/lit/ - Literature

R. C. Zaehner - Christianity and the World Religions

R. C. Zaehner - Christianity and the World Religions

II

R. C. Zaehner - Can mysticism be Christian

Martin Buber on the false identification.

R. C. Zaehner - Can mysticism be Christian

Thomas Merton explains the false identification.

Memory in Plotinus

Refutation of the impersonalist notion of the Supreme Being

Tripersonalising the Hindu God of Advaitā Vedānta — Parabrahman

Advaitin coping

Monism is to mistake the individual human soul in its timeless essence for the Godhead, and, deceived by the unfractionable unity it has discovered in itself, it refuses to concede that there can be relationships and diversity in the eternal, timeless world. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity might have been expressly revealed to refute this error. If there are relationships within the Godhead itself, then surely there must be relationships between God and the soul, and between one soul and another.

also from >>19273119

>>19273104
>The experience mystics have of an apparent non-duality is merely the first sta-

“This self was indeed Brahman in the beginning. It knew itself only as "I am Brahman." Therefore it became all. And whoever among the gods had this enlightenment, also became That Brahman. It is the same with the seers (rishis), the same with men. The seer Vamadeva, having realized this self as That, came to know: "I was Manu and the sun." And to this day, whoever in a like manner knows the self as "I am Brahman," becomes all this universe. Even the gods cannot prevent his becoming this, for he has become their Self. Now, if a man worships another deity, thinking: "He is one and I am another," he does not know. He is like an animal to the gods. As many animals serve a man, so does each man serve the gods. Even if one animal is taken away, it causes anguish to the owner; how much more so when many are taken away! Therefore it is not pleasing to the gods that men should know this."

- Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10

>>19273173
this is illusion of the introvert mystical experience in which time and space ceases and the eternal now is experienced. It is only apparent that that I is the Supreme I am

m*nist cucks seething

>there have always been mystics in India too who have spoken not of realizing oneself as the One but of a tender love affair with God in which the soul attains to union with God indeed but not identity: the soul is not obliterated in the process.

>The Bhagavad-Gita and even more the theistic commentators on it make this abundantly clear. Worship and loving devotion to God does not cease once you have reached nirvana unless, of course, this worship was performed simply because it was laid down by the religious law and with no real love of God in it. On the contrary it is only when the soul has passed out of space and time and has detached itself completely from all things temporal that God will awaken in the soul a yearning for himself. This, for the Hindus, was a real and astounding revelation, for the earlier ideal had been, as it had been for the Buddhists, the stilling of all the passions, the good ones as well as the bad, love as well as hate.

>for as the Mahyan Buddhists realized, the realization of one’s own immortality is not enough, there is still a remnant of selfishness even in nirvana, and this too must be crucified: only then, as the Bhagavad-Gita teaches, can the grace of God flow in. The isolation of the immortal soul is indeed the furthest point man can reach by his own unaided efforts; he cannot proceed beyond this without the grace of God, and this further leap into the divine is cnacted in the Ascension of Jesus Christ, the Man-God to the Father. Thus salvation, for the Christian, does not mean ‘isolation’ within an immortal essence as it does for the Samkhya-Yogin, but a close union and communion with God in a mutual outpouring of love, and not only with God, but with all other souls. This is the doctrine of the Communion of Saints.


>The isolation of the immortal soul is indeed the furthest point man can reach by his own unaided efforts
the monistic experience is precisely this perception of the immortality of the soul

>>19273173
>‘The incarnation of Vishnu as Krishna, the charioteer of the mythical hero Arjuna, is the subject of the last and greatest of the Hindu sacred writings, the Bhagavad-Gita; and the main message of the Gitl seems to be this. The older doctrine of the identity of the human soul with brahman is accepted, but the word brahman seems to be used in a different sense. In the passages in which the soul is said to become Brahman, brahman seems to mean little more than a timeless state of existence. Moreover, Krishna, as the incarnation of Vishnu, claims to be higher than Brahman, he is the personal God beyond the Absolute, and must be worshipped as such.

>‘Think on me, worship me, sacrifice to me, pay me homage: so shalt thou come to me. I promise thee truly, for I love thee well. Give up all things of the law, turn to me only as thy refuge. I will deliver thcc from all evil. Have no care.’ So does Krishna, the Incarnate God, summon his devotee to share in his life. This is no longer an arid isolation of the soul within itself, nor is it to delude oneself that one is eithcr God or the ‘All’, it is an invitation first to realize yourself as you really are, that is, etcrnal and in that respcct like God, and having become like God, to love him who is your eternal exemplar and to enter into him. Thus the Bhagavad-Gita completely changed the whole orientation of philosophical Hinduism.

>Yet both the Hindu God Vishnu in his incarnation as Krishna and the Bodhisattva ideal of the Mahayana Buddhists prepare the way for the Incarnation of God in Christ. For in Christ the good news brought by Krishna that God loves man and the more tragic self-sacrifice of the Bodhisattvas meet. Thus in the historical person of Christ the hopes of Indian religion which always expresses itself in myth are fulfilled. Christ can be regarded as much as the historical Bodhisattva as the historical Messiah.

[...]

>Thus, seen against the background of both Indian religion and of the mcssage of Zoroaster, the purpose of Christ’s Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection becomes a little more clear. God, by becoming man, confirms the Judaco-Zoroastrian view that the body has a dignity of its own, and by dying and rising from the dead as man he demonstrates that man’s ultimate destiny is immortality in body and in soul. The final climax of the Incarnation, however, is not the Resurrection but thc Ascension; and this represents the final healing of the breach bctwecn man and God: man is taken up into heaven ‘and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty’.

all what the indian monists preached at best only serve to reach what Pseudo-Dionysius called the purgative way, the purification of one's body, the first of the three steps. At worst they inflate the ego and cause men to think they are like 'gods' and abandon all devotion. Without grace you can't go beyond this monistic experience (which in itself is false identification).

monism will always fail to explain the descent into matter or how matter came into being (or the sould embodied). if they propose the cosmos is eternal they are at odds with entropy

>One possible misconception should be cleared up. When the human ego is reformed and integration with the second self takes place, Plotinus does not teach that the goal of mysticism has been attained. The emergence of the true personality of man is not, as in certain Indian systems, an isolation of the immortal soul apart from all things. It is, as we have seen, the felt realization of the immortality and a partaking in the Intelligible World. These two, however, are inextricably bound up together, and since the soul is then in contact with the intelligible world it will enjoy non-discursive knowledge and understanding of the nature of all things. Such understanding will involve an understading of the utter dependence of all things on the One as first cause. Hence integration of the personality will mean not the isolation of the soul as monad, but the placing of the soul on the upward path to union with the One.
Integration and the Undescended Soul in Plotinus

if you rotate a cubix cube its still the same bub

>>19273104
you will never successfully refute Guenon

>>19273104
>pic
>non-dualism is a mistake because I say so, proof? no thanks; btw anonymous “mystics” refute it with their “feelings” (nevermind that non-dualists replied to and refuted the arguments of their detractors)
Not a refutation
>>19273110
>pic
That’s a complete strawman, Zaeher is just attributing to non-dualists a process of arriving at non-dualism via inductive reasoning which is not actually found in non-dualist writings. They accept it first and foremost on the basis of their scriptures, and then supplement this position with arguments to show that its logically consistent and defensible, they don’t accept or arrive at the position itself because of induction; as a strawman portrayal this is not a refutation of non-dualism either. Also, the Atman is not a psychological condition or a state of mind as Zaehner wrongly implies, those are both subject to change and the Atman (awareness) is free from change, a knowing unchanging awareness is what the experience of any state of mind presupposes.

>>19273116
>Krishna, as the incarnation of Vishnu, claims to be higher than Brahman
Zaehners claim is refuted by Krishna himself in the Gita when he says in verse 8.3 that Brahman is the imperishable Supreme, Krishna also says in verse 4.6 that as an earthly being born from a womb he is a maya-caused appearance or projection of the never-born Supreme Lord (Brahman).

Zhaener several incorrect claims in that image, worship and mysticism are far from being incompatible in Advaita, Advaita just maintains that someone who has reached spiritual perfection in the form of liberation has no need for anything, including worship, this doesn’t mean that it cannot be useful on the road there.
>Man’s goal is …. the active participation of that essence in love of God who is other than thee
This is refuted by the Gita passage where Krishna says that he is the knower (consciousness) in every body “ O scion of Bharata, you should understand that I am also the knower in all bodies” - Gita 13.3

>>19273311
Multiverses and bigbang-bigcrunch cycles.

>>19274618
For that it would be interesting if we read Zaehner's book called Hindu and Muslim Mysticism in which he traces the point where the sufis got influenced by al Ghazali and his master

>>19275703
The dichotomy Guénon traces between mystical sentimentality and metaphysics is very weak. Zaehner's point is that in all traditions there will be experiences of lover-beloved that can explain non-dualism, whereas non-dualism will not explain the dual experience. Of course love in the mystical sense is not sentimentality.

>>19273143
Kek

Joke Christiancope shill thread with 80% of the posts made by one user lol.
>>19276495
>Zaehner's point is that in all traditions there will be experiences of lover-beloved that can explain non-dualism
Lover-beloved is literally a dualism lol.
>whereas non-dualism will not explain the dual experience
You've got this entirely backwards. All dualisms occur within a whole (non-dualism). It is dualism which cannot explain non-dualism, because oppositional relationships make holistic understanding impossible.

>>19276593
>80% of the posts made by one user lol
Where did the monists go?

For the dualist the monist experience is real, the identification is not. For the monist the dualist experience is not real. That is what I have said.

>>19276648
>Where did the monists go?
Probably in one of the other ten monism vs dualism threads where the OP doesn't spend fifteen posts patting himself on the back for being a Christian.
>For the dualist the monist experience is real, the identification is not.
This is an idiotic and paradoxical statement and if you knew what any of these words meant you would not have said it. If any person has a "monist experience" or in other words experiences the dissolution of all oppositions including subject-object oppositions, at the very least we would be able to say that such a person is retarded for still being a dualist. More than that, such a person would overcome the categories of "self" and "not-self" which is what it means to realise and experience oneness, the total oneness. In other words, it is precisely the monist whose experience does not feature identification. Identification is possible only within a dualist framework ("my own" and "not my own").
>For the monist the dualist experience is not real.
It absolutely is and necessarily has to be real. In fact, in enlightened people both the monist and dualist experiences coexist side by side - the self is overcome and realised as empty, but at the same time the liberated spirit does not lose its ability to identify with the dualist experience and indeed continues to use the body and the personality in order to act in the world. Subject-object distinctions continue to exist, but their meaning becomes purely relative instead of absolute.

>>19276593
It is the dualism which explains the non-dualism, you have it wrong.

NOOO WHAT DO YOU MEAN I HAVE TO PAY DEVOTION TO GOD?? HOW DARE YOU!!!! I AM GOD MY EXOTIC NIHILISTIC TEACHER SAID SO

THIS WAS TOTALLY REACHED BY PURE INTUITION NO EGO TOOK PART IN IT

>>19273124
nihilist bros? i dont feel so good oh no nonon onono. shankara said we were god

>>19276744
>The identification is not real, I disagree, the identification is not real.

>>19273230
>stop relying on your own mystical experiences!
>place faith entirely on one JEW!

>>19276746
Evidently you have no idea what "non-dualism" even means since you seem to be under the impression that it can figure in any way, shape or form in a dualist framework, so I am not too worried what you think.
>>19276747
Pay as much devotion to god as you would like, you - you in particular - will never know him in any form, least of all because the only form you can recognise him in is rigid polemical bigotry.
>>19276773
No idea what you are even attempting to say here.

>>19276744
>If any person has a "monist experience" or in other words experiences the dissolution of all oppositions including subject-object oppositions, at the very least we would be able to say that such a person is retarded for still being a dualist.
No. That is precisely Zaehner's point. Even though the experience of the whole is achieve it does not mean the individual soul is the One.

He says:
>Be this as it may, I propose for the purposes of this article to include two well-known types of preternatural experience as 'mystical' because, in non-Catholic circles, they are usually considered to be so, and because the characteristic of each is that the 'mystic feels himself to be transplanted beyond time and space into an eternal 'now' in which death can have no relevance and man's natural condition is seen to be one of certain immortality. This type of experience can be 'extroverted', that is, the soul feels itself to be merged in the undying life of all things; or it can be 'introverted', in which case the soul plunges into its own deepest essence from which all that is phenomenal. transient, and conditioned, falls away and it sees itself as unfractionably one and beyond all the dualities of worldly life.

For Zaehner this is merely the discovery of the immortality of the soul and
>he soul, once it has discovered its real, 'transcendent' self which is deathless in the sense that it does not have its being in time and therefore cannot die, will mistake itself for God.


and finally:

>This, the non-dualists Vedantins as well as the Samhkhya-Yogins thought was as far as it is possible to go; indeed they were bound to think so, for, as [[Martin Buber]] says, the experience of the unfractionable unity of the transcendent self can scarcely not be interpreted as identity with the Godhead. It is indeed, the ultimate stage it is possible to reach through one's own natural powers without the intervention of the grace of God.

which means that in the tripartite system this is only the purgation of the soul, not illumination or union.

>>19276798
Jesus was not 'one jew', He was God. Now everyone spiritually careful would not rely only on his own mystical experience. What is at the stake here is not the validity or the concreteness of the non-dualist experience, but its conclusion.

>>19273104
Thread by @Imperium_Cast, i.e., /ourguy/; 5:15 PM · 23 of october 2021.
Tell me your thoughts:

"The aboriginal ontology of Indo-Europeans is differential ontology. Monism came later.
A deep dive into Indo-European metaphysics, from a discussion on the ImperiumCast telegram channel that I thought might interest you all.

The very concept of existence is differential. "Existence" = "ex-sto", "ex" = "out" and "sisto" = causative of "sto" = "to stand". To exist is to "stand out" from another thing. Differential ontology precludes monism because to exist is to be different from, implying plurality.

"be" = PIE root *bʰúHt
*bʰúHt = "to grow; become; come into being", "be" is cognate to Lat. "fio" = "to become". The upshot is that "becoming" is analytically prior to "being". Heraclitus (and his differential ontology) is much closer to the urhemat than Parmenides.

You also see dualities in many important IE concepts. "Sacer" is what is charged with the divine presence, forbidden to touch, and the word itself just means "set apart", i.e. to be sacred in the first place is just to be distinguished.

We have the dichotomy of homo/deus, homo as in "humus" as in "of the ground", deus as in "Dyeus" as in "shining, of heaven". Contra Benoist (who is otherwise great) with his non-duality, god and man are as different as heaven and earth.

We also have the bipartite sovereignty of Dumezil, i.e. the jurist-priest and the magician-king. This is a fascinating concept in itself and explains why Europeans can be both mocked for being stodgy while also feared for being genocidal maniacs.

We also have a huge number of homophones: *leuk- (light) and *leug- (dark), *kar- (to extol) and *kar- (to slander), *ma- (good) and *ma- (to deceive), *nem- (to give) and *nem- (to receive)—implying that the being of these things is bound up with difference.

The father of gods and men in many branches, notably the Norse and Roman, is the god of difference and liminality, which opens and closes the ritual. Zeus and Vesta (celestial vs. chthonic) also figure prominently, but Janus, god of difference is primary in cultic praxis.

And then you get the fact that these people took keeping things separate VERY seriously indeed. To just touch the boundary stone of a man's property (much less move it) carried with it the penalty of immolation.

[Picture of a quote relating to Etruscan property relations; property is seen as something sacred and untouchable. Pic rel.]

Families were separate, gods were separate, cities were separate, peoples were separate--there was an impassable gulf between all these things, and the more primitive the IE society, the more impassable it was.

All this taken together suggests that the aboriginal metaphysic of the IEs was one of difference. Monism is a later addition--perhaps we could say a subversion--which should give us pause in considering things like Vedanta and Platonic metaphysics as natively Aryan."

>>19276806
>Pay as much devotion to god as you would like, you - you in particular - will never know him in any form,
If you say so...

>>19276815
>Jesus was not 'one jew',
Jesus was a literal rabbi.
> He was God.
You're literally arguing against the union or identification with God. Therefore, why would Jewsus be unique?
I think half of what Zaehner says interesting; the other half is obviously bullshit and relies on believing in historical mumbo-jumbo many scholars take issue in.
>Now everyone spiritually careful would not rely only on his own mystical experience.
I have to rely on my own experience and logic, none of which leads to Jesus.
>What is at the stake here is not the validity or the concreteness of the non-dualist experience, but its conclusion.
I agree with some aspects of criticism of non-dualism but not with placing all metaphysics onto an irrelevant Jew.
Jesus is irrelevant to anyone who studies history in a more comprehensive and honest way. There were many other figures in history who claimed to be avatars or whatever of God.

>>19273183
How could this state, where the mystic has stripped himself of all contingencies, be anything other than God? Everything that would differentiate this state from God would be contingent, and the mystic abandons all contingency and all ego to reach this state. There is only one eternal outside of time, it is God
Read http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/public/articles/A_Thomist_Approach_to_the_Vedanta-by_Bernard_Kelly.aspx

>>19276817
>Monism is a later addition--perhaps we could say a subversion--which should give us pause in considering things like Vedanta and Platonic metaphysics as natively Aryan."

According to John M. Rist Pythagoras, Parmenides and Plato were dualists and only with Polyhistor and neopythagoreans monism was adopted by some into neoplatonism. For more on this read his article "Plotinus and Some Predecessors"

>>19276826
ngmi...

>>19276837
it is the soul, not God.

>>19276843
>it is the soul, not God
Yes I saw your statement, but I was waiting for arguments and an answer to mine...

>>19276843
>ngmi...
Tell that to the countless others who never heard of Jesus. He was just one megalomaniac man in the Levant. He wasn't even a member of any important empire like the Romans or Persians.
The only reason Christianity grew was purely for geopolitical purposes. You're just taking nonsense and imbuing it with meaning by taking more interesting Greco-Roman philosophical topics.
Why not worship Empedocles instead? I always found him more interesting, and he claimed to be a divine figure too.
Jews were disgusting savages in ancient times fyi. They should have been exterminated, but it was due to Cyrus the Moron (Kourosh) they survived. No one has ever liked Jews... the Assyrians, Romans (Hadrian had the right approach), Egyptians, etc... why would God choose a kike out of anyone else?
Honestly, I really hate you modern Christcucks. I can understand past Europeans being Christian. I mean, they added a lot of beauty to it, but you have to be delusional as hell to remain Christian in the modern era especially as we can study history with more readily available sources.

>>19276853
only truth matters. We are not shopping for ideas that appeal to us like you ("I always found him more interesting"). You have reddit mentality. Get out of my thread. Go back to pol or reddit. You care only about what what sounds interesting to you, you are not after truth. You want validation. You are worse than a monist for at least the monist is only confused, you simply are driven by your ego.

>>19276877
>only truth matters.
I agree.
>We are not shopping for ideas that appeal to us like you ("I always found him more interesting").
I don't think God would choose the tribes of Jews to incarnate into. I see no evidence. None of my own religious experiences have led to Jewsus either.
>Get out of my thread.
No.
>go back to pol to reddit
Most of pol agrees with you actually.
>You are worse than a monist for at least the monist is only confused, you simply are driven by your ego.
There is no convincing reason to believe in the Incarnation or Jesus being the Son of God, even if you do an adequate job of critiquing monism.

I would like to see some philosophical arguments, because rn I just see religious theists coping and simply asserting that this is only a stage below their dual and theistic experiences... Ok but it's a simple statement, some Buddhists also say that their nirvana is superior to the Hindu samadhi, that doesn't make it a truth.

So I ask for arguments: how could this state that mystics reach, which is non-dual, be something else than God? All that could differentiate this state from God, and make it only the realization of one's soul for example, would be a contingency, a duality, a personality, whereas this state is precisely reached by the mystics once they have abandoned all ego, all contingency, all duality. It just doesn't make sense to me

Since when there are other monads outside of time than God? What kind of polytheism is that lol

And even among Christians the soul is not outside of time like God since it was temporally created and is subject to change

>>19276888
>I see no evidence
The evidence for the resurrection are pretty good

>muh jooooos
Who cares about that, the Truth is not tribal

An equation is no less true if it is said by a Jew

And there is no book more anti-Semitic than the Old Testament

>>19276892
>how could this state that mystics reach, which is non-dual, be something else than God?
By arguing there are different layers of reality and treating their relations and bifurcations with more nuance.

>>19276906
Ok but this is a slogan, I ask for concrete arguments that respond to the one I just put forward

>>19276903
>The evidence for the resurrection are pretty good
You're just lying to yourself. I've read Roman accounts from Tacitus and much more, and most of these are taken out of context. The Gospels are also not reliable for obvious reasons.
One would expect the son of God leaving behind a pillar of light in the sky which other important cultures at that time could have verified. If I were reading testimonies from, say, ancient China about how they saw a pillar of light coming near the Levant and had dreams of a luminous Jew or whatever, then I would take claims of Incarnation more seriously.
The Resurrection may have also been a complete fiction, fabrication. Jews were notorious liars in ancient times fyi.
>Who cares about that, the Truth is not tribal
Then why reduce it to the most tribal group of humanity, huh?
You are disgusting me. Really, you simply have this attachment from youth, this ingrained habit, and as a consequence you utilize any form of rhetorical trick to push for it. You are a disingenuous cunt.
I disagree with nondualists, but I find you must worse.
>An equation is no less true if it is said by a Jew
EQUATIONS DO NOT LEAD ONE TO JEWS. IT LEADS TO TRUTHS THAT ARE NOT CONFINED TO ANY GROUP.
>And there is no book more anti-Semitic than the Old Testament
You're an idiot. It literally revolves around Semitic myths. Metaphysical texts should focus on metaphysics, not endless historiography on the endless squabbles of Levantines.
Goddammit, shut the fuck up. You are not a good philosopher, and I don't give two shits about destroying your pseudointellectual thread. If you want to critique nondualism, then do it without shoving Christcuck worship.

>>19276906
If it makes you feel better I also agree with you that most of what you call monistic mystics are making a huge mistake when they say "I am God".
In fact, the non-dual mystical experience only allows one to say that "God is God" precisely because there is nothing of the mystic's "I" left in this experience
Moreover, their "I am God" is not working well and it inflates the ego of all the idiots
For me one can only conclude from this non-dual state that "God is God", the principle of identity

The atman was always brahman and the jiva never changes

But my arguments against what you say here remain

>>19276892
>So I ask for arguments: how could this state that mystics reach, which is non-dual, be something else than God? All that could differentiate this state from God, and make it only the realization of one's soul for example, would be a contingency, a duality, a personality, whereas this state is precisely reached by the mystics once they have abandoned all ego, all contingency, all duality. It just doesn't make sense to me

>>19276922
>The Resurrection may have also been a complete fiction, fabrication.
Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about
Among experts even the biggest skeptics of the NT recognize the historicity of 4-5 events that can only be explained by the Resurrection hypothesis

>Then why reduce it to the most tribal group of humanity, huh?
Precisely because there is within them both the best and the worst of humanity
And God spends his time in the OT rebuking them because they constantly betray him
From the evil God brings out a greater good

>Really, you simply have this attachment from youth, this ingrained habit, and as a consequence you utilize any form of rhetorical trick to push for it
I am converted on the basis of rational arguments

>EQUATIONS DO NOT LEAD ONE TO JEWS. IT LEADS TO TRUTHS THAT ARE NOT CONFINED TO ANY GROUP.
Christianity is not confines to any group

>You're an idiot. It literally revolves around Semitic myths.
Have you read it?

>>19276952
>Among experts even the biggest skeptics of the NT recognize the historicity of 4-5 events that can only be explained by the Resurrection hypothesis
No. Most of them simply disseminate facts in an impartial manner.
Listen, you're having me have to go and study various historical facts from multiple angles. This will take many years, but from my time spent doing this, I see no indisputable evidence that Jesus was special.
>Precisely because there is within them both the best and the worst of humanity
More like they were one irrelevant tribe that shouldn't have survived. Thanks to their filth growing, we lost other world traditions in West Eurasia, you philosemite bastard.
>I am converted on the basis of rational arguments
You are converted due to conditioning and sentimental attachment. Your so-called rationality is merely an extension of deeply held attachments. It's similar to how people proclaim "Jesus!" when something bad happens. It's due to historical contingencies this happened.
I don't really care about Jesus. He may inspire some great minds, sure, but when one is utmost honest, there is absolutely nothing special about Jesus, himself. He was just mystic figure out of a time that was replete with them.
I do not like the idea of worshiping any man unless there is definite evidence they were holy.
>Christianity is not confines to any group
Christianity admits to confessing the Semitic/Abrahamic historiographies are superior to others. One can be a Buddhist or Hindu while still retaining a sense of their own cultural identity. I would argue this is impossible with Abrahamic religions in general because they involve having to confine revelations to one irrelevant tribe of peoples.
>Have you read it?
Yes, and I was not moved by them. They plagiarized a lot of Egyptian, Hellenist, and Zoroastrian elements, and thereby, created an unbelievable mess. I would argue the Hellenist elements would be better for Europe overall, which is why I think worshiping Empedocles is better.
I do think Empedocles was a holier man than Jesus. He was able to predict evolution, the importance of keeping the environment clean, the importance of valuing animal welfare, and so forth.

>>19276812
>No. That is precisely Zaehner's point. Even though the experience of the whole is achieve it does not mean the individual soul is the One.
If there is an opposition between the One and the individual soul then dualism hasn't been resolved at all. Are you not paying attention?
Look at this embarrassing quote you've posted:
>all the dualities of worldly life.
Awful cop-out. Not to mention the obvious dualism implicit in this: an inner being and an outer conditioned world. This is not a "monist" experience at all, since here the so-called "monism" precludes its own manifestation in "worldly life". As I wrote the last sentence, I felt myself grow really angry. How can you let yourself be tripped up by such stupid reframing and be fooled by the camouflage of eloquence? It gives me second hand embarrassment. It's outrageous that the forces of ignorance can close the eyes of curious men in such a brazen way.
>The soul, once it has discovered its real, 'transcendent' self which is deathless in the sense that it does not have its being in time and therefore cannot die, will mistake itself for God.
"God" lies far below the horizons on which a self-knowing soul will naturally set its sights. "God" does not transcend dualism, he is a slave to it.
>the experience of the unfractionable unity of the transcendent self can scarcely not be interpreted as identity with the Godhead.
Again, this is not the highest horizon of non-dualism at all.
>>19276817
Very bad take but I won't explain why also don't ask me.

>>19276888
It is more absurd to believe everything regarding Jesus Christ was fabricated than to take it as truth. The fact God chose an insignificant tribe is part of His paradoxes. If you look closely it is part of the sacred to deal in symbolical paradoxes.

It is curious how even Guénon accepted the truth of Christianity.

>>19276992
>No. Most of them simply disseminate facts in an impartial manner.
>Listen, you're having me have to go and study various historical facts from multiple angles. This will take many years, but from my time spent doing this, I see no indisputable evidence that Jesus was special.
You just haven't studied the case and the arguments for the resurrection.
A little introduction:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qhQRMhUK1o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SbJ4p6WiZE
See: https://www.amazon.com/Son-Rises-Historical-Evidence-Resurrection/dp/1579104649

>>19276992
>You are converted due to conditioning and sentimental attachment. Your so-called rationality is merely an extension of deeply held attachments.
No. I was convinced by arguments. See: https://www.amazon.com/The-Last-Superstition-Refutation-Atheism/dp/1587314525
>>19276992
>Christianity admits to confessing the Semitic/Abrahamic historiographies are superior to others. One can be a Buddhist or Hindu while still retaining a sense of their own cultural identity.
You are in the permanent modern relativism. The question is not which culture makes its people feel good, but what is historically true.

>>19277116
>It is curious how even Guénon accepted the truth of Christianity.
Because he was a Freemason. Freemasons tend to dabble in other religions while remaining Christian.
>It is more absurd to believe everything regarding Jesus Christ was fabricated than to take it as truth.
Jews are notorious liars. Why should I trust Paul? It's more absurd to reduce all divinity and complex history to a Jew than to dismiss him.
>The fact God chose an insignificant tribe is part of His paradoxes.
Calling God paradoxical is a tricky ontological claim that tiptoes on nihilism or Hegelian nonsense.
>>19277117
>No. I was convinced by arguments. See: https://www.amazon.com/The-Last-Superstition-Refutation-Atheism/dp/1587314525
I have read Edward Feser a bit, including his stuff on philosophy of mind. For every intelligent thing he says, he says 10 more retarded things.
>links biased and retarded Youtube videos
You sound like a low IQ American evangelist. There is no way you are European.
>You are in the permanent modern relativism.
I am not a monist or nondualist, but you would most likely have issues with my views too. Regardless, I sympathize more with monistic and nondualistic Hindus than I do with Christcucks. I simply do not find Abrahamism tenable in the modern age.
>The question is not which culture makes its people feel good, but what is historically true.
Jesus was historically not the son of God or intrinsically special in anyway. There were many better mystics.
History does not always proceed in a clean and smooth way. Sometimes history moves in a way where you lose out on something better and more sensible.
Regardless, I am going to hell in your worldview regardless of how many charitable actions I engage in, so why debate me in the first place? You're not debating in good faith anyways.

>>19276992
>I do not like the idea of worshiping any man unless there is definite evidence they were holy.
ie Jesus lol

>>19277243
I see more evidence that Empedocles was holy relative to Jesus.

>>19277165
You are the exact child of modernity. It is only in the post Christian society after ww2 that disenchanted modernists began importing eastern religions, but their views were never inclined to the orthodoxy of those religions.

It is not up to the age decide what is tenable or not. You are not familiar with the metaphysical concepts of world decline are you? But they are common to those eastern traditions you "like". How can "abrahamism not be tenable in modern age" when the collapse of man and end of the world is taken for granted in every tradition? In the kali yuga "orthodox" hindu traditions would also not be tenable in the modern world, same is said of Buddhism as it is said Buddha declared Buddhism would become so corrupt it would become a shadow. If not a single tradition would be "tenable in the modern age" why do you insist on declaring x isn't but y is? You are a progressist deep down. A modernist.

>>19277255
Exactly. He is a modern sophist. And Empedocles lol... It's obvious that he has no philosophical training. At least Plato or Aristotle
His attachment to Empedocles is purely identitarian and sentimental

>>19277165
You know the biggest enemies of Christianity are jews right? And that the antichrist will be hailed as their messiah. What you do is pay lip service to the jews when you discredit Christianity. For in the gospel it is said they were liars, and they proceeded to lie about Christianity in the Talmud by discrediting it, like you are doing right now.


You should not really equal Christianity with jewry, as the gospels attack jews and they are declared killers of prophets. How can your logical conclusion then be Christianity is jewry? If it were jewry the jews would be Christians and not opposed to Christianity.

So: how can Christianity be jewry when in Christianity it is hold that the jews will hail the antichrist as messiah?

Still no response to this:
>>19277011
Alright lads, I blew OP the fuck out. We can call it a day and wrap up this thread here.

>>19277381
same for
>>19276892

>>19277381
OP here. Still intact and vigorous.

Monism is demonic deception to make all devotion cease and men think they are like 'gods'. Many such cases in drug induced altered states.

>>19274618
His spiritual cosmopolitanism is the easiest shit to refute

>>19277516
Vigorously coping, perhaps.

>>19277301
Empedocles is dualistic, and I would argue his philosophy was closest to Zoroaster's Gathas.
>>19277255
I respect Eastern religions, but I find myself drawn more to cosmological dualism in general.

>>19277306
Read Christopher Jon Bjerknes. Christianity and Islam are both controlled opposition largely serving Jewish interests. Kaballah speaks of Jesus more positively but the Talmud speaks of it negatively because it's meant to form an imprisoning dialectic.
I think Allah is also based on Satan. Jesus himself was originally based on Satan too. It's about union with Satan versus the intermediary as Satan.

>>19277721
>just read the book by this schizo bro. he speaks the truth1!!
lmao what a cope. you really think you are a truth seeker? you just trust any schizo you happen to find. also go back to your containment board that is /pol/

>>19277750
It's worth listening to his talks. He does substantiate each of his claims and provides references.
/Pol/ actually agrees more with you.
Abrahamic religions are very fishy and basically constitute forms of social control rather than provide genuine mysticism. Sometimes you come across actual mystics with deep understanding like St. John of the Cross, but they're not sophisticated because of Jesus worship itself. It's more incidental than anything. It has to do with the emphasis on solitude within natural scenery and contemplation.
Truth involves metaphysical truths divorced from humanity. It's possible mankind will go extinct in the future and different animals like crows will speciate and become even more sophisticated. Already we see the beginnings of technological evolution and blueprints with crows of New Caledonia. Crow civilizations will emerge in the future, and they may be superior to us in many regards. Also, they won't have any Jews.

>>19277803
take your meds

>>19277803
forgot to link your stupid ncbi article you schizo. muh crows will evolve bullshit. you are a sad case of someone trying to judge reality by his own tastes

>>19277829
Meds actually cause problems in the brain's functional connectivity. Most research on antidepressants only study the effects on a single synaptic neurotransmitter level. For example, serotonin is involved in more than just mood regulation. Frequently altering its levels is bound to lead to some adverse accumulative effects. Based on my anecdotal experience with acquaintances and the replication crisis, even in molecular biology, I advise everyone not to take SSRIs or Prozac. Antidepressants cause more problems and are shilled by Big Pharma to keep people unhealthy.
Instead, improve your diet and nutrition by taking krill oil, vit d3 and K2 and magnesium, and so forth.
Given you are a moron, compared to me, I recommend improving your diet. Get some high quality krill oil for that shit brain of yours. Pastured and organic eggs are also powerful. I'm better than Jewsus for giving this advice.

>>19277834
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691310/

>"Many animals use tools but only humans are generally considered to have the cognitive sophistication required for cumulative technological evolution. Three important characteristics of cumulative technological evolution are: (i) the diversification of tool design; (ii) cumulative change; and (iii) high-fidelity social transmission. We present evidence that crows have diversified and cumulatively changed the design of their pandanus tools. In 2000 we carried out an intensive survey in New Caledonia to establish the geographical variation in the manufacture of these tools. We documented the shapes of 5550 tools from 21 sites throughout the range of pandanus tool manufacture. We found three distinct pandanus tool designs: wide tools, narrow tools and stepped tools. The lack of ecological correlates of the three tool designs and their different, continuous and overlapping geographical distributions make it unlikely that they evolved independently. The similarities in the manufacture method of each design further suggest that pandanus tools have gone through a process of cumulative change from a common historical origin. We propose a plausible scenario for this rudimentary cumulative evolution."

>>19277875
there are deep philosophical problems within darwinian evolution that even evolutionists agree yet you are easily swayed by a schizo author and a 2003 article

>>19277883
What do you mean? Speciation obviously occurs. The question of whether or not evolution has a telos seems more philosophical and outside domain of empirical science. I would agree with that at least.

>>19277803
Not really related but I'm glad someone else thinks that crows are probably next in line to become truly intelligent creatures. Interaction with human environments will super charge their evolution too, though obviously things would take many many lifetimes.