Buddhist 'anatta' as apophatism

[Anonymous No.17150457]

Perennialists such as Coomaraswamy and Schuon have stated (in books) that Buddhism is compatable with the perennial truth, but are there many perennialists who have themselves become Buddhists?
I have come to the conclusion that the doctrine of anatta is mere apophatism, not a metaphysical doctrine of no-self. With this understanding, is it worthwhile still becoming a Buddhist, seeing as many schools would reject such a statement, or would it be better to join another tradition? I was thinking of adopting a Zen and possibly Pure Land practice, but wonder if my views on core buddhist doctrine would make this not worth my while. I think I may resonate with Buddhism, but is this reconcilable with my views on anatta? I can't get on board with the categorical denial of the self (in whatever form that may be).

Would a Buddhist teacher and community accept a student with these views?

Any good recs for books or material from buddhists/ buddhist perennialists with this view?

[Anonymous No.17150463]

>>17150457
>Coomaraswamy
lmao

[Anonymous No.17150466]

>I have come to the conclusion that the doctrine of anatta is mere apophatism, not a metaphysical doctrine of no-self.
Then you are wrong. Go read the Heart Sutra.

[Anonymous No.17150469]

>Coomaraswamy
Why do buddhists have such weird names

[Anonymous No.17150496]

>>17150466
>Then you are wrong.

Irrelevant, doesn't answer my questions. I have come to my conclusions about anatta, there have been countless threads debating about this already, we don't need another.

[Anonymous No.17150497]

>>17150457
>im a consumer what product should i consume in order to larp with

you will never be a (eastern religion name) believer. only a larper

[Anonymous No.17150523]

>>17150457
>are there many perennialists who have themselves become Buddhists?
Look into Marco Pallis

[Anonymous No.17150546]

>>17150466
>the Heart Sutra
there are karmic processes, but those processes are empty. I gather this does not mean that it does not have existence, but rather something like it having only relative existence, not "existence-in-itself".

is it fair to say that the major point of buddhism is that anatta is not empty?

[Anonymous No.17150559]

>>17150457
Read Zen Mind Beginner's Mind.

[Anonymous No.17150569]

>>17150546
Emptiness isn't a material, it's how things exist. Things exist Emptyly. Emptiness is Empty. There isn't an Emptiness of the Emptiness of Emptiness, however. There is no bottom layer, there is no prime mover, time moves backwards and forwards forever.

>>17150496
Then don't start one. You cannot be a Buddhist and reject Emptiness/Sunyata/Dependent-Orignation/Anatman/Anatta. The Buddha himself said so.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17150579]

Let me begin first like this.

Buddhism wasn’t originally purely apophantic or at minimum there’s debates in the earliest sects on the topic. Nirvana means to put out/extinguish, as in, like a candle and the entire point of dissolving the desire aggregates/skandhas is that it will produce genuine annihilation of Self. This is why there has historically been more Life denial associated with Buddhism pre-syncretism with various traditions.

The original Buddhism of siddhartha is an extension of the doctrines of the Upanishads in which the entirety of life is bad, and the flesh is evil and instead of cleaving to God, the buddha reasoned that all is still bound in reincarnation therefore the proper answer is to stop that illusion which is reincarnating from incarnating, which is to say, to stop the causal flow of desire aggregates by starving their flame. Resulting in annihilation and absolute static peace, this is why in the earliest depiction of siddhartha he is depicted as many people seated around him but he himself not in the image, there being an empty chair where he “was” and this is the meaning of Tathāgata, one who has gone.

It BECOMES apophantic later in its developments especially in Mahayana and madhyamaka works. This is because in the Abhidharma systems of the oldest states, there is understood to be a plurality of substances which if divided have no essential essence other than their relation/positioning with other substances/laws.

These laws are called “Dharmas” or “dhammas” logically as these have no essence but their relation, you can either take the older approach and seek to annihilate(seek the void) or you can follow Mahayana and nagarjuna’s phenomenal work, and argue that co-dependent origination occurs and thus the essence of all dharmas is other dharmas thus the dharma is its own empty-essence, and because of this, the void is not static but rather a Nondual dynamic relational unity which all portions relate and share, which is why “dharma” evolves as a term in their work.

Most of Mahayana is easily reconciled to various other traditions but let me say, this only exists because of the relationship and syncretism Buddhism undergoes with various forms of Hinduism and even Taoism. And Vajrayana which assumes you to read the same canon as the oldest sects like Theravada would have you read and the Mahayana commentaries and their own works, commentaries and so forth STILL has debates over the two kinds of emptiness and which is the proper interpretation.

Example many take a “ Rangtong” or absolute emptiness interpretation of even nagarjuna’s work and that is not simple apophanticism, that is the belief that both the relative and ultimate are literally nothing and the goal is genuinely annihilation of all.

This is a mainstream interpretation even.

The other approach is Shentong which is the kind of Nondual Apophanticism you’re thinking about.

CONT

[Anonymous No.17150584]

>>17150569
>You can't reject anatta
yeah, no shit, but there are different interpretations of what these things precisely mean

[Anonymous No.17150589]

>>17150569
>Emptiness isn't a material, it's how things exist. Things exist Emptyly.
what does the adjective "empty" mean then with regard to how things exist? what is it about their existence that makes them empty?

[Anonymous No.17150608]

>>17150579
>apophantic
what did he mean by this

[Anonymous No.17150610]

>>17150589
Emptiness is a charteristic of how things exist. They exist "Emptlyly". It's a rejection of the idea that change makes something less real. There is no atman, no secret "real thing" that makes a thing a thing. Things are the products of their conditions, and gain their reality by their interactions with other things.

>>17150584
Correct. And "atmans exist" isn't an interpretation of anatman, it's a rejection of the basic principle and the Buddha's entire system.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17150614]

>>17150579

Something like dzogchen’s Longchenpa for example would probably be of interest to you but at that point they don’t even use Apophantic language but straight up call it the Supreme monarch and great sphere.

Shingon is another fascinating one because they further develop the dhamma ontology to the point where the dharmas become a literal Logos in the Christian sense which are a eternal living teaching of Buddha nature which are Nondual to him and express the entirety of reality as his teach, which they worship embodied as the messianic vairocana who is the Dharmakaya/higher spiritual body of siddhartha whom they see as married to the sun Goddess.

Many forms of pure land are similarly familiar in terms of religious imagery. As for zen it largely depends on the lineage and form of zen even.

> Perennialists such as Coomaraswamy and Schuon have stated (in books) that Buddhism is compatable with the perennial truth, but are there many perennialists who have themselves become Buddhists?

Why are you reading second hand sources? Actually read the main source material for the religion and come to your own conclusion if they’re speaking all the same thing or not.

As for accepting your views. A proper zen lineage wouldn’t accept any of your views, traditional sects like Rinzai beginning with linji himself would constantly punch, scream and hit with sticks the students for wrong answers and wrong beliefs. If you’re looking for “acceptance” and not wisdom, teaching and discipline, well, this simply isn’t for you.

[Anonymous No.17150618]

>>17150584
look anon, we have this thread every day. you arent suddenly going to be able to undo a 2500 year old religious tradition by coming up with the latest new ZANY and WHACKY way of asking a question that the buddha answer 2500 years ago.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17150619]

>>17150608

Sorry! Meant apophatic but I’m typing fast with spell check

[Anonymous No.17150637]

>>17150610
>It's a rejection of the idea that change makes something less real.
how? and why was that necessary?
>There is no atman, no secret "real thing" that makes a thing a thing.
is a thing only a thing to an observer?

[Anonymous No.17150651]

>>17150614
>the Supreme monarch
this sounds an awful lot like some other stuff I know

[Anonymous No.17150673]

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html
Thanissaro is a western monk who believes that anatta is a teaching tool, not a dogma. I think the Thai Forest Tradition has a fair number of monks like him.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17150754]

>>17150569

To be fair he said it “resonated” with him, which is a nice way of saying he enjoys it for aesthetic purposes. It’s likely pushing his head against the actual scripture will shatter his aesthetic fixation.

[Anonymous No.17151055]

Read an actual philosopher.

[Anonymous No.17151189]

>>17150569
>You cannot be a Buddhist and reject Emptiness/Sunyata/Dependent-Orignation/Anatman/Anatta.
Mahyana bugmen reject dependent Orignation. They say it's a conventional truth the buddha made up fro the low IQ listeners who cant into mahayana.
This is why mahayana is not compatible with buddhism.

[Anonymous No.17151244]

>>17150457
I think that you are better off joining a Hindu sect, but if you are determined to find a Buddhist school which is amenable to your views you can try to research and take lessons with Kagyu teachers who teach Shentong doctrine (not all of them do, you'd have to research it). Jonang might even be better than Kagyu, but I'm not aware of there being any Jonang teachers in any western countries, I believe they all live in India and Tibet. You could also try looking into Korean Buddhism like Jinul, as what they say about Nirvana and "essence-function" seems amenable to the view you hold.
>>17150469
He wasn't a Buddhist, he actually intended to become a Hindu sannyasin in old age, but was stopped by an early death.
>>17150569
cringe
>>17150579
good post
>>17150610
>And "atmans exist" isn't an interpretation of anatman, it's a rejection of the basic principle and the Buddha's entire system.
False, because Buddha never explicitly defined Anatta to mean "atmans don't exist", Buddha only ever in the Pali Canon used anatta as a description of the non-self status of various nouns like thoughts, eye-consciousness, the body etc. Buddha only says in the Pali Canon "the body is not the self", "memory is not the self" etc, there is no quote anywhere in the Pali Canon where Buddha says either "anatta means atmans don't exist" and he never says "atmans don't exist"

>“There is no self” is the granddaddy of fake Buddhist quotes. It has survived so long because of its superficial resemblance to the teaching on anatta, or not-self, which was one of the Buddha’s tools for putting an end to clinging.
https://tricycle.org/magazine/there-no-self/

In SN 44.10 Buddha states that to say there is no self is conforming to the doctrine of annihilationism i.e. is a heresy

> If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.010.than.html

>>17150610
>There is no atman, no secret "real thing" that makes a thing a thing
The atman is not taught in Hinduism or Jainism to be simply a thing that makes other things themselves, or makes them that thing; this is a strawman you like to fallaciously repeat for some weird reason. The Atman is sentience. The Atman doesn't make a body a body, because a dead body with no indwelling Atman (sentience) is still a body

[Anonymous No.17151267]

>>17150497
Just as European Christian’s are LARPing as an Eastern Religion

[Anonymous No.17151317]

The idea of self is metaphysical. Anatman is the breakdown of metaphysical self/soul.

Perrenialists like to claim everything is same truth but obviously Buddhist teachings at the core are incompatible with most other theistic religions, most other essentialist philosophies.

[Anonymous No.17151322]

>>17151189
>They say it's a conventional truth the buddha made up fro the low IQ listeners who cant into mahayana.
Absolutely true and based. Furthermore, the absolute nature of the world is pure consciousness, not “emptiness.” It is neither empty nor full, nor is it what’s in the middle: it transcends all such categories and words.

[Anonymous No.17151479]

>>17151317
>Anatman is the breakdown of metaphysical self/soul.
You cannot truly break something down only by listing things which are not that thing, as Buddha did. Buddha never gave any good arguments as to why atmans don't exist, he just said 'X is not atman', 'Y is not atman'

If I say, 'geology is not quantum physics', 'astronomy is not quantum physics', and so on, that doesn't break down or refute quantum physics.

[Anonymous No.17151521]

>>17151479
You are correct. I cannot refute your argument. Please teach me Hinduism.

[Anonymous No.17151576]

>>17151521
>Please teach me Hinduism.
Just read Shankara and you're good, you don't need me. After him you can branch out to other Hindu thinkers of which there are many great ones.

You can try beginning with some of his Upanishad commentaries linked below, if you can't understand what he is talking about (it may take a hundred or so pages of reading before it really starts to click), then take a break and read a book on Advaita so you have the necessary contextual knowledge viz. Sanskrit philosophical vocabulary and the background structure of his metaphysics, and then you should be good to understand these and his other works.

https://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-Vol-1.pdf
https://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-vol2.pdf

[Anonymous No.17151579]

>>17150614
Do you consider yourself a buddhist?

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17151591]

>>17151579

I consider myself an esoteric Rosicrucian Christian. I have initiation within a tantrik lineage and I’ve empowerments in Vajrayana up to the vajrakila level of practice, I stopped there because the vajrakila practices and literature was my primary interest and why I sought out teaching in Vajrayana.

[Anonymous No.17151608]

>>17151591
So what do you believe in?

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17151698]

>>17151608

That’d take multiple essays to get into but roughly speaking a synthesis of pic related’s thoughts.

So if you know these people, a fusion of husserl, hegel, meinong, agrippa, boehme, John Dee, Kenneth grant, Iamblichus, Bertiaux, Abhinavagupta, Deleuze, gikatila, Linji, abulafia, merleu-ponty and Ge-Hong among others.

It would take too long and utterly derail the thread to elaborate on all of my beliefs, i once counted how much writing I have on the topic, it exceeds 80 pages describing just the basics.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17151704]

>>17151608

Whoops wrong image, apologies. Have a assortment of these things.

[Anonymous No.17151741]

>>17151704
How many times do you masturbate in a year?

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17151847]

>>17151741

Don’t need to, I’m married and have never been excessively horny. I also consider Crowley to not be so special. Grant his student is far more fascinating and the failure of grant is his misunderstanding of Hebrew mysticism (thus not understanding the qlippoth which he so popularized ) and in general over-fixation on literal sexuality.

If I wasn’t arranged into marriage I’d likely be off as a celibate monk somewhere.

[Anonymous No.17151913]

OP, you're a complete fool.

You're like the person who wants to be a vegan, yet still eat meat. Something which makes no sense.

Stop wasting your time on living a fantasy. You're just attached to names and ideas, because you clearly have no understanding of the texts you've read at all. If you try to practice Buddhism with the view you have, your only result will be pain.

Grow up.

[Anonymous No.17152097]

>>17151576
I would be careful about reading Advaita Vedanta interpretations such as Shankara's as a commentary to the Upanishads, they are extremely reliant on Buddhist philosophy (Shankara is called a "cryptobuddhist" by most Hindus, and most scholars agree). If you want to read the Upanishads, work through them with editions and commentaries that aren't sectarian, or at least read an interpretation that is closer to the original meaning of the Upanishads, rather than Shankara's 9th century AD quasi-buddhism.

[Anonymous No.17152106]

>>17151244
>American Theravadins insist no-self isn't taught because it's not explicitly given in the King James Pitaka
Not surprised at all by this, but a great deal of the Buddhist world does maintain that there is no permanent self, as an analysis of what the Buddha said.

[Anonymous No.17152142]

>>17151591
Could you give a reading list on where to start with rosucrucianism

[Anonymous No.17152665]

>>17151479
Dumb. He broke down the prime assumption of what constituted atman of a person. That gave us skandha. Any external agency that would exist independently of the body could not be shown. Even if we assume the external independent soul exists, it would not be able to interact with the mundane world. And the interdependence broke that down, furthermore breakdown was clarified by Nagarjuna with sunyata.

There was 0 basis for any soul external to the body, let alone immortal/all encompassing/etc due to causality issue itself. What is normally constituted as the atman/self/soul when people talk about it is merely mundane skandhas.

[Anonymous No.17152670]

>>17151591>>17151698

so you're the spiritual version of globohomo.

[Anonymous No.17152676]

>>17151479>>17151244

>>If I say, 'geology is not quantum physics', 'astronomy is not quantum physics', and so on, that doesn't break down or refute quantum physics.
the buddha never said the self exists int eh first place, you fucking baboon.

[Anonymous No.17153578]

>>17150457
I answered you in the /lit/ thread that was moved to /his/ yesterday.
It's not as much of a problem as you think.

[Anonymous No.17153707]

>>17150673
Is the forest tradition the most based?

[Anonymous No.17153737]

>>17152665
What gets reborn then? How is karma bookkeeping a thing? If you say alaya-vijnana then you're sneaking a self trough the back door, even if it has to be dissolved some day at nirvana then it is a de facto self.

[Anonymous No.17153742]

>>17151704

Who is the poo chad?

[Anonymous No.17153777]

>>17153737
What is reborn is a faulty question. What causes rebirth is the proper question. No "thing" is reborn from life to life, what happens instead is effects of karma reverberate after the death of the old to the birth of the new.

[Anonymous No.17153795]

>>17153777
I do get that it's more like a causal chain that goes on and on, but that begets the question of what's the point of liberation in the first place if no one is truly suffering.

[Anonymous No.17153816]

>>17153795
Conscious beings suffer, however we don't realize our true nature, this is how we exist as a delusional being in the first place. Sort of a ultimate/conventional reality gets a semi equally valid existence.

[Anonymous No.17153858]

>>17152106
>everyone who disagrees with my take is muh ebil protestant
absolutely pathetic

>but a great deal of the Buddhist world does maintain that there is no permanent self, as an analysis of what the Buddha said.
Do you think anyone here is unaware of that or something? The point is that such a position cannot be directly substantiated in the Pali Canon but has to be inferred, and perhaps has been inferred wrongly. It’s not impossible that the Buddhist schools have been wrong about this the whole time, just like how for almost all of Christian history it was wrongly thought the author Psuedo-Dionysus was the Athenian convert of Paul the Apostle mentioned in Acts 17:34.

>>17152665
>Dumb. He broke down the prime assumption of what constituted atman of a person.
No he didn’t, Buddha only listed types of consciousness which are are objects of sentience (eye-conciousness, mind-conciousness etc), he never explained and classified the sentience to which these conciousness-objects are presented, which witness them. His theory of mind in the Pali Canon is incomplete and makes no sense.You cannot break down the assumption of what makes an Atman (sentience) by listing a bunch of non-sentient things that sentience observes, that is just begging the question. The geology and quantum physics analogy used earlier still fully applies.

>Any external agency that would exist independently of the body could not be shown.
If agency is intrinsic to physical bodies then dead bodies should possess agency, but they don’t which indicates that it’s not

>Even if we assume the external independent soul exists, it would not be able to interact with the mundane world.
The Atman doesn’t interact with anything mundane or otherwise anon, it is unchanging and homogenous like light and merely endows the mind with activity and life by its illuminating presence. The Atman does not control the mind and body like a person with their hands at a console, so this objection isn’t a real problem for the Atman doctrine as formulated by Advaita, because there is no explanation need of how the Atman controls anything. Controllership, enjoyership and doership are not real attributes of the Atman but are superimposed upon it by the Jiva/avidya

[Anonymous No.17153866]

>>17153858
>And the interdependence broke that down,
huh? what is this supposed to mean?
>furthermore breakdown was clarified by Nagarjuna with sunyata.
No it wasn’t, as Richard Robinson showed in his famous article Nagarjuna’s claims in the MMK fail the test of logic and use common sophist tactics, they don’t establish or support the breakdown of the Atman. And how can you even take anything Nagarjuna says about mind/consciousness seriously when he doesn’t even have a consistent and clear theory of mind which he espouses. If you can’t give a consistent explanation of how consciousness and the mind functions, as Nagarjuna failed to provide, there is no reason to take your claims about the existence or non-existence lf the Atman seriously.

>There was 0 basis for any soul external to the body, let alone immortal/all encompassing/etc due to causality issue itself.
“Moreover, the Materialist ought to be asked what is the exact nature of that consciousness which he supposes to be exuded from the elements. For he does not admit the existence of any other principle apart from his elements. He will perhaps try to define consciousness as consisting in the mere fact that the elements and their products are experienced. But then they would have to be its object, and it could not be a property of them at the same time, for it is contradictory to suppose that anything can act on itself. Fire may be hot, but it cannot burn itself, and not even the cleverest acrobat can climb up on his own shoulders. And, in the same way, the elements and their products cannot form objects of consciousness if consciousness is their property. A colour does not perceive its own colour or the colour of anything else. And yet there is no doubt whatever that the elements and their products are perceived by consciousness, both inside and outside the body. Because, therefore, the presence of a consciousness which takes the elements and their products (body etc) as its objects has to be admitted, it follows that it has likewise to be admitted that consciousness (sentience) is distinct and separate from them.”

>What is normally constituted as the atman/self/soul when people talk about it is merely mundane skandhas.
False, see the first part of this reply in the above post. The objects of sentience are not identical with the sentience to which they are given, this results in too many contradictions to keep track of.

[S10241875 No.17153901]

>>17150457
>I have come to the conclusion that the doctrine of anatta is mere apophatism, not a metaphysical doctrine of no-self. With this understanding, is it worthwhile still becoming a Buddhist, seeing as many schools would reject such a statement, or would it be better to join another tradition?

I don't understand why you want to force yourself.
"Apophatically" this or "apophatically" that can be said about anything.
They'll tell you: "Don't eat this." And you decide for yourself: "Oh, they say don't eat this, but in fact they mean eat it, they just say apophatically." You can play such games as much as you like - it is not clear why?

[Anonymous No.17153903]

>>17153795
I think your line of thinking should be reversed, as I understand it "we" suffer because we mistakenly believe there is a "we" to experience suffering in the first place.

[Anonymous No.17153904]

>>17153858
Not the guy you responded to and I agree, I also think it's worth pointing out that most Buddhist scripture was destroyed as a result of muslim invasions and the Pali canon is, in the end, only a small part of the original Buddhist teachings. The full Dharma as it was taught by Gautama might not have been exactly the same as the one that is being taught right now.

[Anonymous No.17153912]

>>17153858
>Atman doesn't interact with mundane
So how is atman linked to the body again? Unless you're saying the body is fake and the only thing true is atman. In which case, you're even more deluded as you've given up all sense of realism in favor of chasing after a ghost.

[Anonymous No.17153925]

saṃyutta nikāya 5

connected discourses with bhikkhunis

10. Vajira
At Savatthi. Then, in the morning, the bhikkhuni Vajira dressed and, taking bowl and robe, entered Savatthi for alms. When she had walked for alms in Savatthi and had returned from her alms round, after her meal she went to the Blind Men’s Grove for the day’s abiding. Having plunged into the Blind Men’s Grove, she sat down at the foot of a tree for the day’s abiding.

Then Mara the Evil One, desiring to arouse fear, trepidation, and terror in the bhikkhuni Vajira, desiring to make her fall away from concentration, approached her and addressed her in verse:

“By whom has this being been created?
Where is the maker of the being?
Where has the being arisen?
Where does the being cease?”

Then it occurred to the bhikkhuni Vajira: “Now who is this that recited the verse—a human being or a nonhuman being?” Then it occurred to her: “This is Mara the Evil One, who has recited the verse desiring to arouse fear, trepidation, and terror in me, desiring to make me fall away from concentration.”

Then the bhikkhuni Vajira, having understood, “This is Mara the Evil One,” replied to him in verses:

“Why now do you assume ‘a being’?
Mara, is that your speculative view?
This is a heap of sheer formations:
Here no being is found.

“Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word ‘chariot’ is used,
So, when the aggregates exist,
There is the convention ‘a being.’

“It’s only suffering that comes to be,
Suffering that stands and falls away.
Nothing but suffering comes to be,
Nothing but suffering ceases.”

Then Mara the Evil One, realizing, “The bhikkhuni Vajira knows me,” sad and disappointed, disappeared right there.
-SN 5.10

[Anonymous No.17153929]

Suppose, friend Ānanda, a young woman—or a man—youthful and fond of ornaments, would examine her own facial image in a mirror or in a bowl filled with pure, clear, clean water: she would look at it with clinging, not without clinging. So too, it is by clinging to form that ‘I am’ occurs, not without clinging. It is by clinging to feeling … to perception … to volitional formations … to consciousness that ‘I am’ occurs, not without clinging

[Anonymous No.17153936]

Doesn't it defeat the purpose to be endlessly debating about this shit?
Didn't the Buddha explicitly warn against https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_proliferation and tell the bhikkus to experience things first and foremost, and that words were just words?

[Anonymous No.17153949]

>>17153858
>Buddha only listed...
You're confusing yourself. Buddhas theory of mind and of personhood encompasses the skandhas not because it's perfect but because that's all that constitutes as a selfhood. The presumption of this missing the key crucial ingredient, aka soul, is already an assumption that can not be explained by the body's function. Hence it is not only unnecessary but also an extra that has not been shown to be of special function. The state of sentience is feeling/perceiving and that is done by various consciousness and not of special non-interacting soul as you claim yourself. In the absence of any useful function, it might as well not even exist or matter at this point.

[Anonymous No.17153958]

>>17153936
Yes but deluded people still exists and will argue buddha is wrong.

[Anonymous No.17153968]

>>17153912
>So how is atman linked to the body again?
Through the subtle body (sūkṣma śarīra), which the Atman observes. The subtle body controls thinking and bodily movement and the subtle body transmigrates from body to body after the death of its physical host. The Atman doesn’t transmigrate or control anything but just observes the subtle body.

[Anonymous No.17153975]

>>17151244
>you are better off joining a Hindu sect
Problem is those are basically nonexistent in the west, unlike Buddhist sanghas which have existed in western countries for quite some time now.
You'd need to travel to India and get initiated there.

[Anonymous No.17153994]

>>17152142

Best to begin with the writings of Paracelsus, agrippa, trithemius, boehme, John dee and stuff like the chymical wedding.


>>17153742

Abhinavagupta avatar of Bhairava

[Anonymous No.17154012]

Nice going with mumbo jumbo now. Bullshit energies, "atman" that survives death, reincarnates, and houses all that is classically called an atman IS atman.

This is why Hindoos have bankrupt philosophies which is built up with cope, deflections and weird shit.

[Anonymous No.17154169]

>>17150457
read MahaPrajnaParamita-Sastra by Nagarjuna

[Anonymous No.17154510]

>>17154012
Kundalini is interesting though

[Anonymous No.17154595]

>>17153925
>Why now do you assume ‘a being’?
>Mara, is that your speculative view?
>This is a heap of sheer formations:
>Here no being is found.
This is dumb of Buddha to ask that, because non-existent beings don’t have sentient experience. Only existing beings have the subjective conscious experience of being alive. Insentient objects like rocks don’t have subjective experience, and neither do non-existent entities like fictional characters in novels. So it is natural and logical to assume a being when we have the experience of being conscious. Did you ever notice how these fawning retards in the Pali Canon rarely challenge Buddha’s ideas in any meaningful way? It’s almost like they are not records of real conversations but are contrived narratives designed to make you abandon critical thinking so you accept what he says without any rational analysis of it.

>“Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
>The word ‘chariot’ is used,
>So, when the aggregates exist,
>There is the convention ‘a being.’
Buddha is guilty here of using the logical fallacy know as a ‘false equivalence’

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

Buddha is trying to say here “just as when we reduce a chariot to being an assemblage of parts, there is nothing left but the parts left, there is no chariot remaining; in the same way when we reduce humans to their parts there is no being remaining”, but this is a false equivalence since chariots are insentient objects and living beings are endowed with sentience, so what we infer about one of them doesn’t automatically apply to the other, since they qualitatively different from one another. When we reduce a chariot to its parts, there is nothing left missing or unexplained; each part when taken together completely account for the chariot; but when Buddha tries to reduce human beings to their body and aggregates like memory and ear-consciousness but without including any sentience who registers those aggregates, there is something fundamental and non-irreducible which we have (sentience) which is missing from the equation, the explanation of aggregates doesn’t account for our undivided locus of sentient experience which is different from the individual thoughts and sense-perceptions that it registers. People of little intelligence may find these logical fallacies of Buddha to be convincing, but I sure don’t.

>>17153929
> So too, it is by clinging to form that ‘I am’ occurs
only an existing sentient being can cling, to say that clinging can occur is already to presuppose a preexisting being who clings

[Anonymous No.17154598]

>>17154595
>>17153949
> The state of sentience is feeling/perceiving and that is done by various consciousness
This is obviously wrong because if that were true, that there was no self and just different consciousnesses, the fact that we simultaneously receive the input from multiple sense organs would mean that we would have multiple different loci of consciousnesses, with no way for them to integrate with or observe each other, since ear-consciousness being produced by the ear cannot smell scents or see physical objects. But this is clearly false as we have an undivided locus of sentience to which all the sensory data is given or presented; which is why I can perceive the color of my soup at the same moment I taste it. what you say can be easily disproven through reference to our lived experience.

>>17154012
All you did was give a very vague description of some things talked about in Hinduism, you didn’t explain how any of it was illogical or wrong, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
> This is why Hindoos have bankrupt philosophies
Maybe this is what they believe in Buddhist-fantasy land, but in reality Buddhism was extensively refuted by Hindu philosophers like Adi Shankara who pointed out its many contradictions, and Buddhists were never able to respond to or refute these attacks on it, which led to Buddhism mostly vanishing from India when it could no longer hold its own in the debate of ideas

[Anonymous No.17154602]

>>17154595
>>17154598
didn't read lol

[Anonymous No.17154609]

>>17150457
If you think you might need Buddhism then you probably need it. Same as anyone who goes to a psycatrist should have their head examined.

[Anonymous No.17154611]

>>17154609
This sounded more clever in your head I'm sure

[Anonymous No.17154623]

>bro hinduism is like so enlightened man, not like those fallacious buddhists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(practice)

[Anonymous No.17154650]

>>17154623
I actually had genuine interest in vedanta a few months ago, but guenonfag single-handedly managed to turn me off from it completely.

[Anonymous No.17154779]

>>17154595
It seems you're getting muddled down by things like Skandhas when you aren't really aware of the basics. You should check out What the Buddha Taught, and then read the Heart Sutra. It'll clear this problem up for you.

>>17153936
Yes. That's sort of the problem, though: fags on the internet don't want to actually experience things, they want to argue. It's why people who don't know what a Skandha or a Karma are think they can "refute" (whatever that means) a two-thousand five-hundred year old religious tradition by rewording the same statements that the Buddha addressed two-thousand five-hundred years ago. Maybe if we change "consciousness" to "sentience" or "experientialiality", it will work THIS time!

It won't.

[Anonymous No.17154790]

>>17154598
>Shankara defeated Buddhism in a Pokemon battle and it went away forever
Not how history works, try again.

[Anonymous No.17154796]

>>17154169
buddhism disproves hinduism tho

[Anonymous No.17154807]

>>17154650
This seems to be a common sentiment. Might I recommend checking out Ramanuja? From a Buddhist perspective, he too is wrong, but he's an Indian monist without all of the incoherence that Shankara has. Namely, unlike Shankara, he doesn't deny that things like emotions and Gods exist.

For what it's worth, the guenontrannies on here also hate Ramanuja.

[Anonymous No.17154824]

>>17153858
>The point is that such a position cannot be directly substantiated in the Pali Canon but has to be inferred, and perhaps has been inferred wrongly.
Yes this is a hyperprotestant take, that a third party English speaker is competent over centuries of lineages and transmissions to perform his own exegesis of the text since he has it in his head that it is pure and uncorrupted, directly from god, somehow outside of human processes, the same ones he blames for corrupting interpretation he excuses from text, when you could just as antinomically assert that to guard against those very same corruptions are why such interpretations exist in the first place.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17154830]

>>17154650
>>17154807

Tantra is another option, their nondualism is an even more Nondual school than Vedanta which rejects Vedanta since they claim it to be pseudo-monism, as Vedanta rejects maya. They reason that since God is truth and God creates maya must be truth and God and must be worshipped and integrated also. Thus they’re as life-affirming as possible.

[Anonymous No.17154881]

>>17154824
It's also wrong because the Buddha does go over anatman, repeatedly, in the Pali Canon. So, not only is his understanding of how Buddhism works wrong (the Theravada root their authenticity and correctness in tradition, not the Pali Canon), but the actual argument he's making (that anatman isn't in the Pali Canon) is also wrong.

I'm surprised these retards still keep regurgitating this, given how easy it is to demonstrate as false. I get that Shankara didn't actually know what Buddhists were talking about, as that eight page picture that these fags like to spam demonstrates, but this is really, REALLY embarrassing. It just demonstrates why no one in India takes Shankara seriously.
>inb4 five max-char posts that don't actually address the point

[Anonymous No.17154942]

>>17154598
>But this is clearly false as we have an undivided locus of sentience to which all the sensory data is given or presented; which is why I can perceive the color of my soup at the same moment I taste it.
this is completely wrong wtf

[Anonymous No.17154951]

>>17154595
>So it is natural and logical to assume a being when we have the experience of being conscious.
consciousness is conditioned and doesn't require a being, dwt

[Anonymous No.17154952]

>>17154942
>expecting guenonfag to make sense

[Anonymous No.17154958]

>>17153635 is he right?

[Anonymous No.17154994]

>>17154958
>the logical conclusion of its tenets is that nothing matters but escaping the house on fire that they see the world as.
This isn't really unique to Buddhism, but Buddhism certainly has one of the most startling views on the world relative to the default western narratives of creationism or its bastard child, progressive evolution towards complexity and eugenic fitness. To think that the only reason you seem to have become an island of order in an entropic world is so you might be closer to being liberated from it is something of a paradox and reducible to nihilism for people who despair at a world of processes replacing their notion of a monadistic, Oedipal universe.

[Anonymous No.17155011]

>>17154958
Yes, but the "shock" of his post comes from the fact that the West is so out of whack with how humans are supposed to be that him just stating the blunt truth is like a bucket of cold water on the face.

Say what you will about the Chinese, but the Chinese don't believe that they are at their core evil, they do not believe that they are fundamentally separate from the world around them, they do not believe that by walking around on a patch of ground they spiritually pollute it, they do not believe that by being buried in an area they spiritually taint it, and they do not believe that a group of foreigners who hate and despise them are the source of all goodness in the world.

[Anonymous No.17155017]

>>17155011
Then why pursue the Dharma at all?

[Anonymous No.17155019]

Become a Neoplatonist and just use Buddhist Meditation techniques

[Anonymous No.17155031]

>>17155019
Vajrayana has some similarities to Platonist theurgy, e.g. deity visualization

[Anonymous No.17155070]

>>17155017
The is-ought problem that you are positing only really shows up when you posit humanity as separate from the world and then posit an urgency to life. "Samsara sucks and I want out" is entirely valid. Do you want peace? The pursue the Dharma.
>But why not do something else with THIS life?
There's nothing saying you can't. There's nothing saying you shouldn't. If you choose to, just stay out of the way of those who want to pursue the Dharma. They don't take up much space anyways.

[Anonymous No.17155116]

>>17154623
Sati was (its not practiced anymore) an Indian cultural phenomenon, its not taught as something people should do in the revealed Hindu scriptures, similar to how female genital mutilation is not taught in the Quran and is only found in a few spurious hadiths which most Muslim sects consider as non-authentic or low reliability. It is an Arab cultural practice rather than something taught by the scriptures of Islam. The pre-Christian Europeans at times were observed to do similar things, like when that Arab traveler witnessed Vikings killing a mans wives and then entombing them in his grave mound during his funeral rites.
>>17154650
Yeah and my dad works for Nintendo
>>17154779
>It seems you're getting muddled down by things like Skandhas when you aren't really aware of the basics.
I am though, I just explained why it doesn’t make sense, this is basically just your way of snidely conceding that you have no rebuttal to my points.

> Maybe if we change "consciousness" to "sentience
As I have explained, it results in many contradictions so say that there are only different types of consciousnesses but no sentience or self who observes them, because this position is unable to account for the unity and continuity of our conscious experience.
>>17154790
Yes, that is what happened, that’s why they mostly dropped off the map of intra-Indian religious debates after Shankara
>>17154807
I like Ramanuja, I just disagree with some of his arguments. Shankara doesn’t deny that emotions and gods exist on the level of empirical reality; but empirical reality is not the same as absolute reality in Advaita.
>>17154796
you have that backwards
>>17154830
>wtf Shankara why does Brahman have maya his power as his Paramisvara-sakti?, that makes Brahman and his power, t-thats two!
>that's why we have Shiva and Shakti, with the power of individuation and ignorance as Shiva's maya-tattva, problem solved! No more duality...
lol
>>17154881
This whole post is just pointless bloviating that doesn’t begin to address any of the points raised here about anatta being incoherent

[Anonymous No.17155117]

correct me if I'm wrong but I'm rereading the descriptions of tilakhanna in the suttas and anatta is only ever brought up alongside anicca and dukkha as a way to qualify the skandhas and make the student stop identifying with them
Anatta isn't really 'you don't exist', it's just 'those things you identify as yourself aren't you'

[Anonymous No.17155123]

>>17155116
Alright, that's one down, three to go!

[Anonymous No.17155125]

>>17155116
absolutely buttblasted lmfao

[Anonymous No.17155134]

>>17154942
>this is completely wrong wtf
>when I taste my soup I lose consciousness of the color or my soup, even when looking at it while eating

[Anonymous No.17155137]

>>17155117
Correct. Reality is. This is requires atman to not be. Anatta is the result. As another anon up thread said, Emptiness is a characterization of how things exist. Things that exist are Empty. A thing not being Empty would mean it couldn't exist. It is precisely because things are Empty that they can exist. Emptiness too is Empty. The Buddha (and later, Nagarjuna) are described in the Madhyamaka school as being men who desire silence by saying "shhhh". Reality is too big to put in the box of words.

There is an atman, there isn't an atman, it's smoke in the air. The Buddha waves his hand, away the smoke goes. What is left? Anatman.

[Anonymous No.17155139]

>>17155116
I wasn't kidding though, your extreme autism brought my interest for vedanta down to zero.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17155142]

>>17155116

Yes, when maya is perceived as the perception/unfoldment of the nature of shiva that removes the dualistic element inherent to the doctrine that Brahman undergoes nescience and becomes truly bound by an illusionary otherness which should be annihilated.

There is no annihilation or withdrawal from maya in tantra, there is however such a withdrawal in Vedanta, though they admit fundamentally maya is the power of Brahman they make a subtle energy-essence distinction and act as if there is genuine wrong with maya.

You know fully well this is the case Anon.

[Anonymous No.17155149]

>>17155134
This is exactly why the idea of atmans, specifically how Shankara formulates them, doesn't make sense. This is a point that the Buddha, and Nagarjuna later, raise.

[Anonymous No.17155150]

>>17155137
I get it.

[Anonymous No.17155160]

>>17154951
>consciousness is conditioned and doesn't require a being
only the objects of sentience can be shown to be conditioned, sentience cannot detect whether it is conditioned or not because that would involve the same thing being both the subject and object of awareness which is not possible, just as fire cannot burn itself
>doesn’t require a being
to consciously exist is to have or participate in being

[Anonymous No.17155193]

>>17155117
yes, but drones also want a self outside the skandhas, and they seethe when they hear there is nothing...

[Anonymous No.17155200]

>>17155193
in which suttas is it explained that there is nothing outside of the skandhas?

[Anonymous No.17155213]

>>17155149
But that’s wrong because even when I taste my soup, I can still perceive what color it is, maybe the brains of NPCs work differently

[Anonymous No.17155233]

>>17155116
iirc Buddhism survived in Indian debate as a derogatory epithet for your preferred school of thought

[Anonymous No.17155249]

>>17155233
kek

[Anonymous No.17155271]

>>17155213
So you are trying to say that because senses operate simultaneously that you must have a permanent self. I don't see why that would be the case. Cybernetically speaking there are messages being sent and received here between different 'things,' and it is a matter of habit to assume there is a superthing involved here governing those senders and receivers. Even if we should allow for this governance, it certainly does not mean it has any permanence, being so obviously dependent on the messages for a self(-image) that this process alone should give us pause in thinking it has any sort of eternity. All of this we are assuming without even calling into question the veracity of senses and sensations, which could also be (and are) subject to criticism (in Buddhism).

[Anonymous No.17155280]

Om Bhaisajye Bhaisajye Bhaisya Samudgate Svaha!
How are my fellow Dharma practicioners doing this morning? Did you remember to practice meditation, or sutra chanting, etc? What is your daily practice like?

[Anonymous No.17155283]

>>17155213
Correct. You can taste the soup and see its color and know it's smell and hear it precisely because there isn't one single thing that can only ever interact with one single thing because of Sanskrit grammatical rules that something can only do one thing at a time in a sentence.

It is precisely because of anatman, precisely because you are NOT an NPC, that you can do these things. If you had an atman, if you had some little black box in your head, you couldn't both see and smell your soup at the same time.

[Anonymous No.17155291]

>>17155150
I'm sure you get it intellectually, but like the majority of practitioners I'm likely to believe you haven't actualized the experience.

[Anonymous No.17155306]

>>17155291
Of course I haven't, but I'm working on it.

[Anonymous No.17155308]

>>17155280
I go on /lit/ daily to receive my (You)'s in my bowl, then I study texts, then I sleep and do it all over again

[Anonymous No.17155476]

>>17155142
>Yes, when maya is perceived as the perception/unfoldment of the nature of shiva that removes the dualistic element inherent to the doctrine that Brahman undergoes nescience and becomes truly bound by an illusionary otherness which should be annihilated.
Are you talking about Advaita in the latter half of this sentence? Because if so that is simply wrong, Advaita and Shankara clearly explain that the Atman-Brahman does not undergo nescience, only the Jiva is subject to nescience.
>There is no annihilation or withdrawal from maya in tantra, there is however such a withdrawal in Vedanta, though they admit fundamentally maya is the power of Brahman they make a subtle energy-essence distinction
Yes, Advaita accepts some level of energy-essence distinction, as does Eastern Orthodox theology, this in itself is not a bad thing. Is Maya-tattva not the power or energy of Shiva?
>and act as if there is genuine wrong with maya.
That’s also not really accurate, or rather maybe you inferred this wrongly. To Advaita, right vs wrong as moral categories or value judgments are not absolutely real, they are subjective and don’t exist in absolute reality just as is the case with heat vs cold, good vs evil, pain vs pleasure etc. Brahman and maya just simply are, categorizing them as good or bad has no relevance in Absolute reality in Advaita. Jivas can make a practical judgement and say “from my perspective as a Jiva, it is better to become liberated”, but these subjective judgements of the Jiva present no problem for Brahman who transcends them, they have no bearing upon Brahman. As the Katha Upanishad says about Brahman, ‘ As the sun, which helps all eyes to see, is not affected by the blemishes of the eyes or of the external things revealed by it, so also the one Atman, dwelling in all beings, is never contaminated by the misery of the world, being outside it.’

[Anonymous No.17155533]

>>17150614
How does the Primordial Buddha, Vairocana, which is one's nature, relate to the doctrine of anatta in Shingon Buddhism?

[Anonymous No.17155538]

Do Theravadins see the Mahayana scripture (Heart sutra, Diamond sutra, etc) as noncanon bullshit or do they acknowledge them but just prefer sticking to the Pali canon?

[Anonymous No.17155567]

>>17155070
I can't tell which is the right choice, pursuing the Dharma now, or continuing to enjoy the good things in Samsara while coping with the bad things however I can.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17155610]

>>17155476

>Are you talking about Advaita in the latter half of this sentence? Because if so that is simply wrong, Advaita and Shankara clearly explain that the Atman-Brahman does not undergo nescience, only the Jiva is subject to nescience.

Jivan is Brahman, you divide them by the very nature of your speech.

> Yes, Advaita accepts some level of energy-essence distinction, as does Eastern Orthodox theology, this in itself is not a bad thing. Is Maya-tattva not the power or energy of Shiva?

This is a duality, yes. And maya-Tattva is the power of shiva which is Nondual to shiva, there is no actual division only a formal distinction between shiva and shakti and even the shiva Tattva is a Shakti. There are no actual divisions in any of the tattvas except formal distinctions.

> That’s also not really accurate, or rather maybe you inferred this wrongly. To Advaita, right vs wrong as moral categories or value judgments are not absolutely real, they are subjective and don’t exist in absolute reality just as is the case with heat vs cold, good vs evil, pain vs pleasure etc. Brahman and maya just simply are, categorizing them as good or bad has no relevance in Absolute reality in Advaita. Jivas can make a practical judgement and say “from my perspective as a Jiva, it is better to become liberated”, but these subjective judgements of the Jiva present no problem for Brahman who transcends them, they have no bearing upon Brahman. As the Katha Upanishad says about Brahman, ‘ As the sun, which helps all eyes to see, is not affected by the blemishes of the eyes or of the external things revealed by it, so also the one Atman, dwelling in all beings, is never contaminated by the misery of the world, being outside it.’


Or to translate, you are saying in ultimate reality there is no problem but in relative reality the jivan is absolutely bound and subject to various dualities of purity and impure, good and evil, liberation and imprisonment. I am saying even in the relative is maya Tattva perfect. And bondage itself is the highest and there is neither superiority in extreme sattva nor in extreme tamas save for the experiences of devotion that they may produce but this is not to consider them better even on a relative scale.

Eh, if you want I’ll post a essay I wrote concerning the tantrik Tattva ontology and it’ll go over the absolute nondualism of abhinavagupta.

>>17155533

There are Shingon texts which associate the Dharmakaya as both anatta and Atman, again by the time you reach Shingon stuff has developed very oddly, let me quote from kukai. Actually it is better if you read it, go to his analysis of the word HUM here.

https://www.bdk.or.jp/document/dgtl-dl/dBET_ShingonTexts_2004.pdf

It’ll explain many of their doctrines, alternatively read the Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi

But to summarize the doctrine,

CONT

[Anonymous No.17155614]

>>17155031
Most of these things end up being quite similar.

Personally I am more pro Porphyry and Plotinus' style of meditation than Iamblichus.

[Anonymous No.17155630]

>>17155567
try to follow the 5 precepts, and if you cant do them all at once, dedicate every week to one precept

[Anonymous No.17155634]

>>17155533
Shingon is built around the Vairocanabhisambodhi Sutra. In short the Buddha *is* the Dharma, not merely a teacher of it, and, because this is a Mahayana school, that means realizing emptiness.
>>17155538
Read both and don't be limited by foreign historical doxography. Both Theravada and Mahayana are at their roots intepretations of the Pali Canon translated two thousand five hundred years over.

[Anonymous No.17155650]

>>17155630
I already do, except for the fourth I'm having trouble with.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17155653]

>>17155610

“If you want to be no different from the buddhas and patriarchs, just don t seek outside yourself. A moment of your mind’s
pure light is the Dharmakaya Buddha inside your own house. A moment of your mind’s light without discrimination is the Sambhogakaya Buddha inside your own house. A moment of your mind’s light with no distinctions is the Nirmanakaya Buddha within your own house. These three buddha-bodies are the person here before you now listening to the Dharma. They have their functional abilities just because they do not seek externally.” - linji, which though a Zen reference applies here also.

The three-fold manifestation of the worlds and three bodies are the perfect mandala of sunyata which is not empty but rather the Nondual unity which pervades all.

[Anonymous No.17155655]

>>17155614
Haven't studied it in a while but I do remember in reading Proclus that he would cite a number of earlier Platonists, only to supercede them with Iamblichus, and I was left thinking I preferred the earlier thinkers.

[Anonymous No.17155666]

>>17155634
>Read both and don't be limited by foreign historical doxography
I know, I'm specifically asking about how the Theravadin sanghas view Mahayanist texts though.

[Anonymous No.17155680]

>>17155655
Proclus is interesting in his dependence and divergence from Iamblichus. He rejects most of Iamblichus' hyper apophaticism, stuff like the One beyond the One, and emphasises a basically logical conception of Platonism, i.e. that these distinctions are grounded in thought rather than suprarational experience, unlike Iamblichus and parts of Plotinus.

However, he is highly interested in defending traditional religion, and theurgy is very useful in that.

I think for the purposes of OP that is not so important and so he should just read people like Plotinus and synthesise that with meditative practice.

Most Buddhist Monks are actually quite interested in Platonism.

[Anonymous No.17155684]

>>17155680
>Most Buddhist Monks are actually quite interested in Platonism.
Isn't it opposed to their beliefs?

[Anonymous No.17155685]

>>17155666
I'm not sure they care. A great deal of Mahayana was composed originally in Sanskrit or even Chinese so it was never part of the monastic curriculum in Sri Lanka

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17155695]

>>17155684

Depends on the Buddhist sect; a lot of them like Shingon has a basically logos, a lot of Mahayana phenomenology breaks down into a world of ideal forms. Depends on the system.

[Anonymous No.17155696]

>>17151698
>>17151704
Do you have a blog?

[Anonymous No.17155703]

>>17155695
And lot of muhayan is just trying to reach God as well. Buddhist monk desire the salvation if God

[Anonymous No.17155706]

>>17155538
see>>17151189
they aren't compatible. Buddhists tried to save face in some pathetic interfaith organization like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_points_unifying_Therav%C4%81da_and_Mah%C4%81y%C4%81na

where they say they agree on a few points, but it's a just a facade. The Buddha they talk about isn't the same in Theravada and Mahayana for instance.

[Anonymous No.17155710]

>>17155703
lmao no

[Anonymous No.17155713]

>>17155706
The Basic Points Unifying the Theravāda and the Mahāyāna is an important Buddhist ecumenical statement created in 1967 during the First Congress of the World Buddhist Sangha Council (WBSC), where its founder Secretary-General, the late Venerable Pandita Pimbure Sorata Thera, requested the Ven. Walpola Rahula to present a concise formula for the unification of all the different Buddhist traditions. This text was then unanimously approved by the Council.[1]


# The Buddha is our only Master (teacher and guide)

We take refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma and the Saṅgha (the Three Jewels)
We do not believe that this world is created and ruled by a God.
We consider that the purpose of life is to develop compassion for all living beings without discrimination and to work for their good, happiness, and peace; and to develop wisdom (prajñā) leading to the realization of Ultimate Truth
We accept the Four Noble Truths, namely duḥkha, the arising of duḥkha, the cessation of duḥkha, and the path leading to the cessation of duḥkha; and the law of cause and effect (pratītyasamutpāda)
All conditioned things (saṃskāra) are impermanent (anitya) and duḥkha, and that all conditioned and unconditioned things (dharma) are without self (anātma) (see trilaksana).
We accept the thirty-seven qualities conducive to enlightenment (bodhipakṣadharma) as different aspects of the Path taught by the Buddha leading to Enlightenment.
There are three ways of attaining bodhi or Enlightenment: namely as a disciple (śrāvaka), as a pratyekabuddha and as a samyaksambuddha (perfectly and fully enlightened Buddha). We accept it as the highest, noblest, and most heroic to follow the career of a Bodhisattva and to become a samyaksambuddha in order to save others.
We admit that in different countries there are differences regarding Buddhist beliefs and practices. These external forms and expressions should not be confused with the essential teachings of the Buddha.

[Anonymous No.17155720]

>>17155680
I would agree Proclus is really for specialists. He is excruciatingly detailed, like a sort of pagan Kant.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17155732]

>>17155696

Yeah, I apologize for posting it now, if you read this section beginning from the oldest post to the newest it’ll more or less give a rough overview of my ontology

https://pastebin.com/UCjJSy7z

Alternatively these two will summarize it.

https://pastebin.com/JK24UqJR

[Anonymous No.17155760]

>>17155732
Thank you, I think I'm walking a similar path to yours, this will make for great reading

[Anonymous No.17155770]

>>17155684
Platonists are pretty clear on there being a first cause but stuff like forms, metempsychosis, and the emphasis on mind as a kind of supreme principle (above soul and bodies which come through it) all find parallels in Buddhist schools.

[Anonymous No.17155776]

>>17155653
>pure light is the Dharmakaya Buddha inside your own house. A moment of your mind’s light without discrimination is the Sambhogakaya Buddha inside your own house. A moment of your mind’s light with no distinctions is the Nirmanakaya Buddha within your own house. These three buddha-bodies are the person here before you now listening to the Dharma. They have their functional abilities just because they do not seek externally.” - linji, which though a Zen reference applies here also.
>
>The three-fold manifestation of the worlds and three bodies are the perfect mandala of sunyata which is not empty but rather the Nondual unity which pervades all.
Expect that's not buddhism. If you like mahayana, at least have the decency of saying you're a hindu, instead of following the herd.

[Anonymous No.17155810]

>>17155283
> there isn't one single thing that can only ever interact with one single thing
I am arguing against the view that consciousness cannot register the taste and color of soup at the same time, you seem to be mistaken in believing I am advocating that position.
> If you had an atman, if you had some little black box in your head, you couldn't both see and smell your soup at the same time.
False, because the one substratum of sentience can have multiple things superimposed upon it at the same time.
>>17155271
>So you are trying to say that because senses operate simultaneously that you must have a permanent self. I don't see why that would be the case.
The self-evident continuity of sentience amidst a multitude of sensory information shows that sentience is different from and not produced by that sensory information,
because disparate sensory data coming in from different sources cannot synthesize themselves into a unity on their own, as each are produced by different organs and pertain to different spheres of knowledge. In order that all my sensory perceptions be perceived, the must be perceived by one who is separate from them, because otherwise the sense of sight has to hear sounds and other such absurd scenarios.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17155817]

>>17155776

Eh, I feel you dude, but in Shingon they mix so much Hinduism and Buddhism that they will literally affirm both Atman and anatta in the same sentence. I know it’s very radically different but who am I to argue with Kukai On what is genuine Shingon buddhism?

[Anonymous No.17155830]

>>17155706
>The Buddha they talk about isn't the same in Theravada and Mahayana for instance.
What?

[Anonymous No.17155889]

>>17155538
The idea of "canon" as it is in Buddhism is different from that of Abrahamism. Whether the Buddha literally says something or not is irrelevant. Buddhism is a raft to get at Dharma. The third Tipitaka (the Pali Canon is broken up into three Tipitakas, "baskets", the first one on religion, the second is monastic discipline, the third is the Abhidharma, which is philosophy) is, by many Western scholars, considered to patently not be the Buddhas words. Many Theravadins agree.

The largest point of divergence between the Theravada and the Mahayana is the Bodhisattva Vow. A Mahayana practitioner aims to postpone their own nirvana in order to become a God (sort of) to help other sentient beings. The Theravada do not believe it that this is bad. It can allow for a back door for bad behavior, but it's ultimately a nice idea. But they reject the idea that it works that way. Bodhisattvas are real, but you have to take the vow in front of a Buddha. The last one of those we had was Siddhartha Gautama, and he died a long time ago, so we can't make more Bodhisattvas.

Are these Mahayana Sutras wrong? No. Can they lead you astray? According to the Theravada, yes. Many of them get airy-fairy and philosophical, when really, you don't need to know the difference between the Buddha's Three Bodies, or the precise definition of Sunyata, because you can't even sit five minutes just observing your own breath without getting distracted.

The Theravada tradition is not Protestantism. Understand, that Buddhism is different from Christianity. It is, in many ways, far weirder. That gives you permission to stop and say "wait, am I applying outside biases onto this tradition that those outside biases are fundamentally alien to?" at all times.

[Anonymous No.17155899]

>>17155810
That's two! Two more to go!

[Anonymous No.17155926]

>>17155810
>In order that all my sensory perceptions be perceived, the must be perceived by one who is separate from them, because otherwise the sense of sight has to hear sounds and other such absurd scenarios.
An eye sees because it is an eye. It just sends and receives messages as a node on the nervous system. You can literally donate your eye to someone else and doctors can get it to work for that person's body and send him messages instead. You don't need to permanently exist for this to happen. But I suppose the eye must be permanent too in order to send and receive messages since the self is permanent? And then we can keep going deeper and deeper until we hit molecules? And then somehow those molecules will then be permanent and unchanging and we are just as nonsensical as we were in affirming a permanent self.

[Anonymous No.17155932]

>>17155810
>I am arguing against the view that consciousness cannot register the taste and color of soup at the same time, you seem to be mistaken in believing I am advocating that position.
Then you're arguing against Shankara in that regard.

>>17155830
Ignore him, he has no idea what he's talking about and is just taking a side to fling shit on the internet. He used to be really into Eastern Orthodoxy, but then that became CRINGE, and then he was an SSPX TradCath, but that's CRINGE, so now he's here.

[Anonymous No.17155963]

>>17155684
It is, but generally most Buddhist Monks are not very dogmatic, especially western ones. This relates to the fact that Buddhism is at bottom basically about meditation and achieving liberation.

They often will read stuff that they disagree with. This is also then why alot will say it is better for Westerners to remain Christian, because the core that they want is the practice, the dogma is an attachment to this.

[Anonymous No.17155971]

>>17155963
>it is better for Westerners to remain Christian
Christianity doesn't teach liberation at all

[Anonymous No.17155988]

>>17155971
It definitely does. This is the point of mystical union with Christ.

Zen Practitioners who are up on western stuff generally say the reason why they prefer Zen is because it has a living tradition of meditation that is good etc. Christian stuff is harder to find.

[Anonymous No.17155991]

>>17155988
>mystical union with Christ.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with Nirvana

[Anonymous No.17156002]

>>17155991
u sure?

[Anonymous No.17156005]

>>17156002
yes

[Anonymous No.17156019]

>>17156005
what is it then? what is jesus? who was he when he always was?

[Anonymous No.17156023]

>>17156019
>what is it
The unconditioned, etc
Read the suttas
>what is jesus
A man
>who was he when he always was
What?

[Anonymous No.17156037]

>>17155988
>Christian stuff is harder to find.
is non existent thanks to all the scholar NPCs who went into philosophy in order to larp as the greeks.

[Anonymous No.17156042]

>>17156023
>“Truly, truly, I tell you, Jesus declared, “before Abraham was born, I am!

[Anonymous No.17156043]

>>17155988
The dharma is the quickest way to enlightenment, I don't see the point in looking elsewhere

[Anonymous No.17156057]

>>17156042
Go quote your book somewhere else
Why do christcucks have to hijack every single thread about spirituality? Fuck off

[Anonymous No.17156063]

>>17155988
>>It definitely does. This is the point of mystical union with Christ.
imagine having the IQ of a poo and not being able to understand meditation is not enlightenment.

Theists are really to self righteous and addicted to their own brain farts to even think they are wrong, aren't they.

[Anonymous No.17156065]

>>17156037
The Athonites are still around. As are traditional Mennonite Communities. Both are incredibly hard to get into. Catholic Monasteries have some stuff, but are much sparser.

>>17156023
Translated into Buddhist Terms, the basic claim of Christianity is that Jesus Christ was born Enlightened. After that it diverges.

Read more into how Buddhists see Jesus

[Anonymous No.17156072]

>>17156065
Most buddhists will say Jesus was just a preacher, some mahayanists might say he was a bodhisattva, but I've never seen any actual monk claim Jesus was enlightened

[Anonymous No.17156076]

>>17155963
>This is also then why alot will say it is better for Westerners to remain Christian,
>>17155988
>>Zen Practitioners who are up on western stuff generally say the reason why they prefer Zen is because it has a living tradition of meditation that is good etc. Christian stuff is harder to find.
Lol even the orthodox are better than the catholics.

[Anonymous No.17156078]

>>17156063
Christianity has meditative practices, and the purpose of Christianity is to achieve liberation.

My claim was that mystical union with Christ is liberation, ergo Christianity teaches liberation.

[Anonymous No.17156083]

>>17155770
>mind as a kind of supreme principle
What's the buddhist parallel? Mind is just an aggregate.

[Anonymous No.17156087]

>>17156076
I am not trying to be sectarian. I do however agree that for the purpose of meditation that Orthodox are better.

[Anonymous No.17156092]

>>17155713
What I'm getting here is that there are core teachings that are essential to liberation, and then there's philosophical fluff that really comes down to personal preference in interpretation.

[Anonymous No.17156095]

>>17156083
Three body doctrine in Mahayana has obvious parallels to the One-The Intellect-The Soul

[Anonymous No.17156109]

>>17155889
>Can they lead you astray? According to the Theravada, yes. Many of them get airy-fairy and philosophical
Not only that but it appears to me that Mahayana directly contradicts anatta by introducing concepts like the dharmakaya, the buddha-nature, the three bodies, alayavijnana, et cetera.
Maybe I'm wrong but it feels like mahayanists really want there to be some kind of atman and this reflects through their teachings which are much more complex and introduce many ideas that are not "essential" to the core doctrine.

[Anonymous No.17156119]

>>17155610
>Jivan is Brahman, you divide them by the very nature of your speech.
That’s not true, Shankara emphatically explains in his Brahma Sutra Bhasya that the Jiva is an image of Brahman. The Atman-Brahman is the indwelling Self that illuminates that Jiva, but when the Jiva is divested of all its unreal qualities that Atman illumining it is revealed to be the same as the omnipresent eternally-liberated Atman-Brahman and it always was, the Jiva superimposed bondage and doership etc on the Atman animating it, but that Atman-Brahman was never actually bound or ignorant.

B.S. II, 3, 50
And that individual soul is to be considered a mere appearance of the highest Self, like the reflection of the sun in the water; it is neither directly that (i.e. the highest Self), nor a different thing. Hence just as, when one reflected image of the sun trembles, another reflected image does not on that account tremble also; so, when one soul is connected with actions and results of actions, another soul is not on that account connected likewise. There is therefore no confusion of actions and results. And as that 'appearance' is the effect of Nescience, it follows that the saṃsāra which is based on it (the appearance) is also the effect of Nescience, so that from the removal of the latter there results the cognition of the soul being in reality nothing but Brahman.

In these passages from his Brahma Sutra Bhasya below, Shankara explains why the Brahman-Atman is not affected by the suffering and ignorance of the Jiva that is Its image

B.S. I, 2, 8
Just because Brahman has some relationship with the hearts of all beings, it does not follow that Brahman experiences happiness and sorrow like the embodied souls; for there is a difference. There is forsooth a difference between the embodied soul and the supreme God. The one is an agent, an experiencer (of happiness and sorrow), a source of merit, demerit etc., and possessed of happiness and sorrow, while the other is just the opposite, being possessed of such qualities as freedom from sin and so on. Because of this distinction between the two, the one has experiences, but not the other. If from the mere fact of proximity, and without any reference to the intrinsic nature of things, a causal relation with some effect is postulated, then space, for instance, can as well become burnt, (it being connected with fire).

[Anonymous No.17156131]

>>17156119
So long as the aspirant has not understood the oneness of the embodied Self with Brahman, the experience of happiness and sorrow by the embodied being is a result of false ignorance, and Brahman, the highest Reality, cannot be touched by it. For the sky does not really become possessed of a surface (ie., concavity) or tainted by dirt etc., which the ignorant fancy on it.

Not even, owing to the fact of unity, is Brahman affected by any experience undergone by the embodied soul; for there is a difference, inasmuch as true knowledge differs from false ignorance etc., The experience of happiness etc., is cooked up by false ignorance, while unity is seen through real knowledge. And it is never a fact that a thing perceived through real knowledge is affected by any experience under false ignorance. Accordingly, it is not possible to fancy the slightest touch of the experience of happiness and sorrow in God.

[Anonymous No.17156160]

>>17156083
In Yogacara (a Mahayana school), mind strictly speaking is subsumed under consciousness (as a type of sense akin to smell or taste, since the mind senses thoughts/mentation and the sensations from senses are considered sense-consciousnesses in a tripartate way) but the Yogacarin use of 'consciousness' is not that different from Platonic Nous (or 'mind'), since for Yogacara there is a final superior consciousness (alaya) which contains all the seeds for perceived reality as a sort of matrix, and makes those consciousnesses possible. But this is not a personal or permanent self any more than your participation in Nous as you are now is permanent (you sensing the material world through your body as connected by your soul to your mind is not a permanent state of affairs). I wouldn't go as far as to say Buddhists and Platonists say the same thing or take some sort of perennial-modern perspective that all metaphysics is the same, but there are certainly similarities.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17156183]

>>17156119
>Sutra Bhasya that the Jiva is an image of Brahman. The Atman-Brahman is the indwelling Self that illuminates that Jiva, but when the Jiva is divested of all its unreal qualities that Atman illumining it is revealed to be the same as the omnipresent eternally-liberated Atman-Brahman and it always was, the Jiva superimposed bondage and doership etc on the Atman animating it, but that Atman-Brahman was never actually bound or ignorant.

What unreal qualities? What exists that is not Brahman? What can you point to that is not the truth of Brahman?

You cannot argue without producing dualities of real and unreal, illusion and truth.

I will quote my own essay explaining the doctrine of paramsiva and creation and their relation as understood and explained by abhinavagupta in the tantraloka and how there exists no division even on the relative level, how the jivan is not but an image of Brahman but is Bhairava himself, the absolute Brahman revealed. How maya is not the hiding of Brahman but his revelation, for by removing all things from God you divide god from all creation, all being, all nature, your idolatry for nirguna Brahman isolates and divides Brahman from all creation, all nature, it is like saying the infinite sequence of numbers does not partake of the nature of the number 1 or the number 12, if you remove any number from the complete infinite sequence Of all numbers it is no longer the true infinite sequence.


In my next post I will post the essay.

[Anonymous No.17156190]

>>17156095
Hadn't thought of the kayas in my response but that's another good parallel. Dharmakaya could be argued as Nous; I was thinking more literally about mind

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17156192]

>>17156183

By the learning of the Art of tantra
Using the Holy art of Kabbalah
Through the science of all Phenomena
We have science of Absolute Jhana
The following shall be a basic explanation of just the 36 tattvas (tattva meaning principle or Law, there are truly 37 when we count Attatva/Paramsiva) in their phenomenological/ontological meanings and their primary relations to basic western Kabbalah and phenomenology when relevant.


Prior to elaboration upon the tattvas we must first speak of the ground by which they are formed, which is prior to them and is expressed by them.

First there is Paramsiva (Attatva, 0, Ain) and this is absolute divinity, absolute existence, it is the point prior to being and the essential nature of reality. Its nature can be called empty and nothing, for it lacks any particular parts or aspects, nothing for it is like nothing that we can conceive of or speak of. This is the point unspeakable, prior to being and prior to even consciousness of which nothing can truly be spoken of as it is beyond and is the basis of being and phenomena. This is identical to the unknowable and speakable “Ain” of the Kabbalists.

The revelation of Paramsiva, the light and elaboration of who paramsiva is, is revealed by the 36 tattvas. Thus the divine Personality revealed himself by his own light.

The First Tattva is the Shiva Tattva, Shiva (all pervading, the origin of the grace/gift of reality ) is the transcendental I, which is to say, it is that self nature and being which pervades consciousness, the unity which underlies the entirety of consciousness causing it to be a singular stream. This is that which pervades all consciousness. I. It is so close and near to the nature of Paramsiva that it and Paramsiva are often counted as one. This is because the fundamental nature of reality (paramsiva) is fully revealed through Shiva(transcendental Ego) thus we can speak of shiva Tattva as Kether with its Nonduality to paramsiva mirroring the relationship between kether and Ain(which the kabbalists also identify as one in the same at times due to being the full expression in a singular point of the other)

Shiva tattva is called Prakasa(light) for the nature of Paramsiva in its immensity of aspects, traits and so forth are unveiled through it, within it and by it, just as all things in sight are pervaded with the presence of light so is it that all things within consciousness are pervaded by the nature of Shiva and are uncovered through Shiva. Thus the nature of the I which pervades all things first gives light to itself, perceiving itself. This term Prakasa(light) truly means Self apprehension or rather, the apprehension which the self Allows to occur.

CONT

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17156200]

>>17156192

This giving light to itself is called the second Tattva, Shakti Tattva. Shakti means Power/energy but really means consciousness/awareness. For the self nature can only recognize itself through consciousness and these three, transcendental I and consciousness and inherent being are bound so closely that they are almost useless to divide whatsoever.

Turning our eyes to the west, Husserl tried to strip down all that he perceived in phenomena and found that when he strips all that experienced to its fundamental nature, all was just his conscious experience, and we cannot say anything beyond this.

Heidegger his student believed he went one step further and said that the root of consciousness is Being. To Husserl however to be conscious and to be are in experience identical. This was confirmed most fully by luc Marion who reduced it one step further, consciousness reducing to being, being reducing to “givenness” Givenness is simply phenomenal awareness itself in the doctrine of intentionality. (Consciousness always being conscious of something) thus by this conscious, being and giveness are demonstrated to be fundamentally nearly identical.

It is these which the Shakti Tattva truly embodies, it is the consciousness of the self nature and consciousness which pervades all, though its proximity to Shiva Tattva we must reckon it second for just as the rays of light of a flame come forth from a flame, so also does consciousness and being root out of the unity which pervades them(Shiva Tattva, which is not conscious and cannot be referred to or spoken of as anything but I and all things)

This shakti Tattva is called Vimarsa which is to say, the power of self relation/self reference, for it is the light of Self reflecting upon itself which allows self-apprehension to arise, this apprehension of self is shakti, the self pervading it is Shiva. As such this point corresponds to Chokmah in the kabbalistic system, but in particular the higher nature of chokmah which is Nondual to kether(this is true double Aleph concealed in Bereshit) for this Vimarsa nature is the duality which is self reflective and unveils itself which is what is referred to in the kabbalistic alchemical symbol of the Ouroboros, for shiva by partaking of himself gains consciousness and consciousness of himself is his self-awareness, thus he is his own mirror and the image reflected in the mirror. This state is absolute bliss.


The Shakti Tattva because it has been created by Shiva, awareness (which is shiva) and awareness of Shiva (man, mirror, man in the mirror) gives rise to the third Tattva, Sadasiva(the eternally all pervading )

Cont

[Anonymous No.17156202]

>>17156109
>Maybe I'm wrong but it feels like mahayanists really want there to be some kind of atman and this reflects through their teachings which are much more complex and introduce many ideas that are not "essential" to the core doctrine.
Expedient teaching for atmanoids

[Anonymous No.17156206]

>>17156202
What do you mean

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17156211]

>>17156200

Which is to say, Self-apprehension and recognition gives rise to Will(Iccha) this Tattva is actually a blending of Shiva (self ) and Shakti (awareness) and in this one, Shiva is predominant and shakti is a passive aspect. Which is to say, this is The Will of the transcendental ego which through consciousness now seeks to go out of itself in order to be before itself, to know itself. If the Shiva Tattva is I, the Shakti Tattva is Am, Sadasiva is “I am this” (Aham Idam) where “This” is the entirety of reality, the object (mirror, consciousness ) exists very faintly as it is only a means for the Will of the transcendental ego to unfold and know itself. Allegorically this is like a man looking at a Canvas with the Will to create an art piece.

This sadasiva is identical to the heart of Chokmah, for Chokmah is the place of Will and the double wand of power. For without the duality of Chokmah there can be no Will, no Power, no relation, no direction of consciousness towards anything.

This is to say, in sadasiva both Aham(I) and Idam(this, the object which Aham desires ) both exist but Aham has dominance and idam is in obscurity.

Sadasiva then being the Will of the subtle transcendental ego moves towards itself and unveils itself by depleting itself, it looking upon the entirety of self and consciousness says “I am this” and its Will drives it to ask “what is this that I am?” To which Sadasiva responds “ I am ishvara(Lord)

Which is to say, The Will of sadasiva empties itself of Shiva nature in order to gain apprehension of itself as shakti once more. This is the Arising of the fourth Tattva, Ishvara Tattva.

Ishvara Tattva is when the “this” gains predominance and the “I” quality becomes submissive, for this is the Tattva which is knowledge itself and knowledge is when the self is depleted and gains filling by partaking of the nature of that which is other. This is like a man looking upon a mirror seeking to see who he is and says “my appearance is thus” and then describes himself in relation and contrast to everything else. The object world becomes predominant but the subject still has passive existence, allegorically if Sadasiva is a man before a canvas who wills to create an art piece, Ishvara Tattva is when he has drawn his picture to some degree and the art itself has become the object of vision and not the man.

Kabbalistically this is where chokmah and binah connect (Daleth) for it is the otherness and emptiness of binah being pervaded by the subtle touch and lordship of Chokmah, for binah is absolute submission and chokmah is lordship and fullness. Phenomenologically this is when the Will of self seeks to know itself so it goes out of itself and having emptied itself, now perceives its own spirit reflected in the other.

CONT

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17156225]

>>17156211

This Tattva can be defined as Idam Aham, “this I am” which is to say the otherness is perceived and then a faint experience of self, This place then is where otherness and knowledge (as revelation through other) occurs and arises and from it arises the next tattva, Suddha-vidya or Kriya.

This Tattva can be defined as Idam Aham, “this I am” which is to say the otherness is perceived and then a faint experience of self, This place then is where otherness and knowledge (as revelation through other) occurs and arises and from it arises the next tattva, Suddha-vidya or Kriya.

The fifth Tattva is Suddha vidya(pure wisdom ) or Kriya(action ) it is called this because unlike the previous two tattvas, it has neither predominance in the nature of shiva nor shakti but is rather perfectly harmonized, neither aham or idam have preference, in this, the conscious mind recognizes itself as its own consciousness and perceives that all that occurs is within its own perception.

Because it perceives that all occurs within its own perception, I and this no longer truly mean anything distinct, this is because both are resting in the self nature which pervades both, they have the same ground in their being.

Before we continue it is important that we explain the only true form of difference which exists in these and fundamentally all of the tattvas.

Of all the forms of change, Only Vikara truly has existence, what is Vikara? It is modification akin to how Gold is shaped or clay is molded, the shape/form might be changed but the intrinsic functions on the lowest level remain the same, and because this is the case the form (which is only transient and bound to time thus will change according to vikara) will always return to its original shape of shiva given enough time, the popular allegory is a world like a sea of light and the multitude of forms and differences being only a difference like waves in the ocean, they are only different in form not in actual substance/essence.

Now returning back to the nature of Kriya Tattva, it is called such because it is like the perception of man who understands now what he perceives, thus from here he can now look with right perception and thus give birth to distinguishing.

It is called Suddha Vidya because it is purity in categorization and structuring of knowledge, which allows perfection in action, thus this Tattva is the origin of action, Thus the kriya tattva moves to enact itself, but this is the origin of the key ontological problem.

Suddha vidya is Binah in itself, it is the saturnine imprisoning force which brings all into creation, why is this exactly?


CONT

[Anonymous No.17156227]

>>17156078
Christian liberation from a Buddhist perspective is being born into a heavenly realm. Buddhist liberation from a Christian perspective doesn't exist because it places enlightenment above god.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17156235]

>>17156225

Because so far we have elaborated upon the five “pure tattvas” which is to say, everything has been a pure reflection of shiva within himself, revealing light to himself, what was revealed was his conscious being, his Bliss, His Will, His knowledge and his action, these five are truly the manifest being of Paramsiva revealing himself, but now that we have reached Kriya we reach the phase where the perception must form distinctions and divisions in order to express and understand itself, thus the next tattvas are called shakti tattvas, as they are how the Kriya Tattva understands and recognizes its own unity, but by doing this process unity becomes obscured and only vidya, only organization exists.


Suddha vidya/ Tattva then is the BwO point, The point where a unity and multiplicity affirm and create each other, thus the Kriya Tattva performs its action of self perception, this creates the Maya Tattva

The 6th Tattva Maya(illusion, deception, Magic) is the first break away from shiva and is the most creative and distinction creating force in the entirety of the tattvas, Maya Tattva can be summarized as obscuration, the capacity of the perception to become perceptive of something implies that it lacks it, thus by Kriya Tattva seeking self realization/revelation it brought into existence obscuring of self.

This obscuration causes the great divide in the soul of shiva for shiva now has his unity as the object world and subject world divided and obscured, he can only perceive of what he and others are by differences. Thus Maya is all that limits perception and all that perfects perception, it is the mirage and what is truly being seen, let it be understood before we continue that even as obscuration, Maya is fully divine and all that she conceals is still fully divine, it is simply hidden.

Consider for a moment you a man, he goes into his imagination and imagines a clock, a bed and two people talking who do not have any idea of his existence, would you say the objects of his imagination or the people have independent existence from the man imagining them? Of course not, they are dependent and fundamentally have their being rooted in he who imagines them. In this same way any obscuration is simply the play, the pretend, the fantasy of Shiva. Whether you recognize this and view maya as revelation or not and you view maya as obscuration.

Maya mind you, is identical to the womb of binah and how binah and daat are Nondual, truly you could correspond maya to daat and all that is below it. For just as Da’ath is either an abyss where ignorance and lack dwells, or very revelation and knowledge of god, so also is the nature of Maya.

CONT

[Anonymous No.17156236]

>>17156109
You're wrong. There is no such thing as a "Mahayanist". Start with the Heart Sutra, get Red Pine's translation as it includes the commentary of historical teachers and masters.

[Anonymous No.17156241]

>>17156236
>There is no such thing as a "Mahayanist".
How do you figure?

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17156242]

>>17156235

Maya, which is to say, the paradox of knowledge within perception, exists and produces 5 further tattvas by which it further obscures itself, these five further obscurations are truly just the five original tattvas as they reflect and exist within perception under limitations. These all exist within Maya thus are conceived of as a pentagram, because they have both the power to bind into creation(perceiving them as partial, limited, finite things) and also to give liberation (as they are infinite, boundless, identical to the five tattvas ) (note the arrangement of these following 5 tattvas has multiple systems, we will be outlining the arrangement of abhinavagupta in the Tantraloka and Tantrasara, as opposed to the system in Pratyabhijndhrdayam for example.) consider each of these tattvas as a means of conditioning the original five tattvas in accordance with limited object-perception.

The first of these Five tattvas is the 7 Tattva called the Kala (Part, power) Tattva, this Tattva is both the perception of parts/pieces (thus division and difference ) it is both which divides things into divisions but also what says “you are a part of shiva) This Tattva reflects Siva Tattva, it is the very manner by which we divide anything in the perception, it divides the universe and self nature into discrete objects and subjective individuals. Recognition that all parts are part of one whole is the remedy and reconstructs the unity/harmony of Siva Tattva as it exists within perception. Such is the case with all of the maya tattvas, they are both poison and the medicine by which the previous tattvas remanifest.

The dividing into parts is the emergence of time from the stream of eternity, for by dividing into parts we gain ability to understand position in space-time thus arises the 8th Tattva, the Kala(time) Tattva, for time is understood here to be sensibility in relation of parts and our relation to them in terms of capacity (i can be here, i was there, I will do this) etc, this dividing of parts creates a range of points by which time may occur in, within time once more the Shiva Tattva becomes aware of itself thus gaining awareness of itself in time. this Tattva is the reflection of shaktti Tattva, as we cannot understand Being in perception unless we speak of being as being-in-time (see dasein, Heidegger, husserl, Hegel, etc) thus this Tattva allows the unfolding of self in time which is the bliss of the world, the marriage of self with the diversity in time. For in this, the self nature learns to recognize itself through the diversity and multiplicity of its expressions as different parts in time, This Tattva becomes a remedy which you recognize that all parts of time are one unity, eternity, thus all points in time are just the self awareness of the Self unveiling to itself.


The next Tattva is the reflection of the Sadasiva Tattva in perception, it is the 9th Tattva, asudda/Vidya

CONT

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17156251]

>>17156242

(impure-incomplete knowledge, wisdom, truly science in the sense of human cultivated and stored knowledge as opposed to absolute knowledge as truth. ) this is the perception of individuals of gaining partial specific information, this Tattva can be summarized as the faculty of the perception to discriminate objects and subjects thus gain particular knowledge of each of them. This Tattva when understood to be sadasiva Tattva, when it is understood that all knowledge is fundamentally a means of knowing the awareness/presence of god, it is suddenly filled with Will towards God and the vidya Tattva becomes freed and boundless, allowing one to perceive all things as being caused by Shiva. Whereas Kala Tattva allowed division into parts, Kala(time) Tattva allowed division of parts along space-time, Vidya allows discrimination and categorization of such parts into their proper ordering, which is to say, it gives it its purpose and context, this Tattva is identical to the Aristotelian the Telos/end, for it is by discriminating that we may say “this seed is not yet a tree” and by this we gain understanding of what any particular thing does. Thus it is Iccha Tattva and as iccha Tattva it seeks Again to know itself as God and express itself by emptying itself, thus it becomes the Aristotelian Formal cause

It gives rise to our next Tattva, the Raga Tattva.

The reflection of Jhana/Ishvara is the 10th Tattva, Raga(desire) as discrimination allows for the arising of particular favorable and unfavorable aspects, one becomes capable of desiring specific things and desire to create and do occurs, this desire is the manifestation in perception of lordship, for it is arbitrary desire directed towards particular objects which is said to be material freedom, Desire unlike will does not have a universal characteristic but rather is a vague hunger for certain particular specific desires, it is like a man who is hungry, he does not desire all things, he desires specifically Food, this is because the perception now perceives the differences in things and says “I want certain things and not other things”

Thus the objects of desire, which is to say, the knowable objects by which the self may come to express are dominant in this Tattva, as the self has gone out of seeking itself but rather seeks to internalize the specific objects surrounding it into itself and deny others.


this Raga Tattva becomes when it realizes it is all desire, it is both the thing desired, he who desires and the partaking of desire. By this unification the world of knowledge is identified as being the mirror of the self nature, thus Raga Tattva is identical to Jhana, for it is simply knowledge of itself. This self relation and knowledge gives rise to the final of the five Maya/sub-kriyasakti tattva, the Niyati Tattva.

[Anonymous No.17156252]

alright I hear what you are all saying but can you give it to me straight: is there an atman or no, and if there is then what makes it separate from brahma?

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17156268]

>>17156251

The eleventh Tattva is The niyati Tattva which is causation, cause and effect plain and simple it is identical to space but space in the sense of being in a specific position in relation to everything else, this Noyati is identical to the Efficient cause of Aristotle and from this Tattva which is causation do the five intermingle and a third division of the tattvas must occur.

This is because Causation causes the harmonizing of all the other 4 in their relations to each other, thus it, like Suddhavidya has unified its object and subject perceptions to a point of absolute unity that it may go further, for in the limited mind it is ones own doing which is the cause of all that he experiences and where he goes, and this is the view of the man who’s eyes are covered in the veiled form of Causation, but the true form of causation is realizing that all causes are truly one in the same, arising from one mover and being a singular caused event, the causer being Shiva and the event caused being the unveiling of shiva, thus this Tattva reflects and is the Kriya/action nature made manifest.

Just as suddhavidya induced the next set, this is the birth of the Impure Tattvas division, which is to say, A division which is a product of the shakti division, these are the aspects of reality which derive and underneath causality/karma, as they are beneath causality the aspect of Shiva-shakti in these are so concealed that they are titled Atma tattvas (atma meaning breath, essence, interior soul) because the five maya tattvas have objectified experience to such a point. (Note they are also sometimes divided as prakrti tattvas Prakrti being explained later)

(Note, in the Pratyabhijndhrdayam system, it would go Kala=Shiva/Cit/conscious being Vidya=Shakti/ananda/bliss Raga=Sadasiva/Iccha/Will Kala=Jhana/Ishvara/knowledge Niyati=Kriya/Suddhavidya/action)

The first to rise out of niyati Tattva is Purusha, the twelfth Tattva Purusha is simply the reflection of Shiva and Kala (part) as it exists underneath perception within causality, Purusha then can be defined as ones perception of the self as it exists in causality, the “experient” this is the phenomenal experience of a subtle self, the subtle stratum of all experiences which is pervaded by the observer. Make no mistake, purusha is simply the Shiva Tattva as it exists within the perceptions and how these perceptions relate underneath causal relations. This would correspond precisely to the true nature of chesed, the Subtle most layer of actual phenomena which is ones own experience of a self.

This is the first time subjective ego as an experience is truly independently existent but it is still hidden, quiet, pervading all without declaring itself. Because this is its nature it produces its own self recognition by declaring all that it is not, which is to say, it gives rise to genuine experience of objects/otherness. This is to say, it gives rise to the Thirteenth Tattva, the Prakrti Tattva,

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17156277]

>>17156268

Prakrti meaning origin, nature and so forth really means the world as given in experience as an object divided from ones self utterly, prakrti is truly just the Shakti Tattva but bound underneath perception and suspended in causality. Prakrti can be understood as all non-subtle phenomena, anything you can perceive which is not “I” in basic experience.

Experience/Prakrti would correspond precisely to the true nature of Gevurah, which is exactly within Husserl’s model the Noematic data (the information in experience ) which has a Sinn (sense, the conception of it built up) which has a bedeutung (the actual thing being experienced, the thing referred to conceptually) this process is identical to the process of Prakrti.

Prakrti has within it the three primary types of experiences, Experience of self as identical to experience (Sattva) experience of self as related/contrasting of object experience (Rajas) and experience of no self and only objects/otherness (Tamas)

Allegorically this is spoken of as Light (Sattva) darkness (Tamas) and oscillation between light and dark (Rajas) this is why Rajas is correspondent to violence and energetic movement, tamas to lethargy and sleep and Sattva to wakeful relaxation and comfort. These three gunas/aspects of experience are so balanced within prakrti that they are effectively one thing, as such Prakrti can be said to be called the Tattva of gunas (experience of object qualities.)

These three gunas are truly just The Jhana, Kriya and iccha as they lay resting in prakrti, the Jhana becoming Sattva, for it retains knowledge of its nature, The kriya/action becoming rajas which dashes between and the will of God and man becomes torment and slumbers within the objects, hidden and obscured.

Just as before, Purusha the experient through prakrti his experience is able to view himself and looks upon his three gunas, these are then manifested as individuals tattvas in their own right pulling the rest with each other.

First the experient sees experience as knowledge of himself, thus arises the fourteenth Tattva, the Buddhi tattva(Sattva, Jhana) Buddhi meaning intelligence or Mind. Intelligence here being knowledge/understanding the relationship between the internal subjective experience and the external objective experience, for this reason Buddhi is considered as if a mirror for it utterly reflects these two types of experiences, equalizing them as nothing more than ripples/movements of the same substance.

This Buddhi Tattva is identical to the role of tiphereth as the reasoning principle in our Kabbalah and this is precisely the reason in our western philosophy, the harmonizing element of experiences, Mind/intelligence/reason knowing itself then seeks to harmonize Purusha into a singular whole, it does this by creating an abstraction, a conception of an “I” a concept of the Ego and identity. This identity is the Ahamkara Tattva.

CONT

[Anonymous No.17156282]

>>17156206
One way of looking at these various concepts is that they are stand-ins for a permanent self. But taken in context, Mahayana teachings tell you up front that they are taught for the purposes of realizing emptiness. So if you are looking at the teaching and trying to ossify it into a permanent self you have missed the point. Another way of looking at these various explanations would be that their purpose is to guide people beyond such concepts. It may be that this is just not effective on English speakers but worked better for China, Tibet, Japan etc. Protestantized English speakers seem to dislike this a lot.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17156286]

>>17156277

The fifteenth Tattva, the concept of an “I” as its exists through an abstract identity based on causal points is primarily created in order to control and regulate the purusha as it exists within particular qualities of experiences as a matter of regulation. Because the concept of ego arises as a regulation tool it is primarily rajas(changing, shifting) in nature so that it may deal with integration of any of the three gunas it comes across.

This Tattva is precisely the same as netzach as perception/intuition of I and specifically identical to the netzach-Lucifer formula of Rosicrucianism and hermeticism( see the emerald tablet and Jacob boehme for further information)

The interior of Ahamkara is said to be like a dark house whereas the outside is full of light, which is to say, it is like the Mind/reason allowing itself to rest/become lethargic in perception of self whereas the external world and relation to it constantly shifts. This limitation allows Ahamkara(the concept of i/identity) to bring things into itself without changing its fundamental structure, only its relation to other.

This Ego/Ahamkara as it is action, constructs for itself the sixteenth Tattva, the manas (Mind)

The manas herein is not mind as in the intellect or consciousness, but rather in the sense of the membrane by which you perceive mental images, consider and conceive of various sense data and so forth, which is to say it is the root of the sense organs as they are perceived and experienced through the identity. (Compare this to modern works on the conscious mind such as metzinger’s work on conscious in relation to transparency)

This categorizing membrane is identical to Hod in Kabbalah, Hod meaning illumination as in the illumination of senses by the light of mind (which refers to the logical structure of the conscious mind and senses )

Manas as it is the membrane of perception and is the resting/Tamas organ which is full of will, produces specific sense organs and methods by which it may partake of particular finer and grosser sense data and categorize it thusly.

(Note, Buddhi, Ahamkara and manas are debated in their guna attributions and which comes prior but again we are aligning with abhinavagupta’s model)

These following Tattva are simple and gross enough that they need not much explanation, let it be known the following tattvas are not the physical organs but rather the principles and organs of the mind itself which allow/connect to the physical bodily organs/methods and not the bodily organs themselves.

These arise in accordance once more with the Gunas, wherein Guna becomes a sensory mode, rajas an action corresponding to such a sensory mode and tamas a specific thing being perceived by The sensory mode.

CONT

[Anonymous No.17156287]

has all this thinking about spiritual things actually made you better people?
>in b4 "better" and "people" are illusory
you know what I mean

[Anonymous No.17156300]

>>17156282
Maybe it's less effective in english, yeah, because the impression I'm getting is that these concepts lead to more clinging rather than to realizing emptiness more easily. "Okay there's no atman but at least there's dharmakaya..."

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17156302]

>>17156286

The five jñānendriya(the five senses)


The 17th Tattva śrotra (ear), the mind’s medium to experience sound.
The 18th Tattva tvāk (skin), the mind’s medium to experience touch.
The 19th Tattva caksus (eye), the mind’s medium to experience colour and shape.
20th Tattva rasana (tongue), the mind’s medium to experience taste.
The 21st ghrāna (nose), the mind’s medium to experience smell.

They are predominately Rajastic, as such they must manifest as particular actions. They are acts that correspond to the sense organs.

The 22rd tattva vāk (mouth,speech) - the capacity that makes sound/speech possible
The 23rd Tattva pāni (hand) - the capacity that enables grabbing and touching
The 24th Tattva pāda (leg, movement) - the capacity that enables distinction in sight
The 25th Tattva upasthā(sexual organs) the capacity to partake in and give sexual sensations and to procreate (just as the mouth tastes flavor the organs taste sexual bliss)
The 26th Tattva pāyu (anus) - the capacity to produce waste, produce smells and so forth

The final Guna to manifest is Tamas which manifests as the other previous two sets but doesn’t partake whatsoever in the self of their experient, as such whereas in sattva it is “capacity to see” in the tamas Guna it is that which is seen(aspect of subject vs aspect of object awareness)

The five tanmātra (subtle) tattvas, called subtle for they are perceived as external and pass away and constantly their form.

The 27th Tattva Sabda=perception of Sound
The 28th Tattva Sparsa=perception of Touch
The 29th Tattva Rupa=perception of form, shape, structure
The 30th Tattva Rasa=perception of Taste
The 31st Tattva Gandha=perception of Smell

These fifteen tattvas are correspondent to Yesod in Kabbalah, the direct sensual perceptions as they appear in normative non-restricted mundane perception, admixed and constantly shifting like shadows.

These fifteen tattvas allow perception of the final 5 tattvas, the 5 Mahabhutas(great Elements)

Arising from Hearing, speaking and sound is the 32nd Tattva, the Akasha which is to say, perception of void/space/aether, for without such a void speech and hearing cannot be possible, consider bats which use their voice as a means of locating voids in space.
arising from the tattvas of Skin, hands and touch but also the Void is the 33rd Tattva, the vāyu Tattva which is to say breath/Air. As air/breath can only be perceived by being touched by it (you cannot smell, taste, see or hear a quiet air, it can only be felt physically upon you)

Arising from the tattvas of eyes, movement and seeing forms and also from air is the 34th Tattva, the Agni/Teja Tattva, which is to say, fire. For fire cannot exist without Air.

CONT

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17156314]

>>17156302

Arising out of the tattvas of the tongue, Sexual organs and taste and from the contrast of Tejas/Agni is The 35th Tattva Apas is Water. Water comes forth from fire as water was formed from the combustion and fiery reactions of the stars.

The 36th Tattva which arises the tattvas of capacity of smell, the Anus and perception of smells is the final Tattva Prithvi/Bhumi.

This is the earth/habitable world wherein all creation occurs, this world is where filth, perception of admixtures and so forth occurs. It arises out of Water, because all life and things of the earth derive from water and the particular structure of the earth is formed by the waters.

These final five elemental tattvas correspond perfectly to the interior of Malkuth.

Thus to summarize all of these tattvas are simply the unveiling and revelation of paramsiva, the supreme unspeakable self nature which is beyond even the term self. This has five Shakti/modes of manifestations as awarenesses which manifest the entirety of the tattvas as their expression through their intermingling. Here are the correspondences/rulerships of the five fold shakti.

1=Shiva/Cit, Kala(part), Purusha, hearing, the ear, sound, Akasha/void, Lord of the Tattva/Godform=Shiva, act of Shiva=creation

2=Shakti/Ananda, Kala(Time), Prakrti, Skin, capacity to grab, perception of Touch, Vayu/air, lord of the Tattva/Godform=Shakti, Act of Shiva=maintenance

3=Sadasiva/Iccha, Vidya, Manas, sight, Form, perception of Form, Tejas/Agni/fire, Lord of the Tattva/Godform=Sadasiva=act of shiva=destruction

4=Ishvara/Jnana, Raga, Buddhi, capacity to taste, the sexual organs and sex, experience of taste, Apas/Water, Lord of the Tattva/Godform=Shiva as Ishvara=act of shiva concealment

5=Suddhavidya/Kriya and by extension Maya, Niyati, Ahamkara, Capacity to smell, excretion, smells, Prithvi/Bhumi/earth, Lord of the Tattva/Godform=Shiva as Ananta(the limitless, vastness but also as the serpent.)=act of shiva=revelation

These are the True pentagram, the pentagram of Adam Kadmon which is reflected upon the brow of baphomet/Daat, these five powers/shakti are the expression of the five fold nature of Shiva, the revelation of Shiva of himself to himself by himself.


Thus there is no “unreality” nor ignorance and dividing jivan or relative reality from Brahman is flawed. There is only the revelation of shiva as concealed and the revelation of shiva as utterly revealed and that is this my own Jivan. My own Sauh.

[Anonymous No.17156335]

>>17156300
Buddhism is highly dialectic. The teachings themselves call upon the Buddhist practitioner to cultivate rhetoric. Even in sutras which claim divine authorship, we should be aware of the human context of discursive thought and want of response to criticism playing a role in composition.

[Anonymous No.17156336]

>>17156241
"Mahayanist" isn't a term used by anyone but spergs on /lit/. It doesn't refer to anything except this vague idea of some evil asiatic boogeyman that follows stink ORIENTAL CATHOLICISM as opposed to pure ASIAN PROTESTANTISM. The term "Mahayana", referring to the Great Vehicle, encompasses so many distinct traditions that its meaningless. The only real unifier of note is the Bodhisattva Vow, many of these schools would disagree about precise interpretations of dependent origination.

Concocting a strawman to make yourself feel clever for opposing is dumb. Either engage with the Dharma, or do not.

[Anonymous No.17156351]

Hi guys, I have adopted a meta-religion regarding all religions, and I need a religion that matches this meta-religion.

[Anonymous No.17156384]

>>17155610
>This is a duality, yes.
At the level of Absolute reality alone though, there is Brahman alone, there is no duality in absolute reality in Advaita, only at the lesser contingent levels which are transcended. Something is only a dualistic system if there are irresolvable dualisms that remain in its ontology permanently, in Advaita there is no such permanent dualisms, but Brahman abides as non-dual, and once the Jivas attain liberation they reach this stage where there is no maya left. In pic related once you cross the dotted line in pic related there is no maya or anything else left, only the non-dual Brahman. To accept the conditional existence of duality exclusively at lesser contingent levels in ones ontology does not make that ontology a dualistic one.

>I am saying even in the relative is maya Tattva perfect. And bondage itself is the highest and there is neither superiority in extreme sattva nor in extreme tamas save for the experiences of devotion that they may produce but this is not to consider them better even on a relative scale.
Yes, this is the position of Tantric Shaivism, it’s not a refutation of the Advaita position though
>Eh, if you want I’ll post a essay I wrote concerning the tantrik Tattva ontology and it’ll go over the absolute nondualism of abhinavagupta.
Thank you but I already own some of Abhinavaguptas works and have read the KS chapter in Sharma’s ‘The Advaita Tradition in Indian Philosophy’ and already have a basic grasp of what it is about, other anons may want you to though

[Anonymous No.17156398]

>>17156336
Dude you're the one strawmanning in every thread about protestantism and catholicism. You're the only one ITT to even bring it up.

[Anonymous No.17156420]

>>17156336
A bit of a dated scholar but the Russian indologist Theodor Stcherbatsky considered Mahayana to be a high church of Buddhism and noted how remarkable its coexistence was with earlier Buddhism, that they hadn't tumultously overthrown each other and still kept the name. Hyperprotestants are upset by this but really if they enjoy textual scrutiny so much they would probably prefer Tibetan Buddhism to Sri Lanka's. They are blinded by biblioconstitutional originalism however, and denied the pleasures of pouring over prasangika/svatantrika exegeses of the MMK.

[Anonymous No.17156435]

>>17156287
bump

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17156471]

>>17156384

To accept that below Brahman there is something illusionary and divided from him which does not exist within Brahman is to divide Brahman from things. It most certainly is dividing Brahman and his power into parts/manifestations into divided parts.

If I speak of Brahman and say he is infinite, perfect, All, within all, source of all but then I say” this does not reside in Brahman” or “this isn’t real” or “Brahman’s nature is this but not that” that is dividing Brahman. By speaking of maya as nothing but an image world and not the body of Brahman, you have divided Brahman from maya thus have you created a Duality.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17156477]

>>17156384

Pic related of how the tantric ontology works.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17156486]

>>17156477

And another, once more. If you conceive of Brahman as lacking in qualities you have worshipped Brahman only as nirguna and have divided him from all qualities, you have committed brahmanicide by claiming that the perception world and maya contains not Brahman and Brahman contains not maya.

[Anonymous No.17156489]

Hindus long union with God. Buddhist long for God. However Jesus Christ is the only way to God. Remember this.

[Anonymous No.17156499]

>>17156489
The last two are false, also fuck off

[Anonymous No.17156506]

>>17156471
this is the big heckin question: if Brahman is sentience, then what is "reality" without an observer. I had some form of enlightenment experience and came to the conclusion that Brahman was pure consciousness, which was the pre-requisite of all being, but the assumption then was that being/form exist in relation to an observer. The pure consciousness is filled with various things, and the pure consciousness is one. As for what the things are, I frankly do declare that I do not know. I could copout and say that God always observes all things- I could even be right, but in the end I don't know.

[Anonymous No.17156509]

>>17156489
At least Buddhists have pre-Sakyamuni Buddhas so the people unlucky enough to be born anterior to him had a chance at liberation in their lifetimes. With Christianity, grandpa is in hell.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17156520]

>>17156506

Read that big group of posts I read, perhaps reading how the orthodox tantrik view works will help with context for your experience.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17156585]

>>17156509

Nah, anyone who had hopes for/waited for the messiah gets salvation as they looked forward to his coming. See the whole harrowing of hell/Sheol narrative.

[Anonymous No.17156630]

>>17156192
is a point that Shiva tattva "points to" the nature of Paramsiva?

[Anonymous No.17156680]

>>17156585
Why would someone living in the woods in Lithuania be waiting for a itinerant Babylonian priest to explain god's kingdom to him?

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17156764]

>>17156630

Rather it is the revelation of parashiva, each Tattva reveals a further aspect of paramsiva. Shiva neither loses nor gains by his creation, as he was always the creation, he was always Brahman. He simply discloses/reveals his aspects to himself through himself. No Tattva is less parasiva and no Tattva simply points to it, each is further knowledge of it. In this regard the Jivan dwelling in the lowest level of manifestation isn’t obscured and bound in maya, he is the very Bhairava, the revelation of the highest God revealed in the most explicit way. this is why tantra has such a relationship with zen schools.

For the highest level of tantrik practice is simple recognition of sauh, which is to say “I” but via their numeric systems equals the 36 tattvas, which is to say, by recognition that one’s own normative mind is ever in contemplation of self most nature this reconciles mundane mind and paramsiva as absolutely always one thing. This of course is the hardest level of practice fit only for the sattvic adepts.

The rajastic adepts require intense ritualism and theurgy, those tamasic adepts even more so to realize this. But none of the adepts are inferior or superior as all of the gunas are just manifestations of shiva and are to be worshiped to the tantrik. Tantra is absolute life affirmation of all aspects of reality.

[Anonymous No.17156774]

>>17155932
> Then you're arguing against Shankara in that regard.
Why would you think that is the case anon? Shankara uses more or less the same argument in his works, I’ve read them.
>>17155926
>You don't need to permanently exist for this to happen. But I suppose the eye must be permanent too in order to send and receive messages since the self is permanent?
You are missing the point of my post, this is a meaningless aside. I’m not saying you have to be permanent in see what your eye sees, I’m saying that absent any Self or sentience who is different from perceptions of sense-information that the disparate streams of sensory information are incapable of synthesizing themselves into a unity that resembles our smooth continuity of sentience in the waking state, for reasons which have already been laid out.

[Anonymous No.17156836]

>>17156420
That's sort of the novel thing about it, isn't it? That if you want to shoehorn Sola Scriptura into Buddhism, it actually fits better in Mahayana.

>>17156398
Have you considered that people repeatedly tell you that you're wrong for doing this because you hold a belief that just isn't true? Why would you expect your tepid low-church American Protestant views on hermenutics to apply to a totally foreign religion that came about over two thousand years before yours?

[Anonymous No.17156853]

>>17156836
Have you considered everyone who disagrees with you might not be the same person and the boogeyman you made up in your head is actually complete nonsense? For the record I don't give a fuck about christianity and I'm not american. You sound fucking unhinged.

[Anonymous No.17156886]

>>17156774
>I’ve read them.
No you haven't.

[Anonymous No.17156904]

>>17156853
Have you considered everyone who disagrees with you might not be the same person and the boogeyman you made up in your head is actually complete nonsense? For the record >>17156236 was my first post in this thread. You sound fucking unhinged.

[Anonymous No.17156906]

>>17156486
All this tantra stuff is really complex. What does it add to vanilla buddhism/hinduism?

[Anonymous No.17156927]

>>17156904
>no u
Good job deflecting, schizo. Go whine about "buddhist protestantism" or whatever garbage your mental illness makes you come up with in another thread. Better yet, don't.

[Anonymous No.17156967]

>>17156774
>I’m not saying you have to be permanent in see what your eye sees
I thought you were arguing against the Buddhist notion of impermanence as it is applied to the atman, i.e. anatman, no-self. Now you are saying our supersensory thing doesn't have to permanently abide in order to function as an independent synthesizer of disparate information?

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17156997]

>>17156906

An extremely high number of practices both in terms of meditations and rituals, harsher and stronger Logic and rhetoric on average, sorcery and witchcraft practices comparable to Vajrayana stuff.

Also different conceptions of what moksha and various realms and spirits are. And a radical view of clean/unclean. Tldr it’s very different. Closest to it would be tantric (obviously) Buddhism.

But do not think this is especially complex, vanilla Buddhism comes with extremely complex Abhidharma systems, same to “vanilla” Hinduism whatever you mean to say when you say it, you likely mean work based on the Upanishads. That’s another thing, tantra doesn’t necessarily require even acceptance of the vedas. Many tantriks do but there are some traditions of tantra which cleave only to their agamas and reject utterly the vedas.

Tantra, Buddhism and Hinduism as a whole are massive traditions.

[Anonymous No.17157027]

>>17156160
>Yogacara there is a final superior consciousness (alaya) which contains all the seeds for perceived reality as a sort of matrix, and makes those consciousnesses possible.
In Asanga’s metaphysics, i.e. in the original Yogachara doctrine before later people modified it, there is another consciousness behind the alayavijnana, the Parinispanna, and the Parinispanna is eternal like the Atman is for Hindus. Most Buddhists seem unaware about this aspect of Asanga or prefer not to talk about it though.

[Anonymous No.17157036]

>>17156997
What do you mean by stronger logic? Also, why are occult practices a pro? I mean, it's interesting to read about the weird shit vajrayana gurus do, but I don't really get it. They say it allows you to reach enlightenment more quickly but is that really quantifiable?

[Anonymous No.17157076]

I find the real challenge is living in reach of the raw energy of other people, and having absolutely no idea of any game to play with them, but knowing that they expect a game, and knowing that it gets worse if you don't play. it's a guttural, desparate pain, of an immediate intensity. Rising above it- I've failed so far. Seclusion- no solution, also pain. Where is the pain from? What is the need unfulfilled? Being caught between two impossibles. Being a bug-man. I suppose it too shall pass.

[Anonymous No.17157123]

>>17157027
Thats because most Buddhists do not practice yogacara, they practice a wider theravada or mahayana or vajrayana. Individuals doing some legwork rise/fall in popularity with time. However on to those modern schools, they've largely dismissed pure yogacara almost entirely and adopted either a heavy madhyamaka (Tibetan Geluk) or hybrid of madhyamaka-yogacara (within Tibetan) or a on yogacara lite/de-emphasis on yogacara (wider mahayana) with tints of madhyamaka.

[Anonymous No.17157149]

the beauty of chess is that like in life you have to live with every move you make. but also, like chess, if you fuck everything up you can ask forgiveness, wipe the board and go again.

[Anonymous No.17157175]

>>17156927
I think the idea is getting somewhat garbled here in real time. That American culture makes constant reflexive references to Protestant theology even though nobody goes to church is a given; this also carries over into attitudes towards Buddhism wherein a pattern of thinking emerges which assumes Theravada is the supposed original Buddhism because it has the King James Pitaka and no catholicized additives. This is of course not even true because 1. both Theravadins and Mahayanists trace their teachings back to a similar body of texts which are found in the Pali Canon, 2. the Pali Canon did not create the texts, it codified them (research the sutras found in the 20th century in Central Asia dating from the Gandhara period, these are basically the Dead Seas Scrolls of Buddhism in terms of scholarly impact), and 3. Theravada is full of commentarial literature, it just doesn't consider it to have been revealed by bodhisattva saints or suprahumans post-Sakyamuni Buddha. (Yet ACTUAL Protestants allow for people like Luther or Calvin to have come along to reform Christian teaching, but that would require Americans know European history before WW2; Americans are hyperprotestant, refering to a protestantism that does not exist).

[Anonymous No.17157200]

>>17157175
Yes, I know.
The point is, to draw comparisons between christian denominations and the branches of buddhism is retarded and leads nowhere.

[Anonymous No.17157225]

>>17156183
>What unreal qualities?
Doership, enjoyership, agentship, bondage, pain, sin etc
>What exists that is not Brahman?
The transient and insentient objects within Brahman sustained by Brahman’s power are not Brahman Himself, as He is unchanging and conscious by nature, while they are neither. They are contained within Brahman and vanish into Him too.
>What can you point to that is not the truth of Brahman?
the physical body, rocks, clouds, water etc, they are appearances of Brahman, the appearance is not identical with its source
>You cannot argue without producing dualities of real and unreal, illusion and truth.
Yes, but as I have explained once already, these are all fundamentally only contingent dualities which vanish at the level of absolute reality. Hence in the final analysis there is no persisting dualism but all dualism in Advaita is resolved into non-dualism, ergo its a non-dual ontology or doctrine
>I will quote my own essay explaining the doctrine of paramsiva and creation and their relation as understood and explained by abhinavagupta in the tantraloka
Okay, but I won’t hold my breathe waiting for it to point out a real internal contradiction in Advaita instead of yet another mischaracterization of it.
>for by removing all things from God you divide god from all creation
Nothing can ever be fully removed from that in which it is forever contained
> it is like saying the infinite sequence of numbers does not partake of the nature of the number 1 or the number 12,
the theorized infinite sequence of numbers is not actually infinite, but it is merely indefinite, which modern people often confuse with the infinite. Guenon has a chapter explaining this in his book on calculus. Anyways, all of maya is included and subsumed within the infinity of Brahman.

[Anonymous No.17157246]

>>17157027
I would imagine the concept was assimilated to emptiness and considered redundant. I'd have to revisit Asanga/Vasubandhu to be sure.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17157289]

>>17157036
>What do you mean by stronger logic?

Stronger rhetorical systems, more thorough ontological systems which aren’t easily done away with. This is because tantra will gladly extract logic systems and arguments from both Vedanta and Buddhism and will turn them to their own usages.

>Also, why are occult practices a pro?

I’m an occultist so I automatically consider occult practices a pro, tantra has both the extreme simplicity approach but also the extremely complex ritual sorcery methodology available to it.

>I mean, it's interesting to read about the weird shit vajrayana gurus do, but I don't really get it.

In Vajrayana the key allegory is how the peacock can turn poison into medicine, they in Vajrayana are trying to use desire to overwhelm samsara and reveal its true Sunyata nature. Ritual magic then is a way of amplifying and applying desire to the strongest and most intense degree possible until it becomes Nondual to Buddha nature

>They say it allows you to reach enlightenment more quickly but is that really quantifiable?

In hindu tantra it’s more that different humans depending on which guna has predominance in them can attain more easily with different types of means. So ritualism and occult practices works very well for those adepts of a rajastic temperament. This same sentiment is found in multiple lineages and groups of Buddhist tantra also

Let me give you a breakdown and this is a gross over-simplification but it’ll help you contextualize

Imagine that you had a man with tangled hair, let us imagine these tangles are the desire aggregates. He who seeks to become an arahant would do well to remove all of his hair (because then being hairless, no more knots) he can then be free to be hairless and dwell in the bliss of lack of hair

However Mahayana would argue you cannot just simply remove your own hair clumps because it is conjoint to ever more hair clumps, more than you can possibly pull because they connect to others, which is to say, your individual identity and desires is connected to other humans through causality, so you cannot simply remove your own hair. You must remove all of the hair from everyone for your own clump to be removed.

You can however perform the dzogchen/zen method which is largely modification of the Taoist zuowang method, by this I mean, this same man with tangled hair may perhaps sit down, wash his head underneath the water and now, his hair is smooth and no longer obscuring his vision, so he still maintains his “hair” but they have through relaxation and letting them pass, have become neutralized.

Finally the proper tantrik methodology is accept the hair, but refine it, making the hair matted as if dreadlocks, and by this I mean to say, you purify the desire by realizing it is the Buddha nature and refine it, utilizing it towards enlightened and holy aims. Thus the desire becomes the very vehicle of realization of the tantrik whether Hindu or Buddhist.

Though reductive, helpful

[Anonymous No.17157295]

why is the assumption that Brahman is God? Brahman seems rather the endpoint of reason and non-reason

[Anonymous No.17157323]

>>17157200
Correct, which is why you got called out for applying Protestant hermeneutics onto Buddhism.

>>17157246
I've noticed a trend in these threads where someone will pull out some concept they barely understand (Last wee I saw some Advaita Vedantin who hadn't read the Diamond Sutra talking about the Diamond Body), and then say "Oh YEAH?! Well THIS guy who was a Buddhist said THIS thing that ISN'T an ATMAN, IS IT AN ATMAN?!". And then they'll inevitably be told that it isn't an atman, because it isn't an atman. I don't get why people seem to have this major hangup about just accepting that Buddhism and Buddhist thinkers hold onto this idea. You can totally accept that a group of people believe something and aren't just hiding from you that they actually believe exactly what you do (but again, they're evil, so they're evil for hiding it from you) AND that they're wrong.

[Anonymous No.17157338]

>>17157323
>you got called out
The only one obsessed with protestantism here is you, judging by your posts. You're the one who brought it up, you're the one who spergs out over it, and nobody else gives a fuck.

[Anonymous No.17157355]

>there is no consciousness in itself, only consciousness of something
>this implies that if you were conscious of nothing, your consciousness would not exist
>this implies that your consciousness arose out of nothingness when you gained it in your mothers womb
>things arise mutually
>what arose mutually with your consciousness?
>which caused the other?
>or did they have a separate cause?
>then what caused the cause?

[Anonymous No.17157367]

>>17156886
>No you haven't.
Okay it was in English translation but yes I have read 90% of them, feel free to quiz me about any of his major works aside from his Gita bhasya and Vivekachudamani

[Anonymous No.17157372]

>>17157355
>your consciousness
Buddhists don't believe consciousness is "a thing". You have multiple consciousnesses at any given time (at minimum, one for each of the six senses). When you sleep, you have no consciousnesses (ignore dreams for a minute).

If you're getting at the word "cause", go check out Nagarjuna's Fundamental Verses of the Middle Way.

[Anonymous No.17157384]

>>17157372
>If you're getting at the word "cause", go check out Nagarjuna's Fundamental Verses of the Middle Way.
I know tht you know that I am not about to. the point is that consciousness arises out of nothingness

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17157396]

>>17157225
>Doership, enjoyership, agentship, bondage, pain, sin etc

All of these are Brahman. They are filled with Brahman, come forth from Brahman reveal Brahman and lead to Brahman.

You affirm they are a duality to Brahman but Brahman is separate to nothing.

>The transient

Brahman is both kali and that which kali devours.

>and insentient objects

Brahman is both bhumi and what dwells In bhumi, he is the five elements, to divide these from him is to cut and divide him from nature utterly.

>within Brahman sustained by Brahman’s power are not Brahman Himself

Brahman is his power, least you believe there are genuine divides in the body of Brahman between himself and his power. That which he creates and that which is his own nature and his power are utterly one; to say Brahman is not is harsh dualism.

>as He is unchanging and conscious by nature,

He is both the unchanging essence and the ever-moving and vibrating force and form of reality. To deny this is to divide Brahman from everything.

>while they are neither. They are contained within Brahman and vanish into Him too.

If they are contained within him, they are either identical to him or Brahman is subject to segmentation, parts and differences, having interior, exterior, inside, outside, higher and lower.

>vanish
The number 1 does not vanish within the infinite sequence of numbers, it is most completely itself. The infinite would not be infinite without the 1 nor would the 1 be the 1 without the relationship to the sequence of numbers.

> the physical body, rocks, clouds, water etc, they are appearances of Brahman, the appearance is not identical with its source

The appearance of Brahman is Brahman, there is nothing false about Brahman. God is truth yet you call God a crafter of lies? How can his appearance be the appearance of he if it does not contain his nature?

> Yes, but as I have explained once already, these are all fundamentally only contingent dualities which vanish at the level of absolute reality. Hence in the final analysis there is no persisting dualism but all dualism in Advaita is resolved into non-dualism, ergo its a non-dual ontology or doctrine

The fact maya vanishes and the dualistic world annihilates within Brahman means on a deeper ontological level you believe this world is inherently not-Brahman but something which conceals Brahman, a secondary nature unrelated to him.

> the theorized infinite sequence of numbers is not actually infinite, people often confuse with the infinite. Guenon has a chapter explaining this in his book on calculus. Anyways, all of maya is included and subsumed within the infinity of Brahman.

There’s multiple systems of countable and uncountable infinity which can count multiple infinities. This is not just indefinite, it depends on the specific mathematical model in question.

There is no dissolution of the number 1 in infinity, the number 1 values 1 even when counted within the infinite

[Anonymous No.17157405]

>>17156227
Christian Liberation varies. For the Gnostics it was simply annihilation.

For Trinitarians it is annihilation that preserves what is being annihilated. The pure beholding of the Divine Nothingness, or the Beatific Vision.

Eckhart is often called a Western Buddhist for this reason

[Anonymous No.17157441]

>the Gita says that action springs from Brahman
does this imply that the dharmic events that can be laden with karma are always running, and that the only real choice you have is how much you will invest yourself in them/to what extent you will admit them as the ultimate reality? does infusing an event with karma, by attaching oneself to it, alter the course of events or only alter your perception of those events/your suffering?

[Anonymous No.17157472]

>>17157246
>I would imagine the concept was assimilated to emptiness
From Asanga’s perspective his doctrine was the real meaning of sunyata that the secondary commentators on Nagarjuna failed to grasp

[Anonymous No.17157686]

>>17157405
Nirvana is not annihilation, for the nth time

[Anonymous No.17157740]

>>17155116
>like when that Arab traveler witnessed Vikings killing a mans wives and then entombing them in his grave mound during his funeral rites.
1. not a viking, a slav of some sort (or possibly even turkic though slavs are heavily influenced by turkics)
2. those were his slaves/concubines, not wives.

[Anonymous No.17157816]

>>17157472
I suppose this is why Chandrakirti mostly won out. It is a lot easier to just 'get' what Nagarajuna is about than to try to contaminate him with further elaboration for the sake of those who didn't get it. Of course then there's no way to really know who gets it since they won't elaborate. There's value in being laconic but not for everyone.

[Anonymous No.17157849]

>>17157740
I've seen some scholars argue before that he's sort of just fabricating the entire event as part of a moral lesson for his Islamic readers. It's a criticism of his society, not that of the Rus. Namely, the fact that they just outright engage in human sacrifice, which isn't something that shows up in Indo-European religion but was something that the Semitic Arabs would have been very keenly aware of (because they did it up until relatively recently), is a huge red flag.

[Anonymous No.17157913]

>>17157323
It's all pokemon battles with guenonfag. Atman is supereffective against anatman or something. No, not really. Step outside of this discourse for a minute and study some semiotics or cybernetics and come back. You aren't blowing people away with facts and logic to prove your theology. The Buddhists generally understood this which is why some people misunderstand Buddhism and call it ancient psychology or a philosophy-but-not-a-religion; because the Buddhist will tell you his dogma is a framework for teaching anyway. He knows discourse is made up babble between two people. All that matters is they understand one another and if they do you can transmit the dharma. If I actually believe in Buddhism there is nothing that could be said about this or that of the 2500 expositions of it which would collapse the other 2499 irrevocably.

[Anonymous No.17157947]

>>17157913
Not him, but then is the Dharma different for every person, since everyone will interpret information differently?

[Anonymous No.17157950]

>>17157913
>It's all pokemon battles
Based, i'm gonna think about all philosophical debates like this now. Cute and comfy

[Anonymous No.17157974]

>>17157950
Pokemon also only ever faint; no permadeath per the rules of the game being played. To paraphrase Whitehead no philosophy gets refuted it just goes out of style.

[Anonymous No.17158004]

>>17157947
Yeah that's basically the Buddha's superpower, or siddhi, which is part of why Buddhism is very much a religion. All the stuff about bilocating to teach people in different places or having 30-or-so pleasant physical features is for the sake of expediency in teaching sentient beings whose conditionings are different.

[Anonymous No.17158014]

>>17158004
So can you grasp the Dharma without a Buddha to teach you?

[Anonymous No.17158027]

>>17157974
As far as Buddhism goes, in the end the Buddha more or less said "stop thinking about words and actually experience things since no words can accurately describe the nature of things". I guess that can be called a philosophy but to argue about it is kind of stupid.

[Anonymous No.17158058]

>>17157913
>you use Atman
>it’s supereffective!

[Anonymous No.17158238]

>>17155963
>especially western ones
Why?

[Anonymous No.17158245]

>>17158014
'It's not likely' is pretty much the consensus, so the entirety of Buddha-ism is an attempt to emulate having one.

[Anonymous No.17158261]

>>17158245
Eh, the Buddha literally said in a sutta that you could become an arahant in seven days by doing breathing meditation

[Anonymous No.17158269]

>>17158261
I mean, you could, but I wouldn't bet on being personally able to.

[Anonymous No.17158276]

>>17158269
I suspect fetishising how difficult these things are is two-edged at best

[Anonymous No.17158302]

>>17158014
Yes. The whole thing is about not grasping. There is no dharma.

[Anonymous No.17158311]

>>17158302
>There is no dharma.
Someone should tell the bhikkus

[Anonymous No.17158366]

>>17158276
Yes if a seven day method worked for everyone it would be hard to say whether it was too banal to matter to them, or too difficult on its own to attain.

[Anonymous No.17158429]

so what are the sense-phenomena? just expressions of Brahma? why does Brahma express itself differently? as far as I gather what separates this from an abrahamic take could be that the brahma is involved in everything, whereas the Creator could well have caused the Brahma to be. Saying that the Creator caused everything is different from saying the Brahma is everything. Quite radically different. Intuitivley this will mean that the Brahma is a number of contradictory things, since it would have to be every discreet object, everything that is and every mode of being, and still be one.
>inb4 nothing can cause the Brahma to be
this is fettering yourself to what you can imagine

[Anonymous No.17158445]

>>17158429
>since it would have to be every discreet object, everything that is and every mode of being, and still be one.
you could say that everything that is shares being. but I can't help but feel this still limits us to sensory phenomena, and leaves much to be said about whatever the non-observed existence is, if it exists as it seems to.

[Anonymous No.17158519]

>>17158429
>>17158445
basically the question is: does there exist an outside world apart from the observed world; and if not, why is the outside world so consistent; and if there does, then not all reality is sense phenomena, then there is something other than consciousness or at least could very well be. How could the Brahma constitute something that is not related to consciousness? Maybe you could say that there is nothing that exists unrelated to consciousness for the simple reason that if it does exist then it is observable, and that the observableness relates to being observed, and therefore the outside world does not have existence unrelated to being observed. Something like potential energy.

[Anonymous No.17158546]

>>17158429
From what I understand (I am not an expert in either Buddhism or Hinduism), Brahman is like the ocean, and the waves of the ocean would be sense-phenomena. Though we perceive waves as separate from the ocean, they are ultimately just the ocean, Brahman. Brahman is pure consciousness; it is what all conditions occur in.

[Anonymous No.17158592]

>>17157849
A lot of 'ethnographic' texts seem like that. See Tacitus' Germania. Not completely fabricated ofc but more about the author's people and some memes, at least for the first part. I guess because it's intended to be read by your own people it relates to your own society, the idea of trying to plainly document the world isn't their intent I don't think. By default it's going to be put into your own terms too, like how the gods are described with Roman gods, you can't avoid relating to you own when describing another but these don't seem intended to be simple ethnographies, as naively assumed with a scientific mind later, to begin with.

[Anonymous No.17158674]

>>17158546
>Brahman is pure consciousness; it is what all conditions occur in.
but is every form of existence a condition? I have no reason to assume that my perception of a rock (a condition) and an actual rock (unknown) are comparable, and I feel I have some reason not to, given that things seem to have consistent existence even when I do not perceive them
>inb4 why don't you just read the philosophical canon anon instead of wanking online all day
I'm taking it as it comes, working throug one interesting book at a time. Gita currently.

[Anonymous No.17158774]

>>17158674
>but is every form of existence a condition
I would say so, yes. Anything which can be made into an object is a condition, but I do not think they posit Brahman as existing; rather, they are more likely to say that Brahman is existence itself. I do not understand your thing about rocks. For them Brahman is the absolute reality, but rocks can exist relatively for them.

[Anonymous No.17158902]

>>17158774
the thing about rocks is about two presumed-to-be-different forms of being, the first being existence as a sense-phenomenon (like my conscious experience of a rock), and the second being some form of existence of itself. If I have a rock in a room, and I perceive it, then both forms of existence are active. If I leave the room, then I no longer perceive it, so one form is not active. The other, presumably, is active, even though no one perceives the rock, since if I return to the room the rock will still be there.

I have gotten it in my head that the Brahman is like empty consciousness. That it underlies every conscious experience. I feel I somewhat understand this, that consciousness-in-itself is different from the perceived objects.
>inb4 skandhas and arising
I believe in some form of atman.
the question is what the reality-in-itself is for the other kind of existence, the kind the rock keeps whether I am in the room or not. If it even does, it might be an illusion that the rock exists as an object, but some perception can still be drawn form it that would indicate that it is unchanged, at least with regards to my sensory abilities.

what I'm saying is I suspect there are two ways to exist, and I can only see how the Brahman relates to one of those two ways based on how I have viewed the Brahman. It is possible that this knot would be resolved if you said that consciousness itself by necessity "is", ie "has being", in which case we could say that it is included in the broader category of what is, and that the brahman is indeed the ruler of the binary condition of being/non-being, including hte being of consciousness.

[Anonymous No.17159003]

>>17157289
>use desire to overwhelm samsara
Through what kind of practices, for example? Have you personally gone through such an initiation?
Vajrayana is interesting but some of its practices and history don't sit well with me.
The hair analogy is pretty good though. Dzogchen and Zen do not work towards extinguishing desire then, but just accepting it?

[Anonymous No.17159004]

>>17158902
>the first being existence as a sense-phenomenon (like my conscious experience of a rock), and the second being some form of existence of itself. If I have a rock in a room, and I perceive it, then both forms of existence are active. If I leave the room, then I no longer perceive it, so one form is not active. The other, presumably, is active, even though no one perceives the rock, since if I return to the room the rock will still be there.
I think you are confusing this with subjective idealism. Hinduism dissolves both the subject and the object into Brahman, and identifying yourself as in the body or in a select location is delusion to them. The whole world depends on you, not just your miniature perception. I think this is why Hinduism establishes the Atman, which can be thought of as a drop of water in the ocean. You have to realize that you are nowhere in space or time, which requires you to dissolve the I and not-I.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17159125]

>>17159003
>Through what kind of practices, for example?

The chief example would be the deity meditations, beautiful bodied or horrible, terrifying or lovely, each object held having so much significance that this burns into the mind. Rituals using the eating of Food, drinking strong wine, sex both visualized and otherwise, use of the horrible emotions, so invoking through the bone trumpet and the ritual of Chod vampiric spirits of hunger, the Necrophiliac rituals within the vajrakila practice even, pedophilic visualizations and so forth within the kalachakra (I know this sounds extreme but it’s meant to be mentally extreme) if you desire I can cite sources from respected Buddhist tantra a on all of this, if you do not believe me.

>Have you personally gone through such an initiation?

Multiple, not all initiations of course, in Buddhism nothing sexual for example.

>Vajrayana is interesting but some of its practices and history don't sit well with me.

They’re not designed to sit well with the average person, yeah. Both tantric Hinduism and Buddhism are designed to have a multitude of practices designed to be fine-tuned to the specific aspirant in accordance with their guru/s advice and the general progression that their lineage outlines. Not everyone performs the same practices. During my initiation into shiva tantra I had to perform things the rajastic way, so stuff like shava sadhana had to be performed. But if you are of a lesser quality these can be substituted for lesser things or if you are superior at the time you can replace them with purely mental things.

>The hair analogy is pretty good though. Dzogchen and Zen do not work towards extinguishing desire then, but just accepting it?

More or less, the idea being that the supreme sphere of reality contains and is both nirvana and samsara, when it is constraint as a specific desire it is samsara, when it is not constrained to any desire it is nirvana, so if you cleave to the relaxed flow between desires and lack of desires cleaving neither to desire or lack of desire but pure peace, you can attain that place which is both and neither at once which both occur through. Longchenpa describes this at length.

[Anonymous No.17159128]

>>17159004
my understanding of the meaning of the Atman is that it is a part of the Brahman that is brought into delusion, and the delusion is brought about by it being placed in a relationship with a set of senses that receive information in time. So the Atman finds a place in time, because it becomes occupied with senses that transmit over time. Meditative practice is meant to reduce the influence of these senses until the Atman can finally break free of them and become aware only of itself, at which point it realizes that it is one with the Brahman. All of this relates to consciousness, which is how I ended up where I am. The point being that the Atman in itself has no point in space-time, but it is fooled into thinking it does by the senses that bombard it. The thing is that I had an experience of this, where I did find that I, the atman, not the self that is constructed of sense-information, was timeless, and to borrow a hacky phrase: "infinite potentiality". The condition for there being sense-phenomena. I was not given any insight, as far as I've gathered, on the nature of the outside world in itself, I only perceived that there is a consciousness separate from everything, and that when it becomes aware of itself it realizes that it is the condition for all being of sense phenomena, and that when it is not filled with anything, then it has no specific place in time and space. That's how I took it. It was what lended being to sense phenomena. It is possible that the real meaning was that it lended being period, but that's not how I took it. I do not consider myself to be enlightened. A lot of things happened after the experience, and generally I'd say I returned to the way I had existed before. I got a strong sense with me that the only thing there is to do with existence is to try to be loving, and since I was back in existence I did that. Only lately, almost two years later, did I start digging in what that stuff really was and whether or not I should actually be done with it. But the quality of meditation is really shitty now, so idk.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17159208]

>>17158902

>I have gotten it in my head that the Brahman is like empty consciousness. That it underlies every conscious experience. I feel I somewhat understand this, that consciousness-in-itself is different from the perceived objects.

So far you’re edging closer to western idealism but they have overlap. Yes Brahman is unconditioned consciousness and that which pervades the consciousness (that unity behind consciousness which we call self and transcendental ego in the west)

> the question is what the reality-in-itself

There are multiple ways to approach this, one of the more elegant ways is the Hegelian approach that saying reality-in-itself, or a noumena doesn’t even truly exist, that anything that isn’t for-me is basically suspended in potentiality as non-being and only becomes actual when it becomes rational, that until you can say anything of it, it has no inherent value to even consider as anything more than a potential.

>is for the other kind of existence, the kind the rock keeps whether I am in the room or not. If it even does, it might be an illusion that the rock exists as an object, but some perception can still be drawn form it that would indicate that it is unchanged, at least with regards to my sensory abilities.


We can either examine reality and reduce it to objects, subjects or numbers. By this I mean to say, all perception can either be understood to be nothing but one’s own perception, or we can say the object is the primary and our perceptions is nothing but a gate to the actual or we can say the object and my perception both are reflections of a greater logic structure and whole which is beyond either and hides between both or is revealed by both. I will post here my major phenomenological reduction and you are free to do with it what you desire.

CONT

[Anonymous No.17159217]

>>17159128
>the condition for all being of sense phenomena, and that when it is not filled with anything, then it has no specific place in time and space
and that it's one, it doesn't have anything to do with personhood

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17159239]

>>17159208

In the following will be a reduction from experience of phenomena alone, I have tried to use utter skeptical, as this is purely a reduction of my own experience it is done in accordance with epoche.

THE THREE FOLD Phenomenological reduction of the states of the ego and its corollary to the heart of differentiation found in the experience of all things:

Phenomenological reduction inducing discovery of a transcendental-immanent God by raw analysis.

Analyzing my own self and consciousness, I can say about consciousness that all consciousness is consciousness of something. Whenever I am conscious, I am aware of something, some object or some characteristics. I am always aware of some object.

Analyzing the contents of my awareness, I see objects, all objects seemingly share the following characteristics without exception. The characteristic of having a characteristic. (Encoding data, denoting something, the object makes me aware of certain qualities/data.) the Characteristic of sharing the same basic structure and the characteristic of difference (the objects seem different to each other and over time are changed due to the nature of time.)

The quality of Characteristic seems to be universal to all objects, everything has something which one can say of it, even if what one can say is precisely that they cannot accurately communicate it. As such things like lack and void appear to be characterized by the lack of other characteristics for example.

What then can I say about the characteristics of various objects in my perception? I can say they all seem to adhere to the same basic structure.

CONT

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17159252]

>>17159239

By structure I mean, I can look at an object and say it has position, shape, length, fundamentally this means we can measure mathematical data of any object before my eyes, as such we can say that all things give us data as to its basic structure (which is chiefly mathematical/extension based) analyzing data further however reveals there are structures which are not just existent to me as size, height, etc, but rather have a existence according to a mental structure. When I look at red I materially/physically see this color but mentally, my mind associates red with power, or love or color or honesty. As such we can now see that there are principally two structures by which we are aware of objects, the material exist as it appears before us according to mathematical data, and the mental existence as it appears before us which has qualities which do not necessarily equate to the possible mathematical structures whatsoever but seem to have their own divisions, counting methods dividing methods and so forth.


This seems to reveal that all that is actual/real within the material/mathematic seems to be necessarily existent within the Mental world, whereas my mental structures have a much greater range and size(I can imagine people and things which do not exist materially , objects and ideas which have no material being+all material being)

The mental structure being able to contain the mathematical data/materially/empirically experienceable tells us that there appears to be multiple structuring methods of perceiving and interacting with objects. In my experience neither the mental world nor material perception have precedence to each other, they seem to occur at once and aren’t really separate in my awareness of any particular material object.

Since we can perceive of structures which are non-existent within the material experience, which are real structures, and we can contemplate other forms of material which are not coherent with the material structure, we seem to find that there are seemingly nigh-endless and inexhaustible combinations of material into uniquely existing mental structures.

If I were to learn some mental discipline, such as math and physics, or philosophy or the arts, I would find my mental world changed and its capacity and even structure as now seemingly different and its range of contents and principles also seem changed.

CONT

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17159260]

>>17159252

As there are seemingly inexhaustible material data recombinations which can exist within the mental world, and the mental world can seemingly be changed in its basic principles, we must logically conclude there are inexhaustible potential mental structures which would mean there are potentially endless ways of mentally structuring the connotations and characteristics of material objects and endless ways of arranging mental constructs, this my own contemplation demonstrates the mental capacity for the mental world to contain boundless mental-structures. As such the characteristics and specific data any object gives can be conceived of and interacted with in potentially endless mental ways, as the mental world and material sense are one thing in any experience I hold, it is necessarily true that this structure, this logical-structure must be endless. The structure itself being one unfolding of self-similar patterns unveiling in a process by this I mean, the structure as a whole never divides from itself but rather shows its same principles and qualities over and over, for it is one thing always.

Now, what can I say about difference? Though the structure always reveals the same qualities it always reveals it by showing its diversity, the multiplicity of material objects all reveal the uniformity of mathematical coordinates via their differences in expression, in relation to each other.

Going further, any object I perceive of is inherently different in data/qualities which it encodes from one moment to the next, as time itself is a variable, so the very existence in time means that from on moment to the next, every single object becomes different in some characteristic or another. Analyzing time, I can only perceive of a future which is oncoming, and a past which has occurred. I cannot find any stability in the present because it is constantly passing into past-future. Therefore present itself is the difference/change of characteristic between past-future.

As all characteristics demonstrate themselves via their difference from each other, and each thing’s characteristic is changed instantly, where then can we locate the location of difference itself, difference as it exists purely in both material and mental experience?

If I look at all objects and characteristics the thing within my consciousness which naturally gives the data/encodes that it is different, is me, myself. Specifically my conception of self(my empirical ego, my identity) its very nature seems to be in experience the quality of being different from all other objects. It says “ this is not I, that is not I, I am I and nothing else is I” therefore the Ego itself appears to be difference as it exists purely within my experience, it is Uniqueness itself.

CONT

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17159273]

>>17159260

Analyzing further, this seems to reveal that all objects within my consciousness are a dynamic moving difference, dynamic because my mental structures and mental perception can change towards them, and their material conditions are constantly always changing via the nature of the present.

Meanwhile the Core characteristic of my identity/ego remains perpetually within Stasis, its sole quality being that it is unique and different from all objects.

As such analyzing the ego further, we find that the object of difference-in-itself is the Ego, since we have located difference and ego we can now clearly say that all objects within perception and the subject/ego in perception are both just aspects of perception/consciousness, neither being prior or after the other, they are both necessary characteristics of consciousness which is Pure(neither subject nor any specific object but the totality of consciousness is married as such.)

Therefore we can say logically via analysis that phenomena itself depicts characteristic, structure and difference.

As previously stated we can clearly demonstrate a material structure, even if we were to not consider the consciousness and not consider the subject, If objects exist they necessarily must have a structure, that structure must logically unveil via a pattern-process, that pattern process necessitates the existence of difference, difference necessitates the existence of that which is uniquely different to all else, that uniquely existent object which is non-separate to the material-structuring force is agreed upon by all religions to be God, which has, necessarily via the existence of difference, been proven to logically occur as the difference as it exists within itself.

This existence, which we call The unique difference, is inherently non-separate to the entirety of the structuring principles, for examining my own unique difference, I notice my own qualities as existent as separate yet as my own and of me and my own nature. Therefore the material/mental structure as it exists outside of me, must also logically contain an “I” who refers to the entirety of the structuring principles as theirs, and of themselves and of their power, all objects being objects of their perception.


CONT

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17159286]

>>17159273

However just as I determined that my own Ego/identity is necessarily a reflection of the consciousness, so must it also be with the ego of the structures. The Identity of the structure must have a non-conceptual existence which it itself reflects, these two, the fully transcendent (above identity, above difference, containing all difference) must logically co-contemplate/dwell with each other, the normative Ego of the structure being the sentience of difference itself, whereas the transcendental Ego is the sentience of characteristic as a whole, for all differences are simply aspects of characteristic itself.

Contemplating my own self once more, my own physical body, my bodily-self, my sense of self, I seem to also have within my consciousness a ego which has no identity, my physical body reacting to object stimuli as if it was itself a non-subject aspect, acting automatically and without reference to the identity. And as previously established there is logically no separation between my perception of objects and my consciousness, as consciousness is awareness and awareness is awareness of objects, rather, awareness of the dynamic process of the unfolding characteristics of Not-I, of objects. My identity and my actual consciousness reflect each other solely by the relationship they have via their shared static nature in contrast to the dynamism of object/not-I.

As demonstrated before, the Ego of the difference and transcendental person of the characteristic itself share this same arrangement, which necessitates the existence of one such not-I of transcendental characteristic, this must logically fill the entirety of material/mental structure world, as it is truly non-separate from the transcendental Person, it necessarily must have sentience and consciousness of equal level also.

As such, we can demonstrate the perpetual co-existence and co-dependence of a Triune-Being who is identical to the structuring principle controlling force of all which exists, who contains all possible characteristics therefore all attributes, is necessarily boundless for he is all structure, is necessarily in all points of time via the identification of time with difference, and is necessarily having three persons which are of one divine essence yet three distinct persons who, mutually reflecting each other are never mingled into a fourth person or essence.

Thus, a fully Transcendental immanent Trinitarian Godhead is Necessary.

[Anonymous No.17159320]

>>17158902
>It is possible that this knot would be resolved if you said that consciousness itself by necessity "is", ie "has being", in which case we could say that it is included in the broader category of what is, and that the brahman is indeed the ruler of the binary condition of being/non-being, including hte being of consciousness.
this is probably the right resolution, but that I did not give up consciousness, possibly because I had no idea I should have. Or because it is impossible. I would say there was a moment of ego-death, I can still represent in my head what it means to be free of personhood. All specifics gone, except, maybe, the condition of consciousness, which I failed to recognize as also being necessarily created, rather than having existence of its own. I saw being and non being as the being of conscious objects, when in reality the being and non being there is to be found includes consciousness. Maybe consciousness is even some form of attribute. It can be named, and that was the thing. If something can be named then it is not the Brahman. That was a big takeaway.

Boy I don't think I was enlightened, but something sure went down. Currently unclear of how to live with the karmic tangle.

[Anonymous No.17159431]

>>17159239
>Analyzing my own self and consciousness, I can say about consciousness that all consciousness is consciousness of something. Whenever I am conscious, I am aware of something, some object or some characteristics. I am always aware of some object.
I have thought about this, but I decided that all objects were a manifestation of the I and not-I arising spontaneously. My reasoning for this was, since consciousness is unconditioned, it can neither rise nor fall, nor can it depend on an object.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17159439]

>>17159431

Keep reading

[Anonymous No.17159628]

>>17159431
>consciousness is unconditioned
it can be named, therefore it is conditioned
t. I think

[Anonymous No.17159645]

>>17159286
why do you say ego instead of psyche?

[Anonymous No.17159777]

>>17150457
Atman = Pneuma (spirit), not Psyche (soul)

[Anonymous No.17159931]

>>17159628
>I think
You do not think, thoughts appear to you.
>it can be named
You are correct. The name “consciousness” is conditioned.

[Anonymous No.17159993]

>>17151698
I'm learning a lot from your posts, anon. I remember once we talked about Schopenhauer. You don't like him anymore? Also what are your thoughts on Jung, if you don't mind sharing?

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17160049]

>>17159645

As I precisely mean the empirical ego and the transcendental ego when speaking of those in a purely phenomenological experiential sense.

>>17159993

Oh no I still like Schopenhauer, you don’t have to agree with everything someone writes to like and take ideas from. I also like Jung, I need to tackle his student Marie-Louise von Franz‘s corpus at some point.

I would say he’s definitely worth the read and consideration but he should be one element within your meta-model, not your entire meta-model.

[Anonymous No.17160151]

>>17160049
Honestly Schopenhauer is my favorite metaphysical thinker, though I sometimes wonder if I'm being too uncritical with him that I miss his flaws. Could you share some of your main points of disagreement with him?

[Anonymous No.17160204]

>>17157396
absolutely heretical

[Anonymous No.17160283]

>>17159777
Checked

[Frater Asemlen XS8vrClKs2 No.17160332]

>>17160151
>Could you share some of your main points of disagreement with him?
He was refuted by Shankara (pbuh).

[Anonymous No.17160349]

>>17160332
We do these kinds of tricks with butterfly on the routine. Begone guenonfag.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17160356]

>>17160151

The major disagreements with Schopenhauer would be rooted ultimately in my own analysis of will and my acceptance of Hegel’s arguments concerning phenomena, but to fully grasp my disagreement concerning will you ought to read the two pastebin’s I’ve posted and then this writing.

Positive yang thelema= Will-to-becoming
Negatory-Yin-Thelema=Will-to-I-Alone

Positive Yang Hamartia=Will-To-Annihilate-in-other
Negatory Yin Hamartia=Will-To-Annihilate-Itself


The Thelema within Hamartia is the Will to other


Positive thelema=seeks to go out of itself to become in and for itself

Negatory thelema=seeks to Go in itself to be for itself and gain universal abstract freedom


Positive Hamartia=seeks the out-of-itself to replace the in-itself (making synthesis impossible ) with a different in-itself

Negative Hamartia=seeks the out-of-itself by annihilating all in-itself thus Will-to-end-Will
Y=Positive Thelema
H=negative Hamartia
V=negative Thelema
H=Positive Hamartia


Y=that which seeks to become itself by going out of itself to become for itself

H=the is-not, which kills itself upon the touch of the Y, the corpse of fecundity, the Will festers within the annihilation of will and transmutes it into

V=the Will-to-know-I-and-be-I which can only gain knowledge by

H=the Will-to-know-Other


Y=Positive Thelema=The Causal force of creation
H=negative Hamartia=the Unfolding in Matter
V=negative Thelema=the Unveiling of I
H=Positive Hamartia=The-Hunger-for-Other

Y=Will like a flame
H=Will which dissolves like water
V=Will which slashes like a blade
H=Will which is like a world of content


Y=the creative deleuzian Thelema
H=the Death-drive mainlander-Hamartia
V=the Egoist Thelema
H=the Schopenhauerian Hamartia


The context being that there is negatory Will which we call evil and is towards nothingness, and there is a positive Will and interminglings of these both. For reference see Hegel’s philosophy of right as my conception of Will is a fusion of Hegel, Schopenhauer, tantra, deleuze and Christianity. So let me elaborate on just the negatory will.

CONT

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17160375]

>>17160332

Let me make clear anon, I don’t dislike shankara I just don’t idolize him as the height of Indian thought.

>>17160356

If we agree that Sin originates as a negatory will of annihilation/towards absolute non-being of god and that Thelema is a positive creative will of god, the following becomes clear.

Ennui Heidegger states is what occurs when the fullness of being becomes clear and its profound emptiness becomes apparent.

At the heart of the individual there is a profound sense of incompletion, of lack, what then is this state of lack; this all pervading nature which is not even of the emotions but pervades them, appears when emotions fade and the center of focus is made the total. It is the sin at the heart of man, the negatory will of God. A profound gap in the being of an individual. The nature of this gap reflects in the death drive, melancholy is the taste of it, it is the void below, the interior hollow which is truly empty and contains nothing. This is the mirror of Sunyata which the common man tastes.

CONT

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17160385]

>>17160375

This negatory void is the contradiction at the heart of the physical being, the flesh of ones perception, this is why the ego seeks the other for affirmation, why it seeks to satisfy itself with things, itself or even God.

This profound negatory void in man, this sin-nature, hamartia if left empty leads to annihilation of the self, so man must attempt to fill it. This is the root of inauthenticity but also the chance of divine actualization, theosis. When you attempt to fill the Hamartia at the heart of man with others, your own being becomes subjugated and it is like an illusion, a imperfect image changing on a lake, it temporarily creates an image which is distorted by movement, as the other is constantly in flux, the hamartia nature returns and the image casted in the lake dispelled.

If you try to project your own will into it, that is the casting of a illusion upon the surface of the moving lake, if you try to place others or ideas or drives, all of them fail due to the dynamism of the Void in the heart of man.

How then can this void be filled? There are 4 primary methods used by men to gain relief and fulfill this void.

One can attempt to change the very structure of their being in order to latch on to some other, some stable or unstable outside point. This can be an ideal, a virtue, a aesthetic, people even.

This reliance of the other binds man to interaction with other, whether the ideas of the other, the knowledge or the society of others. This is the birth of the city of the devil, of babalon.

Man by living the cultural life,

partaking of knowledge of other, connects his being and his void with the being of others and their conceptual frameworks. The heart of these is the same profound emptiness, this causes a multiplication of the emptiness which pervades any temporary relief.

As man subjugates and manipulates himself into a cog in the conceptual models and cultures of the world, his hamartia mixes with theirs, a greater void and a greater illusion is born. As such the pain and experience of incompletion actually increases from this methodology. The second methodology is intellectual-aesthetic illusion, Nicholai Hartman writes that all true Art works by crafting a piece which makes you forget the foreground and takes you to an illusionary background filled with illusions of ideas, ideal things, your own intellectual world where fullness dwells, beauty then is a sense of harmonious completion among the parts, the aesthetic experience does not free from the Will but from the hamartia by filling the void with phantoms. These phantoms are much more resilient then the other but are still not enough, as they require a constant stream of intellect, Will and so forth to maintain, the second the individual himself changes (which is forced on him by the dynamic nature of the void in the heart of man) he must abandon in that moment his phantoms and the profound incompletion returns.

CONT

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17160397]

>>17160385

The Third methodology is resting in the void, resting in one self, to elaborate this is the most subtle manipulation of the illusions and void possible, instead of creating a intellectual-aesthetic illusion, you try to manipulate yourself by relaxation, by mental disassociation and re-association to dis-attach from your manner of being utterly and associate your form/body AS the void, as such you try to fulfill the void by filling it with your own being, your own nature, your own pure will.

In this method you make the hamartia in the heart of man consume the totality of being, in an attempt to cause a synthesis, this in Taoism is called wu-wei, this in Spinoza’s work is acquiescentia, to allow yourself to flow into the void at the heart of man until the void and the being cannot be distinguished. This is “crushing the void”

In this state the void at the heart of man is transmuted from a negatory experience to one of fullness and satisfaction, it is still negatory but it has become an active void. This is demonstrated by such practices as Zuowang and shikantaza.

The error of this method is three fold.

1=it is incredibly hard to maintain during active daily life, in interaction with others and thus leads often to absolute seclusion and hermitage

2=the void is not actually filled but rather being is annihilated

3=beyond pleasure and satisfaction and many states of spiritual/mental/psychological/physical bliss this methodology is utterly sterile, it cannot be replicated or shared and it does not produce culture, technology, it cannot truly be shared, it cannot do anything but rest in itself and be itself. This renders it sterile.

CONT

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17160410]

>>17160397

The Fourth method which is the actual method of fulfilling the Void is to transmute the hamartia itself into thelema. The fulfilling of the void at the heart of man is done by living in accordance with the Will and Reason of God, this is the fulfiller of being, because the void-Will brings man to nothing, the positive will creates perpetually more and more being, which is the transmutation of being into becoming, the void becomes the space of the becoming of the individual actualizing his existence as he is in the mind of god, in pure potential, the lines of flight reach out in all directions showing the now dynamic extensions of Being. Pure lines of becoming stretch forth in all directions. The Will of God, these lines of becoming which are hidden in the void, which is pure potentiality, are hidden in the profound darkness of lack, it is only by the light of Reason that these lines of becoming can be found and entered upon, however the lines of becoming can lead back to the void, they can become short, in the first method you block you light for the colored lights of others. In the second method you obscure your light with images to cast shadows to look

upon, in the third you snuff out the light so only darkness remains, in the fourth you become direct your light to the pathways and you must maximize the brightness of the light.

Christ who is pure reason is the great light, God is the great Reason, by reflection of His light into ours, we can obey see the greatest lines of becoming which become indefinitely, thus in this is immortality. The void in the heart of man replaced by a boundless being, boundless becoming, guided by the light of the Sun of Will, the Christ. This is the straight and narrow road of the Bible.

Just as the first method creates the city of the devil, a macro collection of emptiness and illusions, sin perpetually multiplying and inauthenticity reigning supreme, this fourth method creates the city of god, as the constant becoming makes you as a light to the world, your Reason shines forth and reflects as if a mirror upon others who also strive for the light and to shine their light.

The city of the devil then is darkness and obscuring, being chained in a boundless void of emptiness and transience, the city of God then is unchanging boundless Light which unifies into greater and greater dancing interpenetrating lights,

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17160426]

>>17160410

walking on the road of becoming and thus coming closer and closer.

The city of the devil then logically leads to annihilation and the absorption of its being into the third method, the devouring of the city of the devil by the void.

The city of God then logically shall rule for eternity, growing in light and intensity day by day. This is why sin and the Holy Spirit of god are poured out continuously at greater and greater degrees by the day.

The city of the devil results in absolute synthetic inauthenticity, which is the gradual destruction of authentic being, being becoming a play thing of void.

The city of God results in boundless positive change, which is the fullness of God on earth.
The Void and being replaced by boundless divine becoming along the eternal narrow road.


This is my firm belief anon, that only by accepting the will of god can the fullness of being be tasted, the emptiness reconciled, the dialectic completed, the contradiction resolved and life and will and genuine meaning attained. I do not even classify this as a belief. I know it is true in the fire of my heart that Christ, my God, knowledge of he, that is the answer. This is how and why I do not feel any emptiness, the second any misery touches my mind, contemplation of my lord begins and I am filled with a bliss of his presence and I cultivate the wisdom of the virtue that such an emptiness has. So I can study pessimism all day long and it has no power over me, because I know what is the emptiness and pain that is the core of them truly, and I know its genuine medicine.

Apologies to the whole thread for so many posts.

[Anonymous No.17160617]

>>17160426
I read all your posts and I'm not sure I get it, but I think I caught the general gist of it. So what does this mean in practical terms for people?

Also, you're either a legit schizo or a modern prophet. Either way, you're a cool guy.

[Anonymous No.17160666]

>>17160426
Thanks a lot anon. I'm reading your posts and I'm finding them very insightful, and I'm also saving them to later study with care. So your disagreements are mostly ethical rather than metaphysical? Or are you distinguishing different aspects of the Will whereas he failed to do that? Also within this fourfold classification that you introduced, I'm guessing you believe Schopenhauer does not fall in the 4th one. The second method sounds a lot like his aesthetics, but what about his ethics of salvation? Your description of the fourth is a lot more positive than his, but it seems in the end both result in the denial of the negatory Will (in his words the will to live). I remember a passage from Schopenhauer where he said in achieving salvation specific dogmas do not matter so long as they result in denial of the will to live. Thanks a lot again for the elucidations.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17160683]

>>17160617

Kek, I just read, practice and contemplate quite a bit. That’s all.

What you’re asking me though is the ethical question, how does this model of reality apply to how we live, the ethical. I have written a systematic meta-ethical structure explaining specifically that, I’ll long post that one and I think won’t long post any longer as I don’t wish to hog too much of the thread, tripfagging is inherently obnoxious, even more so when one posts so much.

Note my usage of sosein roots in Nicholai hartmann and meinong and Zalta, they aren’t essences, and my conception of dasein has more to do with Husserl and hartmann than Heidegger.

the following is a logic structure which would according to my own phenomenological and specifically object and characteristic analysis allow for a form of ethics which is the most rooted in the inherent nature of being and reality possible. Primarily it shall be rooted in my own divine conception however a secularized form is possible if one were to simply ignore the three deepest layers of the structure.

The lowest strata are the foundations off the highest, the lower the structure is, the more universal it is. Thus the higher structures are filled with the universal qualities of the lower structures but add their own particular qualities which the lower Strata do not partake of.

Thus the Lower strata are more essential and permanent, whereas the higher strata are more fragile and accidental to the lowest levels. Ultimately however the highest strata when expressed properly must also express the virtues inherent to the lowest strata fully, being an enrichment of the more essential properties.

That which is inherent to the structure of reality is Good, for It, God, Logic, Nature, Is Good, the natural teleological and consequential ramifications of each state must be the most Good, for the meaning and the goodness of a thing are one, its cause and completion and goodness are to it one.

Note, the higher strata are defined as particularizations of the lower strata, thus the lower have absolute influence over the higher, but just as a drop of poison can change the overall composition of the entire ocean if added to it, so also can the fragile higher strata have a limited influence on the lower levels.

Sosein 1:sosein in itself.

The beginning of our ethics must be Good-in-itself, the identity of this is clearly God to any man of the spiritual, for God is the most simplistic and his divine essence is his identity and his identity is his simplistic divine nature. As the determination in question is Goodness its root must lay in that which determines all determinations, that which characterizes all characteristics. As it is completely good it has no moral or ethical obligations other than to be its own determination. No evil capacity (disobedience of self consistent logic) can occur here.

CONT

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17160689]

>>17160683

Sosein 2:Sosein as the mirror Haecceities

Due to the determination of all determination filling itself and being completed in itself, it as the most universal determination must also contain all particular determinations, qualities, characteristics, unique aspects etc. the

state of these only have particular determination relationship due to their relational nature towards each other, their mutual co-dependence. (The Fire is determined to be hot in contrast to other heats and other coldness and defined to be such a sensation and not jellylike due to its specific qualities ) this co-dependent relation can be termed “Love” in the sense of agape, which is a Nondual yet relational state in which information is passed and reflected perfectly between all parties in question. Thus the ethics of this state contains the previous nature of being itself, but also now blossoms to requiring Nondual Love. Thus the ethics of this level is pure Love. Evil cannot truly exist here because to be in relation to anything in this zone is to be in Love.

Pure Sein: Being Qua Being with no differentiation whatsoever.

The interpenetrative relational “love” of the previous ethical structure necessarily must produce active and passive relationships, affects, positive and negatives, etc, all of these connections and relations produce and truly are a coherent form of Logic. ( as the laws of physics are coherent, whether in their primitive states in the early universe or now, they always had self consistency even if changed through time ) as such we now can deduce that to obey the inherent logic structure, the Law of Pure Being is itself the meaning of this level. Just as Being obeys this logic so is it Logical that the inherent ethical nature obeys this divine law as implication of Divine Love. To disobey this level is to disobey the fundamental laws perquisite to having existence, thus there is no evil capacity at this stage.

Thus we have confirmed that the nature of god itself is the Good, the particular Nature of the Good is Love, and to obey the Law and Logic is the particular nature of Love.

The following four strata then will analyze the nature of the logic and order of being, these can be taken in a purely secular belief for they are rooted purely in object Analysis and obedience to the self-consistency of nature.

The Four Strata of being: the Ethics of Dasein

Cont

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17160696]

>>17160689

Stratum 1: Matter/material and its mechanical nature

Analyzing basic reality from its objects, it becomes clear that the most basic of all manners of being is being-matter, all that materially exists and has being, has matter in some form or another, this naturally follows the inherent logic and consistency of nature and interacts with itself. What is the being of matter? It is to exist, the being of the most basic universal Being is simply to be, the material has no further purpose or being or richness than to be and to interact with itself. As such due to this simplicity the nature of basic objects always completes the quality of goodness, for logic and causality dictates it ought to be (logic of the Big Bang, God, whatever it is your preference, there is an experience of objects.)

This structure then has no meaning other than to mechanically exist and interrelate with itself like moving pieces, interactions. Etc. disobedience of this structure results in lack of material existence of the object in question. Thus there is no evil capacity at this stage.

Good In this stage is defined simply as “Being there”

Stratum 2: The Organic/biological/living and its inherent Vitalist nature.

Whether we believe in evolution or religion, man is formulated from the raw matter, whether through a series of logical randomness obeying a deterministic/pseudo-deterministic causal stream, or if created by God out of dust/clay, the Organic life begins and arises out of the inorganic matter, formulating into such categories as species.

The Organic manner contains the self existence-affirming position of lifeless matter, but just as the organic defines and gives itself distinction by the quality of being alive/organic, so also is modified the logical drive behind the material. Now the matter itself seeks to be alive, all things in the organic structure seek to be alive, those which disobey this inherent biological imperative are removed from the biological category by biological death and return to lifeless matter. Thus there is no capacity for evil in this stage, only the loss of particularization.

Goodness defined in this stage is simply “Being-Biological”

Stratum 3: The Individual and his ethical foundation in psychologicism


CONT

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17160707]

>>17160696

As species and life in general arose in the previous stratum, with it at once arose the substratum of the particular individual and particular life. The particular life in the healthy normative individual contains fully the “Being-biological” drive but further due ones own personal qualities gains a diversity of nuance, characteristics, unique genetic code, memories, etc. thus being ones self as an individual in accordance to ones own nature and in accordance with the specifics of his own mind is the key to maintaining this individuality. (For the denial of ones owns individuality results potentially/eventually into the denial of the self which is the denial of the life-drive, thus embrace of Death)

Thus whether a person is energetic or sleepy, pro authority or against it, collectivist or individualist, the ultimate truth of his being-Individual is that his ethics must adhere to his structure as a unique-individual. Thus there is an incredibly rich range of Goodness, a great diversity of goodness at this stage, but as a trade off (since everyone has their own unique goodness) actual Evil arises.

Goodness as defined as being authentic to what ones own unique-individual perspective defines as good inherently implies there is a capacity for inauthenticity, for many people lack self comprehension, many lack self knowledge, many simply cannot muster the will or the power to live up to their authentic nature. Thus the individuality of man, of Being-individual gives a richness of goodness, but also Degeneracy, entropy, Inauthenticity.

Thus we can define Goodness at this stage as personal Acquiescentia, resting/dwelling in ones own individual qualities and living in accordance with them, thus acquiescentia and actualization of the individual are one thing. Whether you decide some kind of virtue ethics, Will based Nietzschean ethics, passion, utilitarianism, it doesn’t matter, one if authentic will choose a definition of goodness in accordance with his own mental character.

Thus we can define good here as “Being Ones self “ or “being Authentic”

Stratum 4: the Cultural Spirit and its advancement through history.


CONT

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17160717]

>>17160707

Individuals interact and share a common space, they influence each other, the space of these interactions creates a culture which contains groups of individuals and alchemically unifies their interior, their ideas, extracting their essences and nature’s and unifying them into its own unique aesthetics, culture, conception and goodness.

The primary key to culture is Knowledge and the means of exchange of knowledge, all culture can be reduced to individual communications and specifically knowledge exchange, the entire process of culture is one in which is absorbed the ideas, tastes and qualities of more and more individuals, thus the form of goodness in this structure is based on the accumulation of information, data from the most individuals possible, the effective creation of a abstract database of ideas which interact and rebirth the database constantly through the interactions of all points within Said culture. Thus the Key to the cultural spirit is the Knowledge-and-communication nature. Thus all things which maximize data points of information-knowledge expand the culture (oh these people have no customs theyre uncultured, but these people have very much social customs and traditions therefore many ideas.) thus the heart of this structure is culture-integration of knowledge and maximization of communications.

Evil then is on this level ignorance and also isolation. We can then thus define the entirety of the Good in this structure as “Becoming-knowledgeable”

All of the Strata are unified and truly immanent, the line of being exists from the lowest to the highest, the entirety of the manner of being and goodness from the lowest exists but expanded in the highest most refined strata.

This being considered the most grounded and essential Good is goodness in itself, the most refined and essential on a group level is itself knowledge/reason.

This ethical structure fully integrates the manner of sosein and dasein in man, but has revealed the primacy of self consistent order and knowledge, these definitions are based on the natural movements and unfolding of being and characteristic as it is, thus the categories define the meanings of the particulars.

With this Model we have a systematic structure for dealing with Good in itself, all forms of ethics and what is most ethical on the grand scale in terms of pure Ontology

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17160773]

>>17160666
>.So your disagreements are mostly ethical rather than metaphysical?

No, no, no, my ethics are rooted out of my ontology, I’m arguing I disagree with there being simply a singular Will force metaphysically and that the proper methodology of dealing with it is through denial and through the aesthetic, I disagree because this does not conform with the four-fold will structure i lay out.

>Or are you distinguishing different aspects of the Will whereas he failed to do that? Also within this fourfold classification that you introduced, I'm guessing you believe Schopenhauer does not fall in the 4th one. The second method sounds a lot like his aesthetics, but what about his ethics of salvation? Your description of the fourth is a lot more positive than his, but it seems in the end both result in the denial of the negatory Will (in his words the will to live). I remember a passage from Schopenhauer where he said in achieving salvation specific dogmas do not matter so long as they result in denial of the will to live. Thanks a lot again for the elucidations.

At most Schopenhauer’s ideas on salvation would fall between the second and ultimately the third method, which is why so much stasis is associated with them and why the movements so associated with Schopenhauer undergo so much melancholy.

Let me elaborate slightly more on the nature of positive will in contrast to his negatory will and my belief of its relations to the political.

Contemplating the Nature of God in his logos nature, communicating via difference in structure, the disjunctive nature which is to say the differences in the endless complexity of god allows god to communicate instantly all of his divine attributes instantly to each other.

Each divine attribute and logos-structure by definition lacks when isolated the other qualities of the divine body, this lack Is emptiness, the emptiness of the attributes is instantly ruptured via the Spiral differentiation and Contradictory-logic-synthesis. Just as the Omni-form logic structures communicate via their differences, between them, pervading them is their nonduality as empty/lacking each other, this Lack is itself communication for lack of data is itself encoded as a type of Data meaning that the Emptiness, as it collapse as it is instantly ruptured by divine simplicity erupts again in the other divine attributes and this occurs instantly to all of the divine attributes therefore pervading the entire divine body as a divine-unity point. As such emptiness is the unity of the body of God which is itself non-existent for it only communicates by lack and is instantly ruptured.

CONT

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17160784]

>>17160773

This Emptiness in God is the lack-of-God which automatically is eradicated and reformulated. In this manner the entire divine body is Good, pervaded by the essential emptiness of Evil, evil being non-existent, created and uncreated. For this divine attribute of emptiness is the knowledge/communication of all of the divine attributes via Lack which via the contradictory-logos is perfectly reconciled.

In creation as we do not experience normally the divine-time but the normative temporality the experience of Evil is not automatically ruptured, but the rupturing is experienced dialectically as the intermingling of fullness with emptiness, suffering with pleasure, Good with or against Evil.

Therefore Evil in truth is nothing but the experience of the Knowledge of the entirety of the unity of God as Emptiness, pain, suffering and evil is simply Knowledge of Emptiness, Suffering is simply Knowledge of the Unity of God.

Here is the method and process man and society must undergo in order to reconcile evil, to experience Evil in its true form, as the very knowledge of the divine body through emptiness.

Schizo-Acquiescentia.

Acquiescentia is the dwelling in the immanent structure of the logos as it expresses its principles as your very being and nature. This is an active dwelling, resting by Will and knowledge. Which is stabilized by reason and followed by the enacting of Will.

The Schizo quality is when the libidinal forces and qualities are released without reserve in their totality.

The schizo-acquiescentia is the dwelling within the immanent nature of the logos-code of one’s own being and directing all of one’s will and libidinal force towards this dwelling.

All desire is desire-to-becoming

Desire is a transmutation process of actualization. Desiring-processes are transmutation processes.

There are Three tiers of Desiring-becoming which are actualization processes.

First level: Desiring-becoming-Glorious/honored/fulfilled-by-other: in this one’s ego-desire is shaped by recognition of the group, this is the common kind of Ego-desire which man experiences, he wishes to become the simulated shifting product which the group wants, he desires to shape himself in order to fill himself with his desire.

In this is requiring the approval and recognition of the fellow man, in this is the foundational strength of the simulacra, in this is all of man’s current political structures and processes as they rely on recognition of Force, recognition of wealth, of glory, of pseudo-platonic goodness and of being what one ought to do, the Das man-force, the force of “this is what one must do in order to be accepted by the group and not considered foolish”

CONT

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17160794]

>>17160784

This form of bliss and pleasure is the most unstable as the Wheel of time shifts so does the culture and world spirit shift, the recognition of men is constantly twisted and contorted, the dwelling in this pleasure and dwelling in this desire naturally is unstable and imperfect. However because of disjunctive synthesis and the lines of flight tending towards the resurrection of the Absolute/Primal condition, this nature naturally progressively(through the course of hundreds if not thousands of years) morphs into

Second level: Desiring-becoming-instrumental: in this one gains meaning by constructing or joining some model or structure or even one’s own will and gains meaning by Enacting will, teleological ends and even pure will. For the instrumentality of Will is the key to its power of becoming, and enacting various goals or fitting as a cog allows one to serve as a greater part in a larger whole. This second stage of desiring-becoming is superior to the first because it can be kept up indefinitely as long as the instrumentality remains. If there is a structure there is a place in the structure, if there is a Will, there is a Will-er.

As this is the path of Reason/Will it is logically very stable, as stable as your reason and Will is, but it is not as perfect as the supreme bliss and requires constant striving, and if your reason or Will is weakened it collapses. Politically this manifests as all states and political regimes theoretically conceived of which are based in reason or Will, in which man becomes a part of a broader structure of interactions and his meaning is extracted from his place in the structure or even simply instrumentality for its own purpose, His will within the structure is his Own meaning. As the Simulacra forces and nature of techno-capital Matures, organically the first Order is transmuted into the second Order, the Cancerous body-without-organs on a societal level. The strongest and most perfect of these is the Fascist Structure which understands its own nature as a construct and comprehends it is such a structure and is integrating man into nonduality with itself producing and cleaving man to civil virtue and meaning. the True totalitarian state due to its self knowledge gradually over a long period of time also evolves and transmutes itself into the Third Phase.

CONT

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17160803]

>>17160794

Third level: desiring-becoming-acquiescentiant: in the final third form, in this form one gains meaning by conceiving of their entire being as not belonging to a structure but as a machinic assemblage, one is himself a complete structure of god, with no need of fitting into a structure,(one is logos, one is dharma, one is the revelation) one’s desire is to become the resting place of one’s self. In this way one fully in active sense strives to make his own interior-structure, his authentic being his resting place. By actively striving to always rest in his own interior structure (dwelling in the heart, striving in the heart) one constantly enacts desire as true desire-becoming, for he becomes the ouroboros. He is instantly desiring-becoming-himself and he is constantly always having this satisfied for he is always his self most.

In this desiring-becoming is comprehension fully of one’s innate structure as non-separate to the structuring of all nature and reality, one instantly realizes and fulfills his basic mode qualities. In this is Full actualization of all potential, for ones entire potential and lines of flight for the advancement of one’s desiring processes are perpetually directed into enacting the Reality of his being and the structure and quality of his being.

In this is absolute actualization of God-in-man, for all desires are instantly satisfied and thus this is the state of supreme desire satisfaction, actively seeking to rest in one’s interior by passively resting in one’s interior. This perfect hermaphroditic self-contentment which is purely self reproductive is the King of Desire.

Therefore the method is simple, In always actively desiring rest in one’s own interior, understanding this interior is the structure of God which is the inherent structure of this very body and nature as a totality, one attains supreme Bliss.

the above explains my personal means of joy which nihilism by no means can ever actually penetrate, to word it in another manner, if we phenomenologically analyze a thing we can divide it into properties interacting in a structure which due to intentionality all things including the ego and all things in the world are loaded with a technical meaning of relation and structure, dwelling in one’s own inherent properties and desiring to express one’s own properties automatically expresses one’s own properties, resulting in potential and actuality crossing into one thing. Absolute actualization occurs since the thing sought is ones own properties and this is the bliss of Kether-Chokmah-Daat. To dwell in the nature of one’s own inherent properties and express them as ones Will with no Will otherwise than to rest in one’s own nature. This is the Supreme Bliss.

Cont

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17160814]

>>17160803

Politically This would manifest as a culture and world in which the Second order has via its structure perfected man to such a point that they no longer require the structure of the outside to determine meaning and cleave them to virtue, but rather by the long term social, cultural, genetic and technological evolution has been encoded at the deepest levels that man ought to abide by his own authentic being, his own structure, Man is a state structure-in-himself. In this is the Fascist state undergoes the alchemical stage of multiplication which is the completion of the philosophers Stone, each man striving to adhere to his own nature, in perfect Wisdom and being naturally accustomed culturally and socially via evolution into his own self-reliant Self-bliss. The shadows of this are reflected within the best of the aristocracy of the past, the shadows of this are in fantasies of those such as rebelais.

The True manifestation of Such a state is one in which all men perfectly abiding in their own natures and interior act in accordance with their fundamental properties, Actively harmonized with the way of the Primal most Authentic. Naturally man is harmonized with his fellow man, even his conflict and combat with his fellow man is a absolute Harmony with the nature of himself and his neighbor. The True form of the Third Level is the city of God, the manifestation of New-Zion, heaven on Earth, The ultimate Theological-political Eschaton in which man acts perfectly with his True nature in accordance with the highest principles.

Within the Body of God, Evil is simply The unity and knowledge of the unity of God. Within the First political level, Evil is suffering and Bitterness, within the second political Level Evil is Lack, all that is not of the structure and all that is not of the Will is Evil.

Within the Third Political Level, evil is simply the Knowledge of God’s unity through Emptiness. Even Evil is made Divine in the third political Phase. Evil is nothing but the True Divine absolute Supreme Bliss.
Sorry again for the spamming of rants and the relation politically and the arguments relating to Evil. I hope this will help in some regard.

[Anonymous No.17160923]

>>17156236
>>You're wrong. There is no such thing as a "Mahayanist".
pop buddhism was a mistake

[Anonymous No.17160932]

>>17157295
>why is the assumption that Brahman is God?
Hindus say brahman is the creator and always here.

[Anonymous No.17160937]

>>17160814
I appreciate your posts. I'm having more trouble understanding this second set of posts than the first one, but that's probably because I need to familiarize myself with the terminology in the pastebin you posted. Your descriptions of the positive will reminds me a lot of Plato. Would you say he falls into the fourth class as well? Also which class would you say Jung's ideas of individuation fall into?

[Anonymous No.17160949]

>>17160356
why are intellectuals devoid of any critical thinking. Why can't they stop sperging over their brain farts.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17161079]

>>17160937
>I appreciate your posts. I'm having more trouble understanding this second set of posts than the first one, but that's probably because I need to familiarize myself with the terminology in the pastebin you posted.

Apologies, a lot of my writing assumes a prior knowledge base of various things.

>Your descriptions of the positive will reminds me a lot of Plato. Would you say he falls into the fourth class as well? Also which class would you say Jung's ideas of individuation fall into?

I would say Jung’s ideas fall into the third category of that ethics break down, depending on critique you can either say Plato and Jung either fall into the fourth category or the second category depending on your critique of both men.


>>17160949

Idunno, I assume that’s talking about me decadently sperging out, I think it’s because we want to express our thoughts but we come off trying to explain it how we think of it. I know I personally for most of my writings absolutely do not consider rhetoric or the like and just want to put down as much of my raw conception of a thing as possible following my train of thought, I think many people are like this and usually just need a good editor or the context of discussions to show how these things apply. A lot of people also are solely interested in the ideas for their own sake and don’t seek much to apply them. It really depends Anon.

[Anonymous No.17161190]

>>17161079
Thanks for the clarification. That's only natural and understandable while writing philosophy. The fault is mine not reading the basics first (which I'm going to soon). I'm finding your classification of ethics very interesting. Could you give some other examples that fall in the third and the fourth? Does the classification "life-denying" generally fall in the third? What about Nietzsche's "life-affirmation"? You already said the fourth method corresponds with Christianity (if I understood correctly). What about other religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Gnosticism, Zoroastrianism, etc.?

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17161286]

>>17161190

I would argue anything which is not in the fourth, in some regard, denies life.

Zen and philosophical Taoism would be in the third category of “coping with the emptiness” methods, islam, Bhakta focused And tantrik Hinduism, Christianity and so forth would all be in the fourth category or at least believe themselves to be within the four category.

Nietzscheanism would fall into the second level as would much of existentialism. Heidegger depending on reading either goes into the third or the second method.

[Anonymous No.17161381]

>>17161286
Have you read Whitehead? I'm not sure you'd agree with him on most things, but I feel you both have, as kids these days say, "same energy".

[Anonymous No.17161384]

>>17161286
I see, thank you a lot anon. I thoroughly enjoyed reading your posts and will also read your posts on your blog soon. Original thinkers such as yourself are rare to find.