/lit/ - Literature

>>19047142
shut up nigger and check these dubs

Threads should be about books
This goes on /his/, stop shitting up the board

>>19047173
>If you have any book recommandations, I

>>19047142
>If you have any book recommandations

>>19047173
>Threads should be about books

>>19047142
>If you have any book recommandations, I'm interested.

retard

>>19047185
>>19047191
Recommendation threads belong on /wsr/
/lit/ is for the discussion of books
Philosophy threads should pertain to a specific book/author
Stop shitting up the board, faggot

>>19047193
with this criterion 70% of the threads in the catalog disappear
go piss off someone else, you cocksucker
I have a literature question in the literature channel

>>19047200
>with this criterion 70% of the threads in the catalog disappear
Yes
>go piss off someone else
No, take your shitty thread and fuck off to /his/, faggot. Your question is about philosophy, not literature, it doesn't belong here. Cope and seethe about it

>>19047219
go piss off someone else on another thread you braindead whore

>>19047142
You might be interested in this

>>19047231
Seethe harder brainlet, your thread is garbage and you suck

>>19047142
This is an interesting thread, I'm interested in Advaita Vedanta's descriptions of the Absolute. Where does Guénon talk about this?

>>19047249
you're the only one seethe here, it's going to stay there, now dilate tranny

>>19047240
from what I understand it does not really answer my questions

>>19047258
>it's going to stay there,
of course it is, because many jannies are christlarpers who don't do the job they're not paid to do
Doesn't change anything to the fact that you're a retard and made a retarded off topic thread, brainlet
Keep coping

This is the Romanian Traditionalist Michel Valsan’s series of letters to a Catholic translator of Dante in which Valsan argues for the doctrine of the multiple states of the being in Christianity.

https://www.gornahoor.net/library/Doctrine_Multiple_States_Being_Christianity.pdf

You might also find ‘Theology after Advaita’ by Francis Clooney to be highly relevant to your interest.

>>19047266
>fuuuuuu I seeeeeethe
Dilate

>>19047256
I translate from french:

>This being so, if we define Being, in the universal sense, as the principle of manifestation, and at the same time as including, by the same token, all the possibilities of manifestation, we must say that Being is not infinite, since it does not coincide with Total Possibility; and this all the more so since Being, as the principle of manifestation, does indeed include all the possibilities of manifestation, but only in so far as they are manifested. Outside of Being, therefore, there is everything else, that is, all the possibilities of non-manifestation, together with the possibilities of manifestation themselves in so far as they are in the unmanifested state; and Being itself is included in this, for, since it cannot belong to manifestation, since it is its principle, it is itself unmanifested. To designate what is thus outside and beyond Being, we are obliged, for want of any other term, to call it Non-Being; And this negative expression, which for us is in no way synonymous with "nothingness" as it appears to be in the language of certain philosophers, besides being directly inspired by the terminology of Far Eastern metaphysical doctrine, is sufficiently justified by the necessity of using some kind of denomination in order to be able to speak of it, combined with the remark, already made by us above, that the most universal ideas, being the most indeterminate, can only be expressed, insofar as they are expressible, by terms which are indeed of negative form, as we have seen with regard to the Infinite. It may also be said that Non-Being, in the sense we have just indicated, is more than Being, or, if you like, that it is superior to Being, if by this we mean that what it comprises is beyond the extension of Being, and that it contains in principle Being itself. However, when we oppose Non-Being to Being, or even simply distinguish them, it is because neither is infinite, since, from this point of view, they limit each other in some way; infinity belongs only to the whole of Being and Non-Being, since this whole is identical with universal Possibility.

>We can express it again in this way: Universal Possibility necessarily contains the totality of possibilities, and we can say that Being and Non-Being are its two aspects: Being, in so far as it manifests the possibilities (or more exactly some of them); Non-Being, in so far as it does not manifest them. Being thus contains all the manifested; Non-Being contains all the unmanifested, including Being itself; but universal Possibility includes both Being and Non-Being. Let us add that the unmanifested includes what we can call the unmanifestable, i.e., the possibilities of non-manifestation, and the manifestable, i.e., the possibilities of manifestation in so far as they are not manifested, manifestation obviously including only the whole of these same possibilities in so far as they are manifested. (1/2)

>>19047256
>>19047302
>René Guénon, The Multiple States of Being, chap. III: Being and Non-Being

>Is the supreme, total and universal Principle, which the religious doctrines of the West call "God", to be conceived as impersonal or as personal? This question can give rise to endless discussions, which are, moreover, pointless, because it is based on partial and incomplete conceptions, which it would be futile to try to reconcile without rising above the special theological and philosophical domain which is properly theirs. From the metaphysical point of view, it must be said that this Principle is both impersonal and personal, depending on the aspect under which it is considered: impersonal or, if you like, "supra-personal" in itself; personal in relation to the universal manifestation, but, of course, without this "divine personality" having the slightest anthropomorphic character, for we must be careful not to confuse "personality" with "individuality". The fundamental distinction which we have just formulated, and by which the apparent contradictions of the secondary and multiple points of view are resolved into the unity of a superior synthesis, is expressed by Far Eastern metaphysics as the distinction of "Non-Being" and "Being"; it is no less clear in Hindu doctrine, as is the essential identity of pure metaphysics under the diversity of forms in which it may be clothed.

>The impersonal Principle, therefore absolutely universal, is designated by Brahma; the "divine personality", which is a determination or specification of it, implying a lesser degree of universality, has as its most general appellation that of Ishwara. Brahma, in his Infinity, cannot be characterised by any positive attribution, which is expressed by saying that he is nirguna or "beyond all qualification", and again nirvishêsha or "beyond all distinction"; Ishwara, on the other hand, is said to be saguna or "qualified", or savishêsha or "distinctly conceived", because he can receive such attributions, which are obtained by an analogical transposition, into the universal, of the various qualities or properties of the beings of which he is the principle. It is evident that an indefinite number of "divine attributes" can be conceived in this way, and that, moreover, any quality having a positive existence could be transposed by considering it in its principle; (2/3)

>>19047302
Aie du sexe

>>19047256
>>19047302
>>19047308
moreover, each of these attributes must be considered in reality only as a basis or support for the meditation of a certain aspect of the universal Being. What we have said about symbolism shows how the misunderstanding that gives rise to anthropomorphism can result in "divine attributes" becoming "gods", i.e., entities conceived on the lines of individual beings and given an independent existence of their own. This is one of the most obvious cases of "idolatry", which takes the symbol for what is symbolised, and which here takes the form of "polytheism"; but it is clear that no doctrine was ever polytheistic in itself and in its essence, since it could only become so by a profound deformation, which is moreover much more rarely generalised than is commonly believed; In fact, we know of only one certain example of the generalisation of this error, that of Greco-Roman civilisation, and even then there were at least a few exceptions among its intellectual elite. In the East, where the tendency to anthropomorphism does not exist, apart from individual aberrations which are always possible, but rare and abnormal, nothing of the kind has ever occurred; this will no doubt surprise many Westerners, whose exclusive knowledge of classical antiquity leads them to want to discover "myths" and "paganism" everywhere, but it is nevertheless so. In India, in particular, a symbolic image representing one or other of the 'divine attributes', and which is called a pratîka, is not an 'idol', for it has never been taken for anything other than what it really is, a support for meditation and an auxiliary means of realisation, each person being able, moreover, to attach himself in preference to the symbols which are most in conformity with his personal dispositions.
>René Guénon, Introduction générale à l'étude des doctrines hindoues, chap.VII : Shivaism and Vishnuïsme (2/2)

>>19047258
>from what I understand it does not really answer my questions
no not really, but it does confront them at least

>>19047256
>>19047302
>>19047308
>>19047315
In short, the personal God is a demiurge, he is not the absolute because he is already determined and defined, whereas the absolute is the metaphysical infinite without any limit, therefore undetermined and including all possibilities

>>19047286
>This is the Romanian Traditionalist Michel Valsan’s
Is he not muslim??

>>19047142
You can read about Christian metaphysics and find out for yourself.
You can start out with a small book called Exact Exposition of Orthodox Faith by John of Damascus, its free online, gutenberg etc, and its cheap to print out if you want it, also its translated to most languages, ofc including English.

>>19047142
>unreality of persons and the world
Christ disproved it by showing His two distinct natures and reality of His person. The Advaitin does not have correct anthropology, he merges human hypostasis (created) with the divine nature (entirely ineffable) by confusing the human nous with the divine nature itself. They use meditation to peer deeper into what constitutes a human and see the nous, realizing that the body and the mind aren't primary or identified with the person's self, but mistake that for divinity itself since they do not know what divinity looks like in their ignorance of Christ, they don't have His life in them.
The Advaitin thinks that hypostasis (as particular nature) is an illusion, which is a false view as shown by Christ sharing the divine nature with His Father and the Holy Spirit, but them being really distinct.

> because that is already a form of determination
The Son is indeed determined in the sense of being the Son of the Father, but the divine nature is not determined. It is entirely ineffable, but Christ perfectly manifests it eternally.

>therefore contain all possibilities (and therefore also contain the world, while exceeding it, in a panentheistic manner)
Yes, that is what all the logoi contained in Christ (the Logos) implies.

Uhm yes, have you heard about HEGEL.
Whew!

>>19047142
Great thread anon.
I don't think you will find any meaningful refutation to non dualism because it's simply an extremely rational and well developed meatphysical doctrine. I see it as a more developed view of god and the world than that of exoteric Christianity.
Monotheism is theologically more solid than polytheistic paganism which is why it eventually overcame every european, middle eastern and north african religion with very few conversions in the other direction. At the same time, very few conversions took place in India if we take into account the insane effort of the Jesuits and other missionaries put out for more than 200 years, while non dualism and other forms of dharmic spirituality only grew in the west since the first translations started to come.
But even after realising all of that, no text has ever touched my soul like the Gospels and Jesus has provided me with solace and peace that no other religion could ever match.

>>19047391
When I read posts like these I can't help but come to a single conclusion every time
>who the fuck knows?
All this elaborate, sterile and lifeless arguing over concepts has completely turned me off religion in a way no fedora redditor ever could.

>>19047142
>but it enrages my heart,
What's with this melodramatic tone all the christlarpers who post here seem to have? You're really quaking with anger that someone else has a more coherent pitch about their religious beliefs? Your religion never had to debate Buddhists for a thousand years; it usually killed its opponents. So you're going to have a hard time catching up in a marketplace of ideas.

>>19047391
Very interesting, thanks.

>. The Advaitin does not have correct anthropology, he merges human hypostasis (created) with the divine nature (entirely ineffable) by confusing the human nous with the divine nature itself. They use meditation to peer deeper into what constitutes a human and see the nous, realizing that the body and the mind aren't primary or identified with the person's self
Can you elaborate on this? It is also my feeling that it is possible, that the vedantin reaches deep into his being to his primordial received esse, and then confuses his received esse with the divine Ipsum Esse by solipsism

The problem with this idea is
>but mistake that for divinity itself since they do not know what divinity looks like in their ignorance of Christ, they don't have His life in them.
How can we explain the striking similarities between the mystical states they reach and those described by the Christian saints? I quote from an article by Garrigou-Lagrange:

Moreover, as a missionary who is very familiar with these matters recently wrote to us, it is very easy, with the right choice - and is it not on choices of this kind that we base ourselves? - to group together a large number of descriptive texts of these mystics "from outside" who seem to express themselves, with a striking similarity of terms, like Saint John of the Cross on the essentials of the mystical life. And it will come down to this:

a) For all: the essence of contemplation is indeed the general, loving, confused, indistinct knowledge, "without forms or images" that the Doctor of Carmel teaches.

b) For all: the practical conduct to be held in contemplation is a kind of universal "nada", and consists in "abstracting the understanding from any particular notion" (Ascent of Mount Carmel, l. II, c. XII), and in "going about loving attention in God, without wanting to specify anything" (Vive Flamme, III, 3, § 6).

c) For all of them (and this is perhaps the most remarkable) the apogee and perfection of the mystical life exists when the soul, "transformed totally into its Beloved", has become "God by participation" (Cantique spirituel, XXII).

It seems, then, that all these souls, by whatever path they have progressed, with or without the help of the infallible doctrine and the sacraments of the visible Church, meet at the summit. Do they really come together?

(1/2)

> I'm thinking, for example, of its arguments about consciousness being one, our True Self and identical to God, or about the unreality of persons and the world, or that God cannot be personal because that is already a form of determination and that the Absolute can only be fully infinite and therefore contain all possibilities (and therefore also contain the world, while exceeding it, in a panentheistic manner), etc.

What a load of solipsistic nonsense. Stop smoking weed.

>>19047391
>>19047429
The question, we see, is most important:

If, as we admit, the same sanctifying grace is presupposed in these diverse souls, it so happens that, from the point of view set forth above, everything would seem to happen as if this grace (together with faith in the first two truths of the supernatural order that God, the author of salvation, that God, the author of salvation, exists and rewards good works, and with charity) was sufficient to reach even the highest degrees of supernatural union with God, without the need for explicit knowledge of the mystery of the redemptive Incarnation and for the reception of the sacraments. This explicit faith in the divine person of the Saviour, his examples, the sacraments, the teachings and directions of the Church would then seem to give the Catholic only a secondary, not to say accidental, help, a greater security, the essential being elsewhere and above[12].

End of quote.

>The Son is indeed determined in the sense of being the Son of the Father, but the divine nature is not determined. It is entirely ineffable, but Christ perfectly manifests it eternally.
This remains a form of determination affixed to the Absolute, which being simple and metaphysically infinite can know no limit, even logical or metaphysical, therefore no delimitation, no definition, no determination

In a person taken as a non-deterministic person, as a spirit endowed as a spirit with freedom of self-determination, there is an opportunity to see a certain unconditionality, "divinity", as if not requiring another God. He can recognize himself as related, even consubstantial with the First Being; decide on an act of self-adoration: return to your original being. I lived in this delusion in my youth under the influence of books on Indian mysticism and because of my meetings with people from those countries where this kind of mysticism has been cultivated for thousands of years. It is not at all easy to get out of this aberration: you can always face the question of your allegedly insufficient removal of everything that is in cosmic existence. In striving for perfection, it is necessary to overcome in us the principle of personality, as a temporary form of being, which introduces limitations into all our manifestations. In a word,

I could not avoid the question: who knows? who is self-determined? And another question: if I proceeded from the beginningless principle, then how could such a deep degradation of my being take place? Why now I so hard seek divorce from the flesh, to become again what I have always been and in the order of abstract mental vision - do not cease to be?

Meditations led to peace from being distracted by the worries of earthly life, - gave me hours of intellectual pleasure, - lifted me into imaginary spiritual realms, - put me above the environment around me. Philosophically, I could not think of the Absolute Beginning - personal. The reason for this was, in part, my adherence to the general delusion of those circles in which I moved: mixing the concept of a person with the concept of an individual, while philosophically they are diametrically opposed. As a child, I was taught to pray to the Immortal Heavenly Father, to whom all my grandfathers and great-grandfathers went. Then, in childish faith ( Matthew 18: 3 ; Luke 18:17), Person and Eternity were easily combined. So, from infancy, the Christian personalism I perceived at some point became the most essential question: Being, absolute, can it be personal? My sincere "Eastern" experience was, rather, an intellectual - cut off from the heart - form: the asceticism of clever withdrawal from everything relative. Gradually I became convinced that I was on the wrong path: I was moving away from true real Being into non-being.

This period was extremely tense: the state of mind was like a small boat on a dark night on the waves - now he, the mind, ascended to the top of a certain wave, then again he was thrown down with another in anger. But the One Whom I had left as if "unnecessary" did not turn away from me to the end and He Himself sought an opportunity to appear to me: He suddenly placed before me the text of the Biblical, Sinai Revelation: "I am who I am " ( Ex. 3:14 ). Being is I , God , the Absolute Ruler of all starry worlds - personal - I am .

>>19047408
>But even after realising all of that, no text has ever touched my soul like the Gospels and Jesus has provided me with solace and peace that no other religion could ever match.
Exactly my dilemma

I recall somewhere in Schopenhauer's works he says Christians—he does single out the English—have no hope of converting India, and William James agrees Christian theology would seem childish to Vedantins, so there's some food for thought.

>>19047256
>I'm interested in Advaita Vedanta's descriptions of the Absolute. Where does Guénon talk about this?
In his main book on Vedanta, ‘Man and His Becoming According to the Vedanta”

https://sufipathoflove.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/1925-man-and-his-becoming-according-to-the-vedc3a2nta.pdf’

In his later works of pure metaphysics like ‘Symbolism of the Cross’ and ‘Multiple States of the Being’ he goes into subtler and more elaborate elaborations of the same metaphysics but drawing from other traditions more and not explicitly framing things in Hindu/Sanskrit vocabulary as often.

>>19047442
>>19047142
Might interests you https://www.thefreelibrary.com/ADVAITA+VEDANTA+AND+CHRISTIAN+FAITH.-a066241175

>>19047429
>Garrigou-Lagrange
>Saint John of the Cross
I think he was mistaken and did not have the Holy Spirit, so you cannot trust his writings like those of the Orthodox saints, who speak of a first and foremost personal experience of Christ. Even Christ's divine glory is personal, Christ being fully present in it in both His natures.
>How can we explain the striking similarities between the mystical states they reach and those described by the Christian saints?
There is no real similarity, because what the saints experience is the God-man Christ in His uncreated light and glory. Any apparent similarity could only be surface level, since no saint describes the experience ever as impersonal absolute ineffable divine essence. It is always tied to the person of the Christ and of the Holy Spirit.

>was sufficient to reach even the highest degrees of supernatural union with God
But no Advaitin claims He is experiencing the incarnate Logos when he is "enligthened". If it would be the same phenomenon, you wouldn't have such drastic metaphysical disagreements on the nature of the experience.

>>19047447
>would seem childish to Vedantins
That would be one of the effects of pride. This is why the philosopher and metaphysician types are the hardest to convert. Their natural talents and high intelligence leads them to worshipping it, culminating in literal Self-worship as we see in Advaita.

>>19047429
>Can you elaborate on this?
All humans are created in the Logos' image and have divinity imprinted directly in their nous. When you rid yourself of the passions by asceticism, you obtain a clearer picture of what the human self actually is and how the fallen mind (with its racing thoughts, deliberation, etc) is not what defines what the self/hypostasis is.

>>19047496
How do you explain the mystical states of the vedantins?

>>19047514
Self-delusion (due to lacking knowledge) combined with demonic delusion (induced by pride) to varying degrees. It's the only Christian explanation.

>>19047447
converting India would be easier than the Baltics. Brits are just Muslims and thus preferred collecting jizya to serving the lord.

Drain the swamps, clear the jungle, shoot the monkeys.

>>19047512
Is the nous pure consciousness ?
Is that what the vedantins takes for God?
Do you have books on this anthropology?
Seems more platonic than thomist

>>19047522
>It's the only Christian explanation.
Too bad it's laughably retarded to anyone who doesn't already buy into the bullshit

>>19047496
It's a bit more than pride. I don't think they view Brahman as a creator who punishes his creation for disobeying him and revealed this through torturing his immortal son. So Christianity comes across to them like it did to scoffing Roman elites in the early days of the religion (before the whole army and underclass were converted and it became expedient to submit to their religion).

>>19047522
Absolutely worthless explanation. The great Christian mystics like St John of the Cross or Meister Eckhart are closer to the advaitins than to the basic dogmatic Christian. And I'm pretty certain who is closer to the truth

>>19047336
He was a Muslim, who agreed with a Traditionalist/Perennialist reading of metaphysics.

>>19047522
Holy based.

>>19047526
The nous is the higher human faculty able to achieve true knowledge and full union with Christ's uncreated light, which shines through the entirety of human experience in the resurrection of the dead, when even our bodies will experience it. The Advaitin sees this faculty, which is more "static/blissful" than the mind and body and assumes it is divine, along with assuming the illusory nature of everything else tainted by the fall (and thus indeed having a fleeting nature falling towards non-existence).

I don't know exact books in English, but this is the Orthodox anthropology as explicated by St. Maximus the Confessor. Maybe other anons can suggest some books, I've heard pic related is good though.

Also maybe check out Lossky's book -
https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Vladimir_Losskij/the-mystical-theology-of-the-eastern-church
Or these articles -
https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Kirill_I_Mefodij_Zinkovskie/hypostatic-characteristics-of-notions-of-thought-knowledge-and-cognition-in-the-greek-patristic-thought/
https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Kirill_I_Mefodij_Zinkovskie/hierarchic-anthropology-of-saint-maximus-the-confessor

>>19047522
>Self-delusion (due to lacking knowledge) combined with demonic delusion (induced by pride) to varying degrees.

>>19047420
>>who the fuck knows?
The saints do, since their minds are divined by God Himself and they partake of His divine knowledge. You can only know through direct experience, and lacking that, having even a limited experience allows you to see the people who had the fullness of this experience.

i'm fucked
I am too convinced by advaita vedanta to become a Christian
and i love christ too much to become a hindu
I should never have read guénon
fuck

just smoke more weed till you are retarded enough for hindooism

>>19047713
>guénon
you mean the guy who collected initiations from every religion like literal cafeteria-style syncretists?

Read the scholastics

>René Guénon
Guénon really could not contend with Orthodoxy. He never looked into it deeply and his experience of Christianity was limited to Masonic forms of Roman Catholicism.
It's a shame really that his vain pursuit of 'initiation' and being blinded by gnosticism lead him to ignoring Christ's real teaching. We could have possibly had such an interesting saint otherwise.

>>19047711
>The saints do, since their minds are divined by God Himself
Yeah yeah but that's a circular argument. I don't believe in Christianity so I don't believe saints have attained any kind of particular state.

>>19047781
>hat's a circular argument
Yes. You are welcome to believe in Christ and see for yourself.

>>19047789
I tried but I can't suspend my disbelief. To me it's a big nothing.

>>19047742
already done

>>19047758
everyone say that here i read seraphim rose book and found it very weak

>>19047142
Look up ‘prelest’ — India is full of it.

>>19047781
>I don't believe saints have attained any kind of particular state.
Do you hold to materialistic views? If not, I don't see why you would doubt that at least some saints did attain to some kind of mystical state. The question would then be about the nature of this state.

>>19047142
>which continues to feel that there is something special about Jesus, and that he is not just another enlightened sage.
Your intuition is correct. Read the Gospels and what Jesus himself says and you’ll see that he never saw himself as *just* another ‘enlightened sage’. He doesn’t leave that interpretation open to us. Hinduism is a sort of spiritual deception. Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life.

>>19047758
Guenon wasn't a gnostic (which was Christ's real teaching by the way)
No need to respond I know I'm right

>>19047814
>Your intuition is correct. Read the Gospels and what Jesus himself says and you’ll see that he never saw himself as *just* another ‘enlightened sage’. He doesn’t leave that interpretation open to us. Hinduism is a sort of spiritual deception. Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life.
the problem is that it is only an intuition, because the Hindu sages could say the same thing as Jesus, in that being realized they become like avatars, their ego disappears and leaves only God through them , therefore a Hindu sage can also very well say, without lying voluntarily, "I am God / divine"

>>19047810
I'm not a materialist and I believe there is something beyond death but I'm more sympathetic towards the idea that the nature of reality is absolutely incomprehensible than towards any kind of spiritual dogma.

>>19047823
>(which was Christ's real teaching by the way)
Begone.

>>19047839
>the nature of reality is absolutely incomprehensible
why then is everything in this reality not completely incomprehensible? doesn't make sense for this world to be based in uncomprehensibility with all the order you see.

>>19047844
Gnosticism makes more sense than your nicaean jewry ever will

>>19047865
>Gnosticism makes more sense t
explain

>>19047332
>the personal God is a demiurge
Not exactly, because the personal God in Advaita is part of the chain or bridge which connects the essential truth of revealed scriptures to living beings, an intermediary through which sages received their divine knowledge and revealed scriptures from the unconditioned Supreme Lord. In the Advaita Guru-parampara or chain of initiation, Narayana is given first, and then Brahmā is listed before the Vedic sages. The Bhagavata-Purana says that Brahmā is completely liberated and stops transmigrating when the Brahmāloka comes to an end when the mahapralaya happens, just like all the souls in Brahmāloka who had attained moksha; leaving the role of Brahmā in the next cycle to be attained by another transmigrator who earns it through actions/karma. The Brihadaranyaka Up. near the beginning alludes to the status of Brahmā being attainable by former human souls, or by subtle bodies previously associated with the human form.


Brahmā is liberated

>>19047848
That's exacly the kind of arguments that just don't do anything for me. I don't care about the supposed rationality or logic of reality, I don't see it. You see an ordered cosmos because you want to believe in it, but to me it's all uncomprehensibly arbitrary on a higher level. That there are physical laws doesn't subtract from this fundamental unknowability. The nature of everything is just ineffable and I have never had any reason to believe otherwise. I guess I'm coming from a position of pure acosmism, which any christian should find repulsive, so our views are fundamentally incompatible.
Anyway, no use talking about this, I'm not going to convince you (nor do I want to) and I'm not good enough with words to describe what exactly I'm getting at in the first place. I guess the Zen patriarchs had the right idea but then they had to found a religion around it and devise a system with words and it all went to shit.

>>19047830
>could say the same thing as Jesus
The Gospel, which is the basis for Christian thought utterly rejects the idea that Christ is some kind of human creation who achieved enlightenment like the Hindu sage. Christ makes direct claims no Hindu can make - that He created the world, of the prophetic nature of the Torah, that He actively guided history through a certain tribe of people, that He came to save the world from sin by willingly dying. It's all absurd statements in the Hindu cosmology and can only be seen as remotely Hindu if you try really hard to ignore a lot of the Gospel.

>>19047865
>the Logos came into the world but His teaching instantly got corrupted and destroyed
Sure.

>>19047881
I did not understand how your remark contradicted mine anon

>>19047332
>the metaphysical infinite without any limit, therefore undetermined and including all possibilities
Christ is this.
>a demiurge
Christ is also this.

>>19047891
>>the Logos came into the world but His teaching instantly got corrupted and destroyed
No it didn't, the Bible got compiled hundreds of years after his death. You nicaeans are liars and frauds.

>>19047891
all of this can be seen as the cultural expressions and interpretations of a man who realized his deep identity with God

>>19047905
>Christ is this.
the trinity is a determination

>>19047916
>can be seen
anything can be seen as anything if you are willingly to close your eyes and completely ignore the Gospel.

>>19047891
>>19047928
Get that stick out of your ass jesus christ

>>19047914
Good thing Christ brought a direct experience, and not a text to His apostles, who with this experience could produce correct and inspired writings.

>>19047924
Christ is by nature ineffable. You can't know "what" Christ is in His divine nature, it is entirely undetermined and beyond all categories.

>>19047933
>Good thing Christ brought a direct experience
...that was distorted and judaized, but sure, cope more

>>19047937
yet he is not the father
so there is a distinction
therefore a delimitation
therefore a limit

>>19047933
are you gnostic? if you have good books I am taker

>>19047928
no, this point of view would be totally compatible and consistent with the content of the Gospels

>>19047883
>but to me it's all uncomprehensibly arbitrary on a higher level.
By your logic you also see this because you want to believe in it. Which just leads to complete relativism.
You see a fallen world and try to use your (fallen) reason alone to make metaphysical judgments.

>>19047950
>if you have good books I am taker
The guy you quoted is a nicaean but if you want good books on gnosticism:
>the Gospel of Truth
>the books by Lacarriere and Hans Jonas
>The Seven Sermons to the Dead

>>19047972
what do you think of thomas gospel?
i have trouble with gnosticism because of their cosmological delusions which look like marvel but i am definitely gnostic in the sense attached to gnosis versus blind faith

>>19047950
>so there is a distinction
In person, but not in essence. He is "what" the Father is by nature, and this nature is ineffable. We know "who" Christ is (the Logos, the Son) and "how" Christ is (we know His actions/operations), but not "what" Christ is.

>>19047991
Not too enthusiastic about the nondualistic interpretations so be sure to read a good translation of it
The cosmology is fluff, read Jonas and you'll have a much better idea of what gnosticism actually is, not what it's said to be by detractors and japanese video games

>>19047972
>tfw gnosticism is so real it needed to wait ~2000 years so that modernist atheist scholars actually uncover what it teaches
Epic gnosis.

>>19047937
>>19047905
>>19047711
I have noticed christers just pull snippets of disconnected catechism out when asked to explain something. All kinds of copula statements, christ is x or christ is y, no demonstration of this, just declaring your belief. Yes I know you believe that and repeating a creed is self-convincing. But that doesn't work on someone disputing your claim, you just blurting another line of "i believe christ is x."

>>19047968
Sure. I don't mind. It's what makes the most sense, and believing in anything else would be larping and trying to convince myself of something that isn't true. I see no harm in tracing my own path.
I don't make metaphysical judgments aside from acosmism and the assumption of ineffability. The latter is a truth I have personally realized on a deeper level and can never unlearn or disregard, much like I assume you can never disregard your belief in christianity. I don't use my reason to make judgments, I use my intuition, and I trust my personal subjectivity more than anything else in the world.

>>19048007
>no demonstration of this
There is no demonstration without believing in Christ. A non-believer cannot experience this without direct intervention by Christ.

>>19048005

>>19048019
>It's what makes the most sense
Why should we take something which makes sense as the basis? Why not take something nonsensical if the world is ultimately incomprehensible at the highest level?

>>19047993
>In person, but not in essence.
still a distinction
the Absolute is the metaphysical infinity, so without ANY limit
regardless of the nature of this limit
limit of person, nature, quality, quantity, etc.
it is precisely the difference between metaphysical infinity and mathematical "infinity" which is defined
such an Absolute contains the world within it because it contains all the universal possibilities
but precisely because it's are infinite, the finite world is like nothing in front of it, it is this asymmetry of relation which makes it possible to condemn pantheism, by recognizing that the world is God but that God is not the world, therefore the panentheist position

>>19047972
>Hans Jonas
>Jewish philosopher
>He becomes very young a Zionist activist

>>19048034
I don't mean sense as in rational sense. It transcends petty metaphysical inquiry and bickering over concepts like you're trying to have me do. As I said, I'm no good with words, not good enough to communicate it in a satisfying way. I've just come to the realization that acosmism is true in the most liberating sense there is, that everything in this world, concepts, logic and being itself are not all there is and are inconsequential. There's some"thing" else.

>>19048022
Ok so you're merely patting yourself on the back in debates, not really attempting to be convincing but reassuring yourself the other person is wrong. I guess that's why other posters are saying reading Hindu theology makes them quake, the cope isn't working evenly.

>>19048022
that's exactly the problem
blind faith does not interest me
advaita védanta convinces you by the arguments then by the gnosis
no creed

>>19048059
Yeah but the book is good

>>19048003
>Not too enthusiastic about the nondualistic interpretations
why

>>19048071
>advaita vedanta
>gnosis
you've got your traditions mixed up there bud

>>19048022
>There is no demonstration without believing in Christ.
You do understand why this statement can be instantly disregarded by anyone who stands outside of your religious group, right?

>>19048082
this one? https://www.amazon.com/Gnostic-Religion-Message-Beginnings-Christianity/dp/0807058017

>>19047142
Read the Summa, and stop looking into things that are above thee.

>>19048068
>not really attempting to be convincing
I'm not even trying to convince you, I'm just trying to understand why you would believe a position so ridiculously self-defeating.

>>19048094
Yeah.
>>19048085
I think nondualism muddles the waters and am more partial to a dualistic view. That's just me though, some people will argue valentinianism has nondual interpretations

>>19048089
? no
the vedantic jnana is literally a gnosis

gnosis, def:
>In a very general way, gnosis (from the Greek γνῶσις, gnôsis: knowledge) is a philosophical-religious doctrine according to which the salvation of the soul passes through a direct knowledge (experience or revelation) of the divinity, and therefore by a knowledge of self

>>19048071
>blind faith does not interest me
>the 'no creed' creed
Epic creed you've got there.

>>19048093
Yes, and I'm asking you to join this religious group if you want to understand.

>>19048108
>Trusting the eternal fate of your soul to a random dictionary writer

>>19048096
>close your eyes and play the ostrich, don't listen to your reason!
is this a joke

>>19048114
>I'm asking you to join this religious group if you want to understand.
Yeah, no thanks. Every religious group says the exact same shit, yours isn't special.
By the way, you can convince yourself of literally anything if you put in the effort.

>>19048122
Your fallen reason is corrupted and infested by demons, so is not to be trusted with absolute certainty. A non-Christian's 'reason' is a literal playground for every kind of demon imaginable.

>>19048102
What is "ridiculously self-defeating" about disagreeing with the views of someone who admittedly cannot convince a non-believer? You're doing the thing again, just patting yourself on the back for not having what you call "ridiculously self-defeating" views.

>>19048122
What an unreasonable take. Man's mind is faulty. We tend to believe whatever makes us think more highly of ourselves. Pursue humility and you will find Wisdom. Pursue knowledge, and you will find pride.

>>19048129
I am tired of the 2021 Jehovah's Witnesses-Nutheosophists War. This place gets worse every year

>>19048129
>>19048137
Holy fucking shit
I usually cringe at the reddit atheist quips but this is unironically cult behavior. "Don't think, just believe, don't question, just obey"
What the fuck

>>19048105
>valentinianism
I had an image that compared the different Gnostic systems, I can't find it anymore
it's literally marvel
so absurd, so many intermediaries etc
non-dualism is much clearer

>>19047796
Which scholastics have you read? I would have thought that divine simplicity was enough to reject a monism

>>19048143
I must conclude you live in a barn, for how else could you have so much straw?

>>19048143
It took decades, but JW's have discovered 4channel and give their remote-learning "missionaries" extra credit to shill here.

>>19048150
advaita vedanta believes in divine simplicity
in fact, I think the vedantic God stems more easily from divine simplicity than the Christian God

>>19048158
It's literally what you said, don't be insincere. "Your mind is faulty, don't pursue knowledge." "Your reason cannot be trusted, trust in this dogma instead."
Fuck off. I'm not falling for your brainwashing

>>19048169
That you can't understood where you characterization departs from my argument only demonstrates more clearly how your reason is clouded by pride.

>>19048149
Again, the cosmology isn't relevant. Iranaeus used to seethe about how every valentinian came up with his own cosmology; that's not the point of gnosticism. Dogma isn't a part of gnosticism

>>19048164
Even the illusion of multiplicity entails actual multiplicity. You should read The Christian Philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas by Eitenee Gilson

>>19048181
>refuses to explain or elaborate
>"you're just misled by pride bro, that's not what I said"
>even though he literally said not to pursue knowledge and that leaning on reason is dangerous because muh demons
Yeah I've heard enough, go fuck yourself. Your community of fear-mongering larpers preying on the weak has to be the most insufferable and devious on this board, but of course your persecution complex will have you take this as a compliment.

>>19048183
>Even the illusion of multiplicity entails actual multiplicity
you mean that God can only be distinct from the world, because otherwise there would be a multiplicity in him even if the world is illusory?

but the same objection can be made to the Christian God in that he is the Being himself and that all existing things participate/receive their esse in/from him

>>19048196
Try putting my argument into a syllogism before you summarize it.

>>19048212
Why would you want a syllogism when you've already said you don't believe in reasoning

>>19047142
>Is there a Christian answer to Advaita Vedanta's metaphysics and its arguments?
Yes, it's called Kashmir Shaivism.
>True Self and identical to God
That true self is not whatever you think it is, if you really found that self which is identical with God, then are unlimited, all-knowing and all-powerful, as long as you are not it is a big mistake to think "I am God".
>or about the unreality of persons and the world
This is rejected and shown otherwise by Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta.
>or that God cannot be personal
Also rejected and shown to be otherwise by them. In short why do you place limitation on God not allowing him to be personal?
> Absolute can only be fully infinite
>only
Why again place limitations on the absolute?
>The more I learn about this metaphysics, its philosophical arguments, and about mystical experiences in general, the more I have trouble with Christian soteriological exclusivism.
Don't you have trouble with Vedanta stating that the world is unreal? Neti-Neti practice is useful, but how did unreal come from real? What is the difference between unreal and real?
>I am moving further and further away from Christianity with my reason, but it enrages my heart, which continues to feel that there is something special about Jesus, and that he is not just another enlightened sage.
Your heart is not fooling you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5J9E1Uu1UA
https://www.lakshmanjooacademy.org/difference-kashmir-saivism-advaita-vedanta/

>>19048212
Try making an argument that isn't some pathetic "muh demons" "nooooo stop thinking for yourself" and maybe I will.

>>19048201
God underlies the actuality from which all potentialities proceed. We ultimately depend on His Act for our being, but that doesn't necessitate that we are one with Him. Divine Conservation stands apart from monism. I reccomend the Gilson book. I think scholastic metaphysics provides the best alternative

>>19048227
>Also rejected and shown to be otherwise by them. In short why do you place limitation on God not allowing him to be personal?
>> Absolute can only be fully infinite
>>only
>Why again place limitations on the absolute?
I place no limits on God. Precisely because he is infinite, and without limits, he also contains the finite, the world, limits, people, etc. but he also goes further than that, he contains the world but is not the world, he is also beyond it. so he cannot be the limited, totally personal Christian God, who has no impersonal "face"

>>19048227
>What is the difference between unreal and real?
absolute and relative

>Your heart is not fooling you.
even if you were right I would have the same problem of hesitating between Christianity and Shivaism

>That true self is not whatever you think it is, if you really found that self which is identical with God, then are unlimited, all-knowing and all-powerful, as long as you are not it is a big mistake to think "I am God".
I know that, I have already written about it, even the non-dualism of advaita does not allow to say "I am God", only to say "God is God", since the "I" in question is the atman which has always been the brahman, and not the usual "I" which is the person, the jivatma, which remains the jivatma

>>19048232
https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/303491/Dissertation%20complete.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

>I reccomend the Gilson book. I think scholastic metaphysics provides the best alternative
does it talk about this subject?

>>19048232
>>19048332
pic rel

>>19048223
Can you quote where I said I don't believe in reasoning? Perhaps you have invented that position.

>>19048352
Sure
>>19048137
>>19048181
Any time someone disagrees with you it is because of pride. So you are not reasonable in any sense, you are relying on some sort of naive psychology cum catechism to argue.

>>19048229
>Man's reason is faulty.
>He has not sufficient knowledge or time to perfectly elaborate a valid inductive argument to demonstrate the correct first principle so as to perfectly and validly detail all other positions by deduction from it.
>Therefore, man must allow certain assumptions in order to consider anything productive
>Out of pride, man tends to favor assumptions which give him a positive view of himself as a good and just man.
>The more a man learns, the stronger the tendency becomes, though it is not irresistible
>If a man pursues humility, he will first seek knowledge of his true worth
>Only when a man achieves genuine humility will he be able to reason without being influenced by his pride

Why is it that when Socrates says "All I know is that I know nothing," it is wise. But when a Christian tells you to follow this saying, it is unreasonable?

>>19048391
No I generally disagree with what you've greentexted and don't think the pursuit of knowledge is a bad thing, or that it leads to conceit, or that pride is always bad in itself, or that humility is the road to self-discovery and true reason. Basically everything you've said is a baseless assumption here.
Socrates was right, and Plato would disagree with your take on knowledge.

>>19048370
You seem to struggle with distinguishing universals from probabilities.

Certainly, some men know more and better than others. But also, no man holds a position which he believes to be false. A truly reasonable man would always abandon a false opinion for the truth, regardless of the person who corrects him. But in so far as a man has adopted a position in order to bolster his opinion of himself, he will resist abandoning it, for to abandon it he must experience shame.

A humble man recognizes how little he knows. He does not fear the opinion of others, and so is free to accept or reject their positions according to the truth of the matter, and not human respect.

If you review the post you've quoted, you will find that I do not dismiss reason altogether. Rather, I say that man's mind is faulty. We take many things to be reasonable which are not. While it would be good to only accept what is reasonable, only a humble man is actually capable of recognizing what is reasonable. Therefore, it is more necessary to pursue humility than knowledge.

>>19047391
>They use meditation to peer deeper into what constitutes a human and see the nous, realizing that the body and the mind aren't primary or identified with the person's self, but mistake that for divinity itself
That’s incorrect, what Advaitins identify as Absolute consciousness doesn’t correspond with the nous, the nous and unconditioned pure consciousness qua Brahman have different natures.

The nous as the discriminating faculty would be comparable in Advaita to the Buddhi, which is a part of the subtle body
involved in differentiating, discriminating, learning. Buddhi itself is unconscious but it can seem to take on the light of consciousness and falsely appear conscious itself. Nous grasps changing higher principles, absolute awareness is immutable and beyond grasping. Advaitin writings provide refutations of the claim that the mind/intellect at once performs its functions and is also self-aware; without any separate awareness involved. I haven’t studied Eastern Orthodox literature enough to know whether or not they correctly identify the effortless conscious light beyond the nous. Some Islamic thinkers aligned with Platonic thought like Suhrawardi do.

>>19048283
You place a limitation by stating that God cannot limit himself.
> totally personal Christian God, who has no impersonal "face"
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
>>19048305
>absolute and relative
Relative from whose perspective? Buddhi is not real in Vedanta either. To have relatives you must have subjects.
>even if you were right I would have the same problem of hesitating between Christianity and Shivaism
Read Holy Fathers more. Are you familiar with concepts of theosis and essence–energies?

>>19048409
Taking either a Platonic or Aristotelean definition of Good, define pride and explain how it is a good thing? As a matter of virtue, Pride is essentially a vice. My guess would be that you have not actually read anything on the matter of virtue, vice, or pride, and so probably have an idiosyncratic definition of these things. If then, you take your own definition of these things, rather than accepting the definitions proposed by another, then please demonstrate by syllogism the reasonableness of your definition as opposed to theirs.

>>19048449
>You place a limitation by stating that God cannot limit himself.
read what I write, I do not say anywhere that God cannot limit himself (and besides, to say that contradicts Christianity because his trinity is not a contraction, a voluntary limit that God would give to his essence)
since God is infinite he contains all possibilities
including finite possibilities (thus limits)
but he is also beyond it
therefore not absolutely limited, only relatively
because any limit is necessarily relative
therefore false at the absolute level

>>19048305
If you're interested, check out those articles also.
https://www.academia.edu/12663014/Otherness_in_the_Pratyabhijna_Philosophy
https://www.academia.edu/12663114/The_Dreamer_and_the_Yogin_On_the_relationship_between_Buddhist_and_Saiva_idealisms

>>19048449
>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
so?

>Buddhi is not real in Vedanta either. To have relatives you must have subjects.
what?

>Are you familiar with concepts of theosis and essence–energies?
yeah a little
brahman-maya is in some way like the essence-energie distinction

>>19048464
I'm not entering yet another dry, fruitless and sterile debate about words and definitions and symbols with you, no. I have absolutely no interest in that kind of trite bullshit or in your pilpul, I was only responding to your outlandish original claims. Words and theorizing will never allow you to arrive at any kind of deep insight about anything, it's masturbatory and lifeless, as far from genuine spirituality as you can possibly get. I'll take my leave, unless you want to bring up something that's actually interesting.

>>19048332
>>19048343
Yes thats relevant and is actually a particular concept in Christian theology that I struggle to understand. I felt like both monism and dualism are insufficient terms fir use and nondualism doesnt seem right either. I prefer to call it Monotheism just for simplicity sake.
But anyway, yes, Gilson talks exactly about that concept in his book. He specifically identifies that isse

>>19048488
>Gilson talks exactly about that concept in his book. He specifically identifies that isse
what issue?

>>19048468
Then why God cannot be personal? It appears you don't really have problem with that because you can acceot it, but would say God is also beyond that,but Christianity doesn't push for 'just' personal God either. You seem to have the same problem with Christian God as Muslims have by seeing any incarnation of God or descriptions of Godheads as blasphemy.

>>19048485
What hypocrisy. As soon as you are challenged to put forward some kind of reasoning, you say that such reasoning is fruitless, and will never achieve any kind of understanding. Enjoy your straw.

>>19048498
The issue of Creation being tied to God but separate from God

>>19048436
>man's mind is faulty.
Agree
>We take many things to be reasonable which are not.
Agree
>While it would be good to only accept what is reasonable
Agree
>only a humble man is actually capable of recognizing what is reasonable.
Disagree, that's just your "muh meekness" ethics talking. Anyone can be right, even an asshole
>Therefore, it is more necessary to pursue humility than knowledge.
Which you don't really do, you just accuse people of not being humble when they dispute your theology

>>19048475
>what?
Distinction between real and unreal takes place in Buddhi, so the relative perspective persists there as well (or even arises there, because in Vedanta purusha is not a source as I know). But Buddhi is also unreal.

>>19048506
>Then why God cannot be personal?
God is relatively personal, in the same way that he is relatively finite, etc., because as an infinite absolute he contains all possibilities, but all these delimitations are relative, therefore only relatively true, therefore absolutely false, and in the absolute God is not finite or personal, he contains these limits but also exceeds them, this is the difference between panentheism and pantheism

>but Christianity doesn't push for 'just' personal God either.
yes it does, it would be blasphemous to accept an impersonal "deity" beyond the personal god, but that is precisely the conclusion of my remarks
because that's what I believe, the personal god is already a determination within the absolute, therefore already a limitation, therefore already a relativity, he is therefore inferior to the absolute, he is a kind of demiurge

>by seeing any incarnation of God or descriptions of Godheads as blasphemy.
no I have no problem with the incarnation

>>19048526
Hypocrisy? I just don't care for your endless conceptual masturbation. My definition of pride is in the sense of dignity by the way, personal honor, the unwillingness to lay down, the affirmation of oneself. But who cares? You're going to find something to nitpick at like a good bot and spin it into endless strings of paragraphs that'll lead nowhere.
Yes, your scholastic reasoning is fruitless, sterile and completely misses the point of everything. For all your talk of God's ineffability, you constrain divinity to logic, you put bounds and measurements on the sublime, you asphyxiate spirituality with your never-ending bullshit. "Uuh yes but that is inaccurate in the aristotelian sense because..." No, shut the fuck up.
Enjoy your delusion.

>>19048545
>Distinction between real and unreal takes place in Buddhi
no?
it is not my buddhi that makes something ontologically subsistent or dependent

>>19048560
>it is not my buddhi that makes something ontologically subsistent or dependent
I didn't state that your buddhi makes something, I stated that the distinction takes place there.
But that doesn't matter since buddhi is unreal anyway, so from whose perspective relativeness arises? And aftewards what does relativity and absolute have to do with unreal and real in Advaita Vedanta? Where is it elaborated on, I feel like you made this up yourself.

>>19048621
>I stated that the distinction takes place there.
no
something is ontologically subsisting or dependent even without a buddhi to recognize this fact
it's ontology not epistemology

>so from whose perspective relativeness arises? And aftewards what does relativity and absolute have to do with unreal and real in Advaita Vedanta? Where is it elaborated on, I feel like you made this up yourself.
maya

>>19048537
Sure, a proud man or an evil man can know some truth. But only a man who is perfectly aware of his own faults is capable of recognize when and where his faults compromise his understanding. The proud man will be blind to his errors, for he will consider himself more or less invincible to error.

And obviously I am proud. But it is because I know I am proud that I rely on men who I know were humble, rather than relying on my own independent (and faulty) reasoning. I can read Socrates and Plato and Aristotle and Augustine and Aquinas and Ignatius and many others and see that they know better than I do. Who can claim to be humble and say that they know better than all these men?

>>19048559
So your definition of pride is idiosyncratic. You use the word how you wish. This makes it meaningless. It's intellectual autism. You create a world of your own meaning, and then act superior when others don't accept it. I encourage you to read some actual philosophy and theology, rather than rely on your own reasoning.

>>19048007
> Arguments about ideology end up as arguments about each side's self-consistency
Yes we know

>>19048681
>So your definition of pride is idiosyncratic.
No, it's a common definition of pride in Asia.
But yes, I create a world of my own meaning.
I encourage you to stop being a pedantic faggot.

>>19048547
>panentheism
>pantheism
Those are rather useless terms if you want to approach God from the point of view of any Indian philosophy. You seem to be obsessed with understanding God in some engineering-type of way. While Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism are indeed very 'mathematical' systems, they do not dissect God using the terms you use. That's a mistake a beginner would make, but I don't think it would do you any harm as if you stick to the concept of God you created yourself, after awhile you would see that you haven't really understood it right. Either you will succeed in meditation and review your past conceptions, or more likely you would simply be depressed.
>yes it does, it would be blasphemous to accept an impersonal "deity" beyond the personal god
What is an impersonal "deity" exactly?

>>19048711
>What is an impersonal "deity" exactly?
the absolute

>or more likely you would simply be depressed.
why would I be ?

>>19048711
tf are u christian ou shivaite

>>19048687
>I create a world of my own meaning
Very unreasonable.

>>19048741
I'll be sure to take your opinion into account.

>>19048665
>But it is because I know I am proud that I rely on men who I know were humble, rather than relying on my own independent (and faulty) reasoning.
This is just a long winded appeal to authority masked as humility. "LORD you made me too stupid to understand your ways. I humbly accept the teachings of your priests!" I am so convinced now, thanks for that.

>>19048657
>no
Yes
>something is ontologically subsisting or dependent even without a buddhi to recognize this fact
That doesn't contradict what I said.
>>19048657
>maya
So the destinction between real and unreal is maya? Of course it makes sense to say that in Vedantic terms, but you have not answered the question atll, you simply said "black is black" as everything except for Brahman is maya in Vedanta philosophy. You could as well answer "maya" to any of my other arguments. But maya or not, we are here, you are here, anon, you are forced to deal with this reality weather it is real or unreal, so would you be able to elaborate on real/unreal distinction and from whose perspective does the relativity arise?
You can say maya, but that's avoiding the question. Can you see problem with Vedanta? You could instead adopt a philosophy which is useful.
Anyway, I think you are arguing for the sake of approving your position no matter what rather than seeking for truth, so in short term it'd be useless to convince you of anything. I can only advise you to look in Kashmir Shaivism, it has room for the same sense of pride and superiority as you gained in Vedanta, but it will also resolve your issues. Besides it's a highly experience-oriented system with similarities to Dzogchen.

>>19048748
Don't take my opinion, it's worthless. Prove yourself against the opinions of St. Thomas and see how you fare.

>>19048768
>Can you see problem with Vedanta?
no, i don't understand your point

and are u christian ou shivaite?

>>19048761
>As for me, all I know is that I know nothing.
>Socrates

>>19048787
>scholasticism
Not interested.

>>19048687
He studies Vedanta from the point of view of Continental philosophy which is clear from the terms he uses. If he was a real practitioner, he would not use words such as "pantheism", "panentheism", "ontology", "epistemology", etc.
He is enchanted by logicality and well-foundedness of Vedanta, but he makes a common mistake by beginning to see God as a kind of philosophically-defined super machine, forgetting that he also contradicts Vedanta path by coming here and arguing in bad faith. All Indian philosophies are inseparable from practice, without which Vedanta does nothing, but pushes your ego forwards, which is not always bad also as you begin to dominate others, but that was not its intent.

>>19048822
Afraid?

>>19048794
>and are u christian ou shivaite?
That's a dual question, kek.

>>19048844
More like bored to death. To be afraid I'd have to assume Christianity could ever be true in the first place.

>>19047142
I also think that Advaita is the peak of metaphysics but I still like abrahamic esoterism.
>which continues to feel that there is something special about Jesus
Jesus also plays a very important role in sufism, he is indeed special but only for our cycle. Advaita doesn't rely on a certain prophet, is the closest thing to the Primordial Tradition and that is why is the peak of metaphysics. The absolute truth is simple, no need for a lot of forms or certain prophets. Still, since we have been in Kali Yuga for thousands of years, we were in need of someone like Shankara but only to remind us, not to be worshiped. Read Guenon but not only his Vedanta book, all of his words are of huge importance, the more I read from him, my doubts start to disappear.

>>19048843
you are good at putting me in boxes as if you were speaking from the top of the pyramid but I still have not seen you answer my arguments, which appear to me to be crystal clear and implacable logic >>19048046 >>19048468 >>19048547

>>19048950
To assume that it isn't is to reject reason.

>>19048768
not that anon but:

>So the destinction between real and unreal is maya?
Maya is false/mithya

For Advaita; Real =\= mithya =\= unreal, they are three distinct categories

Asking is maya real or unreal is a misunderstanding involving not grasping that Advaita doesnt reduce everything to belonging to one side of this binary opposition.
>from whose perspective does the relativity arise?
from the jivas, consciousness provides the basis for this to take place without consciousness being affected or changed by it. Consciousness is like immutable space-like non-dual awareness that contains ‘objects’ like mental sensations, but without that space of awareness itself observing those mental sensations/objects in a subject-object relationship. Instead, subjectness arises along with objectness within that space. Consciousness is non-intentional and beyond subject and object; when in association with subject-object dualities in the intellect it makes these distinctions/dualities in the intellect flash forward and falsely seem to the indiscriminating to be conscious directed/intentional mental states.

That consciousness is observing the mental objects within the “space” of awareness is one of the false understandings that inheres in the mind, Shankara points this out in his bhasya on Gita chapter 2. The space-like awareness is unchanged, unaffected by this delusion of the mind however, and by any other delusions/actions/notions etc of the mind.
>You can say maya, but that's avoiding the question. Can you see problem with Vedanta?
what problem?

>>19049193
lmao sure it is buddy.

>>19049073
>hodgepodge mix of indology and abrahamism
Guenon is a theosophist; change my mind.

>>19049237
No need to change your mind, Guenon isn't for everyone :)

>>19047830
Jesus was predicted in scriptures written centuries before he was even born, and the prophecies were fulfilled. He is on a completely different level than some yogi fraudster claiming that he is divine and everything is an illusion

>>19049332
>the book is true because the book says it's true
Yes yes we know
It's telling when your entire religion, religious philosophy and dogma can be btfo with a single statement:
>"Sorry, I don't believe that happened."

>>19049313
Well, just bear in mind you could study an actual living tradition instead the Tradition cobbled together by frog from "things I like" and "things I don't like" in an idiosyncratic fashion independently of the very emphases he places on living traditions and initiatory lineages

>eastern mumbo jumbo
I wouldn't bother with it. We have plenty of western traditions.

>>19049360
>tripfag is a brainlet
Checks out

>>19049215
Hi vedantabro
What do u think of
>>19048046 >>19048468 >>19048547

What do I have to answer to that? >>19048468
That to me seems like a squabble. What does it object to? I said you limited the God by saying he cannot limit himself, you said you didn't say so.
>>19048283
>so he cannot be the limited, totally personal Christian God, who has no impersonal "face"
What do you mean by that? Refer to Christian theology, showing where is the problem precisely? What is impersonal "face"?
If you come to talk here, please try to use terms other could refer to. Whatever is in your head could be well-structured, but you make it appear very fuzzy. You didn't explain the relative vs absolute perspective, which you brought up to my question regarding real/unreal. I asked you where is this even elaborated to which you responded with nothing, so I conclude you make it up on the way, without actually understanding Advaita.
That anon >>19049215 has a grasp on the other hand.
>Asking is maya real or unreal is a misunderstanding
Yes, I didn't ask if maya is real/unreal. I only asked for the distinction between real/unreal within maya, which can also be said to be maya, but it doesn't answer the question from practical perspective at all.
>from the jivas
But jiva is relative and unreal too. However you don't owe any answers to this as it was not you who brought in relativity vs absolute.
If the world doesn't exist how does Brahman reflect in buddhi, considering it is unreal also?
Also how would you ever perceive/experience absolute if everything we know we know through maya? Wouldn't it be more correct to view maya not as an independent force, but as concealing energy of Brahman which if known correctly points us at Brahman and becomes an illusion only when viewed incorrectly?
And where did maya come from in the first place? Can you elaborate on how primordial it is and its relation to Brahman?
Thanks for your answer.

>>19049379
>>19049149

>>19049346
Complete non-sequitur.

>>19049354
>initiatory lineages
Ofc the christcuck is going to seeth about initiation, is not my fault that you tradition no longer has an initiation and isn't aware of anything above passive mysticism

>>19049233
You have said it.

>>19049369
Boomers were into orientalism in the 70s. Another reason I renonce it. But the buddhist truths and marks are interesting.

>>19049346
You have it wrong. We know the scriptures are true because the Church says it's true. We know the Church teaches with genuine authority because God can neither deceive nor be deceived. That God can neither deceive nor be deceived is knowable by the light of natural reason.

>>19049407
And yet it's true.

>>19049430
Non sequitur: the post

>>19049416
ur mom gay

>>19049457
Has anyone ever demonstrated such a brilliant capacity for reason?

>>19049419
>boomers took interest in some diluted westernized pop buddhism at some point so eastern philosophy is not worth looking into
Reasonable take

>>19049477
___________________________________________________________________sneed

>>19047142
Yes, shankarism was refuted by Robin Collins
http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/EASTR1.htm

>a. The View is Self-Contradictory: The first problem with the core of Sankara's philosophy is that it seems to be self-contradictory. As advocates of the other Hindu schools of thought have pointed out, if the only reality is Brahman, and Brahman is pure, distinctionless consciousness, then there cannot exist any real distinctions in reality. But the claim that this world is an illusion already presupposes that there is an actual distinction between illusion and reality, just as the claim that something is a dream already presupposes the distinction between waking consciousness and dream consciousness. Moreover, Sankara's idea of salvation--that is, enlightenment through recognition that all is Brahman--already presupposes a distinction between living in a state of unenlightenment (ignorance) and living in a state of enlightenment. So this view contradicts itself by, on the one hand, saying that reality (Brahman) is distinctionless, while on the other hand distinguishing between maya and the truth of Brahman, and by distinguishing between being enlightened and unenlightened.

>b. The Impossibility of Maya: A second and related problem is that ignorance, which Sankara and his followers claim is the source of maya, could not exist. According to the Sankara school, Brahman is perfect, pure, and complete Knowledge, the opposite of ignorance. Hence, ignorance cannot exist in Brahman. But, since nothing exists apart from Brahman, ignorance cannot exist apart from Brahman either. Thus, it follows that ignorance could not exist, contrary to their assertion that our perception of a world of distinct things is a result of ignorance.

>c. The Lack of Evidence: A final problem is that it seems that one could never have any satisfactory experiential basis for believing in Sankara's philosophy. Certainly, everyday experience and observation are completely in conflict with his claim, since they overwhelmingly testify to the existence of a real world of distinct things and properties. Indeed, even if we assume that the entire material world does not exist, but is merely a dream, experience would still overwhelmingly testify against Sankara's claim: for, within our dream itself there are innumerable distinct experiences, from the experience of feeling sad to that of seeing what looks like a rainbow. Thus Sankara's philosophy cannot even explain the world we experience as being an illusion or dream. As a result, it ends up providing close to the worse possible explanation of our experiences.

>>19049485
They were into hinduism as well. Which is even more embarrassing.

>>19049448
I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

>>19049521
Copivs maximvs

>>19049511
Maya.

>>19049511
vendantabro has already refuted this article anon

>>19049539
Christ.

>>19049511
>Yes, shankarism was refuted by Robin Collins
Robin Collins arguments against Advaita were refuted argument by argument already in this thread

>>/lit/thread/S16941096#p16942896

>>19049549
Yes, Christ is Maya

>>19049530
>God exists
>God created all things
>God is omnipotent
>God is omniscient
>God is all Good.
>Therefore, God can neither deceive nor be deceived
>Therefore, God is perfectly capable of communicating himself to his creation in the manner he desires
>Therefore, if God asks anything of Man, Man is capable of knowing it, and God is capable of confirming it with unmistakable signs
>If God established the Church as a means of communicating the Truth, it would be capable of doing so, and incapable of failing to do so
>If God established the Church, he would confirm it with signs and proofs
>The Church has been confirmed with signs and proofs, including the perfect preservation of doctrine through time, despite conflicts and the failings of men
>Therefore, we can accept whatever the Church authoritatively teaches
>The Church authoritatively teaches the Divine Authorship of the scriptures
>Therefore we can accept whatever is found in Scripture to be perfectly true.

>>19049585
>>God exists
Look at this dude
>>If God established the Church
oh no no no no...
>>The Church has been confirmed with signs and proofs
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You realize how wicked your understanding of Vedanta is? It is not meant to be argued about or preached. If you have desire to study Vedanta, Vedanta says it is already grace of God. So go and practice, meditate, read Shankara. You are not supposed to convince others who disagree with you, you are working against your liberation from Vedanta's perspective.

>>19049412
I'm not talking about christers you goblin I'm talking about your theosophist blogger who skimmed the principal works of divergent religions and smooshed them together before deciding to be an Egyptian

>>19049585
>The Church has been confirmed with signs and proofs, including the perfect preservation of doctrine through time
Bro if you seriously believe this shit there's no helping you. I hope for your sake you're just another larper trying to convince himself.

>>19049613
>It is not meant to be argued about or preached.
I ask questions about my questions and doubts faggot

>>19049626
You clearly don't believe in Vedanta, if you have read any of its scriptures at all.

>>19049585
>God can neither deceive
Kings 22:23

>>19049613
>You are not supposed to convince others who disagree with you, you are working against your liberation from Vedanta's perspective.
so why did Adi Shankara spend his life debating and preaching his doctrine?

since when does saving people go against spiritual progress?

wtf are u talkin about

>>19049634
You're right, I don't believe in Vedanta.

>>19049608
>For they have said, reasoning with themselves, but not right: The time of our life is short and tedious, and in the end of a man there is no remedy, and no man hath been known to have returned from hell: For we are born of nothing, and after this we shall be as if we had not been: for the breath in our nostrils is smoke: and speech a spark to move our heart, Which being put out, our body shall be ashes, and our spirit shall be poured abroad as soft air, and our life shall pass away as the trace of a cloud, and shall be dispersed as a mist, which is driven away by the beams of the sun, and overpowered with the heat thereof: And our name in time shall be forgotten, and no man shall have any remembrance of our works. For our time is as the passing of a shadow, and there is no going back of our end: for it is fast sealed, and no man returneth.
>Come therefore, and let us enjoy the good things that are present, and let us speedily use the creatures as in youth.

>>19049644
>christer is mad
>starts spamming scripture
Cool story bro but I really don't care

>>19049626
Name one change to doctrine.

>>19049629
You didn't ask anything in good faith, you simply want your views to be accepted as right.
And from Vedanta's perspective you are looking for answers in the wrong place again, instead you should go and meditate and find out yourself, nobody will help you on this journey. Otherwise you can keep arguing forever.

>>19049654
I know you don't care. That's what the scripture says.

>>19049663
>the book says some people don't care, that means the book is true!
wtf I'm a tradcath now
This is fucking laughable.

>>19049637
>debating
Because he debated with other sages and Buddhists, not randoms from 4chan. Yet their debates were well constructed and elaborate, while OP doesn't have an idea what he's talking about and makes a lot of fuzzy terms on the way. Instead of going to read the actual Vedantists' texts he's tickling his ego here.
> preaching his doctrine
Among brahmans who have performed rituals for their whole life, not among coomer brain psuedo spiritualists or sophists or logic fetishists.

>>19049554
but your arguments have been refuted in this thread anon... the gist of your defense is to say:

>This objection ignores the distinction the between conventional truth/existence (Vyāvahārika) and absolute truth/existence (Pāramārthika) which occurs in Shankara's metaphysics. There is no contradiction in the sense he implies here as maya is not 'reality', so there is no conflict with saying that (absolute) reality itself is devoid of the true existence of maya.

except:

>>19048183
>Even the illusion of multiplicity entails actual multiplicity. You should read The Christian Philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas by Eitenee Gilson

>>19049655
>name one change to a doctrine that's been constantly evolving since the first councils in a church that's gone through schisms and reforms
kek are you serious?
Even if it hadn't changed, it wouldn't the only doctrine to have remained constant throughout the years, far from it. You're coping and grasping at straws

>>19049697
>I am unable to answer his arguments ... let's say they are fuzzy!
si this the power of shivaism?

>>19049702
Either show one change, or show another doctrine which has remained unchanged for an equivalent amount of time. I am confident you can demonstrate neither.

>>19049697
>logic fetishists.
daaaaaamn you and your... logicccccccc!!!

>>19049709
The filioque shit
Theravada, Zoroastrianism, Mandaeism

>>19049680
You will die, and disappear into dust, forgotten. But this passage of scripture will remain, the only testament of your folly.
I'm not giving you an argument, but a eulogy.

>>19049728
>my credo failed to convince him, let's try the threats

>>19049728
>You will die, and disappear into dust, forgotten
Yes, just like you.
The rest of your post is pathetic cope.
>you don't accept my rabbi rose from the dead 2000 years ago? Folly!
C O P E

>>19049707
>>>I am unable to answer his arguments ... let's say they are fuzzy!
Why is this only you who ad hominem everybody in this thread then and avoiding actual quetions?

>>19049709
Limbo

>>19049750
>does not respond to arguments
>muh fuzzy muh you will see that you are wrong later muh you are an ignorant lover of continental philosophy
>accuse others of making an ad hominem
lmao

>>19049711
You do not seem to be versed in logic at all. I brought it up, because from your perspective you are, and people well-versed in logic can be attracted to this philosophy as well.

>>19049760
I responded. And I have asked you to clarify what you mean for example by
>impersonal "face"

>>19049716
The filioque is not an invention. The concept is found in Augustine and in Scripture. What's more, there is a history of it. For the others you claim, there is no clear history; it is unknown if what is taught today is as it was; this is in part because these other doctrines have no authority and are not meaningfully organized. We can say that the Catholic Church has consistent doctrine in large part because there exists an organization we recognize as the Church.

>>19047142
Hegel resolves these problems

>>19049803
>what is a schism
Keep dodging.
>there is no clear history
You have no idea what you're talking about. You literally just googled "history of mandaeism" and gave me this retarded pilpul. Stop embarrassing yourself.
I'm done with this conversation, I'm going to bed. I also just noticed that every time I argue with a Christian I leave with an even stronger feeling that abrahamism is complete bullshit, you people are not very good at evangelizing. Probably because you kept slaughtering the competition instead of debating them.

>>19049751
Limbo of the infants has never been raised to the level of a de fide doctrine, and neither has a contrary opinion. There is no contradiction.

>>19049838
So you lost.

>>19049859
cope

>>19049867
You cope. Where do you live that you're going to bed so early?

>>19049700
> but your arguments have been refuted in this thread anon...
>>Even the illusion of multiplicity entails actual multiplicity.
No, that’s wrong. This is not a refutation of anything but its actually a common mistake that people make.

The central point of your argument here is taking “actual” as interchangeable with “real” and then saying “I don’t accept the 3rd category (mithya/false) as distinct from either real or unreal; therefore Advaita is allegedly contradictory because their claim of a 3rd ontological status which illusion belongs too doesn’t make sense if you only accept illusions as belonging to either a real/unreal binary.”

Do you already understand what’s wrong with this argument? It’s not actually refuting anything taught by Advaita, it’s not showing that anything taught by Advaita is illogical or contradictory, it’s viewing Advaita through the lenses of a non-Advatic ontology and then attributing the resulting contradictions to Advaita when these originate solely from you viewing it in that lenses and not because of something taught by Advaita.

In order to actually refute Advaita through this argument, you would have to refute their claim of the trifold real/false/unreal division; but your argument fails to do that and just presupposes this division is wrong. The onus is not on Advaita to demonstrate that this 3-fold distinction exists, they dont have to prove it to others in order for their doctrine and logic to be internally-consistent; the onus is on people desiring to refute Advaita to explain why this tri-fold distinction is illogical. Until you can directly refute it, any argument like yours which implicitly or explicitly relies on a rejection of the 3-fold distinction automatically fails as an argument, because in order to make those arguments and have them be valid the 3-fold division itself has to first be shown to be logically wrong, which nobody has done so. Until you refute the 3-fold division, then saying “but illusions are actual therefore real” fails as an argument because it skips the essential step that would allow this argument to have validity in the first place.

>>19049838
A schism is when someone separates themselves from or rejects the authority or jurisdiction of the Church. It is distinct from heresy. Not all schismatics are heretics, and generally when someone is a schismatic and a heretic, the schism occurs first, and the heresy is developed later to justify the schism. Notably, when the filioque was introduced, it was not universally rejected by the Eastern Churches; rather, what Constantinople rejected was the authority of the Bishop of Rome to make such a change.

Mandaeism is the most obviously inconsistent of the ones you mentioned. In the mid 1800's they lost all but two of their priests, and much of their texts.

>>19049887
Good post.

gg

>>19049608
>no arguement

>>19049909
>Notably, when the filioque was introduced, it was not universally rejected by the Eastern Churches
Because they silent about it.

>>19049838
Christers will keep stating their beliefs over and over again and wait until you concede. No use talking to these bugmen.

DUDE
WEED

>>19049934
/thread

>>19049922
They were far from silent about it. As a matter of faith, many accepted it, while vociferously rejecting Rome's authority to add it.

>>19049977
Give an example please?

>I am moving further and further away from Christianity with my reason, but it enrages my heart, which continues to feel that there is something special about Jesus, and that he is not just another enlightened sage.


There is nobody like Him.

>>19050017
There's me

>>19049934
LMAO

>>19047142
Jesus was a bodhisattva
His followers are all retards though

>>19049887
I have a lot of difficulty wrapping my head around that. Actuality/unreality seems intuitively necessary based on the Law of non contradiction. you want to assert rhat something neither is nor isn't, or perhaps is both? Being seems like a necessary condition for all things. To say there is an illusion which really isn't sounds absurd.
Whats the justification for asserting there is a third ontological standard?

>>19049709
the catholic church holds as de fide doctrine the likes of the devil and hell, which weren't a thing for most of jewish history, rather they are idea which can trace their origin in pagan myths and non canonical text

A real Buddha would support marriage equality. Ergo this desert demon is the demiurge, just like in my jrpgs.

>>19050121
you are a cuck

>>19050121
kek, nice one tranny

>>19049986
Unfortunately, I cannot give you a particular source from that time period. Rather, what I can give is that saints such as Martin the Cofnessor and Greogry of Nyssa approved of the filioque at least in some capacity, the theology was accepted by the Second Council of Lyons, and that there are Easter Orthodox theologians and priests today who try to distinguish a Roman versus a Frankish filioque so as to explain that there is an orthodox understanding of it and a heretical understanding of it. What we see is that the filioque does not take on as large a focus in the disputes between East and West until the disagreement over Papal authority emerges in the 10th century. Prior to that, there was criticism of the use of the filioque in the creed, as it differed from that promulgated by the Nicene Council, but there is not a challenge over its orthodoxy in any significant way until after the Photian controversy, which is notably the real beginning of the disagreement over the Papacy.

>>19050046
This would have been Nietzsche's view if there were enough translations done by his time.

>>19050061
This is clearly not true. The books of wisdom show Hell, and Satan is found in Genesis, and the psalms.

>>19050178
>Satan is found in Genesis
You mean the walking talking snake who gets his limbs removed as punishment?

>>19050121
The second sentence but unironically.

>>19050177
Based

If god is omnipotent why can't he make it so that we both have free will and are incapable of doing evil? He could remake the laws of logic for that to be possible so why doesn't he do it?

>>19050177
nietzsche? why?
he hate buddhism

>>19050250
>If god is omnipotent why can't he make it so that we both have free will and are incapable of doing evil?
do u know heaven?

>>19050250
WHY DOESN'T ANYONE READ THE FUCKING SCHOLASTICS

>>19050259
Why doesn't he make it like that now? Why wasn't Eden like that?

>>19050265
Can you answer the question or will you concede with another "just read x" post?
Your answer will determine whether I choose to seriously look into Christianity or not.

>>19050263
>https://www.heritage-history.com/index.php?c=read&author=pinay&book=plot2&story=gnostics
>accuses jew of arius heresy, and everything in history
is this a meme?

>>19048033
Gnostics do nothing but seethe over Christianity which makes sense because gnosticism is nothing but jewish cope.
https://www.heritage-history.com/index.php?c=read&author=pinay&book=plot2&story=gnostics
Gnosticism and all it's forms (including freemasonry, which Guenon was a member of) are just Jewish traps for the goyim.

>>19050210
Yes, as clearly indicated by the book of Wisdom, when it says "by the envy of the Devil, death came into the world."

>>19050290
anon, u know jesus was jew right?
u know john 4:22 right?

>>19050275
Jews are well documented promoters of heresy.

>>19050290
But Christianity is not such a trap, despite fulfilling what are supposedly their prophecies in their book made by their volcano demon? Top lel

>>19050294
"Jew" is a mistranslation of "judean", which is a regional, not ethnic, identity. The edomites who call themselves jews take advantage of this clnfusion.

>>19050309
Not marriage equality that’s for sure

>>19050298
>https://www.heritage-history.com/index.php?c=read&author=pinay&book=plot2&story=gnostics
>accuses arius of being jew without any proof and which doesnt not make any fuckin sens
schizo takes ur meds

>>19050272
Scholastics hold that God can do only what is logically possible. Omnipotence means power over all potentialities. A thing such as a 4 sided triangle is logically incoherent and can therefore never be potential and hence cannot be actualized. Free will without the capacity to do wrong is the same. This is based in a scholastic understanding of actuality and potentiality and is completely consistent with itself. A lot of people will criticize this stance as being incompatible with omnipotence. Thats just an arbitrary declaration. Omnipotence is defined by the scholastics, again, consistently with itself on the basis of Aristotelian metaphysics. Ive reccomended it before and i'll reccomend it again. The Christian Philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas by Gilson. It clears up all of these very basic and fundamental questions about Christian theology that everyone seems to have.

>>19050309
>volcano demon
Another psyop by the kike Sigmund Freud. The jews edited the Old Testament in the form of the masoretic text to deny the prophets.

>>19050311
>w-w-were the true jews i swear
this level of cope...

>>19050320
If God is limited then he's no God. This is intuitive. Unless the scholastics have a very good reason to say God is constrained by logic, I don't need to read more.

>>19050330
I love when they admit this; it's fine.
>>19050321
I think they know a lot more about abrahamic theology than you do. He spoke to them after all. Never once to you. Not once.

>>19050330
The jewish encyclopedia admits that they are edomites, fag.

>>19050348
The Jews don't worship the God of Abraham. You stupid retards take their claims at face value

>>19050056
>I have a lot of difficulty wrapping my head around that.
Well, there are plenty of Advaita writings explaining this that you are free to check out if you want to understand this better, including those by Madhusudana Saraswati, who was trained as a logician before turning to Advaita.
>Actuality/unreality seems intuitively necessary based on the Law of non contradiction.
The way Advaitins formulate the 3-fold vision violates neither the law of non-contradiction, nor the law of the excluded middle, and Advaitins point this out in their writings.

>Real means ‘absolutely real’, eternal and unchanging, always and everywhere, and Brahman alone is real in this sense; unreal means ‘absolutely unreal’ in all the three tenses like a ‘skyflower’ or a ‘barren woman’s son’ which no worldly object is. And in this sense, these two terms are neither contradictories nor exhaustive. Hence the Law of Contradiction and the Law of Excluded Middle are not overthrown. The Law of Contradiction is maintained since all that can be contradicted is declared to be false. The Law of Excluded Middle is not violated because, 'absolutely real' and 'absolutely unreal' are not exhaustive and admit of the third alternative, the ‘relatively real’ to which belong all world-objects.

>you want to assert rhat something neither is nor isn't, or perhaps is both?
The point is that a) “isn’t” and b) “is”, when the latter is taken in it’s absolute sense pertaining to God’s “is”, are not exhaustive but admit of a third category between them.
>To say there is an illusion which really isn't sounds absurd.
If “is” = “real” and “isn’t” = “unreal” then Advaita is not saying “illusion is” but is saying “illusion is illusioning and this illusion neither is nor isn’t.
>Whats the justification for asserting there is a third ontological standard?
Different Advaitins provide different reasons and inferences that can be made to support it, this is all optional though and it’s accepted on the authority of scripture ; its not regarded as something which has to be conclusively and irrefutably demonstrated before it is accepted as valid. Advaita was and is never about building a self-justifying logical system from the ground-up though, so it doesn’t harm them or demonstrate inconsistency that they dont attempt to prove every doctrine through logical proofs. In order to refute the notion, a logical flaw or inconsistency in the notion itself would have to be shown, the absence of undeniable proof for the doctrine is not a refutation of it being true.

>>19050318
Arianism was favored and pushed by jews to disrupt the church, no matter how many times you try to deflect.

>>19050293
the book of wisdom is a latter greek book that wasn't written by solomon

>>19050349
>jewish encyclopedia
Uh, you mean the Bible?
>>19050352
If they are lying you can't trust the Old Testament or that Christ fulfilled the prophecies they wrote. Don't be so self-defeating.

>Stop worshiping Christ and start worshiping these vague pajeet abstractions filtered through jewish freemasonry!
Traditionalists are fags.

>>19050178
Jesus in the gospels literally argues with the Jewish temple elite (Sadducees) who don't believe in heaven. Heaven and hell were imported into Judaism by Zoroastrian and Platonic influence.

>>19050369
Stop worshiping things, you're not a dog. Love instead.

>>19050370
>Zoroastrian and Platonic influence.
Kek, so Jesus Soter basically overturned the Maccabbean Revolt centuries later. Flawless hellenistic victory

>>19050363
You braindead nigger retard.
https://rense.com/general96/jesusnotjew.html

>>19050384
No, you faggot. You sound like a wine aunt.

>>19050290
I'm not a Gnostic but this has to be the dumbest critique of it I've ever read. Gnosticism was a Hellenic reinterpretation of Christianity a long the lines of pagan mystery religions. It even rejected the Hebrew Bible and the Jewish god as the demiurge. Calling it Jewish is hilarious.

>>19050370
The Sadducees reflect only one faction, a highly Helenized faction, which was not known for an exactness of scriptural knowledge. The Pharisees were another faction, who were staunchly nationalist, and being known far and wide as meticulous experts in scripture, they believed firmly in spiritual truths.

>>19050348
>I think they know a lot more about abrahamic theology than you do. He spoke to them after all. Never once to you. Not once.

which group of people calling themselves "jews" today are you refering to? The polish ones or the african ones?

>>19050409
>no, don't love
Okay.

>>19048082
>too retarded to see through jewish propaganda against Christ
You people are worse than useless

>>19050361
No Israelite ever believed such an absurd lie.

>>19050432
Not an argument

>>19050411
Gnosticism is perfectly incline with the talmud, which came out of Babylon like the mystery cults. You're blind.

>>19050441
More pilpul.

>>19050399
>>19050427
If it walks like a duck....

>>19050445
lmao you are absolutely delusional
Gnosticism is inherently incompatible with Talmudic jewry and you have no idea what you're talking about
Cope harder, gnosticism is everything Jesus wanted Christianity to be, and by being a nicaean you are denigrating him and his teachings

>>19050340
They absolutely do have a very good reason to say so.
Potentialities can only follow from actualities. God, being purely actual and that from which all proceeds is the basis for all potential things. To say God is constrained from an impossible potential is to say that God is constrained by a power separate from Himself. There is nothing separate or independent from Him. So to say He is constrained by the impossible to say that he is constrained by nothing.
You're beginning concepts of omnipotence and God which scholastics challenge from the outset. And the scholastic use of these terms is very rigorous, justified, and well defined. So at no point is it arbitrary for them to use this more conservative notion of omnipotence. I highly reccomend you read that book I suggested. It isn't anything particularly difficult or time consuming, and it will absolutely expand your understanding of theology

>>19050449
Still no argument.

>>19050432
It's all the same... uh... spiel... if you kvetch my drift

>>19050349
Link

>>19050450
Well none of the ethno-particularists claimants follow the levitical laws. Why should I prefer one groups claims to legitimacy over the other?

>>19050452
Gnosticism was a later corruption pushed by jews. The fact that you retards are quoting jews as authorities on this proves how dense you really are.

>>19050422
There is no mention of resurrection in heaven in the Old Testament. After death all we see is people going to the underworld Sheol, even the prophet Samuel. It's only in the Second Temple period under Greek rule that Jews start promulgating Platonic beliefs like the immortality of the soul.

>>19050477
Name a single gnostic sect founder who was Jewish.

>>19050490
Me

>>19050454
I disagree with the fundamental assertion that there doesn't exist anything outside of logic, I doubt I'll get anything out of the book. I've read some Aristotle and found it mind numbing. Logic simply isn't a sacrosanct principle to me. I have no trouble conceiving of a non-being outside ontology, that is not non-being in the sense of nothingness but in the sense of the negation of the tetralemma.

>>19050490
Jesus.

>>19050490
The Mandaens

>>19050458
You retards claim that gnosticism is the true Christianity, but your only sources are zionist jews who hate Christ. You are too stupid to live.

>>19050508
>there doesn't exist anything outside of logic,
Thats not really the claim. You shouldn't dismiss scholastics out of hand. Give the book a read and see what you8 think. It won't hurt to look

>>19050544
Jonas is Jewish
Lacarriere isn't Jewish
Sloterdijk isn't Jewish
Jung isn't Jewish
Serrano isn't Jewish
Lindsay isn't Jewish
PKD isn't Jewish
Couliano isn't Jewish
Filoramo isn't Jewish
Laruelle isn't Jewish
Valentinus isn't Jewish
Basilides isn't Jewish
You still have no argument :)

>>19050550
Sure.

>>19050481
There are many instances, but I'll admit most are in language that you will not accept. So here is Daniel 12:1-3
>[1] But at that time shall Michael rise up, the great prince, who standeth for the children of thy people: and a time shall come such as never was from the time that nations began even until that time. And at that time shall thy people be saved, every one that shall be found written in the book. [2] And many of those that sleep in the dust of the earth, shall awake: some unto life everlasting, and others unto reproach, to see it always.

>>19050481
Also, as was explained above, it was the Hellenizing Sadducees who preached no heaven.

>>19047713
Follow Christ, not some gay pajeet bullshit for people who smear themselves in cow shit

>>19050775
A compelling argument, but Christianity remains wrong
Hinduism as well, though

>>19050664
>God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.

>>19050664
>Among the dead no one proclaims your name. Who praises you from the grave?

God is non-dual
Creation is not God, nor a part of Him
Creation is dual
Thus, non-duality and duality are both true, in different respects

>>19050433
it was at the very best written 700 years after Solomon's death, cope