/lit/ - Literature

Anyone?

>>16791006
>Why do most doctrines of salvation teach both virtue (good acts) and detachment from the material (implying neutrality)?
I would redpill you on this matter but you'll have to promise to listen first.

>>16791152
Go ahead.

>>16791165
You've proven worthy of drinking of my wine. Behold, then, the truth of the matter: The reason moksha and nirvana are called 'priceless' and 'inconsequential' is because the state is beyond evaluation. There can be no infinite regress of positive affect in soteriologies based on gnosis and direct realization, unlike what you would expect with the christian heaven. My theory is this: The "western" culture, starting with Zoroastrian dualism and running through the judeo-christian tradition, is the first where concerns of Good appear in the social, and more broadly, material sense.

>>16791006
Not much comes to mind because most tend to subjective themselves in some way. The Tao di Ching would be my suggestion if you haven’t read it yet.

>>16791195
>tao di ching
You're mixing up your systems of romanization

>>16791188
>tfw I'm too retarded to understand that post

>>16791247
Not to worry. Recommended reading is Jung. Cultures have truly different worldviews and so without a good grasp on how they differ you'll be prone to confuse one sort of soteriology with another. Jung will give you that, if you read him critically. You're obviously perceptive to have become aware of this confusion (referring to your question in OP) this so I wouldn't be surprised if you draw the natural conclusion of this with some time. Keep digging.

Though for the sake of clarifying for others I'll give you a rundown on what I mean here:
>Why do most doctrines of salvation teach both virtue (good acts) and detachment from the material (implying neutrality)?
You have to discern what the end goal of a soteriology is. Is it being in Christ, or is it awakening to buddhahood? This is what I mean by western dualism differing; Being in Christ incorporates a social (and later material) dimension which Buddhism only does to the end of awakening. The Buddha considered the dharma (more specifically the ethical precepts) a means to the end of nirvana, but not at all necessary if you could awaken directly.

>How is it possible to be good if you also strive to detach yourself from everything?
It's not, at least not for the Christian. Unobtrusive actions flow from detachment because you're unconcerned, like with the Buddha's loving-kindness, but these can scarcely be considered Good in the Christian sense, the Christian Good being Good done to the end of following Christ, revering God, and potentially receiving the gift of Grace.

>>16791284
>Jung
Which books specifically do you recommend?

> Is it being in Christ, or is it awakening to buddhahood?
> a means to the end of nirvana, but not at all necessary if you could awaken directly.
What you mean is that goodness in Christianity is a fundamental component of salvation because Christ is good, but that this is not the case for Nirvana/Moksha since they are neither "good" nor "evil" but simply above qualification? So goodness is a means to an end for the latter, and the end itself (or a part of it) for the former?
This makes me think of a question that isn't very important but worth asking anyway: isn't goodness as a means to an end kind of utilitarian? Is it therefore "true" goodness if the underlying intention is not true altruism, but rather using your good acts in order to escape Samsara?

>>16791342
>Which books specifically do you recommend?
Anything that suits your fancy, to be honest. Jung was a free-thinker so you can read him in just about any order, though having a grasp on his break with Freud (and also Freud himself) would be helpful before indulging. To that end read his two essays on analytical psychology. As for further reading, Psychology and Religion is closest to the topic we're discussing here.

>but that this is not the case for Nirvana/Moksha since they are neither "good" nor "evil" but simply above qualification
Yep, exactly. Nirvana is "unthinking" yourself. It's not entirely correct but I saw some guy point out that the inverse of Descartes' "I think therefore I am" (I do not think therefore I am not) summarizes Buddhism pretty well. Thinking is evaluation, and putting an end to it is putting an end to existence (rebirth, to the Buddhist). The 'moral' concerns of Buddhism, that's to say developing compassion et al. is to prepare yourself for nonjudgementality/nirvana/nondualism. There's great affinity between Buddhist and Christian ethics on the surface, so you'll net similar results by cultivating either (see Gnostics or Eckhart) but the worldview isn't the same so most of the philosophies spawned from the two end up differing.

>So goodness is a means to an end for the latter, and the end itself (or a part of it) for the former?
Yes, that's part of it. Moral Good for it's own sake, or equally, for "God's" sake, is uniquely Christian.

>Isn't goodness as a means to an end kind of utilitarian?
Shh... You'll wake the moralists. That's part of the conclusion I'm currently working through in my head, sublating the utilitarian/deontological dichotomy into a superior system. I can't address this concern just yet but by all means go ahead and see if you can work it out for yourself.

>Is it therefore "true" goodness if the underlying intention is not true altruism, but rather using your good acts in order to escape Samsara?
It's good *because* it gets you closer to escaping samsara. Buddhism can be described as proto-solipsist and phenomenological, if I allow myself to attach western terms to it. The salvation of the individual Buddhist is with a few exceptions thought to be the salvation of the entirety of existence in most serious Buddhist scholarship. You can probably start to see at this point how off-the-mark the idea most westerners have of Buddhism. It's christianized romanticism that paints the picture of a cosmic nondual Goodness over the true image of Buddhism.

>>16791424
>is uniquely Christian.
Sorry, I should correct this to say 'western'. The judeo-christian tradition is NOT the first to concern itself with morality for its own sake, as I already said it seems to trace back to Zoroastrian dualism and the Gathas.

>>16791424
>Psychology and Religion
Thanks.

>(see Gnostics or Eckhart)
I'm not sure why you mentioned those, could you elaborate?
Also, your analogy with Descartes is fitting for Buddhism, but if we're talking about Moksha specifically, does it still hold up? There is no concept of non-thinking or non-being in the latter.

>sublating the utilitarian/deontological dichotomy into a superior system
Is that possible?
Why is good a prerequisite for escaping Samsara, in the first place?

>Buddhism can be described as proto-solipsist and phenomenological
This is very interesting, I should look into it more in-depth.
>the salvation of the entirety of existence
But several Buddhists have been saved alread, haven't they? The Buddha himself, for instance.

>>16791006
>be in the world but not of it
simple as

>>16791342
>isn't goodness as a means to an end kind of utilitarian? Is it therefore "true" goodness if the underlying intention is not true altruism, but rather using your good acts in order to escape Samsara?
read euthyphro

>>16791498
>I'm not sure why you mentioned those, could you elaborate?
Contemplation of the divine seems to tend to lead to realization of the divine. I don't have a real explanation for why this seems to repeat but it makes sense to me lol. There's a related hindu (?) concept of unknown men who realize God on their own, void of any spiritual knowledge or social company but I can't remember what it's called.

In any tradition dealing with spiritual matters you should be able to find inklings of nirvana type soteriologies. Eckhart and the gnostics are the christian versions of that. The eastern orthodox church also has something called theosis which sounds similar but I don't know enough about EOC to say equate them with any certainty.

>Is that possible?
I don't know, I'm working on it. I have an inkling that it is though, and that it's really the most natural conclusion. It's just an intuition so that's about as much as I can state as of right now.

>Why is good a prerequisite for escaping Samsara, in the first place?
It's not. Nirvana is the goal, and anything that gets you closer to a goal is to be considered good, is it not? Consider the end before evaluating the means.

>but if we're talking about Moksha specifically, does it still hold up? There is no concept of non-thinking or non-being in the latter.
At the risk of arousing anger from the neo-advaitins on this board, I would contend it does. Shankara is even more lucid than most buddhists, you should read his commentary on the Bhagavad Gita if you're interested.

>But several Buddhists have been saved alread, haven't they? The Buddha himself, for instance.
Yes, but the individual buddhist isn't a Buddha. Nondualism transcends individuality, of any kind, remember? The Buddha-mind is the world to the buddhist. Differences are only imagined, they're delusions.

>>16791506
This desu

>>16791575
>Contemplation of the divine seems to tend to lead to realization of the divine.
Why is it that mainstream Christianity is so insistent on putting faith before knowledge?
I didn't know Eckhart argued for a theology of salvation reminiscient of Nirvana.

>theosis
How is it different from henosis? It seems to be functionally the same thing.

> anything that gets you closer to a goal is to be considered good
Right, I get it, I was observing the problem from the wrong end indeed.

>I would contend it does
How? If the process of attaining Nirvana can be reduced to "I don't think, therefore I am not", I don't see how this extends to Moksha as well, since it is specifically not likened to nonexistence.
I'll read Shankara's commentary.

>the individual buddhist isn't a Buddha
I don't fully grasp the implications but I can definitely see the hints of solipsism here.

>>16791648
>I didn't know Eckhart argued for a theology of salvation reminiscient of Nirvana.
Sorry, I tend to use terms interchangeably. It's important to qualify there's a God in Meister Eckhart's worldview. He's not close to Nirvana so much as the advaitin Moksha.

>If the process of attaining Nirvana can be reduced to "I don't think, therefore I am not", I don't see how this extends to Moksha as well, since it is specifically not likened to nonexistence.
This is a problem in part resolved by Jung. I couldn't elaborate on it here, but I'll give you some leads. Buddhist non-being concerns itself only with the cognizing ego in a sense, ie. the mind. To bridge this to hinduism, consider these quotes from the Ashtavakra Gita, which elaborates lucidly on the nondualism of the hindus:
>For me, free from individuality, there is no doer and no reaper of the consequences, no cessation of action, no arising of thought, no immediate object, and no idea of results.
>There is no being or non-being, no unity or dualism. What more is there to say? There is nothing outside of me.
Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

>I don't fully grasp the implications but I can definitely see the hints of solipsism here.
Right, good. That's the essence of it, in my estimation. Jung has a great lecture series on yoga you can read if you want my understanding of eastern thought in the general sense.

>>16791188
Reasonably accurate assessment.

>>16791006
It makes sense; good acts and detachment are more related than you think. Consider a person who is greedy -- if the greedy man were detached from his own wealth, he has a chance of giving charity, when formerly he did not.

You're elevating good acts and detachment to a metaphysical plain where they don't belong. Words like detachment and good works are religious jargon for certain ways of behaving, not philosophical ideas of how to live, so you cannot understand it without giving an example. For instance one might say that detachment is like a man who is normally greedy giving alms to the poor. And good works are like the good Samaritan rescuing a man, or a Christian praying in secret, or giving alms without letting anyone know about it.

But there are no distinct, separate things implied by the use of these words, you just have to understand what is being meant; detachment from money, status, and from worldly position and power, and good works directed at the people you know in your community. Really just do it and stop philosophizing.

>>16791006
Many times you may have to detach to resist temptations and do the right thing. Besides that, it's more healthy for everyone involved for one to do the right thing without caring about the state of things.

>>16791424
>Moral Good for it's own sake, or equally, for "God's" sake, is uniquely Christian.
I think this is the abrahamic way of saying "non-action". Belief in God is, as one shaykh put it, freedom from creation. I'm not sure really in the end but I.. when you view God as the other movement, the movement that is not contrived, or at least the origin of it, the similarities are pretty great. I'm under the impression though that the actual big difference is viewing this other movement as originating with a living, "active", God, vs seeing it as a kind of dispassionate fact. What do you think?

>>16791575
>Differences are only imagined, they're delusions.
why do they exist?
I think this is the reasn why you see a difference in abrahamic vs "eastern" tradition. in eastern tradition "this world" is only for "the other". in abrahamitic system both have their place relative to God. This is my suspicion, that the buddhist metaphysics is two: delusion and non-delusion, whereas the abrahamic is three: earth, heaven and God. the goal of delusion is non-delusion. A goal of earth can be heaven, but either way the goal of both heaven and earth is God. In other words: actions on earth have a goal appart from, but not necessarily excluding, enlightenment.

>>16791648
>Why is it that mainstream Christianity is so insistent on putting faith before knowledge?
knowledge is delusion
faith is non-action

>>16792393
I would hesitate to conclude that, I can't explain the christian orthodoxy's opposition to the gnostics otherwise. The gnostics were entirely unconcerned with Jesus' "bodily" sacrifice, the resurrection and the notion of sin, which was a big point of contention for the early church fathers. The nag hammadi texts seem to show some ideas reflective of non-action and non-duality, as well:
>Light and Darkness, life and death, right and left, are brothers of one another. They are inseparable. Because of this neither are the good good, nor evil evil, nor is life life, nor death death. For this reason each one will dissolve into its earliest origin. But those who are exalted above the world are indissoluble, eternal.
>Fear not the flesh nor love it. If you fear it, it will gain mastery over you. If you love it, it will swallow and paralyze you.
Gospel of Philip
>Jesus said to them, "If you fast, you will give rise to sin for yourselves; and if you pray, you will be condemned; and if you give alms, you will do harm to your spirits."
>Jesus said, "Become passers-by."
Gospel of Thomas

>>16792552
very interesting.
the only reason I can think of why these things are supressed is phariséism, wanting to establish a system where one is important.
I do believe that a knowledge of these things isn't necessarily necessary though. In my head I imagine the ideal believer doesn't need all this teaching and contemplation. When he hears that God is one, he understands. I think it's a small subset of oddball believers, who are really struggling with it all, that become gnostics or sufis. I've heard that an overarching principle in sharia is that it is for the general case, not the particular. Maybe the oddballs, if they got to write the rules, would write rules for the particular over the general.

bump

>>16791188
>says "gnosis"
faggot pseud detected, what kind of hentai do you squeeze your filthy little cock to?

>>16791006
>Why do most doctrines of salvation teach both virtue (good acts) and detachment from the material (implying neutrality)?

1. Detachment does not imply neutrality.

2. The virtuous person engages with, and disengages from, matter, whilst remaining detached from it; the Soul submerges the material world in its aura, thus, sequently, metamerging/purifying it within its Light.

>How is it possible to be good if you also strive to detach yourself from everything?
The world ascends by the supervision of one who is fit to oversee, and impel, the world --one who wisely loves from ruling distance, and whose protective fury mediates at high speeds.

>>16794016
>1. Detachment does not [necessarily] imply neutrality.

>>16794016
>The world ascends by the supervision of one who is fit to oversee, and impel, the world --one who wisely loves from ruling distance, and whose protective fury mediates at high speeds.
could you elaborate on this?

>>16794742
One who is detached from everything --that is: has no attachment to the temporal, and/or to the superfluous-- finds oneself in solitude; one who is in solitude has the potential to bring oneself closer to God; one who is close to God is close to one's Nobility --and, subsequenly, to universal, wise Love, and Fury--, and viceversa; one who is closest to one's Nobility, and to God, can judge with Justice, and rule with Just reason, rescue and impel others.who carry noble potential, depurate and sublimate the world.

>>16791006
Act with virtue to your brother and sisters in this world where you share your experience with them in any level.
Practice the detachment from the material so you'll endure the missfortunes and be grateful for the things that comes to your life.
If you'll live accordingly to this way you'll rejoice in life.

>>16791506
>>16791937
>>16792201
>>16795677
These things actually good enough to bring you far up in game called life.

>>16795811
Is life a game?

bump

>>16791006
Maybe because action in the material world is not the material world? We strive to be "good" within the bounds of material time /space dimensions, that is maybe we strive to act, instead of re-act. Or rather we should choose responding (the concept of taking on responsibility) over reacting which is like the concept of letting your environment dictate your next set of behaviors. If we choose responding over reacting we can strive to do good, aka be responsible for our actions without being pulled into the frivolities of material reality by reacting to it as it happens to us.

>>16797344
I try to see life as a series of challenges. A game where its is me today vs me yesterday, See it as im striving to became a better version of my yesterday self. Sure sometimes i get lazy to improve my self, as it is our mind kept wandering to other stuff. By seeing it as a game i tend to not attached too much to everyday stuff that happened. I keep it external, never bring it inside. Dude the life objectively already kinda suck, dont add the unnecesary weight. By seeing it as a kind of a game at least i anchored myself to not wallow on the dukkha.
My character status is like this right now. Im currently 28 year freelancer drafter for an construction company living in an extended family compound in south east asia that interested in spiritual stuff. Weak to lust etc2.
Seeing our "char stats" objectively we can then plan what is the stuff that we could change, how to change it then implement it slowly. Even im single, poor asf, i keep positive thinking since im anticipating what can i do tomorrow and doing my best for today. Im curious about my " char stats" next week, etc2. Its kinda hard to explain it since english is not my main language. I hope the message delivered.

>>16798032
>>16797344
Cont as with the problem of how possible being good and detached is compatible, i see it as this. Detachement is an side effect of seeing things as it is. As im buddhist, all thing is impermanent, what i am today is different from what i am yesterday and tomorrow. Realizing this therefore the seed of detachment has sown onto me. I see things as it is, i see sad event as it is, a sad event, nothing less nothing more, sure it affect me on many side of stuff, but by being detached from it i could see it objectively. Sure as a normal human bean i tend to slip and internalize it, wallow on it and regress on my quest being a human par excellent. A true human bean. A man who living life as i wanted it. By being objective and detached i realize life sucks balls, so how shall i realize my self on my quest of life? By being good onto other, since life sucks, i want to be happy, others too. Well lets try make world suck a little bit by being good. Also when you doing good your brain activity show you a little bit increase of joy if im not wrong. Thats shows us human innately wired to do good stuff. If human innately wired to do bad stuff well, we became asura ( wired to wrath) or preta (wired to greed) or animal (wired to lust?). By doing good in my mind is one of the way to become a full human bean

>>16791006
You are not striving to be detached, you are avoiding being attached. You are not denying your participation in the material world, but striving to seek balance between your material and spiritual, temporal and eternal, existence.

>>16795503
I like what you are saying.
what is your method, if you have one? Loving God and Loving Man? How does that come to an expression in your life?

>>16797960
how would one go about cultivating such a mentality?

>>16798155
>what is your method, if you have one?
Not a method, but, rather, a noble, heroic lifestyle which comprises optimal methods.

>Loving God and Loving Man?
Yes, with everything that that entails, except not "Man", but, rather, noble entities; what is for God is also good for the wellbeing of everyone whom God comprehends --in whom God works--. and who allow themselves to be comprehended by God.

>How does that come to an expression in your life?
See my answer to your first question.

>>16798132
>You are not striving to be detached, you are avoiding being attached.
Those two things mean, and imply, one and the same thing.

In Kosmos one is born biotically merged with one's flesh; spiritual emergence/transcendence cannot occur if/when one attaches oneself to matter, thus, sequently, gradually hybridizing with it, rather than metamerging/sublimating it by virtuously engaging with it.

>>16798341
by cultivating human (non-animal) intuition or "response" which requires stillness and observation to notice, rather than animalistic reactionary survival mechanisms of instinct or "re-action".

Intuition is a higher voice of foresight and conscience, it is often the correct choice. Instinct is a lower gut feeling that is followed through with before any thought, it is often not the best choice but the first choice our bodies are presented with. Instinct is fallible, intuition is god graced. Instinct gets us into trouble, causes knee jerk reactions. Instinct causes addiction, intuition is what tells us we should probably work on quitting.

Maybe the idea of prayer or meditation is to cultivate this higher intuition and give space between an action and our response, reducing or eliminating the chance to thoughtlessly react.

The more stillness you have inside yourself - like the less you are haunted by your poor behaviors, thoughts, past actions, personal choices (these thoughts are often avoided by instinctually pushing them away with other bad things like more addiction or distraction but it doesn't clear them away just adds to them after the fact)- the more you still your mind you are able to hear your intuition.