/lit/ - Literature

>>17623436

>>17623436
Look into daoist schools that incorporate buddhism.

>>17623436
The Yoga Vasistha

>>17623447
Could you explain how this will help? Evola was quite favorable to Buddhism.
>>17623454
I've looked into Daoism (read Zhuangzi and the Daodejing) and quickly into Zen but it didn't do much for me. I find them interesting, especially aesthetically, but not enough to feel a genuine spiritual pull.
>>17623488
Don't Advaitins share a lot of metaphysical beliefs with Buddhists?

>>17623517
>Could you explain how this will help? Evola was quite favorable to Buddhism.
The thing about Evola (and the traditionalists in general) is that they look for the unifying structure behind all traditions - buddhism, hinduism, daoism, abrahamism, paganism, etc. They view them all as different expressions of the same universal truth. It helped put them in perspective to me, and this book is very intuitive.

>>17623532
I wonder if a genuine unifying structure can really be found between Buddhism and the religions whose axioms it completely denies, without either watering down Buddhism or making unreasonable compromises.
The aspects of Buddhism I find very difficult to disagree with are its highly systemic method (whereas most religions rely on dogma, Buddhism relies on practice), and the way it considers experience of the truth as superior to any rational understanding of it.
These two things make a lot of sense, but are difficult to find in other traditions; and when they can be found, they're not emphasized as much. I can't disagree with the Buddhist claim that a rational understanding is inferior to an experiential understanding, and that a religion should first and foremost be a system to practice, not a dogma to believe in. The fact that it's so unique in that regard is the main reason why I can't just dismiss it.

But I'll take a look at Evola, I've been meaning to anyway.

>>17623517
>Don't Advaitins share a lot of metaphysical beliefs with Buddhists?
Only a few, and once you get into the details they even understand these shared things differently. Reading Advaita texts often feels like a completely different experience from reading most Buddhist texts, intellectually, aesthetically and spiritually.

The Yoga Vasistha is not traditional Advaita but is a later syncretic texts that draws influences from other schools like Shaivism, it teaches certain ideas which are rejected by classical Advaita (which you would read Shankara’s works to study), but is still a very enjoyable work which presents a range of spiritual teachings through wonderful stories full of vivid and poetic imagery.

>>17623563
Well Evola looks solely at the original Buddhism, not its modern variants - which is why his take on Buddhism is sometimes viewed as controversial.
As to your other points, I think you'll find a lot to like about Evola. What he means by Tradition is not dogma, it means the lived experience. His criticism of modern religion is similar to yours (but perhaps from a slightly different angle). But my takes won't do him justice, so yeah just give his book a read. Good luck on your journey.

>>17623582
>Reading Advaita texts often feels like a completely different experience
That's good, I'm not a huge fan of the way Buddhist scriptures are written, especially suttas.
What do you make of the criticism that the goal of Hinduism, including Advaita, is considered by Buddhism to be incomplete, described as entry into the formless realms (arupaloka) instead of true liberation?
>>17623590
Thanks anon.

>>17623597
>What do you make of the criticism that the goal of Hinduism, including Advaita, is considered by Buddhism to be incomplete, described as entry into the formless realms (arupaloka) instead of true liberation?
The formless realms and the beings in them are described as still being subject to change while moksha in Hinduism is not subject to change, so that would indicate that moksha is not the attainment of the formless realm. I dont find this claim of theirs to be a compelling argument, it just boils down to “oh yea well your liberation somewhat resembles something our guy said wasn’t as good!” but that’s not actually pointing out anything that is inherently wrong with the Hindu or Advaitin concept of moksha.

When you actually analyze the details of each for what they are, the Buddhist concept of Nirvana seems much more vulnerable and flawed, since the Buddhist is unable to admit how Parinirvana is experienced after the death of the body if all the aggregates die. If all your capacity of sensation, consciousness, sentience are aggregates which die out, then there is no way a being can consciously experience or be aware of Parinirvana, which makes it practically indistinguishable from an annihilation into nothingness. The Advaitist moksha doesn’t face this problem since they admit that sentience is unborn and undecaying and continues on forever in moksha even after the body dies.

>>17623643
>the Buddhist is unable to admit how Parinirvana is experienced after the death of the body
There are several ways to answer this but the most common I've seen is that Nirvana is only empty of sentience as far as the aggregates are concerned, which would make it another kind of sentience altogether, only unconditioned and not subject to change; some people also say that Nirvana is impossible to cognize and that the Buddha should be trusted when he said such questions are fruitless and don't lead to liberation. One should seek to enter the stream, and after that, his faith in the Dharma will be unshakeable (this seems shoddy to me, since it's basically telling you to force it until you believe, I don't think it constitutes a proof of anything).
>moksha in Hinduism is not subject to change
I think one of the things the Buddha said about Brahma was that he was "deluded" to think he was eternal when he really was not. This is not really an argument though.

>>17623436
>In the Orient the combined teachings of Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism were synthesized by Nanak and his followers into Sikhism, one of the most advanced religions of Asia.

>>17623661
>I think one of the things the Buddha said about Brahma was that he was "deluded" to think he was eternal when he really was not.
Buddha stated that Brahma was deceived by Mara, and even though he was "the" Being, he still possessed the clinging to existence (Being), and could not go beyond it to non-existence.

>>17623661
>but the most common I've seen is that Nirvana is only empty of sentience as far as the aggregates are concerned, which would make it another kind of sentience altogether, only unconditioned and not subject to change;
This is what the Upanishads and Vedanta already teach, that the Absolute is an unconditioned and unchanging sentience, so if one has to more or less accept the Vedantic Atman under another name in order to have Parinirvana not be an annihilation that kinda goes to show which one makes more sense. Furthermore, whichever Buddhist proposes this would have to explain why Buddha never once revealed this interpretation of Nirvana as immutable eternal sentience to his followers in the Pali Canon, and why he didn’t make an exception for special-sentience when describing consciousness, sentience etc as aggregates that are impure.
> this seems shoddy to me, since it's basically telling you to force it until you believe
Yes, it amounts to telling buddhists to just have faith that it’s true
>>17623699
This is a circular argument which relies on one already accepting Buddhist presuppositions (non-existence > existence) in order for it to make sense as an argument, but to the non-Buddhist its equivalent to a person chiding someone else for not wanting to die or otherwise be annihilated, which most people would consider foolish and absurd.

>>17623807
The thing about Buddhism is that it can handwave these concerns and tell you you'll get it eventually if you keep practicing, because experience > rational analysis.
Also, the Four Noble Truths and the three marks of existence form a solid framework that is very hard to disagree with even though I don't like that worldview.

This might be the most important book on the controversial subject of the undeniable correspondence between psychedelics, spirituality and western civilization.

As a greek, i feel compelled to never let the mysteries of Persephone/Demeter and Eleusius go unrecognized in their roll between Mother Earth and religion. For me, there is nothing more important than to reveal the horror the American and German people have done to white wash this visionary brew out of existence as nothing more than a theater that compelled people like Plato and Marcus Aurelius to write about.

First time posting on /lit/ pls be nice

>>17623807
>(non-existence > existence
That's not what it means. It's stating something more along the lines of this: non-existence + existence > existence alone, or non-existence alone. Putting it arithmetically like this however does not do the doctrine justice, because it's not about something being quantitatively superior to the other, but simply about the self being independent with respect to any particular type of existence (conditioning), whether Being or non-Being.

>>17623859
>For me, there is nothing more important than to reveal the horror the American and German people have done to white wash this visionary brew out of existence as nothing more than a theater that compelled people like Plato and Marcus Aurelius to write about.
>Foreword by Graham Hancock
You're a retard. The reason people doubt the role of psychedelics in the mysteries is because there is no substantial evidence to determine what role which drug would have played. There is no great academic conspiracy against stoners, stoners are just asshurt that their headcanon is held to an academic standart.
I don't recall Aurelius ever speaking about the mysteries.

>>17623819
>The thing about Buddhism is that it can handwave these concerns and tell you you'll get it eventually if you keep practicing
Yes, but in this aspect its no different from other religions who also say that understanding follows from faith and practice

>>17624013
No religion has such a systematic approach though, Buddhism says once you reach the first steps of realization you'll start to believe because it'll become obvious and the fruits of the path will become tangible, and seeing people's personal experiences, it does seem to work. There's a thread about it on the catalog even.

Plato's Theaetetus and Sophist.

>>17623867
>because it's not about something being quantitatively superior to the other,
and not only for that reason but to describe anything as existing + not-existing would be to violate the law of non-contradiction
>but simply about the self being independent with respect to any particular type of existence (conditioning), whether Being or non-Being.
Yes, if one reads the Pali Canon in the lenses of the Vedantist or other Atman-accepting doctrine, but this is not how Buddha describes his critique of Brahma in the Suttas. Also, not all existence is automatically conditioned, but unconditioned existence is by definition, unconditioned.

>>17624072
>it'll become obvious and the fruits of the path will become tangible
Yes they say this, but on the essential questions which caused people to have questions to begin with (i.e. how is Parinirvana not an annihilation), there is never a point where this will actually be tangible and verifiable while alive because you can’t enter Parinirvana until the body dies. So, to act like the practice of the Buddhist path reveals unquestionably to the living Buddhist practitioner that Parinirvana is not an annihilation is like a sleight-of-hand that obscures the fact that this is actually never verified for any Buddhist ever while they are alive.

>>17624118
>but unconditioned existence is by definition, unconditioned
Not if it cannot not-exist. Then it is conditioned relative to its own existence (it MUST exist, it is constrained to existence), and the original statement enters a paradoxical circle.
>but to describe anything as existing + not-existing would be to violate the law of non-contradiction
No, it wouldn't, if one does not take into account different modalities. We readily accept the same thing can both exist and not-exist, in purely logical terms, when the passage of time is not considered, and this is no longer defiant of the law of non-contradiction. If one takes into account other modes of reality (rather than simply temporal), then one realizes the mistake of applying the law of non-contradiction to something which cannot be fully understood in its own modality and dimensionality to begin with. In other words, the law of non-contradiction is easily misused and misapplied because of its own binary nature which cannot, in itself, represent more complex realities which are not, in totality, binary YES or NO. This is the demon of dialectics. It's extremely foolish to be worked up over trivialities like this. You don't make progress.

>>17623882
>no evidence
Read the book or the Cosmic serpent. How many coincidences until mathmatically impossible
>stoners
The author has never taken psychedelics and does so to avoid this very bias
>no conspiracy
The war on drugs made something like this unthinkable in the western mind because of the stigma that its just for useless gatherings of party seekers. Ridicule is fine way to spread disinformation. When he speaks to multiple greek archeologist and historian people that come from Greece , the thought is less than outlandish, it seems evident and they hardly give a second thought to which Professors dismiss almost instantly as you do for it being “highly unlikely”.
>spooked by the mention of hancock
Better shut down an argument because i dont like this fella, huh? Guy writes three pages in the beginning, why not actually try to apply yourself instead of having a visceral reaction. This is a thread about spirituality, right? Your ego is showing.
>Marcus Aurelius
Theres literally a bust of him in front of the entrance to Eleusis. He made an effort to rebuild it after a raid by barbarians in AD 170. Then christians fucked his statue and carved a cross where the gorgon on his chest had been.

Go read

>>17623447
cringe

>>17624154
>to act like the practice of the Buddhist path reveals unquestionably to the living Buddhist practitioner
I think the point is that all doubt is removed upon stream entry so that's not necessary.
Isn't there quite a lot of evidence for jhanas being a real thing anyway?

>>17624175
>>no evidence
>Read the book or the Cosmic serpent. How many coincidences until mathmatically impossible
Why don't you just give me the evidence. Or present it to the academic community for peee review?
>The author has never taken psychedelics and does so to avoid this very bias
Hancock is a stoner and an avid believer in antidrug conspiracies
>The war on drugs made something like this unthinkable in the western mind because of the stigma that its just for useless gatherings of party seekers. Ridicule is fine way to spread disinformation. When he speaks to multiple greek archeologist and historian people that come from Greece , the thought is less than outlandish, it seems evident and they hardly give a second thought to which Professors dismiss almost instantly as you do for it being “highly unlikely”.
No. That's exactly my point. Historians and other scientists engage avidly with the existence and composition of soma, the alledged eleusian drugs etc. Their dismissal is based on the evidence and you are mopey because people expect you to provude convincing evidence.
>spooked by the mention of hancock. Your ego is showing.
lol. Hancock has no scientific credibility. He starts out with his position and has demonstably manipulated evidence to substantiate his claims.
>Theres literally a bust of him in front of the entrance to Eleusis.
Yeah but you said he wrote about it. Just link his writing on the drugs used at the mysteries
>Go read
And there we go. This is really what it boils down to. Don't believe me? Stupid meanie poopiehead. No wonder you like Hancock.

Buddhism is unfalsifiable. It's true that all conditioned phenomena are impermanent. It's true that all lead to suffering, which stems from desire. Buddhism isn't a religion, it's just the truth.

>>17624094
I haven't read Plato yet, why these dialogues?
>>17624319
This is what I figured and the reason why I made this thread but surely there must be other philosophies that are just as reasonable but providing a different perspective on existence.

>>17624252
When i get back from work and can site the book.
I am biased alright, but ive never read hancock. Ive watched talkshows with him on it, so id like to ask for your sources on him not being credible.

What makes me want this to be true is my 4 years in healthcare (not a nurse) and watching people die confused, alone and neglected. I find this an important criminal offense against people that suffer extensively at their end of life and the refusal to give them closure (because of studies at hopkins and NYU we know the impressive imprint just one psychedelic study has had on participants that note it as one of the top five most memorable parts of their life). I know how doctors (surgeons) think. Death is an enemy. A wrong that is never suppose to happen but always does. They know their limitations and abandon patients that look to them as modern gods and priests once they realize theres isnt anymore money to be made.
Yes this is all extremely subjective, but i believe thats the nature of what we are dealing with. Theres a reason trips are so hard to explain linguistically and why reductionist retards like Dawkins will never get it.

>>17623436
People who get filtered by buddhism move on to jainism or just go to theism and follow their gurus doing useless rituals and worship in mahayana, hinduism, Semitism and so on.

>>17624408
>filtered
Why are you implying Buddhism is the absolute truth of existence?

>>17624329
The closest is Advaita Vedanta, which states the same as >>17624319, minus anata (which that poster didn't mention anyway).

>>17624329
>other philosophies that are just as reasonable but providing a different perspective on existence.
Panpsychism, pyrrhonism, platonism/neoplatonism, advaita vedanta

>>17623436
Guenon and Evola are good for shifting your paradigm. To respond to other replies here though, no, neither were Buddhists and both had concerns about Buddhism as well as favorable writings.

>>17624467
I'm definitely going to study Advaita, but I feel like I need a break from eastern philosophy altogether right now in order to be able to really take a step back.
>>17624532
>Panpsychism
>Platonism/Neoplatonism
Could you explain how those provide an equally coherent worldview? I feel like they're subject to the same pitfalls as the ideologies Buddhism refutes, by relying entirely on metaphysics and reason.
>>17624554
What were their concerns?

The Dalai Lama wrote a book called “The Universe in a Single Atom”. It’s about how religion (but specifically Buddhism) can exist alongside science. But, a main point that he drives home is to question everything and not just blindly follow a doctrine. He encourages his own monks to dissect Buddhist teachings too and not just follow them for the sake of following them. Decent read and not terribly long. Might be a good bridge between liking the parts of Buddhism you do and not feeling guilty about the parts you don’t.

>>17624252
>peee review

>>17624614
My problem is more that I think Buddhism's claims make a lot of sense (especially what it says about rational thinking) but at the same time I dislike them on a spiritual level, it's not a worldview that I can live by, so I'm looking for competing ideologies that aren't demolished by Buddhism and could give me a new perspective.

>>17623436
Read Joseph Campbell

>>17624411
It is absolutely irrefutable that everything is impermanent. From there, the noble truths are derived automatically. Buddhism refutes Platonism, and from there, the rest of the western philosophical tradition

Read the Bhagavad Gita and the principle Upanishads. Buddhism can’t compete

>>17624751
>Buddhism refutes Platonism, and from there, the rest of the western philosophical tradition
This is an audacious statement.

>>17623436
Hey anon you might like book 'Serpents of Wisdom' by Edda Livingston. Its a book for seekers after Truth. Only 72 pages as well, so its a fast read.
Free download here
http://www.occult-mysteries.org/downloads/serpents-of-wisdom.pdf

>>17624583
>by relying entirely on metaphysics and reason.
Are there even any great philosophies or religions that don't rely entirely on reason aside from Buddhism? Isn't the whole western tradition based on the assumption that reason allows us to grasp truth?

>>17625162
Thanks, I'll read it tonight.

>>17623436
RENE GUENON(PBUH)

>>17625234
Should I start with his book on Vedanta?

Nietzsche refutes Buddhism

>>17625336
It depends what you want out of him, he wrote many books on various subjects. Crisis of the Modern World is usually a good starting point for anyone but personally I think Evola's Revolt does that subject better. Reign Quantity is also a great general book.
Most people would suggest reading Introduction to Hindu Doctrines before his book on Vedanta though.

>>17625528
Please explain.
By the way I'm not looking for a mere rejection of Buddhist doctrine that basically amounts to cognitive dissonance; since the philosophy makes so much sense, the only thing that could possibly be satisfying would be another doctrine that makes just as much sense if not more. But so far I haven't found that.
>>17625551
That's outside of the scope of the thread but he also wrote some very esoteric books, like the one on calculus or the King of the World, are these worth reading as well?

>>17625600
>That's outside of the scope of the thread but he also wrote some very esoteric books, like the one on calculus or the King of the World, are these worth reading as well?
I've read about half of his books but none of them were bad, at least they were merely interesting. King of the World is pretty out there though, even by Guenon standards. But I really liked his books on initiation (Initiation & Spiritual Realization, Perspectives on Initiation).

>>17623436
this is a very jungian image, the sun's phallus

>>17625600

I would check out Perennial Philosophy by Aldous Huxley.

He draws parallels between all mystical religions claiming they point to the same Godhead. I think he makes a misstep when he says the Tibetan Clear Light of the Void is Brahman, but other than that, I think he's right.
Hinduism, Kaballah, Gnostic Christians and Sufis all relay the same underlying mystical experience.

>>17626333
>Hinduism, Kaballah, Gnostic Christians and Sufis
Well, you're omitting an important one here.
The only religion that doesn't agree with the others in terms of the perennial truth being relayed is also the one that tends to make the most sense. Buddhism is a real outlier through and through. What if it figured out something the others didn't?

>>17626357
>What if it figured out something the others didn't?
What if it didn't and was a further degeneration instead?

>>17626363
>What if it didn't
Then why does it make so much sense?

>>17626366
To me it doesn't. At least not more than the perennial alternative.

>>17626363
>>17626366
It's also difficult to see it as a degeneration because instead of downright rejecting other religions' teachings, it says that their teachings aren't the highest, and justifies this both rationally and by providing a system for direct experience.
>>17626371
What about it doesn't make sense to you?

>>17626376
>It's also difficult to see it as a degeneration because instead of downright rejecting other religions' teachings, it says that their teachings aren't the highest, and justifies this both rationally and by providing a system for direct experience.
But if it's not the highest, and that from whence it came was seen as the highest, doesn't that make it a degeneration by definition? Why is direct experience the best way, if that is inherently subjective and materialistic? Why is the rational preferred to the suprarational?

>>17626357
Well, I've actually looked into this stuff, and Tibetan and Dzogchen Buddhism attest to experiences the ordinary consciousness in full bloom, while other mystics speak of an other worldly experience. It seems more likely to me that it was Buddhism that might have missed something.
There is another book by Huxley, where he talks about Mystical experiences in a Empirical fashion, how one would go about producing one so that it could be verified. He thinks it is engendered by constant meditation and living a wholly pure life. It makes sense to me that there could be something else out there with a system of rules of its own.

>>17626413
>doesn't that make it a degeneration by definition?
I guess, but it doesn't have to be a negative thing is what I mean (again I'm more or less playing devil's advocate for the reasons stated in the OP)
>Why is direct experience the best way
Because it should allow you to grasp what rationality cannot.
Why should rationality be seen as the best way instead of the direct experience of the absolute, that needs no words or logic to be described? Shouldn't you be transcending logic at some point?
>if that is inherently subjective and materialistic?
I'm not following.
>Why is the rational preferred to the suprarational?
The thing is Buddhism gives you both a very sound rational doctrine, but also a system that becomes suprarational at some point (which is why there are the unanswered questions for example). It has everything.
>>17626432
>experiences the ordinary consciousness in full bloom
Other branches of Buddhism have different experiences. The formless realms/jhanas seem to me like the highest attainments you could possibly get as a mystic: how do you go beyond something that is beyond existence and nonexistence itself?
>it is engendered by constant meditation and living a wholly pure life.
Being an ascetic then? Mystics from all religions do this, as far as I know.
>It makes sense to me that there could be something else out there with a system of rules of its own
I wouldn't have paid much attention to Buddhism if it seemed to be in its own "bubble" and just be a weird system with its own rules that didn't interact with the others. But instead of that, it does interact with the others, by encompassing them. It basically tells you "your religion isn't wrong, it's just incomplete, and here's why".

>>17623436
Read Derrida. You'll never look at religions the same again if you know about metaphysics of presence

>>17626493
Doesn't that apply essentially to western religions?

>>17625162
Some parts of the book are interesting but it makes some assumptions, for example
>Since Truth is everlasting and unchangeable, it can only exist in the equally everlasting and unchangeable Soul
Not only does this rational statement come right after a passage on the failings of rationality, it takes the existence of an unchangeable soul as an axiom. A Buddhist would deconstruct that and tell you there's no such thing.

bump

>>17626413
At some point you need to let go of logic and get into intuitive understanding

>>17625336
Start with his Introduction to the study of the hindu doctrines

>>17627260
And Buddhism is the only philosophy/religion to do that?

>>17627260
>>17627434
Siree Raag, First Mehl:
Forgetting the Beloved, even for a moment, the mind is afflicted with terrible diseases.
How can honor be attained in His Court, if the Lord does not dwell in the mind?
Meeting with the Guru, peace is found. The fire is extinguished in His Glorious Praises. ||1||

O mind, enshrine the Praises of the Lord, day and night.
One who does not forget the Naam, for a moment or even an instant-how rare is such a person in this world! ||1||Pause||

When one's light merges into the Light, and one's intuitive consciousness is joined with the Intuitive Consciousness,
then one's cruel and violent instincts and egotism depart, and skepticism and sorrow are taken away.
The Lord abides within the mind of the Gurmukh, who merges in the Lord's Union, through the Guru. ||2||

O Siblings of Destiny, without the Guru, intuitive balance is not obtained.
Through the Word of the Shabad, intuitive peace and poise wells up, and that True Lord is obtained. ||1||Pause||

That which is sung intuitively is acceptable; without this intuition, all chanting is useless.
In the state of intuitive balance, devotion wells up. In intuitive balance, love is balanced and detached.
In the state of intuitive balance, peace and tranquility are produced. Without intuitive balance, life is useless. ||2||

In the state of intuitive balance, praise the Lord forever and ever. With intuitive ease, embrace Samaadhi.
In the state of intuitive balance, chant His Glories, lovingly absorbed in devotional worship.
Through the Shabad, the Lord dwells within the mind, and the tongue tastes the Sublime Essence of the Lord. ||3||

In the poise of intuitive balance, death is destroyed, entering the Sanctuary of the True One.
Intuitively balanced, the Name of the Lord dwells within the mind, practicing the lifestyle of Truth.
Those who have found Him are very fortunate; they remain intuitively absorbed in Him. ||4||

>>17623436
Ask Frater, despite knowing a fair bit about Buddhism the guy's a Christian, it's possible to have some perspective. Buddhism isn't the religion that 'makes the most sense', there's no such thing.

>>17623436
Read pic related. I feel like it will help you especially the first two thirds of the book.

>>17627474
>>17627511
I don't get it.

>>17627546
Yeah I like his posts but he's not ITT.
>>17627548
A Buddhist book to break away from Buddhism?
What does it argue for?

>>17627661
>A Buddhist book to break away from Buddhism?
no

>>17627797
What then?

>>17623436
Letting Go by David R. Hawkins. Also breathwork

>>17627661
>What does it argue for?
Why can people not just google books and read their quick back cover summary? Why do you need it spoon fed to you? Nice spiritual searcher vibe

>>17627816
I did google the book, it didn't give me much information on how it could actually help in regards to the concerns I expressed.

>>17627800
The book is a series of lectures the author gave in the 60’s. The main through line of the lectures is his concept of spiritual materialism.

“The ego can convert anything to its own use, even spiritually”

The part I think will be of interest to you are the related stories of famous practitioners and the pitfalls they encountered before “getting it”.

>>17627857
I'll look into it. I don't have the intent of "getting" Buddhism though, I want to move on to something else, in case the OP seemed ambiguous about this. But if it's a book about the general difficulties encountered on the path to spirituality then it should be of interest, thanks.

>>17627917
It’s the general difficulties of spirituality. It doesn’t get explicitly Buddhist till the latter third of the book. When I say getting it I just mean enlightenment but didn’t want to use it since it carries Buddhist connotations and didn’t want you to think it’s another Buddhist manual.

He even talks about how reading sacred texts, chanting, meditation, and starving yourself aren’t going to do anything if you doing them because you think you have to them.

>>17624172
>Not if it cannot not-exist. Then it is conditioned relative to its own existence
No it’s not, unconditioned existence is unconditioned by anything. Things are not conditioned by hypothetical possibilities of how they may or may but be different, that is just sophistry. A thing that has unconditioned existence is eternal, beginningless, undecaying, immutable, and not dependent on anything else in any other way. The fact of a thing being what it is (i.e. Nirvana is Nirvana or an unconditioned Absolute is an unconditioned Absolute) does not condition that very thing, because the thing you are trying to identify as conditioning that thing already belongs to, is subsumed under, and is inalienable from that things unconditioned existence, the fact of being unconditioned in its existence doesn’t make that thing conditioned. I’m astounded that anyone would be so foolish as to advance this argument.
>(it MUST exist, it is constrained to existence)
An unconditioned thing is not constrained by anything, it’s nature of having eternal and completely self-sufficient existence is precisely what makes it unconditioned (it’s existence is not conditioned by anything else)

>but to describe anything as existing + not-existing would be to violate the law of non-contradiction
>No, it wouldn't, if one does not take into account different modalities.
Yes, you have to make qualifications like before after, but there is no such qualification that Buddhists can make about Nirvana that is based on logic in the same way that one can logically note the difference between before and after, all they are able to do is try to wave away criticisms by appealing to its unknowable and transcendental nature, which is not something that rescues it from contradiction

>It's extremely foolish to be worked up over trivialities like this. You don't make progress.
And yet that didn’t stop you from applying sophistic reasoning in your attempt to debunk unconditioned existence you hypocrite

>>17627971
Right, maybe it'll help then.
>reading sacred texts, chanting, meditation, and starving yourself aren’t going to do anything
My problem is almost opposite to this; not being able to really let go of the doctrine despite not being attracted to it. But in the end it's a pitfall like any other.

>>17625600
>the only thing that could possibly be satisfying would be another doctrine that makes just as much sense if not more. But so far I haven't found that.
That would be Advaita Vedanta, which is more logical than Buddhism in pretty much every way. After reading a book or two on Vedanta or general Hindu philosophy, try reading Adi Shankara’s works

>>17625172
Buddhism doesn’t rely entirely on reason but has many faith based claims like rebirth and its ending, heavens and hells, the chance to limit your number of remaining births by reaching a certain level, etc.

>>17628022
I think you misunderstood that post. Buddhism does have faith-based claims but they are apparently confirmed through direct experience. As for its reason-based claims, especially the fundamental ones like the noble truths and the marks of existence, they are very logical, I don't see any flaw in them.
The four noble truths (except the last one) can be observed directly; anatta can pretty much be confirmed by "peeling away" the layers of what you think to be the self; anicca applies to everything in the universe we know of; and dukkha is omnipresent. It doesn't get more coldly logical than this.

>>17628048
>but they are apparently confirmed through direct experience
apparently not though because with half of them they can’t be directly verified until after you’re dead

>>17628166
What are you talking about? Everything can be verified before death, even Nirvana.

>>17628166
Apparently the unverifiable stuff like rebirth is made clear to the people who reach higher states of realization
But at that point it begs the question: if you got far enough to "realize" samsara was true, is there any way to know you haven't just brainwashed yourself?

>>17628173

Whether or not Parinirvana actually occurs after the death of the body cannot be verified while alive. Whether or not Parinirvana is a complete annihilation or something else cannot be verified while alive. Whether or not the paths of stream-entrant, twice-turner, once-returner and so on actually reduce the remaining number of rebirths like Buddhists say they do cannot be verified while alive. Whether or not the crimes that the Pali Canon classifies as ‘ānantarika-kamma’ make you get reborn in hell like the Pali Canon says cannot be verified while alive.

>>17628810
Insight into those things is granted by meditative attainments, and Buddhists generally say that since stream entry alone grants unshakable, absolute faith, it alone constitutes enough proof of the truth of the teachings.

Why do brown people develop depersonalization """religions"""

Do they hate themselves?

>>17628022
>which is more logical than Buddhism in pretty much every way.
Could you explain?

>>17628839
>Insight into those things is granted by meditative attainments
Having insight into how something may make logical sense or how it may seem intuitively true is not the same as verifying that it is actually true.
>and Buddhists generally say that since stream entry alone grants unshakable, absolute faith, it alone constitutes enough proof of the truth of the teachings.
Faith in something being true is not the same as verifying that it actually is true.

This server can give you many genuine perspectives on spirituality, besides the memes and fun
discord dot gg h59NCjD2

This server can give you many genuine perspectives on spirituality, besides the memes and fun
discord dot gg h59NCjD2

>>17628981
They'll tell you it's actual proof rather than belief but I guess that's why it's a religion

>>17627548
Isn't this the guy that forced people to disrobe?

I would suggest you retract that desire for just spiritual fulfillment and not a philosophical manual. Read the outlines of pyrrhonian skepticism, it’ll help your reasoning in pretty much any analysis of any tradition by refining the capacity to follow through and divide arguments and ideas. You can get away with reading only like, the first half of the book.


As for books that’ll change your spiritual perspective, anything I recommend will, without practice, be utterly infertile. I of course recommended most highly the Bible, and pair it with one of the following.

Brother Lawrence(a short and simplistic text on how to dwell in the Holy Spirit, used by both Protestants and Catholics.)

The mirror of simple souls (a more poetic and emotionally charged work, explains how to, by love, come to knowledge and closeness with Christ, isn’t heavy on methodology and if you can understand the work, you need only read about a quarter of the book.)

Molino’s spiritual guide (gives a systematic approach to how to work Christian mysticism, if you want that much structure and step by step stuff.)

I could sit Here and shill many traditions and perhaps you’d be swayed by their poetry, by their philosophy or mythology. By their aesthetics. But all of this without practice is dead. So my highest recommendation is constant prayer and study of the scriptures, along with learning a proper methodology for your prayer and contemplation.

>>17623436
>eastern religions

Bump

>>17629751
Did you ever give Dyaneshwar’s writings a read?

>>17629751
Does skepticism lead anywhere? How do you not end up doubting everything and suspending judgment for every single metaphysical question?
>without practice
Every religion has an experiential component, but does Christianity (or any of them) place the same importance on it than Buddhism? I mentioned earlier ITT that one of the things I found difficult to disagree with in Buddhism is that the rational mind and its logical conclusions are ultimately subordinate to direct experience, to the point of being rendered meaningless by it (>>17623819, >>17626376). In contrast, the western tradition seems to stop at rationalism, am I wrong?
Buddhism's appeal is that its metaphysics are solid (>>17628048), and beyond that, it still tells you actual practice is paramount to true understanding.

Thanks for the recs, I'll start with the New Testament, but regarding practice itself, I'm also concerned about the following: since all religions have mystical practices, how do you come to the conclusion that Christianity's practices are superior (or more meaningful, at least), than, say, the Buddhist jhanas? Practitioners from both religions would tell you their experience is the one closest to the truth.

>>17630642
Didn't Nietzsche think Buddhism was bullshit?

>>17631867
He applauded The Laws of Manu

>>17632039
Why?

>>17632316
I don't remember lmao but he thought it was like the better version of the Bible

>>17623436
I get what you mean, Buddhism is really depressing with all their talk about suffering, no god and no soul, but at the same time it makes a lot of sense so everything else feels a bit like a cope

>>17632316
no slave morality like buddhism

>>17632039
Based

>>17632648
Where are the NEETs?

>>17632898
top 1 and 3. either sit around and study the divine/perform rituals all day, or sit around and bully shudras and dalits/ get fat and rich all day

>>17632908
Sounds pretty based

>>17632919
Because it is

>>17623436
Cut out the weird eastern religions and read the Gospels

>>17632938
I got drawn to Buddhism because it made sense. I could just shut it out and read things to distract me but that would feel like pure cope.
I'm gonna read the gospels anyway though, but just not reading Buddhist texts anymore isn't actually a solution, anon.

>>17628961
It's a complicated subject, and some of the criticisms only deal with certain Buddhist schools and not Buddhism as a whole, to summarize two of the more important points though; the Buddhist explanation of everything being dependently-originated fails to sufficiently explain why the universe/samsara exists, because there is no rational answer given for how and why dependent origination itself exists or what causes it, but it's incapable of causing itself.

The second major point is that the Buddhist analysis of the nature of consciousness, identity and recognition contains contradictions and fails to align with our actual experience of consciousness, this second point is discussed in this page below.

https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/a-history-of-indian-philosophy-volume-2/d/doc209866.html

>>17632938
>bury your head in the sand

>>17632993
>how and why dependent origination itself exists
Aren't there two options: a beginning-less universe, and a prime mover?

>>17631632
>Does skepticism lead anywhere? How do you not end up doubting everything and suspending judgment for every single metaphysical question?


Doubt isn’t something to fear nor is reason. Reason and skepticism are tools. Stop inducing an existential crisis over your own dagger.

As for practice, yes literally every single religion places extreme importance on the lived experience of the religion, if you were to lifelessly believe without a living relationship with Christ, no denomination of Christianity would seriously consider you a Christian, similarly, no yogi would consider you a yogi if you did not perform yoga and I don’t just mean postures.

As for the west being rationalism and East lived experience, nah this is a false conception, within every tradition within the east AND the west, you have those within the same schools who argue for fixation on rationality and contemplation, and those who fixate into an apophatic truth and a-conceptual experience.


As for Buddhism’s metaphysics being solid, if you want solid, the metaphysics of Christianity are about as complex and baroque and logical as possible. Again, the thought of Hegel, boehme, the continental tradition as a whole and so forth really isn’t separate to broader Christian thought.

The most complex buddhist traditions I would argue never reach the solidity and intellectual nature of abhinavagupta, to the point that the tantrik Buddhists agree and just accept tantric doctrines wholesale.

There are only a handful however of traditions which would argue against practice and just pure theory, Plotinus for example would argue for that in his Neoplatonism, but not all Neoplatonists would agree, Iamblichus would be incredibly opposed for example.

As for how do I claim which is superior? I myself have used the method of science, I have tested all of the methodologies many times, comparing and contrasting the induction of various mystical states and methods. Removing the fat and keeping the best. Usually it’s a question of faith, but all of these traditions are experiential if you go beyond the normie appealing aspects, if you go to Asia, the normie form of Buddhism which is basically just pure land, is no more experiential or intellectual than generic pseudo western (“oh I was raised Christian “ ) false Christianity

>>17623436
What about Buddhism "repulses" you "viscerally", OP? You should consider the possibility that passionate attachment is rebelling against your rational mind here. Just because something is instinctive does not mean it is correct, although it should still be given consideration.

>>17633834
>if you want solid, the metaphysics of Christianity are about as complex and baroque and logical
I was also talking in terms of breadth, which is to say, I'm not sure how Christianity or other logical theologies tackle competing metaphysics, but Buddhism does so not by dismissal but integration. What I mean by that is that instead of an outright refutation of opposing views, it tends to integrate views into its own system, simply explaining how said views are incomplete. I perceive this as superior to simple refutation: the former implies genuine superiority, the latter is just competition.
>I have tested all of the methodologies many times
And you say that Christianity is superior in all regards, even if it lacks the breadth I just mentioned?
What is it specifically about the mystical states in Christianity that you find more truthful, authentic, or closer to divinity than what other religions and philosophies offer?
>Removing the fat and keeping the best.
Do you subscribe to a particular denomination of Christianity? Do you integrate other (non-Christian) practices into your own?
>>17633999
>What about Buddhism "repulses" you "viscerally"
Pretty much everything about the core philosophy and metaphysics.

>>17634075
>Pretty much everything about the core philosophy and metaphysics.
That doesn't help at all. If this is how you truly feel, then just practice meditation without a care in the world and ignore everything else. You'll be a great Buddhist then.

>>17623436
This is only for Novice Monks, and it’s still super advance.

>>17634087
>That doesn't help
I mean all the basic ideas that are part of the core Buddhist doctrine. I think I mentioned them already, but from the top of my head:
>the four noble truths and the assumption that they are the most important truths about reality
>the metaphysics of samsara and dependent origination
>the rejection of an absolute creative principle or God
>the rejection of an individual and unchanging soul
>the assumption that everything in life being impermanent, nothing in life is worth it except for the pursuit of liberation
>the more general assumption that anything (from other religions) pertaining to God is actually an imperfect realization
>the neither materialist nor idealist worldview emptiness implies
There are more but these are the most important ones. I didn't list them to be addressed individually, just to express how I basically dislike everything in the doctrine.

>>17634131
Isn't this basically a manual for monastic life?

>>17633747
>a beginning-less universe
Buddhists say that samsara is beginningless but the issue is that the Buddhist explanation of Pratītyasamutpāda cannot account for the existence of anything, because each aggregate or link of the chain of Pratītyasamutpāda only leads to the production of the next aggregate, but there is nothing in the Buddhist doctrine which permits any of the aggregates to exist at all, much less give rise to one another, and unless there is this thing permitting them to exist, they wouldn't exist and give rise to one another. One possible solution is to make the chain or its parts eternal and uncaused entities, but this would violate one of the main tenets of Buddhism that there are no independently existing things but that instead all things arise on and are co-dependent on other things.

>>17634075
Oh dude, you’re simply wrong. Look at agrippa, look at how the medievals treated and integrated Platonism and the mythology of antiquity. There is also much work done in Hindu tantra with Christianity. Hermetic Christianity is THE synthesizer globally.

It’s superior in all regards in my opinion and lacks no breadth.

As for what about them, I can induce all of the jhanas through the Christian mystical methods, and I can also do more so. And the extreme states are more powerful and while you are free to disbelieve me, in my interaction in spirit evocation and real world manifestations of these things, it is Christianity which has always been king. In Christianity I see all of the practices and more and by its nature it can integrate all of the others. (Literally what we did with Platonism and local mystery cults) one of the largest intellectual traditions and it easily integrates both continental and analytical philosophy.

As for my denomination, I consider myself a protestant, a Pentecostal and an esotericist/Rosicrucian.

Just as st Justin martyr and the early church integrated Platonism and would even seek initiation into Pythagoreanism, so also have I been initiated into tantric Hinduism, Vajrayana, Taoism, the OTO/thelema, western ceremonial magic and various other strands. From Tachikawa to Yoruba to everything in between I have studied, practiced, removed the gold from and in all things. It is still Christianity that I see as King and superior in all regards. And not some gnostic Christianity, no, I literally believe every word of the gospel in accordance with the Pardes exegesis method.

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

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


So all in all, to me, Christianity is the best.

>>17634176
>Oh dude, you’re simply wrong
I'm glad to hear that and I'd like to read more about this specifically. When you say the greatest "synthesizer" is Hermetic Christianity, do you mean mystical Christianity in general or a specific strand of it? I thought the Church sought to eliminate its esoteric components as time went by.

>I can induce all of the jhanas through the Christian mystical methods, and I can also do more so
How do you even conceptually go beyond the fourth formless jhana? Shouldn't that simply be Nirvana as per Buddhist terminology? Is it even something you can describe?
>by its nature it can integrate all of the others
How are foreign metaphysics integrated? For example, what would you consider to be an explanation of the diverse dharmic cosmology in Christian terms? Merely lies/illusions, or something more?
If I understand correctly you're saying Christianity is capable of integrating everything into itself both metaphysically and experientially, in a way no other tradition can replicate.

>I consider myself a protestant, a Pentecostal and an esotericist/Rosicrucian.
Do you think Catholicism and Orthodoxy are wrong, or at least partially so?
>removed the gold from and in all things.
Would you say your search was worth it, or would it have been the same if you had stuck with Christianity all along, and not experimented with other things?
>Pardes exegesis method.
Interesting, it is feasible to apply this to a first read of the New Testament or should the first read just be literal and unconcerned with in-depth interpretation?

>>17634292
>the fourth formless jhana? Shouldn't that simply be Nirvana
Sorry I made a mistake here, there are four jhanas, four formless states above those jhanas, and then a ninth state that isn't Nirvana yet but is above all eight jhanas if I'm not mistaken.

>>17634140
>the four noble truths and the assumption that they are the most important truths about reality
The only one of those I'd find objectionable would be dukkha and only if it is presented in a hysterical, emotional way. I would not say that life is suffering and pain, but it is certainly without true satisfaction. I do not know why you take issue with this point.
>the metaphysics of samsara and dependent origination
When you said you feel viscerally repulsed, did you have any articulation as to why? Because again I can't think of anything here. At least as far as personal life is concerned, this seems very solid.
>the rejection of an absolute creative principle or God
This rejection occurs in the context of pursuing Nirvana, since all this is considered extraneous until you have attained it. What truths may be revealed later is another story. Buddhism is a doctrine aiming at a specific goal for a specific practitioner, not a metaphysical system.
>the rejection of an individual and unchanging soul
I had a lot of trouble with this one too, Coomaraswamy may hold the answer to this issue for you. I think the issue is that the human soul is intermixed with biological and mental processes that pollute its character. In my eyes, Nirvana unravels and purifies that mixture. This is just my own interpretation, though.
>the assumption that everything in life being impermanent, nothing in life is worth it except for the pursuit of liberation
A sound point, although a brief look into history will reveal that things are not that clear cut. The aim should be the realisation of Nirvana, but the doctrine of impermanence does not presuppose inability to act. Zen was very popular with Samurai, for example.
>the more general assumption that anything (from other religions) pertaining to God is actually an imperfect realization
This is true for theism, but it depends on what "God" means here. In the Gita it is also mentioned that knowledge of the Unconditioned is superior even to knowing everything through the metaphysical god (something already on a higher level than normal theism).
>the neither materialist nor idealist worldview emptiness implies
I suppose Buddhism is a bit dualistic in regard to Samsara and Nirvana, but that's what makes it possible to energetically work towards enlightenment. After the attainment of Nirvana, syntheses with Samsara are possible too.
>There are more but these are the most important ones. I didn't list them to be addressed individually, just to express how I basically dislike everything in the doctrine.
I only read this now lol. Well, it's not like I would have replied any other way, anyway. The only good response would be one tailored to you specifically.
Some of the guys here also suggested Evola (who is based) although he might not be the most applicable to your situation, I wouldn't know. He wrote a book on Buddhism too.

>>17634292
>I'm glad to hear that and I'd like to read more about this specifically. When you say the greatest "synthesizer" is Hermetic Christianity, do you mean mystical Christianity in general or a specific strand of it? I thought the Church sought to eliminate its esoteric components as time went by.

Nah historical Christianity always synthesized whether within the church or without.

> How do you even conceptually go beyond the fourth formless jhana? Shouldn't that simply be Nirvana as per Buddhist terminology? Is it even something you can describe?

Nirvana is the annihilation of the aggregates, you’re assuming the Buddhist ontology and model is correct by the act of asking the question. The tantrik would surely say that nirvana and samsara are surely both below Anuttara and the shingon practitioner as would the Vajrayana practitioner would say that cleaving to either is again a flaw as the supreme monarch is both nirvana and samsara, and for this reason they perform rites to beckon back the arahants as they haven’t completed their effort.

As for if I could describe it, of course I could but it’ll sound like a ton of schizo rants and would require reading my own theories and schemas and personal mystical visions. Which I’m not against posting, but you will not really benefit from it.

> How are foreign metaphysics integrated? For example, what would you consider to be an explanation of the diverse dharmic cosmology in Christian terms? Merely lies/illusions, or something more?

Depends on the Christian mystic in question, John Dupuche is not me for example. Christian mystics will integrate these things differently, just as Buddhism ranges from treating Hindu deities as evil demons to be bound and cursed (peacock sutras/tantras) or as deities/Buddhas to be worshipped. Depends on the school, tradition and particular mystic. None of these things are as monolithic nor are the practitioners equal in quality or thought.

> Do you think Catholicism and Orthodoxy are wrong, or at least partially so?

As a Protestant I of course belief my belief is more correct and the truth. Kek.

> Would you say your search was worth it, or would it have been the same if you had stuck with Christianity all along, and not experimented with other things?


It wouldn’t have changed my soteriological position or love of God. God is Knowledge and my study is gaining of knowledge as an act of devotion to Godhead. It is not something I needed to have done nor must I do it. It is a question of devotion, I have never, not even once in my life felt any existential crisis or urging.

> Interesting, it is feasible to apply this to a first read of the New Testament or should the first read just be literal and unconcerned with in-depth interpretation?

Even the act of study must be done mystically, you must pray and ideally apply lectio divina, the layers of the Bible revealing themselves to you in accordance with your capacity.

>>17634334
>it is certainly without true satisfaction
Yeah but it's possible to admit this yet not seek to eliminate pain anyway. And other philosophies have other answers to this search of true satisfaction.
>why?
Rebirth is a displeasing prospect and the infinite loop of dependent origination is something I find much less inspiring than creation.
>extraneous
No I'm pretty sure the Buddha denies the existence of a creator God and says Brahma is ignorant.
Buddhism is a doctrine, but it negates everything that doesn't explicitly help to realize its goal. As such, it makes metaphysical claims that support its goal.
>Coomaraswamy
I don't think the traditionalists can be taken as authoritative when it comes to Buddhist doctrine; while their interpretations might be interesting, they don't correspond to what the majority of Buddhists believe, including the scholars.
Either way, the way anatta is phrased and analyzed in the discourses indicate that even if there is a "soul" in Buddhism, it corresponds to nothing I currently identify as myself, since it neither includes my consciousness, nor my perceptions, nor my imagination, nor my ego, etc.
>things are not that clear cut.
Usually that seems to be a consequence of syncretism and a more lenient interpretation of the doctrine to fit the masses. It only seems logical for a Buddhist to want to work towards Nirvana, and only Nirvana.
>depends on what "God" means
Well unless we take Nirvana to be God, but at that point things get murky, and I don't think it would be accurate. Nirvana is not analogous to Brahma, or to a neoplatonic One, or anything else.
> The only good response would be one tailo red to you specifically.
Thanks for trying to help anon.

>>17634392
>you’re assuming the Buddhist ontology and model is correct
Should the four jhanas -> formless jhanas -> ninth jhana -> Nirvana process therefore not be seen as a monolith by which all mystical experiences pass through, but rather one branch out of many possible paths for spiritual development? This makes sense.
>Christian mystics will integrate these things differently
The exoteric, mainstream position is to consider these things as demonic or straying from the path, no?
Do you think people are wrong to see Christianity as an easy path where salvation is guaranteed to the believer?
>I of course belief my belief is more correct and the truth.
What I meant was more, do you think Catholics and Orthodox are not saved?
> the layers of the Bible revealing themselves to you in accordance with your capacity.
Is there an end to the revelations they yield as one progresses in his understanding?

>>17634394
>Yeah but it's possible to admit this yet not seek to eliminate pain anyway. And other philosophies have other answers to this search of true satisfaction.
The first would be just being lazy (which is also ultimately unsatisfying) and the second would be just a cope from the Buddhist perspective, since if you accept the world is unsatisfactory how are you going to find satisfactory solution to that problem within the world?
>Rebirth is a displeasing prospect and the infinite loop of dependent origination is something I find much less inspiring than creation.
This is another unorthodox view I hold, but IMO rebirth is not a thing. Certainly something arises and disappears and arises again, but it is not you, the living, breathing, thinking person who is alive right now. Once you are dead, you will be gone and whatever "reincarnates" will not be you in any meaningful sense of the word.
>No I'm pretty sure the Buddha denies the existence of a creator God and says Brahma is ignorant.
Compared to the Buddha, yes. I am also not aware of any clash between Buddhism and the idea of major divinities, it's just that Buddhists have no interest in them.
>Buddhism is a doctrine, but it negates everything that doesn't explicitly help to realize its goal. As such, it makes metaphysical claims that support its goal.
I would necessarily draw that conclusion. There was one parable the Buddha told about the nature of the universe and the "poisoned arrow", look it up, you might find it interesting.
>I don't think the traditionalists can be taken as authoritative when it comes to Buddhist doctrine; while their interpretations might be interesting, they don't correspond to what the majority of Buddhists believe, including the scholars.
In that case at least a third of /lit/ Buddhaposters would be disqualified too, myself included.
>Usually that seems to be a consequence of syncretism and a more lenient interpretation of the doctrine to fit the masses. It only seems logical for a Buddhist to want to work towards Nirvana, and only Nirvana.
That would be a noble thing to do, certainly, but there are the bhikkus and then there are laymen. Nothing stops you from pursuing the doctrine or practising ascesis as a layman.
>Well unless we take Nirvana to be God, but at that point things get murky, and I don't think it would be accurate. Nirvana is not analogous to Brahma, or to a neoplatonic One, or anything else.
I believe that Nirvana is analogous to several different qualifications in other traditions, but certainly the process of arriving at it is comparatively unique.

>>17623643
>sentience is unborn and undecaying and continues on forever

that's just as illogical, you'll never found a coherent argument explaining transcendental ideas beyond space and time

>>17634522
>correct
>Should the four jhanas -> formless jhanas -> ninth jhana -> Nirvana process therefore not be seen as a monolith by which all mystical experiences pass through, but rather one branch out of many possible paths for spiritual development? This makes sense.

Yep, it’s just a particular model and not all spiritual paths seek the same ends and desires. All of the traditions do not seek the same end and the one model you’re aware of is by no means the most systematic, not even within Buddhism.

> The exoteric, mainstream position is to consider these things as demonic or straying from the path, no?

The normative opinion of every religion is that the other religions are logically inferior and thus are subject to lead one astray. Same with the Asian religions.

>Do you think people are wrong to see Christianity as an easy path where salvation is guaranteed to the believer?

Not at all, but salvation is guaranteed not by simplistic belief but by a living relationship with Christ, this is both the great ease and the difficulty of it. This would also be argued by a lions share of the world religions as the key, a living spiritual relationship with the deity and forces in question.

> What I meant was more, do you think Catholics and Orthodox are not saved?

Salvation is entirely dependent upon relationship with Christ, if the person has a living relationship with Christ, who am I to say if they have salvation or not. However a relationship with Christ requires obedience and correction of the thought and belief, but in certain circumstances this is not possible. If they have a relationship (and I don’t mean pray and believe ) then they have salvation.

> Is there an end to the revelations they yield as one progresses in his understanding?

It is endless knowledge and the revelations will continuously produce greater and greater fruits, and we shall continue in eternal progression of knowledge, even in eternity. This is my firm belief.

>>17634532
>The first would be just being lazy
Taoists seem to hold a similar view but I wouldn't call it laziness. You can acknowledge that there is pain in life but not seek to end it because you think it's worth it.
>how are you going to find satisfactory solution to that problem within the world?
There are other religions than Buddhism.
>Once you are dead, you will be gone
Then there is no reason to follow Buddhism, since the opportunity cost of attempting to end my suffering in this life is much more tedious than simply letting it be (especially since I live a comfortable life in a first-world country).
>Compared to the Buddha, yes.
That's the point. It's not a true omniscient, omnipotent, ultimately transcendent creator God if someone can just come up to him and tell him he's ignorant.
>the "poisoned arrow"
I'm familiar with it, but that assumes that the goal of ending suffering is the most noble one. I understand the logic (if I disagreed entirely I wouldn't have made this thread) but I want to understand, not be told "this isn't important, don't worry about it".
>a third of /lit/ Buddhaposters
They're a heterogeneous bunch, you've got the Pali literalists, the traditionalists, that one Pure Land guy...
>Nothing stops you from pursuing the doctrine or practising ascesis as a layman.
Yeah but it's half-assing it. Why be a Buddhist at all if you're going to do that? And it doesn't address the deeper issues about the disagreements I have with the doctrine itself, anyway.

>>17634564
>that's just as illogical
No it's not

The contradiction in the Buddhist position (among others) is that they deny it's an annihilation but can't explain why. The Hindu position does not have this contradiction because sentience isn't annihilated, so no, it's not "just as illogical"

>>17623436
this is the real question: are you interested in start a spiritual practice or you want to keep reading and developing a purely theoretical approach to spirituality?
if you want to began a spiritual practice do you want to do it in a group or by yourself?

this question will provide you the fundamentals of your criteria for your next step

>>17634626
>sentience isn't annihilated
sentience as we know it cannot exist outside space and time, just saying it does is completely illogical, is an oxymoron, something born in space and time doesn't need space and time

>>17634626
>they deny it's an annihilation
nibbana mean annihilation

>>17634585
>it's just a particular model
Is there a similar progression in Christianity? Is mystical experience (henosis?) more vague, less progressive?
>a living relationship with Christ,
Do you simply "become aware" of such a relationship, like it's beyond any shadow of a doubt and that's when you know?
>we shall continue in eternal progression of knowledge, even in eternity.
So there is no end goal, just eternally attempting to grasp God's plan? I'm not framing it in a very appealing light but I do find it an interesting possibility.

>>17634594
>Taoists seem to hold a similar view but I wouldn't call it laziness. You can acknowledge that there is pain in life but not seek to end it because you think it's worth it.
I think the Taoist and Buddhist doctrines are very similar in this regard, actually. Here the equivalent would be referring to the Buddhist doctrine of detachment - you abandon both attachment and aversion, since both bind a person to samsara. Dukkha refers to Impermanence in practice, basically. You are not supposed to pursue the abolition of dukkha because of an aversion to pain. At least, that's not optimal.
>There are other religions than Buddhism.
Ah, yes. Well, you've got freedom of choice.
>Then there is no reason to follow Buddhism, since the opportunity cost of attempting to end my suffering in this life is much more tedious than simply letting it be (especially since I live a comfortable life in a first-world country).
If you feel content to remain in a passive state of unending and unsatisfying desire, then yes, there is no reason to follow Buddhism. I feel similarly myself, but upon thinking about the problem more deeply it became clear to me that no matter how I choose to spend my time, it won't be any more worthwhile.
>That's the point. It's not a true omniscient, omnipotent, ultimately transcendent creator God if someone can just come up to him and tell him he's ignorant.
This type of theism is most prominent in the Abrahamic religions, if you are attached to that you might want to look for it in one of those.
>I'm familiar with it, but that assumes that the goal of ending suffering is the most noble one. I understand the logic (if I disagreed entirely I wouldn't have made this thread) but I want to understand, not be told "this isn't important, don't worry about it".
The issue is can we understand? The point of that parable is that human life is short. If you can attain spiritual enlightenment of some form in this life, then at the very least you will understand a lot more after your death if not in life. The problem is that even achieving that enlightenment is very difficult and distractions are plentiful, including religious speculation.
>Yeah but it's half-assing it. Why be a Buddhist at all if you're going to do that? And it doesn't address the deeper issues about the disagreements I have with the doctrine itself, anyway.
Various concerns could be at play. Material subsistence could be one of them. For my part, I believe I have a part to play in the world, so I am reluctant to join a monastery, although I have been warming up to the idea lately.

>>17634675
>Is there a similar progression in Christianity? Is mystical experience (henosis?) more vague, less progressive?
Depends on the model and system. Example many use the sephirothic schema which is itself a phenomenology system, someone like Saint Teresa is effectively doing the same thing as hekhalot and sephirothic stuff.

Bonaventure has a six fold model, other Christian mystics and philosophers have different schemas, and just as some forms of Buddhism, Hinduism and Taoism has less formulaic and more spontaneous models for spiritual development, so also does Christianity. Again none of these traditions are as monolithic as you would wish them to be.

> Do you simply "become aware" of such a relationship, like it's beyond any shadow of a doubt and that's when you know?

Yes but you also get proofs such as literal communication, knowledge, inexplicable events and other such. It’s a question of devotion and listening, discussion and so forth between you and god and must be cultivated.

> So there is no end goal, just eternally attempting to grasp God's plan? I'm not framing it in a very appealing light but I do find it an interesting possibility.

Again, you’re applying your preferred existential and ontological framework and not approaching the systems in and of themselves. The question isn’t God’s plan, the question Is God’s being, his nature, who he is. You will continuously unfold in knowledge of Him. That is the point of knowledge, he who is truth and knowledge, the supreme Godhead unfolding and entering into perichoresis with this, your ego with that of the triune godhead. No religion will allow you to truly come in, guns blazing, and apply your own personal desires for what the religion ought be and what aims should be done. Religions are different from each other and even within themselves have many differing schools and nuances. You need to study and practice. No ifs or ands or buts about it.

>>17634751
>many use the sephirothic schema
I thought that was just a jewish thing, is Dion Fortune's book on Qabalah applicable to the Christian method?
>you’re applying your preferred existential and ontological framework
kek I'm not aware of actually doing this so it's honestly not intentional. Sorry if I'm being obnoxious or something.

>>17634641
>sentience as we know it cannot exist outside space and time
That's incorrect, we perceive space and time through sentience, but we don't perceive or notice sentience as existing inside space and time for the very reason that sentience is never the object of itself (the subject cannot be its own object), and so nobody has ever "seen" sentience as existing *in* time or *in* space, rather, time and space are perceived or intuited as existing in sentience, through sentience. Outside of us apprehending them as things *inside* sentience (and not vice-versa), we have no proof that either space or time even exists.
> something born in space and time doesn't need space and time
They consider sentience to be unborn and eternal and just associated as it were with different bodies, so that objection would not be considered valid. And saying "because of muh science we know that sentience arises when a baby is conceived" is not valid either because science has never been able to directly measure sentience or consciousness but only changes in brain states which scientists believe to have some relation to consciousness. Arguments which presuppose materialism to be true fail as arguments.

So, the Buddhist position is still inherently more illogical.

>>17634657
In the Pali Canon Buddha says that annihilationism (ucchedavaada) is a heresy or wrong interpretation of his teachings, but simultaneously many Buddhists say that we are composed of transient aggregates which end and don't continue in Parinirvana, so everything which makes us up is in fact annihilated according to this interpretation. The two positions are contradictory.

>>17634148
That too.

>>17634678
>you abandon both attachment and aversion
I can agree with this depending on their intensity. It's more a matter of balance and degree than of the concept itself being flawed. For a middle way, I find Buddhism to be quite extreme, but I understand why this is so.
>If you feel content to remain in a passive state of unending and unsatisfying desire
You're putting it in a bleak way, but there's more to life than this, and the alternative is what? Stressing myself out in order to try to eliminate all desire before dying? I'm exaggerating it but I don't see the appeal in that kind of existence. Maybe if Nirvana was actually attainable, but let's not kid ourselves.
>no matter how I choose to spend my time, it won't be any more worthwhile.
Maybe, but you can leave it at that. Especially if you don't believe in rebirth.
>you will understand a lot more after your death
That is assuming "I" continue after death, which is most likely not the case under the Buddhist system.
>I have been warming up to the idea lately.
There was a point where I actually considered that idea too and I think that's what started to make me doubt Buddhism.
If you're a Buddhist, the part you have to play in the world couldn't be more important than monasticism anyway, so it's the most noble choice in any case.

>>17634176
Do you think gnostics are damned?

>>17634841
>I thought that was just a jewish thing, is Dion Fortune's book on Qabalah applicable to the Christian method?

It’s not solely Jewish, there’s a large history of Christian usage of Kabbalah. Dion fortune’s a pretty garbage source though. You’re better off with Rosicrucianism in general. Read boehme beginning with his Clavis. Or go directly to Jewish sources.

>
...Anonymous
02/24/21(Wed)13:39:58 No.17634841
>>17634751 (You) #
>many use the sephirothic schema
I thought that was just a jewish thing, is Dion Fortune's book on Qabalah applicable to the Christian method?
>you’re applying your preferred existential and ontological framework
kek I'm not aware of actually doing this so it's honestly not intentional. Sorry if I'm being obnoxious or something

Oh anon I’m not offended, it just comes across like you studied mostly a particular bit of Buddhism and think that all had to obey that ontology, Buddhism itself isn’t even that unified on metaphysics. Look no further than buddhist on buddhist debates on anatta, sunyata, nirvana and the nature of samsara.

I’m saying, study and practice, don’t just assume the one tradition you scratched deeper into is the only one.

>>17634992
I am incredibly against Gnosticism. I elaborate on my complaints here.

>>/lit/thread/S17620282

>>17635072
>Rosicrucianism
There are a bunch of sub-groups, initiatic orders, Christian and masonic orders, when you say Rosicrucianism do you mean all of it?
>you studied mostly a particular bit of Buddhism and think that all had to obey that ontology
I looked into Theravada and Mahayana, I'm aware of some differences in interpretations but I think all sects (except maybe some very fringe ones like Shingon, and even then) share the same basic views on what existence is about. Some might say you need to reach Nirvana, others might say you need to become a bodhisattva, what I'm saying is that beneath those concepts, the worldview is essentially the same, the concepts themselves are merely extensions of that worldview in various different directions, but that all stem from the same basic assumptions.

>>17624751
>Buddhism refutes Platonism
How does Buddhism "refute" anything, it just claims its system is the right one to get out of suffering. Isn't Platonism a completely different beast altogether? Explain.

>>17635078
One of the only good tripfags. I dislike gnosticism too, but I do feel there are aspects of it that are useful, but nothing that would not be found better in other traditions

>>17634890
>You're putting it in a bleak way, but there's more to life than this, and the alternative is what? Stressing myself out in order to try to eliminate all desire before dying? I'm exaggerating it but I don't see the appeal in that kind of existence. Maybe if Nirvana was actually attainable, but let's not kid ourselves.
If there is more to life than this, I have not found it. Even when I bring my desires to satisfaction, that satisfaction lasts no more than ten seconds and only strengthens the sense of ennui for me. This made it clear to me that there is no "benefit" to living some other way instead of what I perceive to be the right way. As to what that way is, it certainly does not involve "stressing". You do what you can and you trust in yourself. Anything else is pointless. As to the attainability of Nirvana, I am reminded of another parable involving two young students and their master. Upon being asked how many times they need to do their meditations before they attain Nirvana, the master responds that they need to meditate as many times as there are leaves in the forest. One student storms off furious, the other breaks down in tears, embraces his master and exclaims "So it is possible, after all!"
>Maybe, but you can leave it at that. Especially if you don't believe in rebirth.
I suppose it comes down to what value you can see in this one life, then. All of the "higher pleasures" that would have been available to people in the past are barred for me today and the petty pleasures (vidya, browsing, consumerism etc) are profoundly unsatisfying. All that is left is to live virtuously, nothing else comes close.
>That is assuming "I" continue after death, which is most likely not the case under the Buddhist system.
There is no "I" because Buddhism aims to surpass the human condition. You will no longer be a person to the extent that you will no longer be human.
>There was a point where I actually considered that idea too and I think that's what started to make me doubt Buddhism.
For me it's the opposite, the more I feel that there is little of worth in profane life, the closer I come to considering monastic life.
>If you're a Buddhist, the part you have to play in the world couldn't be more important than monasticism anyway, so it's the most noble choice in any case.
My ideas are a bit personal here, so I don't know if I'd agree. Certainly, monastic life is the most noble, but I can't help feeling that there is a reason why I was born in this age, rather than in medieval India.

>>17635169
>pic
That video was quite interesting though I'm still not sure what to make of it.

>>17635174
Video? I was aware the pic was from a video, I picked it up from /x/

>>17635192
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2lDzuTn-Zw

>>17634852
>but we don't perceive or notice sentience as existing inside space and time
>>17634852
yes we do, sentience IS space and time
>>17634852
>(the subject cannot be its own object),
german idealist proved that statement to be untrue

>>17635192
*wasnt

>>17635194
Thanks anon

>>17635173
>If there is more to life than this, I have not found it.
Many philosophies have different things to say about this. Many religions would say contemplation of the divine. The point being that saying that because things are transient, then nothing is worth pursuing, is reductionist. Of course it makes sense in Buddhism because there is nothing to strive towards except Nirvana, but that is if you accept Buddhism as truth in the first place. I think this is the problem I face, I struggle to "get out" of the Buddhist mindset, but I understand on an intellectual level that there's no need to take Buddhist ontology/metaphysics as true in the first place.
>what I perceive to be the right way
Well, I agree, but again, that this means Buddhism to you is a personal choice.
>All that is left is to live virtuously
Yes.
Personally although I've always felt a sense of innate insatisfaction that is present in all human beings, I can't say I'm in a permanent state of ennui, or that I suffer particularly. On the contrary I was constantly hopeful before getting into Buddhism, which then made me focus on suffering instead, and now that I'm writing down these thoughts I realize this might be another reason why I grew disillusioned with Buddhism. I already had a sense of meaning beforehand, but when taking up Buddhism, I sought to replace it, which I now think was a wrong choice.
>You will no longer be a person
I mean, that's getting into the phenomenology of Nirvana and Parinirvana and it's probably not worth debating, honestly. Even monks don't agree.
> the more I feel that there is little of worth in profane life, the closer I come to considering monastic life.
Understandable. If joining a sangha is what feels right, and more importantly what feels like the only possible choice, then by all means do it.
>there is a reason why I was born in this age
In the Buddhist view I think it'd just be a result of karma, and karma is inscrutable/leads to madness if examined.

>>17635200
>sentience IS space and time
In what way? They have different meanings in any dictionary that one looks at
> german idealist proved that statement to be untrue
I consider this claim to be unfounded, if you care enough to say this you might as well say how

>>17635147
It's actually the opposite, the world of ideal Forms contradicts anicca though I wouldn't say it refutes it because that's a stupid term
On that subject has anyone ever bothered comparing platonism and buddhism?

>>17635121
>There are a bunch of sub-groups, initiatic orders, Christian and masonic orders, when you say Rosicrucianism do you mean all of it?

I mean none of these. I am talking about the mystical literature which is chiefly rooted in John Dee’s mysticism, a synthesis of hermetic and Christian thought, often using the Rose cross as their emblem but not always and chief among them for theology you should study would be boehme. The AMORC has no value whatsoever, focus on the reading and practice Anon.

>worldview is essentially the same

Nah, in Vajrayana and Mahayana you have debates over Rangtong and shentong systems, meaning, is Sunyata really literally void/emptiness or is it a kind of Nondual universality, you have vast arguments over what is Buddha nature even within particular strands, you have Theravada (but not folk or tantric Theravada) disagreeing with all of the cultic and worship aspects of the rest of Buddhism, you have pure land Buddhism which is basically just a worship system.

And even the question of is life suffering, Vajrayana and Dzogchen sees the true nature of samsara as infinite bliss and pleasure and has rites which reflect this.

And the need for the bodhisattva is not some accidental non essential aspect, it goes straight to the heart of the doctrine of Pratītyasamutpāda.

It’s easier to brush aside the differences because, to be blunt, you aren’t within the traditions. You’re looking at them from the outside as a monolithic singular tradition that just expresses different aspects of one belief. It simply is not the case if we examine the diversity.

>>17635319
>The AMORC has no value whatsoever,
Yeah I used to know a scottish rite who had experience with other initiatic orders and told me it was mostly useless and didn't give you anything you couldn't get on your own.
>Vajrayana and Dzogchen sees the true nature of samsara as infinite bliss and pleasure
Then why seek enlightenment?
Anyway, I get what you're saying. I have a general idea of the tradition so I tie everything back to that idea instead of really examining things on their own, and overlook important differences because of this. But even knowing that, I'm not really interested in further study of Buddhism. Maybe I should get a cursory glance over Vajrayana, but since I don't agree with sunyata (either rantong or shentong), there's not a lot of wiggle room.

>>17635242
>if you care enough to say this you might as well say how

you just say sentience is a eternal substance and didn't explained how, why should i explain german idealism to you, when you don't want to put on the work yourself?

>>17635422
>Then why seek enlightenment?

Depends, some for skillful means just to gain knowledge, others a very Hindu argument that it’s just a part to play, and there’s no difference between the initiate and the normie, just different roles for the time played, just because it’s the proper role in the play of life.

Point being, yeah you already see how much you’re smudging and since you’ve lost interest in Buddhism, it’s likely even worse that you’re still using it as a your frame of reference. I still suggest a grounding in proper philosophy, something like phenomenology. Get an ice cold place to analyze from.

All in all, I refer back to my original post, study the lit and practice those practices which seem most logical to yourself. There is nothing else to do, truly. Kek

>>17635426
>you just say sentience is a eternal substance
No, I didn’t. Consciousness or sentience is formless and a formless substance is an oxymoron. I wasn’t under the impression that there was some additional thing you wanted explained.

>>17635474
Yep definitely. For now I'm reading Plato and I'll follow with Sextus Empiricus as you advised, hopefully those two will be enough of a grounding to start analyzing things from a more reasonable/less emotionally driven place.
Have a nice day and thanks for the responses man

based brother anselm