/lit/ - Literature

Sextus Empiricus knows that feel

Same. how do I escape this? I just want to believe in something, not autistically question every little thing.

The more I consume media about current affairs, culture and politics, the more I default to the position of absolute hatred for the negro race.
Does anyone else know that feel?

>>16878009
>absolute skepticism
That is just cope for being too much of a coward to commit to anything

>>16878032
No, it's just that getting acquainted with the various traditions did nothing to illuminate any particular path to take and instead comforted me in the idea that none of the paths lead anywhere.
But by all means, keep larping, if it makes you feel happy and fulfilled. I'm not even being disingenuous.

>>16878032
committing to things is just a cope for having a weak faculty of doubt

bump

>>16878009
>Does anyone else know that feel?
I doubt it.
You sound like a faggot or worst a j*w. Your time on earth has been winding as the sun winds around the center of our galaxy. The way earth winds around the sun. You look behind you and you see something you left behind. It’s a great something. In that same time, people with religion and metaphysics have built great things. By believing in them. Believing is a tool of creativity. If you create, you follow a belief. Just because you ascribe to this believe without giving it a structure that can be doubted doesn’t mean you’re any more rational than believers. You're weak. There are people better than you because they struggle with belief. Close your ears and coward away into mediocrity.

First understand the basis for evaluating a given metaphysical theory—can it account for all the facts? Does it lack explanatory gaps? Does it appeal to you on an aesthetic or existential level? Then apply these criteria to each theory you’re considering and work out which one is most plausible. That then becomes what you “believe” and something to really dig into. At which point you may revaluate how well it actually meets your original criteria and adopt another theory. For me, I realised that a kind of divine idealism fits best, but I’m currently going back to Kant to understand his arguments against speculative idealisms.

>>16878465
Sounds like a very long way to rationalize your kneejerk reaction because you feel insulted by my general dismissal of religions.
It is you who is weak, because you are quick to confine yourself into a system and to cling to it, and as shown by your post, you respond to doubt (which you are terrified of) with irrational rage.
My question was not a provocation, and yet you responded to it with vitriol and anger, projecting your own cowardice onto me. Ask yourself why.

>>16878487
I'm mainly concerned with religions, but this extends to any philosophy: how do you prove anything? At some point you are forced to rely on axioms, and to make assumptions.
There was this pic floating around about how all knowledge is ultimately based on that which we cannot prove.

>>16878541
Sounds like you need to study epistemology and metaphysics in greater depth. How can you decide which religion to follow if you don’t know whether religions are ontologically possible? And how can you know what’s ontologically possible if you don’t know how you can know anything? Perhaps you are trying to run before you’ve learned to walk.

>>16878622
>if you don’t know how you can know anything?
But isn't that the question you inevitably get back to as soon as you make an assertion on the nature of reality? How do you get past it?

>>16878030
Question your questioning

>>16878622
>if you don’t know whether religions are ontologically possible
The point is that every religion makes a claim about the nature of true reality, but there's no way to tell which one is true. Religious texts are interesting to study, but the deeper I get into them, the less I can help thinking that it's all a bunch of bullshit and nobody actually knows what the fuck the nature of absolute reality is.

>>16878009
Yeah, I know what it feels like to be an arrogant midwit incapable of grasping anything on a level higher than that of pure rationality. Thankfully, that was just a phase for me.

>>16878708
>>16878518

>>16878009
At the end of the day though you cannot be skeptical about the existence of your own consciousness, which is an absolute certainty, unless you are a fool

>>16878800
Okay, but that doesn't bring me much farther. Going from skepticism to solipsism isn't a big jump.

>>16878487
>Does it appeal to you on an aesthetic or existential level?
Dogmatists really hitting low point these days. Basically admitting the sceptic position that are equally interchangeable speculations, and that the only reason to choose one over any other is pure whimsy.

Lotta pseuds seething ITT.
>>16878708
>grasping anything on a level higher than that of pure rationality
You're missing the point, retard. It's not that the absolute doesn't exist, or that faith is bad, it's that religions do a piss poor job at attempting to grasp it.
Also
>calls others arrogant
>shits on them for expressing doubt instead of blind dogmatism

>>16878009
Your problem is that you are reading to satisfy your curiosity, not to show the measure of your love. If one of the prophets could see you, they might say that you're committing adultery against true education. (I'm entitled to say so as it was formerly my fault also)

>>16878829
That presupposes OP knows there is something to love, when presumably the point of curiosity is to figure that out.

Let's be glad of the era we live in, where we can understand so much about the world and our own nature. Let's be men of our times and face whatever difficulties it brings.

>>16878791
No, I'm just fucking with you because I hate everyone who uses the word "skepticism" lol. I am not even religious in the way it's usually understood - I read the esoteric writers.
>>16878827
>It's not that the absolute doesn't exist, or that faith is bad, it's that religions do a piss poor job at attempting to grasp it.
Yes, that's correct. Though the same can be said of endless philosophical speculation.
Also, "confident skepticism" is a form of dogma in its own right. Particularly with the text in the OP it comes across as a type of bragging, really.

>>16878856
>skepticism
What would you substitute it with?

>>16878861
IDK I'd just phrase the whole thing differently. "Skepticism" just brings the New Atheist grifters like Dawkins etc to mind.

>>16878856
>>16878879
philosophical scepticism is completely different to internet "sceptics"

>>16878885
I am aware that the skeptics don't have a monopoly on the concept of skepticism, it's just what comes to mind when you're discussing religion and metaphysics on a Cambodian fishing forum.

>>16878816
>factor x in
>base your decision solely on x
Not equivalent

>>16878845
If the OP seeks to find something to love, then OP is nearer to salvation than he thinks.

>>16879113
Why should it be love and not something else?
Why are you qualified to assess the criteria involved in salvation?

>>16878009
i relate to that OP. its crazy how many seemingly fundemental things we take for granted. even if we knew things for sure, i dont think we could truly understand why things are the way they are

>>16878800
how can you be sure of that? how can you be sure those words and your conceptions accuretly describe their nature or their existance?

>>16879540
>how can you be sure of that?
Not him but we can at least be certain that there exists an awareness capable of observing itself. Buddhists will tell you it's just agregates, but it doesn't make the process of observation less real.

>>16879854
Do Buddhists claim that awareness itself is aggregates? I thought the claim was in regards to the mind and the mental processes, rather than awareness in itself.

>>16878009
>I believe!
>Hmm, I believe some of it
>I don't believe any of it
--You are here--
>Why don't I believe any of it
>What does it mean
>What purpose does it serve
>What is its goal
>I understand it
>It's a tool I can use

>>16878030
Sniff glue and get indoctrinated into a church
Or watch youtube all day

>>16879882
The claim is in regards to the notion of a fixed self. The whole essence of Buddhism is skeptical awareness leading to joy

>>16878030
>Escape
There is no escape. You should have remained ignorant. Now you are doomed to be a questioner in your future lives as well.

>>16879906
No.

>>16879882
Kind of, they say that everything is transient so "you" don't exist. I don't think they see the awareness and the mind as separable, there's no concept of an absolute soul unlike in Hinduism
>>16879945
>skeptical awareness leading to joy
What?

>>16878541

>>16878808
>Going from skepticism to solipsism isn't a big jump.
In a solipsistic universe you as the only existing entity are for all practical purposes God Himself anyway, which is the conclusion of most of the high level metaphysics/theology which skepticism is used as an objection against. So, you can reach it through mysticism or through skepticism.

>>16878009
I think there is some mental "optical illusion" whereby Mahayana Buddhism appears to be the same thing as metaphysics. It's the theory that souls (inherent natures) don't exist, so for example the theory that your telephone doesn't have telephone nature
study Zen

>>16879945
I don't believe in a fixed self, but I've been clinging onto the idea of an active awareness.
>>16879971
That's unfortunate. I suppose I'll have to reread my guide into Buddhism. I remember that a lot of the progress is characterised as entirely non-material, but I still associated that with the growth of awareness rather than the appearance of an entirely new quality.
>>16879906
>>16879963
Yes. Dumbfuck.

>>16879991
>which is the conclusion of most of the high level metaphysics/theology
Abrahamists do not think like that at all.
There is also no notion of "God" in Buddhism, or of any transcendent absolute.

>>16880000
Mahayana isn't somehow "above" other religions in that it makes a bunch of theological and metaphysical claims. It can't just be summed up to "inherent natures do not exist". Even then, denying the existence of things is not the same as questioning it.

>>16880039
>Yes. Dumbfuck.
No, moron. Your own progression doesn't apply to everyone

>>16878009
>>16878030
>>16878038
It’s Okay To Be Hylic

>>16880596
It's not "my own" progression. It's how it is.

>>16880625
Back to /x/, "gnostic"tard

>>16878032
>>16878044
these are both correct

>>16880644
>source: dude trust me
Fuck off with the platitudes, dumbass

>>16880625
>not believing in the bullshit peddled by the various traditions means you're a materialist
On the contrary, one who clings easily and desperately to a dogma without questioning it is truly spiritually barren

>>16878850
Yes, let's.

>>16880690
Read the Trads and you'll understand.

>>16880726
"Read X" isn't an argument and only shows that you can't back up what you're saying.

>>16880738
Oh yeah you just want me to spoonfeed you everything right? Well, here we go then - all spiritual traditions come from the same source. This is known as perennialism. The Traditionalists study the different traditions and their purposes, their advantages and their disadvantages. By reading the Traditionalists your stupid ass might understand that every tradition is, in fact, a tool to connect with the Unmanifest - the absolute spiritual principle, before which every question and every answer is nothing but a fun little game.

>>16880756
>every tradition is, in fact, a tool
Yes, I'm aware of this cope. You're not teaching me anything, perennialism is retarded. Even a hypothetical prisca theologia would also be prone to the same failings as religion.
You're the epitome of a midwit, thinking he's got the system figured out when you're fucking clueless, and have the audacity to lecture people despite your cursory and shallow knowledge

>>16880804
Are you some sort of glue eating Dawkins lover? Please do tell, as I need to know how much time I can waste on you and how inflammatory I'm allowed to get.

>>16880869
>if you don't buy into the perennialism garbage, you must be some materialist reductionist
As I thought, you're complete brainlet who can only think in dichotomies. Fuck off, you're the one wasting my time. Stupid faggot.

>>16880918
If you're going to dismiss perennialism then at least have the courtesy to reveal your own position. That's all I'm saying, bro.

>>16880991
The unmanifest, the absolute, whatever you want to call it, is not qualifiable, describable, or capable of being grasped in any manner. Even speaking of it like I am right now through apophatic descriptions is a mistake. Even if it were possible to describe, no human system, as ancient as it may be, as logically sound as it may seem, would come close to its truth, and thinking otherwise shows conceit and a lack of imagination.

>>16880697
Spirituality cannot be rationalised, it can only be practiced into greater heights. Your habits, environment and thoughts greatly influence this too.

>>16881052
>it can only be practiced
This doesn't invalidate what I said.

>>16881035
Sounds pretty good actually? I misread what you wrote at first and almost called you a retard because I thought you'd written "quantifiable" rather than "qualifiable" but that's all good. It might interest you to know that actually there's plenty of ancient human systems the entire point of which was to make you non-human and therefore capable of interaction with the Unmanifest. Neoplatonism, the Eulesynian Mysteries, Hermeticism, Buddhism - all of these aim to transform the human into nonhuman and some even presuppose it as a condition for any progress at all. Even today, Buddhist arhats are considered non-human by Buddhists.
I think you're the one lacking in imagination, since you seem to believe that there is some completely impassable blockage between the Manifest and the Unmanifest. It is difficult to pass from one into the other - as much is mentioned even in the Gita, which is why we have religious forms and traditions - but even direct contact with the Unmanifest is possible, since you're yourself in essence an emanation of it and all that stops you from realising that is entrenched ignorance.

>>16881179
The human systems you're talking about do fall into the trap I mentioned, though, in that they attempt to qualify and confine the incomprehensible absolute into an entity that possesses specific qualities, even if it is through extremely broad concepts like emanationism. If they do not directly describe the unmanifest (like Buddhism, by saying the only description that can be given of Nirvana is that it is indescribable), they still confine it by using a set of concepts and principles that seem unnecessary to me (in the example given, the Dharma, and all the other cosmological details that follow).
I don't think these things help, and in most cases they seem to distract from what matters by adding unncessary qualificators, emanations and associated concepts to something that is simply above all those things. The absolute "is", and to say anything more than that about it is already too much.
If direct contact with the unmanifest is possible, my opinion is that it must be something personal, that cannot be communicated or transmitted intelligibly. That's why I abhor attempts to systematize some broadly applicable process of realization.
I'm no authority on Buddhism, but I remember reading that Gautama Buddha stated something along the lines of the path to Nirvana being shaped by the individual experience and not reducible to the Dharma he taught.

>>16881270
>The human systems you're talking about do fall into the trap I mentioned, though, in that they attempt to qualify and confine the incomprehensible absolute into an entity that possesses specific qualities, even if it is through extremely broad concepts like emanationism.
They don't necessarily aim to do that. Some of them might, but generally speaking you get just enough description to be able to develop yourself to the point where you can directly interact with the Unmanifest. The famous story the Buddha tells about the young man and the poisoned arrow is emblematic of precisely this attitude. The goal of something like Hermeticism and Buddhism is to open you up to enlightenment and once you arrive there, then you can comprehend the Unmanifest on your own. Attempting to describe the Unmanifest in human language is pretty useless.
>they still confine it by using a set of concepts and principles that seem unnecessary to me (in the example given, the Dharma, and all the other cosmological details that follow).
Dharma is a very complex and multifaceted concept so I can't really explain it here. Think of it as the solution to nihilism and individualist confusion. I am not sure why you see it as a restriction, but generally there are some restrictions designed to help generate spiritual growth.
>I don't think these things help, and in most cases they seem to distract from what matters by adding unncessary qualificators, emanations and associated concepts to something that is simply above all those things.
Very good insight. This is what is typically described as "the degeneration of tradition". In fact, the Buddha shared your perspective in regards to Brahmanic Hinduism, which is why he designed a very minimalist tradition of his own. This tradition eventually accumulated massive accretions (Mahayana and Theravada), so subsequent geniuses like the Buddha formed Zen as a radical reaction along the same lines the Buddha reacted against Hinduism. Your mistake is the lack of nuance in your view. Read "The Doctrine of Awakening" by Evola for a case study of this mindset in action - consult the chapter on the background of Buddhism.
>The absolute "is", and to say anything more than that about it is already too much.
This is very good, that's how I formulate it too, though to constrain it into a "is-is not" dualism is probably already presumptuous. It feels natural to phrase it that way though.
>If direct contact with the unmanifest is possible, my opinion is that it must be something personal, that cannot be communicated or transmitted intelligibly.
Yes. General guidelines on how to get there, however, can be devised.
>That's why I abhor attempts to systematize some broadly applicable process of realization.
This is a completely unjustified assumption to make. Rather than making categorical judgements, you should judge these systematizations by their effectiveness.
Your last line is also correct.

>>16878009
Jesus solved this by rising from the dead. He will come back. Simple as.

>>16881412
I simply get the feeling that following a guideline to interact with the absolute is a dangerous thing.
Regarding the absolute, I've entertained the ideas I mentioned previously since my late childhood so they might also be something that's become very meaningful to me. Perhaps that's why I see it as almost sacrilegious, in a way, to try to build something around the absolute. No matter how well-designed, a system will, by the process of classifying, organizing, or even just describing, remove what makes the absolute meaningful by making it yet another "thing" (even if it is a superior one), that can be connected to other "things" (if only by an overarching relationship).
I'm not expressing myself properly because talking about this subject is also a way to narrow it down to meaninglessness, but that is inevitable.
It's also why I don't think debates about the absolute tend to miss the point.

About "opening up to enlightenment", why?
It can only be said that the unmanifest "is" (though as you correctly pointed out, this too is a mistake in qualification). From there, I don't think there is a single relationship to envision, or a particular way to reach whatever truth can be grasped from it during this life. I've personally never felt closer to the inherent and ineffable mystery of existence than when I didn't know shit about religious philosophy and theology. Another guy ITT pointed out that spirituality is to be experienced rather than intellectualized, that is true, but it is my opinion that looking for a system is a form of rationalization that mostly contributes to making you miss the point.
This is why I see Dharma (and everything else) as a restriction, since you said you didn't understand my reason. Dharma is an elegant and interesting system, but I don't think it is needed. The unmanifest is not linked to the Dharma, it "is" not in the first place as you said yourself, the purest way to go about "contacting" (I spent some time looking for the appropriate term and this one is garbage but it's the best I got) it is by ridding oneself of ideas, symbols, philosophies, assumptions, dogma, systems, whatever else, but simply to experience, or feel. This is my take on it. Maybe it's wrong and I'm entirely deluded, but it feels so right on a purely intuitive level that I'll probably never change it. I'm aware that this view lacks nuance, but can you be nuanced when speaking of the absolute?

>>16881642
>why I don't think debates about the absolute tend to miss the point.
why I think*

>>16879854
the same thing i said applies. even when something as fundemental as that is concerned, youre taking a lot of things for granted. some visible to us, some invisible. you cant be sure of observation or being or those words being accurate or anything.

>>16881642
>Another guy ITT pointed out that spirituality is to be experienced rather than intellectualized, that is true, but it is my opinion that looking for a system is a form of rationalization that mostly contributes to making you miss the point.
This is incorrect. If you want to experience soaring through the air, you will be better served if you go skydiving than if you stay home. Do you see my point? It's the same with spirituality. Rationalisation should be avoided, but rational systems can certainly be useful in pursuit of the superrational - their values, however, lies in the result they can produce, not in themselves. That's why I emphasised the value of traditions as tools earlier.
Don't forget that rationality too is a valuable element that has its proper place in the human being - it should be subordinate to the spirit, but the spirit may still use it as it wishes for its own ends.
>
This is why I see Dharma (and everything else) as a restriction, since you said you didn't understand my reason. Dharma is an elegant and interesting system, but I don't think it is needed. The unmanifest is not linked to the Dharma
Not today - the modern world is completely incompatible with Dharma or most traditional forms of spirituality. You should consider, however, that under different circumstances Dharma served a different purpose and generated different ends. Dharma offered clear conditions for emancipation of the spirit for those living in traditional societies. By subordinate one's profane life to transcendent means, one directly privileged the spiritual over the profane perspective. Today, things are more complicated. Evola believed that the only possible contact with the transcendent today is direct contact with the Unmanifest, since traditional forms can not operate properly in antitraditional circumstances.
>it is by ridding oneself of ideas, symbols, philosophies, assumptions, dogma, systems, whatever else, but simply to experience, or feel. This is my take on it. Maybe it's wrong and I'm entirely deluded, but it feels so right on a purely intuitive level that I'll probably never change it.
I hotly recommend you to look into Zen Buddhism - the more hardline the better. The book I mentioned earlier also has a chapter on Zen, though it's fairly short. If I am getting you right, Zen is the perfect tradition for you.
>I'm aware that this view lacks nuance, but can you be nuanced when speaking of the absolute?
In any other era, guys like us wouldn't be expected to speak of it at all - we'd just be expected to follow the rules set out by the priestly caste. Since we live today, if we want to engage with the domain of the priestly caste, we should treat it with the necessary respect and realise the high demands of that domain. I think in this highly particular area, you will be well served to leave some room for nuance.

>>16881802
I can't help but see systems as a dilution or a restriction. To clumsily expand upon your analogy, if an experience of the absolute is skydiving, I've always perceived systems as akin to reading a book or watching a documentary about skydiving. Perhaps you will gain relevant knowledge that will help you on your path, by having a system that gives you a lot of information about skydiving. But you won't know what it's like to jump out of an aircraft. The most fundamental feeling, irreducible to words, or even symbols, will elude you.
I didn't say rationality was worthless, but I don't see how it can help in getting closer to an unmanifest that "is" beyond all notion of rationality and irrationality, and other intelligible concepts altogether.
You say traditions are useful as tools. Why? Because they act as the building blocks for the spirit to develop in a way more conducive for the experience of the absolute?
My concern is that the biases that using those tools implies could cloud your vision, when the pure intuition that you already possess is already connected to something ineffable.
You describe Dharma as a kind of cultural framework through which spiritual pursuits became easier, as the system provided people with adequate tools that made them aware of a transcendence to strive towards. I'm not saying that the tradition is worthless in that regard, but that by virtue of being a tradition, it is bogged down by its own systematization of the unknowable: just look at all the branches of Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, the liturgy, the symbols, the contentious philosophical principles between schools... Where is the transcendent absolute? The cultural output of religious tradition is spectacular, but in how it conceives the unmanifest, it often strikes me as spiritually vulgar.
Why do you recommend Zen instead of Taoism?
>with the necessary respect
That's where our views diverge greatly, since there is nothing more respectful in my opinion as simply abstaining from making any comments on the absolute.

>>16881802
>>16882036
I'll stop here for tonight by the way, if you answer and the thread's still up, I'll respond tomorrow.

>>16882036
>I can't help but see systems as a dilution or a restriction. To clumsily expand upon your analogy, if an experience of the absolute is skydiving, I've always perceived systems as akin to reading a book or watching a documentary about skydiving.
This is a healthy instinct, but the systems don't really matter in themselves - they matter for what they can provide. I think you'll agree that a Buddhist monk who achieves Nirvana as a result of his enduring practice, efforts and the support of his doctrine and fellow monastics owes a great debt to his tradition. You don't necessarily have to devote yourself to one tradition in order to access the Unmanifest, but you must remain open to the idea of certain rules and possibilities that lead to growth and others that lead to decay. A man who maintains sila, practises regular shamadhi and eventually achieves the four jhana will be in a completely different existential condition than if he didn't attempt any of those things.
>but I don't see how it can help in getting closer to an unmanifest that "is" beyond all notion of rationality and irrationality, and other intelligible concepts altogether.
Daily life is governed by rationality, so it can be used to achieve spiritual goals. Setting aside two hours for shamdhi every day is one example.
>You say traditions are useful as tools. Why? Because they act as the building blocks for the spirit to develop in a way more conducive for the experience of the absolute?
Precisely.
>My concern is that the biases that using those tools implies could cloud your vision, when the pure intuition that you already possess is already connected to something ineffable.
For the vast majority that is an "if", not a "when". Even when such a connection exists, it is almost impossibly rare for it to be uninhibited. At any rate, you will be relying on your intuition to guide you to a useful and effective tradition and then also within the tradition.
>The cultural output of religious tradition is spectacular, but in how it conceives the unmanifest, it often strikes me as spiritually vulgar.
I am speaking from an esoteric perspective here, but religion today is almost completely worthless. Things were different long ago, but today the degeneration runs very deep. What's important to note is that speculation is generally needless for true spirituality. The "systemic" value of a tradition lies in its ability to offer a cohesive form to a person, a community or a state, according to which they can develop in order to actualise spiritual values.
>Why do you recommend Zen instead of Taoism?
Taoism is probably also very suitable - I just don't know much about it and found Zen a perfect fit as well.
>That's where our views diverge greatly, since there is nothing more respectful in my opinion as simply abstaining from making any comments on the absolute.
But if you respect it, you should also want to get closer to it, shouldn't you?

>>16878009
In the end one needs Divine communion. Hearing what others have said can only take us so far.

>>16878009
I glanced very quickly at this image, and initially thought it was a very large womb spreading her cheeks and dropping a large turd

Life is the original religion. If we know God we still have to eat and shit. If we are an infinitely expanding point in eternity then we must be the son of God, but we have this treasure in earthly vessels. So I think for this world existentialism is important. We should become the positive expression of the unmanifest. Bright blinding light is a Darkness but it's true nature is light. By our very nature we shall always increase and multiply.

>>16879151
1 Corinthians 13:4 - 7
>Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Your question is so absurd that I wonder if you aren't from outer space. Nobody becomes qualified to assess the criterion of salvation; such a thing can be forgotten but not learned.

>>16881789
>you cant be sure of observation or being or those words being accurate or anything.
non-existence things don't have experience, we have experience therefor our sentience exists

simple as

Maybe it's because I'm still at the very beginning, but reading the Bible makes me wonder how Christianity became so popular. I get that I'm in the Old Testament, but how can you read about the lineage of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and think you matter to God? God seems to care very little for anyone outside of Abraham's bloodline.

>>16883686
>Nobody becomes qualified to assess the criterion of salvation; such a thing can be forgotten but not learned.

Salvation is life with God. Often A person concerned with salvation is concerned about themselves. There are people in the world not concerned about themselves because they have a meaning which justifies their existence. Meaning can be derived only from the unmanifest.

>>16883705
Take a break from the OT and read the Gospel of John. Even though God transcends crude conditions of mankind in the symbols that become manifest in religion and religious texts, it was still important for Jesus to come due to the darkness and confusion of mankind.

>>16883705
The Bible is interesting but taking it as fact and actually thinking the highest truth of the world is YHWH is absolutely retarded

>>16878032
no. it's not that there's no commitment, it takes quite a lot of commitment to be a true sceptic because it involves withholding judgement and being comfortable with not knowing. it's easy to be a fanatic if your mind has no form of its own.

>>16883705
The whole point of His interactions with Abraham, Isaac, and Israel is that He was using them to bring salvation to the world, finally through Jesus' arrival. He is infinitely concerned for you, He loved the whole world so much He sent His (willing) Son to die for you.

>>16884768
Jesus is the highest truth, and God gave us the Bible to witness to Him. No other system of metaphysics has a particular historical action as its foundation. I recommend reading some of N. T. Wrights work.

>>16882144
Had the monk not chosen to follow that particular tradition and sought to rely only on his own intuition, could he have reached his goal?
What you've been telling me is that the systems provide guidelines and rules through which someone will be able to experience a form of spirituality. This I don't disagree with, what I am denying is the idea that the systems are necessary in order to grasp spirituality.
The problem is that, if you scrupulously follow a set of rules belonging to a specific system, you will most likely tend to interpret the unmanifest through the lens of those rules (unconsciously or not) rather than the opposite: it will become harder to detach the absolute from the its archetypal representations belonging to that system, and this is what I meant by dilution.
If one is capable of following a system while also remaining detached from it in a way that gives precdence to the absolute above all else, then that's good, but I don't think it's possible. Inevitable associations tend to form in the mind, and it will become difficult to distinguish the unfathomable absolute from its intelligible representation. Abrahamic religions are the most guilty of this, but other systems are not exempt from it either, by design.
>Daily life is governed by rationality
It is a rational choice to want to maximize your opportunities to "get closer" to the absolute by changing your lifestyle, but does that in itself constitute a system? It is a personal process, not one you can get with a one size fits all model.
>For the vast majority that is an "if", not a "when"
I think it's a matter of choice, for most at least. I also don't agree that it would be necessarily more inhibited than if you chose to work with a tradition. On the contrary, a connection that is spontaneous and intuitive is less constrained by the aesthetic and dogmatic trappings of human tradition, and therefore purer in its appreciation of transcendence.
>The "systemic" value of a tradition lies in its ability to offer a cohesive form
Yes, that's exactly it. Our opinions diverge in how we interpret the value of that form.
>if you respect it, you should also want to get closer to it
Getting closer to it does not require me to make any comments on it. It doesn't require me to engage in liturgical practices, to learn a specific cosmology, or to use specific methods of actualization. These things make the absolute more intelligible, at the cost of its purity.

>>16879923
Unironically this. But maybe not with glue. I did a bunch of O-PCE and read some shit on /x/ about god and it gave me some sense of spirituality since then. I know I’m basically admitting to drugging myself into being a schizo but it feels pretty good to not be a faggy atheist anymore.

>>16878031
stop consooming then retard

>>16878541
>I'm mainly concerned with religions, but this extends to any philosophy: how do you prove anything? At some point you are forced to rely on axioms, and to make assumptions.
Peterson addresses this

>>16879906
tard

>>16885499
I hope this is bait

>>16885286
>Had the monk not chosen to follow that particular tradition and sought to rely only on his own intuition, could he have reached his goal?
He could, but would he? Nothing prevents you from experiencing satori right now, but you aren't, are you?
>This I don't disagree with, what I am denying is the idea that the systems are necessary in order to grasp spirituality.
They are not necessary - the Buddha did it on his lonesome. Not everyone is born with the dignity of the Buddha.
The problem you outline can only be solved by trusting yourself to be up to the task and approach your tradition methodically and with a clear mind. Not all people use a tradition, btw. The young Junger came in contact with the Unmanifest through heroism instead. Tradition is just specialised for the purpose of awakening.
>If one is capable of following a system while also remaining detached from it in a way that gives precdence to the absolute above all else, then that's good
This is a foundational premise of Buddhism.
>Abrahamic religions are the most guilty of this, but other systems are not exempt from it either, by design.
Abrahamic religions utilise the mystical method. Awakening is projected onto the divine image, which is then absorbed into the devotee. That's how mystics attain enlightenment. It's not the most reliable method. Evola's "Introduction to Magic" dissects the various methodologies if you are interested.
>On the contrary, a connection that is spontaneous and intuitive is less constrained by the aesthetic and dogmatic trappings of human tradition, and therefore purer in its appreciation of transcendence.
Almost no one has "spontaneous and intuitive" connection to transcendence. You are referring to godlike beings here - for example, the Buddha, as I mentioned earlier. He still had to undergo extensive ascesis until he could remember his true nature.
>Yes, that's exactly it. Our opinions diverge in how we interpret the value of that form.
I think if you read the thoughts of ascetics on this issue you will quickly see the value of form. Unless you were born special, attaining the Unmanifest alone is impossible.
>Getting closer to it does not require me to make any comments on it. It doesn't require me to engage in liturgical practices, to learn a specific cosmology, or to use specific methods of actualization. These things make the absolute more intelligible, at the cost of its purity.
This is untrue, nothing about actualisation makes the Unmanifest "impure". It purifies you, because it connects you to the Unmanifest.

>>16886617
Tell me if I'm misinterpreting, but you seem to base your reasoning on the assumption that Buddhism is right, that is, that the ultimate goal sentient beings should strive for is specifically Nirvana/Satori, or rather, that "contact with the unmanifest" necessarily takes that form (or mostly, since you also brought up the unreliability of the mystical method). If you believe in the concept of Samsara, then that will surely affect the way you view spiritual awakening.
>This is a foundational premise of Buddhism
How so? I was under the impression that, like all other religions, Buddhism assumed a level of adherence to its liturgy and whatnot.
>You are referring to godlike beings
Am I? Or are you restricting the connection to the absolute to individuals who display a certain set of personal characteristics?
>It purifies you, because it connects you to the Unmanifest.
I understand what you're saying. Yet how can you be certain that this is what is happening?
For the sake of argument: would you say there is a possibility, as unlikely as it may be, that no tradition in history has managed to genuinely make contact with indescribable truth, and that all of them are still confined to the illusion of realization?

>>16883701
you cant be sure that you have experience or what you have is experience

you cant be sure that just because something is logical, it is accurate to reality. it may seem stupid at first but when you question why logic is the way it is or why our universe operates by logic (or at least seems to), logic ends up looking pretty arbitrary. there cant be a reason for reasons after all. so it cant be the ultimate way of reaching truth.

plus youre still under the assumption that any of those words and sentences accuretly describe reality and that human language is compatible with truth at all which is a longshot

>>16885199
>No other system of metaphysics has a particular historical action as its foundation
which action do you mean? lots of religions are rooted in historic figures and events

>>16887287
>you cant be sure that just because something is logical, it is accurate to reality. it may seem stupid at first but when you question why logic is the way it is or why our universe operates by logic (or at least seems to), logic ends up looking pretty arbitrary. there cant be a reason for reasons after all. so it cant be the ultimate way of reaching truth.
I used to wonder about this a lot when I was a kid.
Why is the world the way it is? Why are its laws and the way it appears to us so highly specific and particular, instead of something entirely different? At the time I thought there was a surreal quality to the seemingly arbitrary organization of the perceivable world, as if it were just a grain of sand in a desert of possibilities, some of them so far removed from our own that they would appear incoherent if shown to us.
Sometimes it struck me almost in a way similar to derealization, it was a very weird feeling.

>>16887287
>you cant be sure that you have experience or what you have is experience
Yes I can be, because it is self-evident and indisputable that I have sentient experience, if I didn't I could not be communicating with you

>>16887273
>would you say there is a possibility, as unlikely as it may be, that no tradition in history has managed to genuinely make contact with indescribable truth
Only personalities can make contact with God. It does help to have someone that has experience. It helps to understand the symbols in your own religion. But the spirit of Truth is omnipresent. The Earth is full of God's glory. But only actual beings can join together with God. Tradition and religions are things formed by people, they're not above people. Nothing but God is above a person.

>>16878009
I think thats a good thing. Studying theology makes you question things even more and is turning you away from being a fundamentalist.

>>16878829
>submission is love
Dumb mudslime.

>>16881035
Quietism was a mistake.

>>16887450
For some it works. Don't get in the way of the good pleasure that some get in submission.

>>16885199
>He sent his son to die for you
Who, by the way, is himself. And, by the by, he created you woth all yoir imperfections for which he had to punish his son to redeem you. So he sent his son, who is him, because of his own pteviois acts. Wow. I sure feel grateful...

>>16887471
No.

>>16887471
I think you're missing the point of why quietism was condemned. It is well known that Mystics do Greater Works then the lazy people that sheepishly accept whatever they're told.

>>16887510
Some people think that sadism is love. Don't get in the way of crazy people like jesus that loved God and sadistic people. so what if some people are willing to be killed for God? Better than killing people in God's name.

>>16887510
You sure you read these books about religion? These aren't even babby-tier questions.

>>16887510
kek
To be fair I think Meister Eckhart's views are the closest to giving us a sensible view of Christianity. Literalism is stupid.

>>16887273
>Tell me if I'm misinterpreting, but you seem to base your reasoning on the assumption that Buddhism is right, that is, that the ultimate goal sentient beings should strive for is specifically Nirvana/Satori, or rather, that "contact with the unmanifest" necessarily takes that form (or mostly, since you also brought up the unreliability of the mystical method). If you believe in the concept of Samsara, then that will surely affect the way you view spiritual awakening.
I am a perennialist, I just use Buddhism as an example because my main intellectual influence considers it a spiritual doctrine par excellance.
>How so? I was under the impression that, like all other religions, Buddhism assumed a level of adherence to its liturgy and whatnot.
Only degenerate modern forms.
"If you see the Buddha on the road - kill him." - A Zen koan.
>Am I? Or are you restricting the connection to the absolute to individuals who display a certain set of personal characteristics?
You really are. I sincerely doubt you believe the average normtard feels a "personal and intuitive connection to the transcendent". This is something very rare, especially when it's "spontaneous". Take a look at Eckhart Tolle. He gets lampooned a lot here and for good reason - he seems to have had the necessary qualifications to achieve a partial awakening, but he got stuck at a low level and is now closer to a Theosophist than a Buddhist. Ironically he's still way further along the road than ~99.95% of the people on the planet.
>I understand what you're saying. Yet how can you be certain that this is what is happening?
With some difficulty. Traditions exist precisely in order to correct deviations from the right path. When you decide to follow a tradition, you essentially place your trust that the spiritual head of that tradition was correct. Another foundational tenet of Buddhism is to maintain steadfast confidence in the teachings of the Buddha - doubt and deviation will derail whatever the tradition can provide.
In previous times, supernatural powers could also serve as proof of the legitimacy of a tradition. Things are different today.
>For the sake of argument: would you say there is a possibility, as unlikely as it may be, that no tradition in history has managed to genuinely make contact with indescribable truth, and that all of them are still confined to the illusion of realization?
Purely hypothetically, yes. I am confident that isn't the case, however - the Traditionalist school has analysed world tradition and found too much in common for everyone to be wrong. I can't disagree with their analysis, because it is good.

>>16878032
Imagine being this deranged.

>>16887428
you communicating with me is a lot more easily doubtable than consciousness, so using that as evidence for your consciousness is backwards and cyclical. its a cliche example but i bet there was a time where everyone thought that the earth being flat was self evident too. once again, something being logically self evident doesnt mean its the ultimate truth. and once again, the words you use almost certainly dont describe the true nature of those concepts.

one thing that i forgot to add that also is an obstacle between us and being sure of things, is the possibility that there is an incomprehensible reason why we are wrong and deluded. or a reason that we just didnt think of. which is likely imo

>>16887383
>highly specific and particular
>seemingly arbitrary organization
yes exactly i feel like this sometimes. why did you stop feeling like that?

>>16887619
>a spiritual doctrine par excellance.
For what reason?
>Only degenerate modern forms.
As far as I can tell, the traditions least attached to liturgy are the newer Mahayana ones. Am I wrong?
>This is something very rare, especially when it's "spontaneous".
Aren't all great works and acts the expression of a connection to the divine? Am I stretching the concept too far? I don't feel like I am, on the contrary it seems counter-productive to give transcendent a strict and binary quality rather than to refer to it as a transient and mysterious process. It's completely unrelated, and I don't think it has much, if any, spiritual significance, but what I talked about in >>16887383 illustrates what I mean by "transient". There are moments during which the veil appears to lift slightly, so to speak, and even though this might be incomparable to the process of awakening that those you call godlike beings went through, it still seems to me like getting a glimpse of an overarching view. All epiphanies, all great bouts of inspiration mean something, or at least, are not necessarily meaningless in the face of the ever-elusive Nirvana.
Is it really useful to try to measure the spiritual advancement of people and of yourself comparatively?
>Things are different today
Why? I haven't gotten around to reading what Evola has to say on the subject yet.

>>16887923
>why did you stop feeling like that?
I don't know, it went away with time. I can still have those thoughts, but I don't get the actual feeling of suddenly taking a huge step back from the substance of reality, like observing a blade of grass in a field. I could barely put it into words as a kid, but I remember how it made me feel extremely clearly.
Maybe it's something fairly mundane that a lot of people go through when they're not very in touch with their surroundings physically and emotionally, or something along those lines. What a bizarre impression, though.

>>16888029
>For what reason?
Its character. Buddhism was minimalist, aristocratic, non-mystical and rigorous. A tradition designed to get the job done - nothing more, nothing less.
>As far as I can tell, the traditions least attached to liturgy are the newer Mahayana ones. Am I wrong?
It's Zen and Theravada, afaik. Mahayana is more dogmatic, though it has metaphysical depth that Theravada lacks.
>Aren't all great works and acts the expression of a connection to the divine? Am I stretching the concept too far?
It's complicated. It would be best if I refrained from commenting on this until I have experience of the transcendent myself. From an esoteric perspective, every thought is "divine", but since in an unawakened being the spirit is intermixed with matter, things work out differently.
> There are moments during which the veil appears to lift slightly, so to speak, and even though this might be incomparable to the process of awakening that those you call godlike beings went through, it still seems to me like getting a glimpse of an overarching view.
This might be true. I don't know. I have not seen things through your eyes. I also have reflections of my own sometimes that I feel carry higher inspiration, but none of them have produced a fruitful and transformative change of perspective thus far.
>All epiphanies, all great bouts of inspiration mean something, or at least, are not necessarily meaningless in the face of the ever-elusive Nirvana.
"All" is probably pushing it. Materialist thinkers also believe they are experiencing "epiphanies" when they decry spirituality.
>Is it really useful to try to measure the spiritual advancement of people and of yourself comparatively?
No. It is a roadblock to growth to do so. The point I am making is that transcendence is not easy to obtain, nor is it common.
>Why? I haven't gotten around to reading what Evola has to say on the subject yet.
It's not just Evola. There just aren't very many people with supernatural powers today or at least if there are, they are not willing to use them openly. Furthermore, we live in such an age that the use of supernatural powers would be viewed as a goal in itself and something praised in utilitarian terms. The whole point of demonstrating them would be lost. This is something a lot of people realised with the onset of Theosophy, spiritism and other similar phenomena.

>>16888309
>minimalist
The teachings of Gautama Buddha were simple, but couldn't you say the same for Jesus?
>Mahayana is more dogmatic
Isn't Zen part of the Mahayana tradition?
>since in an unawakened being the spirit is intermixed with matter
Why the dualism?
>none of them have produced a fruitful and transformative change
Is that the criterion from which you determine if an experience is spiritually meaningful?
Change is constant and continuous at all levels, it is also possible that some of your realizations have caused gradual changes in yourself that are more difficult to point out.
>"All" is probably pushing it.
I think there's an aesthetic component to it. Materialism is inherently soulless, so the realizations it brings are never meaningful in that sense.

>>16888866
>The teachings of Gautama Buddha were simple, but couldn't you say the same for Jesus?
For the most part, yes, but the intellectual in question does not like mysticism and Christianity is a mystical religion. It also has no metaphysical dimension. It's pure theism, which is unique amongst the major religions. Not in a good way, either.
>Isn't Zen part of the Mahayana tradition?
It has been its own thing for a while now.
>Why the dualism?
Either we are all perfectly awakened or something is getting in the way. The flawed form our spirits manifest in the world is that thing. This doesn't really matter, anyway - it's irrelevant detail and changes nothing about the task at hand.
>Is that the criterion from which you determine if an experience is spiritually meaningful?
I have been led to believe that some sort of discontinuity is produced when one passes from the profane to sacred mode of being, so yes, I expect spiritual experiences to at least hint at discontinuity (or a new type of continuity, if you prefer).
>Change is constant and continuous at all levels, it is also possible that some of your realizations have caused gradual changes in yourself that are more difficult to point out.
Yes, but without a total awakening I can't know for sure or point out what has changed and if it has changed for the better.

>>16888963
>It also has no metaphysical dimension
You'd have to get into the esoteric branches for that.
>The flawed form our spirits manifest in the world is that thing.
That does not necessarily imply mind-body dualism.
You talk about our spirits manifesting an imperfect form, does that mean you believe in a transcendent self?

>>16878030
unironically you should believe in yourself, maybe it's not exactly where you'd find the answers but I'd suggest looking at buddhist teachings.
After all it's about how to be a better human than idolizing some god.

>>16888963
>For the most part, yes, but the intellectual in question does not like mysticism and Christianity is a mystical religion. It also has no metaphysical dimension.
You must have not paid attention. What do you even mean by that? Even though the common herd interprets the letters according to their own level and capacity there are plenty of universals expressed. If you have to kill the Buddha on the road you should kill Christianity as a world religion and understand the wisdom from above that is hidden from the powers of this age. But Different Strokes for different folks, it's all the same stimulation in the end. The religitards certainly cannot acknowledge truth in other religions, because they're blind and foolish.

>>16878032
this

>>16889081
>You'd have to get into the esoteric branches for that.
Esoteric Christianity is considered heretical by the mainstream branches.
>That does not necessarily imply mind-body dualism.
Mind-body dualism is wrong, but spirit-matter dualism isn't necessarily wrong. It depends on the environment.
>You talk about our spirits manifesting an imperfect form, does that mean you believe in a transcendent self?
The higher self, yes. The spiritual self.
>>16889215
"Kill the Buddha" has very particular meaning in a very particular context - it means that one should not develop attachment, even if that is attachment to the Buddha, the great teacher, the doctrine. This is because detachment is crucial for awakening. This does not imply that the Buddhist doctrine is itself flawed, nor does this imply that Christianity should be destroyed. In the first place, Christianity operates in an entirely different manner. A mystic needs a divine image to worship in order to derive strength from it. The theism isn't necessarily the problem - Islamic Sufism is also theistic, but it has metaphysical depth.

>>16889280
>spirit-matter dualism isn't necessarily wrong. It depends on the environment.
Could you elaborate? I'm not sure I understand what you're implying.
>The higher self, yes. The spiritual self
Then you disagree with the principle in Buddhism that argues for the impermanence of all things?
What do you think is the true nature of this world?

>>16889328
>Could you elaborate? I'm not sure I understand what you're implying.
It's the same with that autistic disagreement between the Hinduist doctrine of Atman and the Buddhist doctrine of Anatta. Is one of them right and the other one wrong? Both of them are correct in a specific spiritual climate, in a specific context, in regards to specific peoples with specific spiritual attitudes. Anatta is more generous because it presupposes a far lower spiritual level for its adherents.
Similarly, for some the spirit has nothing to do with matter and others can discover the spirit in every matter-oriented experience. Why? Because the latter have sufficiently developed spiritual faculties to be able to apply them in any context. This is not the situation today, at least as far as I can tell.
>Then you disagree with the principle in Buddhism that argues for the impermanence of all things?
Nirvana is permanent. Buddhism does acknowledge something akin to a "true self", it just has nothing to do with humanity at all.
>What do you think is the true nature of this world?
What is "this world"? Are you referring to matter?