Has he ever been refuted?

[Anonymous No.17535440]

Seriously. If so, with what arguments?

[Anonymous No.17535537]

>>17535440
the pali canon refutes him proactively

[Anonymous No.17535587]

ADVAITIN FUCKING SHITS

[Anonymous No.17535667]

>>17535440
No.

[Anonymous No.17535702]

Do you really enjoy this? Starting the same thread every day and then filling it with walls of text?

[Anonymous No.17535914]

>>17535702
i'm not him

[Anonymous No.17535923]

I

[Anonymous No.17535937]

would be

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17535938]

Gonna use this thread to ask the various folks here into Vedanta a personal question.

How much personal devotion, genuine emotional love do you feel for God? Tell me about your love, your desire for him. Tell me what lies in cavern of your heart concerning the beloved.

[Anonymous No.17535944]

>>17535938
Love him as much as

[Anonymous No.17535951]

as much as I love myself, I meant to say, but 4chin felt like cutting me off half-way into my post.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17535968]

>>17535951
How much do you love yourself? Tell me about your love like you tell him in secret, if you desire of course. May as well make this (I assume bait thread) into one dedicated to speaking love towards God.

[Anonymous No.17535977]

I just like these frends because it feels nice to see people outside my country read this stuff

धन्यवाद मित्रों
तुम अखंड चुटिया हो

[Anonymous No.17535978]

>>17535938
Gonna use your presence in this thread to ask you a question: what's your personal opinion on taoism? I see it talked about more and more on this board

[Anonymous No.17535987]

>>17535968
Kind of like how a dog loves its master upon whom it depends for everything, food, housing, affection, but imagine if the dog were its own master, if you will.

[Anonymous No.17535996]

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.17536009]

>>17535996
There it is
There it is
There it is lads, time to pack up and go home my fellow crypto-buddhists

[Anonymous No.17536020]

Bump

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17536040]

>>17535978
Love it, consider it as highly as I consider tantra and the Hebrew traditions of Kabbalah. Most people just read the tao te ching and Chuang tzu and kinda treat that as the Taoist Bible, but Laozi is more comparable to plato and Taoism as a whole to Greek Philosophy as a whole in terms of how many strands and arguments and schools there are.

It’s actually very different to Buddhism and much of Hinduism philosophically and in many regards mystically, I particularly like their magical/ritual traditions. Ge Hong is the best for alchemy, The book of liezi is also lovely. One thing we should consider about them is they consider the world and being to be fundamentally a good thing and the majority of taoists seek to extend their being in the world. Think of them as Shakti worshippers and adherents in this regard. In fact some academic sources claim the dark woman of the valley in Taoism is probably a carryover of kali.

Most western folks kinda like to ignore taoism’s folk aspect, sorcery, and actual deeper metaphysics, this is because there’s a three fold division of Taoism into alchemical, religious and philosophical. Most westerners only consider the philosophical although all three intermingle and divide and have differences in how they carry themselves. Example many alchemists didn’t believe that Laozi even wrote the tao te ching.

All in all it’s a complex and strong topic, if you have specific questions I can help wherever I Can or I can recommend you books.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17536081]

Various love poems to God.

At this my heart leaps and pounds

his breath is the frost of the breeze
his sight is the sun in the south
his altar is the ancient trees
to him the Hoepoe and hippo shout

“we praise him with the praise of Mouth,
we praise him with the song of sighs
we praise him with the beak and snout “
and all shall praise him with their cries

EL ROI! to you I turn my eyes!
show me your uncreated Light!
EL SHADDAI! the mighty and Wise!
come and rend the veil of my Sight!

the world’s glory is for your fame
as earth and heaven speak your Name!

Another poem

walk with me as we walked then
when I was alone without friend
when the lonely storm would not end

walk with me as we walked then
when all of the eyes were shut
and the trail of your glory passed the men

in the night I had a dream
where I met you sitting by the stream
and we broke bread as friends break bread

in the night I had a dream
where the sky was cracked crystal
and I briefly saw your face

I fantasized your flaming face
among the cries of bird and beast
among the cries of prince and priest

I felt your flaming face
but I did not fear you
Lord you are my father

A final poem in pastiche of Jami

You are the secret fire in my broken heart
Your tender secrets and love to me impart
Whether as Aleph or omega thou art
My intoxication and the star of my chart

This world can’t keep me from you my dearest Love
Come therefore and rest in my heart like a dove
my soul aches my friend, my soul seeks to go above

to the firmament of intoxication
where dwell my lover in annihilation

come drink wine and sing with me my only true friend

[Anonymous No.17536114]

>>17536040
Interesting
>It’s actually very different to Buddhism and much of Hinduism philosophically and in many regards mystically
In what ways?
How do they see metaphysics and the afterlife?
You are a Christian right? Since taoism doesn't really have a personal god, do you think it's theologically lacking?
>I can recommend you books
Yes I'd like that please.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17536164]

>>17536114
>In what ways?

Multiplicity and manifestation being good and inherently better would be one.

Heaven understood to be a bureaucracy would be another. Also.

>no personal god

You’re wrong, friend. Which is understandable because in Asia it’s such a different animal to what you see in the west. Taiyi/Shangdi is the one God/great God in Taoism who dwells in his heavenly palace in the dipper. To some regard King pan is his emanation and from king Pan was divided all things, the air his Qi and so forth. In fact all of Taoism works on a similar unfolding manifesting process beginning with Shangdi who is identical to the Tao and technically what the tao dwells in, Ziran/ziren. This manifests as the Taiji which is co-dependent with the three pure ones who are the deified forms of the three essentials and also heaven earth and humanity. Again they’re a strict bureaucracy in the Taoist model. They’re also far more fixated on sorcery and ritualism. The hexagrams are also a universal system to explain how manifestation works through time and being but not as emanations. They’re similar to tattvas and emanations but they intermingle too much, they’re too dynamic. Again it’s incredibly shakti focused, even the pure philosophical mode is basically just fixated on the nirguna form of Shakti, whereas the ritualism and alchemy is as non-apophatic and structural and intellectual as it comes. Next post will have books

[Anonymous No.17536183]

>>17536164
If some thing is good or another thing is bad then you're not yet speaking of things from the point of view of non-duality, just saying.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17536185]

>>17536164
The following are good for Chinese alchemy and Taoism in general.

If you know Chinese or have a friend that can help translate, ABSOLUTELY read the Daozang(it’ll be difficult even with knowledge of Chinese due to the age of the text)
Obviously you want laozi, Liezi and chuang Tzu.

For alchemical purposes I would recommend “ Taoist Yoga: Alchemy and Immortality” which I know sounds horrible, but it’s just a title, it’s actually a translation of a Taoist manual designed to take you from basically ignorance to adepthood with alchemy.

Also the alchemical classic “understanding reality” is very good as an introduction.

Holding the three ones is a very old text but I know it can be found online, so I highly recommend it.

But chief among the alchemical and metaphysical literature is ge Hong’s baopuzi especially the inner chapters (which there haven’t been new translations of for years but it does exist in translation.) his traditions of divine transcendence is also a phenomenal read.

I would also recommend the divine farmer’s classic of materia medica and also the Classic of Mountains and Seas.

Finally for purely ritual purposes I would recommend two pieces of literature.

The taoist master chuang which is a scholars work who was taught, first half of the book explains lineages and how he came to such knowledge second half is a grimoire tier explanation of how they actually work their magic with seals and how to draw and everything.

Also “mao Shan, tradition of great purity” is another excellent ritual-meditative text.

For pure meditation I would recommend the secret of the golden flower and the Zuowanglun

Here’s the Baopuzi, it’s the only difficult one on this list to find with a google search. http://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=C774D46BA327AE36B18579830CDEF4B9


Also here’s a really short basic text that I think all of you lads would find agreeable.


THE CH‘IH WEN TUNG.


Cont

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17536221]

>>17536185
WHERE there is motion, that motion proceeds from immobility; where there is action, that action proceeds from inactivity. Where there is inactivity, the spirit reverts to its original; and when the spirit thus reverts, all things become still. Where there is no motion, the vital force becomes extinct; and the vital force being extinct, all things are produced, all spirits maintain each other; all objects depend upon or help each other, causing the rudiment [of all things] to revert to its primary source.

By silent contemplation this will become clear. I myself bear it constantly in mind; [the doctrine], entering uninterruptedly, does away with all distinctions between life and death, and makes me one with Heaven and Earth. When the sense of sight is forgotten, the Light becomes infinitely copious; when the sense of hearing is annihilated, the heart becomes concentrated upon the Eternal Depths. If these two organs of perception be both forgotten, the man will be able to shut himself off from the allurements of the world—pure, guileless, and complete, in perfect unison with the Universe,—vast, limitless, like a vivifying aura, subject to no distinctions of mankind. The greatness of Heaven and Earth is that with which I am linked; the multitude of created things is what I direct, or grasp. How can it be said that, to the very furthest limit whither we can penetrate, there are any faults or imperfections?

If a man cherishes the Invisible, he will be able to maintain for ever the Visible—that which has a semblance; if he cherishes the Incorporeal, the Corporeal will attain to perfection and purity; and if perfection and purity co-operate to promote each other, the result will be the acquisition of perpetuity. It is because Heaven has obtained this original purity that it lasts for ever; it is because Earth has obtained it that it is enduring; it is when Man obtains it that he achieves immortality. The reason that the vulgar are unable to attain to prolonged existence is that they lose their hold of the Invisible and suffer the Incorporeal to escape them; thus they are unable to preserve their bodily organs and nine apertures

>>17536183
Taoism doesn’t care to annihilate dualism but rather affirms and loves and supports both and sees the dualism as inherently good. Again they’re worshippers of shakti, being and manifestation. They strive for both spiritual but also bodily physical immortality. Eating of fine food, drinking of good drink, maximization of relaxation, pleasure and so forth. Again Taoism is very different. The purely philosophical and elder form would still say this is best but would shill uniting with the negative, the void, the soft, the Yin-like, as by dwelling in the Nondual void you naturally manifest perpetually in the unfolding of the tao, of self nature. Which they love. Again they don’t desire any part in removing duality, simply enjoying duality for what it is.

[Anonymous No.17536232]

>>17536164
Wow this comes as a surprise, reading some exerpts from the tao te chiing I thought it was as apophatic as it gets.
What do you mean by heaven being a bureaucracy? Just another world with societies, hierarchies and such? How did taoists justify their cosmology, what was its metaphysical backbone?
How can there be a personal god with an actual incarnation if the system is monist?

>>17536185
That's quite complete, thanks a lot

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17536235]

>>17536183
The short text I just posted is a great example. They have no intention of abandoning the world or cleaving to Brahman beyond the appearance world. They want to maximize the spin of the for as long as possible.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17536316]

>>17536232
>Wow this comes as a surprise, reading some exerpts from the tao te chiing I thought it was as apophatic as it gets.

Just as Kabbalah, Christianity and tantra has both highly apophatic mysticism and also highly detailed intellectual mystical and occult systems, so is the same with Taoism. Taoism might be the most complex and baroque though on a lineage/school by school level though.

> What do you mean by heaven being a bureaucracy? Just another world with societies, hierarchies and such? How did taoists justify their cosmology, what was its metaphysical backbone?

I mean that your spiritual interior is itself a bureaucracy and kingdom with various rulers demons and regulators and the better these rule, the longer you physically live, the more you maintain the three essentials. And just as the body is a hierarchy that operates in perfection as one unit, so also is the literal heaven which is as authoritarian and totalitarian as possible, every death is marked by the bureaucracy to the point there are rituals to fool heaven into thinking you died and having your death papers be written, then have to do a legal action to create new ones after it is found you’ve tricked them. Hahahaa. As for how this is reconciled with their dialectical monism, easily. The multiplicity is the emblem of the infinite and the natural.the I-ching hexagrams demonstrate the marriages and constant harmonies of presence and absence, (yang and yin these have many meanings) and these occur both in nature and ones self perpetually. Making them unfold perpetually is the key. Again you do not call the hierarchy of your brain over your body to be against the oneness of your bodily self.

Also Taoism derives from various local shamanic traditions and various competing philosophical and occult systems. And the incarnation of Shangdi is all that the Dao does for he is it, and vice versa. Betcha see the proximity to Christianity yeah?

Western taoists would get rather upset as for all of this, say it’s not real Taoism and would basically say only the king James tao te ching should be considered! But even that text has basis in older alchemical lore and Breath/yogic techniques and so forth. It’s not like it came out of vacuum.

And like, you can google most of this ya know.

https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shangdi

https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiyi

https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Pure_Ones

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17536343]

>>17536316
Forgot to link this one also, these are highly important in the ritual-alchemical works

https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wufang_Shangdi

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17536369]

This is actually a decent introduction

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/daoism-religion/

[Anonymous No.17536389]

please explain to me how multiplicty can come from a non-dual brahman. maya doesn't exist at this level, nor will to create, nor anything. I don't get it. if the causes are eternally here, the source is always creating but is not free and is in time. so ?

[Anonymous No.17536398]

>>17536369
http://www.sofiatopia.org/bodhi/wayfaring.htm

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17536447]

>>17536114
Oh I didn’t answer your afterlife question. In general the proper alchemical belief is that there are all together 10 souls within an individual which through their alchemical balance produce the life.

There are 3 Hun souls and this corresponds to yang and vitality and this is what passes on from life to life, and there are Seven po souls (get it, astrological stuff. Taoism is heavily astrological) these seven Po souls require the 3 hun and vital forces to survive.

When the person runs out of vital forces, the hun souls leave the body of the individual and are moved by the Tao into the hells which are again, highly structured, hierarchical and so forth. The 7 yin-like souls stay with the corpse, Rot and decay. Ghosts and so forth are primarily these yin souls and necromancy works by Giving vitality to these, as do ancestor spirits who are kept around by feeding their Po.

The Hun souls naturally make their way to a portion of hell where they must consume a broth/stew/elixir/water which causes them to forget all things. They are then moved by the tao and manifest as some other kind of life. There are thousands of ways that Taoism tries to avoid this, such as trading your essentials with a spirit to become a kind of abomination immortal, spiritual transformations, apotheosis, alchemy to just extend life and the most highest level is union with the tao/ones own nature. But there’s many ways to go about this. And in traditions of divine ascendency they’ll explain the hierarchy of types of immortality

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17536457]

>>17536389
Here’s an essay I wrote from the tantric perspective on this.

https://pastebin.com/AjzfzFTk

[Anonymous No.17536463]

>>17536447
http://www.sofiatopia.org/maat/ten_keys.htm
&
http://www.sofiatopia.org/equiaeon/emerald.htm

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17536500]

>>17536463
Oh there’s definitely links to western esoterica and religion, I’m just not mentioning them since that’s kinda distracting ya know! I have a system that has a sephirothic correspondence for them for example! In general hermeticism, Kabbalah, Christianity and Taoism all mingle very well. This is why you have folks like Stephen skinner studying Taoism to try to back-engineer more traditional parts of western ceremonial magic. Since ya know, the evocation and so forth is almost identical in procedure.

[Anonymous No.17536505]

>>17536316
How come the philosophical elements of taoism syncretized with other religions but we rarely hear of its more detailed occult system, which I assume didn't syncretize at all?
>rituals to fool heaven into thinking you died
Is this done in an esoteric sense or not even?
>>17536447
This multiplicity of souls and ways to manipulate the welfare of the different souls once the body has died reminds me of the egyptian view on death.
This is all quite complex and very interesting, I had no idea taoism was like this.

[Anonymous No.17536542]

>>17536500
what is ur position on the atman/anatman debate? what do u think of jesus? are why are u rosicrucian?

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17536550]

>>17536505
>How come the philosophical elements of taoism syncretized with other religions but we rarely hear of its more detailed occult system, which I assume didn't syncretize at all?


Oh no Taoism is even more large, it has lineages that have fused with Buddhism-Hindu stuff and lineages which kept pure their occult systems. Partially it’s because the west can’t get over the aesthetic of basic Taoist philosophy and knows that this stuff won’t sell, so no translations come about and no normies get hooked.

Also unlike a lot of other traditions, Taoism never really died, so it never had to have some massive pumping out of texts to save itself. Like I can to Chinatown and the temples there will have folks who study the Daozang(which contains the most complex magical stuff in terms of bulk)

>is done in an esoteric sense

In some cases yes in others no. Depends on the person and writer.

As for the multiplicity of souls, I mean you also see similar in Kabbalah which has around five souls with the nephesh being more or less akin to how the Po works. Same with Greek alchemy, Sufi material etc. and yeah Taoism is incredibly fascinating it’s a shame people don’t look a bit deeper into it.

[Anonymous No.17536554]

Anons I have a question. In a thread a few days ago, on the topic of reincarnation, one anon said something on the lines that reincarnation was a misunderstanding, and the 'ouroboros means only what Solomon meant'. Does anyone have any idea what that anon meant by this?

[Anonymous No.17536576]

>>17536550
>aesthetic of basic Taoist philosophy and knows that this stuff won’t sell
Why? Westerners love orientalism

>it’s a shame people don’t look a bit deeper into it.
I guess like me they get into it with the assumption that it's going to be the tao te ching from top to bottom. But they end up surprised when they realize there's an actual religion behind the apophatism

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17536612]

>>17536542
>Atman/anatman

I won’t reduce my views on the subject since they’re tied to the rest of my system so I’ll post two links to articles I’ve written. Apologies if I come off as a shill for posting them. For the first link skip to the phenomenological analysis portion. Read the second one entirely.

https://pastebin.com/5XHScK1r

>why are you a Rosicrucian

Because I am a Christian who studies and integrates hermetic, alchemical and so forth thought. My justification is that just as Justin martyr and the early church would integrate and study Platonism and other pagan fields of thought and would advance their mysticism and philosophy, so shall I. Also Martin Luther’s own son was an alchemist.

>concerning my view on Christ

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen

[Anonymous No.17536660]

>>17536612
Based but cringe

[Anonymous No.17536666]

>>17536554
>Does anyone have any idea what that anon meant by this?
No, but I agree with what he said.

[Anonymous No.17536674]

>>17536666
quads disprove reincarnation

[Anonymous No.17536679]

>>17536612
Not the guy you responded to. Your posts are informative so I wanted to know your take on >>17535305, >>17535568 if you don't mind. I saw in the archive you were knowledgeable about Buddhism, so maybe you can tell me if I'm missing something here or if my choice is legitimate.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17536695]

>>17536660
Unity of opposites innit. But yeah, my interpretation of the Bible is according to Pardes

From Wikipedia

“ "Pardes" refers to (types of) approaches to biblical exegesis in rabbinic Judaism or to interpretation of text in Torah study. The term, sometimes also rendered PaRDeS, is an acronym formed from the initials of the following four approaches:

Peshat (פְּשָׁט) – "surface" ("straight") or the literal (direct) meaning.[1]
Remez (רֶמֶז) – "hints" or the deep (allegoric: hidden or symbolic) meaning beyond just the literal sense.
Derash (דְּרַשׁ) – from Hebrew darash: "inquire" ("seek") – the comparative (midrashic) meaning, as given through similar occurrences.
Sod (סוֹד) (pronounced with a long O as in 'lore') – "secret" ("mystery") or the esoteric/mystical meaning, as given through inspiration or revelation.
Each type of Pardes interpretation examines the extended meaning of a text. As a general rule, the extended meaning never contradicts the base meaning.[2] The Peshat means the plain or contextual meaning of the text. Remez is the allegorical meaning. Derash includes the metaphorical meaning, and Sod represents the hidden meaning. There is often considerable overlap, for example when legal understandings of a verse are influenced by mystical interpretations or when a "hint" is determined by comparing a word with other instances of the same word.”

So I fully believe the plain meaning of the Bible as absolute truth as do I believe the esoteric mysteries of it and what I’ve gained through study, interpretation, contemplation and so forth.

It is common Christian doctrine that all humans have the imprint of divinity, the very image of God within them which is to say Reason. I believe all humans by contemplating, turning their reason towards their interior or towards the outside world, they will be able to look through and see the image of god reflected dimly as if upon a mirror. And thus gain knowledge and wisdom. I believe God himself is knowledge as the Bible says. I do not reject any part of God so I do not reject any part of knowledge.

[Anonymous No.17536749]

>>17535440
.gg/G9tDBzsxby

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17536818]

>>17536679

>I'm not a complete newcomer when it comes to Buddhism, I've tried to put things into practice before but in the end it just feels like convincing myself of something,

There’s nothing wrong with trying to convince yourself of something. Your complaint is you feel it is inauthentic, so contemplate why do you care about the authentic. It implies you believe there is a essential you that has to be a certain way. Contemplate this and see if you accept this fully or not


>adding something unnecessary to the "purity" of my simple experience of existence.


Purity and impurity exist in the perception and in accordance with systems/structures of laws. As such there is nothing inherently pure or impure, the complexity or lack thereof is neither good nor bad. Zen is for you if you want minimalism.


>Most religions have principles that, once "felt", reaffirm your faith. But these principles are all ultimately relative.

I mean, Gnosis, experience of the highest kinds of samadhi, visions of Gods and spirits and so forth that seem to have tangible results, these things aren’t very relative. But since you’re on a relativity kick why don’t we stop pussyfooting and go even further. Curse your current view of reality and adapt the strongest model of skepticism possible. Outlines of skepticism/pyrrhonian skepticism would help here (and its rooted in Buddhism skepticism but doesn’t become Buddhist)

Shatter even the most basic conceptions, you say everything is relative, see what isn’t relative, shatter everything, find what is ultimate and what doesn’t shatter when you apply harshest skepticism. Trust the dagger of reason if that is the tool you choose, if not, faith is the superior tool.


>Anicca, dukkha and anatta are easily applicable to daily life, but that does not make them true.

So stop being weak about it, muster the greatest arguments you can FOR them, and then muster the strongest counter arguments that negate and destroy these ideas. Keep doing this until all mental exhaustion has occurred and you cannot love the logic line down any further.


>Things just are. This is all I can tell.

That’s all well and good and a good first step for a more zen like style towards being Qua being/nature as it is.

>When I was younger, I simply had a powerful intuition that the nature of reality was a wonderful mystery, and I felt no need to investigate further or to grasp the incomprehensible, because to know the beauty of the world was enough.

Cont

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17536830]

>>17536818
If that is your belief and faith so be it, but the aesthetic and the beautiful are beautiful and wondrous for a reason. Deep down you felt the numinous mystery of it and longed to go deeper, why else would you study anything?


>I got into philosophy and religion later, which kind of sullied this very pure impression and made me disregard it and put it aside because it wasn't intellectual enough and didn't bring me to any realizations.

Again just dwelling in purity is literally fine if that’s your choice. As is the opposite.


>But the more I think about it, the more I get the impression that might've been a mistake. The reason why no philosophy or religion I've learned about has managed to draw me in is because it never came close to this kind of purity, so it might've been an exercise in futility.

Again, purity, if your mind can conceive of pure and impure, if that mode you was in still had conceptions of impurity, how can you call it pure? All is pure to the pure one.


>To put it more simply, there is no need to assert anything. The truth of reality is impossible to grasp, so we should just live.

Again that’s fine, go in accordance with your will and mental force.

>what does that mean to you?
>Buddhism has a very well articulated philosophy and metaphysics, but in the end, its core principles are relative intepretations of the ineffable. From the four noble truths and three marks of existence,

Why don’t you study the skepticism systems or phenomenology systems if you haven’t? The actual core logic isn’t so easy to just dismiss.
>Buddhism has a comprehensive system that aims to eliminate suffering, but that requires complete detachment from the world itself:

Not university, dzogchen and zen dont really desire this and both argue to just dwell in the pure simplicity of mind. See the record of Linji and the treasury of precious phenomena by Longchenpa, youll likely be impressed how they both strive for the purity you’re talking about, but go even further in purity. Also the teachings of master Bankai are 100% about how you have to just sit in the purity of the mind and world as it is.


>all that is sensual, all that is mental, all that is emotional is considered a fetter, to be destroyed and done away with.

Not in all forms of Buddhism and certainly not in all world religions.


>When I say it's life-denying, I don't mean it as an insult, I just have no other way of qualifying it.

Some forms of Buddhism are definitely life denying but they’re the only school and there’s many systems of religion in this world with complex philosophies, you don’t HAVE to be a Buddhist.

[Anonymous No.17536869]

>>17535587

[Anonymous No.17536888]

Buddhism is gay

[Anonymous No.17536905]

>>17536612
do u know Jean Borella? U might like his writings

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17536922]

>>17536905
I know of him, thanks for the recommendation anyways! I personally prefer going to primary texts than folks like the perennialists.

[Anonymous No.17536981]

>>17536818
>There’s nothing wrong with trying to convince yourself of something
Isn't it like putting a filter over the truth, in a way?
If you need to convince yourself, you're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, this is my feeling. What is true is intuitive, what is intuitive is authentic: I don't know if there is an essential me, I can't be anything else than me, but I get the feeling that authenticity leads to truth. To use a Buddhist metaphor, inauthenticity leaves smudges on the mirror, leaning on pure intuition makes it stay clean.
>there is nothing inherently pure or impure,
Does the world care about the systems we make to describe it? However insightful we think we're being, the world is the world.
I like some things about Zen, but it's still Buddhism, is it not? It comes with the usual Buddhist beliefs — rebirths and dukkha and whatnot. You're right, I'm looking for absolute minimalism.
>these things aren’t very relative.
Well, does a Hindu's Moksha lead to the same realization as a Buddhist's Nirvana or a Christian's henosis? How can you be certain these experiences aren't simply part of your own inner landscape, that you aren't navigating your own beliefs and idiosyncrasies?
>Curse your current view of reality and adapt the strongest model of skepticism possible.
Yes, that's what I'm going to do, I'll brush up on skepticism. I've only done it on a surface level for now and come to the usual, basic conclusion that I can only observe my own stream of awareness, but that's not enough, is it?
>muster the greatest arguments you can FOR them
I don't understand why this step is necessary. I get the Buddhist arguments for these concepts, but they are ultimately seen as axiomatic and things to observe, not figure out through reason.
>beautiful and wondrous for a reason
I had assumed that reason was absolutely inaccessible and would remain so for the remainder of my existence.
>Deep down you felt the numinous mystery of it and longed to go deeper
True, but as I said above, what I found was a set of filters created by human reason, so ultimately unsatisfying.
>All is pure to the pure one.
If I take a step back, I can understand that these man-made systems are inherently also a part of this pure "suchness", that's true. But I can't perceive that same suchness if I try to do so within the framework provided by one of these systems.
> go in accordance with your will and mental force.
There's nothing wrong with that then, nothing you think I'm missing?
>Why don’t you study the skepticism systems
Yes that's what I'm going to do. What do you have in mind when you say "phenomenology systems"?
I'm wary of logic because it leads to axiomatic claims, though I'm aware it can't just be done away with.
>dzogchen and zen
Are they not still subject to the biases of Buddhist metaphysics?
>not in all world religions
Do you have non-Buddhist examples in mind?

[Anonymous No.17537025]

>>17536922
what is ur stance onextra Ecclesiam nulla salus
? and what do u think of catholic church?

I've been hesitating for several years now between Catholicism and advaita vedanta/Buddhism. if you have any advice, I'll take it. I'm sympathetic to the perennialist theses that say Jesus is the gnosis of mystics outside the church, but that doesn't fit very well with Catholicism, and I find that there are a lot of problems with that position.

btw, do you believe in hell?

ps : http://salve-regina.com/index.php?title=Pr%C3%A9mystique_naturelle_et_mystique_surnaturelle

[Anonymous No.17537076]

>>17536612
>I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God,
so for you jesus is not an avatar/ /awakened saint among others? do you know henri the saint?

what do you think of the thesis that brings the resurrection of christ closer to the vajrayanin rainbow body?

[Anonymous No.17537086]

>>17537076
>avatar/ /awakened saint among others
/jivanmukti/

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17537166]

>Isn't it like putting a filter over the truth, in a way?

Not really, no.

>If you need to convince yourself, you're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, this is my feeling.

This presupposes your emotions and feelings and intuition are somehow automatically good or true. You’re fine to believe this but your earlier objection was relativity of things. I can bring you men of all religions and lack thereof, of all philosophies, and they will proclaim and be shown that they find their beliefs Intuitive and what they feel. If you want to believe in that, so be it but it has flaws once we leave the subjective level.

>What is true is intuitive, what is intuitive is authentic:

You can convince and brainwash people through even just media to have other intuitions, feelings and so forth, see a falsehood as authentic. See baudrillard. Or any kind of brainwashing or case of someone’s beliefs being wrong. Or look to me, my intuitive feeling says that passion, desire and feeling should be a slave to Reason. How can we possibly reconcile this ? We cannot on a feeling level.

>I don't know if there is an essential me, I can't be anything else than me,

Define Me and I for yourself if you care to, if not, do not.

>but I get the feeling that authenticity leads to truth.

Who told you your job is to seek after truth? Why do you assume truth is good in itself? If you desire to dwell within feelings you just remain in clarity but also darkness, you cannot reason these things, if you do reason these things you will find these positions grinded away and reformulated.

>To use a Buddhist metaphor, inauthenticity leaves smudges on the mirror, leaning on pure intuition makes it stay clean.

What is inauthentic when there is no essential self? What is authentic when all things are pure and simply as They ought to be? What is the filth on the mirror?

> Does the world care about the systems we make to describe it?

According to some models yes, if you choose to believe it, those models will force the spiritus and forces of the world natural and otherwise to abide with your Will.


>However insightful we think we're being, the world is the world.


Cont

[Anonymous No.17537168]

Advita fag here

what Buddhists texts should I read to convince me away from Advita Vedanta?
already read In the Buddha's words I didn't find anything too profound

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17537177]

>>17537166
Trying to be insightful is wrong, seeing clearly should be the goal anon.

>I like some things about Zen, but it's still Buddhism, is it not? It comes with the usual Buddhist beliefs — rebirths and dukkha and whatnot. You're right, I'm looking for absolute minimalism

Depends on the form of zen and some forms of zen would argue all that is conceptual and thus a construct/skillful means/a enlightened lie.

> Well, does a Hindu's Moksha lead to the same realization as a Buddhist's Nirvana or a Christian's henosis? How can you be certain these experiences aren't simply part of your own inner landscape, that you aren't navigating your own beliefs and idiosyncrasies?

Since we have records of people who have spent years doing all of these, I myself have spent years with all of these. The methods and experiences differ but are related. And again, you can induce these in others, you can apply a methodology to repeat experiences in others which is what monasteries do daily. You can hold skepticism and reason while experiencing mystical states, I can keep my right reason and skepticism though I see before me the wrathful form of
Rudra or dakinis flaying flesh. So can you.

> Yes, that's what I'm going to do, I'll brush up on skepticism. I've only done it on a surface level for now and come to the usual, basic conclusion that I can only observe my own stream of awareness, but that's not enough, is it?

Certainly not. Read this.

> I don't understand why this step is necessary. I get the Buddhist arguments for these concepts, but they are ultimately seen as axiomatic and things to observe, not figure out through reason.

How can you claim you’ve used all of your might considering something unless you’ve in your own words have explained and argued to yourself the logic and reasoning in positive about it and also the negative? There is nothing to fear about this, only self examination can occur through this.

>assumed it inaccessible

If it is inaccessible than it is not something you live in. Knowledge and truth are one, you believe your intuition is truth and knowledge. And there is no division between the Real and the truthful. Either this world reveals itself to they who look with pure Eyes or it is a question of something beyond this world.

>Yes that's what I'm going to do. What do you have in mind when you say "phenomenology systems"?

Stuff like the Abhidharma systems.

> Do you have non-Buddhist examples in mind?

Thomism, Christian mystical models, Vedanta, Taoism, tantra, thelema, hermeticism, Neoplatonism and many many many others.
Anon do not take my tone as one against you, simply harshness in order to push the contemplation.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17537233]

>>17537025
I Fully believe that salvation is found only in the Invisible church which is the mystical body of Christ. I fully believe in hell and heaven in both literal and esoteric aspects akin to boehme’s conception. (Hell being both a literal place of separation but formed of the desire/hunger of Godhead being denied, consuming itself producing a darkness.)

I consider myself a Protestant, I do not believe Christ is simply the gnosis of the mystics, he is gnosis yes but he is much more and above all else he is person.
>>17537076
Nope sorry, I believe Christ is the Logos taken flesh and that the rainbow body is more akin to the western practice of construction of the body of light, not the actual literal resurrection.


My recommendation is to Pray, study, treat religion as something real, living, breathing, contemplate and within your practice ask God to unveil your eyes and reveal the truth.

[Anonymous No.17537241]

This again. Listen I'm here to discuss books

[Anonymous No.17537250]

>>17537233
>Invisible church
is this supported by scripture?

[Anonymous No.17537267]

>>17535977
>धन्यवाद मित्रों
>तुम अखंड चुटिया हो
lmfaoooooo

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17537311]

>>17537250
Matthew 7:21-23
New King James Version
I Never Knew You

21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

Matthew 13:24-30
New King James Version
The Parable of the Wheat and the Tares

24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. 26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.” ’ ”


Outside of the body of Christ, there is no salvation.

Acts 4:11-12
New International Version
11 Jesus is

“‘the stone you builders rejected,
which has become the cornerstone.’[a](A)
12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.

[Anonymous No.17537455]

>>17537166
>Not really, no.
I guess I'm just obsessed with minimalism and the rejection of attempts to describe the world. This leads to me being suspicious of systems.
>emotions and feelings and intuition are somehow automatically good or true
In a sense they're truer than external and rationalized thoughts because there is a rawness to pure intuition that eludes attempts at characterization. Another reason why I'm skeptical of logical systems. Who says the world is logical?
>your earlier objection was relativity of things.
I can see a way to reconcile this, because feeling and intuition are personal and impossible to communicate. But I guess I'm being self-contradictory. I stand by what I said regarding relativity and the absolute impossibility of pegging down the nature of the world. The world can't be known, it is how it is, and we can only gather impressions/intuitions from it, or try to rationalize it. I should conclude that both ways are flawed and can't grasp the true nature of things.
>How can we possibly reconcile this ? We cannot on a feeling level.
You're right. I don't know how to answer this other than by saying our respective takes both fall short of any true perception of the world as it is. Reason because it is man-made and not necessarily the set of rules by which existence operates, feeling because it is purely subjective.
Both methods filter the world through themselves.
So what should we do?
>Define Me and I
On a practical level I identify with my stream of awareness, even though Buddhists would say it is not my self. This stream continues on.
Although I'm troubled by the question of the ego and its eventual obliteration/sublimation, I'm not sure what to make of that.
>Why do you assume truth is good in itself?
Because seeing truth is seeing the world as it is, in pure clarity.
Is it bad to dwell within feelings, is there nothing to be gained there at all?
>What is the filth on the mirror?
All things are pure and all things are as they are, so the smudges belong to the mirror, yeah. I just used that simile to express the importance of minimalism in the experience of the world. It's not that the "smudges" are bad, but if you can just be in the world as it is, why bother yourself with other things?
>According to some models yes
Is that the world itself really caring about your model, or the model reinterpreting the world in such a way that your perception leads to specific realizations? Maybe it's the same thing.
>Trying to be insightful is wrong, seeing clearly should be the goal
Not sure I get the difference.
>some forms of zen would argue all that is conceptual
Which ones? I'm not aware of Zen schools that really do away with all of the Buddhist baggage in the end.
The more we talk the more I realize I'm indeed completely obsessed with absolute minimalism and apophatic extremism. But I think that's good.

Cont.

[Anonymous No.17537460]

>>17537166
>>17537455
>The methods and experiences differ but are related.
Is there a transcendent "thread" that weaves all of these experiences together? I'm not so hot on perennialism so I'm wary of saying things like "all mystical experiences lead to the same place", especially since the individuals who have such experiences are usually not so keen to abandon their systems once they've had them (which seems counter-intuitive to me, as per the raft analogy).
> I can keep my right reason and skepticism
Is that telling yourself that these are human constructs, illusions filtered through my own biases, but that reflect the truth of the world too?
>Certainly not
The next step being the death of the egoic self?
Why is it necessary?
>There is nothing to fear about this, only self examination can occur through this.
True. Well, these concepts initially made sense to me in the first place, it was just upon realizing I was straying from my "just be" minimalism that I wanted to reject them.
>If it is inaccessible than it is not something you live in.
I meant inaccessible to reason, thought, or even intuition. Impossible to cognize or understand, but yet experienced, because at the end of the day, you are experiencing existence at every moment.
>Either this world reveals itself to they who look with pure Eyes or it is a question of something beyond this world.
I'm not sure, the possibilities are endless. Our current state of existence confines us, and death could beget other states currently unimaginable.
This could be a simple dream from which we awaken into a state that we couldn't possibly conceive of right now. This existence could be likened to a grain of sand among billions of other possibilities, in terms of its specificity and even at the most fundamental ontological level. Who knows what things really are? Even concepts like "to exist" or "to not exist" might lose their meaning at that point. Hence my tendency towards skepticism (excuse the schizobabble, these ideas are tricky to put into words).
>Abhidharma
Aren't Abhidharma commentaries atomist interpretations of Buddhist ideas, heavily systematized and axiomatic (and argued against by Nagarjuna)?
>Thomism [...]
You're right, they're not life-denying. Are any of those purely minimalistic, though?
>do not take my tone as one against you
Of course. I greatly appreciate your help.

[Anonymous No.17537476]

>>17535938

love and devotion hold little interest for me, i try to understand god on a purely intellectual level

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17537583]

>>17537455
>I guess I'm just obsessed with minimalism and the rejection of attempts to describe the world. This leads to me being suspicious of systems.

Eh that’s fine, we must all work according to what we believe is right.

> In a sense they're truer than external and rationalized thoughts because there is a rawness to pure intuition that eludes attempts at characterization. Another reason why I'm skeptical of logical systems. Who says the world is logical?

Who says Intuition processes it better and that logic doesn’t take the base matter of intuition and slowly refines it? I won’t be pedantic but the arguments you’re using by their nature (as I’m sure you know) are really easy to apply right back in your positive statements. But this is why we’ve agreed studying harsher skepticism would be worthwhile.

> I should conclude that both ways are flawed and can't grasp the true nature of things.

If that is the case, should we not use both methods and harmonize them to give us the greatest view?

> Reason because it is man-made and not necessarily the set of rules by which existence operates, feeling because it is purely subjective.

Intuition and reason both derive from man, as does perception. There is nothing you have ever experienced which is not stained by your consciousness and your being.

> Because seeing truth is seeing the world as it is, in pure clarity.

You’re saying this is good because you accept truth/clarity as an axiomatic good. In your purely subjective world this isn’t inherently needed and you know the difficulty with reason here.

>Is it bad to dwell within feelings, is there nothing to be gained there at all?


Depends on what you desire and who you are, right?

> bad, but if you can just be in the world as it is, why bother yourself with other things?

Why not? Who said struggle, suffering, Will, conquering, intellectualization, the ornate and the artifice and artificial are not good and not natural to who you are and the natural way of the world? I won’t tell you what to do, simply not to accept things so plainly.

> Which ones? I'm not aware of Zen schools that really do away with all of the Buddhist baggage in the end.
The more we talk the more I realize I'm indeed completely obsessed with absolute minimalism and apophatic extremism. But I think that's good.

Eh you haven’t given a reason why it is ultimately Good and again, the more antinomian Vajrayana stuff and aspects of Rinzai and Soto zen can definitely become antinomian.

Cont

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17537638]

>>17537460
>Is there a transcendent "thread" that weaves all of these experiences together? I'm not so hot on perennialism so I'm wary of saying things like "all mystical experiences lead to the same place", especially since the individuals who have such experiences are usually not so keen to abandon their systems once they've had them

The harmony among them is they all relate to consciousness and to ego and its relations and lack thereof. Phenomenal experience is the harmony.

> The next step being the death of the egoic self?
>Why is it necessary?

Who said Ego death? I’ve never argued for this idea and most schools globally do not. Rather I argue that you use the dagger until you can see clearly whatever that may be. Use the dagger, sharpen the dagger.

> I meant inaccessible to reason, thought, or even intuition. Impossible to cognize or understand, but yet experienced, because at the end of the day, you are experiencing existence at every moment.

I am I, I am my ego, I am my conscious, just as much as I am not these, I am also these, as am I my feelings and reason, just as much as I am not. If my ego, my reason, my experience cannot access reality, no part of me can. There is no hard division in any part of myself, I am I. Whether i am nothing. All things, God is I or any other formulation. This I is one I and all that dwells in it is One.

If I experience it, it is rational to my perception.

> knows what things really are? Even concepts like "to exist" or "to not exist" might lose their meaning at that point. Hence my tendency towards skepticism (excuse the schizobabble, these ideas are tricky to put into words).


So lean into it and sharpen your skepticism to the harshest degree.

> Aren't Abhidharma commentaries atomist interpretations of Buddhist ideas, heavily systematized and axiomatic

Still fascinating to study and very logical, very reasonable.

> You're right, they're not life-denying. Are any of those purely minimalistic, though?

Tao te ching and chuang tzu focused Taoism would do it pretty easily.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17537641]

>>17537476
Fair enough, I see Cold contemplation as loving devotion. As I contemplate Godhead my heart Burns for the beloved even as I contemplate in the coldest way possible.

[Anonymous No.17537733]

>>17535440
He started from a false premise. He could've become the original Marx but instead of realizing that the rich like him lived lashisly at the expense of the poor and that the poor had the strength to remedy that, he taught that the poor should just see life itself as suffering. He could not see past the Indian Dharma and caste. Pretty tragic. And another good reminder that Marx was right that liberal democracy and secular thought should come before socialism, you can't take shortcuts.

[Anonymous No.17537760]

>>17537583
>we must all work according to what we believe is right.
Do you personally think it is necessary for people to adopt a religious/philosophical system (in the broad sense) in order to advance spiritually, or do you think people going their own way are just as legitimate?
>Who says Intuition processes it better
I'm not saying the world is pure intuition, just saying it might not be logical. So both logic and reason fail, as do all abstractions and other products of the mind.
>should we not use both methods and harmonize them
Maybe so. But at some point logic will hit a wall of ineffable "suchness" whereas intuition might be able to go farther. I think this is a point argued by Buddhist philosophers.
>There is nothing you have ever experienced which is not stained by your consciousness and your being.
Sure, but wouldn't you say you're "staining" things more by analyzing them than by just taking them in? Again, conceptual proliferation and all.
>you accept truth/clarity as an axiomatic good.
Should there even be an axiomatic good?
If we say truth is not something to be chased, is it to be replaced with anything? If not, what is left, just experience for experience's sake? It's an interesting question, since I've always assumed that at the end of the path lies truth and that it was the noblest pursuit, unquestionably. Now I realize that's an illusion in itself.
>Depends on what you desire and who you are, right?
Right. If I don't desire truth, it may not be so bad to dwell in feelings. But then you get into problems of subjectivity, escapism, or even solipsism.
>Why not
It's a matter of perspective: should we go with the flow of existence, or react to it? I don't know the answer to this question. I don't know if there is an answer.
What does it mean to be natural to who you are?
>you haven’t given a reason why it is ultimately Good
Minimalism because it avoids conceptual proliferation and getting tied up in ideas, it only leaves the purity of being. Apophatism because as I said, I'm convinced the world's nature is simply not qualifiable. Even saying things like "existence is nondual" sounds unnecessary. Ideally, I would reject the very terms of existence and nonduality (or anything else, they're just examples) and let the world be without conceptualizing it at all because it defies conceptualization. Hence, apophatism.
>Phenomenal experience is the harmony
So all of these mystical experiences, in the end they're all about showing you the nature of phenomenal experience?
>Who said Ego death?
Nobody, I just assumed that was it because it's often talked about. Do you believe the ego survives to the next step of existence?
>use the dagger until you can see clearly
In my case, skepticism piercing through everything then.
> lean into it
I already try to dwell in this impression. Contemplating it gives me a strong impression of detachment from all forms of analysis or thought, like a breath of fresh air from the pitfalls of conceptualization.