/lit/ - Literature

No one cares, LARPer

>>19527213
Then what? Will you try to become a bodhisattva? I wonder why they never came to me.

Also, zoroastrianism is dead. You must ve larping.

OP how do you know that isn't Ahriman deceiving you?
Also does this mean you're going to broaden your taste in movies?

based

The Buddha said, "I have attained nirvana by relinquishing all dualities. I have relinquished creation and destruction, life and death, existence and non-existence, good and evil, right and wrong, thereby attaining the Absolute. This is liberation, this is nirvana. You [the five initial bikkhus] practice self-mortification and the world indulges in the sensual. You therefore think you are great and holy, but both extremes are the same. To truly become free, you must give up both, you must give up all dualities...

—Seongcheol

>>19527246
I'm not a LARPer. I was into Soto Zen for a long time and then changed traditions due to doubts in regards to the nature of dualism vs nondualism.
>>19527272
It's not really dead, but it is dying for a reason. Its dualistic metaphysics are untenable, and the Parsee are assholes. I did read the Gathas and various other scriptures.
>>19527289
I have watched a lot of art house films from the likes of Bresson, Bergman, Tarkovsky, and more. My taste in film is good in general.
>>19527342
Yeah. Both Spenta and Angra Mainyu are dukkha and lack an underlying essence.

>>19527213
The Lankavatara sutra is a little tricky if you are less familiar with Yogacara. I would recommend reading the Mahayana-samgraha first for its more systemic treatment of that material.

Dammit, I can't tell what's true anymore. I've read Cologne Mani Codex, Gathas, Empedocles, and other more dualisric mysticism. I have also read a lot of Mahayana nondualistic stuff like Platform & Diamond Sutra, various Soto authors, and more. I've also studied some Advaita.
I can't tell if good and evil are truly one in the absolute or distinct and divided.
I'm pissed and angry. I wish I were a happy crow and didn't have to bother with humanity or endless doubts about metaphysics.
I'm going to make a Craigslist post asking for a realized teacher to show me the way.

>>19527531
>good and evil
Have you tried Nietzsche

>>19527570
I don't like Nietzsche.

>>19527213
Finally you're dropping the zoro larp. Though I'm sure Buddhists will also consider you a larper.

>>19527570
yes

>>19528470
I was never LARPing for either of them.
I was a Soto Zen Buddhist for 4-5 yrs and even did stuff like Shikantaza for 8-9 hrs a day.
Also for Zoroastrianism, I just agreed a bit with the dualisric metaphysics at that time, that's all.
Screaming LARPer is low IQ.
Kys.

>>19529136
>I just agreed a bit with the dualisric metaphysics at that time, that's all.
You shitted up every thread marginally related to Iran and Islam with your schizo meltdowns about your zorolarpism for years. That's not "agreeing a little bit", larper.

comfy schizo thread, thanks OP

>>19529295
I still dislike Abrahamic religions. Even if I go back to Mahayana, I will be calling it traditions of icchantikas.
I've read a lot of theological texts, faggot. For example, what made me pivot to Zoroastrianism was the rhetoric in Mardanfarrokh's Doubt Removing Book. Zoroastrians and Buddhists also most likely had debates in Balkh and Kushan empire. Both Zoroastrians and Buddhists coexisted in the Kushan empire.
I wasn't interested in Zoroastrianism because of my ancestors or any bullshit like that. I just think the antinomian consequences brought by nondualism or monism is a serious cause of warning.
For example, take this quote here: >>19527342
It's not something to take lightly. Even though I agreed with it at that point, a part of me is highly resistant to it.
The desire for a principle of goodness uncontaminated and independent of evil is what drew me to Zoroastrianism.

You want to pose as enlightened instead of purifying your soul. Just look at your posts.


Biggest larper on lit

>>19529348
>purifying your soul
There is such thing as purifying your soul in Mahayana.
Read Hui Neng's poems in Platform Sutra.

>>19529335
You just seem like a confused, self-deceiving nihilistic neoliberal. Have fun with your new larp.

>>19529349
>>19529348
>purifying your soul
There is *NO* such thing as purifying your "soul" in Ch'an or most of Mahayana.
One's true nature is already treated as completely perfect, immaculate, radiant, and impossible to taint. Delusion is more like clouds that obscure one's true nature.
Read Hui Neng's poems in Platform Sutra.
Purification does exist in Zoroastrianism.

>>19529350
>nihilistic
I am anything but nihilistic.
Yes, I can be misanthropic or cynical, but I am not a nihilist.
>neoliberal
Industrialism and globalization were mistakes. I prefer agrarian permaculture based societies.
>Have fun with your new larp.
How is it a LARP? I chanted from the Heart Sutra, bowed to Buddha statue, did Shikantaza for 7-9 hrs, and etc.
I can see the argument I was LARPing Zoroastrianism because I didn't do any rituals besides study the scriptures.

>>19529356
You know that doesn't change anything on what I wrote right? You just agreed with me.

>>19529356
There is the ālaya vijñana in Yogacara which functions in a similar way, though not exactly one to one with a soul since the ālaya ceases upon purification of all the seeds of consciousness, with the only reason to "purify" being to overcome purification

>>19529383
Yeah, it does. In most of Mahayana, there is no such thing as purifying your "soul". One's true nature is already considered perfect; it's more like delusions that prevent tacit apprehension of one's true nature. Nothing can corrupt one's true nature. I took issue with these views and pivoted more towards Zoroastrianism for some time.

Look at these two poems from Platform Sutra. The first one is considered misguided and false. Hui Neng's response is considered true. I will post Yampolsky's translations:

False, written by misguided monk:
"The body is the Bodhi tree,
The mind is like a clear mirror.
At all times we must strive to polish it,
And must not let the dust collect."

Hui Neng's enlightened response:
"Bodhi originally has no tree,
The mirror also has no stand.
Buddha nature is always clean and pure;
Where is there room for dust."

Another verse from Hui Neng:
"The mind in the Bodhi tree,
The body is the mirror stand.
The mirror is originally clean and pure;
Where can it be stained by dust?"

>>19529413
I remember studying storehouse consciousness during my read of the Lankavatara Sutra. However, it argues the tathagatagarbha, which is identical to the storehouse consciousness, is already pure and can never truly be tainted. All it requires is a perception not clouded by delusions. Even if one were to engage in transgressive behavior, his or her true nature cannot be corrupted. I took issue with these views.

>>19529443
>Even if one were to engage in transgressive behavior, his or her true nature cannot be corrupted
This is a highly qualified and caveated view by the way. My understanding is that it is given as hyperbole to demonstrate the depth of the bodhisattva vows. It is not an actual recommendation for you to attempt to be an enlightened highwayman or something of that sort. But what it means most plainly is that good and evil are not ontologically real due and one could have the appearance of wickedness in doing something for the benefit of sentient beings.

>>19529466
The skillful means exist solely for the purposes of reaching the One Vehicle.
>good and evil are not ontologically real
Hence it will invariably involve antinomian tendencies. Since one's nature is considered already pure and impossible to corrupt, how can you defend privileging good thoughts, words, and deeds over evil thoughts, words, and deeds? Do the precepts just become arbitrary or artificial in the sense they are just treated as instrumental for the one vehicle? Does this mean transgressive tantric practices are equally viable too?
I also feel there is a bit of a conspiracy in the modern world. Frankist-Sabbateans have a lot of power in contemporary times and most likely help decide academic curriculum to a large extent. Very few people debate or even know about the dangers of antinomianism. Antinomianism wasn't solely an issue concerning traditional Christians.
I left Mahayana because I could see the dangers of antinomianism. I even published a short horror story about its dangers.
Even Rene Guenon flaunts antinomianism.

>>19529498
Hey, Gúènòn is based. Watch how you refer to him.

You'll probably need to do symbolic analysis, what do the white robes mean? What does the role of bodhisattva mean and can it be compared to any other religious role, learning Sanskrit will take years. Will you earn money from it will it bring an attractive partner for you? And if they don't will you just suffer for visions that may not even have established rules to invoke?

>>19527213
mahayana isnt schizophrenia dude. you might want to talk to /x/ about this one instead

>>19529498
why do the people who have the least to say somehow say it in the most words

>>19529535
White robes obviously means Avalokiteshvara.
I may just have to stick to scholarly English translations.
I do always take time to determine what are the best translations. For example, I think Hurvitz translation of the Lotus Sutra is best. I also plan to read Ziporyn's translation of Lotus, which I heard has a good introduction.
Some historical context and nuances will always be lost in the translation process, but one can still do his or her best.
For Diamond, I read Red Pine, which has a lot of commentary from various monks throughout the ages. For Platform, I read both Red Pine and Yampolsky. Etc.
Dogen translates poorly btw.

>>19529498
>Hence it will invariably involve antinomian tendencies.
Maybe in a very technical sense but the average person is quite bound by "fetters"
>Since one's nature is considered already pure and impossible to corrupt, how can you defend privileging good thoughts, words, and deeds over evil thoughts, words, and deeds?
I'll give you the lazy but also correct answer, which is that there is simply the path, and everything else is delusion.
>Do the precepts just become arbitrary or artificial in the sense they are just treated as instrumental for the one vehicle?
Arbitrary insofar as they apply differently to different conditions? Yes. But from the view of the conditioned to whom they apply, not arbitrary at all, quite real.
>Does this mean transgressive tantric practices are equally viable too?
I have not studied these much. But I would presume they are a vector for people interested in sorcery to access Buddhism. Not all Vajrayana is black magic, e.g. Shingon.

>>19529556
I want an absolute good and evil. I do not like the ideas that they interpenetrate, exist in complementary dynamic, or are illusory. I prefer the idea that they are in an antagonistic irreconcilable tension.
When I was 9 or 12, I read Albert Fish's letter. It traumatized me. From then, I decided to always remain child-free. I cannot accept the idea that someone like Albert Fish possesses an incorruptible, pure Buddha nature.

>>19529558
Karl Brunnholzl has translated a number of important Indian Mahayana texts and commentaries from the Tibetan curriculums, and provides copious endnotes. It's like having an actual teacher, though that makes sense since he is technically ordained (and not in California!). Should look into some of those.

>>19527213
Either join a monastery or shut the fuck up filthy larper.

>>19529574
Not sure who that is but in a world where some beings eat their partners after mating with them you're going to tell me something about good and evil being ontologically real? What about viruses that only "exist" to kill off weakened members of a population?

>>19529595
Good and evil stem from intentionality in relationship to meta-emotions and mapping it to action. For example, "goodness" involves positive intentions embodying and basing itself on positive meta-emotions, and then this is mapped to action (e.g., feeding the rabbit and seeing it as contented).
Cannibalism is bad because it involves inflicting pain onto another. Early Dharmic religions would also say it goes against Ahimsa or Śīla.
>>19529588
There are such things as lay practitioners.

>>19529627
>Good and evil stem from intentionality in relationship to meta-emotions and mapping it to action
Based on this they are relative, as is generally claimed in Buddhism.

>>19529635
Why is there a large-scale academic attempt to slyly normalize antinomian tendencies into everything?
I have a hard time believing you people emerged organically. There is no way this is growing organically. It has to have come from an unsavory secret group like Frankists, Freemasons, or something like that.
Even Guenon had a relationship with the Pallavicini family and Freemasons.
You are corrupting Buddhism with your antinomian relativist edgelord bullshit. At the very least take a step back and understand the dangers of what you're espousing, faggot.
You defended cannibalism out of all things.
I don't think early Buddhism treated morality as relative. Please quote the Pali canon. It seems something unique to most strands of Mahayana.

>>19529656
To say something exists is not to defend it. I am telling you there is cannibalism in the animal kingdom. Are those animals evil? If they aren't, what does that say about good? In the satipathanna suttas in the nikayas one is encouraged to meditate on the quite gorey impermanence of the body. Are the vermin which will come for your remains evil? Is the body itself evil for decaying and so depriving you of life? There are implications to work out here. If you end up with dualism, I don't think you have understood.

>>19529676
>I am telling you there is cannibalism in the animal kingdom. Are those animals evil?
The process of mapping intentions & meta-emotions to actions differ among species, so no, they're not evil. A human engaging in cannibalism, especially within civilized societies, is evil.
It's best not to intervene in the animal kingdom. The best thing we can do for nature is not to introduce invasive species, not to cut down ancient forest, not to spread pollutants, and so forth. By doing this, biodiversity is protected. Mankind has failed with all of that though.

>>19529691
Again from a buddhist pov the fact that you are able to introduce a list of qualifications to evaluate what is evil and what is not under such and such context and as executed by such agent means there is no inherency to evil and that it is simply a conditioned thing.

>>19527213
So you are switching your spiritual path from one to another like that, believing the first vision you had that told you to stop?

>>19529574
dude just be quiet

>>19529765
Maybe the issue is with Nagarjuna? I don't really like these views.
>>19529776
More like I am undecided.
>>19529789
Kys.

>>19529800
Nagarjuna presents a condensed version of the prajñaparamita sutra(s), which are also the source of the Heart Sutra. Taken together these are often represented as central to Mahayana in terms of philosophy and literature. There are other schools, as you know, but many will have some relationship with if not Madhyamaka itself the influences behind Madhyamaka.

>>19529825
Are there any schools that treat the Brahmavihara as substantive? What's the point of promoting Brahmavihara if they are empty of underlying existence? How are they then even conducive as an expedient means to Nirvana? Wouldn't there antithesis likewise be conducive to suchness/Nirvana or whatever? Why promote compassion over hatred then?
Do you see the issues I am touching on here? This is what I mean by antinomianism.

>>19529875
>Wouldn't there antithesis
Wouldn't their antithesis*

>>19529875
Compassion and the related virtues e.g. generousity are a means of realizing anatman or the impermanence of the conditioned existence of a self, at least in Mahayana. Generousity is the first of the paramitas for that reason. You do "good" acts because of flux, not because of the stasis of categories of good and evil. If things were all static there would be no point to any of it. Even if there is an original quietude or buddha-nature immanent in phenomena, that doesn't white out the apparent relationships and ongoing delusions and sufferings endured in transmigration

>>19529800
LOL thats your answer. fuck you too buddy. youre the one blabbing on and on with no direction. just shut your mouth, stop typing you are looking like a complete buffoon

>>19527213
You have to understand that majoosi will soon be extinct and become muslim.
this is a good thing.

>>19529940
How does compassion and generosity necessarily entail realizing anatman or impermanence of conditioned existence? Couldn't their antithesis likewise accomplish the same feat?
>You do "good" acts because of flux
This doesn't follow. One can also do bad acts and justify it based on the flux.
>not because of the stasis of categories of good and evil
Even if everything is a flux, couldn't there be constraints of Dharmas, in the Sarvastivada sense, where good and evil are dharma factors are eternally existing realities? Read about Sarvastivada here:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Sarvastivada
I think Mahayana developed from Sautrantikas?
The deeper you go into Buddhism and its roots, the more you will see I will have reasons for my decisions. I am not just acting out of emotions here.

>>19529956
Genuinely kys, faggot. What I'm talking about has precedence in the Sarvastivada school too. They would actually agree with me. They went extinct.
>>19529960
Abrahamic traditions are trash.

>>19529973
"While, like all Buddhists, the Sarvastivadins consider everything empirical to be impermanent, they maintain that the dharma factors are eternally existing realities."

This would mean arguing good and evil are dharma factors that are eternally existing realities is NOT adharma.

The Lankavatara Sutra also argued something like this in certain parts.
Most of you are antinomian edgelords who are twisting Buddhism to serve your egotistical and libertine interests.

>>19529966
>The deeper you go into Buddhism and its roots, the more you will see I will have reasons for my decisions
There is compendious scholastic literature in Mahayana arguing against the sarvastivadins, abhidharmikas, and others yes. The positions I have been representing in the thread are not those of the schools believing in eternally existent quasi-atomistic dharmas.

>>19529994
>twisting Buddhism to serve your egotistical and libertine interests.
pure projection, you ought to return to whatever protestant denomination your parents stopped practicing out of apathy instead of rumaging through the east for petty moralizing

>>19529960
Kys, Mudslime. Buddhists hate you too:

"The Kālachakra Tantra is ... a Buddhist text that contains passages which discuss the religion of Islam in a negative manner and refer to a man named Madhumati (i.e. Prophet Muhammad) who would be a "false impostor, wreaking havoc" on the Buddhist world. it describes Muslims as invading "barbarians" (Skt. mleccha, from two words "Malina" meaning lowly, dirty, filthy, impure, wretched, unchaste, unclean, admixed, adulterated, contaminated, corrupt, immoral, decadent, infected, obscene, tainted and "CCha/CCheetkara" meaning abhorrence, loathing, disgust, abomination, repugnance) and contains the prophecy of a holy war between the followers of Islam and Buddhism. It refers to Islam as "mleccha-dharma", the barbarian religion, describing it as a religion of violence ("himsa-dharma") that advocates savage behavior ("raudra-karman"), and characterizes Allah as a barbarian god, who is a merciless deity of death ("mara-devata"), a god of darkness comparable to Rahu, the demon who devours the sun and the moon. One passage of the Kalachakra states that the powerful, merciless idol of the barbarians, the demonic incarnation (i.e. Muhammad) lives in Mecca

According to Professor John R. Newman, a historian of religions who specializes in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism, "We may summarize the Kalacakra tantra's perception of Islamic beliefs and practices as follows: from the Buddhist point of view Islam is demonic and perverse, a perfect anti-religion which is the antithesis of Buddhism".
>>19530002
My point is I am NOT a LARPER.
I decided to move away from Mahayana after reflecting more on the Sarvastivadins and then deciding Zoroastrianism is the closest living tradition to them. I don't agree with Zoroastrianism entirely either. For example, I still agree with the three marks of existence. I do not agree that good and evil are relative however. Good and evil are absolute dharma realities, they are in effect ontological principles that exist within specific constraints even in the flux of reality.
I cannot agree with quotes like this in all seriousness. I consider this pure evil: >>19527342

>>19529381
The irony. Without industrialization and globalizqtion you whoulf have never even dreamed of being a zen buddhist.

>>19530014
>petty moralizing
How is finding a moral basis to call transgressive acts like cannibalism, murder, torture, or whatever evil constitute petty moralizing? STFU, you stupid nihilistic icchantika subhuman. I find it very hard to remain civil with edgelords like you. If there's one thing Muslims have right, it's public executions of edgelords like you.

>>19530029
>reflecting more on the Sarvastivadins and then deciding Zoroastrianism is the closest living tradition to them
Possibly. Did Sarvastivada develop in Gandhara? I don't remember the early sects too specifically but that seems plausible. On the other hand that makes for a fairly good case that it is as removed from a presectarian Buddhism as one could argue Mahayana is, though since Mahayana argues against Sarvastivada that presents its own case for a return to form

>>19530040
>people should be publicly executed for disagreeing with my metaphysics
Yeah this Dharmic religions stuff is not for you, sorry

>>19529973
What's wrong with Abrahamic religions? Give a coherent answer without schizo meltdowns.

>>19530047
I'll stick to a mix of Zoroastrianism-Buddhism. I find this best for me. I think my views most closely align with Sarvastivada. I cannot handle amoral nihilistic nondualism.
>>19530053
Mahayana is obviously not for me, faggot. I don't like Abrahamic religions, but I do like Mazdan traditions.
I don't think people are cursed for believing or not believing in God. They are cursed for whether or not they live a life largely defined by good conduct or transgressive/sadistic crap. The latter sends one to hell or negative rebirth.
Zoroastrianism is different from Abrahamic religions. It doesn't damn people for not being Zoroastrian fyi the way Christcucks or Mudslimes do.

>>19530073
>It doesn't damn people for not being Zoroastrian
You've already admitted a preference for the methodology of Islam, which successfuly exterminated Zoroastrianism from Persia. So you do you.

>>19530064
The core idea of Zoroastrianism is purification by embodying Spenta Mainyu ('sacred mental state / spirit').
The core idea of Abrahamism is *salvation via faith* and upholding divine commandments that were exclusively revealed to one irrelevant tribe of hucksters.
Faith should be secondary to actions/conduct that aid in purification.
One thing I believe the esoteric strands of Zoroastrianism and Mahayana share in common is that the sacred nature of one's being is best realized through one's own experience or one's own mind.
You are supposed to find the divine light or Buddha nature through one's own interactions with the natural world or inner life. I've gone scuba diving, mountain hiking, and more. I've seen more of God's divine sparks in the birds, trees, and streams. However, I have seen an impenetrable darkness in the nonsense of Abrahamism, which claims truth is found external from either purification (Mazdan traditions) or one's own true nature (Mahayana). In Abrahamism, the truth is found in historical revelation and not through one's own discernment, wisdom, or experience.
Zoroastrianism is a religion of action. It is about purification first and foremost. It is why Zoroastrians got along with Hindus and Buddhists in the Kushan empire until the over-zealous Sassanids ruined it.
Belief is secondary to action in Zoroastrianism. One embodies Spenta ("sacred") Mainyu (dual meaning of "spirit" and "mind") or Vohu Mainyu and then brings forth intentions and actions for the purposes of renovating the world and helping Ohrmazd further ward off Ahriman.
Yes, there are unique rituals and praying towards fire, but these are done to better tacitly apprehend Vohu Manah or Spenta Mainyu.
Moreover, Orthodox Mazdaysna did have some bad things about it, but Mazdak later reformed and removed these elements.

>>19530083
Zoroastrians had public executions of people who engaged in "mortal sin" too. Some of it was archaic however and later reformed by Mazdak and later mobed.
There is nothing wrong with executing murderers, rapists, cannibals, or whatever. Europe wouldn't be in deep shit, for example, if executed the rapefugees FYI. Dumb cunt. Stupid piece of shit.
What are you going to do next? Call death penalty savage?
Forgiveness should only be reserved to those who have good intentions. If people are beyond the capacity of changing to adopt good intentions, they should be executed.

>>19530029
>Kys, Mudslime. Buddhists hate you too:
buddhists are polytheist kuffar

this thread is the biggest (you) farm by the biggest narcissist posing as spiritual

>>19530116
You've broaded what was being discussed considerably so it's not even relevant to my position, which was that killing people over differences of religious dogma, which you have endorsed, is the province of abrahamism and is what helped eliminate the very zoroastrianism you are sympathetic to. Obviously one does not have to meet the definition of ontological evil to be executed by judicial authorities and I was not taking a position on criminality for you to attack or defend. No point in responding further.

>>19530132
Fuck off from this thread, you illiterate goatfucker.

>>19530143
I respond for the benefit of other sentient beings. He's ngmi this round

>>19530147
Hahaha no I won't.

>>19530146
>was that killing people over differences of religious dogma, which you have endorsed,
Where did I advocate killing people over differences of religious dogma, you dumb faggot? Point out where I pointed this out.

>>19530164
are you the anon who used the start zen poetry threads and say stuff like 'raises finger... start from here'?

>>19530157
You don't even have a mind or qualia, so you're not truly here to begin with. Too bad you don't have a tripfag I can filter, depraved faggot.
People like you have no connection to Buddha nature or anything sacred.
>>19530164
>where I pointed this out.
where I said this*

>>19530164
You are too stupid to remember your own words, proof of momentariness and ignorance if there was every any more needed

>>19530168
No.
I have read Shiwu a lot.
I have read only a little of Han Shan.
Idk if they truly translate well. I read Red Pine's translations. He has nice annotations.
Wang Wei is a good poet also, but he translates even worse.

>>19530101
This is reductive and not true in Islam. You could "have faith" and be damned nonetheless if your actions do not align with your faith. Better said, if your actions do not align with your faith, that means your faith was defunct to begin with. Let me illustrate by these questions: Why would you be virtuous if not because God wished you to be so? And could you really be virtuous if you weren't doing it to align yourself with God's wishes? In a way it's a biconditional relationship: faith implies good action, and vice versa; and the bad action implies the lack of faith, and vice versa. Faith is therefore seen as inseparable from action. Please do continue to keep schizo discussions at the minimum.

>>19530173
I told an edgelord who flaunted nihilism and antinomianism that he deserves to be publicly executed. He said I was a petty moralizer because I am trying to find an ontological basis for why extremely transgressive acts like murder, rape, cannibalism, etc. are evil. This is not the same as endorsing killing people over differences of religious dogma.

>>19530101
all religions are about purification and this includes original greek philosophy

stop talking dude.
simple as.

>>19530179
Faith is separable from action.
People have different faiths or lack thereof and can still engage in good action.
Action and the embodiment of certain states of mind should be privileged over faith.
What Zoroastrianism does is tie various states of mind to the divine. I thus see certain states of mind as having elements or sparks from God or the Absolute.
Zoroastrianism contradicts Tawheed. Tawheed logically entails faith having primacy over phenomenological states or actions or divine qualities.

>>19530193
In Mahayana, you are already pure. There is no purification involved.
Do you not even read up on the source materials I mention? Do you not bother even looking into the nuances of what's being discussed.
God, you're a fucking idiot.

>>19530216
that's why it is false.

get a tripcode so i can filter you. you are UNIRONICALLY THE WORST POSTER ON /LIT/. you are like a person vomiting a bunch of spiritual terms without doing the basics of asceticism. you are simply not doing this in good will, with a pure heart. this is demonic

>>19530207
>Faith is separable from action.
I made an argument, but you answer me with a simple statement? I say again, how could you have good actions if it were not rooted in faith? Suppose you decide to help someone: if you didn't do it out of pure intentions, then it's an arbitrary act. Faith gives a justification to all good actions. Without faith, good actions would be arbitrary and without justification. Do keep in mind faith itself is also a mental action. In Islam faith in Tawheed is seen as the beginning of all truely good actions.
>Action and the embodiment of certain states of mind should be privileged over faith.
Do not make prescriptive statements without giving a justification. If you do so, you'll confirm the Buddhist's words about being a petty moralizer.

>>19530184
>people should be killed for antinomianism is not a position of religious dogma
Consistently wrong, I'll give you that much

>>19530252
If they promote antinomianism, I don't see issue with them being killed. Likewise, the antinomianist has no argument against it either fyi.
How can an antinomianist justify any normative claim outside of baseless rhetoric?
Promoting antinomianism involves saying shit like, "Even during the process of murdering another, your inherent nature is still pure and radiant!"