The Ego and its dissolution

[Anonymous No.20893150]

>Yes, and I suppose that very lack of personality is what makes the East able to accept with such ease collective systems like Communism, and religious systems like Buddhism, which aim above all to annihilate the idea of personality. (C.G. Jung, Talks with Miguel Serrano)

If one reads Miguel Serrano he will notice a certain similarity with Evola, of a Kshatriya and Magical perspective, but in a more coherent way, which reminds me of Guenon's metaphysical and historical worldview, the difference being that Serrano is coming from the opposite direction, of an Ego/Individuality affirming perspective. For Serrano this is the true hyperborean metaphysical realization, which can be found in dualistic doctrines like Tantrism and Gnosticism. What do you think about this point of view and why do "traditionalists" act like tradition implies non-dualism?

[Anonymous No.20893192]

>>20893150
Bro they were all larpers. Grow up

[Anonymous No.20893199]

>>20893150
You can have both Ego and non-dualism if you limit the Ego to its natural intended metaphysical boundaries. There is no contradiction but the one you fabricated in your head. They are all essentially saying the same thing.

[Anonymous No.20893202]

>>20893192
>Bro they were all larpers. Grow up

[Anonymous No.20893209]

>>20893202
>vaush gif saved on computer
smnjd

[Anonymous No.20893218]

>>20893192
>noo you can't revolt against modernity that's called larping and you're immature! ! !
Grow up

[Anonymous No.20893225]

>>20893218
>revolt against modernity
first step is accepting reality

[Anonymous No.20893240]

>>20893225
Yes. You don't have to stop at the first step though

[Anonymous No.20893248]

>>20893240
Yeah, but u gotta make it first

[Anonymous No.20893267]

>>20893199
>if you limit the Ego to its natural intended metaphysical boundaries
This is the problem, Serrano doesn't agree with this, for him metaphysical realization is the alchemical transformation of the Ego/Individuality into the God-Men of the Golden Age. This transformation can be fully realized only by those of hyperborean/aryan blood, the non-aryans being the creation of the Demiurge, which as their non-dual relativist doctrines show, do not possess this capacity, they don't have the means of combat in this holy war, they're trapped here forever.

[Anonymous No.20893277]

Wtf when did jung talked to serrano?

[Anonymous No.20893292]

>>20893277
He also talked with Hesse.

[Anonymous No.20893293]

>>20893277
>he doesn't know
Serrano was part of Jung's Hermetic Circle and his irl friend.

[Anonymous No.20893316]

>>20893150
I really have to call bullshit on Serrano's writings being more coherent than Evola's, and I say this having enjoyed reading Nos a lot.

[Anonymous No.20893624]

Serrano was for sure /lit/pilled
>This enthusiasm of the Mexican painter is quite easy for me to understand. Even today, I would go halfway round the world to find a book if I thought it essential to my needs, and I have a feeling of absolute veneration for those few authors who have given me something special. For this reason, I can never understand the tepid youth of today who wait for books to be given to them and who neither search nor admire. I would go without eating in order to get a book, and I have never liked borrowing books, because I have always wanted them to be absolutely mine so that I could live with them for hours on end.
>As with men, it has always seemed to me that books have their own peculiar destinies. They go towards the people who are waiting for them and reach them at the right moment. They are made of living material and continue to cast light through the darkness long after the death of their authors.

[Anonymous No.20893751]

The views don't contradict, unless one attempts to assert individualism as Absolute, which is of course completely retarded, since then we are assigning qualities to the Absolute.
Non-dualism contains individualism which is also as far as the kshatriya can reach. It makes perfect sense that kshatriya writers stop their considerations there. Brahmins, like Guenon, can reach beyond to the supra-individual.
There's no conflict at all, again unless a kshatriya tries for a kshatriya revolt and tries to deny the higher viewpoints, claiming his own as exclusive. But this makes nonsense of caste, so it doesn't follow that they consider themselves to be "kshatriya" in this case, which definitionally implies that they are beneath the brahmin caste.

[Anonymous No.20893790]

>>20893150
> For Serrano this is the true hyperborean metaphysical realization, which can be found in dualistic doctrines like Tantrism and Gnosticism. What do you think about this point of view
I think it’s completely untenable, not only because the details of this position are philosophically unserious for the most part but also because if what Serrano says is true we would expect to find the religious scriptures that are directly linked to the Hyperborean tradition (i.e. Vedas) to teach his viewpoint but on the contrary the metaphysical chapters of the Vedas (the Upanishads) teach going beyond individuality to attain the supra-individual.


and why do "traditionalists" act like tradition implies non-dualism?

[Anonymous No.20893795]

>>20893267
Completely legitimate, but not the limit. This is the goal for a man like Serrano, not the goal for a man like Guenon. The limit of the kshatriya should not be forced upon the brahmin, this is why they have two distinct spiritual paths. As well as two distinct, but complementary, goals, and two distinct, but complementary, social functions.

[Anonymous No.20894032]

>>20893199
>metaphysical boundaries
but if you have metaphysical boundaries, then you have a (at least)dual world, any boundary establish two different things, one inside the boundary and one outside

[Anonymous No.20894055]

>>20894032
>confusing the Absolute for the relative
Why do brainlets even study metaphysics, its like this error is just part of their nature and can never be overcome, they will make it over and over again no matter how often they are corrected

[Anonymous No.20894375]

>>20893277
There is a book of correspondence between Serrano, Jung, and Hesse. It's pretty good.

[Anonymous No.20894541]

>>20894055
if the absolute is made of different metaphysical substances, then is not a non-dual absolute

[Anonymous No.20894553]

>>20894541
the relative isn't a substance and it doesn't have 'substantial existence'

[Anonymous No.20894642]

>>20893795
According to Serrano and Evola, the post-vedic brahmins and their vedantic doctrines have degenerated due to non-aryan influences, and the kshatriya on its own used to be at the top of the hierarchy and have its own absolute spirituality. Stop pushing your egalitarian bs cause you don't make any sense.

[Anonymous No.20894775]

>>20894642
>According to Serrano and Evola, the post-vedic brahmins and their vedantic doctrines have degenerated due to non-aryan influences
This is just them pushing their Nietzschean larp nonsense onto the Vedas which really has nothing to do with what they say. Coomaraswamy identified errors in Evola’s reading and interpretation of Sanskrit passages. Vedanta IS the Vedas, Vedanta literally means the culmination of the Vedas and the Upanishads are literally a part of the Vedas and contain the essence of their metaphysical teaching and the Upanishads are intimately connected and related to the other parts of the Vedas. And even in the pre-Upanishad layers of the Vedas you can find similar passages talking about Upanishadic notions like liberation and conquering death happening through knowledge of God alone and not through larpy roleploy power-fantasies, i.e. “By knowing Brahman one attains immortality here. There is no other way to its attainment" - Taittiriya Aranyaka 6.1.6. of the Yajur Veda

>Stop pushing your egalitarian bs cause you don't make any sense.
Saying the castes each have their own separate ordained role and purpose has nothing to do with egalitarianism, you seem very confused. Saying that the ears and the eyes each perform separate functions which they are meant for is not talking about an egalitarian equality between eyes and ears and other body parts, similarly recognizing that each caste has its own purpose and place in the grand scheme of things has nothing to do with egalitarianism.

[Anonymous No.20894817]

>>20893751
historically, the supremacy of the brahmins to the kshatriyas was a recent fenomenon for the vedic people, and for india. you can check the rigveda for proof.
also Serrano and Evola had very different views, unlike what this guy claims. Evola had a vedantin worldview using buddhist methods, mostly
>>20894775

[Anonymous No.20894857]

>>20894775
Vedanta is not just Advaita but also Dvaita and the representatives of the later would never accept being doctrinally subordinated to the former.

[Anonymous No.20895023]

>>20894857
>Vedanta is not just Advaita but also Dvaita
I know that, nothing I said was specifically from an Advaita perspective. Even in Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita knowledge is still central to the process of moksha and moksha cant occur without it, even when they emphasize devotion. For both Ramanuja and Madhva the devotional practices and studying and upasanas etc are supposed to lead to and culminate in the spiritual realization (knowledge) that one’s soul or Atman is intrinsically pure and blissful, that’s why Madhva wrote a commentary on the Sankhya-sutras because their process of separating the purusha from the prakriti and realizing the purity of the former is in a simplified sense basically Madhva’s conception of moksha but without any devotion involved. If you don’t have this intuitive direct spiritual realization (knowledge) then you wont be liberated in any school of Vedanta afaik

>At the same time Ramanuja points out that 'the activity of the self (kartrtva) is due not to its own nature but to its contact with the different gunas, "Its original nature however is one of purity (amalatva) and bliss (ananda).

[Anonymous No.20895095]

>>20895023
After checking it wasn’t actually Madhva who wrote a bhasya on the Sankhya Sutras/Karika but it was another less well-known Vedantin with a similar looking name but the same point still stands true regardless.

[Anonymous No.20895287]

What Miguel Serrano book should I read first? What are his best books?

[Anonymous No.20895543]

>>20893150
Evola, Serrano, Guénon, it's all talks, where is the initiation ?

[Anonymous No.20895653]

>>20894541
>the Absolute
>made of
Dude stop thinking about what you're not cut out for and go be an engineer or something

[Anonymous No.20895659]

>>20894642
Egalitarian? How retarded can you be to see that in my post? No it's completely hierarchical but the brahmin are obviously on top. Each caste is more limited than the one above it, the kshatriya are more limited than the brahmin.

[Anonymous No.20895911]

>>20895543
Guénon at least made the effort to live within a living tradition both on it's exoteric and esoteric side (he was initiated in the tasawwuf), he was completely immersed on the muslim world in the last 20 years of his life

[Anonymous No.20895978]

>>20895543
>>20895911
today the only options are some hindu paths (some sakti/tantric paths like Sri Vidya, Advaita is still alive of course although its not so feasible for a non-hindu(and non-brahmin)) and buddhism

everything else is pretty much dead or very degenerated (no, sufis are not striving to become the 'Universal Man')
the islamic situation is deplorable(exoteric and esoteric)
western christianity is a rotten corpse and the eastern situation is not in a good situation either (no, you're not gonna find a hesychast and if you think that what you see in popular books and youtube videos about hesychasm is the true thing, you've been deceived)
taoism has been reduced to ritualism, if you go to Taiwan (before China gets there) maybe you'll find something interesting, although i really doubt it

[Anonymous No.20896645]

>>20895287
Begin by reading other more important and better Chilean writers.

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20896665]

>>20895978
Embrace Zionism

[Anonymous No.20896755]

>>20893209
>s-stop making fun of me
HAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.20896758]

>>20895543
Why would they talk openly about these things you nigger halfwit? Btw, Evola talks about these things very openly in some of his books, most people on this board were filtered.

[Anonymous No.20896765]

>>20893293
>Jung
>Hermetic
Pick one.

[Anonymous No.20896776]

>>20893202
This retarded fat cow needs to be put down with a bolt pistol. Someone must execute him like the dumb animal he is.

[Anonymous No.20896777]

>>20896645
Like who?

[Anonymous No.20896781]

>>20895287
Someone pls answer this

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20896791]

>>20896781
start here
https://blacksun-sole-nero.net/esoteric-hitlerist-interview-with-miguel-serrano-national-socialism-blacksun/

are you hitlerpilled?

[Anonymous No.20896803]

>>20895978
Retarded doom faggot, reincarnate as a slug while others continue the primordial tradition (solar body of glory). There are groups out there even in the West holding these secrets. You're a nigger.

[Anonymous No.20896808]

>>20896791
I’ve read the Lightning and the Sun and Gold in the Furnace by Savitri Devi.

[Anonymous No.20896813]

>>20896791
Evola says this was never much more than LARP. Does Esoteric Hitlerism even talk about immortal bodies? What is the point of it? Seems like a bunch of crap.

[Anonymous No.20896820]

>>20896808
>retarded dyke who married a pajeet
No thanks

[Anonymous No.20896823]

>>20896791
Oh, yeah, I’ve already read that interview. I actually started a collection of all of his speeches and things like that, but I don’t know (really) which book to start with. I wanted to start with The Ultimate Avatar (even though The Golden Chord precedes it) because it interested me the most.

[Anonymous No.20896832]

>>20896813
>Evola says this was never much more than LARP
Source? Sounds interesting.

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20896844]

>>20896823
here's a fun schizo read:
http://www.trimondi.de/SDLE/Part-2-12.htm
>>20896813
serrano is entirely skippable imho
>Seems like a bunch of crap.
it's a hodgepodge of various crap

[N E M O . !!GgBWHLRiayD No.20897207]

The middle peak is the best one.

[Anonymous No.20897224]

>>20896777
Donoso is good and a /lit/ favorite. My personally favorite is Huidobro —read Altazor.

[Anonymous No.20897239]

>>20893150
>and I suppose that very lack of personality is what makes the East able to accept with such ease collective systems like Communism
Jung is braindead

[Anonymous No.20897246]

>>20895653
Set theory has been a disaster for the human race

[Anonymous No.20897564]

>>20893192
Fpbp

[Anonymous No.20898315]

>>20896665
>*ZOIN*ism

[Anonymous No.20898321]

Sneedano vs Chudola vs Guenondola.

[Anonymous No.20898510]

>>20895978
>everything else is pretty much dead or very degenerated (no, sufis are not striving to become the 'Universal Man')
Sufis are striving towards doing their best, some are serious and some aren't, what matters the most is that Sufism gives you the means (initiation, different types of dhikr) towards becoming spiritually realized. If your hindu/buddhist guru teaches you about the Self, it doesn't mean that you have achieved Moksha or that you're a Bodhisattva, you just like the idea of being part of a tradition which has this goal even if you won't achieve it, is only ego validation, nothing practical.
>the islamic situation is deplorable(exoteric and esoteric)
The hindu/buddhist situation is in no way better, they are full of frauds and innovative gurus. Have you ever met indian hindus? The majority are religious nationalists who can't stop seething about islam, I really don't see how these type of people are any better than salafis.

[Anonymous No.20898517]

>>20893202
Kek this.

[Anonymous No.20898545]

>>20896813
>Evola says this was never much more than LARP. Does Esoteric Hitlerism even talk about immortal bodies? What is the point of it? Seems like a bunch of crap.
AHAHAHAHHAHAAHA
ESTOERIC HITLERISM
AHAHHAHAHAHA LMAO LMAO ROFL!
BRO... IM TOO SMART FOR THIS SHIT. LEMME JUST DISMISS IT COMPLETELY. NOW I DONT HAVE TO READ ABOUT ESOTERIC HITLERISM LMAO PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF LOL

[Anonymous No.20898697]

>>20896803
>secrets
>>/x/
the truth has nothing to do with occultism, mysticism or playing around with symbols, especially with a bunch of european pseuds from the 19th and 20th century

>>20898510
>Sufis are striving towards doing their best, some are serious and some aren't,
so are some catholics and protestants
it's a matter of consistent doctrine and method, not to extrapolate what you actually are or are supposed to be, what do you mean by 'spiritually realized'? Every sufi will give a different answer, that's what i'm talking about, this is not a place for 'creativity' or 'originality'
>The hindu/buddhist situation is in no way better,
I know that, but what remains is still consistent, they know what they're doing

[Anonymous No.20899361]

>>20898697
>Every sufi will give a different answer, that's what i'm talking about, this is not a place for 'creativity' or 'originality'
All sufis agree that there are multiple stations towards God, some sufis stop at the lower ones, others go as far as Al-Hallaj, the path is one, it only depends where you stop, each according to what he was destined.

[Anonymous No.20899458]

>>20899361
we all know what happened to Al-Hallaj

[Anonymous No.20899618]

>>20899458
>we all know what happened to Al-Hallaj
Hylic view.
If you would have some knowledge about the event you would know that there is an opinion that the judges were aware of his spiritual state but executed him due to his statememts which can be confusing, which would end up with the same problem as the divinity of Jesus. Muslims take a lot of care in this formulations and that's why those who venerate Al-Hallaj make sure to say that it was God speaking through him and not his individual person.

[Anonymous No.20899736]

>>20899618
What I know is that muslims are bound to dualism, because of the inherent limitation of their tradition. Then when someone goes a little further they have to take some nice measures.
There's nothing confusing about Hallaj's statements, Meister Eckhart and the Advaitins understand this very well, but the islamic exoteric authorities can't help but interfere in what they know nothing. But that actually makes sense, because it wouldn't be Islam without the clear distinction between Absolute and relative, just like christianity.

[Anonymous No.20899876]

>>20899736
What you don't understand is that islamic spirituality is hierarchical and this is a good thing, there is no place for larpers who claim what they are not or for those who say public what is only between them or God (no authentic Sufi will claim that he is a Sufi even if he is). I know that this is not the Advaitin/Buddhist approach and I think that is much better and less confusing (this if we take your realization as valid for which I can't say for sure considering your association between the individuality and what you call the Self)
t. not guenonian, nor perennialist

[Anonymous No.20899896]

>>20899361
>all sufis agree that there are multiple stations...
Dropped. Thats a clear indication of a tradition which has deviated from the purely metaphysical primordial tradition.
The conclusion of hallaj is aswell a deviation, and the station of no station is pure delusion, its like
trying to unite with the moon by drowning in the muddy waters on which the surface of the moon is reflected.
>>20899876
>hierarchical is a good thing
t. Hylic who advocates the reinforcment of anti-metaphysical delusion.

[Anonymous No.20899942]

>>20899896
ok larper, you will never be a Bodhisattva and btw and the fully 'Universal Man' is Muhammad (pbuh) and Ibn Arabi agrees with this

[Anonymous No.20900007]

>>20899942
The universal man ≠ jivanmukta
The relationsjip between lord and servant is preserved in a gnosis which is "fused but not confused" this is qualified non-dualism, and thats why I call it a deviation, all the hierarchies and degreess are unreal, it is said that rhe end result is rebirth in a higher realm, by acquiring a state of non-conceptual ordinary awareness, that is founding unity in the multiplicity of phenomena, such a relative vision is objectively deviant.
Also the stuff in Corbin with the "imaginal worlds" and "creatige imagination" is delusion, that is its taking the light reflected in the intellect for God, but not the light itself for God.
>you will neber become a bodhisattva!
Of course, I wont become anything. But I am jist repprting on the objective details which are grossly reduced to simplified details through sentiment.

[Anonymous No.20900041]

>>20893150
If anything serranos vision is one more or less part of abrahamic understandings of gnosis, which is ironic considering he was all
>Le Jehovah and Demiurge Evil

[Anonymous No.20900045]

>>20893150
Why the long face?

[Anonymous No.20900262]

>>20899876
There's no contradiction between higher and lowers paths, you just can't mix them, but the hierarchy found in Tasawwuf is derived from a subtle determination on the nature of the Absolute, so that's why you have 'stations', 'steps' and so on. It's similar to neoplatonism and tantra.
This is what's called knowledge of the non-Supreme because it still makes determinations on the true nature of reality, it's still dualistic.
The doctrine of Vedanta from Gaudapada and Shankara, the writings of Meister Eckhart and some Taoist texts on the other hand affirm that only the Absolute has any reality and the relative can only exist from the relativist perspective, which ultimately is not-real. That's what's called knowledge of the Supreme, non-duality.
Also, i'm not claiming to have any type of 'realization' (I don't even know what you mean by this term and I have no concern with any 'individuality' or 'Self').
t. not guenonian, or even worse, 'perennialist', not advaitin or mahayana

[Anonymous No.20900465]

>>20893150
Yeah and Advaita is why Indians got enslaved by the British. Tocqueville knew this.

[Anonymous No.20900478]

>>20893150
There's a really stupid part in The Reign of Quantiy where Guenon tries to cope Coomaraswamy mentioning Bhedabheda Vedanta in some article. So Guenon talks past the point and uses it as some kind of bizarre example of why Advaita's annihilationism is completely different than the annihilationism of become an NPC wage slave. He mumbles some dumb shit very quickly about differentiation and then says "Yup, Advaita isn't becoming an NPC. That settles it."

Advaita is bugman philosophy. Annihilate yourself so you become an NPC like in China or some Indian slum.

[Anonymous No.20900540]

>>20893150
>Yes, and I suppose that very lack of personality is what makes the East able to accept with such ease collective systems like Communism, and religious systems like Buddhism, which aim above all to annihilate the idea of personality. (C.G. Jung, Talks with Miguel Serrano)


I did a video essay about this once awhile back

[Anonymous No.20900589]

>>20900478
t. brainlet who doesn’t understand the difference between Atman vs manas/buddhi

[Anonymous No.20900614]

>>20900589
>Oh I can define and pilpul the problem away, trust me

[Anonymous No.20900618]

It's pretty obvious that Guenon is being promoted on 4chan to pacify dumb losers. No one is easier to invade and control than a group of people who believe in Advaita.

[Anonymous No.20900633]

>>20900262
>>20900478
>>20900618
What books should I read to learn more about all of this?

[Anonymous No.20900634]

>>20900614
>actually knowing what you are talking about instead of getting everything wrong is muh pilpul
how dumb does someone have to be to think this?

[Anonymous No.20900639]

>>20897239
No he's right. Really pains me to see people simp for a China as a liberator. Maybe most people are just masochistic

[Anonymous No.20900748]

>>20900633
Either read Guenons books, secondary source books about Hindu philosophy or read Adi Shankara’s works

[Anonymous No.20900758]

>>20900748
Thanks.

[Anonymous No.20901036]

>>20893150
The insights schools like Buddhism are trying to offer are closer to trying to cause an inversion or collapse of ordinary figure-ground perception, as the modern Gestalt psychologists might call it, than it is “annihilationism,” “nihilism,” or “worship of the void.” This misinterpretation of it is similar to thinking Taoism and its concepts such as of wei wu wei (action without action) is the same as being an average welfare mooch and that every person on welfare is the ideal transcendental Taoist sage.

[Anonymous No.20901044]

>>20893267
What did Serrano consider Aryan? Was there a racial component limiting it to Europeans? People with certain personality traits or free will? People from the right religions? I don’t know much about him sorry, but I have read Guenon and Jung.

[Anonymous No.20901088]

>>20901036
An analogy is to the apparent Star of David on the ground between these figures’ knees. It could be said to be an optical illusion brought about by interdependent arising and not to have any inherent essence or nature of its own apart from its interdependence on what gave rise to it and interacts with it.

There is nothing to get rid of, no rigid attempt to destroy a “self” or “personality” which doesn’t even exist except as an analogous illusion; rather, it is a matter of having direct insight into its illusoriness, and hence not even being something to necessarily be battled with (hence why the historical Buddha renounced asceticism just as he renounced the hot pursuit of worldly pleasures); which insight can give rise to a strangely exhilarating tranquility or states of altered consciousness the Tibetans might call mahasukha (“great bliss”) and which the Zen masters might call satori, but which even mentioning is rather besides-the-point and potentially misleading, as such experiences are not the outcome of greedily seeking for some new experience, but of seeing what is already and eternally THERE, which could also paradoxically be reified as the “self-nature” or “Buddha-mind” as the Chan Buddhists did.

[Anonymous No.20901193]

>>20901036
>its concepts such as of wei wu wei (action without action) is the same as being an average welfare mooch and that every person on welfare is the ideal transcendental Taoist sage.

>Gent Wholeweave went to see Laozi, asking, "I had heard that you, sir, are a sage. I have thus not shirked the long journey that brought me here, wanting only to see you, finding new lodgings a hundred nights in a row and walking until the soles of my feet were calloused, never daring to rest. But now that I have met you, I see that you are no sage! It is as if the rat-hives are brimming over with your discarded leftover food, while you abandon to their own devices those who are lost on the side roads. That shows a real lack of human-kindness. Here you have endless provisions of both the raw and the cooked stretched out before you, and yet you hoard and gather it to yourself, giving it no recognizable shape."
>Laozi was silent, giving no reply.
Zhuangzi

[Anonymous No.20901223]

>>20900633
https://vedavyasamandala.com/en/

>>20901036
people have been misinterpreting buddhism for 2500 years, and this actually gave rise to both orthodox and heterodox doctrines

>>20901088
>There is nothing to get rid of, no rigid attempt to destroy a “self” or “personality” which doesn’t even exist except as an analogous illusion
but you're still attached to the notion or idea of a self;
nibbana is not some higher state, experiences come and go, even the satori;

"A fertile soil for the origin and persistence of beliefs and ideas about a self, soul, god or any other form of an absolute entity, is misinterpreted meditative experience occurring in devotional rapture or mystical trance. Such experience is generally interpreted by the mystic or theologian as revelation of, or union with, a godhead; or it is taken for a manifestation of man's true and eternal Self. Such interpretations are conceived and accepted all the more readily since such meditative experience so greatly transcends the average level of consciousness that the temptation is very great, indeed, to connect it in some way or other with a deity or some other eternal principle. The overwhelming impact of such meditative experience on the mind will produce a strong feeling of certainty of its reality and superiority; and this strong feeling of assurance will be extended to the theological or speculative interpretation, too. In that way these interpretations will obtain a strong hold on the mind, for they are imagined to correspond with actual, irrefutable experience, while, in fact, they are only superimposed on the latter.

The analytical method of the Abhidhamma gives immunity against such deceptive interpretations. In the Dhammasangani the consciousness of meditative absorption (jhana) is subjected to the same sober analysis as the ordinary states of mind. It is shown that meditative consciousness, too, is a transitory combination of impermanent, conditioned and impersonal mental factors, which differ from their counterparts accompanying ordinary consciousness, only in their greater intensity and purity. They do not, therefore, warrant at all any assumption of a divine manifestation or an eternal Self. It has already been mentioned how the Venerable Sariputta undertook such an analysis of his meditative experience."
http://www.buddhanet.net/abhidh07.htm

[Anonymous No.20901243]

>>20901223
>The analytical method
I'm not an angloid bugman, so no thanks

[Anonymous No.20901281]

>>20901223
Well-stated. This same concept is also highlighted by the Tibetans as being “the bardo of the gods”, which, contrary to immediate expectation, is not something they glorify but note that even this is ultimately impermanent, conditioned, dissatisfactory and illusory.

[Anonymous No.20901313]

>>20901223
Well-stated. This same concept is also highlighted by the Tibetans as being “the realm of the gods”, which, perhaps contrary to immediate expectation, is not something they glorify, in the vein of the heaven of the Abrahamic religions, but note that even this state is ultimately impermanent, conditioned, dissatisfactory and illusory, and which they connect to states of meditative absorption in waking life. Hence, even the “mystical experience”, desire for enlightenment, “altered ecstatic state of consciousness,” the jhanas of meditative states of absorption, are simply veils over the truth, but the last and most sophisticated ones.

[Anonymous No.20901358]

>>20901223
sto leggendo quel sito, ma mi sembra un po' delirante.
dire che la contro iniziazione e il male del mondo siano spinti dai discednenti di Atlante mi pare molto azzardato

[Anonymous No.20901423]

>>20901358
I'm not italian
but anyway the best articles are about metaphysics
such as these:
https://vedavyasamandala.com/testi/tradizioni-occidentali/labyrinthos/meister-eckhart-e-la-conoscenza-dellassoluto/
and these:
https://vedavyasamandala.com/testi/tradizione-hindu/vedanta/il-serpente-e-la-corda/

[Anonymous No.20901440]

>>20901423
yeah the historical article seem a bit retatded and Hinducentric to the very extreme

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20901621]

>>20901423
this strain of italian autism is great, I've seen you post this site many times before but didn't realize they had a whole series on Dante
https://vedavyasamandala.com/en/testi/tradizioni-occidentali/narakam/lesoterismo-della-colla/

awesome

[Anonymous No.20901901]

>>20901621
its actually a good site and a great step after you've had enough of Guénon and the so-called traditionalists, because it shows the limitation and misconceptions of these writers

[Anonymous No.20901910]

>>20901901
QED on their limitations and misconceptions?

[Anonymous No.20901943]

>>20898545
I've read some of it, seems like fantasy compared to Evola and Guenon.

[Anonymous No.20901955]

>>20900465
They were colonized, not enslaved. Niggers were enslaved (absolutely fuckin' based).

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20902014]

>>20901901
nice, I just read this one:
https://vedavyasamandala.com/lidee-que-lislam-doit-dominer-la-planete-it-fr/

>The Author of this book courageously highlights the ambiguities created in bad faith by the alleged successors of Guénon's work: all of them, of course, have particular "functions" or "missions", the same ones that they attribute in Guénon despite his protests, and they spread a message of Sharaitic conversion of the West without denouncing the ravages of the invasion of the area of Christian tradition by the lowest Islamic "castes", openly sent to Europe by the well-known agents of counter-initiation ( manuṣya rākṣasa ). All this comes from the fact that they are convinced that "Islam must dominate the planet", starting with Europe.

>There will also be a reason why the Tibetan tradition states that in the end times evil will spread from Afghanistan because of certain Islamic sects.

What's funny about this is that Serrano talks about the exact same shit (about Tibetan Buddhism vs Islam)

[Anonymous No.20902041]

>>20901910
exagerated or misused use of symbolical language;
confusing of traditions with different objectives (paths of non-supreme and supreme);
wrong approach at presenting some traditional doctrine (guénon's approach to vedanta);

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20902048]

>>20902014
I partly disagree with this, however
>From the abyss into which she has been thrown, the Catholic Church no longer has the doctrinal and ritual means to begin an exoteric traditional restoration; it seems that the survival of Catholic esotericism exists only in the fraudulent fantasies of unscrupulous deceivers.

the institution itself may be dead but in terms of ritual there will always be the Rosary
tradcaths Malachi Martin and Bishop Williamson have made it clear that during the End Times that all forms of exotericism will cease to exist - with the exception of the Rosary.

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20902063]

btw check this "buddhist temple" out. I came across it today while on a walk. my counter-initiation senses were tingling bigly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiy%C5%ABkai

>it is a lay organization

[Anonymous No.20902080]

>>20902041
>(paths of non-supreme and supreme)

Their article on Sanderson vs Bakker was incredible.

[Anonymous No.20902113]

>>20902048
if you really wanna know why they have this view of christianity you'll have to read these articles
https://vedavyasamandala.com/testi/tradizioni-occidentali/from-cosmos-to-chaos/
at least the ones about semitic religions, from it's disturbed inception until their decay

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20902133]

>>20902113
I was skimming over the chapters as you made that post...
looks absolutely based - will read it all tonight and hopefully this thread will still be up

>chapter 40/41: THE ROUND TABLE AND THE QUEST FOR THE GRAIL
>author is able to break it down in Sanskrit terminology
now we are talking...!

[Anonymous No.20902134]

>>20901955
>colonized, not enslaved
what's the difference

[Anonymous No.20902142]

>>20902063
Is that Japan or China?

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20902144]

>>20902142
japan

[Anonymous No.20902309]

>>20894553
>the relative isn't a substance
the cogito is a substance and and is the basis for relativity/subjectivity

[Anonymous No.20902375]

>>20902063
Yeah, Japan is has tons of cults and "new religious movements". I would check a few out just for laughs if I were there.

How are you going with regard to finding a willing Shingon temple over there?

[Anonymous No.20902424]

>>20893624
Serrano was a complete pseud.
/lit/ needs to stop falling for literal whos forced by tranny spammers and grifters.

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20902432]

>>20902375
>How are you going with regard to finding a willing Shingon temple over there?
bro... like my first weekend here, I unknowingly stayed overnight at a Buddhist temple in the Shingon capital of Japan (Koyasan). It was a hiking trip and I was told we were going to check out some Shinto Temples (dumbass) and did zero research beforehand. I attended multiple services and the monks taught me their meditation methods and everything so you can imagine what a surprise it was...!
Now I have to sort out some visa issues, get my Japanese language ability up to fluency levels, and of course read a ton of Hindu/Buddhist texts before I feel comfortable taking the next steps.

here's some blog pics:
>>/lit/thread/S20832485#p20836254
the deity they venerated at the temple:
https://www.onmarkproductions.com/html/fudo.html
"Shingon capital of Japan": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_K%C5%8Dya
^place was absolutely amazing if you ever visit Nippon

[Anonymous No.20902479]

>>20902432
ty.

Very interested in your experience, as Shingon is one of the traditions I have considered for initiation. There are some Dragon Gate Taoists in my country, actually, but I just have this unshakeable feeling they may not be authentic, so Shingon seems like a strong option.

Best of luck bro

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20902603]

>>20902479
>Dragon Gate Taoists
looks interesting...
>but I just have this unshakeable feeling they may not be authentic
yeah that sucks. let me guess, a white guy is the shifu? kek avoid!

best of luck to you as well

[Anonymous No.20902744]

Is there a discord or any other place to talk about Evola and/or Guenon at a little higher of a level?

[Anonymous No.20902818]

>>20902744
add me
Amaro#7891

[Anonymous No.20902862]

>>20902818
Are you a wizard?

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20902987]

>>20902133
>Pythagoras, the Apollo avatāra
incredibly based

[Anonymous No.20902999]

>>20902862
no

[Anonymous No.20903015]

>>20902113
Their view of semitic religion as degenerate is complete bullshit. The destruction of Atlantis is the same event as the biblical flood so it was true that the atlanteans were degenerates but Noah was no deviant and the lineage continues with him (you can interpret the biblical stories in a symbolic sense if you wish but it makes no difference).

[Anonymous No.20903045]

>>20902999
The fag doth p1$$

[Anonymous No.20903480]

>>20903015
>Noah was no deviant and the lineage continues with him
What lineages? Noah is not even viewed as the progenitor of the abracadabra tradition in kabbalah, mythological copium.

[Anonymous No.20903577]

>>20902309
>the cogito is a substance
Consciousness can be considered as “substance-like” insofar as it exists independently and self-sufficiently but the thinking mind isnt

[Anonymous No.20903629]

>>20901901
>>20901910
>>20902041
guenonbros, i don't feel so good...

"When we say that something is real from a certain "contingent" point of view and not from another point of view, it means confusing the existing with Being. We are faced with the very common sleight of hand of affirming that a thing changes its nature according to the "point of view" from which it is viewed: this serves the Guénonian system because it allows us to affirm that something can be both Real and unreal, sat and asat; it is a subtle form of relativism that excludes a vision of the Absolute, unique and immutable. When Advaita Vedānta takes into consideration the contingent, the world of vyavahāra, the world of relationship, it is to refute its reality, absolutely and definitively, not to admit it contingently or from a certain "point of view"; the Absolute, Infinite, All, One without a second, is the only Reality and no point of view can assign any reality to the contingent, neither absolute nor relative. It is clear that the "contingent" of which Guénon speaks is not the eternal Tao, and if the eternal Tao is the Infinite and All, clearly what is not coincides with pure nothingness; the Infinite leaves no room for the relative. What is unreal but appears as if it were real by the mere fact of being affirmed, is the fruit of the imagination of the mind, invented and artificial, in Sanskrit kalpita; its apparent or probable reality remains such, therefore apparently unreal, like the mirage that appears as if it were water but is not water, and in no way can it be considered real; even clearer in the famous Vedantic example of the snake and the rope: in the twilight, while observing a rope, the mind perceives the snake as if it were real; however the snake is neither real nor contingent or relatively real. Any speculation about the snake, whether alive or dead, whether poisonous or not, remains in the domain of mental hypotheses, of the imagination, which have nothing real in reference to the rope; the image of the unreal snake remains alive exclusively in the mind on the basis of the dubious "if" of Guénon's onset: if the snake were real then it could be alive and poisonous ... and its opposite; we emphasize "... and its opposite" because in the order in which the imagination of something non-real is placed, its positive or negative qualities are equal: in the order of the unreal there is not something that is more or less true of its opposite; the snake perceived in place of the rope is no more alive than it is dead."

https://vedavyasamandala.com/en/essere-o-non-essere/

[Anonymous No.20903645]

>>20903629
Good stuff I spammed this stuff a week ago or so, but most people ignored, great to see this site being put in the spotlight.

[Anonymous No.20903685]

>>20902744
No there isn't expect, discussion of* guenon on discord will get you nowhere, just obsessed hylics and muslims.

[Anonymous No.20903698]

>>20903645
possibly the best secondary source for metaphysics:

https://archive.org/details/the-method-of-the-vedanta-a-critical-account-of-the-advaita-tradition-swami-satchidanandendra

some of his shorter books and articles are found in the vedavyasa site in italian, here we have in english:
http://www.adhyatmaprakasha.org/php/english_books.php

[Anonymous No.20903711]

>>20903698
I have sent the second link before, in a thread a while back, this swami is interesting there is abit of controversy regarding him, that is he challenged modern traditional advaitins on something called the mulavidya controverey, you can read some academic papers which go over it.

[Anonymous No.20903753]

>>20903711
its actually pretty simple, most advaitins after shankara started attributing some kind of 'power' to avidya and maya when in reality this wasn't found in Gaudapada, Shankara or Suresvara; he's just stating the obvious
as its said here >>20903629
"the Infinite leaves no room for the relative"
" in the twilight, while observing a rope, the mind perceives the snake as if it were real; however the snake is neither real nor contingent or relatively real. Any speculation about the snake, whether alive or dead, whether poisonous or not, remains in the domain of mental hypotheses, of the imagination, which have nothing real in reference to the rope;"

[Anonymous No.20903790]

>>20903629
>When we say that something is real from a certain "contingent" point of view and not from another point of view,
Shankara does this repeatedly throughout his works, it seems very uncharitable to excuse it in his case but to take issue when Guenon does it. I don’t think that Guenon attributed any more reality/existence to the relative other than the conditional reality that Shankara says it has. This strikes me as a little dishonest or as a result of misunderstanding Shankara.

>We are faced with the very common sleight of hand of affirming that a thing changes its nature according to the "point of view" from which it is viewed: this serves the Guénonian system because it allows us to affirm that something can be both Real and unreal, sat and asat; it is a subtle form of relativism that excludes a vision of the Absolute, unique and immutable.
No, its just talking about something from the relative and Absolute standpoint, that doesn’t involve any real change in somethings real nature but is just describing something according to two different perspective, according to how those perspectives function.

“In fact, all schools must admit the existence or non-existence of the phenomenal word according as it is viewed from the relative or absolute standpoint”
- Shankara, Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Bhasya 3.5.1
https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-brihadaranyaka-upanishad/d/doc118356.html

>When Advaita Vedānta takes into consideration the contingent, the world of vyavahāra, the world of relationship, it is to refute its reality, absolutely and definitively, not to admit it contingently or from a certain "point of view"; the Absolute, Infinite, All, One without a second, is the only Reality and no point of view can assign any reality to the contingent, neither absolute nor relative.
This is simply just not true and it is contradicted in Shankara’s own works in numerous places such as when he refutes Yogachara epistemic idealism but noting among other things that their denial that there is anything external to one’s mind in the realm of conditional experience is untenable. Im not saying Guenon’s explication of Advaita is perfect but this is just stupid.

[Anonymous No.20903805]

>>20903790
>>20903629

Buddhist Purvapaksin: Hence your statement that since (intentional) consciousness (of the mind) is revealed, like the jar etc., by something else, there is another light besides consciousness (the light of the Atman), is groundless: for everything being but consciousness, there is no illustration to support you.

Reply (by Shankara): No, for you admit the existence of the external world to a certain extent. You do not altogether deny it.

Buddhist Yogacharin Objection: We deny it absolutely.

Reply by Shankara: No. Since the words 'consciousness, ‘jar’ and ‘lamp’ are different and have different meanings, you cannot help admitting to a certain extent the existence of external objects. If you do not admit the existence of objects different from consciousness, words such as ‘consciousness, ‘jar’ and 'cloth’ having the same meaning, would be synonymous. Similarly, the means being identical with the result, your scriptures inculcating a difference between them would be useless, and their author (Buddha) would be charged with ignorance.

Moreover, you yourself admit that a debate between rivals as well as its defects are different from consciousness. You certainly do not consider the debate and its defects to be identical with one’s consciousness, for the opponent, for instance, has to be refuted. Nobody admits that it is either his own consciousness or his own self that is meant to be refuted; were it so, all human activities would stop. Nor do you assume that the opponent perceives himself; rather you take it for granted that he is perceived by others. Therefore we conclude that the whole objective world is perceived by something other than itself, because it is an object of our perception in the waking state, just like other objects perceived in that state, such as the opponent—which is an easy enough illustration; or as one series of (momentary) consciousness , or any single one of them, is perceived by another of the same kind. Therefore not even the idealist can deny the existence of another light different from consciousness.

Buddhist Objection: You are wrong to say that there is an external world, since in dreams we perceive nothing but consciousness.

Reply: No, for even from this absence of external objects we can demonstrate their difference from consciousness. You yourself have admitted that in dreams the consciousness of a jar or the like is real; but in the same breath you say that there is no jar apart from that consciousness! The point is, whether the jar which forms the object of that consciousness is unreal or real, in either case you have admitted that the consciousness of the jar is real and it cannot be denied, for there is no reason to support the denial.
- Shankara, Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Bhasya 4.3.7.

https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-brihadaranyaka-upanishad/d/doc120049.html

[Anonymous No.20903869]

>>20903753
>its actually pretty simple, most advaitins after shankara started attributing some kind of 'power' to avidya and maya
From what I recall Vasacapati Misra is the origin of the idea that maya has a positive being or existence instead of it being the indeterminate falsity that Shankara considers it as, but the rejection of this idea doesn’t entail the automatic rejection of Shankara’s position that “the status of being metaphysically false or mithya = the conditional/phenomenal existence”, these are two separate issues which should not be confused with each other. Vacaspati’s position appears to be attributing an additional status to maya that Shankara doesn’t.

[Anonymous No.20903873]

>>20903790
>>20903805
have you read the whole text? because to understand this excerpt you have to read it, i'm not even gonna reply to your 'objections'

https://vedavyasamandala.com/en/essere-o-non-essere/

i just posted this excerpt to get some attention because if not most people wouldn't even click on the link

[Anonymous No.20903892]

>>20903869
if i'm not confused Swami Satchidananadendra traces it back to Padmapada, a direct disciple of Shankara

[Anonymous No.20903947]

>>20903629
>What is unreal but appears as if it were real by the mere fact of being affirmed, is the fruit of the imagination of the mind, invented and artificial
So the visions of the sages and the achievement of the multiple states of the being are part of imagination? This sounds like jungian bs.

[Anonymous No.20903966]

>>20903947
>So the visions of the sages and the achievement of the multiple states of the being are part of imagination?
Yes. What is empirical is false, the coexistence of plurality and unity is invented and artifical.

[Anonymous No.20903973]

>>20903892
There are two lines of succesion through shankara, if I remember correctly and he does begin it with Padmapada, but not the other line.

[Anonymous No.20904067]

>>20903947

the problem here is that Guénon is trying to explain metaphysics through cosmology, he's just speculating on the relative (and there's nothing wrong with this insofar as you're in the symbolical and cosmological field)
but the relative has no reality, only the Absolute is real

[Anonymous No.20904070]

>>20903966
but they are not empirical and have nothing to do with imagination, just read the church fathers:
>...the contemplation of a hyper-conscious vision, granted by Divine Power, is received by the soul—within itself immaterialy, suddenly and unexpectedly; it is discovered and revealed from within, because, in Christ's words, 'the kingdom of heaven is within you'—This contemplation inside the image, imprinted in the hidden mind (the higher intellect) reveals itself without any thought about it. (St Isaac)

[Anonymous No.20904089]

>>20904070
you're confusing two things, it's not that 'visions' or 'higher states' don't exist, but that ultimately they're not-real
there's a difference between being and existence

that's why you have the distinction between the paths of the non-Supreme (dualist, like the excerpt that you posted) and the path of the Supreme (Non-Dualism like Advaita and Taoism)

[Anonymous No.20904091]

>>20903790
>Shankara does this repeatedly throughout his works, it seems very uncharitable to excuse it in his case but to take issue when Guenon does it.
Where does shankara write in his commentaries that what is "contingent" is existent even "relatively" from a "certain point of view," in the same way he writes the Self is existent? And where does he write that plurality and relativity abides in unity, in the same way guenon writes that the metaphysical infinite principially encompasses existence?
>but is just describing something according to two different perspective, according to how those perspectives function.
Are these two perspectives coexistent then, and are they related in terms of "function?"
>“In fact, all schools must admit the existence or non-existence of the phenomenal word according as it is viewed from the relative or absolute standpoint”
Do you quote this as if to say shankara accepts the position of all schools, that the phenomenal world is existent and non-existent, and that Atman is absolute and relative? Otherwise I struggle to see the purpose in putting this quotation in.
>anything external to one’s mind in the realm of conditional experience is untenable.
Why are you bringing up the cittamantra debate and position? This seems quite redundant.
Where does Shankara say satcitananda is also asat, where does he say that Atman is then Silence and Speech? The monism in which the absolute and relative collapse together is the natural conclusion of guenons relative to absolute, sat and asat, "multiple states of being" agenda, guenon also had high praises for nagarjuna.

[Anonymous No.20904093]

>>20903873
>have you read the whole text?
Yes

> because to understand this excerpt you have to read it, i'm not even gonna reply to your 'objections'
What is there to even say? Its just factually incorrect to say that Shankara doesn’t accept that maya is conditionally real which for him is the same as being metaphysically false. I have already provided the quotes from Shankara’s works that demonstrate this. The author of that article is so hyperfocused on Guenon it seems that he hasn't even read Shankara (notice how he doesn’t cite any passages by him). Shankara doesn’t accept that maya is pure nothingness/non-existence because if this were true it would lack the ability to even appear as an illusion, as Shankara points out when refuting Buddhist momentariness in his Brahma Sutra Bhasya nothingness contains no internal differentiations or grades and so to consider the differentiated and multifaceted world as being equivalent to “nothing” or as pure non-being makes no sense.

Chandradhar Sharma, the author of ‘The Advaita Tradition in Indian Philosophy’ seems to understand Advaita much better than the author of those articles on vedavyasamandala, Sharma doesn’t make the same errors that he does. I would suggest you read Sharma’s book and then actually read through all of Shankara instead of basing your understanding on that website, you will be much better served by doing so.

[Anonymous No.20904096]

>>20904091
Or in other words where does shankara say there that there really is such a thing as what is "relatively real?"

[Anonymous No.20904103]

>>20903947
>>20903966
>>20904070
>>20904089
and regarding 'states', those have been thoroughly analyzed by the buddhists and showed to be conditioned like everything else: >>20901223

[Anonymous No.20904104]

>>20904093
Where doew Shankara accept the reality of what is "conditionally real? " nice pilpul guenonfag

[Anonymous No.20904111]

>>20904096
>>20904104
'relatively real'
'conditionally real'
two oxymorons

[Anonymous No.20904130]

>>20904093
> basing your understanding on that website
https://archive.org/details/the-method-of-the-vedanta-a-critical-account-of-the-advaita-tradition-swami-satchidanandendra

the snake has no reality

[Anonymous No.20904145]

>>20904111
Precisely my point, so if what is relatively real is oxymoronic and false, how can Guenon then say what is relatively real is encompassed by what is real? Isnt that the same as saying that the absolute is both sat and asat?

[Anonymous No.20904154]

>>20904145
>In Itself, then, Ātmā is neither manifested (vyakta) nor unmanifested (avyakta), at least when one only regards the unmanifested as the immediate principle of the manifested (which refers to the state of Prājña): but It is the principle both of the manifested and the unmanifested (although this Supreme Principle can also be said to be unmanifested in a higher sense, if only thereby to proclaim Its absolute changelessness and the impossibility characterizing It by any positive attribution whatsoever).
– Guenon

[Anonymous No.20904249]

>>20904089
>you're confusing two things, it's not that 'visions' or 'higher states' don't exist, but that ultimately they're not-real
there's a difference between being and existence
I am aware of this opinion and I don't debate it. My only point was that these higher states are not part of the imagination, the "intellect" is not the mind with which you think and imagine, this is found also in the sufis, neoplatonists, etc. The quote which you gave implied that there is only the imagination (in which category these higher states would fall) and the Absolute, which is obviously wrong.

[Anonymous No.20904263]

>>20904091
>Where does shankara write in his commentaries that what is "contingent" is existent even "relatively" from a "certain point of view," in the same way he writes the Self is existent?
I literally just cited the passage:

“In fact, all schools must admit the existence or non-existence of the phenomenal word according as it is viewed from the relative or absolute standpoint”
- Shankara, Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Bhasya 3.5.1
https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-brihadaranyaka-upanishad/d/doc118356.html

In the same passage as the previous quote that I linked again above he says the following:

“But when on account of out primordial ignorance the reality of Brahman …. is not discriminated from the limiting adjuncts such as the body and organs, which are created by name and form, and our natural vision of those adjuncts remains, then THIS PHENOMENAL EXISTENCE consisting of things different from Brahman has full play.

>And where does he write that plurality and relativity abides in unity, in the same way guenon writes that the metaphysical infinite principially encompasses existence?
In Brihadaranyaka bhasya 1.4.7. & 2.4.10. & 2.4.11 where he uses the metaphor of an ocean and the foam on its surface, although this it not meant to be taken literally and as strictly analogous as a Bhedabheda might interpret it. Rather he is saying from the perspective of a manifest being talking about things Brahman permeates everything all the way down to the lowest level and the relative phenomenal world is non-alienable (i.e. it has no real separate existence) from the Reality that allows it to appear as such, even though at the very same time from the highest level/perspective (and not the creaturely one) there is just the partless undivided ocean alone without any foam or name/form that is separate or non-separate. That’s why specifically in one sentence in his bhasya on 1.4.7. he refers to the Self as being distinct from name/form and then in the very same sentence says they are a part of It despite knowing full well this is contradictory if both statements taken literally, because he means that the Supreme Self as it really is is the One alone without a second but insofar as the relative is contingent upon the Absolute the relative can *figuratively* be considered a part of It due to its relative existence being sustained by the Absolute making it so.

>Are these two perspectives coexistent then, and are they related in terms of "function?"
Only the Absolute truth actually exists, the conditional perspective pertains to how the Real relates (from the creaturely perspective) to the phenomenal that is false (but its not nothing since Brahman =/= maya =/= nothingness)

[Anonymous No.20904267]

>>20904145
but that's the whole point of the article aforementioned.

>>20904154
https://vedavyasamandala.com/en/essere-o-non-essere/
guénon is mixing cosmology and metaphysics

look at the difference when the doctrine is explained in pure metaphysics:
"Similarly, it is reasonable to conclude that the existence of the world, which is under the dominion and which depends on Ātman, is in reality only that of Atman and nothing else. If we proclaim that the pure existence of Ātman is real existence, it is in no way possible to argue that an existence inferior to that is "existence". Because if existence were, so to speak, contaminated, it should necessarily be denied: it is never possible to measure or consider gradations of existence in terms of "half existence, a quarter of existence", and so on [as the existence is unique]."

[Anonymous No.20904270]

>>20904091
>Do you quote this as if to say shankara accepts the position of all schools, that the phenomenal world is existent and non-existent, and that Atman is absolute and relative? Otherwise I struggle to see the purpose in putting this quotation in.
No, Shankara is saying that even if you accept the relative as being ultimately unreal/false (by virtue of not being the Real) that it has to be admitted as being conditionally real and not as strictly equivalent to complete nothingness or your position will not make any sense.

>Why are you bringing up the cittamantra debate and position?
Because Shankara’s refutation of cittamatra presupposes and only makes sense in the context of considering maya as ‘relatively real’ or as ‘conditionally real’, with the ‘relatively real’ being false and not nothingness or Brahman

>Where does Shankara say satcitananda is also asat
?? I have never said that he maintains this and I dont think Guenon does either, Shankara doesn’t even mention that formulation and it comes from later Advaita, the actual formulation is “satyam jnanam anantam” in the Taittirya Up. and Shankara says they are only pointers designed to help convey the nature of an undivided and undifferentiated Brahman to us

>where does he say that Atman is then Silence and Speech?
?? What does that have to do with anything I wrote? Seems like a non-sequitur

>The monism in which the absolute and relative collapse together is the natural conclusion of guenons relative to absolute, sat and asat,
No, because only one actually has real existence, saying something has conditional existence is just acknowledging its appearance and not giving it true existence/reality
>guenon also had high praises for nagarjuna.
From what ive seen he only implied in one letter that Nagarjuna was closer to le primordial tradition than is commonly realized (i.e. basically saying he is a secret crypto advaitin like how Dolpopa interprets Nagarjuna)

[Anonymous No.20904287]

>>20904249
as i said in another post, you have to read the whole article

i was aware that it could cause some misunderstanding, but if i had posted only the link i doubt that many people would see it

[Anonymous No.20904298]

>>20904091
>And where does he write that plurality and relativity abides in unity
pbuh

[Anonymous No.20904303]

>>20904270
>?? I have never said that he maintains this and I dont think Guenon does either, Shankara doesn’t even mention that formulation and it comes from later Advaita, the actual formulation is “satyam jnanam anantam” in the Taittirya Up. and Shankara says they are only pointers designed to help convey the nature of an undivided and undifferentiated Brahman to us
So you agree with the article.

[Anonymous No.20904307]

>>20904267
>but that's the whole point of the article aforementioned
I know that.

[Anonymous No.20904315]

>>20904104
>Where doew Shankara accept the reality of what is "conditionally real?
I never said that you clown, you shouldn’t be acting haughtily when you havnt even read through all of Shankara. Trying to correct me on Shankara based on some translated italian articles when you havent even read through all his works lmfao. Do you have any self-awareness?

NOWHERE have I said that “Shankara accepts as reality the conditionally real”; rather what I am saying is that Shankara accepts the category of “conditionally real” as being totally mutually-exclusive with the category of 1) the Real and 2) nothingness. Talking about “the reality of the conditional real” makes no sense because by stating that its conditionally real you have already said in effect that it not the actual Real.

[Anonymous No.20904326]

>>20904263
>I literally just cited the passage:
You are deluded and the conclusion that Maya participates in the same reality as Brahman is not advaita, anything you cite has been taken out of context, your opinion is defective and erroneous.

[Anonymous No.20904334]

All I know is that Guenon is one goofy-looking mofo.

[Anonymous No.20904335]

>>20904315
You just repeated the claim here, and reitersted that shankara agreed with it at the start here:
>>20904270

[Anonymous No.20904337]

>>20904287
>you have to read the whole article
Ok so you have no argument. Maybe Shankara used the term which the author translated as "imagination" in a more complex way which would include the higher states but if he meant it in an empirical way than LMAO, he was a complete hylic.

[Anonymous No.20904346]

>>20904103
>and regarding 'states', those have been thoroughly analyzed by the buddhists and showed to be conditioned like everything else
The Atman is not a state but rather it is present alongside all mental states as their basis. The Buddhist analysis fails to demonstrate that one’s own foundational awareness is conditioned in any way. Awareness cannot become an object of itself while remaining the subject so there is no way to actually detect or observe being conditioned in any manner. Whatever you are describing like changes etc belongs to name and form and these are objects of consciousness (pure awareness) and not consciousness itself.

[Anonymous No.20904359]

>>20904337
Shankara uses "creative imagination" equivalent in sanskrit, for like a play of maya.
>>20904346
>present alongside as the basis of all mental states
That is embarrasimg guenonfag mere empirical non-conceptuality is not atman, atman is the eternal negation of that "states"

[Anonymous No.20904363]

>>20904130
>the snake has no reality
The crucial point is that the snake belongs to the category of “conditionally real/metaphysical falsity” (same thing) and not pure non-existence or pure nothingness because this latter category lacks any ability to even appear as an illusion and to say it does involves inherent logical contradictions. Again, just read Sharma (or Shankara for that matter) as they both explain this

[Anonymous No.20904365]

>>20904359
Of all states*

[Anonymous No.20904388]

>>20904326
>You are deluded and the conclusion that Maya participates in the same reality as Brahman is not advaita,
Again, thats not what I said. Try to calm down and reread my post before replying and mischaracterizing my statements again (I have actually read all of Shankara and know what Im talking about unlike you) Nowhere did I say “maya participates in the same reality as Brahman”, I said that maya is what it is (the conditionally real) because of it being contingent upon Brahman, that does not amount to saying that maya is actually taking place or truly present in the Absolute reality that Brahman is

[Anonymous No.20904395]

>>20904111
They are oxymorons which is why “relatively real” is synonymous with “metaphysically false” for Shankara, but the “false” (mithya) isnt the same as nothingness either as the Vedasvyasandala author wrongly implies

[Anonymous No.20904409]

>>20904388
>I have actually read all of Shankara and know what Im talking about unlike you
Thats good for you.
>the conditionally real
>Nowhere did I say “maya participates in the same reality as Brahman"
So Brahman is only real, and what is conditionally real DOES NOT participate in what is only real, therefore what is conditionally real is in teems of Brahman not really real, right and you should agree?
"condotionally real" means nothing, fix your terms if you want to avoid confusion.

[Anonymous No.20904418]

>>20904145
>how can Guenon then say what is relatively real is encompassed by what is real?
Because the substratum (adisthana) of the illusion (Brahman is the substatrum) is all-pervasive and infinite so even though the illusion and its substratum are not actually related spatially in any sense like two objects in space Brahman still “encompasses” (literally: surrounds) the illusion in the sense that underlying the illusion there is everywhere just the undivided Brahman alone in actuality, despite the appearance of plurality.

[Anonymous No.20904419]

Advaita debates are more soulless and empty than the weirdest talmudic debates.

[Anonymous No.20904420]

>>20904395
Yes as Not Real or Unreal.

[Anonymous No.20904428]

>>20904395
Is this the standard quality of Shankaran cope? It's nothing but if you press me hard enough on it to point out the absurdities in my argument I'll say it's actually not nothing?

[Anonymous No.20904441]

>>20904418
Thanks for the false atrributions, you attempt at being instructive is good enough but still erroneous.

[Anonymous No.20904444]

>>20904303
>So you agree with the article.
No, because the author makes several errors as far as I can tell, namely
1) He denies that Shankara categorizes maya as the “relatively real” even though there are numerous passages proving otherwise
2) He calls maya nothingness or pure non-existence

Shankara explicitly disagrees with both of these ideas. When the purvapaksin says “b-b-but if maya isn’t real then it wouldn’t even appear to us as illusion” Shankara responds with “no, because illusions are relatively real insofar as they are neither the Real nor total nothingness” (which cannot even appear as illusion)

[Anonymous No.20904454]

>>20904335
>reitersted that shankara agreed with it at the start here:
No I didnt

stating that Shankara accepts “relatively real” as a VALID CATEGORIZATION OF MAYA is not the same thing as saying he accepts that the relatively real *is actually real*; there is a humungous difference

[Anonymous No.20904455]

>>20904395
If somerhing is not Real (as in Absolutely) then it is absolute Nothingness. And to say it is not, not Absolute Non-existence, is to say oxymoronic because there is no such thing given the Absolute has no correlative to Being one wothout two.

[Anonymous No.20904466]

Is this a good chart? I can’t understand anything you guys are taking about, but I want to.

[Anonymous No.20904468]

>>20904359
>That is embarrasimg guenonfag mere empirical non-conceptuality is not atman, atman is the eternal negation of that "states"
Stop reading things into my post that I never said, it’s fundamentally dishonest and gross. I never do that even when arguing with people that I dislike.

The Atman is fully present always in whatever mental state or non-mental state or any variation thereof that you can imagine because our Self is never absent but is the basis of everything; but saying this doesn’t reduce the Atman to “mere empirical non-conceptuality” that is your own misunderstanding. You dont even know enough about this topic to be speaking on it with any authority. You are behaving in an immature manner

[Anonymous No.20904471]

So it's nothingness until someone critiques you, then it's relatively real. Got it.

[Anonymous No.20904483]

>>20904409
>So Brahman is only real, and what is conditionally real DOES NOT participate in what is only real, therefore what is conditionally real is in teems of Brahman not really real, right and you should agree?
Of course, that the conditionally real is not actually real is already made clear by the addition of the qualifier of “conditionally”

>"condotionally real" means nothing, fix your terms if you want to avoid confusion.
Wrong, it designates how illusions/the phenomenal appear in experience while at the same time lacking existence. Take up your complaints with Shankara and not me since he uses that phrase himself.

[Anonymous No.20904496]

>>20904466
If you want to understand these discussions, start with Introduction to the study of the hindu doctrines and then read Man and his becoming according to the Vedanta, nothing else

[Anonymous No.20904497]

>>20904428
>absurdities
What absurdities? There is nothing absurd in saying an illusion is not nothingness and is also not real and that this category can be called “conditionally real” as long as you dont make the mistake of confusing that term with real reality

[Anonymous No.20904498]

How come Brahman isn't smart enough to not be psyopped by maya?

[Anonymous No.20904505]

>>20904497
>It's not absurd because I said so

You think it's not absurd because you already worship Shankara and are invested too deep to move on.

[Anonymous No.20904508]

>>20904496
I REALLY appreciate the help. Thank you.

[Anonymous No.20904510]

>>20904441
>Thanks for the false atrributions
No, its not anon. Shankara says Brahman is the substratum of illusion in his commentary on Brihadaranyaka 1.4.10. I can disprove your surface-level understanding with citations from his works all day

[Anonymous No.20904512]

>>20904466
just read this short books to begin with

http://www.adhyatmaprakasha.org/php/english_books.php

[Anonymous No.20904515]

>>20904498
Maya is a manifestation of Brahman, is like his shadow, it can't exist with him but at the same time is not him

[Anonymous No.20904518]

>>20904466
This is the right chart to read to understand this discussion (starts with Sharmas intro book first; Guenons book is optional but I enjoyed it)

[Anonymous No.20904519]

>>20904515
without*

[Anonymous No.20904520]

>>20904483
Lack of existence means nothing, quit the pilpul guenonfag Gaudapada disagrees.
> If the world of plurality really existed, it would no doubt really come to an end. But this duality is a mere illusion. Non-duality is the final truth. False Imagination might come to an end if it
were anything that anyone had really imagined. This doctrine (that the world of plurality is imagined) is (itself only) for the sake of teaching (those in metaphysical Ignorance). When
the truth is known, there is no duality (G.K.I.17,18).

[Anonymous No.20904521]

>>20904518
I really appreciate it — thanks so much.

[Anonymous No.20904524]

>>20904510
No it Is a false atrribution hylic, Brahman is neither this nor that so your illustrative example is just that. Neither this nor that.

[Anonymous No.20904525]

>>20904512
Thanks.

[Anonymous No.20904526]

regarding Maya and Avidya

https://vedavyasamandala.com/en/avidya-e-maya/


"If one wanted to remember how precisely the nature of avidyā, its function and its effect in Śaṃkara's Adhyāsa Bhāṣya were defined, numerous unnecessary doubts and distinctions would vanish instantly. First of all, avidyā is only a technical term to identify the natural tendency, sedimented in the human mind, and not just any theory. Secondly, it is used by Vedānta only as a tool for the purpose of teaching the truth and never as something really real that needs to be upheld. Thirdly, its function is to postulate that there is an unreal non-self as something other than the truly real Self and, by confusing the Real with the unreal (satyānṛte mithunīkṛtya), it exchanges the identity and attributes of the 'with those of the other. However, in fact, this unreal non-self is not a different entity related to the real Atman, since Ātman is absolutely devoid of any attribute and, consequently, is not a "number one" that requires a "number two" after it. Finally, its effect is to induce us to imagine that we are really an agent of actions and an experimenter of their fruits, although actions, tools useful for producing actions and their fruits are really māyā, only false appearance.
The form of this illusory universe (māyika prapañca) is not perceived as it really is, and neither is its dissolution, its maintenance and its appearance. The avidyā that gives rise to this apparition is equally without beginning and without end, being nothing more than a natural superimposition of the human mind and an erroneous notion.
It is a waste of time to indulge in serious discussion of its cause, location, object and number as many post-śaṃkarian advaitins have done. In fact, all those categories belong to the phenomena of magic produced by avidyā and which, moreover, can never even be attributed to the avidyā itself that projects these phantasmagorias.

The Upaniṣads therefore exhort the knowledge of the unity of Ātman as the only antidote to cure this disease, the source of all the evils of life."

[Anonymous No.20904528]

>>20904455
>If somerhing is not Real (as in Absolutely) then it is absolute Nothingness.
This is precisely what is denied by Advaita’s 3-way ontology that recognizes Real, falsity and nothingness to all be 3 mutually distinct and non-intersecting categories. So that cannot be your argument that you rely upon in an attempt to disprove this 3-way split or you are committing the logical fallacy of circular reasoning, where you have no real argument but you are just stating the conclusion that you want to be true, as if that will somehow magically make it true.

[Anonymous No.20904534]

>>20904528
This epistemology is just an exercise of the empirical exostence which Brahman is logically prior to, try again.

[Anonymous No.20904536]

>>20904515
Yeah but where does the confusion come from?

[Anonymous No.20904537]

>>20904471
>So it's nothingness until someone critiques you, then it's relatively real. Got it.

No, there are 3 distinct categories which dont change or intersect

1) The Real (Brahman)
2) Maya/falsity (which is relatively real in the sense that it appears while not having existence)
3 nothingness

[Anonymous No.20904541]

>>20904537
Yeah you're intentionally avoiding the question.

[Anonymous No.20904549]

>>20904537
>nothingness is a category

so it's a thing?

[Anonymous No.20904551]

>>20904498
What you said is a common misunderstanding, in actuality Brahman is completely unaffected by maya

[Anonymous No.20904553]

>>20904536
read it >>20904526

[Anonymous No.20904555]

>>20904536
from Maya, the shadow imagine that it has its own independent existence, while in reality is only a projection of Brahman

[Anonymous No.20904559]

>>20904551
Another goalpost movement.

[Anonymous No.20904560]

>>20904541
Its because Maya taught as imagined is superimpositioj itself but guenonfag being in metaphysicap ignorance trests it as some absolute epistemology/philosophical science, he will never admit otherwise.

[Anonymous No.20904562]

>>20904505
You never demonstrated what the absurdity was kiddo

[Anonymous No.20904565]

>>20904528
>>20904534
>>20904536
>>20904537
>>20904541
>>20904549
>>20904551
>>20904555
>>20904559
>>20904560
bros this is embarassing
here's the damn explanation: >>20904526

[Anonymous No.20904568]

>>20904555
Why does that happen at all?

[Anonymous No.20904572]

[Anonymous No.20904580]

>>20904565
>not something which has to be upheld
Yet guenonfag continues... playing with the "tool" which he says has reality but does not have reality, and acts as if it is some infallible statement.... Kek.

[Anonymous No.20904589]

It's weird to see guenonfag constantly claim he's never been refuted and do wall of text posts or mass replies.

The only thing guenonfag succeeds in proving is that he's hyper online.

[Anonymous No.20904592]

Guenonfag is still trying to prove the logical necessity of the logic-transcending Abgrund's manifestation?

[Anonymous No.20904620]

>>20904572
>liberation is eternal. it is already achieved. your actions make no difference
yep, black cube is based

[Anonymous No.20904630]

>>20904520
>Lack of existence means nothing
Wrong, it means “this does not exist”, which is a meaningful statement unless you dont understand how language works. Why do you constantly throw pejoratives every time, are you 13 years old or something?

Gaudapada is not disagreeing with anything I said unless you make the foolish error of thinking that saying “maya has relative existence” entails the affirmation of maya having real/true existence. When Gaudapada says there is no duality he means at the Absolute level, obviously he is not denying that there is multiplicity at the level of phenomenal existence or he would be contradicting himself by using different words which have different meanings and which presupposes plurality or differences. If there was no duality even at the phenomenal level you wouldnt even be able to read things or communicate with other humans. Just go read Shankaras bhasya on Gaudapada’s entire text and you’ll see im correct

[Anonymous No.20904637]

>>20904565
"that which has no plurality is communiacated through false attribution followed by retraction, Shankaras Gita Commentary, XIII. 13"
Le Guenonfag: >>20904537
>No noo this "3-tier ontology" is high level "metaphysics" accept that it is iretractable, its not superimposition I swear! Neti Neti doesn't appy!!!

[Anonymous No.20904639]

>>20904524
>No it Is a false atrribution hylic
Demonstrably wrong, I provided you with the exact passage where he says that which anyone can verify. You are confusing between the absolute and relative standpoints, as you have for most of this thread.

[Anonymous No.20904651]

>>20904534
> which Brahman is logically prior to,
So its an ontolgocial distinction then, kek

[Anonymous No.20904655]

>>20904630
Read the end, if Maya is not even Imagination what is it? It is non-existent and unreal, it is taught as something indeterminate initiatially superimposed and then negated, it is not real, so why are you disagreeing with me saying it is a true non-entity nothingness.

[Anonymous No.20904659]

>>20904549
No, nothingness is nothingness and it doesnt exist, saying its a category thats different from Brahman and falsity doent entail making it real or an existing entity

>>20904541
What question?

[Anonymous No.20904666]

>>20904659
this is not strong metaphysics

[Anonymous No.20904678]

>>20904559
What goalpost?

>>20904560
>being in metaphysicap ignorance trests it as some absolute epistemology/philosophical science
No, Im just correctly describing Shankara teachings and explanations of things, I have not said a single thing making maya an absolute whatever, only Brahman is the Absolute

[Anonymous No.20904679]

>>20904630
" Finally, its effect is to induce us to imagine that we are really an agent of actions and an experimenter of their fruits, although actions, tools useful for producing actions and their fruits are really māyā, only false appearance."

[Anonymous No.20904682]

>>20904580
>which he says has reality but does not have reality,
Wrong, as I have explained calling an illusion “conditionally real” is denying that it has any actual reality.

[Anonymous No.20904686]

>>20904639
Alright I will Demomstrste hylic

The Absolute is inexpressible, therefore by expressing it you are conforming to an erroneous view only as a method instruction, nothing more and nothing less, there is nothing not false in what you have written or I am writing, cope and seethe.

[Anonymous No.20904696]

>>20904592
Lies, I have never tried to prove the logical necessity of Brahman manifesting

>>20904637
That quote does not disagree with anything I have said, notice how Shankara calls the plurality FALSE and not nothingness, he is agreeing with me there.

[Anonymous No.20904699]

>>20904678
There is nothing real about any of it. Its false what you have said, do you disagree? Why do you continue to disagree and combat?

[Anonymous No.20904729]

>>20904666
You are deluded guenonfag, by just setting up maya as an indefinite indeterminate ambiguous category you are merely try to eternalize a second next to brahman, there is Nothing but Brahman, therefore Maya is not, and what is not is Nothing, your problem is that you are trying to intellectualize and frame epistemologically and argumentatively what is Not. Combine that with shankara idolatry, and it is easy to see how these mental impressions have become "sclerotic" The initial "convincing a person of maya" is a superimposition - negation instruction. These dialectics of yours are futile and transient and laughable. Advaita is not reducible to some sterile epistemology, what exsctly are you so comvinced of what are you trying to prove?

[Anonymous No.20904739]

>>20904655
>Read the end, if Maya is not even Imagination what is it? It is non-existent and unreal, it is taught as something indeterminate initiatially superimposed and then negated, it is not real,
What you dont understand is the maya and nothingness both dont belong to the category of the Real, but that doesn’t make them strictly equivalent either. Maya is neither the category of the real nor the category of the unreal (nothingness). Both the unreal and that which is neither real nor unreal (maya) both are not identical with the real. But this doesnt justify trying to collapse maya into the category of nothingness, which Shankara refutes.

>so why are you disagreeing with me saying it is a true non-entity nothingness.
Because Shankara refutes that maya is nothingness in his works

[Anonymous No.20904769]

>>20904666
Wrong, Satan

>>20904686
I never said the Absolute as it truly is in Itself is structured by the relation that maya makes it appear to have with things, ‘substatrum’ is an incidental description and not an essential definition, I would say nice try but it really wasn’t

[Anonymous No.20904780]

>>20904739
Alright, ill just ask two questions, and this is really all. That requires being answered, if something does not exist, what is it, or what does it do? And I do not mean "relative existence."
And can maya be said to absolutely exist alongside brahman?

[Anonymous No.20904785]

>>20904699
>There is nothing real about any of it. Its false what you have said, do you disagree?
For Shankara, calling something “relatively real” is tantamout to denying that it is real, but you struggle wrap your mind around this and keep defaulting to the misconception that saying so makes maya a positive reality or entity

>Why do you continue to disagree and combat?
Because you are repeating confusions that Shankara refutes and clears up in his works (just read him and you’ll see), pseud behavior

[Anonymous No.20904792]

>>20904785
>For Shankara, calling something “relatively real” is tantamout to denying that it is real, but you struggle wrap your mind around this and keep defaulting to the misconception that saying so makes maya a positive reality or entity
Stupid pilpul, I am saying that calling something relatively real is tantamount to saying it is not real in any way, at all, it is totally nonexistent, it does not exist, it is nothing, I haven't said anything else.

[Anonymous No.20904796]

i think it's about time for some buddhanons to take over this thread

advaitin debates are really depressing
and its really embarasssing to see guenonfag trying to justify his neoplatonism as true metaphysics

[Anonymous No.20904798]

>>20904729
>You are deluded guenonfag, by just setting up maya as an indefinite indeterminate ambiguous category you are merely try to eternalize a second next to brahman
Totally wrong, because this indefinite indeterminate illusion is sublatable through right knowledge as Shankara points out. He also says nothingness lacks any sort of parts or differentiation which exposes as foolish and illogical any attempt to equate maya (which has both) with nothingness.

>there is Nothing but Brahman,
Only at the absolute level, not at the conditional level or you wouldnt even be here posting on 4channel rn

>therefore Maya is not, and what is not is Nothing,
This is refuted by Shankara

>your problem is that you are trying to intellectualize and frame epistemologically and argumentatively what is Not.
Your problem is you are pretending to understand Shankara based on some random italian website despite not having read through him, and you are repeating the websites mistakes which Shankara actually refutes

[Anonymous No.20904803]

>>20904785
Why can you not comprehend that saying something is nothing is not a positive determination. It can also not exist at all alongsode brahman.

[Anonymous No.20904812]

>>20904780
>Alright, ill just ask two questions, and this is really all. That requires being answered, if something does not exist, what is it, or what does it do?
Illusions and nothingness both dont exist

Nothingness doesnt do anything, including appear

Illusions appear in experience, unlike nothingness, which is why they are ‘relatively real’

>And can maya be said to absolutely exist alongside brahman?
No, which is why I and Shankara have always consistently denied that that maya exists absolutely, “relative existence =\= absolute existence”

[Anonymous No.20904814]

>>20904798
>
Your problem is you are pretending to understand Shankara based on some random italian website despite not having read through him, and you are repeating the websites mistakes which Shankara actually refutes
I am not the anon who posted the website you hylic.
>Only at the absolute level
That is a stupid use of terms.
>Totally wrong, because this indefinite indeterminate illusion is sublatable through right knowledge as Shankara points out. He also says nothingness lacks any sort of parts or differentiation which exposes as foolish and illogical any attempt to equate maya (which has both) with nothingness.
Exsctly so you get it? Now is that sublation eternal and permanent and absolute?

[Anonymous No.20904823]

>>20904792
>Stupid pilpul, I am saying that calling something relatively real is tantamount to saying it is not real in any way, at all, it is totally nonexistent, it does not exist, it is nothing,
This is wrong as Shankara explains, because illusions appear in experience and contain parts and internal diversity while nothingness cannot appear and it does not contain parts or internal diversity; hence the illusion cannot be equated with nothingness because its contradictory to do so, why do you keep running away from this very simple logical premise instead of facing it head on?

[Anonymous No.20904832]

>>20904803
>Why can you not comprehend that saying something is nothing is not a positive determination.
I didnt say you were calling nothingness a positive, what your main error consists of is in not realizing the different and mutually exclusive natures of nothingness vs illusion

[Anonymous No.20904835]

>>20904812
>Nothingness doesnt do anything, including appear
>Illusions appear in experience
Illusions are false appearence which is nothingness, and nothingness is really a plenitude of things.
>“relative existence =\= absolute existence"
So the relative does not exist alongside the absolute, and in terms of the absolute the relative is false appearence nothingness
Do you disagree?

[Anonymous No.20904845]

>>20904832
I disagree they are one in the same thing. Its like the empty hollowness of dreams, nothingness and illusion are the same.

[Anonymous No.20904849]

>>20904814
>That is a stupid use of terms.
No its perfectly appropriate and useful, which is why Shankara himself uses it

>Now is that sublation eternal and permanent and absolute?
Every individual sublates their own ignorance, the final sublation of ignorance by that individual has a beginning but no end. Once ignorance is sublated and the body dies there is no further transmigration for that individual ever again.

[Anonymous No.20904860]

>>20904835
>Illusions are false appearence which is nothingness, and nothingness is really a plenitude of things.
That’s wrong because nothingness is defined as a complete negation or a complete absence which is logically contradictory to apply to something that manifestly isnt a complete negation or complete absence because it has colors, sounds, thoughts etc etc etc


>“relative existence =\= absolute existence"
>So the relative does not exist alongside the absolute, and in terms of the absolute the relative is false appearence nothingness
>Do you disagree?
Here, your only error is to identify “nothingness” with “false appearance” which is logically contradictory

[Anonymous No.20904873]

CHAD-rahar Sharna coming through here to correct these italian pseuds and all those bedeviled by their confusions

The analysis of an empirical illusion reveals three factors. The first is the illusory object which is super-imposed (adhyasta), the ‘snake* in the case of a rope-snake illusion. The second is the *thisness* of the rope, which appears as identified with the ‘snake* and supports the illusion. It is in this sense that the identification is mutual. The relation (samsarga or tadatmya) of the ‘this* with the ‘snake* is false. The third is the ‘rope’, which is the unrelated real, the ground (adhisthana) of illusion, which indirectly allows itself to be super-imposed upon, but which is not at all involved in illusion. Ignorance of it gives rise to illusion and its knowledge cancels illusion. This analysis also shows that the cause which gives rise to and sustains illusion is nothing but ignorance of the real. Ignorance is the stuff illusions are made of. Ignorance (avidya or ajndna) is not merely absence of knowledge, but also positive wrong knowledge. And it is this positive aspect of ignorance which contains the sting of illusion. Ignorance, in its negative aspect, acts as a screen (avarana) and covers the real which remains as unperceived; and in its positve aspect, it projects (viksepa) the unreal on the real so that the real is misperceived. Ignorance, therefore, is non-apprehension as well as mis-apprehension. As ignorance is usually taken to be mere absence of knowledge, Vedanta emphasises its positive aspect (bhdva-rupa) in order to show that the essence of ignorance consists in super-imposition resulting in mis-apprehension. Ignorance as positive is considered as power (shakti-rupa), because it produces and sustains illusion. This power is treated as beginningless, for the supposition that one ignorance is due to another ignorance would lead to infinite regress. As it confronts consciousness as an ‘other*, it is essentially unconscious (jada). Again, ignorance cannot be defined either as real or as unreal (sadasadanirvachaniya). It is not real, for it is cancelled by right knowledge; it is not unreal, for it gives rise to and sustains appearance. Though it is beginningless and indefinite, it can be totally cancelled by knowledge of the real, its ground; It is removable by right knowledge (jnana-nirasya)

[Anonymous No.20904877]

>>20904860
>Here, your only error is to identify “nothingness” with “false appearance” which is logically contradictory
How when everything relative is nothingness as i have identified it is the plenitude of things.

[Anonymous No.20904883]

Jesus fucking Christ you guys are awful metaphysicians.
Negation is a thetic act that can be applied to any and all objects by a consciousness operating a reflexive moment. So is abstention.
Every single problems you raise about "nothingness" disappears once you realize this. "Nothing" is not in the real world, just like "division" or "addition" are not in the real world, it is the result of an operation of the mind.

[Anonymous No.20904896]

>>20904883
thr empirical world is not the real world
kys redditor

[Anonymous No.20904898]

>>20904873
it was good until you start mixing up with this shakta shit

so this is not in accordance with the doctrine laid out by Gaudapada and Shankara, this is post-shankara

the traditional view has been explained by Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati (the italians are mere translators) here:
>>20904526

[Anonymous No.20904947]

>>20904877
>How when everything relative is nothingness as i have identified
You didn’t “identify” shit anon, you just asserted it to be true but without being able to show or explain why and without being able to explain away or resolve the inherent logical contradiction involved in what you are positing. You are just relying on the circular argumentation logical fallacy right now

[Anonymous No.20904963]

>>20904898
>the traditional view has been explained by Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati
He doesn’t identify maya and nothingness AFAIK, but I think thats an error of the italians and the other people there writing under pseudonyms. If he does identify them then he is taking a position that is expressly refuted by Sri Shankaracharya (pbuh) and he is confused and going against the Traditional doctrine. Shankara himself in his works does refer to maya as a power of Brahman, that’s not only the claim of Shaktism. If maya wasn’t a power or manifested effect of Brahman and thereby contingent upon Brahman it would then be independent and self-sufficient which Advaita expressly denies.

[Anonymous No.20904972]

>>20904896
> ESL
> Misinterpret a clearly idealist position as empiricist
> Calls others redditor

[Anonymous No.20904974]

>>20904963
>Sri Shankaracharya (pbuh)
>If maya wasn’t a power or manifested effect of Brahman and thereby contingent upon Brahman it would then be independent and self-sufficient which Advaita expressly denies.
Meme-tier.

[Anonymous No.20904982]

>>20904974

[Anonymous No.20905083]

>>20904963
maya is not some power or entity, its nothing but the ''effect'' of ignorance
you confuse the Real and the unreal because of the lack of discrimination and this gives rise to nama-rupa and all its dualities, the world of appearances (maya)

[Anonymous No.20905162]

>>20905083
>maya is not some power or entity, its nothing but the ''effect'' of ignorance
Yes maya is the effect of ignorance, and the false appearance of Brahman, through the removal of avidya maya is falsified, and is realized to be false appearence.

According to mandukyakarika bhasya 4:35:
>58. Those Jīvas (entities) or beings are said to be born. But that birth is never possible from the standpoint of Reality. Their birth is like that of an illusory object. That illusion, again, is non-existent.

Shankaras commentary:
>Those, again, who imagine the birth of the Jīvas and other entities, do so only through Saṃvṛti or the power of ignorance as stated in the preceding Kārikā. The Jīvas are seen to be born only through ignorance. But from the standpoint of the Supreme Reality no such birth is possible. This1 (supposed) birth of the Jīvas through ignorance, described above, is like the birth of objects through illusion (Māyā).

>(Opponent)—Then there must be something real known as Māyā or illusion?

>(Reply)—It is not so. That Māyā or illusion is never existent. Māyā or illusion is the name we give to something which2 does not (really) exist (but which is perceived).

https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/mandukya-upanishad-karika-bhashya/d/doc143768.html

[Anonymous No.20905183]

>>20904898
>>20904963
>maya being a power, energy or created effect of Brahman's nature isn't a doctrine taught by Advaita and it comes from Shak-
Silence yourself pseud!

>the Supreme Lord who made this universe come out of the unmanifested state, in the course of His manifesting the undifferentiated name and form, after first projecting the worlds such as this earth, made bodies with two feet, viz. human and bird bodies, and bodies with four feet, viz. animal bodies
- Shankara, Brihadaranyaka Bhasya 2.5.18

> though I am birthless; and undecaying by nature, though I am naturally possessed of an undiminishing power of Knowledge; and so also, though the Lord, natural Ruler of beings, from Brahma to a clump of grass; (still), by subjugating; My own Prakrti, the Maya of Visnu consisting of the three gunas, under whose; spell the whole world exists, and deluded by which one does not know one's own Self, Vasudeva; -by subjugating that Prakrti of Mine, I take birth, appear to become embodied, as though born; by means of My own Maya; but not in reality like an ordinary man.
- Shankara, Gita Bhasya 4.6

>He is supreme, as compared with the selves like body etc. created by ignorance, and is the atma, Self, the inmost Consciousness of all beings. Hence He is the supreme Self. He Himself is being specially described: who, by dint of His own active power inhering in the energy that is Maya; permeating; the three worlds-called Bhuh (Earth), Bhuvah, (Intermediate Space) and Svah (Heaven); upholds (them) by merely being present in His own nature. (And He) is the imperishable; God, the Omniscient One called Narayana, who is the Lord by nature
- Shankara Gita Bhasya 15.17

>the other person is the aksarah, immutable, opposite of the former, THE POWER OF GOD CALLED MAYA, which is the seed of the origin of the person called the mutable.
- Shankara, Gita Bhasya 15.16

[Anonymous No.20905189]

>>20905183
>Opponent : But from your point of view, the Self, even when in association with the body etc., cannot reasonably have any tendency to act over and above having Its intrinsic nature of pure consciousness, and hence it cannot be upheld that it can impart any tendency (to others).
>Vedantin : No, for on the analogy of the magnet and colour etc. something bereft of any tendency to act can still impart this to others. For instance, a magnet, though possessing no tendency to act by itself, still induces that tendency in iron; or objects of perception like colour etc., which by themselves have no tendency to act, still impart this to the eye etc. Similarly it is but logical that God who is all-pervasive, the Self of all, omniscient, and omnipotent, should be the impeller of all even though He is Himself free from any tendency to act.
>Objection : Since God is one (without a second), and there is nothing else to be impelled, the impellership itself is a fiction.
>Vedantin: No, for it has been said again and again that God can be the impeller because of an illusory association with name and form conjured up by ignorance. Hence the existence of such tendency becomes a possibility ONLY IF OMNISCIENT GOD BE ACCEPTED AS THE CAUSE (of creation), but not so on the assumption of something insentient as the cause.
- Shankara, Brahma Sutra Bhasya 2.2.2

>Therefore those intended qualities that are enjoined here for being taken up during the meditation, viz true resolve and so forth, fit in with the supreme Brahman; for true resolve
can be thought of only in the case of the supreme Brahman, IT BEING POSSESSED OF ABSOLUTE POWER in the matter of creation, continuance, and dissolution
- Shankara, Brahma Sutra Bhasya 1.2.2

[Anonymous No.20905250]

>>20905083
>maya is not some power or entity, its nothing but the ''effect'' of ignorance
This incorrect claim is explicitly refuted in the 6 separate citations from Shankara's works posted here >>20905183 and >>20905189; Shankara does not ever state that ignorance and Maya are wholly separate but he uses them indiscriminately to both refer to the false/mithya (which is the relatively real); correct knowledge sublates this ignorance-Maya (same thing); the idea that ignorance and maya are separate is an invention of the post-Shankara advaitins

In the quote from the mandukya karika bhasya that you cited Shankara never says that maya is synonymous with nothingness; he just says that it "is not real' and that it "is never existent" which is the exact same and means the exact same thing to him as saying it's only conditionally real; which is why he affirms the existence of the world in a conditional and phenomenal sense without contradicting himself at all in passages like Brihadaranyaka 3.5.1 and others and why he uses phrases like "PHENOMENAL EXISTENCE"

[Anonymous No.20905401]

yep, metaphysics really is the greatest cope

>"yeah mate, think like this:
>if there's the relative then there is the Absolute
>but logically the Absolute doesn't admit any distinctions and is the only reality (if not so, it wouldn't be the Absolute),
>thus the relative is unreal"
>everything's just a dream bro, i'm brahman in deep sleep bro
>...
>proceed to get old, sick and die

[Anonymous No.20905430]

>>20903753
He calls Maya Ishvara-Shakti, Vyaktaavyaktaatmaka, Anirvachaniya, and also Avidyapratyupasthaapita, Avidyaakrlta, Avidyaakaarya, Avidyakalpita, Avidyaatmaka,

Avidya is taught as a defect of Antahkarana and Maya as the effect of Avidya.
>Shankara does not ever state that ignorance and Maya are wholly separate but he uses them indiscriminately to both refer to the false/mithya (which is the relatively real)
Does shankara never explicitly say Maya is the effect of Avidya, and is falsified by Vidya, by referring to Maya as Avidyakalpita (conjured by Avidya)?

>ignorance-Maya (same thing)
I think there is a subtle diffeeence, but anyway both Maya and Avidya are to be falsified through sublation but they are not supposed to be upheld or defended.
> "is not real' and that it "is never existent"
I agree
>the idea that ignorance and maya are separate is an invention of the post-Shankara advaitins
Isnt the position that moolavidya the invention, which is reasoned through shankaras recognition of avidya being a defect of the Antahkarana and maya being identified with prakriti, the Antahkarana being a production of prakriti/maya, therefore leading them to say Maya is the cause of Avidya? Do you find that view problematic?
> "is not real' and that it "is never existent" which is the exact same and means the exact same thing to him as saying it's only conditionally real
Yeah and whats your point, saying as if it does not exist, is what happens when botj maya and avidya are sublated and falsified through adhyaropa.
This entire debate of yours has arisen over terminological and semantic confusions over words like "nothingness" and "non-existence" Maya is described as manifested and unmanifested, and in terms of these states, Brahman can be called cause ans Maya effect, but this is not an absolute statement. Anyway if you read the article on the vedavyasamandala site properly, I don't see how they could be said to be not consistent with Advaita, you seem to just see excerpts here and deconstruct them at face-value without context.

[Anonymous No.20905482]

>>20905189
>Vedantin: No, for it has been said again and again that God can be the impeller because of an illusory association with name and form conjured up by ignorance. Hence the existence of such tendency becomes a possibility ONLY IF OMNISCIENT GOD BE ACCEPTED AS THE CAUSE (of creation), but not so on the assumption of something insentient as the cause.
The description of Brahman as Sarvajna is from the perspective of Maya, in the Bhasyas shankara uses Ishvara, Atman and Brahman synonymously,

[Anonymous No.20905489]

>>20905401
You are retarded. Like, mentally challenged. You are not ready. Please grow up and challenge yourself to become a better person because right now you are a mere embryo trying to grasp concepts way beyond your grasp. I'm saying this for your own sake.

[Anonymous No.20905554]

>>20905250
>>20905430
Also to add, both the vedavyasa and their influence swami satchidanandera say that maya is neither sat nor asat 'Vyaktaavyaktaatmaka' which is how shankara does devise it in his bhasyas
And also, that Ignorance is not really real, seems to have been the point of the anon you engaged in argument with so I don't see what thr disagreement was over.

>>20904526
>Secondly, it is used by Vedānta only as a tool for the purpose of teaching the truth and never as something really real that needs to be upheld. Thirdly, its function is to postulate that there is an unreal non-self as something other than the truly real Self and, by confusing the Real with the unreal (satyānṛte mithunīkṛtya), it exchanges the identity and attributes of the 'with those of the other. However, in fact, this unreal non-self is not a different entity related to the real Atman, since Ātman is absolutely devoid of any attribute and, consequently, is not a "number one" that requires a "number two" after it. Finally, its effect is to induce us to imagine that we are really an agent of actions and an experimenter of their fruits, although actions, tools useful for producing actions and their fruits are really māyā, only false appearance.

[Anonymous No.20905561]

>>20905489
kek
didn't expect such a great reaction like that
>trying to grasp concepts way beyond your grasp
yeah, concepts, just that

you're not gonna take samnyasin, so that's no different than academic talk

[Anonymous No.20905613]

>>20905250
>(3) If the world of plurality really existed, it would no doubt re al ly come to an end. But this duality is a mere illusion. Non-duality is the final truth, (G.K.I.IT)

>Sankaras Commentary: But the world of plurality no more exists than a snake imagined in a rope. A snake imagined in a rope through an erroneous idea is not something that actually exists and is then later brought to an end through discriminatory knowledge. The case with a mass hypnotist's display is similar. When the spell is removed from the spectators eyes, we cannot say that any existent reality has ceased to be. And similar again is the case with this mere illusion of duality called the world. All that really exists is the non-dual Self, comparable to the rope in the rope-snake illusion, or to the mass hypnotist in the case of the magician's display. Hence the meaning is that no world of plurality either comes into being or comes to an end (cp. M.V.227,3 note).

[Anonymous No.20905626]

>>20905250
Also you are responding to multiple anons at the same time and confusing it all for one.

[Anonymous No.20905633]

>>20905489
Who are you in this thread? What have you been posting so far?

[Anonymous No.20905661]

>>20904963
Why are you attributing random anon opinions to the authors on the site, filtered.

[Anonymous No.20905851]

>>20893192
end thread

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20906161]

>>20902113
so I read the first 30 chapters or so
Nietzsche's 'Anti-Christ' is a good supplementary read to Judeo-Christian chapters. it's similar but comes from a slightly different POV
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/19322/19322-h/19322-h.htm

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20906491]

>>20906161
>>20902113
also, the author seems to really really hate the Southern Normans
seething L*mbard

[Anonymous No.20906580]

>>20905489
lol guenonfag got scared

[Anonymous No.20906865]

>>20906580
that poster was not me

>>20905430
>Avidya is taught as a defect of Antahkarana and Maya as the effect of Avidya.
and the antahkarana is itself a product of maya and would not have the relative existence it does were it not through all objects and forms etc being projected by Maya so all you’ve really said is “this part of maya is attributable to another part of maya”, i.e. its’s all just maya unfolding in various ways

>Does shankara never explicitly say Maya is the effect of Avidya, and is falsified by Vidya, by referring to Maya as Avidyakalpita (conjured by Avidya)?
That’s correct, he never explicitly says this and he never introduces any sort of bifurcation between maya and avidya. Whenever he says something is “conjured up by ignorance” its something that in another context he says is the result of maya being projected; there is no rule or pattern where Y is caused by avidya and X is caused by maya but he uses them totally interchangeably and speaks of them causing the same result. He never says “maya is caused by avidya” but whenever he says “X proceeds from avidya” it is always something specific like a certain kind of delusion that he elsewhere also says comes from maya.
>I think there is a subtle diffeeence, but anyway both Maya and Avidya are to be falsified through sublation but they are not supposed to be upheld or defended.
Maya has a more general/cosmic connotation whereas avidya has a more individual connotation but they are not fundamentally different, perhaps the most one can say is that one individual’s ignorance is just a part of the totality of maya instead of the ignorance of individual #52738 being identical with the totality of all maya.
>Isnt the position that moolavidya the invention, which is reasoned through shankaras recognition of avidya being a defect of the Antahkarana and maya being identified with prakriti, the Antahkarana being a production of prakriti/maya, therefore leading them to say Maya is the cause of Avidya? Do you find that view problematic?
I dont find it problematic to say the ignorance of individuals is downstream of or a consequence of the fact the totality of all maya/avidya being projected.

[Anonymous No.20906871]

>>20905430
>Yeah and whats your point, saying as if it does not exist, is what happens when botj maya and avidya are sublated and falsified through adhyaropa.
The sublation of maya/avidya doesn’t transform them into nothingness, even after being sublated they remain what they are as neither the Real nor the Unreal (nothingness), one just does not have any false understanding about them anymore. If they really transformed into nothingness it would be impossible for an enlightened man to communicate his knowledge and initiate others.
>This entire debate of yours has arisen over terminological and semantic confusions over words like "nothingness" and "non-existence"
And you are the one confused, you erred by trying to equate maya with nothingness as Shankara himself explains why this is impossible and illogical in his works.

>Brahman can be called cause ans Maya effect, but this is not an absolute statement
What is not absolute is any sort of causal relation and hence any real ‘creation’ but even in the highest absolute sense where Brahman is One alone without a second it never loses its nature of being able to project maya; where this the case it would inexplicably set maya up as a totally self-sufficient and independent entity

>Anyway if you read the article on the vedavyasamandala site properly
I already read it from beginning to end as you asked me to do, he calls maya nothingness at one point which is an error if he meant it literally and a bad choice of words if he meant it figuratively

>you seem to just see excerpts here and deconstruct them at face without any context
If you have not read all of Shankara you dont even fully understand the context to begin with and you should refrain from trying to argue about this stuff with someone who has

[Anonymous No.20906890]

>>20905554
>both the vedavyasa and their influence swami satchidanandera say that maya is neither sat nor asat
In the article the other anon linked the author refered to maya as asat or nothingness, maybe not all the authors on the website share that misunderstanding
>And also, that Ignorance is not really real, seems to have been the point of the anon you engaged in argument with so I don't see what thr disagreement was over.
Earlier in the thread they were maintaining that maya is nothingness which is wrong and Shankara explains why this is wrong. They also maintained that there is no such thing as “relative existence” or “conditional existence” or “phenomenal existence” which is wrong as Shankara uses these phrases over and over and over to refer to maya-avidya and he explicitly distinguishes this category from nothingness/asat/total non-being

>Finally, its effect is to induce us to imagine that we are really an agent of actions and an experimenter of their fruits
I would say this is wrong or very poorly phrased because this is already the self-evident belief of everyone from surgeons to manual laborers and so its not something that needs to be taught via a special method, it’s the default assumption already of everyone in ignorance

[Anonymous No.20906897]

>>20905613
Notice how he never identifies the illusion with nothingness or asat, both mithya and asat are not sat but that doesn’t mean every time he says “X is not sat” he is talking about asat i

[Anonymous No.20906905]

>>20905661
>Why are you attributing random anon opinions to the authors on the site
Because in the article I read that the anon linked the author denied that there was such as thing as “conditional existence” or “phenomenal existence” in Advaita (which is wrong) and he calls maya nothingness (which is wrong); both the article and one of the anons in this thread were claiming that

[Anonymous No.20906912]

He was the most acute of philosophers. He was the most devoted of devotees. He preached the doctrine of the Self to a point he practically denied God any part in the regulation of our affairs. At the same time, he enunciated the seemingly contradictory doctrine that all our activities and its results depended on God and God alone.

His idea of renunciation was so high as to require us to throw off everything we call ours. He found nothing inconsistent in a king retaining his kingdom and attending to his duties, while being a renunciate in the heart. It is very difficult to understand, more so to appreciate, such a teacher. It was easy for him to descend to the level of others, place himself in their position and appreciate their attitude or conduct. However it is not so easy for others to rise to his level of supreme eminence. Before his breadth of vision, all things fade into insignificance.

Sri Shankaracharya as an intellectual phenomenon is as inscrutable as the Absolute, which he sought to explain to the sense-bound world in expressions of seeming limitation. As a devotee, he is equally elusive of any classification. He is a bhakta of Shiva, as much of Vishnu and in fact, of any other deity of the Hindu religion. He was a bhakta of the One who manifests in the all. His intellectual grasp was unrivalled. His emotional piety was unequalled. He was the severest of logicians. At the same time, he was the most uncompromising upholder of "authority". In short, he defies categorisation.

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20906943]

>>20906912
redpill me on why Guenon says that Shankara is more of the Shaiva tendency and Ramanuja the Vaishnava tendency in vedanta thought

[Anonymous No.20907010]

>>20904528
>This is precisely what is denied by Advaita’s 3-way ontology
it's not denied tho, is just ignored, that's the problem, shankara doesn't explain or defend his argument, he just take it as an axiom and goes with it, thus why so many people hae problems with the contradictions between maya and brahma, because those contradictions are never adresses in the advaita system

[Anonymous No.20907024]

>>20903577
>but the thinking mind isnt
no, read descartes

[Anonymous No.20907036]

>>20907024
Read Shankara. Thought is completely relative to self-illumining awareness, the res cogitans is not even possible without awareness of the mental objects he is stringing together through thought. Better yet, read Aristotle:

De Anima, III.2 426a
Now since we perceive that we are seeing or hearing, it must either be by sight that something perceives that it is seeing or by some other sense. But given the consequent identity of the sense that perceives sight and that which perceives the colour that is the object of sight, there will either be two senses with the same object or one sense will perceive itself. Further if the sense that perceives sight were some other sense than sight, the only alternative to an infinite regress will be that there is some sense that perceives itself. Why not let this be a feature of the first of the series?

426b
In this way it also becomes clear that flesh is not the ultimate sense-organ; to suppose that it is requires the supposition that on contact with the object the sense-organ itself discerns what is doing the discerning. No more, indeed, is it possible that it should be by separate things that we perceive that sweetness and whiteness are the objects of different senses. Rather it must be to some single thing that they are manifest. ... clearly then it cannot be by different things that we discern what are separate. ... But can it really be so? It can, because the same single indivisible thing is both opposites in potentiality but not in being, so that it is in actualization that it is divided.

427a
That then which discerns, is, as indivisible, single and simultaneous, but in its divisible presence [actuality] it makes simultaneous use of the same symbol in two ways.

[Anonymous No.20907051]

>>20907010
>it's not denied tho, is just ignored, that's the problem, shankara doesn't explain or defend his argument,
Him and other Advaitins gives examples from common experience that point to it being intuitively correct but at the end of the day this doesn’t matter and he doesn’t have to prove it because he accepts it as a revealed teaching of the Veda, it’s not necessary to provide proof of it being true in order for his teaching to be internally consistent and free of contradiction, just like every philosophy takes things as axioms that it never proves.

>thus why so many people hae problems with the contradictions between maya and brahma,
There *are no* contradictions between Brahman and maya. There cannot possibly be any contradiction between something that exists and something that doesn’t because they belong to different orders entirely

[Anonymous No.20907086]

>>20905401
>>proceed to get old, sick and die
Happens in dreams too. In fact every dream is defined by the fact that you eventually wake up (sooner or later, no matter how long it feels while you're in the dream). You're basically confirming his point.
>It is impossible to conceive existence without movement
In other words Kierkegaard admitting his own "intellectual horizon."

[Anonymous No.20907099]

>>20906943
From what I remember he says it has to do with Shivas role as ‘transformer’ vs Vishnus role as ‘preserver’. I wouldn’t read too much into it desu. In Shankara’s authentic works on the rare occasions when he does call the Supreme Brahman by a personal name he actually seems to prefer to equate Brahman with Vishnu (There are Sruti texts that call the Supreme Brahman both Vishnu and Shiva, eg Katha and Svetasvatara); but in his Brahma Sutra Bhasya he criticizes the doctrines of the followers of both the Vaishnavite Pancharatra and the Shaivite Agamas/Tantras and says they contain non-Vedic ideas.

The later Shaivist Advaitin philosopher Appaya Dikshita held the view that certain “higher tantras” agree with Advaita and the Vedas while the “lower tantras” are non-Vedic and dont have the full truth and are meant for women, lowers castes etc, which is not to say they are totally useless either.

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20907184]

>>20907099
word
> Appaya Dikshita
thanks, added him to my list of future reads

[Anonymous No.20907395]

>>20906890
>In the article the other anon linked the author refered to maya as asat or nothingness, maybe not all the authors on the website share that misunderstanding
Where? You are an abaolute joke guenonfag.that is simply not the case, post the quotem

[Anonymous No.20907400]

>>20906897
No. It really is not sat or asat, so what is not the problem with saying maya is not sat, and then at another time not asat?

[Anonymous No.20907406]

>>20907400
Saying maya is not sat does not mean affirming that it is asat,, you are making this implication yourself.

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20907438]

>he tried to warn us

https://news.yahoo.com/mexico-lures-visitors-age-tourism-024908575.html

[Anonymous No.20907442]

>>20907395
For any spectators this is the article in question
https://vedavyasamandala.com/en/essere-o-non-essere/
Where does the author mention Maya is mothingness.
Only paragraphs in which maya is used
>The real verb to be is rendered by shì ("the flower is red") and with not - to be wú-shì ("the flower is not blue") 17 , but in our text never used in the ontological sense of Being or not -Being . These are the reasons that led us to translate having and not-having instead of being and non-being, thereby placing a substantial doctrinal difference that makes us conclude the non-existence of the notion of non-Being in the Taoist doctrine; there is only that of having or non-having, possessing or non-possessing names, qualities or attributes, analogously to what Advaita Vedānta calls saguṇa and nirguṇa, terms which certainly do not mean Being and non-Being ; Brahman nirguṇa is never non-Being , but is always sat, the Reality, Being ; if anything, at least temporarily in a cosmological interpretation, saguṇa can be translated as existing, actually asat, unreal as a production of māyā, the illusion, the nothing or nothing. In this perspective then what the translators call non-Being is actually Being in the sense of sat and what they call Being is actually non-being in the sense of asat, non-real, nothing or nothing.

>In this case the snake never existed, only the rope existed so that any speculation concerning the nature of the snake is false and unreal; it is māyā (see above)

[Anonymous No.20907449]

>>20907442
Another quote
>At the end of this brief examination we can see the difficulty that creates the distinction of inadequate terms such as Being and non-Being when used together and in the sense set out above. It was thought to borrow this doctrine from Taoism based on the presence of the couple Being and non-Being in reality invented ad hoc , or translated by an erroneous translation on which a doctrinal system has been built; hence the forcings that necessarily arise, starting from language, because if an impossible variable is introduced into a system it will end up, sooner or later, going crazy 58If we exclude the reservation of the definition of "ontological" and the conditioning of philosophy over the centuries starting from Parmenides, it would be better to expose a metaphysical doctrine keeping only the Being, One without a second, Infinite, extending its Reality to the Totality. ; at the same time in the cases illustrated above, instead of being and non-being, one should speak in terms of having and not having ( with and without ) , as happens in the Advaita Vedānta with the terms nirguṇa and saguṇa without the need to introduce any non-Being . L'Being is necessary while non-Being is not; when we assign to Being the status of All, One without a second and Infinity (and there are no reasons not to do it), non-Being becomes a useless notion except to describe nothingness, nothingness, emptiness, asat nel Advaita Vedānta , etc. 59 ; therefore it is possible to exclude the notion of non-Being but not that of Being by intuitive evidence that something exists.

[Anonymous No.20907469]

>>20893150
Your Ego is the only thing you have in this world. All else is but a challenge to it.

[Anonymous No.20907745]

>>20893192
I will never understand their love for larping/

[Anonymous No.20907894]

for further discussions join the official guénon server
https://discord.gg/3hC7UqCd

[Anonymous No.20907906]

>>20907469
Tell me then, do plants have egos? Do rocks or tables have egos?

[Anonymous No.20907929]

What is ego? What sort of dualism does it imply?

[Anonymous No.20907957]

>>20907906
Of course, read Giordano Bruno.

[Anonymous No.20907983]

>>20907894
new invite
https://discord.gg/XuvpwdWm

[Anonymous No.20908258]

>>20907442
Its in the middle of the paragraph you retard

“unreal as a production of māyā, the illusion, the nothing or nothing.”

He also denied there is “relative existence” or “conditional existence” in one of his anti-guenon tantrums which is again incorrect

[Anonymous No.20908263]

>>20907395
see >>20908258

[Anonymous No.20908276]

>>20907184
His major work of philosophy that has been translated is Siddhanta-Lesa-Sangraha, but I wouldnt bother reading it until you’ve both read all of and understood Shankara (pbuh), lest you end up like our emotional friend here who keeps unsuccessfully venturing beyond his area of expertise

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20908287]

>>20908276
>I wouldnt bother reading it until you’ve both read all of and understood Shankara (pbuh)
obvs, my nigga

[Anonymous No.20908289]

>>20907894
nooooo Dago!!!!

[Anonymous No.20908313]

55. René Guénon, The multiple states of being, Chapter III, "Being and Non-Being". Also in this case, the incorrect notion of "aspects" of the one Reality emerges, a tendency to division understandably necessary for the presentation of a dual doctrine and a sign of an inability to conceive the Absolute having to "necessarily" resort to duality. Trying to understand the metaphysical Unity (of course not "Union") starting from the assumption of a real duality, is an impossible and altogether naive undertaking; a certain traditionalist world prides itself on possessing a doctrine of Unity which, however, turns out to be just a habit, actually exposing an "essential" duality that is irreducible and impossible to eliminate, net of the baroque acclamations of Unity.

[Anonymous No.20908319]

>>20907929
it doesn't even exist to begin with, what exists is the idea of ego, not an entity

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20908331]

>>20908289
That’s not me, I’m not discording at the moment
That’s the Romanianposter
He know every little detail related to Guenon. Pretty impressive

[Anonymous No.20908351]

>>20908331
>That’s the Romanianposter
>He know every little detail related to Guenon. Pretty impressive
Imagine being born orthodox and leaving all that for a pagan meme

[Anonymous No.20908393]

It makes you wonder why Coomaraswamy praised Guenons book on Vedanta as “the best book on Vedanta in any European language”, was Coomaraswamy just a fawning sycophant, or is there something else going on that critics of the book are missing?

[Anonymous No.20908408]

>>20905482
>The description of Brahman as Sarvajna is from the perspective of Maya,
Im not so sure, in his commentary on Taittiriya 2.1.1. he talks about a kind of omniscience that is fully compatible with the Supreme Brahman being the One alone without a second, namely that the Supreme Brahman has full knowledge of all that truly exists (which is Itself only and not maya objects etc); so if he is using omniscient in the same manner there then it’s not necessarily incompatible with speaking about the Supreme Brahman as It truly exists in Itself. The Taittiriya bhasya is theorized to be a later work than the Brahma Sutra Bhasya from what I remember but if he had the same idea all along then it could be the same notion being referenced in both places

> in the Bhasyas shankara uses Ishvara, Atman and Brahman synonymously,
I agree

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20908423]

>>20908393
can you name a better book on vedanta that was published prior to it?

[Anonymous No.20908432]

>>2090453
Read the text seriouslt, I understsnd that may be difficult for you.
>if anything, at least temporarily in a cosmological interpretation, saguṇa can be translated as existing, actually asat, unreal as a production of māyā, the illusion, the nothing or nothing
I dare you to find a single article in that italian site which states unambiguously Maya is Asat, you will not, but you will find articles indicating that such a definitional approach is erroneous.

[Anonymous No.20908442]

>>20908393
coomaraswamy didn't even understood buddhism, he interpreted it as an equivalent to vedanta

but some of his essays are really good (specially that one about satan and the meaning of death)

the problem with guenon is that he tried to explain vedanta through an 'essential duality', through higher and higher levels like a neoplatonist, mixing up cosmology and metaphysics, which is just a confusing approach, as Vedanta clearly rejects all of this, any type of 'movement' is denied in non-duality so it doesn't make any sense to use such methodology

[Anonymous No.20908462]

>>20908258
Read
https://archive.org/details/the-method-of-the-vedanta-a-critical-account-of-the-advaita-tradition-swami-satchidanandendra

[Anonymous No.20908549]

>>20908432
>Read the text seriouslt, I understsnd that may be difficult for you.
why does he say nothing right after māyā and illusion as though they are equivalent? Im willing to excuse that if he misspoke, I don't care one way or another but the fact of this ambiguous sentence combined with the fact that a poster in this thread *was* arguing that maya is nothingness/asat gave me that impression.

More serious is his denial that there is any role for 'conditional reality' or 'phenomenal existence' in Advaita which is again flat-out wrong. If his whole argument is that "phenomenal existence ultimately doesn't exist and Brahman alone actually exists" then this is not denied at all by the usage of phrases like "relative existence" and its dumb of him to attack Guenon for repeating these exact same phrases which Shankara often uses as Guenon never denies that Brahman alone actually exists afaik, it's like he is purposely arguing in bad faith or in a dishonest manner and assuming that Guenon means something totally different than Shankara even though they are using identical phrases

[Anonymous No.20908622]

>>20908442
>any type of 'movement' is denied in non-duality
Not sure if you meant movement ‘downward’ (emanation) or ‘upward’ (the soul moving towards God), but Shankara certainly writes about the latter type of movement, for example he talks about
1) people being desirous of liberation in the first place due to pure karma being built up over multiple past lives
2) that non-sannyasin should follow karma-yoga as a precursor to jnana-yoga
3) The Brahmaloka being a precursor to moksha (or at least for those who dont reach moksha on earth)
4) Vedic rites wearing away accumulated sins and purifying the heart, thereby making the performer of rites more likely to overcome their worldly desires in order to seek moksha

[Anonymous No.20908644]

>>20908622
also
5) realizing identity with Hiranyagarbha through upasanas
6) skilled meditators attaining the status of Brahmā and becoming Brahmā in the next universal cycle (every Brahmā in every universe was a meditator from the previous one, when the mahapralaya happens Brahmā is liberated and a highly skilled meditator from the old universe becomes the next Brahmā in the next universe)

[Anonymous No.20908660]

>>20908622
>>20908644
you can talk of paths and steps only from an ignorant (egoist) point of view, which ultimately is unreal

[Anonymous No.20908691]

>>20908660
Of course but that doesn’t change the fact that for many people they are absolutely necessary and they are experienced just like any other experience, just as the enlightened Vedantin instructing his discipline and helping him study the scripture also takes place in the unreal realm of space and time and actions, but its still something that is necessary for liberation and something that one experiences regardless, so there is no point in devaluing as useless only one of them because for some people they are a necessary step on the path to moksha because they are not eligible for sannyasin or because they dont have the intelligence, self-control etc to reach it in this life and not the next one or Brahmaloka etc. The idea of devaluing everything aside from the direct path as useless is anti-traditional and modernist, it reeks of Neovedanta.

[Anonymous No.20908754]

>>20908622
1) people being desirous of liberation in the first place due to pure karma being built up over multiple past lives
2) that non-sannyasin should follow karma-yoga as a precursor to jnana-yoga
3) The Brahmaloka being a precursor to moksha (or at least for those who dont reach moksha on earth)
4) Vedic rites wearing away accumulated sins and purifying the heart, thereby making the performer of rites more likely to overcome their worldly desires in order to seek moksha
Of course, but the relative and absolute are unequivocal, you can keep repeating the line of "just die and in death" meditate" for billions of years" all you want as if it means something,
mental purification is fine of course, and there is no real outwards contradiction beteeen nonaction and action,
>The idea of devaluing everything aside from the direct path as useless is anti-traditional and modernist, it reeks of Neovedanta.
I absolutely agree, but at rhe very least its best to not pretend that things are what they are not, ajy sort of subjective valuation is besides the point.

[Anonymous No.20908796]

>>20908549
>lly exists" then this is not denied at all by the usage of phrases like "relative existence" and its dumb of him to attack Guenon for repeating these exact same phrases which Shankara often uses as Guenon never denies that Brahman alone actually exists afaik,
He does not attack guenon but points out limitiations adding more precision, since you dont actually read the site, it would be better to get the point across that that author and the other authors on his sote actually have alot of respect for guenon and value his vedanta book.

[Anonymous No.20908822]

>>20908754
>its best to not pretend that things are what they are not,
Im not, but if someone cannot reach moksha in this life for whatever reason (shankara lists plenty of reasons why this might be so for specific individuals and certain classes of people) then obviously the next best thing for them is to follow a lesser path, and this has a kind of value insofar as it brings one closer to moksha and more likely to attain it in whatever stage happens after this body dies. If you just stay on the indirect/lesser paths forever then its not really doing any good aside from a sort of relative and utilitarian “less bad experiences in samsara” sense, the true value of it lies in that it reduces the remaining time until moksha by drawing you to it like metal filings being drawn to a magnet or like water moving towards the center of a whirlpool

[Anonymous No.20908884]

>>20908796
>but points out limitiations adding more precision
Why attack Guenon for using an identical phrase to Shankara while omitting any mention in that article that Shankara uses the phrase often? Does he think Shankara is being imprecise when he uses it?

[Anonymous No.20908895]

>>20908884
or if you prefer instead of the more charged term “attacking”, why bother calling it a limitation and imprecise when Guenon says it but not when Shankara does?

[Anonymous No.20908920]

>>20908691
i didn't said it was useless, i said that ultimately it's unreal, as are all dualist view-points
why are you getting so emotional?
it has nothing to do with delusional neo-vedantins

[Anonymous No.20908945]

it seems you guys didn't even read the article as it's purpose is to show the unecessary distinction between being and non-being, first using the example of wrong translations of the tao te ching and later in the metaphysics developed by Guénon

[Anonymous No.20909004]

>>20908920
>i didn't said it was useless, i said that ultimately it's unreal, as are all dualist view-points
I have seen someone who writes in a similar manner imply that it was useless before, so I want to clear that up in case you happened to be that poster and in case thats what you were implying
>why are you getting so emotional?
literally nothing about that post had any emotional content

[Anonymous No.20909091]

Obviously, Alātaśānti being a document in response to the often crude and derisive attacks it has been the target of, the author could not refrain from pointing out the lack of understanding, ignorance and bad faith of its contradictors. The result is a very enjoyable study text on the authentic Advaita Vedānta, free from academic mental limitations and from Guenonism regimented as a dogmatic system. Most Westerners who have approached or adhered to some tradition have generally started from René Guénon’s books, certainly more attracted by L’Homme et son devenir selon le Vêdânta than by Islamic perspective. Nevertheless the most qualified ones were then able to verify that Guénon’s approach to the Vedānta was flawed in several points. Others, however, decided to remain in the erroneous Guenonian perspective of a Vedānta-Sāṃkhya in steps, making it their Masada Fortress. However, not only do we understand the psychology of our disputants, as we too have long suffered from the same critical obnubilation, but we are also grateful to them for the ramshackle polemic they have been willing to unleash. It has been a few years now since we last tapped into Guenon’s books. Although grateful to him we teamed him no longer useful having at our disposal the texts of the śaṃkarian paramparā and the living masters of that tradition. The controversy induced us to take up again what Guénon wrote on the Advaitavāda, noting his lack of knowledge on this subject and its resulting errors, something that had eluded us at the time. It has been extremely useful to depart from a system not corresponding to the pure advitīya tradition. Dr Rocchi’s book should therefore be evaluated as a text that can direct the attentive, sincere and intelligent reader towards mental purification and the path of knowledge, avoidong the false theological interpretations superimposed on the true Advaitavāda.

https://vedavyasamandala.com/en/carlo-rocchi-alatasanti-ladvaita-vedanta-e-i-suoi-piu-consueti-travisamenti/

[Anonymous No.20909523]

>>20908442
> specially that one about satan and the meaning of death)

Which essay is that?

[Anonymous No.20909641]

>>20909523
https://b-ok.lat/book/16356422/2ff10f
https://b-ok.lat/book/16356403/f50a6c

[Anonymous No.20909670]

>>20909641
Thanks!