advice from a fellow traveller anon. I've been here; you're on the right path. Think of me as a future version of you who is trying to give you a heuristic shortcut.

[Anonymous No.16037253]

>>16037195
>three things? uhh that is like the trinity!

[Anonymous No.16037282]

>>16037253
It's the building block of reality m8.
There's you, an me, and a means to communicate.
A father, a son, a holy spirit.
There's a body, a soul, and a mind that interacts internally to form the self.
There's a id, an ego, and super ego.
All typologies.

It's a valuable schema to help understand all things.

[Anonymous No.16037286]

>>16037226
>>16037245
Damascius already did this.
about two years ago (before I read Damascius) I also saw as I was listening to Pink Floyd: "HOL' UP" I thought in my mind "this logo is a perfect symbolic analog for Platonism."
But sure enough, Damascius had already played with prisms and light before this, there's also a similar but less direct analogy in Plotinus somewhere.

>Therefore, we speak of the triad in that realm, in the sense that it signifies an undifferentiated multiplicity, and again the dyad signifies the cause of that multiplicity, and the monad is related to these as the One itself, as that which is beyond this very multiplicity. And this is the celebrated intelligible triad, which, wishing to explain by means of different configurations, we are unaware that we render it more complex in our accounts, and especially when we make it an ennead, reckoning it as the complete leader of all things from the first until the lowest, observing it as if in a mirror, and [seeing it] in the third, since it is by nature trimorph, and [seeing] the triadic principles before it that appear to illuminate brilliantly its three ubiquitous forms, as if in a cloud that has three reflecting surfaces, the single color of the sun appears as an apparently polychrome rainbow. And so also Socrates in the Philebus60 was unable to gaze in the face of that One, and clarified its nature by means of the triad stationed at its threshold, as he says, because he caught a glimpse of that triad quivering with the single ray of the henad, in a completely unified [vision].

[Anonymous No.16037364]

>>16037282
Using the reality of Platonic triad to find truth in the falsehood that is the Christian trinity devalues and undermines ones pursuit of true knowledge. This will only lead you and others into ignorance.

What you are doing is unethical.

[Anonymous No.16037375]

>>16037195
>>16037286
also, in orthodox Christianity, the Father is sole Arche, the Son and Spirit do input anything of their own, I guess the Father just felt lonely, but in this scheme each of the "three" as an Arche of an aspect of reality.
Monad = Uniqueness/Individuality; the Limited; Mone
Dyad = Multiplicity, Difference; the Unlimited (but it itself is not plural or different); Proodos
Mixed/Unified = Harmony, Unity [of Sameness and Dfference]; Epistrophe.
So it's rather a Monadic-triarchy (three arches) instead of a Triadic-Monarchy (one arche and two puppets)

[Anonymous No.16037377]

>>16037286
Excellent anon.
I'm glad we're all getting the handle of it.

With each new cycle, no matter how imperceptible, we are actualizing this Truth.

>>16037364
No. What's unethical is to act as a Christian Pharisee when the Truth is presented to you.
Imagine how Christ felt when he told people truths and they reacted with such ignorant loyalty dogmatism.

[Anonymous No.16037383]

>>16037375
the Son and Spirit DON'T* input anything of their own

[Anonymous No.16037397]

>>16037364
>>16037377
Work within the framework of the Christian Theology; expand it to divinitize and incorporate it into a coherent Christ-like framework.
That's how the early Church was able to make saints of pagan gods and turn the philosophers into proto-theologians seeking the Truth.

[Anonymous No.16037429]

>>16037397
>Christ the eternal Tao
Disgusting and subversive Should be outlawed.

[Anonymous No.16037437]

>>16037397
Whether it be the divinitization of the Logos or the Tao or the Path or the Way etc. It's all typologies describing the same fundamental and foundational Truth that underpins all realities.

[Anonymous No.16037444]

>>16037397
>That's how the early Church was able to make saints of pagan gods
this did not happen. good book tho

[Anonymous No.16037448]

>>16037429
Virtual holy water getting splashed in your eyes hurts, doesn't it...

[Anonymous No.16037463]

>>16037444
Look up the origins of St. George the Dragon Slayer.
Or better yet, look up St. Barlaam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barlaam_and_Josaphat
even the celebration of Christ's Birth on Decemeber 25th.

You'd be a fool to think the process Christianization wasn't a rehabilitation of the pagan world.

[Anonymous No.16037567]

>>16037375
>also, in orthodox Christianity, the Father is sole Arche, the Son and Spirit do input anything of their own, I guess the Father just felt lonely, but in this scheme each of the "three" as an Arche of an aspect of reality.
Interesting. Though in Orthodox Theology, we do believe that the Son and Spirit are unique persons within the personhood of the Godhead.
It's just that Christ was the first to incarnate, thus we have the most experiential knowledge of Christ and apply most of the personality to Him.

I always wondered if God the Father would incarnate after His Son, and how that would become...

[Anonymous No.16037568]

>>16037437
Truth can not underpin Falsehood. Generation according to kind.

It's time to reject Perennialism, buddy. Time to leave the fence. Live with discernment and discrimination.The Tao was not born of a virgin. The One did not choose the Jews. Muhammad did not receive revelation from the Nous.

Stop trying to find truth in lies.

[Anonymous No.16037571]

>>16037463
>even the celebration of Christ's Birth on Decemeber 25th
you reveal yourself here lol. There was no pagan holiday on 25 december. zeitgeist tier nonsense

[Anonymous No.16037600]

>>16037567
>we do believe that the Son and Spirit are unique persons within the personhood of the Godhead
bro this is not an Orthodox formulation at all

[Anonymous No.16037648]

>>16037568
Stop trying to speak for God when you are not God.
Know your place and humble yourself.

No wonder our smartest, wisest and holiest minds are cloistered in monasteries; to sequester themselves from pharisees like yourself.
You spit on saints and fashion yourself a saint for doing so.
You seek not for the redemption the scriptures preach, but for the glorification of a static God; the selfish mover of your personal salvation and nothing else.
God didn't come for you, He came for everyone and everything.
He came for ALL of it. ALL of Creation.

Check your pride at the door as you serve to open it for others.

[Anonymous No.16037661]

>>16037600
Grandfather is a priest.
Brother is a priest.
It is.

I've had LONG theological discussion about this.

[Anonymous No.16037691]

>>16037571
No you revealed yourself as a sophist.
And your response is cope in face of the truth.

[Anonymous No.16037695]

>>16037661
what do you mean that the Son and Spirit are "persons within the personhood of the Godhead"?

[OP, and I'm not even christian(...) No.16037722]

>>16037661
>>16037695
>>16037600
>>16037567
the father is the Godhead and source of the Trinity, there's no fourth entity formed from the three

[Anonymous No.16037785]

>>16037648
>No wonder our smartest, wisest and holiest minds are cloistered in monasteries; to sequester themselves from pharisees like yourself.
And they should stay there.
>You spit on saints
Definitely.
>You seek not for the redemption the scriptures preach
You're right about that.
>God didn't come for you
Thank the gods.
>Check your pride at the door as you serve to open it for others.
*he said after a long passive aggressive holier than thou spiel*

[Anonymous No.16037798]

>>16037648
Thanks for at least being honest.

All the bullshit aside, this is the only real difference between atheists and theists.

>The bible is the absolute literal word of God except for all the times it's not, just shut up, don't question anything and
>Know your place and humble yourself.
>You spit on saints and fashion yourself a saint for doing so.
>You seek not for the redemption the scriptures preach, but for the glorification of a static God; the selfish mover of your personal salvation and nothing else.
>God didn't come for you, He came for everyone and everything.
>He came for ALL of it. ALL of Creation.
>Also don't mention all the other civilizations we stole stories from or any history prior to the bible being written.

[Anonymous No.16037894]

>>16037695
>>16037722
Never said there was a forth. Just three persons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godhead_in_Christianity

A Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit. Each sharing the same divine essence, each God, all together God, paired together God, but each their own person.
Who do you think Christ was praying to when he made the Lord's Prayer ("Our Father, who art in Heaven..." or when He appealed to the Holy Spirit during the Pentecost?
When together, they transfigure. Hence the importance of the Transfiguration as a verification of all three persons present of the Godhead.

[OP, and I'm not even christian(...) No.16037915]

>>16037894
the Son and the Spirit still do not serve any ontological purpose

[Anonymous No.16037959]

Julian was right about not letting Christians near classical knowledge. This could have been a good thread about Neoplatonism but the Christians arrived early and turned it into nothing but preaching, squabbling over the various Christian retardations(doctrines), and the eternal copes and attempted justifications that is the Christian life.

Neetch give me strength.

[Anonymous No.16037975]

>>16037915
Of course they do.
The represent the whole Self of God.
Without them God would've been static while uncreated. No identity, no change, no creation. It would've been purely deterministic with no possibility of Creation.

>"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

What am I without my body or my spirit? A mind? I'd be unable to intact any will.
What is a body without a mind or a spirit?
What is a spirit without a body or mind?
Incomplete ontology.

[OP, and I'm not even christian(...) No.16038122]

>>16037975
Not doctrine.
The trinity do all things as One, they have only one Mind thinking, one Will, one Nature, they aren't 'CreatorS' but Creator, one speaker, one hearer, one grace; since even being itself is a type of act (to exist, to live, to be is an activity), the source of all this is 'God the Father'. Again Orthodoxy don't really address this contradiction that they do all energia as one, 'God' isn't the nature but the "shared" singular Activity. The Father wills to speak and the son speaks like a puppet, or he wills to inspire and the Spirit like a puppet inspires, by all logical definitions of 'Person' there's only one person in the Trinity. The Son and Spirit have ZERO autonomy.
>There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. 6And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all.

[Anonymous No.16038433]

>>16037223
Yes, this is what I have been saying for so long here. It is in Christianity, SOLELY, that the force of the symbolique of egyptian theopoesis returns with at least equal force (christians believe this symbolique was incarnated and thus would surpass even the symbolique of the egyptians). This is what >>16037568 this post seems not to realize. What would a person like that do with any pyramid text? Do I have to reminder that a rational language says the same thing as mythopoeses?

[Anonymous No.16038471]

>>16038122
>The Father wills to speak and the son speaks like a puppet, or he wills to inspire and the Spirit like a puppet inspires, by all logical definitions of 'Person' there's only one person in the Trinity. The Son and Spirit have ZERO autonomy.
I explained this to you a few days ago. Autonomy means Will, lol, they have autonomy as much as the father has. Will from nature, nature is common, person particular, etc...

[OP, and I'm not even christian(...) No.16038513]

>>16038433
>>16038122
>who is Osiris, Dionysus, Sabazios... Odin
>>16038471
there' only one active will not three identical wills

[Anonymous No.16038644]

>>16038513
>>who is Osiris, Dionysus, Sabazios... Odin
alchemy (al-kemit) never developed like in the christian period with these pagans, cathedrals alone express this from their employing of certain bricks, the strained glasses, etc. do you really want to get into it? most pagans symbologies (different from the symbolique) are crass as hell, most are naturalistic

[OP, and I'm not even christian(...) No.16038698]

>>16038644
I'm the same person you had a debate with about this before. You have destroyed almost all "Pagan" symbols and icons and statues. Easy to complain about superior symbolism after you've tyrannically eradicated every competition.

[OP, and I'm not even christian(...) No.16038707]

>>16038644
>>16038698

[OP, and I'm not even christian(...) No.16038722]

>>16038707
>>16038698

[Anonymous No.16038784]

>>16038722
>>16038707
>>16038698
If I ever get rich I'll finance depictions of all the myths in Plato

[Anonymous No.16038792]

>>16038644
Alchemy which Christians got from Muslims in the 12th century and was always at the minimum suspicious; often deemed demonic and heretical, is surely another instance of proof that Christianity is absolutely essential x thing that happened in time.

You people treat accidents in history as essential and predetermined. Find a thread about Renaissance sculptures and you'll find it swarmed with Christians trying to convince people that we got Christianity to thank for that.

[Anonymous No.16038803]

>>16038784
Divine Plato

[Anonymous No.16038894]

>>16038471
Right. Thanks anon.
Having a nature doesn't preclude one from personhood; whether it be divine and/or human.
Under >>16038122 framework, all humans share no agency outside of the "prime" human since we all share the same human nature as well.
That framework doesn't make sense.
It's would be a static reality of One.

No change. No growth. No expansion. Just eternal sameness.
Hence the point of agency (will) of the Trinity; the engine that moves reality forward from a static monist state.

[Anonymous No.16039143]

>>16038894
>That framework doesn't make sense.
this is Orthodox and Catholic doctrine, the Son's and Spirit's Will is the Father's singular Will which hey have by nature.
The trinity doesn't agree with eachother with three distinct wills, there's only one will because according to them Will is by Nature. They use platonic combinations of ideas but forgot that what we mean with Ousia is no longer what they mean by Ousia. This 'Will by Nature' only applies to the trinity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyothelitism
If we discount the incarnation there's only one Will and one Operation in the Trinity.

[Anonymous No.16039642]

>>16039143
Yes, they seem to never forget to ignore that the Son is literally the image of the Father, that the Father turning into Himself Self-beholds His own divine Abyss and the awareness of Himself is His Word uttered.

>>16038698
>You have destroyed almost all "Pagan" symbols and icons and statues.

>By Late Antiquity, statues and images of gods and goddesses were
often considered to be demonic, and from time to time they can be
found decapitated or with a cross incised on their forehead. Similarly,
relief sculpture thought to be too explicitly pagan was at times erased
and replaced by neutral or Christian motifs. At the same time, there
were many Christians who felt the need to safeguard statues and architecture with historical, artistic and aesthetic value that originated from the classical past (cfr. Caseau (1999) and Stirling (2005)). This can be seen in repeated imperial decrees, attesting to the ongoing practice of mutilation of these elements, but also the ongoing care that was dedicated to them (The Theodosian Code and that of Justinian and the Novellae of Theodosius II and Majorianus provide evidence for this).

>Caseau, following Coates-Stephens, points out that statue reuse inside walls is already known from dated contexts in the 3rd c., and cannot be connected to Christianity, but rather to indifference to sculpture

Paganism by that time was almost outright dead, there were many abandoned temples that only then were occupied, not destroyed, by christians. But then people are informed by general public education and accuse christians of killing, desecration, theft. You want to play this game of victimization when christians accepted death imposed by pagans upon them?

[Anonymous No.16039716]

>>16036637
>>16036647
>>16036653
>>16036674
>>16036720
>>16036785
>>16037085
>>16037198
>>16037286
>No counter by Advaitin
Instead I'm now arguing with Christians about their own doctrines.

The only fault in the highest Scholarchs in the Academies. Is that the opted out to of having children. It was short-sightedness, they lacked wisdom in the great intellects. They should have become an ethnoreligion. Basically were that last two centuries. Just not enough kids.

[Anonymous No.16039827]

>>16036637
If you are going to make a whole thread to respond to a post from another thread, you should clearly really write out the point you are trying to make in one or two posts, instead of schizoposting a bunch of assorted quotes without explaining how they pertain to what you are attempting to saying about Advaita.
>>16037085
>To seek dissolution like a drop in the ocean
There is no dissolution of the soul in Advaita
>Because no one can absorb the light of God without overflowing like a sun...
God can

Again, most of what your post is just stating Neoplatonic teachings as truisms and than saying that Advaita is wrong simply because it differs from Neoplatonism, you do this every time. It's especially funny to me because there is actually less disagreement between them than you think, the relation between Nirguna Brahman, Hiranyagarbha, and the Buddhi/subtle body is roughly equivalent to of that between the One, the Nous and Soul. The hierarchical ontology involving the two forms of Brahman, maya, the unmanifest universal possibilities and the manifested universe has ample parallels with the triadic model of Damascius.

>>16037198
>then how could he delude himself to think Unity with the One would be cessation of our own active causing? Wouldn't becoming most like God, as so many says is the purpose of Philosophy, be to also be overflowers?
'Unity' in Advaita is only figurative as two separate things are not combined and made one, A is not combined with B or turned into B, moksha in Advaita is a remembrance of and the subsequent unceasing experience of one's true identity as A. Brahman is totally unaffected by His causing of the universes, so it naturally follows that if one remembered that one was Brahman than one would subsequently would also cease to be affected anymore by that causing.

[Anonymous No.16039837]

>>16038792
>which Christians got from Muslims
This is difficult to say, really. Christians were established in egypt before its islamization, it has always been a science (par excellence, since it is a sacred science) and christians certainly engaged with it through Hermeticism. But indeed alchemy was treated differently between islamic and christian authorities, even though it would have a positive impact with people like Aquinas, Albertus Magnus, Roger Bacon, Bonaventure, Lulle.

>accidents in history as essential and predetermined.
When it comes to expression of Christic revelation, yes, and this is called pneumatological economy.

>Renaissance sculptures and you'll find it swarmed with Christians trying to convince people that we got Christianity to thank for that.
Everyone actually engaged with traditional intellectual matters knows the renaissance was the beginning of the syncretic degeneration to end up in things like blavatskyian theosophy and occultism in general.

[Anonymous No.16039842]

>>16039827
>>16037198
>It is our task as founders, then, to compel the best natures to reach the study we said before is the most important, namely, to make the ascent and see the good. But when they’ve made it and looked sufficiently, we mustn’t allow them to do what they’re allowed to do today. To stay there and refuse to go down again to the prisoners in the cave and share their labors and honors, whether they are of less worth or of greater. Then are we to do them an injustice by making them live a worse life when they could live a better one?
Although you've demonstrated your inability to actually come up with a sustained critique of Advaita written in your own words, you've shown dedication in repeating the 'Advaita is bad because it promotes abandoning society and the political realm to sin, ignorance, etc' allegation. It's really not true though. Shankara actually achieved more in his short life than Damascius did despite living for less than half the time that he did. Shankara went around establishing temples, writing, initiating people, spreading truth to people, participating in sponsored debates attended by intellectuals and royals. The temples and monastic order he founded survive to this day, and he helped reinvigorate Hindu philosophy. Damascius wrote some texts, got his school shut down and presided over the death of Neoplatonism as a living tradition. There is a long history of Brahmins of both the householding priestly type as well as ascetic monks acting as advisors and as spiritual leaders to the cities and kingdoms of India, so the notion that asceticism in Advaita conflicts with the Platonic concept of the enlightened philosopher guiding and providing illumination to the city is nonsense. The Advaitist monk Vidyarana who wrote the Advaita text Pañcadaśī was the patron saint and high priest to the founders of the Vijayanagara Empire

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

[Anonymous No.16039849]

>>16039716
>They should have become an ethnoreligion
you mean the platonists?

[Anonymous No.16039850]

>>16039842
There were even groups of ascetic Advaita monks who took up arms and would protect people from the depredations of Mughal and other Islamic soldiers. If the Neoplatonists and other pagan traditions of late antiquity had done the same they still might be around today.

>Among the Shaiva sadhus, the Dashanami Sampradaya belong to the Smarta Tradition. They are said to have been formed by the philosopher and renunciant Adi Shankara, believed to have lived in the 8th century CE, though the full history of the sect's formation is not clear. Among them are the Naga subgroups, naked sadhu known for carrying weapons like tridents, swords, canes, and spears. Said to have once functioned as an armed order to protect Hindus from the Mughal rulers, they were involved in a number of military defence campaigns.[16][17]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadhu#Hinduism

>In the 16th century, Madhusudana Saraswati of Bengal organised a section of the Naga (naked) tradition of armed sannyasis in order to protect Hindus from the tyranny of the Mughal rulers. These are also called Gusain, Gussain, Gosain, Gossain, Gosine, Gosavi, Sannyāsi.
>Warrior-ascetics could be found in Hinduism from at least the 1500s and as late as the 1700s,[26] although tradition attributes their creation to Sankaracharya[web 6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dashanami_Sampradaya#Naga_Sadhus_akharas

[Anonymous No.16040499]

>>16039842
>>16039850
Living tradition doesn't validate its truth. Both you and OP are stupid for thinking that it does or needs to be shared for it to be true.