Christianity and Eastern Philosophy

[Anonymous No.20101088]

Why does Christianity still ignore the reasonings of Eastern philosophy? The question or whether or not “Jesus was a guru” is relatively irrelevant to me; I’m talking about why Christianity doesn’t seek more to learn from Eastern philosophy as it historically has from Greek philosophy. As Benedict XVI pointed out, Christianity must be understood as an inherently Hellenized religion, but the reason Christianity embraced Hellenic thought was not because it was Hellenic but because it followed the path of reason, which cannot be seen to contradict faith. Of course places like India are geographically removed from the birthplace of Christianity but I don’t understand how dismissing Eastern thought while working with Greek thought can be thought of as anything other than ethnic discrimination?

[Anonymous No.20101094]

>>20101088
Because Abrahamic religion is a self-terminating brain parasite, as is evidenced by the past 2500 years of human history.

[Anonymous No.20101148]

>>20101088
Furthermore, Christian theology was explicitly influenced by Neoplatonism, which is clearly very similar to many Eastern philosophies. I can understand why historically Eastern thought has been ignored but that’s because the West largely didn’t know anything about Eastern thought until relatively recently in Christian history (last few hundred years). I’m not saying there’s been no cross-cultural dialogue at all or no influence at all but if you look at it it’s hardly visible at all. Most modern Christians would quickly dismiss any discussion of Eastern thought but to me that’s severely betraying the Christian intellectual tradition’s basic tenets and practice. It has always sought to make use of whatever knowledge it had access to to understand its own inner truths and revise them according to the findings of reason and science. The Church has of course always fought back against these tenets but what has driven the faith forward has been figures like Augustine, Aquinas, etc. who drew from foreign sources. But not even that, from the very beginnings, saints like Justin Martyr in his First Apology openly acknowledged the legitimacy of Greek ideas and even went so far as to seemingly call historic Greeks like Heraclitus, Socrates, etc. Christians!

Furthermore, Eastern thought as it is seems to have many more parallels with Christian thought than Greek thought did in the first place. Beyond all that has been said, the only final answer I can think of is that Christianity and Christian theologians have for such a long time accepted Greek influence as a norm that they forget the reality that in the beginning, Greeks were the strange foreigners to the Jewish culture out of which Jesus and the early Christians sprung and which Jesus and the apostles directed them to embrace.

[Anonymous No.20101178]

>>20101094
I think that there’s a lot of nuance and intellectual richness in the tradition spawned by Abrahamic religion but sadly it’s mostly hidden (even though literal Doctors of the Church and Popes and Saints have said crazy things which Christians have never heard about) and seldom discussed. The embrace of the last few popes of writers like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin to me demonstrates that 1) Catholicism is currently and has been for a bit been undergoing a reformation of its own and 2) the potential for this has always been a part of it, and this has been demonstrated by Christian thinkers throughout its history that have even been venerated as Doctors of the Church though go unread by the vast majority of Christians

[Anonymous No.20101219]

>>20101088
If you would like to see some examples of recent Christian writers who try to seriously grapple intellectually with Eastern ideas from a Christian perspective, check out “Theology After Vedanta” by Francis Clooney S.J. or the recently published “You are Gods” by David Bentley Hart

[Anonymous No.20101220]

some things to look up,

Thomas Merton
Barlaam and Josaphat
the Catholic churches established by St. Thomas

[Anonymous No.20101235]

Read esoterically, Jesus was basically preaching buddhism.

t. Eckhart Tolle

[Anonymous No.20101267]

>>20101219
>>20101220
>>20101235
I’ll look into all of these thanks! My only reservations are with certain thinkers who take a more Perennial approach, not because I disagree with them at all but because my current game plan is to find authors who identify strongly with Catholicism who recognize Eastern and Perennial thought if that makes sense. Like trying to capture Christianity from within rather than to read Perennial knowledge into Christianity from without (as I’ve done in the past, which is by no means an illegitimate practice but just one which doesn’t hit as hard to more ordinary, orthodox Christians)

[Anonymous No.20101280]

>>20101267
This is also why I’ve enjoyed looking into some thoughts of recent popes on historically controversial figures like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin; I had no idea that they did endorse him in the first place but it’s given me glimmers of hope in finding more and more explicit statements within Christian theology which can by no logical approach whatsoever be taken to be contrary to the insights of Eastern thinkers.

[Anonymous No.20101345]

Check this book anon
http://www.occult-mysteries.org/saheti/chrishna-jeseus-index.html
>The True Gospel of Chrishna-Jeseus
>This rare occult biography of the life and teachings of the Holy Hindu Saviour, Krishna, reveals the secret teachings of Jesus with glittering power and great beauty. The author has taken the many incidents from the life of Krishna that were later incorporated in the New Testament and developed these episodes to explain and elucidate the hidden laws and principles of man and the universe.

From the book 'Key to Theosophy'
>Krishna (Sans.) The most celebrated Avatar of Vishnu, the "Saviour" of the Hindus and the most popular god. He is the eighth Avatar, the son of Devaki, and the nephew of Kansa, the Indian Herod, who while seeking for him among the shepherds and cowherds who concealed him slew thousands of their newly-born babes. The story of Krishna's conception, birth and childhood are the exact prototype of the New Testament story.

[Anonymous No.20101666]

>>20101088
Christianity IS the ignorance of the reasonings of Eastern Philosophy.
Christ is Agni and Dyaus is the Father and Caesar corresponds with Indra.
From a Vedic Reader by Dr Macdonell
He is the child of Heaven (Dyáus), and is often called the son of Heaven and Earth (i. 160). He is also the offspring of the waters. The gods generated him as a light for the Aryan or for man, and placed him among men. Indra is called Agni's twin brother, and is more closely associated with him than any other god.

The mythology of Agni, apart from his SACRIFICIAL activity, is mainly concerned with his various BIRTHS, forms, and abodes...
the Indian Prometheus; and the acquisition of fire by man is regarded as a gift of the gods as well as a production of Matarisvan. The Sun (vii. 63) is further regarded as a form of Agni. Thus Agni is the LIGHT OF HEAVEN in the bright sky; he was born on the other side of the air and sees all things; he is born as the sun RISING in the morning. Hence Agni comes to have a triple character. His births are three or threefold; the gods made him threefold; he is threefold light; he has three heads, three bodies, three stations. This threefold nature of Agni is clearly recognized in the RV., and represents the earliest Indian TRINITY.

The universe being also regarded as divided into the two divisions of heaven and earth, Agni is sometimes said to have TWO ORIGINS, and indeed exclusively bears the epithet dvi-jánman having TWO BIRTHS. As being kindled in numerous dwellings Agni is also said to have many births.

Agni is more closely associated with human life than any other deity. He is the only god called grhá-pati lord of the house, and is constantly spoken of as a guest in human dwellings. He is an immortal who has taken up his abode among mortals. Thus be comes to be termed the nearest kinsman of men. He is oftenest described as a father, sometimes also as a brother or even as a son of his worshippers. He both takes the offerings of men to the gods and brings the gods to the sacrifice. He is thus characteristically a messenger (dutá) appointed by gods and by men to be an 'oblation-bearer'.

As the centre of the sacrifice he comes to be celebrated as the divine counterpart of the earthly priesthood. Hence he is often called priest (rtvíj, vípra) domestic priest (puróhita), and more often than by any other name invoking priest (hótr), also officiating priest (adhvaryú) and playing priest (brahmán). His priesthood is the most salient feature of his character; he is in fact the great priest

[Anonymous No.20101685]

>>20101178
I think you're an affeminately conceding faggot, nuance bro. I think you know there are smart people there but are refusing to see that the text nullifies them and castrates them like little bullocks so they can only legallly speak bollocks.

[Anonymous No.20101698]

>>20101685
Nah like Aquinas and Augustine and shi and what can be extracted from Aristotle and Plato and the rest of the Greeks, other Christian mystics, Teilhard de Chardin, etc. there’s definitely substance there but it’s a tradition I know is difficult to work with but I guess it’s part of my own personal project to try to bolster the legitimacy of the Christian tradition among others. It has its own uniqueness too that it has to offer but yeaa just takes work

[Anonymous No.20101723]

>>20101698
What value does an Aquinas book add that the source material Aristotle book does not have?

[Anonymous No.20101727]

>>20101088
...I dont really see the conflict here. Christianity by and large, grew up in the west thus its intellectual tradition is largely informed BY the west and its peculiar line of consequence and conceptions. Most of the questions posed by the easterns either were also proposed in the west, or were predicated on concepts peculiar to the indivigual eastern conceptions so where not as much of a concern. Its the same reason why augustine is not as much talked about in Hinduism or Berkely in Buddhism. Not that they are not relevant to their topics, but because they are mostly outside the lineage of intellectual discourse.

I feel that your concern can literally be applied to ANY gestalt intellectual "tradition".

Also, on the side, if you do want to see some historical dialogue, there is this whole movement you may have heard of called "orientalism". Quite a few orientalists being clergymen themselves and discussed different aspects of eastern thought as it may pretain to chritianity in specific.
>>20101178
>responding to a flippant post of no value or worth

[Anonymous No.20101731]

>>20101723
I would like to mention that an Aristotle book has the value that the Aquinas book does not have.
What value is that?
The absence of kikes and the Nicomachean based super intelligence to keep them disgusted at your lack of delicious sin. This is why Aquinas had to dodge lasers to beg and plead to reintroduce Aristotle to the Greekless European Golems in the first place. So the absence of Aquinas is the GOOD.

[Anonymous No.20101759]

>>20101731
>This is why Aquinas had to dodge lasers to beg and plead to reintroduce Aristotle to the Greekless European Golems in the first place. So the absence of Aquinas is the GOOD.
...........you are aware that Aquinas was at the end of a long line of aristotilians in the form of the scholasticists, correct? he didnt reintroduce Aristotle, he consolidated extining Aristotelianism (something that the romans and post Aristotle greeks did as well without much advancement in the least). where did you get the idea that Aquinas reintroduced Aristotle? Literally read some Ratramnus (800s) and hes literally writting Aristotelian dissertations on the nature of the soul.
>>20101723
Probably the same as the various gurus after the similar golden age of Indian philosophy past 200 BC. He consolidated Aristotelian logic into a cohesive standard.

[Anonymous No.20101766]

>>20101759
>where did you get the idea that Aquinas reintroduced Aristotle
let me amend this, Aristotilianism as a logical basis was the standard in logic in the medieval times, however, new direct translations of Aristotile himself rather than just his methodologies and styles where introduced again in later medieval period.

[Anonymous No.20101821]

>>20101088
>>20101148
brilliant post OP
I've been thinking along the same lines, and you've put it into words perfectly.
I might steal this and expand upon it.

[Anonymous No.20101867]

>>20101088
Greek philosophy of the kind that Christianity eventually adopted (and not without friction) is friendlier to the doctrine of creation and the intrinsic goodness of creation than Eastern metaphysics tends to be. Platonic participation metaphysics and Aristotelian empiricism ground the reality and goodness of the 'middle world' between being and nonbeing better than, say, advaita hinduism (which effectively collapses all reality into God) or Buddhism (which must ultimately treat creation as 'empty'). This affirmation of creation is really important to Christianity, obviously, since the Christian endgame is the Incarnation, the ultimate affirmation of the compatibility and harmony between God and creation. It's still useful to know a bit of Eastern philosophy just to know where Christianity stands in the space of ideas.

[Anonymous No.20101870]

>>20101088
India isnt a race or ethnicity. Besides, a lot of early Indian stuff is literally aryan. In fact a lot of actual racists loved the Vedas.
>>20101821
I thought I made a pretty thorough rebuttle here >>20101727
Not to mention many of the core tennants of many branches literally were edified in things like the coucil of Nicea, as well as other strictures of metaphysics. religion ends not to be a plaything that just up and changes core concetes when different traditions come to light.

[Anonymous No.20101884]

"Eastern philosophy" has no use for Christianity, nor did the "Western philosophy" before it. It is Christianity, which owing to the immense intellectual poverty involved in its claims, was fashioned by its more thoughtful apologists into a successor to the Neoplatonic theology of the Roman elites. Without this, it was just shrieking about how everyone who disagreed with your magic undead priest was an evil demon, because of some tall tales. I suppose that since "Eastern philosophy" has gotten trendy over the last 200 years while Christianity has continued its clumsy descent back to its base origins, there are bound to be some christers who wish to baptize their favorite Hindu, Buddhist, or Taoist thinkers. But this an entirely dishonest enterprise and would be at odds with the covenant theology at the heart of Christianity, which always shines through the trappings of embarassed thinkers who go out of fashion eventually. The pursuit of wisdom or of philosophy is irrelevant to the covenant, which is why the early christers scorned it and practiced pure fideism. You either follow the contract or you don't. Later, copes were invented by apologists: "actually this is just platonism but better," and today we are asked for an "actually this is just vedanta but better" or "actually this is just taoism but better" but this removes us from the Bible. It catholicizes, if you will, but the catholicized convert will always be tempted to inevitably read the book they were told they already agreed with in spirit, and when they do, they will become protestantized and CORRECTLY interpret that the texts are really covenant theology and not Platonism or whatever else, and then attempt to make themselves Israelites. Consider the Taiping Rebellion. No doubt, dishonest christer missionaries had converted Chinese people using Taoist vocabulary, but as soon as the Chinese themselves began to read the Bible, they turned on China like the christers turned on Rome. It's the same playbook. You don't actually have an appreciation for Vedanta or Taoism but would add them to the arsenal of slaves.

[Anonymous No.20101953]

>>20101884
Yo, was there any major leaps forward in western philosophy after Plato and Aristotle and before the christians? There is a good 550 years after that point where xristianity was either non existant or a literal who faction, and almost nothing really advanced besides self help and restatements of either one of the two. If you are going to call Christianity philosophically bankrupt, I would also advise you to do the same for later Greeks and romans as well. In fact, in my mind, the next major leap forward in the fabric of higher philosophy after aristotle (c 330 BC) was probably descarte. (c.1630)

People like Plotinus or Aurelius just used either plato or aristotle in slightly different ways. they where the crux. And even then I would say that medieval logisticians Like Ockam did probably as much as them in the intellectual rigor and reinterpreting part.

[Anonymous No.20102068]

>>20101953
There is nothing wrong per se with a lack of novelty. What I mean by it having intellectual poverty and its disregard for philosophy can be found among its earliest texts—that there is a disinterest in and condemnation of either knowledge of the world or the systemic arrangement of that knowledge to produce any sort of insight. The whole thing is just ressentiment, belief in sorcery, and faith that one can escape to heaven, until more educated people are converted and bring some of their talents to the new movement, clean it up so to speak. If people were rehasing Plato for centuries it was because they found him influential and useful, and this was so true to some converts that they baptized him as their Attic Moses

[Anonymous No.20102075]

>>20101094
It really is crazy to think how much influence cult leaders from the bronze age middlle easy have influenced us so much

[Anonymous No.20102101]

>>20101094
>it’s self terminating!
>it’s 2500 years old!
pick one

[Anonymous No.20102441]

>>20101088
Because fear of the lord is the beginning of the wisdom, and easterners don't fear Abrahamic god, so they don't have wisdom to study. I find the claim that Christianity or Abrahamic religions are destructive and bad, but they do seem to have an attitude problem with everyone else, or at least ever since the first schism between the east and western church.

[Anonymous No.20102450]

>>20101867
Really interesting, would you say the Christian metaphysical idea you expanded on is more concrete and about movement than the other traditions?

[Anonymous No.20102472]

>>20101094
Byzantium was the greatest civilization in human history and couldn't have happened without Christianity

[Anonymous No.20102475]

>>20101178
>>I think that there’s a lot of nuance and intellectual richness in the tradition spawned by Abrahamic religion but sadly it’s mostly hidden
there isnt, no matter how much the jews say otherwise. jews are mostly autistic mental midget who cant stop taking seirously their mental ramblings

[Anonymous No.20102481]

>>20101088
>>20101148
Read Paramahansa Yogananda, he spent his life reconciling eastern religion with Chrisitanity and even received revelation from Christ himself.

https://yogananda.org/the-hidden-truths-in-the-gospels

[Anonymous No.20102634]

>>20101235
>Jesus was basically preaching buddhism.
This new age shit is affecting Buddhism's image in the west like you wouldn't imagine.

[Anonymous No.20102637]

>>20101867
>Buddhism (which must ultimately treat creation as 'empty')
No

[Anonymous No.20102697]

>>20102637
That is true though, even if you go for buddha nature approach, the all permeating buddha nature is empty and devoid of self.

[Anonymous No.20102726]

>>20102634
Good. Buddhism is nihilism.

[Anonymous No.20102744]

>>20102697
>the all permeating buddha nature is empty and devoid of self.
It is in like 98+% of Buddhist schools, but you can occasionally find small exceptions, like Dolpopa and his school in Tibetan Buddhism, or Jinul in Korean Buddhism, who both accept that all changing phenomena are selfless but that all sentient beings are endowed on the inside with an inherently existing and unchanging Buddha nature that is identical with the absolute.

[Anonymous No.20102778]

>>20102726
buddhism is nihilism of suffering

[Anonymous No.20102783]

>>20102697
yeah but Buddha nature is a mahayana invention, and its their version of a primordial mind which somehow becomes tainted, and this whole story which is refuted by the buddha himself

Buddhism does not care about ''creation'', which is why the normies who made up mahayana invented the primordial mind, even though it's contrary to the teaching and does not even make sense inside buddhism.

[Anonymous No.20102810]

>>20102783
>and its their version of a primordial mind which somehow becomes tainted, and this whole story which is refuted by the buddha himself
It's not actually refuted by Buddha, he is unable to explain why it's wrong.

[Anonymous No.20102826]

>>20102726
>>20102778
>denying delusions is nihilism
ngmi

[Anonymous No.20102836]

>>20101088
You need to read the Philokalia. It's either downstream or an independent discovery of meditation.

[Anonymous No.20103070]

>>20102697
It's empty of any definitions.

[Anonymous No.20103253]

>>20102726
the most illiterate take on /lit/
congratulations

[Anonymous No.20103287]

>>20102068
>and its disregard for philosophy can be found among its earliest texts
You are aware thats similar trends can be seen in the greeks witth various persons disparaging the folly of philosophy itself. Its kinda part of philosophy.

Just seems like a narritivisation on your part. I would say augustine in specific wasnt anti-philosophical, but anti-vanity. City of god and all. I would say a nietzchen critique of a lack of ill to power would be more convincing then an accusation of anti-philosopy.

[Anonymous No.20103305]

>>20102826
>denying delusions is nihilism
quite literally and essentially yes.
Something that can be labeled a dillusion must necissarily exist otherwise you would not recognize it. we only call things dillusion insofar that we consider the sensory imput to be a lesser (but still real) relivent aspect of some greater truth. Like how one could call a rainbow an illusion, but it is still there.

[Anonymous No.20103358]

>>20103305
>Something that can be labeled a dillusion must necissarily exist
Delusions are present for the deluded, they do not "necessarily exist" unless for you the appearance of a thing makes it absolutely real. Denying delusions is not the denial of their appearance but of the imputations made off that appearance, such as yours, that they are necessarily existent

[Anonymous No.20103407]

>>20103358
>Delusions are present for the deluded, they do not "necessarily exist"
false. For a subject to observe an object the object must necessarily exist. Even if spatially that delusion is located in ones head, it is still there. It is simply an incomplete truth, not nonexistence. you are misconstruing assumptions of something for the thing in itself. (and I would go so far as to say all assumptions are real as well, they simply will be sublimated and amended by a greater truth)

[Anonymous No.20103517]

>>20103407
>It is simply an incomplete truth, not nonexistence.
True existence would not be incomplete. It is appearance

[Anonymous No.20103527]

>>20103517
Why these myopic barriers? truth would be the reality of everything and nothing. thus every "thing" is an aspect, a piece towards the greater whole.

[Anonymous No.20104668]

>>20102472
>greatest civilization in human history
closer to a millennia long burning trash heap
you will never retake istanbul

[Anonymous No.20104694]

>>20104668
Seething Turkroach

[Anonymous No.20104756]

>>20101088
Dead kike on a stick

[Anonymous No.20104793]

>>20101088
>>20101148
Read Paulos Mar Gregorios. Or maybe even Christ, the Eternal Tao

[Anonymous No.20104804]

>>20102472
>muh civilizations
>muh progress
>muh history
Civtard detected—opinion discarded.

[Anonymous No.20104832]

>>20104694
yes but he’s not wrong

[Anonymous No.20104850]

>>20101953
You're replying to the guy who uses "christer". It's just a troll with a chip on his shoulder that his mommy made him go to church

[Anonymous No.20104881]

>>20101094
>bro, have you EVEN STUDIED the past 2500 years of history???
post book-shelf

[Anonymous No.20104887]

>>20104793
>Christ, the Eternal Tao
The most embarassing book shilled on this board

[Anonymous No.20104930]

>>20104694
my country fought against the turks
I just have nothing but contempt the byzantines, the ottomans were a superior civilization

[Anonymous No.20104963]

>>20104850
>no one could possibly have a reasonable disagreement with [my viewpoint], it must be [psychoanalysis]
Hmmm what genealogical root does Abrahamic theology and Freudian oedipalizing have in common?

[Anonymous No.20105008]

>>20104963
that doesnt make what the other anon said any less fallacious just because this guy tacked on a backhanded insult.

[Anonymous No.20105026]

>>20104887
how so

[Anonymous No.20105795]

>>20104963
It's not a reasonable disagreement and shows a laughable lack of knowledge about the history of Christian thought.

[Anonymous No.20105804]

>>20105795
Early christianity was entirely "just trust me bro" and appealed largely to slaves and women. Later it adopted elements of neoplatonism so that it would be able to present itself more intellectually.

[Anonymous No.20105852]

>>20101953
Ignoring the Platonists and Peripatetics of which there was a huge amount of internal diversity and ignoring some kind of hypothetical
>lmfao dude imagine the debates the Platonists and Buddhists would have had in 1200AD in this alt-hist scenario
?

The Stoics were coming up with all sorts of interesting stuff, the Epicureans were coming up with a lot of stuff that's strikingly similar to modern atomic theory and evolutionary biology, the Pythagoreans existed as a tradition independent of Plato, and Heracliteans (as in, "people who'd read the book in full") were still around. There were also religious traditions that had philosophical traditions that have basically been snuffed out (the Anatolians, the Germanics, the Celts, the various Grecoid peoples like the Phrygians, the Scythians), to say nothing of
E
G
Y
P
T
which had ~3,000 year long philosophical tradition that just fucking ended because of Jew worship. Also, while Zoroastrianism as a whole would fall under the "no foreign influences" rule, there were actually philosophical schools derived from Persian thought that were uniquely Greco-Roman. There's an entire philosophical cold war between the Romans and the Persians that we know existed but aren't privy to the details of.

When tradLARPers try to do an antiwhiteness and say that we should feel lucky that the Jews decided to leave us some scraps of ancient philosophy, they aren't lying. We have a very small portion of this stuff, and most of what survived did so either because of people very carefully preserving ancient knowledge (like the Polytheists who saved Plato for us), or tablescraps that were useful for certain ideologies getting passed down in order to twist them to whatever the latest cause of the day was.

[Anonymous No.20105861]

>>20101219
Do I really want to hear what a Christian has to say about Advaita Vedanta? I already know what the conclusion is going to be, what the arguments are going to be, what the Christian stance is, etc etc. What am I going to learn? No matter how deep the Christian considers the systems of Eastern spirituality, he is inevitably going to smile a condescending smile at these quaint backward people and their funny meditation practices, fall back on the Bible verse that says that the only way to salvation is Jesus Christ, wipe his hands clean of all the philosophy he just engaged with, and re-enter his intellectual stupor. He may or may say that the Buddha (and other eastern teachers) were influenced by Satan, or were demons, etc. If the Christian is to remain a Christian, he is bound by his religion to warn his readers that all teachings that distract from Christ are works of Satan intending to lead people to Hell. He is morally obligated, by his most deeply held beliefs, to smile a condescending smile at eastern teachings and then wholeheartedly condemn them to anyone who seriously wants everlasting life. He HAS to.

[Anonymous No.20105877]

>>20105861
There's actually a book, The Great Debate, by J. M. Peebles, about the first, largest, and really only major, public debate between Christianity and Buddhism in Sri Lanka. The tl;dr is that it goes exactly like you described it would, but the Monk dabs on the British Missionary (who, to be fair, is clearly not that intelligent of a man, and the monk is clearly one of the foremost intellects of Sri Lanka at the time), and then dabs on some Dravidian collaborators.

At one point the Missionary tries to do the "DEMONS!!!" angle, and the Missionary, who had read the Bible, points out that Yahweh demands blood sacrifice of children, meaning that he is actually a demon (he also fits a bunch of other characteristics of what exactly "a demon" is in Sri Lankan views, such as his fear of iron and living in a volcano).

[Anonymous No.20105885]

>>20105861
Right, all he really wants is a cultural revolution against the target. If he can convince them to follow his ideas using their vocabulary, then you get the Taiping Rebellion

[Anonymous No.20105903]

You're all dumb niggers arguing over pointless shit none of which brings you closer to god, this thread is a bunch of fedoras mentally masturbating to themselves, everyone itt kys plz

[Anonymous No.20106126]

>>20101088
There was at least one guy, David Hawkins, who syncretized them very well, although he had much of the charlatan in him like every guru.

[Anonymous No.20106216]

>>20105861
> He HAS to.
>le no true Scotsman
Neither do btw as far as Im aware

[Anonymous No.20106612]

>>20105877
>Yahweh demands blood sacrifice of children, meaning that he is actually a demon (he also fits a bunch of other characteristics of what exactly "a demon" is in Sri Lankan views, such as his fear of iron and living in a volcano).
i don’t remember any of this shit in the bible did i read a bad translation

[Anonymous No.20106837]

>>20106612
Infant circumcision is basically a blood sacrifice

[Anonymous No.20106898]

>>20105852
...Anon, I said major non self help. Stoicism and epicureanism where lifestyle philosophies that never really went beyond plato or aristotle, But asked what was the best way to live. Please give me a major advancement in theory after aristotle rather than giving vague topics. like """"Egyptians""""".or """celts"""".

Have you actually READ much early medieval stuff? Christians discussed The anceints ALL THE TIME. They ate up cicero and were basicly aristotle machines.
>The polytheists who saved plato for us
?

[Anonymous No.20106904]

>>20101088
Because a tradition is self-sufficiently legitimate and it's follower is not part of some ongoing intellectual exchange, all that is required is the establishment of some connection to God, and the person is off on his own, syncreticism and universalism is only on the minds of the secular and "learned."

[Anonymous No.20106908]

>>20106904
Even if at some point prior, Christianity was the product of some hellenic/Hebraic syncreticism it does not affect what has been in transmission as a tradition for the last millenia.

[Anonymous No.20106911]

>>20101088
When Christ walked the earth he recognized the wise men that preceded him to his Roman and Greek audiences. But he outshone the wise men so much (being God incarnate) in wisdom, nor is there anything Christ could have learned from them or integrated into his own teaching that he gave to his followers

[Anonymous No.20106914]

>>20106908

Christianity is and all traditions are like basic, and clotheless people, it's up to the individual and he who is like God and can distinguish between good and evil, fo discriminate between good and evil pieces of clothing - that's the essence of the Perennial mentality.

[Anonymous No.20106935]

>>20106914
In every tradition, those who consider themselves intellectuals read more so the "commentators" rather than the scriptures itself - something which is the root of the tradition and is declared unchangeable- unless you want to change the scriptures and implant "eastern ideas" into them - which would be delegitamising the traditional basis of Christianity, mind you the scriptures itself of any of the traditional worldviews can be subjected to an infinitude of interpretation, you can only in effect assimilate and internalise eastern metaphysics And Then you will be able to even interpret Christian scriptures in this way which you describe, regardless the same stands for the vedic traditions etc.

The truly traditional and religous rely on the scripture itself and internalise it, and have an active relationship with it - not so much the commentators like shankacharya for anything but further insight into the scriptures, and one of the infinity interpretations.

Only counter-traditional pseud secular intellectuals, as we see on this thread wouldn't understand as much.

[Anonymous No.20106938]

>>20105903
Holy based .

[Anonymous No.20106948]

>>20101148


They didn't call them "Christians" in the sense that they ate Christians, + this mentality stems back to that of philosophia perennis of Augustine, yes many of the church fathers or Christian texts were neoplatonic, just read pseudo-dionysius the aereopagite,

You simply don't understand the "traditional" mentality, Christianity has never existed in the same way, Buddhism has never existed, in the same way Hinduism has never existed, all that exists are various branches stemming from the trunk of the primordial tradition, you can't break those branches off and try to stich one artifical long branch composed of all the branches and still be connected to the trunk, rather you can only embody one branch and watch leaves from the other branches and maybe sometimes contact them directly,
You'd be degrading the Vedas as much as the bible by supplanting it's concepts into it, even if you think that would be a relative improvement, a religion at its root only needs two words "I know" the rest is built directly upon this meaning.

[Anonymous No.20106949]

>>20104668
>you will never retake istanbul

Yes we FUCKING will.

The day will come when Ankara is a burning rubble and Constantinople is in Western hands once more. It's only a matter of time.

[Anonymous No.20106952]

>>20106948
You individually can expand infinitely, you are infinite that's the understanding needed

[Anonymous No.20106958]

>>20106949
I am Greek I don't want Istanbul Russia can have it

[Anonymous No.20106959]

>>20106958
Actually it should be the collective property of Balkans, Greece and Russis together I think that's a fair compromise.

[Anonymous No.20106971]

>>20105861
You can't achieve salvation by meditating really hard. Salvation comes by the grace of God, not by any effort of man. That's simple fact.

[Anonymous No.20106977]

>>20105804
t. Richard Carrier, noted retard

[Anonymous No.20106985]

>>20105804
The Neoplatonists converted to Christianity because Christianity showed Gods action in history and provides a grounding for philosophical thought. The incarnation of the Logos is the most significant event in history, everything turns around it. Neoplatonism without Christianity is nothing more than idle navel gazing. It is the Christian religion that gives Neoplatonism merit by contextualizing it's insights through divine revelation. The very people you're trying to dicksuck converted to Christianity precisely because Christianity is the superior philosophy of life.

[Anonymous No.20107066]

>>20106977
He's right nothing to be ashamed of but rather than "just women and slaves" Jews essentialy the same thing

[Anonymous No.20107100]

Issues with Eastern Philosophy:

1. Massive overfocus on meditation and inner spirituality over communal rite and ritual. Complete lack of Theurgical Practice.

2. Too much emphasis on the will of man, not enough emphasis on Gods grace and the necessity of grace to achieve salvation. Many Eastern philosophies massively overestimate the ability of man to overcome sin.

3. Muddling up transcendence and immanence and erroneously identifying The One with reality itself. Lack of hierarchical chain of Being that seperates the absolutely transcendent One from Nous, Soul and material being.

[Anonymous No.20107130]

>>20107100
>>1. Massive overfocus on meditation and inner spirituality over communal rite and ritual. Complete lack of Theurgical Practice.
that in buddhism only. Jains and brahmins and mahaynists are addicted to rituals.
>>20107100
>2. Too much emphasis on the will of man, not enough emphasis on Gods grace and the necessity of grace to achieve salvation. Many Eastern philosophies massively overestimate the ability of man to overcome sin.
Buddhist reject rituals because they are useless to end suffering.
First there is no God, but Brahman (in anything but buddhism), and salvation is not done thru grace in hindusim. Grace is useless in hinduism.
The common point between western and eastern theism is that they both suck at solving the problem of evil.

[Anonymous No.20107147]

>>20106985
>the neoplatonists converted to Christianity because [other neoplatonists rewrote it such that they could argue/apologize for it in terms of neoplatonic thought]
Right, that's my point. I think we only disagree insofar as you are a true believer anyway so that doesn't matter to you, but the Gospels are concerned with presenting Jesus as someone who is in continuity with the ethnic religion of the Old Testament while the ideas you are espousing come from a totally different source. Someone swittched the babies at the hospital.

[Anonymous No.20107152]

>>20101884
>christers
kek i'm going to use this word now

[Anonymous No.20107156]

>>20107147
They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. You are doing the works your father did.” They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God.” Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”

Interesting continuity there

[Anonymous No.20107165]

>>20107156
>if you don't agree with me it's because you are demons
>I was sent by the tribal god of our people and you should hail me accordingly
That's what this sounds like without any philosophically-informed apologetics and there is no reason it would be persuasive to those outside his religious community

[Anonymous No.20107167]

isn't christianity have the same deal with duty to the divine as eastern traditions?
gita
confuscious
to some extent lao tzu
the only difference is what that divine is and how that divine works.
or maybe im just abstracting everything away with "the divine"
but maybe thats what they all do anyways

[Anonymous No.20107175]

>>20107100
>Theurgical Practice
Only survives in eastern Tantric systems anyhow. Extinct from western theology unless you count new age/wicca/etc

[Anonymous No.20107200]

>>20107165
>If I exegete this poorly I can construct a strawman
Wow, amazing. Is there any reason I should take your opinion on what scripture "sounds like" as the correct basis of interpretation?

[Anonymous No.20107208]

>>20107175
The Eucharist is the highest form of Theurgy. Literally bringing the divine into the material world by consecrating the host.

[Anonymous No.20107307]

>>20102068
>If people were rehasing Plato for centuries it was because they found him influential and useful, and this was so true to some converts that they baptized him as their Attic Moses
and because they had nothing else to be obsessed over

[Anonymous No.20107653]

>>20107200
>jesus didn't mean what he said
What was the metaphor here? Was the reference to Abraham just some random name, and not at all specific to the religion he came from? Are those whose father is the devil not evil/demons?

[Anonymous No.20107669]

>>20107208
That's not theurgic it's a reenactment of sacrificial rites, except instead of killing a bull or whatever and roasting it for the god, you are eating bread that is supposed to be the son of that god who is being sacrificed to him. Since there are no more actual sacrifices in western religion outside of extreme fringe occult examples, or I guess Santeria/Voudou, this meaning is mostly lost, but the Eucharist is meant to be the "final" sacrifice ever needed, which is why you are called upon to "do this in memory of me." If you lived two thousand years ago you'd expect to see a goat or whatever being offered either in front of or inside of your church temple etc. but the Eucharist is the replacement

[Anonymous No.20107842]

>>20107208
According to Eckhart “If we prepared for our normal meals the way we prepare for receiving the Eucharist, we’d be ingesting God in every meal”. A profound statement that captures the realization of the presence.

[Anonymous No.20107854]

>>20106949
larping faggot

[Anonymous No.20107872]

>>20101088
Eastern syncretism and manicheism has been labeled a heresy and refuted multiple times in the early church history
>>20101094
You will never be a woman tranny

[Anonymous No.20108613]

>>20107100
>Lack of hierarchical chain of Being that seperates the absolutely transcendent One from Nous, Soul and materi-

[Anonymous No.20108642]

>>20107130
>Grace is useless in hinduism.
not in the Bhakti schools, don't post about topics that you know nothing about

[Anonymous No.20108698]

>>20108642
ok chud, although you may want to look at the difference between devotion and grace, or just don't post about topics that you know nothing about

[Anonymous No.20108865]

>>20105903
Based and truthpilled

[Anonymous No.20109068]

>>20108698
Grace is obviously an important component of the theology of many of the Bhakti-based Hindu schools

>One manner in which the Northern and Southern schools (of Sri Vaishnavism) differ is with respect to the importance that the Vedas are to play in the devotees life: the Northern school holds that Vedic observances are essential to proper Śrī Vaiṣṇava practices, while the Southern school emphasises the importance of emulating the examples of the twelve Āḻvārs. Most importantly, the two schools differ on the relationship between divine grace and individual effort. Both schools agree that Grace is necessary for liberation, but they disagree as to the conditions under which Grace is dispensed. According to the Northern school, Grace is conditional on the effort of the individual. Liberation, on this view, is a cooperative effort between God and the aspirant. According to the Southern school, Grace is dispensed freely. Liberation, on this view, is the sole responsibility of God. (On some accounts, the two schools can also be defined with respect to eighteen points of difference. See Govindācārya for one of the few but regrettably unbalanced accounts of this controversy).

>Both schools agree that the intercession of Grace is tied to the devotee performing the spiritual act of śaraṇāgati or prapatti-surrender before God. The act of prapatti, or the formal surrender to God, with the understanding that one has no other refuge, is central to Śrī Vaiṣṇava cultic life. However, Northern and Southern schools differ with respect to what is to follow. For the Southern school, a one-time act of prapatti is sufficient. Subsequent lapses in devotion or attitude do not alter God’s disposition to save the individual. However, for the Northern school, lapses on the part of the devotee require a fresh commitment on the part of the individual to surrender before God, in addition to constant effort on the part of the individual to attend to their moral duties in the spirit of bhakti yoga.

https://iep.utm.edu/ramanuja/

[Anonymous No.20109081]

>>20107100
>1. Massive overfocus on meditation and inner spirituality over communal rite and ritual. Complete lack of Theurgical Practice.
no a problem on the slightness, it's a strength even

>2. Too much emphasis on the will of man, not enough emphasis on Gods grace and the necessity of grace to achieve salvation. Many Eastern philosophies massively overestimate the ability of man to overcome sin.
"god's grace", "salvation" and the western idea of "sin" make no sense outside the framework of abrahamic philosophy, those are meaningless and unnecessary things

>3. Muddling up transcendence and immanence and erroneously identifying The One with reality itself. Lack of hierarchical chain of Being that seperates the absolutely transcendent One from Nous, Soul and material being.
same from last topic but for the general platonist metaphysics instead of abrahamism, complete meaningless and unnecessary concepts

all and all those are things that make eastern philosophy superior to christianity

[Anonymous No.20109119]

>>20109081
>"god's grace", "salvation" and the western idea of "sin" make no sense outside the framework of abrahamic philosophy, those are meaningless and unnecessary things
I dont see how anyone versed in world religiosity could see this. Even with a hindu or buhdist base. Grace is just like any other implicit will of the universe towards truth. Salvation Not much different from enlightenment, and sin not much different from impurities and falling away from enlightenment. Most others have equivolent aspects. What is sin besides bodily and egoist distractions innate in the human condition?

If you WERE to critique christianity, I would be more open to its abrahamic legalism (Not that easterners dont have legalism, see confucianism, but it has a different flavor)

[Anonymous No.20109187]

>>20109119
at this point you are just projecting christianity a christian worldview

>Grace is just like any other implicit will of the universe towards truth
>Salvation Not much different from enlightenment
>sin not much different from impurities and falling away from enlightenment

all of this are statements are so wrong that just show how little you understand any of those concepts and how they are understood in their religions in a pathetic of pushing christianity

[Anonymous No.20109251]

>>20109119
>What is sin besides bodily and egoist distractions innate in the human condition?
Sin is transgression against laws given by God, i.e. arbitrary fiat declarations made by his priests, for which the punishment God mets out is damnation. You are trying to broaden the idea, but really, to render "sin" as "deficiencies in the human condition" reinforces the Christian position even further, because if sin is just innate rather than the usual definition of having done something wrong, now we're really stuck since it is baked into who we are by nature, and our only option is to beg God, who can break every law of nature, to step in and rescue us, which is of course what Christianity is—asking God to save us from the life he is supposed to have given us, because it wasn't good enough and we want better. This is very different from other systems, like the karmic, where you have agency, or even the platonic, where to achieve union with god is the result of a path of purification. But if we are sinful simply because we are alive, then we must by necessity make our covenant with this anti-natural force who can rewire us with immortality

[Anonymous No.20109337]

>>20106971
>You can't achieve salvation by meditating really hard. Salvation comes by the grace of God, not by any effort of man. That's simple fact.
It's shocking how immersed you are in Christian bias. I'm assuming you're the same person in the thread who is talking about 'grace', 'sin', etc, as if they are self-evident. You are, quite literally, the kind of Christian I was talking about in my reply. You are bringing your categories of Christian theology to a discussion of eastern spirituality. You are strutting around with the assumption that everyone already holds the Bible as the supreme test of truth, and are merely discussing eastern religions as an afterthought, only to consider whether they accord with the Bible's supreme, self-evident, high-and-might test of Truth, supremely established in all the land.
You are assuming that every religion operates on the same assumptions of Christian theology: man sins, man needs salvation, man achieves salvation by grace in God.
I am about to SHOCK you by telling you that eastern religions do not have these same concepts. I know you're immersed in these categories, but they are ALIEN to eastern religion. These categories of sin, grace, salvation, etc DO NOT HAVE TO SHOW UP IN EVERY RELIGION AS THEY SHOW UP IN CHRISTIANITY. They are not the self-evident aspects of every true religion. Until you acknowledge that, you will never be able to add to a discussion on this topic.
Buddhism doesn't have a "God" who dispenses "grace". Buddhism doesn't have a "hell" that people are destined to by "sinning". Buddhist "salvation" does not come from "God". So when you say
>you can't achieve salvation by meditating really hard
What "salvation" are you talking about? You're right, by a Christian framework, you can't have Christian salvation by meditation. But you can't speak about Christian salvation as if it is objectively true, and as if it is the truth for every other religious framework. PLEASE acknowledge this. In the Buddhist framework, people achieve BUDDHIST SALVATION by meditation, because BUDDHIST SALVATION is Nirvana, not Christian Heaven. in the BUDDHIST SYSTEM, you achieve Nirvana by a personal path to enlightenment. You do the work in your own mind. There is no God that dispenses a state of Grace. You attain enlightenment by your own concentration, meditation, right views, right intentions, etc. So it makes no sense to say that Buddhists can't achieve enlightenment on their own terms.
>eastern religion is a priori wrong because it does not accord with Jewish scriptures and philosophy
>Christian theology is objectively correct for all religions because... because it just is, okay!!
What will it take for you to realize how pointless of a stance that is?

[Anonymous No.20109382]

>>20109337
>Buddhism doesn't have a "hell" that people are destined to by "sinning".

Several texts in the Pali Sutta-pitaka describe the Buddhist Naraka (hell). The Devaduta Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 130), for example, goes into considerable detail. It describes a succession of torments in which a person experiences the results of his own karma. This is gruesome stuff; the "wrongdoer" is pierced with hot irons, sliced with axes and burned with fire. He passes through a forest of thorns and then a forest with swords for leaves. His mouth is pried open and hot metal is poured into him. But he cannot die until the karma he created is exhausted.

[Anonymous No.20109388]

>>20102475
calm down streetshitter and enjoy sipping shit water

[Anonymous No.20109465]

>>20109382
You’re right, I was a bit overzealous on that point. In any case it’s not the same as Christian hell because it’s not an eternal punishment by God for transgressing His laws, but the natural effect of ones own actions, that subsides with the karma that caused it. My point is only to stress that this is completely alien to the Christian conception of sin and hell, and that there is no conception of divine law.

[Anonymous No.20109475]

>>20109382
The Buddhist hell(s) strongly resemble the Greek ones, where you suffer ironically based on what life you had led. Using "hell" to describe what Buddhists and Christians have in mind, however, is a bit reductive. Buddhist hells are a kind of purgative in which one has to exhaust the ripenings of their misdeeds, so this depends on what you did and also if you happen across someone in hell to teach you the dharma. Even once you are out of hell, you will still have to deal with suffering, because hell was just the least beneficial birth for someone who hasn't reached enlightenment, and it would be exceedingly hard to do so in hell. So you will be there a long time but your next birth could be better, that's the idea. Christian hell is a permanent state of separation from God for having rejected the message of Christ, having sinned, etc. There is no action you can take to get out, only to avoid it before you get there. In theory, everyone before the incarnation is in hell except for a few of the Israelites; some Christian theologians have tried to find copes around this since it means people born before Jesus was, or who never heard of him, are eternally damned, but the provincialism of the scriptures is quite clear. No Jesus, no salvation. Yet both of these ideas are called "hell," when one is just "an afterlife where you suffer the consequences of misdeeds in this life (chiefly, inflicting pain on others, or slandering Buddhism) until your next life" and the other is "an eternal afterlife of separation from God as a consequence of having sinned (violating God's laws, rejecting Jesus)"

[Anonymous No.20109532]

>>20109475
>Yet both of these ideas are called "hell,"
This is the problem with using the same terms for the two different traditions. It lets Christians get away with implying only the only meaning, and then extending the Christian meaning to both traditions by a sleight-of-hand. It means they can see the terms "hell" and "salvation" used in a Buddhist sense, and rear their stubborn heads into the conversation with an "ackshually the bible says that 'hell' and 'salvation' are X, and since you and I, obviously, consider the Bible the ultimate test of Truth we are forced to agree on the Christian conclusions."

[Anonymous No.20109602]

>another thread subverting Christ to fit into some perennial tradition mumbo jumbo garbage
Yawn.

[Anonymous No.20109606]

>>20109532
Sometimes in translation "hell realm" is used rather than "hell" for the Buddhist notion, which would imply it isn't hell hell but something similar. Same for heavenly realm or heaven realm as opposed to heaven. But at the end of the day you still need to have done your homework to understand how those ideas of heaven and hell work in a system where both before-lives and after-lives are allowed instead of just a temporal here-life and an eternal after-life

[Anonymous No.20109620]

>>20109081
>no a problem on the slightness, it's a strength even
This is why we all see you Buddhists and Taoists as effete. How could you even want to live like this in the first place?

[Anonymous No.20109668]

>>20101088
Because Christians and especially Christian leaders are terrified of the prospect that their entire religion might be metaphoric.
Imagine if hell is just having to live with yourself after you've done some bad things, salvation is learning to forgive yourself. How are you gonna make money off that?

[Anonymous No.20109680]

>>20109620
Aren't you the ones who so desperately want to overturn the natural order of things that you pray to be resurrected after death and live in the sky with a dead man? How can you stand to live even now knowing how much more the martyrs were blessed to leave early?

[Anonymous No.20109736]

>>20109680
>no u
Honestly pathetic considering you don't even attempt to rebuke it.

[Anonymous No.20109762]

>>20101088

Because they are very different religion and grew in very different settings, the first contacts are hard. The fact that eastern meditation can resemble summonings of spirits to someone who does not know them does not help.

However I still think and hope the contact can be possibile, as it happens with Hesychasm on Mount Athos, which is basically Christian Raja Yoga.

[Anonymous No.20109782]

>>20101666
Fitting digits for the satanic freemasonic garbage you're espousing.

[Anonymous No.20109789]

>>20109736
Look if you hate life and think it offers no possibilities of satisfaction and tranquility unless you die with the right demonic pact signed off, that's your problem. Don't try to sell me on how much better off we would be if were dead if you haven't gone through with it yourself.

[Anonymous No.20109796]

>>20109789
Dat projection

[Anonymous No.20109815]

>>20109796
You mean the message of Christianity? Make a deal with the volcano and the volcano's son, and, when you die, you get to live forever in paradise. Also whoever rejects the deal is damned forever. I can see why this was appealing to the Roman underclass. Very much the last resort of a conquered people, to mutter curses at the victor.

[Anonymous No.20109850]

>>20109815
I noticed Buddhists tend to have the nastiest egos of all. Very curious!

[Anonymous No.20109876]

>>20109850
>anyone who rejects my fairy tale about sacrificing a god to himself to attain immortality from that god is lacking humility
Yeah that must be it

[Anonymous No.20109903]

>>20109876
I'm still not budging until you cease your tantrum.

[Anonymous No.20109915]

>>20109903
My tantrum? Don't you have idols to smash and pedestrians to howl at about the end-times?

[Anonymous No.20109920]

>>20109850
>>20109903
You're embarrassing

[Anonymous No.20109921]

>>20109915
Aye, you're so predictable.

[Anonymous No.20109935]

>>20109920
Should I have reacted in rage, then?

[Anonymous No.20109936]

>>20109620
You can't even alone with your thoughts for a single minute without using your phone and you're calling other people "effete"?

[Anonymous No.20109940]

>>20109782
>is that... something that goes against my dogma... aaaaaah demons!
Christianity is the most laughable, ridiculous belief system there is.

[Anonymous No.20109943]

>>20109921
If you could bottle your unwarranted smugness it would fill a hundred cellars

[Anonymous No.20109950]

>>20109943
Internet Christians are the most self-important, condescending idiots while also having the most primitive religion there is. The lack of self awareness is always baffling

[Anonymous No.20109966]

Could someone explain the differences between Zen/Chan and Taoism?

[Anonymous No.20109989]

>>20109936
>>20109943
>>20109950
You're rather slow if you can't take the hint.

[Anonymous No.20109992]

>>20109966
Taoism is, in short, ancient Chinese science. Observe reality, watch what happens when you do stuff, make theories to explain it, repeat ad infinitum. Where this differs from Western empiricism is that the Chinese weren't strictly focused on causal relationships but rather on correlative relationships. This is because the Chinese at a very early period accepted that there were limits to man's ability to perceive, interact with, and understand the world, so some things just have to be taken as a given. The Wuxing, the Five Phases, is an example. Things behave in five manners: firely, woodly, waterly/airly, metally, dirtly. These manners have certain interactions: things that behave woodly increase the intensity of things behaving firely, but things that behave waterly/airly decrease the intensity of things that behave firely. So, by correlating things with these phases, you can do all sorts of stuff. Five seasons, political trends that come in specific patterns, personality types, metallurgy, interior decorating, cuisine, etc.

The early Taoists congregated around a general three-pronged goal of health, wealth, and longevity. "Taoism" is a big basket of tools to achieve these goals. There are many ideologies that align around these, but they are ideologies that are drawn to the teachings. Anyone can take from the basket and use the tools. This is just fine, these ideologies are very fluid and are happy to repurpose the seemingly foreign into themselves.

[Anonymous No.20110019]

>>20101088
>but because it followed the path of reason, which cannot be seen to contradict faith.
Only insofar to reason that reason is useless. Both Buddha and Jesus understood this, albeit expressed in different ways.

[Anonymous No.20110025]

>>20109992
Zen is the Japanese form of Chan Buddhism. Buddhism entered China numerous times, and Chan was one of them. Chan Buddhism in short takes existing Taoist theories concerning the interactions of opposing forces achieving a patterned unity through constant conflict (think walking, where each leg is weak, dominates, but then weakens as the other pushes against it, thus motion is achieved) and uses them to bolster a very apophatic and at times radically empirical doctrine. There's a pattern in Buddhism where a school will, as it ages, become increasingly scholastic. A clique of monks will be disgusted with this, break away, and go to a far off land and establish a new school, focused on intense meditation, "getting back to basics". Chan is the result of this happening, with a Central Asian Buddhist named Bodhidharma going to China to found his new school. Chan's radical empiricism is thus very much a part of its intense concentration on meditation and meditative practice.

While the two overlap in terms of a lot of theoretical stuff involving the interacting of opposing forces, there's also a lot of Taoism that Chan does not borrow from. The monistic currents within Taoism overlap into Huayan Buddhism, and the interaction with entities overlaps into Pure Land Buddhism, but neither of these are really focused on as much in Chan. Likewise, Chan Buddhism IS a Buddhist school, so while there is significant overlap at times, they are broadly differing in their goals. Ostensibly, a Taoist is trying to achieve a form of immortality such that they die but continue to live, while a Buddhist is trying to achieve the cessation of clinging to achieve a state wherein they continue such that dying is meaningless.

[END WITH THE GREEKS No.20110042]

>>20102726
The birth of a child is, at the same time, the birth of a
mother into the world.
Child is the symbol of a mother. That love for the child,
that tenderness of the heart which characterises a mother, is so
significant that it is often associated with the change of red blood
into milk.
“Mettā” – usually rendered by that cross-bred term loving
kindness, is the universal love for which the mother’s love for her
child is the unit. The Buddha speaking about mettā says for
instance, “Just as a mother would protect her only child even at
the risk of her own life, so should one develop a boundless heart
towards all beings.”
A mother is not only born with the child she brings forth,
she also grows up with the child she brings up. Her growth is in
terms of the other three Divine Abidings or Brahma Vihāra –
compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity. In bringing up her
child, sometimes a mother has to be stern and tactful. Her soft
tender love matures into a compassionate sternness, when the
child is passing through the unruly boyhood and reckless
adolescence. But that hardness of her heart melts at the correct
moment, like butter.
The child has now reached manhood. He can stand on his
own feet with enviable self-confidence. The mother also grows
up with sympathetic joy enjoying the fruits of her labour. Her
complacence, like curd, is serene and has nothing meddlesome
about it.
The bringing forth and the bringing up is over. The time
comes now to let go of the attachments and involvements
regarding the child. But for that separation too, the mother, now
30
mature in her experience, is fully prepared with equanimity. Like
a pot of ghee, she is not easily upset.
Universal love, compassion, sympathetic-joy and
equanimity are the four Divine Abidings a mother practices in a
limited sense in the course of her motherly care for the child.
Charity begins at home. These four are homely virtues in the first
instance, to be remembered like milk, butter, curd and ghee. The
four Divine Abidings are to be developed, however, in a
boundless measure until one’s heart is fully released in them. A
mother bears testimony to the practicability and the reciprocal
value of these Divine Abidings, which hold the prospects of
spiritual growth, peace and harmony for the society at large.

[Anonymous No.20110052]

>>20110042
wrong pic, but bait and switch for your low attention span's enjoyment

[Anonymous No.20110108]

>>20109940
The concept of evil spirits is not exclusive to Abrahamic, let alone Christian, traditions.

[Anonymous No.20110111]

>>20104930
they literally banned the printing press for a time lmao

[Anonymous No.20110125]

What does an androgynous, plump, self-mutilating (the ears), self-centered, passive being have to do with a strong, courageous male who wants to inspire people for action? NOTHING

[Anonymous No.20110127]

>>20101088
>As Benedict XVI pointed out, Christianity must be understood as an inherently Hellenized religion
And that’s where you fucked up. EO is the only way to go.

[Anonymous No.20110132]

>>20110127
ah yes, to avoid the pitfalls of Greek influences on Judaism, Eastern Orthodox Christianity is the way

[Anonymous No.20110136]

>>20102472
lmao hello Christopoulos.
You will never retake Istanbul

[Anonymous No.20110220]

>>20109782
the Rig Veda is the oldest indoeuropean text there is.

[Anonymous No.20110466]

>westerners are bickering over exoteric and mystic mutt christianity while authentic western esoteric traditions stemming back thousands of years exist and are as thorough and profound as eastern philosophies, possibly making one even more powerful
>if they could delve a little further into more conventional occultism they might discover the same truths

[Anonymous No.20110492]

>>20102101
>is destroying itself as we speak
>pre-christian westerners knew about this but could not subdue the plebian mob and allied with it

>>20102472
byzantium is more of a parody of a holy empire. metaphysically, parody of the holy is satanic. so byzantium can't be considered great in any normal (traditional) sense of the term. if all of the west were like byzantium the west would cease to be so great. overall, byzantium is a scab and a mockery, the main reasons people shill it is to defend christianity (and the institution of it) or to shill multiculturalism and mixing cultures with (metaphysically) inferior populations.

[Anonymous No.20110493]

>>20106949
why would the west want some relic of the ancient eastern parasite, sir?

[Anonymous No.20110501]

>>20110493
Based.
The muds can keep it.

[Anonymous No.20110511]

>>20107100
>ot enough emphasis on Gods grace and the necessity of grace to achieve salvation. Many Eastern philosophies massively overestimate the ability of man to overcome sin.
no need for these moralistic terms like sin, grace, salvation from sin. these are below the plane of esotericism. you seem to favour a degenerated eastern or western conception of spirituality (i.e., metaphysics), where esoteric matters are muddled with profane concepts of good and evil. the entire spiritual world is inward and can really only be experienced from the inside, but this doesn't mean rite and ritual can or should be discarded, given we are westerners. christianity is ultimately an eastern parasite, and in many ways antithetical to the noble and solar aryan spirit.

[Anonymous No.20110515]

>>20110466
If only anyone talked about it and understood wtf...
What do you think about the Kybalion? I barely remember the Emerald Tablet, Poemander Shepherd of Men, but I remember the Kybalion better than my own name.

[Anonymous No.20110526]

>>20110466
So Hermeticism, in your eyes, is as thorough and profound as Buddhism? It's tough because Hermiticism is so bereft of extant texts compared with the vast corpus' maintained for Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Advaita Vedanta, etc. Also the Western Esoteric tradition doesn't have the kind of initiatory body that the eastern religions do (to the extent that initiation is necessary, which seems great in Hermeticism)
Also, is a modernist reconstruction of Hermeticism from a 1900s writer an authentic Hermetic text?

[Anonymous No.20110565]

>>20110515
>What do you think about the Kybalion?
Not authentic Hermeticism. That's just new-age nonsense

[Anonymous No.20110620]

>>20101088
>Why does Christianity still ignore the reasonings of Eastern philosophy?
Christianity occurs in history as revelation, the Bible is written as books of historical record. It is not the compilation of sages versed in natural theologies. In this sense revelation has a primacy over the wisdom of men.

It is this fixation of disenchanted western men with the geographical east (a mistake, since the geographical east is not the traditional east anymore).

I posted in another thread:

Even those perennialists (Guénon, Schuon, AKC, Titus, Pallis, Whitall Perry et al) who studied many traditions believed in the validity of christianity. They were all very fond of christianity and Ananda loved to quote St. Paul, St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas (along with Eckhart).

Schuon wrote:
>The Catholic saints have nothing for which to envy the bhaktas of India.

Ananda's son wrote:
>Tough outwardly it has been primarily bhaktic or devotional in character, Christianity contains legitimate and essential elements which Coomaraswamy, for one, has compared to “an Upanishad of Europe”. Christianity is a full Revelation, addressed to a particular sector of humanity; our task, as “workers of the eleventh hour” is to fathom its profundities once again insofar as this may be possible and, hopefully, sense something of That which led St Paul to exclaim: “O the depth of the riches, the wisdom and the knowledge of God!” (Rom xi, 33).

Guénon wrote:
>The homage rendered in this way to the new-born Christ by the authentic representatives of the primordial tradition in the three worlds which are their respective domains, is at the same time, we should clearly note, the assurance of the perfect orthodoxy of Christianity in this respect.

I must add a new quote I read from Ananda:
>What I am appalled by is that even Catholics who have the truth if they would only operate with it wholeheartedly, are nearly all tainted with modernism.

[Anonymous No.20110642]

>>20110515
to be honest, i found the kybalion to be new-age garbage not useful for any initiatory experiences, authentic hermeticism/alchemy (referring to the so-called doctrine of immortal bodies) is expounded upon in the texts by the masters, in arcane symbols relating inner elements of man (and the world) to various analogs. the books you mentioned are fundamental hermetic works insofar as they are universal and old, but as for the particular, they are less illuminating, at least in my experience.

>>20110526
you are overconfident in your understanding of the hermetic tradition and perhaps misunderstanding my position. however your points against are not without warrant. Hermeticism/Alchemy, understood in the original context, first and foremost dealt with the inner transformation of man, no different from the esoteric side to the traditions you mentioned, because this is the realm of initiation. with hermeticism, i am referring to a royal initiatory tradition passed on through royal houses and secret societies in europe, the heights of which are superior to those of accomplished buddhists and having the same goal as all the great traditions. a hermetic master can speak perfectly to a daoist master. certain branches of tibetan buddhism are in possession of the same arcana, i know for sure. it is high spirituality, so when i speak of depth, i speak of the levels to which awareness can be raised, and the myth and symbol from western heritage which can be given a sacred meaning, through experience. but if you wish to immerse yourself fully in a foreign tradition (exoteric and esoteric), go ahead, but it may not fit your nature and it may have been out of an ignorance/blindness to what the west really offers in the realms of initiation, which is not a good start for spiritual enlightenment.

also, the west does have these bodies even today, and certainly did in the past, the difference is they went underground and kept extremely quiet while fools took some of their knowledge and profaned it by giving it out openly. there is no reason to turn to the east and give yourself up to a sort of dry, contemplative life unless that is truly you. the western hermeticists are in possession of the same secrets, often in a more correct and powerful form and more suitable to western man, and kept hidden from the vulgar masses.

finally, your characterisation of the book posted is so incorrect as to be almost laughable, since evola wasn't a modernist writer, and is simply expounding upon the tradition as understood by initiates (i.e., those who have experienced an ontological shift upwards) and their students. in no way is it fundamental, nor did i make that claim. what is fundamental is that it offers a key. perhaps if there were a book that set things out clearly in regards to what the hermetic tradition actually is, you would read it and "know" a lot more, like you might know about some eastern writings, however this is not the nature of hermetic knowledge.

[Anonymous No.20110648]

>>20110620
who has ever said that christianity can't be traditionally valid?

[Anonymous No.20110664]

>>20110648
From what I see /lit/ pseudo b*ddhists and /pol/ evolians are the first to attack christianity.

[Anonymous No.20110689]

>>20110664
i would attack it for being essentially a plebian cult, centered around a leader who was almost certainly highly spiritually enlightened (his body disappearing at death, assuming that actually happened, would signify this and justify it from a technical perspective). it has no esoteric tradition and is foreign to the west, it also has more of a universalist character. all of these things are connected. that said, it is not without higher insights, despite the muddled form in which they are delivered and the often worse form in which they are interpreted. a lot of the problems with buddhism are shared with christianity too, interestingly.

[Anonymous No.20110738]

>>20110689
Christianity doesn't rely around a religious 'leader' but on the promise that God himself incarnated as man. And the point is not 'his body disappearing at death' but his literal resurrection. As St. Paul asserts: without the resurrection there can't be a christianity. You are making personal and anachronistic interpretations of it. Missing the mark by miles.

Being plebeian or not does not matter – how would it?

>it has no esoteric tradition
That is completely irrelevant. What is a secret order in comparison to the sacraments? Nothing. Schuon criticizes Guénon very well on this. No devotion from saints and mystics could ever be below any rite on a masonic lodge.

He criticizes Guénon with:
>To suffer heroically in God is without interest because it is profane; but to take some steps on a carpet inlaid with symbols in a Masonic Lodge, there is something interesting! And this is typical: for the sake of refuting the ordinary conception of a trial, Guénon ascribes to it an intention of pseudo-initiatic facility which no one else has ever dreamt of, and thus transforms, as in his text on the sacraments, his argument into a tilting at windmills.

For Guénon the esoterism was still present in some crafts societies. But then again it is completely irrelevant to personal salvation.

Is baptism, however, initiatic? Yes.

[Anonymous No.20110789]

>>20110738
>Being plebeian or not does not matter – how would it?
>That is completely irrelevant. What is a secret order in comparison to the sacraments? Nothing.
>Is baptism, however, initiatic? Yes.
lel
>For Guénon the esoterism was still present in some crafts societies. But then again it is completely irrelevant to personal salvation.
Yes, you're coming at it entirely from a profane perspective, i don't know why you're talking about Guenon, you should stop. Your perspective is entirely exoteric in understanding, yet you are asserting it as the superior place of judgement when it comes to initiatory matters, which is cult like and very degenerate and one could be forgiven for saying that it has a "semitic" character, yes?

[Anonymous No.20110796]

>>20101088
Jesus is the bridge between East and West.

Try to focus on his word and deeds alone.

[Anonymous No.20110821]

>>20101178
Nobody cares about de Chardin’s writings other than slippery boomer Jesuit hippies who are still following the Vatican II rainbow, they have practically no influence outside of the same sort of people who take Richard Rohr seriously

[Anonymous No.20110826]

>>20110796
No thank you sir, we would not like to join your subversive jewish mystic cult, Better are the sacred ancient wisdoms from the pre-christian, central europeans, celts, the protonordics and likely the ancient aryans themselves, which is the tradition of the sacred knighthood, headed by Arthur and his sacerdotal counterpart, Merlin, which is Jesus. Who are his twelve knights? this is the problem with christianity. Such things are ultimately ruined by christianity.

[Anonymous No.20110827]

>>20110689
I'll reiterate: if you want to attack Christianity you should take Christianity for what it stands on its own, not for *your* interpretation of it. And Christianity is at its core: God became man and resurrected.

It would be very dishonest of me to attack buddhism based on what *I* think of it. I would have to take it for what it claims and use the pali canon etc.

>>20110789
'Profane perspective'? You judge Christianity based on your own profane straw man... You attack it for being "plebeian" (whatever that may mean for you) while using the most plebeian interpretation of it. (something akin to low brow theosophical assertions)

Truth is truth independently of it being followed to some degree by the masses. Essentially it does not matter whether something is 'plebeian' or not. Again: if you are going to attack Christianity you should attack it for what it is.

I only use perennialists because even they, who were not christians, acknowledged the truth of christianity.

If you are looking for some secret clubs where you can feel special then you were never after truth.

[Anonymous No.20110855]

>>20110827
>not for *your* interpretation of it.
My interpretation of it comes from the sphere of initiation, which is superior and transcendent to profane religious forms...yours is not. it has a more human approach, meaning influenced by emotion, irrelevant moral judgements, because it is an experiential science. so one can easily see how christianity has degenerated from the higher. the initiatic perspective is scientific and does not rely on fantasies never to be experienced.

[Anonymous No.20110860]

>>20110826
Ah, you are one of those /pol/ types then. Yes. Go larp with your 'muh ancestors' and 'strong values'. Pure egotism.

One day you will (hopefully) outgrow this need to assert yourself as a tough guy and become humble.

[Anonymous No.20110868]

>>20110855
>My interpretation of it comes from the sphere of initiation
which initiation?

Because I quoted those men who were DEEPLY CONCERNED with initiation and they all accepted christianity for its claims.

[Anonymous No.20110872]

>>20110827
>Essentially it does not matter whether something is 'plebeian' or not.
Yes it does, the masses by definition are hierarchically inferior and not to be entrusted with spiritual matters due to their nature!

your entire perspective is inverted when it comes to higher truth, dare i say counter initiation? my attack of christianity is pretty clear i think.

[Anonymous No.20110886]

>>20110860
>has no understanding of ancient (pre-judaic) spiritual matters
>starts crying about pol
are you even real? if so you must be pretty stupid.

[Anonymous No.20110905]

>>20110872
Your attack of christianity is based on a christianity that only exists in your head. You are not even being honest with yourself. It would be as if I attacked buddhism based purely on my imagination of it, instead of its own claims.

The masses can never taint the truth. That's why it is irrelevant if they acknowledge it to some degree. How exactly is christianity any less true because of its number of adherents?

Yours is the inverted perspective. You claim truth loses value when it becomes spread by the masses. Completely illogical. The higher will never be corrupted by the lower.

>>20110886
Name your sources lol. It is pretty clear you are not well read. You can post frogs as much as you want. It is only making the opposite effect.

[Anonymous No.20110920]

>>20110868
>which initiation?
all of them which can properly be given the name under traditionalist dogma. you should consider that this is also a practical matter, with the higher value being the motive, of course.

[Anonymous No.20110968]

>>20110905
>Your attack of christianity is based on a christianity that only exists in your head.
I was using your words. Why do you think it is illogical that the masses would have less access to the higher realms? metaphysically they represent the ground, earth, etc. while higher races represent the capstone, fire, the upper triangle of the seal of solomon, the bridge to the divine, which is jesus. Answer this question or i will leave.

to say that that which is most common must be available to everybody, or worse, that this is the truth, underlines a very fundamental aspect of your worldview which is altered by plebian conceptions, as is your religion as well of course. so you will excuse us if we would not discuss such matters with a person having such illogical conclusions (i.e., no two things can ever be equal, a fundamental metaphysical truth, yet you deny this? why?), while also calling other people illogical, meaning he has not really thought out his positions before laying them out.

>>20110905
Do you mean to say that you are not aware of the solar celtic, nordic, aryan myth of the sacred brethren? aka the knights of the round table? of whom jesus' apostles may or may not have been an emanation? possibly back to the hyperborean tradition. the pre-christian truth behind the myth of the holy grail? yet you would like to speak of higher truth? this is juvenile and preposterous, so i will excuse myself.

[Anonymous No.20110973]

>>20110905
>The masses can never taint the truth.
Yet another claim to be taken on pure faith. Even among an educated elite, the meanings of things will drift over time as they play telephone with one another. How much more must this be the case for the less educated, whose tendency to level things has resulted in brilliant apologetics ITT for Christianity, such as "you need to be more humble that's why you don't agree with me," and "because it's a historical document it must be true."

[Anonymous No.20110998]

>>20110968
>this is juvenile and preposterous, so i will excuse myself.
you still have not named your sources! I can quote all the traditionalists and you will still come up with your own opinions based on straw man fallacies. I can quote: Schuon, Guénon, Whitall Perry, Ananda and Rama Coomaraswamy. Name your sources and cease this 'holier than thou' attitude.

You don't fool me. You actually dropped your masked when you posted:

>>20110872
>>20110886
>>20110789

>>/lit/?task=search2&ghost=yes&search_text=&search_subject=&search_username=&search_tripcode=&search_email=&search_filename=1352038502857.jpg

>>/lit/?task=search2&ghost=yes&search_text=&search_subject=&search_username=&search_tripcode=&search_email=&search_filename=1590981561.jpg

>>/lit/?task=search2&ghost=yes&search_text=&search_subject=&search_username=&search_tripcode=&search_email=&search_filename=16488211.jpg

Just another /pol/ shitter as I expected. All about "muh strong values", "ancestors", "honor", "race" etc. You have no place in literary discussions. Intellectuality is definitely not for you. Go larp as the internet tough guy on /pol/. You are, in Guénon's definition, 'infra-human'. You care more about making yourself feel better.

[Anonymous No.20111060]

>>20110998
>Name your sources and cease this 'holier than thou' attitude.
Ya, you take them all out of context like a stupid person and a commoner or a layman. And you literally don't have an argument. You've supposedly read Guenon yet have no understanding of the caste system. This is as hilarious as it is stupid.

You are also visibly butthurt about people having traditional values. you are posting the archives for some reason. Why might that be? you seem more concerned about pol than anything else, which means in actual pragmatic reality you act like a leftist, or the plebian masses, are you starting to understand how this works now, you unquestionably stupid retard? don't even think you're spiritual, you dirty shekelgrubber.

[Anonymous No.20111071]

>>20110998
>Just another /pol/ shitter as I expected. All about "muh strong values", "ancestors", "honor", "race" etc.
>calling the essence of traditionalism pol and therefor bad
Honest question here, are you mentally retarded?

[Anonymous No.20111109]

>>20111060
Yes, I am very concerned about /pol/ shitters like you, blatant hylics obssessed with matter, coming to /lit/ to give their low brow takes on religions.

>You've supposedly read Guenon yet have no understanding of the caste system.
Guénon is not talking about the caste system when he defines the infra-human. But even if we talk about castes, you would be definitely below the shudras. So you have no place here, talking about religion. Even if you were a kshatriya (you dream!) you would have no place here.

You have not read the traditionalists and it is clear. You have no clue about initiation and tradition except for some vague ideas you took from Evola somehow.

You say 'plebeian' this and that, but your mentality is as much plebeian as it can get since you take as principles things such as 'race', 'strength' and 'action'. Essentially what is 'non-being'.

>calling the essence of traditionalism

Ancestry, strength, honor and race are not the essence of traditionalism! You have a distorted view on traditionalism.

You have never read Guénon, Schuon and AKC. Just stop. Nobody is interested on your low brow hylic takes on religions.

[Anonymous No.20111162]

>>20111109
>getting this butthurt over pol
Meanwhile you are utterly incapable of discussing things from an initiatory perspective and are too narcissistic to even realise that you "unmask" yourself more than you "unmask" me, in whatever feverish desire you have to affirm your delusions. This is also including you never being a woman, just a freak with no center, which is a mockery.

You seem to be pretty diligently on the ball to not have people be open to Western esotericism, in which Evola delves into a lot more detail than Guenon. Why is that? And more importantly, why are you using Guenon's name and that of Traditionalism to spread egalitarianism and further plebian delusions? obvious counter tradition, at least in some lower level, there is no way this moron has any body of light. Look how butthurt he is, even trying to use metaphysical concepts well above his understanding and experience, taking it as ultimate truth, while he withers away living a lie.

You try speaking about Guenon and traditionalism, dismissing things like blood and law, calling other people hylics, as you militantly whine about pol. This is a mockery of Traditionalism, which is metaphysically satanic. You can't speak the initiatic language, why do you pretend to understand Guenon and apply his ideas?

this isn't even really for me or you, more for the discerning reader, who will have better judgement than you, who is in all honest probably a delusional tranny.

[Anonymous No.20111239]

>>20111162
It is expected that you frame me with your limited /pol/ worldview.

I'm not about spreading egalitarianism. I just said you have no place in discussions about religion, which is pretty far from being egalitarian. If I were egalitarian I would think you are equally equipped to talk about these things, but you are clearly not since your are inclined to the mentality that focuses on pride and vanity.

I have asked your sources and you have not mentioned them. You claim to know about tradition and initiation but you dismissed the men I quoted by claiming I was taking them out of context etc. This shitshow will never stop as long as you keep pretending to be well read on matters concerned with tradition and religion. While what you care about is the same as any bourgeois who claims to care about 'values'.

I'm strictly anti-modern, anti-egalitarian and anti-democratic. And it is precisely because of my anti-egalitarism that I think you should refrain from talking about things that do not pertain to your character, so naturally worried everything accidental and untranscendental. Like I said: you do not belong here! Your place is in an incel echo chamber that exalts itself due to things such as race and politics. YOU are the anti-traditional man Guénon talks about. YOU are the one who confuses tradition with active transformation of the world.

This is the last reply you'll get.

(pic related it is you)

[Anonymous No.20111792]

>>20110642
but is there any way to actually access these western initiatory groups if I’m not a member of the elites? I can join a Buddhist monastery a lot easier than I can infiltrate a European royal family and get them to divulge their well-guarded esoteric secrets. I’m sure I can read about their beliefs in Evola, and feel a cultural familiarity with that, but the problem with gatekeeping an esoteric tradition from the “profane” is that the “profane” makes up 99.99% even of Westerners. And without initiation, you’re accomplishing nothing.

[Anonymous No.20111886]

>>20110108
But saying that every spiritual tradition you don’t like is “gah... the work of... evil... demons..” is a uniquely Abrahamic phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.20111984]

Traditionalists and Christians are both the most obnoxious set of posters on this board by far. Fuck both of you and your retarded bullshit

[Anonymous No.20111989]

>>20109940
When will you learn demons are very real and that they influence men every day

[Anonymous No.20111997]

>>20111989
>trannies exist therefore zombie jew
When you learn that your desert cult is a false teaching and you move on to more mature philosophies.

[Anonymous No.20112000]

>>20111997
Such as?

[Anonymous No.20112002]

>>20111886
>>20111984
>>20111997
>>20111162
>>20111071
>>20111060
>>20110973
>>20110968
>>20110920
>>20110886
>>20110872
>>20110855
>>20110789
>>20110689
>>20109940
massive seething from mr. aristocrat of the soul

[Anonymous No.20112008]

>>20112000
[Neo]platonism, Hermeticism, Madhyamaka, Ch'an, some strands of subjective idealism, etc.

[Anonymous No.20112011]

>>20112002
>quotes me when I said traditionalists were obnoxious
I know christians are massive brainlets but try to make an effort

[Anonymous No.20112024]

>>20112011
>>>/reddit/

[Anonymous No.20112026]

>>20112024
I accept your concession brainlet

[Anonymous No.20112044]

>>20112008
Christianity is the natural evolution of Neoplatonism and provides it a historical grounding. There is nothing Neoplatonism offers that isn't done better in Christian theology. Where are you going to practice your Neoplatonic theurgy? Religion needs community, unless you're practicing the theurgical rites in a group your admiration is only academic and you're treating it like a philosophical choice rather than an actual religion that binds you to practical realization of your beliefs.

[Anonymous No.20112051]

>>20101088
This is the plebeian thread
Migrate here >>20106161
For real intellectual discourse on this subject and related subjects

[Anonymous No.20112053]

>>20112044
>Christianity is the natural evolution of Neoplatonism
No, it is the syncretistic hijacking of it for the purpose of proselytism. Stop bending history to fit your narrative.

[Anonymous No.20112055]

>>20112053
Augustine was the greatest Neoplatonist in history and says otherwise.

[Anonymous No.20112059]

>>20112055
>Augustine was the greatest Neoplatonist
kek

[Anonymous No.20112065]

>>20112059
After Augustine pagans couldn't argue against Christianity anymore since his arguments were irrefutable. It's why paganism died out after Augustines time, there was no way to maintain an intellectual paganism in a world where Augustine had so thoroughly refuted that it can exist without Christianity that it's adherents simply died out.

[Anonymous No.20112066]

>>20112059
he is right. But your prejudice against christianity will never tolerate it. Christianity is the heir of pythagoreanism

[Anonymous No.20112072]

>>20112011
>>20112002
Evola from the Traditionalist perspective has his respective qualities, those who hate evola have not holistically read him - are brown or Jewish, or are spiritual "anti-fascist (whatever that means) cuckolds,
But you're right that /pol/ evolians are pseudo-traditionalists, in the sense that they tend to think evola is just some larping mystic Whose real points somehow conform to their materialistic historicist worldview, in actuality Evola was a talented author and he did a great service to the West, unfortunately his work has been popularised for the wrong sorts of audience - by design, evola is easy to misinterpret. Evola criticises this larpy "neo-pagan" mentality alot of pseudo-spiritual /pol/ evolians harbour which revolves simply around some ambiguous notion of blood and soil, the imprisonment in nature - no transcendent metaphysics, action over contemplation, etc. Etc. Evola has been popularised but even the truths of Evola evade most of them.

[Anonymous No.20112080]

>>20112072
is there any traditionalist who quotes evola? From the second or third generation. I think not

[Anonymous No.20112108]

>>20112065
>>20112066
Your bias makes any kind of argument impossible. Christianity was thoroughly blown the fuck out by the Romans and Augustine's copes don't matter in the slightest.

[Anonymous No.20112118]

>>20112108
it is you who is biased against christianity though. Even non christians perennialists believe christianity to be true. Do you claim to be wiser than them? What religion do you follow?

Historical accidents do not matter at all.

[Anonymous No.20112121]

>>20112065
Holy cope, Augustine was not all that.. just read plotinus, Porphyry, proclus, damascius, iamblichus, Syrianus etc. Etc.
I recommend the Thomas Taylor translations, in reality Augustine did not "intellectually destroy" neoplatonism and paganism, just read his argumentation in the places where he correlates Christian concepts to neoplatonic ones it's a case of essentialy stitching ideas together which are not probably correlated in anyway, he simply paved the way for intellectual subversion of the more priestly castes of European society, for example think of today how we have all these larping pseudo-philosophers steeped in the pseudo-intellectuality of the "enlightenment" etc. All the academics favour these dispositions, Christianity was simply institutionally mandated became steeped in botched and faulty "church fathers" distorting and "borrowing" the philosophy of "heathens."

Just read plato, etc. I'm sorry but these guys remain unrefuted, and we have made absolutely zero intellectual progress from that point, intellectual "progress" is a modern myth regardless, Christianity was a "historical" subversion of the eternal native religions of Europe, I am not anti-christianity but I believe in the devolution of mankind and civilisation, not the "evolution" as modernists would subscribe to, Christianity is not bad in itself as it is still a sort of Vehicle of ancient European wisdom, but at its root it will always have a sort of barbarousness and foreign attribute, in the way celsus etc. Talk about, if Christianity is simply a proof of transcending "categories" or detribalising truth, then really you are giving it relative importance, I like to look at Christian icons, too for example https://russianicons.wordpress.com/2021/07/16/three-northern-gods/

And I don't view saints as anything other than pagan deities, I've figured that this is how More ancient "converted" Christians would have thought about it, see link for example, and these saints being pagan deities is a good thing, I believe "polytheism" and "idolatry" are false distinctions honestly, monotheism is implicit and the Unity of God is inherent even amongst multiplicity, amongst many God's - such a realisation is already inherent in the trinitarian formulation no matter how much people want to obscure it with, hypostases, ousia, energy-essence distinction, Triune God is triple faced etc.

[Anonymous No.20112126]

>>20112108
>Christianity was thoroughly blown the fuck out by the Romans
Christianity won though.

[Anonymous No.20112129]

>>20112080
Is there any second or third generation Traditionalist who is an "anti-semite," I think not, in my opinion Traditionalism died with Schuon and Evola (evola is different to all the rest of the Traditionalist authors because he is focussed on different things) was alright and early schuon I am talking about here,
all "Traditionalists" I don't acknowledge.

[Anonymous No.20112132]

>>20112129
All post-ww2 "Traditionalists" post-globohomo "Traditionalists"

[Anonymous No.20112141]

>>20112118
I'm not a perennialist so I don't see how this is relevant at all. All religions are obvious nonsense (now here's the part where you NPCs call me either Reddit or hylic or some variation of that) and God doesn't need to be (nor can God be) contained by those man-made ideas.
Funny you'd mention historical accidents because that's exactly what Christianity is: >>20109155 >>20109181 >>20109202
>>20112126
So? Now it lost to postmodernism, does that make critical theory the truth?

[Anonymous No.20112147]

>>20112121
I've read more Neoplatonist philosophy than you have and Christianity is it's consumation. I'm sorry if that makes you upset but it's the simple truth, no philosophy can survive unless it has it's grounding in historical fact and Neoplatonism without the incarnation is simply navel gazing.

[Anonymous No.20112148]

>>20112132
"Traditionalism" today has been reduced to spiritual consumerism, and essentially fetishism and nostalgia for a lost "Eastern past" really it is pitiful, this is why I like Evola's "the myth of the east is a fallacy, the desert encroaches, the only civilisation who can save us is ourselves" and why I think he fills an obvious gap necessarily.

[Anonymous No.20112152]

>>20112147
>no philosophy can survive unless it has it's grounding in historical fact
Source: dude trust me
You are assuming Christianity is true to justify your assertion that it is true. Typical

[Anonymous No.20112154]

>>20112147
>for sale: dozens of tomes, unopened

[Anonymous No.20112158]

>>20112141
you are a hylic redditor in my book. i've btfo you above

[Anonymous No.20112159]

>>20112154
The cope is getting sad now

[Anonymous No.20112170]

>>20112158
I accept your concession.

[Anonymous No.20112176]

Read this

[Anonymous No.20112177]

>>20112147
>no philosophy can survive unless it has it's grounding in historical fact

You're entirely wrong, neoplatonism was simply the contiuation of platonism, what historical fact was platonism built on - and why does christianity build its own historical fact, after the facts, orr... are you saying Plato and Neoplatonism was essentialy invalid for not being built on this one historical fact, "the incarnation" in this case --- which mind you they had through Dionysus etc. etc. And if they are invalid, what gives you the right now to assert that all of a sudden in a strictly christian context neoplatonism is valid,

> Augustine gave classic expression to the analogy of the Trinity in which the unity of essence is likened to the rational part of the human soul, composed as it is of “the mind, and the knowledge by which it knows itself, and the love by which it loves itself.”

Do you think this somehow justifies anything?

[Anonymous No.20112188]

>>20112147
Why are all the previous incarnations invalid, as i said before I am not anti-christian, and think it is fine for you to believe that, because in the scriptures say Jesus and No other God should be acknowledged, but what is your ""philosophical"" justification here, that scripture is and must necessarily be absolute truth - essentially?

[Anonymous No.20112191]

>>20112177
>what historical fact was platonism built on
It isn't, that's why it's just a philosophy among philosophies.

>and why does christianity build its own historical fact
The resurrection of Christ is the historical fact that proves Christianity true. The incarnation of the Logos is validated and thus provides a rock solid base which all philosophy can be based upon.

>what gives you the right now to assert that all of a sudden in a strictly christian context neoplatonism is valid,
There's a reason Neoplatonism stalled out on it's own while it achieved ever greater heights through Maximos the Confessor and Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.20112198]

>>20112188
Christianity is a religion, it hinges on belief. They pretend it's all provable but at some point you need to convince yourself

[Anonymous No.20112202]

This guy >>20112191 is a notorious schizophrenic a la Guenonfag who will never argue in good faith no matter what, do not engage

[Anonymous No.20112203]

>>20112191
>built
So Hinduism is also built on "historical fact" in whatever ambiguous way you mean, they have the vedas etc. etc. Do you affirm the legitimacy of Hinduism also in that respect? As I said before also Incarnations, and Avataras this is a pre-christian indo-european concept also.

[Anonymous No.20112209]

>>20112203
>So Hinduism is also built on "historical fact" in whatever ambiguous way you mean
Christ didn't affirm Hinduism, he affirmed Christianity.

[Anonymous No.20112211]

>>20112191
>a philosophy among philosophies.
If it is merely a philosophy among philsophies, then why use it and justify the usage of heathen philosophy, and if something has to be derived from a historical fact to be true, how did the ancient philosopher arrive at truth - which was recognised by the church fathers - and through mental gymnastics (Justin Martyr Logos Spermatikos and Augustine's Philosophia Perennis) was decided to be True enough to be adopted and even Infused with the gospel of John for example etc. etc. which is full of a sort of Platonism.

[Anonymous No.20112213]

>>20112211
cont.

“And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; Aesculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars? And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Caesar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre? And what kind of deeds are recorded of each of these reputed sons of Jupiter, it is needless to tell to those who already know. This only shall be said, that they are written for the advantage and encouragement of youthful scholars; for all reckon it an honourable thing to imitate the gods. But far be such a thought concerning the gods from every well-conditioned soul, as to believe that Jupiter himself, the governor and creator of all things, was both a parricide and the son of a parricide, and that being overcome by the love of base and shameful pleasures, he came in to Ganymede and those many women whom he had violated and that his sons did like actions. But, as we said above, wicked devils perpetrated these things. And we have learned that those only are deified who have lived near to God in holiness and virtue; and we believe that those who live wickedly and do not repent are punished in everlasting fire.”

― Justin Martyr, The First Apology of Justin Martyr, Addressed to the Emperor Antoninus Pius; Prefaced by Some Account of the Writings and Opinions of Justin

[Anonymous No.20112218]

Buddhism is dualistic (good and evil, life and death are all meaningless dualities) and Christianity inherently subordinates death as inferior to life and evil as inferior to good.

[Anonymous No.20112220]

>>20112211
>then why use it
Because it's useful

>and if something has to be derived from a historical fact to be true, how did the ancient philosopher arrive at truth
You're getting mixed up. It's possible to arrive as truth through philosophy but it's not possible to verify truth through philosophy. Christs resurrection is the verification that the Christian worldview is ultimately true and you can use it as the basis for philosophy.

You've vastly underestimating what a paradigm shift the incarnation is. God himself, not an avatar, not a manifestation, big G God incarnated and fused his divine nature with human nature in a single person. He did this out of pure love for his creation. Christianity is the proof that many (though not all) things the philosophers taught about God were correct.

[Anonymous No.20112223]

>>20112147
>historical fact
A true Religion is eternal, transcends historicism, is atemporal, etc. etc.

Is the above wrong? Why is it wrong "philosophically," plotinus says the intellect is an eternal instrument of one's causality, Christianity refuses this claim by negating the "eternality" of the instruments "correct usage"

well that does not prove anything, as i do not think you are pretending that neoplatonism and christian theology is entirely consistent - which is not - and which is why neoplatonists even wrote books against Christianity, etc. etc.

[Anonymous No.20112229]

>>20106985
>The Neoplatonists converted to Christianity because Christianity showed
It was all political, you have no idea what you're talking about

[Anonymous No.20112230]

>>20112218
>Buddhism is dualistic
Brainlet moment

[Anonymous No.20112233]

>>20112223
>A true Religion is eternal, transcends historicism, is atemporal
Do any religions fit this description? This is the reason why I could never see Christianity as anything else than a set of stupid superstitions, I am not a materialist but religions founded on historicism seem retarded.

[Anonymous No.20112234]

>>20101267
>to find authors who identify strongly with Catholicism who recognize Eastern and Perennial thought if that makes sense.
Valentin Tomberg/Meditations on the Tarot

[Anonymous No.20112235]

The buddha already shits on brahmins, so he wont value any jewish doctrine

[Anonymous No.20112237]

>>20112223
the truth is that christian theology disagrees with you, this Incarnation historical exclusivism is not the natural conclusion of understanding things like eternality, and god, which IS why many church fathers were syncretists, and even perennialists because originally christianity had to supplant itself in an european "heathen" culture as just one of the many cults.

[Anonymous No.20112239]

>>20112229
>It was all political
Pagan cope. Every writing we have says they converted because they recognized the truth of Christ. Augustine, Boethius and Victorinus.

[Anonymous No.20112248]

>>20112229
False

[Anonymous No.20112262]

>hundreds of extremely intelligent men throughout history thought Christianity was "the truth"
>have an IQ in the 99th percentile
>even if I try my hardest, no matter the shifts of perspective I put myself through, regardless of my sincere efforts, Christianity remains nonsensical to me; so far, the only religion whose writings I have found compelling has been Chinese Chan
Why is this?

[Anonymous No.20112277]

>>20112233
Yes, all correctly understood religions do, its just that most people are metaphysical confused "Nature's eternal religion" Sanātana Dharma for example, the "primordial tradition" fits this description, essentially acknowledging perennial truth, that there are many religions which esoterically are like branches stemming from the trunk of primordial tradition, this is the natural conclusion that anyone who studies multiple religions comes to, don't get me mistaken either many Christians also validly take up this position, and i am not preaching universalism - I think one should be initiated and dedicate himself to one orthodox tradition, you cant be a universalist in the sense of practicing a "universal" religion is my meaning - not that you can't be a Christian and acknowledge truths in other religion, this Christianity Is Absolute and Only, and exclusive all things are false but it - could be true in a sense, but that is just semantics - i Mean, with books like "christ the eternal tao" all that can be done - is seeing Christ in other religions - which is what I would say is the "truly orthodox" way, this naive simplicity and denialism is zogbot cope - probably a result of someone whose mind has been morphed by Protestantism or pseudo-philosophy.

[Anonymous No.20112279]

>>20112262
You haven't read David Bentley Hart. Start with The Experience of God then move on to the Beauty of the Infinite.

[Anonymous No.20112282]

>>20112262
>>20112279
Oh, I should also mention:
>actually had a Christian (Catholic) phase
>after reading the Bible, prayed and asked for guidance in order to be granted faith
>also prayed for my family
>what happened was that Christianity became increasingly nonsensical to me, and my family went through hardships from there
This turned me away from it definitively.

[Anonymous No.20112287]

>>20112282
You haven't read DBH though so get to it.

[Anonymous No.20112291]

>>20112279
essentialy "By In Christ" he has to mean "In an ultimate cosmic redefinition of truth which is UNIVERSALLY pervading the human existence" which is perennial, you somehow deny that Christ is everywhere - Why wouldn't Christ be in Hinduism etc. i think you are simply being willfully and schizophrenically ignorant.

[Anonymous No.20112293]

>>20112277
Why be encumbered by religion when you could just seek God through direct experience? I see no reason to go farther than deism or subjective idealism

[Anonymous No.20112300]

>>20112287
No, give me an actual answer instead of the whole "read this book" cope that is so prevalent on this board. Only impressionable people get their worldview shattered by books, especially in matters of religion. I've read enough to be confident yet another theologian won't turn my world upside down.

[Anonymous No.20112301]

>>20112229
>thinking Pseudo-Dionysius was just a clout chaser

>>20112230
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(Indian_philosophy)

[Anonymous No.20112302]

>>20112293
You need ritual, community and cult to experience God. Man was not meant to live alone and you can not experience God as an individual purely by meditation or any other solely introspective spiritual exercise.

[Anonymous No.20112305]

>>20112300
>No, give me an actual answer instead of the whole "read this book" cope that is so prevalent on this board.
You do know you're on /lit/ don't you? Why would I waste my time typing out a post to convince a retard when you could just read a perfectly good book and get an ever better, more comprehensive explanation?

[Anonymous No.20112307]

>>20112302
>what are mystics
Also, "you need [...]" according to whom?

[Anonymous No.20112309]

>>20112291
when i read the bible and read christ is the truth the way and the life, i took this literally, when I read christ is the light i took this literally, therefore christ must be helios-apollo-shiva-dionysus, zogbots are coping hard.

[Anonymous No.20112310]

>>20112300
What theologians have you read?

[Anonymous No.20112321]

>>20112301
Pseudo dionysius, Mystical theology Chapter V:

"Again, ascending yet higher, we maintain that it is neither soul nor intellect; nor has it imagination, opinion reason or understanding; nor can it be expressed or conceived, since it is neither number nor order; nor greatness nor smallness; nor equality nor inequality; nor similarity nor dissimilarity; neither is it standing, nor moving, nor at rest; neither has it power nor is power, nor is light; neither does it live nor is it life; neither is it essence, nor eternity nor time; nor is it subject to intelligible contact; nor is it science nor truth, nor kingship nor wisdom; neither one nor oneness, nor godhead nor goodness; nor is it spirit according to our understanding, nor filiation, nor paternity; nor anything else known to us or to any other beings of the things that are or the things that are not; neither does anything that is know it as it is; nor does it know existing things according to existing knowledge; neither can the reason attain to it, nor name it, nor know it; neither is it darkness nor light, nor the false nor the true; nor can any affirmation or negation be applied to it, for although we may affirm or deny the things below it, we can neither affirm nor deny it, inasmuch as the all-perfect and unique Cause of all things transcends all affirmation, and the simple pre-eminence of Its absolute nature is outside of every negation- free from every limitation and beyond them all."


OHHH noooo... Not that quote Goy!

The thing is the christian theologians don't ignore them "dyerites" do, just read Palamas as he cites Proclus verbatim, affirms panentheism, the essence-energy virtual distinction.

[Anonymous No.20112325]

>>20112305
Just say you don't have an answer and be done with it.
>>20112310
Augustine, Iranaeus, some Aquinas and some Feser but I found those two tedious and not compelling in the slightest.
Why does nobody want to answer me and is instead looking for some juvenile gotcha?

[Anonymous No.20112335]

>>20112325
Augustine and Ireneaus weren't really doing apologetics for atheists. In their time atheism was seen as extreme degeneracy and was actually a crime. Reading people who assume you already accept God exists because you'd be a retard not to think God exists is obviously not a very good way for a modern man caught in the trappings of enlightenment lies to understand how deeply you've been influenced by a particular metaphysical worldview. That's why you read DBH.

[Anonymous No.20112336]

>>20112310
>>20112325
Oh and CS Lewis and Tomberg. None of them convinced me anyway so this list is useless.

[Anonymous No.20112337]

>>20112325
don't read the works of these secondary academic scholars, read first pseudo-dionysius the aereopagite, john scotus eriugena periphyseon, read neoplatonic authors but thomas taylor translations when you can.

[Anonymous No.20112340]

>>20112335
I was never an atheist. I have always believed, just not in Christianity.

[Anonymous No.20112345]

>>20112340
What makes you think Christianity is nonsensical?

[Anonymous No.20112351]

>>20105861
Is Hell the eternal torture chamber that is usually memed by atheists or is it obliteration? If it's the latter I'd rather go to Hell honestly, eternal existence would suck

[Anonymous No.20112376]

>>20112337
>>20112340
the only solution for intellectuals is to read dante etc. alongside more mystical texts with as well as "pagan" syncretic texts, etc. etc. alongside the upanishads, shankara, abhinavagupta for example, and even the Quran, plato, Ibn arabi, etc. etc.

Zogbots are coping, also i suggest maybe you read guenon first, if you have zero inherent metaphysical intuition, however - since you didnt buy the false dichotomy of Christianity vs. atheism, you're probably higher up than most.

Same story with me, I always identified with just a general theistic approach, I respect Jesus, and still do, I never bought the atheistic scientism meme - its against my nature, however when i started looking into orthodox christianity - i was baptised into it, with pseuds like Jay dyer and other "televangelists," i became extremely just disgusted by the whole thing, apart from the chants and doing the Jesus prayer - which at some point i could not even bring myself to utter, because i had been convinced that christianity was in its entirety just total jewish subversion - i still agree with that in some respects but not in entirety, rather i think that pernnial and "pagan" european tradition survived only under the veneer of "christian estorerism," but now through my insights into metaphysics I am starting, to gain a more holistic understanding, I don't hate any religion - that is like a demon, and i sure as hell don't like golem christian evangelists who use hell as a threat - those guys are intellectual defects - european dalits.

[Anonymous No.20112377]

>>20112345
It's not an attack on Christianity specifically, I feel the same way about other religions but Christianity is just the one I've poured the most time into.
I find the fundamental doctrines of sin, salvation and grace nonsensical and requiring tedious, convoluted mental gymnastics and cognitive dissonance to make sense of; I also find the idea of revelation as a historical nexus in space and time (the tribes of Israel, the incarnation as supposedly meaningful, etc) to be antipodal to the notion of genuine transcendental truth; and finally, I just don't believe in the events surrounding Jesus' life, let alone in the meaning that is given to them.
I was never raised a Christian, so I don't have a sensibility for Christian symbolism "imprinted" in me like many do. I think this is part of the explanation as well, since almost all of the Christians I've talked to, on here and in real life, have either been raised in the faith and never departed from it, or were raised in it, had an atheist phase, then went back to it.

[Anonymous No.20112380]

>>20112376
I was baptised into it - only by birth and cultural tradition - i should add - didnt convert to it or anything.

[Anonymous No.20112398]

>>20112376
What do you call inherent metaphysical intuition? Before being exposed to religion and philosophy, when I was younger, I came up with my own metaphysical model, which I later realized was similar to Chan with some elements of the Avatamsaka sutra thrown in. This naturally pulls me towards those schools of thought, and towards barebones, mystical, apophatic approaches to divinity in general, as opposed to heavily rationalistic exoteric theological frameworks.
The threats never made much sense to me either, I find punishment much less likely than the purification and unburdening of attachments, which comes up in Plato and in eastern philosophy too.

[Anonymous No.20112402]

>>20112376
>which at some point i could not even bring myself to utter, because i had been convinced that christianity was in its entirety just total jewish subversion
So basically you got memed by /pol/ shills

[Anonymous No.20112420]

>>20112325
>Why does nobody want to answer me and is instead looking for some juvenile gotcha?
You haven't given a concrete answer to why you objected to Christian theology other than "me smart IQ number, this dumb"

[Anonymous No.20112434]

>>20112420
I'm not looking for an autistic debate, I mentioned what I disagreed with in >>20112377. I don't care for your partisan shitflinging, there's been enough of that ITT.

[Anonymous No.20112446]

>>20112377
it all comes down to the acceptance of the historical fact of the resurrection. all the rest is marginal to it

[Anonymous No.20112457]

>>20112377
>I also find the idea of revelation as a historical nexus in space and time (the tribes of Israel, the incarnation as supposedly meaningful, etc) to be antipodal to the notion of genuine transcendental truth
Immanence is antipodal to Transcendence and all good theology addresses that particular antinomy. The imminence and action of God in history is necessary.

>I think this is part of the explanation as well, since almost all of the Christians I've talked to, on here and in real life, have either been raised in the faith and never departed from it, or were raised in it, had an atheist phase, then went back to it.
I was raised in an atheist household and converted to Christianity, never read the Bible until I was 23

[Anonymous No.20112461]

>>20112377
> I also find the idea of revelation as a historical nexus in space and time (the tribes of Israel, the incarnation as supposedly meaningful, etc) to be antipodal to the notion of genuine transcendental truth; and finally, I just don't believe in the events surrounding Jesus' life, let alone in the meaning that is given to them.

Could not agree more, the lost israel tribes and israel thing and whole muh historicism

>>20112402
Search up Adam Green, Christopher Jon Bjerknes i always found them intellectually deficient - for obvious reasons if you have knowledge, but just the possibility of it all made me think that, seeing the state of (((Modern Christian))) just go on that youtube channel "christcuck pastors" seeing all these judaising intellectual inferiors evangelising their rubbish, etc. etc. and not to mention I always could not grasp the whole >Muh Israel Muh Jew of the old testament, then I read kabbalah on advice of CJB and adam green, And i realise yeah it is legit - at least the Jews genuinely believe (by jews i mean various kabbalah rabbis) that christians And muslims were useful idiots preparing the way for the messiah son of david, and the sabbath millenial kingdom which neccesitates the destruction of Edom, not only that i looked into Atenism and realised that it had "certain characteristics" of proto-christianity - ramifications arguably after generations causing the downfall of Great Egypt, Cult of YAOtl of the Aztecs which - caused collapse, Aztec scriptures having odd similarities to Old testament... I figured there was a multi-millenia who knows how long, ongoing war waged between the jews and aryans, I could almost feel it spiritually...

>>20112398
I will just say an intuition according to the three gunas, corresponding more so to the brahminic caste of a race, the castes even if we are not living by them are natural realities in this way, so I would say that even if we have been long gone int he external and outer-forms they are active internally, i essentially mean some of us have minds predisposed in a way toward the metaphysical, the universal and the higher,


"It may now be stated that metaphysics [...] is essentially the knowledge of the Universal, or, if preferred, the knowledge of the principles belonging to the universal order, which moreover alone can validly lay claim to the name of principles; but in making this statement, we are not really trying to propose a definition of metaphysics, for such a thing is a sheer impossibility by reason of that very universality which we look upon as the foremost of its characteristics, the one from which all the other are derived. In reality, only something that is limited is capable of definition, whereas by definition metaphysics is on the contrary by its very nature absolutely unlimited, and this plainly does not allow our enclosing it in a more or less narrow formula [...]."

[Anonymous No.20112478]

the problem many find in christianity relies solely on the fact that they have a protestant view of christianity. and protestantism is crypto-atheism basically

[Anonymous No.20112483]

>>20112446
Well, I don't accept it, though even if I did, it would do nothing for my overall faith in the doctrine since I don't engage with religion by starting from atheist-physicalist assumptions.
I guess I should've put more emphasis on the appeal to authority in my initial question, i.e. that the main (perhaps only) thing that has kept me interested in Christianity despite my complete lack of faith is that I assume the hundreds of intelligent men who believed in it must have had a reason to. That is to say, I can't dismiss it as mere nonsense considering its intellectual backbone, I want to understand. Maybe I should make a thread on this.
>>20112457
The immanence-transcendence dichotomy has been questioned, most recently by Laruelle, but even Eckhart himself pointed towards a muddling of the apparent opposition in his accounts of mystical experience. Either way, I see no reason to assume God must intervene in the world, this is the basis of deism. The arguments I've seen that support your point of view usually hinge on an initial assumption that Christian theology is already agreed upon as the right model through which to filter metaphysical questioning.

[Anonymous No.20112491]

>>20112461
>just go on that youtube channel "christcuck pastors"
Never heard of that but yeah it's the same shit shilled on /pol/, you literally got psyop'd. All that stuff comes from a group of discord trannies with a chip on their shoulder.

[Anonymous No.20112500]

>>20101088
>but because it followed the path of reason, which cannot be seen to contradict faith.
According to Christians the wise are less wise than children and fools. Faith contradicting reason is a cornerstone of Abrahamic theology. The entire Christian movement is a reaction against intellectual solidity and power in favor of the "wisdom" of the Chandala.

[Anonymous No.20112503]

>>20112461
you basically viewed christianity in the most americanist, anachronist and protestant/evangelical lens. of course that could only lead to unbelief (in it)

now of course christianity is not any of that. Christ built His church. start from here.

[Anonymous No.20112507]

>>20112503
Not the guy you're replying to, but my exposure to Christianity was through Catholicism, I also succinctly explored Orthodoxy, and neither made any kind of sense to me either. I would go as far as to say I preferred the Protestant outlook.

[Anonymous No.20112523]

>>20112377
>I also find the idea of revelation as a historical nexus in space and time (the tribes of Israel, the incarnation as supposedly meaningful, etc) to be antipodal to the notion of genuine transcendental truth
Revelation being identifiable in symbolic-time doesn't make it inferior to some sort of esoteric philosophical initiation. If transcendental truth has to some as sort of esoteric thing then the otherwise good people who aren't literate/inclined to philosophy would essentially be shut out from such truth just by their temperament. That seems much less kind than the idea of needing to accept atonement for sins.

[Anonymous No.20112532]

>>20112507
Orthodoxy is very big on private revelation and piety and Catholicism is a blending of Platonic philosophy in late antiquity with Aristotlean logic in the Middle Ages. Throwing out philosophy and spirituality and just digging super deep into historical semantics is a decidedly Protestant thing.

[Anonymous No.20112539]

>>20112507
Read the Russians

Vladimir Solovyov
Sergei Bulgakov
Pavel Florensky
Nicolai Berdyaev

Good luck anon

[Anonymous No.20112558]

>>20112523
If something is contingent on time, I cannot see it as anything else than worthless, or inconsequential at best.
>much less kind
That doesn't change anything and doesn't make it true even though I'm inclined to agree. I believe a third position is possible, one that neither subordinates transcendence to esoteric initiation, nor to a specific event in space and time, but has the return to the transcendental, to what is not of this world, be both elusive in this world (necessarily) yet inevitable. I don't find the idea of sin compelling.
>>20112539
At this point I think I'm done with Christianity but I might take a look at the sophiologists and other fringe branches of historical interest.

[Anonymous No.20112578]

>>20112532
Catholicism is neither Platonic nor Aristotelean in any meaningful sense, there is Aquinas who plundered some of Aristotle's thoughts and manipulated them for doctrinal introduction, and there are some like Augustine who rely on very basic and primitive philosophical ideas to justify a God which, when considered more deeply, is not coherent with the basic principles. Ex nihilo animi et mundi demolishes any coherency between the two and displays the fundamental irrationality of the Christian creed. "From nothing comes something with sin", "from nothing comes something which was created by God, but which could not be created by God." Dig deeper and you'll find none of it makes sense from a rational Platonist perspective. There are surface-level analogies between the Trinity and the triplets of the more esoteric aspects of Plato's philosophy, but these are A) not substantially similar to the basic ideas in Plato, and B) obviously copied from Plato by early Christian philosophers for their own purposes and not clearly present in the older scriptures. It's all farcical.

[Anonymous No.20112581]

>>20112558
>At this point I think I'm done with Christianity
Seems like a weird position considering you've missed out on Maximus the Confessor, Marcilio Ficino and Nicholas of Cusa. Do you really think the breadth of Christian thought is exhausted by Augustine and Aquinas? Brilliant as they both are they represent only a small fraction of Christian theological viewpoints. What about Origen? Or Vladimir Lossky? Or Hans Urs Von Balthasar? Karl Rahner? Jacob Boehme? Karl Barth? Georges Florovsky? Alexander Schmemann?

>If something is contingent on time, I cannot see it as anything else than worthless, or inconsequential at best.
If one disregards the temporal aspect of reality as being irrelevant I can't help but think they're missing something enormous since the temporal aspect of existence is intended by God, and meshes with the doctrine of providence which is HUGELY important to theology proper. If you don't understand the flow of time and the importance of history then you don't understand providence and you don't understand God.

[Anonymous No.20112587]

>>20112503
>church. start from here.
this is me here
>>20112376
>>20112380
I view and still do view christianity in the way in which i was exposed to it, through orthodoxy, icons, etc. and i am well aware of the "theological errors" of protestantism for example, i used to research it to give myself a pat on the back - that i was not "one of those protestants" people in the balkans view the Church like a national religion mostly, when we think orthodox we think of our own nation,
christianity was always about preserving a local ethnicity, the orthodox church helped around under ottoman occupation, but I just can't ignore how christianity has obviously been used as a vehicle of subversion amongst the americans and westerners, my interests have always only been about, peace, knowledge, a sort of sage-like state, like a philosopher sage - pretty much like the rishis of the vedas, this is not some "aesthetic cope" either, i also notice even amongst the commoner, like my dad he is pretty old, etc. and they all don't read the bible and they think they must be and their race must be in the old testament, they dont even know "old testament" vs "new testament" he said he tried reading it, but just put it down and thought it was all bullshit, if this sort of "generational ignorance" is how christianity has continued to this day - then i am sorry but I have to say it was probably a "jewish subversion" American protestantism is probably the natural conclusion of christianity in its most literal sense, the monks on mt. athos are literal crypto-yogis and chant mantras, do breathing practices, sit in specific positions and experience an "uncreated light" similar things i have read about eastern buddhist and hindu practices, we use the same theological justification for "icons" as the hindus do for "idols," the 2D vs 3D is an absolutely unfounded and arbitrary distinction.. which is why orthodox churches some of them have "3d iconography" because it is such an unfounded rule that it can be hardly upheld, i have heard retards say that we have St. XYZ ancient god.

I'm sorry but my opinion is that Orthodox Christianity is simply Hinduism, thanks.

[Anonymous No.20112591]

>>20112587
>I'm sorry but my opinion is that Orthodox Christianity is simply Hinduism, thanks.
Which Orthodox theologian have you read gives you that impression and can you quote the parts that seem to you to be similar to Hinduism? The facile nature of your understanding of Christianity is becoming more apparent with every post you make. To equate hesychasm with yoga is simply absurd.

[Anonymous No.20112613]

>>20112587
Your opinion doesn't mean much unless you've actually engaged Orthodox thought and read authors explai Orthodox doctrines in their own words. Looking from the outside doesn't help. I'm not a Calvinist but I've read over a dozen books on reformed theology to better understand them from their own perspective. You have a LOT more reading to do, skimming a bit of Aquinas does not make you informed on Christian theology.

[Anonymous No.20112624]

Whenever there was a debate between a Christian and a Buddhist, the Christian gets BTFO so hard it's not even funny.

[Anonymous No.20112628]

>>20112581
I'm somewhat familiar with Ficino, I love the way he writes but I put him on hold for a while and never got back to him. I'll eventually get around to reading Boehme as well, but as I said above, it's not books that are going to convince me of anything, rationalism has its limits and I don't believe in the Catholic idea that God can be grasped through reason and logic. At this point I'm only reading theology out of personal interest, not a desire to convert.
>the temporal aspect of existence is intended by God
Well, this is true in a Christian framework. Your analysis doesn't necessarily hold if you reject Christianity to begin with. There are many religious traditions that hold time as inconsequential; Abrahamic traditions hold it as meaningful because of a linear eschatology.

[Anonymous No.20112655]

>>20112587
>American protestantism is probably the natural conclusion of christianity in its most literal sense
Once a Christian culture decides its most important practice is to read the bible for guidance, instead of just doing what it was doing for centuries with a fresh coat of paint as required by the clerical authorities, it will inevitably understand the bible is an Israel for Dummies operating manual, and begin larping as the junior partner of covenant theology. But the volcano has made no deal with your people, and this negation of all your historical practices finally ends with nihilism once belief in the God who made you do so is doubted, because there is nothing to go back to and nothing to look forward to.

[Anonymous No.20112662]

>>20107100
>Gods grace and the necessity of grace to achieve salvation
not trying to argue your point, just here to try and understand what you guys are talking about: can you explain in detail what do you mean by grace?

what I have found for deifinitions are:
>elegance of movement
>courteous good will - guess this is what you refer to
>mercy - or this


t. second language speaker

[Anonymous No.20112687]

>>20112587
>I'm sorry but my opinion is that Orthodox Christianity is simply Hinduism, thanks.
>the 2D vs 3D is an absolutely unfounded and arbitrary distinction..
it seems like you are also into anime

t. Verification not required.

[Anonymous No.20112751]

>>20110642
>Alchemy, understood in the original context, first and foremost dealt with the inner transformation of man
False. Internal alchemy is a reinterpretation of original alchemy from around the period chemistry started showing actual proof. You fell for the random esoteric website articles.

[Anonymous No.20112758]

>>20112751
You mean the "original alchemy" which called actual chemists "charcoal burners"?

[Anonymous No.20112811]

>>20112121
Neoplatonism is middle eastern
>Plotinus (/plɒˈtaJnəs/; Greek: Πλωτῖνος, Plōtînos; c.204/5 – 270) was a major Hellenistic Greek[7][8] philosopher born and raised in Roman Egypt, regarded by modern scholarship as the founder of Neoplatonism.[1][2][3][4]

>Eunapius reported that Plotinus was born in Lyco, which could either refer to the modern Asyut in Upper Egypt or Deltaic Lycopolis, in Lower Egypt.[1][2][3][4] This has led to speculations that he may have been either native Egyptian, Hellenized Egyptian,[10] Greek, or Roman.[11]

>Three distinct phases in classical neoplatonism after Plotinus can be distinguished: the work of his student Porphyry; that of Iamblichus and his school in Syria; and the period in the fifth and sixth centuries, when the Academies in Alexandria and Athens flourished.[4]

>Porphyry of Tyre (/ˈpɔːrfJri/; Greek: Πορφύριος, Porphýrios; Arabic: فرفوريوس, Furfūriyūs; c.234 – c.305 AD) was a Phoenician[1] Neoplatonic philosopher born in Tyre, Roman Syria[2]

>Iamblichus (/aJˈæmblJkəs/; Greek: Ἰάμβλιχος Iámblichos; Safaitic: 𐩺𐩣𐩴𐩫 /yamlik/ “[the deity] reigns”; c. AD 245 – c. 325) was a Syrian[1][2] Neoplatonist philosopher of Arab origin.[3][4] He determined the direction that would later be taken by Neoplatonic philosophy.

>The Roman emperor Julian, not content with Eunapius' more modest eulogy that he was inferior to Porphyry only in style, regarded Iamblichus as more than second to Plato, and claimed he would give all the gold of Lydia for one epistle of Iamblichus.

[Anonymous No.20112835]

>>20112811
Pythagoras was initiated by the magi, the egyptians and the followers of Elijah at mount carmel

some sources mention Plotinus' teacher Ammonius Saccas being Christian. Origen, Plotinus' colleague was Christian. Iamblichus studied under and was influenced by Bishop Anatolious

it is reported Numenius called Plato the 'atticizing Moses' and so on...

[Anonymous No.20112912]

>>20101666
the sacred number the divine feminine! THIS IS GOING TO BE SAVED!

666 is the number of the sun and the mother goddess. The original number for Satan was 616 which is the oldest recorded number of The Beast.

[Anonymous No.20113019]

>>20112811
Late stage neoplatonism was an inarguable degeneration of the earlier neoplatonists, along with this degeneration they become more "multicultural" so I agree it "becomes" middle Eastern- it never "Was." Especially of you understand that Neoplatonism was an inherited tradition continuing along the "golden chain" with the predecessors being more ancient there is more than a millenia difference between plato, and alot of these later neoplatonism - that should put in perspective that this tradition was not some random arbitrary instantiation of some scholars whim, now if you want to take the perspective that the ancient greeks themselves "took" there teachings and were intellectually unoriginal, that is a whole other subject and it is debatable.

If you goal is to delegitamise Neoplatonism as being "middle Eastern," for the sake of Redeeming Christianity or somehow equalising it, you're achieving the opposite of your intended effect.

[Anonymous No.20113025]

>>20112811
Good effort though

>>20112835
Do you realise how many years separated "Ammonius Saccas" and Pythagoras according to your typical historicist methodology, 1000+, we can speculate on the subject of intellectual "borrowings" between Plato, and the Indians, for example they elaborate in some cases identical things, like the guna distinctions, etc. But this is all secondary, speculative and only of the interest of "historicists."

[Anonymous No.20113034]

>>20113025
I would say its more consistent that these ancient civilisations all share in sourcr the "Primordial Tradition" they were not disconnected from it and they share a common indo-european root, regardless, ancient pagans were perennial minded aswell, I am not advocating some "blood and soil" larp either. As I said I fully acknowledge Christian Esoterism and Hermetism - is fine.

[Anonymous No.20113057]

>>20113025
>Do you realise how many years separated "Ammonius Saccas" and Pythagoras according to your typical historicist methodology
yes

[Anonymous No.20113090]

>>20112478
Or that it venerates any hebrews or entertains the hebrew as superior at all or worth listening to at the expense of an Aryan let alone declaring them chosen and our own sub human trash with no souls destined for hell. Wow I guess I have to wait a few Jewish iterations of flavor A B C before I become SAVED!
Why did Abraham bind Issac? So he would get the VAXEEEN. BUT THEN GOD SAID he can wear a mask instead. The whole book is coercive Jewing from its linguistic basic premise.

[Anonymous No.20113110]

>>20113090
In a way you're right, there is a clear "good guy Hebrew" and "bad guy trash heathen" dynamic in the old testament, if I am possibly descended from those "bad guy trash heathens" it'd be hard for me to come to terms with worshipping people who thought of them as trash, unclean filthy of the earth.

[Anonymous No.20113113]

>>20112218
Buddhism is adogmatic aside from the three pointed emptiness of view, self, and posession. There are two truths because there is a significant convention, and an abstruse perfect expression that is not accessible though conceivable and deeper still there is that which seems to be but is not as later revealed. Because of these phenomena the Buddha gives you two truths that are approximate not two radically contradicting phrases. In regards to non perception nor non perception this is the dubious phenomena between when their lexicon was not advanced as our mathematical lexicon today. However it is clear that their intent is to grammatically extend logic from a category with negations but not having categorically well defined concepts like degrees of freedom and siginificant digits.

[Anonymous No.20113130]

>>20113110
The dynamic continues in the New Testament however dissimulated by Paul though it continues by Peter maintaining himself above meals and contact with goyim even though Paul calls him out in the famous Galatians passage where there is neither Jew nor Greek etc. But this is a smoke screen. This is a converso water spell to avoid liability. No true metaphysical change or biological change has occurred. Merely the delusion of oxytocin in Aryans and the duper's delight of ravenous ruthless semites. They targeted poor equivalent to low IQ affeminate demographics with Early Gospels such that these rebel cells would harass a few Roman clerics and leaders out of power. This is communist antifa first draft. Moses was a Bolshevik.

[Anonymous No.20113166]

>>20112072
You just dont like us. You have no argument. You dont like this whole endeavour and wish to delegitimize it out of some torpid wish for immediate legitimacy. It would show otherwise were you to offer an alternative. The Buddhists have the most solid argumentation and demonstration in phenomenon and practice. The pagans have ancestral history they can prove to you in material evidence. The white man's phenomenon of experience is always insensately disparaged however sincere or insincere. However that subjective experience itself is our own wish that has replicated itself across ancestors. We are our ancestors. Sentiment echoes our first and foremost clues. This is the Nietzchean foundation and the biological essence that must be preserved above all papers and priests.

[Anonymous No.20113173]

> The Buddhists have the most solid argumentation and demonstration in phenomenon and practice

[Anonymous No.20113184]

>>20113173
Cope. Christians get systematically destroyed in every single thread involving Buddhism

[Anonymous No.20113234]

>>20113173
Buddhism is the only religion with epistemology in house self aware instead of pathetically horrendous chapters of sovereigns punishing heresies and later retconning them with sanitized adoptions like Aquinas to Aristotle.

Angutara Nikaya 3.65
“There are, sir, some ascetics and brahmins who come to Kesamutta. They explain and promote only their own doctrine, while they attack, badmouth, disparage, and smear the doctrines of others. Then some other ascetics and brahmins come to Kesamutta. They too explain and promote only their own doctrine, while they attack, badmouth, disparage, and smear the doctrines of others. So, sir, we’re doubting and uncertain: ‘I wonder who of these respected ascetics and brahmins speaks the truth, and who speaks falsehood?’”

“It is enough, Kālāmas, for you to be doubting and uncertain. Doubt has come up in you about an uncertain matter.
Please, Kālāmas, don’t go by oral transmission, don’t go by lineage, don’t go by testament, don’t go by canonical authority, don’t rely on logic, don’t rely on inference, don’t go by reasoned contemplation, don’t go by the acceptance of a view after consideration, don’t go by the appearance of competence, and don’t think ‘The ascetic is our respected teacher.’ But when you know for yourselves: ‘These things are unskillful, blameworthy, criticized by sensible
people, and when you undertake them, they lead to harm and suffering’, then you should give
them up.

[Anonymous No.20113235]

>>20113184
Im not Christian, I find Hindu arguments and positions to be generally more compelling and logically refined than Buddhist arguments and positions. I think each most major Buddhist schools has their own special faults and doctrinal errors that need patching up.

[Anonymous No.20113242]

>>20113234
> Buddhism is the only religion with epistemology in house self aware
what does that even mean?

[Anonymous No.20113243]

>>20113235
sensible. It's hard for Westerners to tell you apart however. Especially when smashing Xstain ignorance.

[Anonymous No.20113370]

>>20113235
The thing with Buddhism is that at least in its early stages it didn't care about forming a perfectly coherent rational system since it was just a method. So the Buddha didn't even care to answer most questions that westerners consider to be fundamental

[Anonymous No.20113416]

>>20113242 AN 3.60
"Well then, brahmin, I’ll ask you about this in return, and you can answer as you like. What
do you think, brahmin? A Realized One arises in the world, perfected, a fully awakened
Buddha, accomplished in knowledge and conduct, holy, knower of the world, supreme guide
for those who wish to train, teacher of gods and humans, awakened, blessed. He says, ‘Come,
this is the path, this is the practice. Practicing like this, I realized the supreme culmination of
the spiritual life with my own insight, and I make it known. Please, all of you, practice like this,
and you too will realize the supreme culmination of the spiritual life, and will live having
realized it with your own insight.’ So the teacher teaches Dhamma, and others practice
accordingly, in their hundreds and thousands, and hundreds of thousands."

Buddha is self aware of the extent of his authority and life cycle of his teachings and his influence as a raft to get you across the shore of enlightenment. Aside is the anatman polemic, I want to call attention to the concrete observable reality of monks and lay followers as accessible and friendly to debate extensively versus the church that is passive agressive and hostile to all but rote obedience of credo.

This infallible eternal God claim exclusive to Abrahamic authority disparages foreign peoples with similar beliefs or superior beliefs. This leads to disagreement with violence or petty dissimulation. This means that Socrates is presented to you not as it was to the Greeks or Romans but as a controlled substance with helicoptering authority sniffing out your wrongthink. Socrates himself is then no longer an epistemic limit but a lip reciter like the decadent Brahmins of Gandara following dead rote.

[Anonymous No.20113478]

>>20113370
Westerners are cut off at the root made like a palm stump from their own ancestral fundamentals let alone those of other peoples.
The obstacles to understand the Buddha as a westerner are so fearsome because of our martyr tradition itself becoming a bloody hegemony in denial, even worse abroad than within the comfortable borders. Buddhists are recluses with vows of poverty one must approach in depth not extroverted wealthy evangelists with portable bibles. Only rich westerners willing to learn new languages do much with that quest and rarely do they influence anyone but a few open minded people with less resource to such refuge. Worse today in wage slavery it's a cargo cult.

[Anonymous No.20113521]

>>20112751
>he doesn't know
>he thinks i get serious info from articles online

[Anonymous No.20113544]

>>20113416
> Buddha is self aware of the extent of his authority and life cycle of his teachings and his influence
That’s any different from any other religiom, every other religion more or less maintains that their spiritual masters were aware of their own enlightenment and importance as well.

> I want to call attention to the concrete observable reality of monks and lay followers as accessible and friendly to debate extensively versus the church that is passive agressive and hostile to all but rote obedience of credo.
How many priests or other ordained people have you talked to IRL and found were aggressive and hostile? I’d bet hardly any. Also, Buddhists will turn hostile if you start to challenge their doctrines with pointed questions in a Socrates-like manner that they dont have any good answer to. If you do so online they’ll devolve into petty personal attacks on you and if you go to a Buddhist retreat and do this then you’ll be asked to leave.

[Anonymous No.20113633]

>>20113544
This is the case for every religion. People don't like it when their beliefs are challenged.

[Anonymous No.20113675]

>>20113633
Yes indeed, I was disagreeing with an attempt to frame Buddhism as being inherently different

[Anonymous No.20114051]

>>20112147
Mirin’ your shelf. Those are some really nice looking editions

[Anonymous No.20114143]

>>20113544
You bet hardly any? All of them. They love refugees and hate white people. They hate white people who defend white people above all other commandments though oblivious to their trigger. Without exception categorically so by design, St Joseph. Pantera's custody is your cruel joke. Exceptions are deviations from design. You are insensate to passive aggression because you only concern yourself with overt active aggression that is befitting for the exasperated impoverished self defense your sovereign expects from its victims. You thus blame the self defending nations and proud men as godless enemies when in reality they are your best allies in logic, speech, body and mind. How remote the blood shed but how vast. Good bye to the greatest geniuses and patriots fathers and custodies. No one sings for these unsung heroes. They sing for the death rattle as a glorious song! Hallelujah our crown of thorns oh how we welcome our koolaid and lobotomy! Down with ourselves! Up with our invaders! Then I a son of the west am assigned by oblivious cowards to be in this army or to feed this beast? I fast. My people know not of fasting and they panic on my behalf. I count my days to refuge and my people say refuge from what? I do not wait for the laggards to realize what only the bright can foresee.
But you waited for the sneaks to get caught saying mean things while they orchestrated the meanest toppling of aristocracies because you lack the aristocratic spirit. You can be induced to it somehow I believe. Noble sentiments take time to flourish.

[Anonymous No.20114213]

the existence of black people is making me doubt my faith
how do I overcome this

[Anonymous No.20114257]

>>20114213
Based but too condensed to explain to anyone not in the know. We dont owe anyone anything. Not even revenge.
Metta my fren.
Metta.
If you show blacks metta then you don't marry them you dont promise them what will sink you. They can become conscious of their conditions and so can we realize we have been lied to. We were sold a hollywood movie friendship and city planner neighborhood that leads to hostility since the army integrated and no one has mentioned the decay. Bastard single mommy state of affairs indeed. They never will be grateful for the welfare state's expenditures or the Church's virtue signaling. It was a fun ride and until its on again it aint shit. If you are unconditionally friendly to all you never get attached to any martyrdom or sinking ship or albatross on your neck. You are never truly a martyr with metta because you are part of that all and deserve that unconditional universal love.

Black fathers are /ourguys/ but they will have a tough time with genetic truths discoveries of the 21st century when Alexa will tell them to keep watching BLM 2 minutes hate.

[Anonymous No.20114276]

>>20113633
I like having my beliefs challenged. That's why im here. Im a rare bird. I think im endangered. Gadflies are rare especially these days

[Anonymous No.20114422]

If QAnon is boomer cocaine. Christianity is single mother cocaine. Especially around Blacks. The cessation of Christian view happpens and suddenly THATS NOT REAL CHRISTIANITY THAT OUTPUT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ALL THE CONDITIONS WE SET UP SO THAT NOTHING ELSE WOULD HAPPEN EVERYTIME IN EVERY COUNTRY FOR 2000 YEARS