/lit/ - Literature

>>20281095
He eventually retracted those statements about Vedanta for whatever it's worth. It's actually a misunderstanding on his part which he admitted to.

>"Yet even now the difficulty remains unsolved, since we must ask how, generally speaking, ignorance and relative perspectives arise. We could find a solution if we were operating in the context of a creation theology typical of religions such as Christianity and Islam. Since theistic religions postulate the existence of created beings (who are somehow separated from God, who is their principle, and therefore are not to be identified with Him), we could attribute to them the relative perspective that arises as a consequence of maya. Unfortunately, in Vedantic monism there is no place for such a notion. Its cardinal tenet is "brahman has no equals," namely, there is nothing outside of it, not even created beings that are subject to ignorance and to experiencing the world according to the illusion of maya. If we uphold Vedanta's Advaita monism, we are thereby forced to conclude that maya, in its irrational and miragelike nature, could mysteriously arise within brahman itself (since nothing exists other than it). This, in turn, would lead us to conclude that brahman itself is subject, in some way, to "ignorance." It is the only way out, but by choosing it, the radical Vedantic monism is fatally flawed."

>Why didn't you guys tell me Evola was based? I thought Perennialism was all about sucking Guenon's dick and doing opium. Advaita is incredibly overrated in Perennialism and the basis for privileging it comes out of Blavatsky's Theosophy, whether or not Guenon wants to admit.

>>20281105
>He eventually retracted those statements about Vedanta for whatever it's worth.
where did he say this?

>>20281107
1972 interview with Breccio Cicciarello

>>20281119
is that the one on YouTube?

>>20281123
Yes, although it's a private video

>>20281133
>[Embed]
Way to spoil the fun.

>>20281119
>>20281128
post the actual source and text otherwise it's bullshit

>>20281095
This is what happens when you evaluate something in a superficial manner from afar without actually reading the source texts. It's good that he eventually realized his mistake and retracted it.

>Its cardinal tenet is "brahman has no equals," namely, there is nothing outside of it, not even created beings that are subject to ignorance and to experiencing the world according to the illusion of maya. If we uphold Vedanta's Advaita monism, we are thereby forced to conclude that maya, in its irrational and miragelike nature, could mysteriously arise within brahman itself (since nothing exists other than it).
Qualifiers like 'outside vs inside' can only be predicated about dualistic phenomena within maya and from the perspective of beings within maya, beyond maya it's inapplicable as a frame of reference. Trying to say "oh but it has to be inside/outside then" is missing this point. There is no outside/inside in undifferentiated non-dual absolute reality. Maya has no spatial location in relation to absolute reality as maya and absolute reality are not two existing objects that are related spatially, only the latter actually exists. When maya is projected as falsity/mithya it's not necessary for that to be located spatially, not least of all because maya is not an existent object.
>This, in turn, would lead us to conclude that brahman itself is subject, in some way, to "ignorance." It is the only way out, but by choosing it, the radical Vedantic monism is fatally flawed."
Brahman is not subject to ignorance in Advaita, Brahman is the unaffected source of illumination that illuminates and thereby permits the minds of ignorant living beings to function like how the light of the sun permits a man to go about his activities, while Itself remaining unaffected by ignorance or anything else. In Vishishtadvaita, Bhedabheda, Shuddadvaita and Kashmir Shaivism, Brahman or parts of Brahman (saying Brahman has parts involves a logical contradiction) are truly affected by ignorance/imperception and have a real bondage and a real release, while in Advaita and I think also Dvaita the Atman-Brahman is unaffected and is never truly bound, being instead always eternally liberated and free.
>Advaita is incredibly overrated in Perennialism and the basis for privileging it comes out of Blavatsky's Theosophy, whether or not Guenon wants to admit.
No, its privileging is because their arguments btfo the other schools

>>20281444
checked
guenonfag?

>>20281547
>guenonfag?

>>20281563
im curious to read about Evola's retraction about Advaita Vedanta. do you know what the tldr is?
he made some retractions regarding Catholicism too and said Pagan Imperialism was cringe iirc

>>20281444
>Nothing exists but Brahman, Brahman is unaffected by ignorance
>Brahman permits the minds of ignorant living beings
Where do these living beings and ignorance take place if it's not within nor outside of Brahman?
You write "beyond maya" and "within maya" as if the illusion were existing outside of Brahman. You also write that maya is being projected, for something to be projected it requires a surface to be projected upon.

>>20281563
btw what region in USA do you live in? just curious
t. midwest chud

>>20281444
That sounds like wordplay and semantics to handwave the inherent contradictions of the system. If only Brahman truly exists and can never be deluded, change then delusion, change and multiplicity would have never come about.

>>20281572
I dont know what his retraction is because I haven’t watched the video, I was going off what the other poster said
>>20281581
I live in the mid-Atlantic area (pic related), I have lived on the west coast too before but not at the moment

>>20281708
> I was going off what the other poster said
I ended up digging through Path of Cinnabar to see if he mentioned it there but accidentally stumbled across some interesting quotes regarding Guenon (from a Q&A appendix interview)
I have just enough time to type it up real quick before I gotta go. One sec
>I have lived on the west coast too
did you spend any time in california by chance?
if so, did you feel anything related to what Guénon said regarding California being a secondary center of geological counter-tradition?
(I lived there too and felt it ngl)

context:
Letter from René Guénon to Marcel Clavelle of March 25, 1937
>“It seems that the atmosphere of Antwerp is something dreadful, which even gives rise to inexplicable physical discomforts; but, there and even for Lyon, like perhaps also the Balearics and some other places of Europe, and for California as far as America is concerned (because it is doubtless not for nothing that so many strange things gather there), I think that they are basically only secondary centers, which should not be counted in number of "turns" properly so called. These seem rather arranged in a sort of arc of a circle surrounding Europe at a certain distance: one in the region of Niger, from where it was already said, in the time of ancient Egypt, that the most formidable wizards; one in Sudan, in a mountainous region inhabited by a “lycanthrope” population of around 20. 000 individuals (I know eyewitnesses to this here); two in Asia Minor, one in Syria and the other in Mesopotamia; then one on the side of Turkestan where there are things as "mixed" as in Syria, good and bad; so there should be two more to the north, towards the Urals or the western part of Siberia, but I have to say that, so far, I cannot locate them exactly. "

>>20281576
> Where do these living beings and ignorance take place if it's not within nor outside of Brahman?
They “take place” as a part of maya, the illusion has no spatial location. Asking “where is the illusion located spatially?” is making the mistake as conceiving of Brahman and maya as two existing objects that are both floating in space or that can both be plotted on some 3d grid, which is exactly the misunderstanding that Advaita points out needs to be overturned, because its taking a frame of reference that stems from maya and which only makes sense within maya, and then trying to apply it on the level beyond maya where its actually invalid. In truth, there is just the non-dual undifferentiated Brahman existing without being characterized by any sort of spatial or temporal distinctions. Brahman’s inherent nature projects or casts maya (like a magic spell), and when maya is casted the result of this is us having minds and perceiving categories like spatial and temporal distinctions, even though these distinctions don’t actually exist in absolute reality. The places in your dreams cannot be located spatially and yet you experience them. Maya is another ontological category distinct from the ontological category of Brahman (truth/reality) and not a second existent object or substance. In order that maya lead to us having the experiences that we do, it simply has to be casted by what it is contingent upon (Brahman), it’s not necessary that it has to have a physical location in order to produce the experiences that we have. It’s virtual and not actual, virtual realities have no physical location.
>You write "beyond maya" and "within maya" as if the illusion were existing outside of Brahman.
When I say that, it’s because Advaita recognizes three distinct ontological categories of 1) absolute or unconditioned being/existence (Brahman), 2) falsity (maya) and 3) non-being or nothingness. This is not inconsistent with when Advaita says that Brahman is beyond being and non-being because by this they mean that absolute/unconditioned being is beyond both nothingness and the normal mundane understanding of being/existence in the creaturely intellect, which is just a part of maya, this mundane being that most people associate with the word ‘existence’ is just a part of maya and not the true non-dual unconditioned being/existence that’s not graspable as an object by the intellect. And so when I say “beyond maya” it means “speaking about Brahman as It truly is (in absolute reality), and not speaking about Brahman as though its subject to or characterized by the categories imposed upon our intellects by maya, but which don’t actually characterize/condition the absolute reality as it truly exists in Itself”; and saying “within maya” means “speaking about things under the false terms or frame of reference imposed by the illusion”

>>20281576
>You also write that maya is being projected, for something to be projected it requires a surface to be projected upon.
It’s not meant to be taken literally, saying “casts” as in the magician casts a spell more or less communicates the same notion, there will never be an empirical example that 1:1 maps how Brahman casts the illusion of the empirical realm, because we don’t have empirical examples of something being transcendent to the empirical world because something that is transcendent would necessarily be beyond the range of empirical knowledge and hence not observable as the perfect example or analogy.

>>20281698
> That sounds like wordplay and semantics to handwave the inherent contradictions of the system.
There aren’t any inherent contradictions in Advaita chump
>If only Brahman truly exists and can never be deluded, change then delusion, change and multiplicity would have never come about.
Incorrect, because change/delusion/multiplicity have or belong to the separate ontological category of falsity and don’t belong to the ontological category of ‘existence’. Brahman remains as the only existent thing, and unchangingly casts like a spell the ontological category of falsity, which accounts for the experience of that falsity/maya, but without this function thereby assigning that falsity/maya to the ontological category of existence, which only Brahman belongs to and not maya.

Question
>In 'The Path of Cinnabar', which provides a general outline of your works, you admit to having been influenced by René Guénon, the chief contemporary spokesman for a traditional worldview, to the point that you have been described as the 'Italian Guénon'. Do your views perfectly accord with those of Guénon? And speaking of Guénon, would you say that certain people overestimate Eastern philosophy?

Answer
>My approach does not differ from that of Guénon with respect to the value it assigns to the world of Tradition. By 'world of Tradition', I mean an organic and hierarchical civilization in which all human activities are both ordained from above and directed towards it, and defined by more than merely human values. Like Guénon, I have written various works on traditional wisdom by studying the primary sources. The first section of my chief work, 'Revolt Against the Modern World', provides a 'Morphology of the World of Tradition'. Like Guénon, I have also developed a radical critique of the modern world. With regard to such a critique, however, certain minor divergences exist between Guénon and myself. In examining traditional spiritualiy, Guénon, in accordance with his 'personal equation', has accorded 'knowledge' and 'contemplation' a certain primacy over action, subordinating kingship to priesthood. By contrast, I have sought to describe and valorise the heritage of Tradition from the point of view of the spirituality of a 'warrior caste', and to illustrate the various possibiliites offered by the 'path of action'. One of the consequences of this divergence of perspectives is that, whereas Guénon takes an intellectual elite as the foundation for a possible traditional restoration of Europe, I am more inclined to speak in terms of an Order. I also disagree with Guénon with regard to Catholicism and Freemasonry. I believe Guénon's approach does not fit the mould of the Western man, who, by his very nature, is inevitably inclined towards actions.

Continued...

>>20281771
>The expression 'Eastern Philosophy' is inappropriate in this context. One should rather speak fo various forms of Eastern thought which belong to a traditional kind of wisdom that has survived in a more integral and pure state in the East (where it has replaced religion), but which was also known in the pre-modern West. if such doctrines emphasise what possesses a universal, metaphysical character, then it would not be correct to say that they are overestimated. One should be wary of superficial simplifications when discussing general views of the world. The East is not limited to that India which produced the 'Vedanta', the doctrine of 'Maya', and the idea of a detached contemplation of the world: teh East also includes that India which, through the 'Bhagavad Gita', developed a sacral justification for war and warrior duties, ancient Persia with its dualist and combative outlook, ancient China with its imperial and cosmocratic vision, as well as the Japanese civilization, which is so far from having been exclusively contemplative and introverted sort that an esoteric branch of Buddhism in Japan gave rise to the 'Samurai Philosophy'.
>Unfortunately, what defines the modern European world is not action, but the faking of action, which is to say: an active drive devoid of any foundation, and aimed at purely material purposes. 'They have abandoned heaven with the excuse of conquering the Earth', to the point of no longer being capable of recognising of what genuine action consists.

>>20281775
>an esoteric branch of Buddhism in Japan gave rise to the 'Samurai Philosophy'.
does anyone know what esoteric branch is he referring to?

>>20281739
>Brahman’s inherent nature projects or casts maya (like a magic spell),
why is brahman so mean in the first place

>>20281734
> did you spend any time in california by chance?
Yes, but it was when I was young and didn’t know anything about Guenon or eastern thought, it didn’t seem evil or nefarious back then when I was a kid. I’ve spent time in other parts of the west coast as a adult too, I’ve encountered weird situations and people on both coasts but I’ve never felt like it was emanating from a certain location. On the west coast I’ve encountered more schizo people but I think that’s because in the east coast they end up like your average city bum but on the west coast the more relaxed culture allows them to seamlessly occupy this weird middle ground where they are still schizo and homeless but they still deal drugs, carry a phone, present themselves as a hippy and show up to all sorts of public gatherings, shows, parties etc. I would agree though that things that fall under what you might call ‘counter-initiation’ are more prevalent on the west coast.

>>20281800
> does anyone know what esoteric branch is he referring to?
mostly likely Tendai or Shingon, there is a popular misconception that all the Samurai practiced Zen Buddhism but I have read before that the aforementioned Tantric/esoteric types were actually more common among the samurai.
>>20281831
> why is brahman so mean in the first place
I wouldn’t call that mean, whether or not one is born into circumstances that are more productive of joy or suffering is largely the result of one’s own past karma from innumerable previous lives, and whether or not one has more joy or suffering in this particular life after birth is largely the result of that past karma in combination with how you conduct yourself and respond to things in this life, with some natural variation/randomness introduced into the equation by other beings doing actions for reasons not caused by your karma. Brahman impartially sustains all beings like rain falling upon a field, and the positives or negatives of life for any one creature are largely determined by the actions of that individual creature, like how the extent to which the seeds in a field can grow is determined by the type of seed and not by the impartial rain that waters all the seeds more or less equally. Some beings are born into incredible refinement and luxury and have joy-filled lives, because of their own past karma.

>>20281800
I don't know which one he's referring to, but the esoteric (vajrayana, tantra, etc) branch of Buddhism in Japan is Shingon. Then there's also Tendai, that might also be an esoteric stream, but I think Shingon is the one you're looking for. Typically Zen Buddhism, not Shingon, was the sect of the Samurai, so I'm not sure what this is getting at. In general, esoteric buddhism was for the nobility and royal house, and Zen buddhism was for the samurai.

>>20281892
>but I have read before that the aforementioned Tantric/esoteric types were actually more common among the samurai
Interesting
>>20281893 (me)
Perhaps I'm mistaken

>>20281769
Attributing different names to things doesn’t solve anything. You belong to the ontological category of retards.

>>20281775
You consider this Evola recanting on his criticism of Guenon? You're retarded. Guenonians really are a cult.

>>20281444
>everything is fake except le jeetgod
nihilism

>>20281095
i mean yes, Evola isn't wrong here, the existence of maya is the big problem advaita has articulating their metaphysical system, the oly answer advaita practicioenrs cna give is"is in brahma nature to be this way" which is pretty much a non answer, even other non-dualist practicioner like Sri Ramanujacharya agree with this, here's his 3 argumentens against shankara

Paraṃ brahmaivājñaṃ bhramaparigataṃ saṃsarati - The Parabrahman, (somehow) itself becoming devoid of knowledge and getting caught in an illusion, has become subject to transmigration;
Tatparopādhyālīḍhaṃ vivaśaṃ - It has becomes conditioned by some alien adjunct (Māyā) and hence has becomes helpless, (and therefore)
Aśubhasyāspadaṃ - It has become the abode of inauspicious (of the interminably sorrowful transmigration; who will be our Saviour, if such be the case?!).

>>20282006
this

>>20281444
this doesn't resolve the point Evola is making, if brahma is pure being, how can maya exist withouit brahma? the 2 most common answers are: maya is not real, which isn't good at all, since maya stil has being, it must exist in some way, even as an illusion, if maya has no being, we shouldn't be able to even talk about it, the second answer is: brahma just projects maya but is not involved in it, this notion of projecting something is also pretty dubious, because again, maya needs being to even BE an illusion, so if that projection that brahma is giving to maya gives maya its being and brahma is pure being, then that means that brahma is giving a part of itself to maya, thus maya needs to be part of brahma to even be an illusion, thus the problem many advaita tried to resolve, how can brahma be pure being(ultimate reality) and partial being(maya) at the same time

>>20282006
> Attributing different names to things doesn’t solve anything.
Yes it does, because there is only the appearance of a problem if you incorrectly assign both Brahman and maya to the category of existence. However, this is not even what Advaita teaches, so, what you described is not even something that is actually taught by Advaita but is just a fake strawman of your own creation. There is no actual problem or contradiction in what Advaita teaches, there just seems to be if you pull the brainlet move (when done unintentionally) or sophist move (when done intentionally) of creating strawmen that involve wrongly combining Advaita with non-Advaita ontologies. If you actually understand what Advaita is talking about and don’t falsely put words in their mouth which they don’t say, there is no contradiction in saying that what is true alone exists and that what is false doesn’t actually exist.

>>20281835
dude yeah
I lived in both San Francisco and Venice Beach in the past 4 years and experienced it first hand (this was right before I read guenon)
I distinctly remember my first time driving to San Francisco and got hit with a weird force and thought "woah what is this negative satanic energy?!?'
true story
>>20281893
>>20281892
word, thanks. might move to japan so gonna look into this more
>>20282027
>You consider this Evola recanting on his criticism of Guenon?
where did I say that?
dumb fuck

>>20282216
oh I figured you were guenonposter because of the trip (you can go ahead and drop the trip anytime)

>>20282065
> the oly answer advaita practicioenrs cna give is"is in brahma nature to be this way" which is pretty much a non answer, even other non-dualist practicioner like Sri Ramanujacharya agree with this, here's his 3 argumentens against shankara
Ramanuja actually makes 7 main arguments against Advaita (anupapatti), and Advaitas replied to and refuted all of them. John Grimes’ book ‘The Seven Great Untenables’ covers the refutation of them by Advaitins. Ramanuja gives no answer as to WHY Brahman makes jivas subject to beginningless karma and transmigration in Vishishtadvaita, which is practically the same as saying its his nature to do so.

>Paraṃ brahmaivājñaṃ bhramaparigataṃ saṃsarati - The Parabrahman, (somehow) itself becoming devoid of knowledge and getting caught in an illusion, has become subject to transmigration
This isn’t what Advaita teaches, Brahman remains unaffected by maya and doesn’t transmigrate in Advaita. This may actually be directed against his own guru, with whom Ramanuja differed, or at other kinds of Bhedabhedins (like Bhaskara), but what this is attacking is not even taught by Advaita.

>>20282256
>you can go ahead and drop the trip anytime

>>20281734
This is the 'towers of satan' thing right? Not a lot about it in English although I think there is a French book dealing with it.
It is interesting that as far back as then someone like Guenon (who I assume never visited) noticed that "strange things gather there". I have been reading lately about this whole overlapping phenomenon of Crowley, Scientology, Manson, The Process, MKULTRA, Son of Sam and all the California and San Francisco connection.

>>20282186
>This doesn't resolve the point Evola is making
It’s pointing out that the very points he is trying to make are inapplicable since they are based on a misunderstanding of what Advaita is talking about
>if brahma is pure being, how can maya exist withouit brahma?
Maya doesn’t ‘exist’, it belongs to the ontological category of falsity, which is not the same thing as existence. Maya belongs to this category of falsity because it is cast like a spell by Brahman
>the 2 most common answers are: maya is not real, which isn't good at all, since maya stil has being, it must exist in some way, even as an illusion
Wrong, this is incorrect, the category of falsity/illusion accounts for maya being experienced, falsity is distinguished from complete nothingness because falsity or an illusion can actually can present itself in experience as *falsely* appearing to be real, while nothingness is not even encountered in experience and is incapable of presenting itself in experience. Only what is real has being/existence; the false has no being/existence but is distinguished from nothingness because the former can appear as illusion while the latter can’t.

When you say “maya has to have existence/being if its not nothingness”, that is actually you committing the logical fallacy of circular reasoning, which refutes yourself. Advaita teaches the 3-way ontological distinction of absolute being/ falsity / nothingness. When you say “maya has to have being if its not nothingness”, that is simply citing the conclusion you are attempting to prove as the reason why that conclusion true, which is circular reasoning and doesn't refute anything. It’s impossible to refute or demonstrate a contradiction in the 3-way model by using an argument that presupposes or relies on an a priori assumption that it’s wrong (as you did in your post), because this amounts to circular reasoning, which is a logical fallacy.
>if maya has no being, we shouldn't be able to even talk about it
Wrong, because falsity and nothingness are not identical but are instead separate ontological categories
>because again, maya needs being to even BE an illusion
another example of you committing the logical fallacy of circular reasoning
>so if that projection that brahma is giving to maya gives maya its being and brahma is pure being, then that means that brahma is giving a part of itself to maya
When Brahman casts maya, its not giving maya being, its casting/projecting maya *as* the ontological category of falsity, which is neither true being nor nothingness, its illusory/false nature is precisely what separates it from being and nothingness

>>20282344
Yessir
Good link for lurkers
https://www.soulask.com/sacred-geography-seven-towers-of-satan/

It’s too bad a lot of Guenon’s schizo shit remains untranslated from French.
There used to be this Greekfag in France who used to give us all qrd on this type of Guenon content.

>>20282344
Tell us more about the other connections to the counter-initiation

The Advaita Vedanta model of:

Brahman (absolute being) =\= maya (falsity) =\= nothingness can be rendered as:

A =\= B =\= C

When some fallaciously tries to refute this by saying:

“b-b-but maya/falsity has to have being/existence, even as an illusion, it cannot be its own distinct category”

That amounts to saying:

B HAS to be included within A, it can’t be distinct from both A & C

But since the above argument was originally intended to disprove that A =\= B =\= C, it amounts to the logical fallacy of circular reasoning, since it’s just citing the conclusion it wants to prove true as the reason why that conclusion is true, which is circular and proves nothing but the foolishness of the person who says it.

Is this another thread of guenonfag getting btfo?

>>20282460
Forgot pic

>>20282460
Ive refuted the arguments against Advaita in this thread kiddo, as per usual

>>20282481
You did your usual word play, that I agree. But the only thing that got refute was advaita again

>>20282460
>Guénonfag getting BTFO’d
Literally has never happened

>>20282486
> But the only thing that got refute was advaita again
With what argument? The only thing people had in this thread was either:
1) the logical fallacy of circular reasoning
2) a strawman whereby Advaita ontology is combined with a non-Advaita ontology and the resulting non-Advaita syncretic product of this illegitimate mixing is attacked, which doesn’t harm Advaita

>>20282414
Well you have Crowley establishing an O.T.O lodge in Californa and appointing Jack Parsons to it who was buddies with L.Ron Hubbard, they both performed something known as the Babalon Working out in the desert, which coincided with the first spate of UFO sightings. Later on Hubbard of course goes on to found Scientology, in England two Scientologists split off and The Process Church of The Final Judgement, which shifts to California, Sanfran, and increasingly becomes explicitly Satanic in its teachings (rumoured to have produced some purely Satanic splinter groups, one known as 4P). Meanwhile Charles Manson learns all about Dianetics while in jail, is moved to Sanfran by his Parole Officer when he gets out, starts frequenting a Medical Clinic which is later revealed to be a front for the CIA's MKULTRA research, and lives a street down from the Process, writes for their Magazine, and in later interviews claims that he and the Processes' leader are "one and the same" presumably metaphorically.
The Process Changes its name and relocates to NYC after Manson Murders bring them in to the public eye, they integrate in to the Occult scene of NY fairly rapidly, while continuing to produce splinter groups. There might be a connection with the cult David Berkowitz claimed to be part of, but its much harder to pin down the East Coast stuff, however it is claimed that the the killing of Arlis Perry back in Standford California, just south of Sanfran, is tied in to all this.
This isn't even to mention Church of Satan and then its spin off Temple of Set coming out of Sanfran also.

>>20282521
Redpill me on Process Church

>>20282502
Advaita has no ontology outside of coping itself with words, because the existence of maya contradicts the absolute nature of brahman. This, of course, without raising tbe question of how does advaita prove the existence of brahman in the first place. (It never does)

>>20281734
Seraphim Rose does mention in Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future that the occult center in Cali is Mount Shasta.

>>20282521
I’m quite redpilled on all that stuff
Where do you feel the counter-initiatory forces are today? It seems like all those organizations are kind of jokes
Alex Jones said on Joe Rogan that its breakaway/rogue elements within the CIA and they’re mostly in San Francisco

>>20282597
Apocalyptic spin off from Scientology that believed God had been shattered into four fragments, Jehova, Lucifer, Satan, and Christ. People had to work through all four stages (This is the titular "Process") to reunify God within themselves. So when you went through the Satan stage you were meant to act Satanically, engage in dangerous activities and anti-establishment actions.
They have undergone multiple different restructurings since their beginnings within Scientology, these days they are Best Friends Animal Shelter or something, lol.
It seems to be that the main "orthodox" line of the process itself was mostly a big Larp, but that it started producing little off-shoots, closed groups that recruited from within the broader church, and some of these groups were strictly dedicated to Satan and turned violent.

This is about all I know, and its hard to separate what is bullshit, from what is truth, and what is hysterical misunderstandings from outsiders.
I think what is most interesting about these times and places is not so much the doctrines of any specific groups but the overlap. A lot of people coming and going between multiple groups and institutions. Anywhere else in the world knowing that one cult lived nearby would be weird enough, but you could trip over 3 of them walking down the street in California at one point.

>>20282665
My weak guess is just to suggest the Internet as the primary location, since it seems to be the point of exchange for every other type of information.

As for a geographical location I haven't a clue. I just started reading about this stuff fairly recently. Maybe you have an idea?

>>20281892
>>20281893
Are there good books that explore the link between the Samurari and Vajrayana Buddhism (Shingon, Tendai) as well as Zen

>>20282613
>Advaita has no ontology outside of coping itself with words
Yes it does, the Advaita ontology separates absolute existence/being vs falsity vs nothing, and within the realm of falsity are further various cosmological and epistemic sub-categories.
>because the existence of maya contradicts the absolute nature of brahman.
No it doesn’t, that’s wrong, because maya doesn’t exist, maya is instead just simply false, which isn’t existence. Only Brahman exists, what is false (maya) and what doesn’t exist (maya) cannot possibly contradict what is true (Brahman) and what has existence (Brahman). Have you even paid attention to what was posted in this thread?
>This, of course, without raising tbe question of how does advaita prove the existence of brahman in the first place. (It never does)
It doesn’t have to prove Brahman’s existence in order to remain logically consistent. The Absolute has to be personally realized and discovered within oneself in spiritual realization, you can’t take a shortcut to enlightenment through logical proofs, that’s fake pseudospirituality. Not a single religion or religious tradition proves all of their claims either but they all make unfalsifiable metaphysical claims, this is the norm.

>>20281095
People have been saying Evola is based for a long time, but I know you're just taking the piss.

Here's the thing about theosophy, they were the first "Coast to Coast AM". They had no scruples, no morals, wanted to believe every fantastical idea and fancied themselves literal harry potters and hermiones.

If you go back and forth between Guenon and Evola enough, you'll come to the obvious conclusion that Guenon was close, but at the end of the day was just a try hard who couldn't fully grasp his concepts. God love him for going down this path in the first place, but everything was just out of reach to him.

Reading Evola is like a beam of light shooting into your brain. He had a certain confidence which came from being closely involved with what must have been a small network of secret lodges dedicated to this school of thought. Evola comes off as the historian of this stuff. Like he was being given topics to write on and unlimited access to ancient repositories of knowledge.

>>20282521
didn't Crowley work for the British government too? And Parsons worked on rocket technology for the US military, and Hubbard came out of naval intelligence.
I've seen conspiracy theories that Manson was an agent and the killings were a psyop.
Going back further, Gerald Gardner (founder of Wicca) also worked for the British government, and Henry Steel Olcott (co-founder of the Theosophical Society) came out of US military intelligence.
Occultism has always had a glowie problem.

>>20282822
Yeah, that was the one thing I thought Evola and Guenon and others were wrong about. They wrote about the west as having completely ignored and forgotten metaphysics and occult sciences. I think the truth is that the west knows very well about these things but keeps it hidden and out of the public's eye. The west wants to keep people dumb and easily manipulated.

>>20281444
checked and based effortposter

>>20282721
>Maybe you have an idea?
Have you ever heard of or read the book ‘Morning of the Magicians’?

>>20281347
>"The whole idea of Vedanta is, in hindsight, derived from a post-Hegelian conception of metaphysics. This idea is not a new one, although it is underappreciated, including by myself in previous years. My earlier ideas about Vedanta - I no longer identify with."
--- Evola speaking to Cicciarello, 1972.

>>20282697
I missed this post earlier
Damn that’s pretty wild, will have to look into this more

>>20283273
Thanks for the only relevant post in the entire thread.

>>20282780
>maya doesn’t exist, maya is instead just simply false, which isn’t existence
False does not mean non-existent, it just means that something else is true. Hence, dualism. Advaita crumbles on it's own structure.

>>20283523
>False does not mean non-existent, it just means that something else is true.
When Advaita says "Falsity/illusions don't belong to the category of existence" they are not saying that "falsity/illusions are identical with total non-existence/non-being/nothingness", they are instead saying that mithya/falsity/illusions neither have existence nor are they identical with non-existence. The false (mithya) is neither being nor non-being, this is the whole point of the 3-way ontological split between pure being =/= falsity =/= nothingness.

Neither falsity (mithya), nor non-existence/non-being are identical with the category of existence (being), but falsity and non-existence are further distinguished from each other because the former can appear as illusions but the latter cannot even appear as an illusion or false appearance.

A = being
B = neither being nor non-being
C = non-being

A =/= B =/= C

B and C both are not being (A), but that doesn't make B & C identical.

>Hence, dualism. Advaita crumbles on it's own structure.
Lol, incorrect. Advaita remains a non-dualism because there is no duality of substances, no duality of two existing things, but only one thing (Brahman) actually exists. There just remains one undivided non-dual reality that is untouched by illusion/falsity, and when the living being is liberated from what is false and stops transmigrating its inner consciousness remains as this non-dual eternal reality without any remaining experience of maya/duality. The experience of a provisional duality is only temporary and false and it's subsumed into ever-lasting non-dual liberation.

>>20283669
>>20283523
To clarify: when someone says “maya doesn’t exist”, they aren’t saying “maya is non-being”, they are denying that maya belongs to the category of being and are asserting that it belongs to the category of metaphysical falsity, which is neither (real) being nor non-being, in denying that B is A, they are not asserting that B is C either, because A =\= B =\= C

>>20283669
Neither being nor non-being is not an ontological category that can be logically defended in any way. It can be asserted doctrinally from scripture or from mystical experiences, but that is the domain of theology. Advaita doesn't have it's ground in a philosophy of metaphysics.

>>20283363
No problem, it's a pretty interesting interview

>>20283728
>Neither being nor non-being is not an ontological category that can be logically defended in any way.
It already has been, it's been explained before why that doesn't violate rules of logic and why it's logically consistent. Advaita doesn't have to prove that it's a true teaching to skeptics in order to remain logically consistent, they can just accept it on the basis of their scripture, and then defend it by demonstrating how it's not logically inconsistent and that it doesn't violate fundamental rules of logic. The dualists attempted to refute it in medieval and early-modern India and the Advaitins wrote answers to all of their arguments refuting them. And then the dualists issued a reply and Advaitins wrote further texts refuting those...

>‘Real’ and ‘unreal’ in advaita are used in the absolute sense. 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.
>Vyâsatïrtha, like Râmânuja against avidyà, says that as being and non-being are contradictories, which are exclusive and exhaustive, there can be no third alternative and therefore both cannot be denied. Everything must necessarily be either being or non-being. The denial of both is against the Law of Excluded Middle and also against the Law of Contradiction. Again, ‘different from being* means ‘non-being’ and ‘different from non-being’ means ‘being’; so ‘different from being and nonbeing’ means ‘both being and non-being’ which is admitted to be self-contradictory by the Advaitin himself.
>Madhusūdana Sarasvatī replies that being and non-being are not exhaustive as these are used by us in their absolute sense and between the two is the third alternative, ‘the relative being’ to which belong the entire world-objects. So the Law of Excluded Middle is not violated. Again, as being and non-being belong to different orders of reality, there is no contradiction in their simultaneous affirmation or simultaneous denial. Moreover, non-contradiction is admitted as the test of truth and that which is contradicted is said to be false, so the Law of Contradiction is maintained in tact.

>>20281892
>>I wouldn’t call that mean, whether or not one is born into circumstances that are more productive of joy or suffering is largely the result of one’s own past karma from innumerable previous lives, and whether or not one has more joy or suffering in this particular life after birth is largely the result of that past karma in combination with how you conduct yourself and respond to things in this life, with some natural variation/randomness introduced into the equation by other beings doing actions for reasons not caused by your karma.
Brahman should not have created karma

>>20284087
>Brahman should not have created karma
Without karma and related things like rebirth, the apparent separation from God etc that means there is no spiritual journey to God/The Absolute in general. If everyone has accomplished the spiritual journey from the beginning there is no chance to ever grow as a person, to become more mature and more wiser and to enjoy things like raising a family with someone that you love. I see the chance to experience both the great things in worldly life and subsequent eternal liberation or union with the Absolute as a blessing and not as a bad thing, because then one gets to experience the best of both worlds, there are things about human life that I'm very grateful for.

>>20282460
Of course.

>>20282481
>>20282489
being a broken record isn't a refutation

you just repeat the same pilpul that got debunked

>>20284550
>you just repeat the same pilpul that got debunked
where and how?

>>20282998
No I haven't, how do you think it plays in?

>If only Brahman exists then it's a contradiction for there to be maya
No, because maya is false and therefore has no existence and hence cannot contradict true existence
>If only Brahman exists then we wouldn't even perceive maya or be able to talk about it
No, because that's only true of non-being, but maya differs from non-being by falsely appearing as illusion while non-being can't
>If maya is an illusion then it still has to exist, even as an illusion
No, saying this in an attempt to refute the premise that maya is neither being nor non-being amounts to circular reasoning
>If Brahman is casting maya as a spell, then its giving maya being and hence existence and Brahman isn't the only thing existing anymore
No, because it's casting maya as the ontological category of falsity and not as any form of being or existence
>If maya is entirely and utterly contingent upon Brahman with no independent existence then it becomes non-different from Brahman and hence a part of Brahman
No, because that violates the indiscernibility of identicals via their different characteristics, its also refuted by empirical examples like reflections being different from the reflected object
>If maya is neither being nor non-being that violates the law of the excluded middle
No, because they are not exhaustive when used in an absolute sense, because in the middle is left the relatively-real world objects that are metaphysically false
>If maya is neither being nor non-being that violates the law of non-contradiction
No, because anything that would contradict Brahman being the sole existent is in the final analysis false, so there is no contradiction
>If maya isn't identical with Brahman then it's a dualism!
No, because maya isn't a substance and lacks existence, and the false experience of duality is only temporary before being subsumed into eternal non-duality
>If Brahman is immutable then maya can't take place as illusion because that requires change
No, because Brahman unchangingly casts the spell of maya from the level of Absolute existence where temporality has no existence anyway
>Brahman has to have parts like Ramanuja+Shaivists say, He can't be partless
No, because if Brahman has parts, then He can either exist inside the parts or outside them too, in the latter case you are making regions of Brahman into a "non-part part" which violates the LNC, and in the former case you are violating the LNC by saying Brahman is One Entity that is complete/whole while at the same time it only exists in actuality as incomplete fragments.
>Recognizing the Absolute and the relative to be distinct is wrong, Samsara is Nirvana
No, because it violates the LNC to say the same thing is free of suffering (the Absolute) and also is suffering (samsara), and you cant solve this by saying the suffering is just an incorrect perception of the Absolute, since then that perception is either non-identical with the Absolute or it continues to violate the LNC

>>20284019
Including the category of "relative being" or whatever sophism you want to use for Maya just moves the goalpost. You now have a dualism between the ontological category of brahman's "absolute being" and maya's "relative being", "neither being or not being" or whatever other dogmatism you wantto invoke.

>>20285067
>You now have a dualism between the ontological category of brahman's "absolute being" and maya's "relative being", "neither being or not being" or whatever other dogmatism you wantto invoke
Wrong, it's not an actual dualism if only one is true and existent, and the other is false and lacking existence, dualism means to set up two opposing *REALITIES* or substances, maya is neither existence nor reality nor a substance hence the dualism label is inapplicable. Moreover, the false experience of multiplicity is subsumed into an all-encompassing eternal non-duality. The seeming duality gives way to non-duality.
> or whatever sophism you want to use
Ironic that you would accuse me of sophism since I'm actually giving rational arguments and you on the other hard are just switching the meaning of words like 'dualism' to no longer mean what they actually mean to suit your rhetorical purposes, you don't even have logical arguments at this point but simply just rhetoric about what's 'actual non-dualism', but even this is a failure by you since you're not even using the word 'dualism' correctly

>>20285052
AKC says:
>We find, for example, “Maya” rendered by “illusion”; but Maya is that “art”, or in Jacob Boehme’s sense “magic” by which the Father manifests himself; the analogues of Maya being Greek Sophia or Hebrew Hochma, that “wisdom” or “cunning” by which God operates.

>(erroneous) supposition that Vedanta denies the reality of the world of appearances, as such. Even a mirage is a real “mirage”. But obviously nothing that is an appearance can be called “real” in the same sense as that which appears; no image is as “real” as that of which it is an image. The word “phenomenon” itself has always an implied “of something”; the verb “appear” must have an implied subject.

>I understand the true and original meaning of maya to be natura naturans, as the “means whereby” the essence is manifested.

>>20285052
kek based new meme

>>20285097
>maya is neither existence nor reality nor a substance
In this case there would be only brahman and no maya. You throwing around predicates like reality, substance and existence means nothing, if you strip them of any inherent meaning. But since Advaita posits maya, in whatever ontological category you wish to put it, it necessarily creates a dualism between two ontological categories, that of brahman and that of maya.

>>20284795
well, as Charles Upton says, Alex Jones is right about everything. Alex Jones says that at the very top, it's 'scientist cults' that run things.
Morning of the Magicians is a book proclaiming the arrival of a new superior race of men who are able to master both the occult and technics and it's these types of people who are part of the scientist cults.

so my guess is that the core of the counter-initiation are rogue groups within government agencies such as CIA, NSA, NASA, Energy Department, the Military, and so forth.
Think Epstein
Think Covid labs
Think mad computer scientists who want to summon lucifer via AI
That kinda shit

funny enough, Guenon is mentioned in the book a handful of times

>>20285052
kek saved

>>20281739

Thanks for the effortpost. I enjoyed reading it.

How does the person defending Vedanta in this thread reconcile the fact that the highest principle is basically said very clearly not to be being or non-being? I'm not opposed to Vedanta as a system, but Guenon writes about "Being" as being a subordinate and still (at least) semi-dualistic principle which is not supreme. It's called Ishvara, which is not equivalent to Brahman.

>>20282521

There's also a contemporary connection. The leader of Atomwaffen Division (Rape/Vincent Snyder/JC Denton) used to smuggle Process Church iconography in the group's propaganda quite a bit without being open about it. He would always deny being a satanist - I saw this first hand.

Rape was also close to the Tempel ov Blood satanic death cult and its Glownigger head Josh Sutter. Sutter wrote a book about a post-apocalyptic military government that manipulated its population through a fake satanic cult that it had invented (Iron Gates).

Weird connections. Weird people. Weird energy.

>>20285192
>>maya is neither existence nor reality nor a substance
>In this case there would be only brahman and no maya.
Incorrect, in this case there would only be Brahman EXISTING, which is not mutually exclusive or contradictory with maya being a 3rd category of neither being nor non-being which is cast by Brahman like a spell. If your argument here is that maya has to be either existence or non-existence and hence cannot be the 3rd category of the false, then you are committing the logical fallacy of circular reasoning since that’s exactly what you are trying to disprove, and so that cannot be the rationale that you cite to prove that claim as true, or what you are doing amounts to citing the conclusion that you want to be true as the very selfsame reason why that conclusion is true, which is committing the logical fallacy of circular reasoning and hence what you said is self-refuting.
>You throwing around predicates like reality, substance and existence means nothing, if you strip them of any inherent meaning.
I’m actually putting effort into being very precise with what I write, while you are carelessly committing logical fallacies like circular thinking. I haven’t stripped anything of meaning.
>But since Advaita posits maya, in whatever ontological category you wish to put it, it necessarily creates a dualism between two ontological categories, that of brahman and that of maya.
Incorrect, because dualism has a very specific set of meanings, none of which are in line with Advaita:

In an Indian context it means a difference between one’s self (Atman) and the Absolute—Advaita isn’t this type of dualism since they say the Self of all beings is wholly and unconditionally identical with Brahman

In a western context dualism means to set up TWO INDEPENDENT REALITIES or TWO SUBSTANCES—Advaita is not this type of dualism because Advaita doesn’t posit two substances, two realities, two existing objects or two real things; maya is neither being nor non-being and is hence not existence, not a reality and not a substance, so it cannot possibly be this kind of dualism

A more general and vague kind of dualism is any system that posits a truly real and existing multiplicity—Advaita isn’t this type of dualism either because they reject multiplicity as false and as something that doesn’t actually have any existence, so its not this type of dualism either.

So, under any accepted definition of dualism, Advaita ISNT DUALISM! When you abandon these accepted definitions of dualism to just make dualism whatever you want it to be including made-up fake meanings then you are just engaging in a rhetorical sophistry that lacks substance and is also fundamentally dishonest.

>>20285570
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/
>The term ‘dualism’ has a variety of uses in the history of thought. In general, the idea is that, for some particular domain, there are two fundamental kinds or categories of things or principles.
I am sorry, guenonfag, but advaita is positing two kinds of categories, brahman's absolute existing whatever you want, and maya as neither-neither/relative existence/falisty and what other sophisms and buzzwords you want to add, thus commiting itself to a dualist metaphysics.

>>20285614
>sophisms and buzzwords
I thought guenonfag was an intelligent dude but he’s shown that his philosophical acumen really comes down to this.
>It’s not a duck if I call it a goose!
>It doesn’t matter what you can say about a duck, if I call a duck a goose I can dodge all your arguments because they don’t apply to goose (even though it’s a duck)!
>Got you now!

>>20285614
>there are two fundamental kinds
He's saying that there are not two fundamental kinds. Maya is not even being posited, it is being assumed. At the very least it is clearly monism, in the same way that Plato is considered monist for calling becoming a mere illusion, and Aristotle for positing the non-existence of matter in contrast to form. Aristotle is not called a dualist because he has a problematic second category, which is matter, just as Plato isn't called a dualist because he allows the problematic "existence" of becoming, which is opinion.

>>20285438
>Iron Gates

>>20285653
Plato and Aristotle are not monists, retard. Everything else you said can be safely discarded.

>>20285653
This basically amounts to outright refusing to call dualist a metaphysics that clearly introduces two kinds of categories in opposition.

>>20285671
>https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/monism/#:~:text=While%20with%20abstract%20Platonic%20universals,the%20form%20of%20the%20good.
> Historically, priority monism may have been defended by Plato, Plotinus, Proclus, Spinoza, Hegel, Lotze, Royce, Bosanquet, and Bradley, inter alia.
Most academics disagree.
>>20285676
No, because there is only one kind of category, there is no substantial opposition.

https://www.youtube.com/c/CTMURadio/videos

>>20285681
Plato was a priority monist, it means nothing to the discussion at hand.

>>20285421
>How does the person defending Vedanta in this thread reconcile the fact that the highest principle is basically said very clearly not to be being or non-being?
The answer to this is that when ‘Being’ is taken in an absolute sense, then Brahman is pure being and maya is neither being nor non-being. On the other hand, when ‘Being’ is taken in a relative sense (as Guenon usually does), then the perspective flips and Brahman is what is neither being nor non-being (as its beyond both), and maya is equivalent to (relative) being.

To clarify:

‘Being’ used in an absolute sense refers to the pure transcendental unconditioned existence of the metaphysical Infinite that Guenon identifies as the very highest/ultimate principle in his explanation of metaphysics. Maya is neither this unconditioned pure existence of the metaphysical Infinite, but neither is maya nothingness or total non-existence; so maya is neither of these and hence maya is neither (absolute) being nor non-being/nothingness. In his refutations of the arguments of dualists like Vyasatirtha and others, the influential Advaita philosopher Madhusudana Saraswati uses Being in the this absolute sense in his arguments.

When ‘Being’ or ‘existence’ is used in a relative sense, it refers to the relative, contingent, conditioned and transient existence of the appearance of worldly objects or maya-phenomena in general up to and including Isvara/Saguna Brahman, which is like saying illusions have relative existence. The ‘relative’ part of ‘relative existence’ is precisely what makes it the same as metaphysical falsity/mithya. When you use ‘Being’ in this different sense, the perspective flips and since Brahman is neither nothingness/non-being nor the relative being that is the same as illusoryness/falsity, then Brahman’s transcendent status is beyond or above that (relative) being and also beyond or above that non-being. In his Katha Upanishad Bhaysa, Mandukya-Karika Bhasya and in his Brahma Sutra Bhasya, Shankara uses being/existence in this relative sense in certain passages and refers to Brahman as beyond being and non-being or beyond existence and non-existence, and he clarifies in the Katha Upanishad Bhasya and elsewhere that this means Brahman has transcendental unconditioned existence, which is beyond the relative ‘existence’ of worldly phenomena which is really just metaphysical falsity.

Guenon almost always uses ‘being’ in the above relative sense. Guenon makes the idiosyncratic move of referring to unmanifested possibilites of maya as ‘non-being’, which is not something Advaita usually does, what he calls ‘non-being’ is still within the range of what Advaita regards as metaphysically false maya, and its not what Advaita would consider to be nothingness/non-being. I’m not sure why Guenon does this. Overall his presentation of Advaita is pretty good but he sometimes differs from how Advaitins explain it in subtle ways.

>>20285681
>MAY have defended “priority monism” (whatever that is)
>encyclopedia entry
=
>most scholars agree
You only know philosophy through Wikipedia and it shows.

>>20285695
It does, because you just stated that Plato was not a monist, in the attempt to imply that Vedanta is not monistic along the same lines. Plato (and Plotinus) are very obviously and famously monist philosophers. Plotinus's (and, according to Aristotle, Plato's) first principles were literally "The One", an undivided principle which still contains dualisms within itself, similar in an broad sense to Vedanta, which contains all oppositions within itself as illusions (so far as they are "fundamentally" opposite), yet is not present in any of them itself.
>>20285698
He does not identify the Unmanifested (= metaphysical Infinite) with Being though, not in a qualified or unqualified sense. All subtle and gross manifestation are encompassed in Being, but the Unmanifest is beyond all of this. Subtle manifestation, which is already beyond what we commonly consider to be "the world" or Maya is still Being. This is the realm even of essence or nama, which is transcended by the Unmanifest as it is beyond both essence and substance (nama/rupa). By virtue of Infinitude, he claims that it prohibits it from even being considered as Being in the unqualified sense, because that would limit it, which would then deprive it of its own significance as Unmanifest and Infinite.
>Guenon makes the idiosyncratic move of referring to unmanifested possibilites of maya as ‘non-being’
I guess this is where the confusion here is then. It's likely because of Aristotle's referring to potency as that which is not, because it is always set in contrast to actuality as that which is.

>>20285614
>>The term ‘dualism’ has a variety of uses in the history of thought. In general, the idea is that, for some particular domain, there are two fundamental kinds or categories of things or principles.
>I am sorry, guenonfag, but advaita is positing two kinds of categories,
In that sentence, it is talking about positing two kinds of fundamental things THAT ACTUALLY EXIST, if you run through that whole article, all the examples it gives are of two things that are held to exist and not of an existing thing together with something that is without existence. Also, when the second thing doesn’t exist it makes no sense to call it ‘fundamental’, ‘fundamental’ means ‘serving as a basis or source’ and maya in its falsity is utterly and wholly contingent i.e. not independent i.e. it’s not a self-sufficient basis in itself but it’s basis or substratum is Brahman and therefore Brahman is the ultimate basis of everything within maya instead of maya itself being considered as fundamental or as a basis. So, even that sentence from the article doesn’t establish that Advaita is a dualism because maya isn’t fundamental, and it’s obvious that he is talking about two existing things anyway which is inapplicable to what Advaita is talking about.

>>20285688
Langan does this weird thing where he calls CTMU dualism, but says it's actually the exact same as Hindu non-dualism

I will do a full comparative analysis between Langan and Shankara at some point once I get through Shankara this summer
Langan is unironically Guénon if Guénon stuck with mathematics

>>20285681
Here’s another entry from the very same site
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/
>1.2 History of dualism
> The classical emphasis originates in Plato’s Phaedo. Plato believed that the true substances are not physical bodies, which are ephemeral, but the eternal Forms of which bodies are imperfect copies.
>Plato’s dualism is not, therefore, simply a doctrine in the philosophy of mind, but an integral part of his whole metaphysics.
> One problem with Plato’s dualism was that, though he speaks of the soul as imprisoned in the body, there is no clear account of what binds a particular soul to a particular body. Their difference in nature makes the union a mystery.
> His [Aristotle’s] argument for this constitutes a more tightly argued case than Plato’s for the immateriality of thought and, hence, for a kind of dualism.
If I were disingenuous I could claim that “most scholars agree” that Plato was actually a dualist, but that would make me a retard, like you. Instead I argue that you read Plato. In the Timaeus Plato posits three co-eternal and irreducible first principles: the ideas, the demiurge AND matter. Matter is a first principle in Plato, uncreated and not emanated by the one or the demiurge. You’re probably conflating the actual philosophy of Plato with later Neoplatonist emanationist schemes, which is a common mistake retards make.

>>20285765
>> The classical emphasis
Phaedo basically just states that the soul and the body are not the same things. That is no more dualism than saying that men and women are not the same things, ie a relative duality. Neither the soul nor body are first principles according to Plato.
>posits three co-eternal and irreducible first principles
Co-eternal does not mean they are all first principles. This is especially obvious if you look at Aristotle's account of Plato's Indefinite Dyad, which is generated from the One. You're also forgetting the fact that Plato prefaces Timaeus by asserting that the entire account in that dialogue is merely "probable" because it is concerned with appearances (the cosmos), and that he cannot therefore state the origin of Necessity or matter. This does not imply that matter is a first principle, nor that the Timaeus is even a final account of his doctrine. Nor that the Demiurge is a first principle, just that the Demiurge derives its goodness from the Forms.
>which is a common mistake retards make.
Do you think Aristotle is retard? or have you not read his Metaphysics yet?

>>20282372
>Maya doesn’t ‘exist’, it belongs to the ontological category of falsity, which is not the same thing as existence. Maya belongs to this category of falsity because it is cast like a spell by Brahman
this doesn't resolve the problem evola pose, for a number of reasons, first the idea of something being just falsity is kinda strange, why such a thing would exist? second the category of being itself is distorted, now there's things that kinda exist but at the same time don't, but other thing exist but in no way related with the thing that exist, so the half existence of falsity is different form the existence on itself, how we could ever perceive this existence/non existence? the whole category of being stop making sense with this 3 model ontology
the moment brahma or being doesn't give maya being the whole notion of falsity and reality stop making sense, being all of the suden is something not related to existence at all when somethign that as no being can manifest, so in some way existence no longer needs being which is a logical contradiction, since being should be the fundament of existence
and note that i'm not doing a circular reasoning since i'm starting my argument form the point of view of the neccesity of functionality in the concept of being

>>20285756
>I will do a full comparative analysis between Langan and Shankara at some point once I get through Shankara this summer
Based, I look forward to you sharing the results of your research with us

>If I were disingenuous I could claim that “most scholars agree” that Plato was actually a dualist

Read: "Monism: Plotinus and Some Predecessors" (paper)

John Rist argues that not only Plato, but Parmenides, Numenius, Atticus and Plutarch were dualists. Monism being a novelty by neopythagoreans.

(Not that anon)

>>20282448
this is not quite correct, since if you say
A =\= B =\= C
this is unfalsiable, because there's no further articulation, is when you articulate things in base to that formula when you can faslify it, for example, if eternity is A and space time is part of B and the vedas where written in space and time and are thus part of B then they're not related at all with brahma, making the whole body of work of shankara a fallacy, since nothing that exist in B can relate to A or the model you just pose inadequate
but no, you can't commit a circular fallacy against that model because that model has no logical validity, you're just saying 3 things aren't equal without explaining how or why

This Guenon guy is really shit at coherent writing

>>20285803
>this doesn't resolve the problem evola pose,
What he ‘poses’ was already shown to be nonsense that has little bearing on Advaita
> for a number of reasons, first the idea of something being just falsity is kinda strange, why such a thing would exist?
It doesn’t ‘exist’, it is just falsity and the reason for this is because it’s Brahman’s nature to cast that falsity like a spell. This being Brahman’s nature is part of the reason why Brahman is totally unconditioned and independent, if this casting were impelled or motivated by something else that wasn’t Brahman’s nature then Brahman would be influenced by other things and hence not unconditioned and not totally independent.
>second the category of being itself is distorted, now there's things that kinda exist but at the same time (but) don't
That’s wrong, saying “falsity isn’t the same as being or non-being” isn’t the same thing as saying “falsity both exists (being) and doesn’t exist (non-being)”, those are two completely different statements, Advaita accepts the former and rejects the latter. Only someone playing stupid or who didnt understand basic English could claim to confuse them, if you are genuinely confusing them then you should be back in ESL class and not posting on /lit/.

You are confusing:

A =\= B =\= C

with

A = B & B = C

Saying “Falsity isnt being or non-being” is saying A =\= B =\= C

Saying “Falsity both exists and doesn't exist” is saying A = B & B= C

>but other thing exist but in no way related with the thing that exist
No, only Brahman exists and maya has no existence, this has been explained numerous times already
>so the half existence of falsity is different form the existence on itself,
Advaita doesn’t say falsity has ‘half existence’, that’s a flat-out lie, apparently based on the above misunderstanding(?) where you confused A=\=B=\=C with A=B & B=C
>the moment brahma or being doesn't give maya being the whole notion of falsity and reality stop making sense,
Brahman doesn’t need to ‘give falsity being’ when It can instead just cast falsity *as* falsity, which is what Brahman does
>being all of the suden is something not related to existence at all when somethign that as no being can manifest
Wrong, since falsity having the status of a false illusion accounts it for manifesting *as that false illusion*
>so in some way existence no longer needs being which is a logical contradiction
Wrong, since manifestation isn’t existence/being but is just simply falsity, only Brahman has existence/being; maya is not existence/being but is just falsity, anything manifested is a part of falsity, the Real is beyond manifestation

>>20285877
>because it’s Brahman’s nature to cast that falsity like a spell.
I thought Brahman was something beyond action? Isn't "casting a spell" an action in itself? And whom does Brahman cast this spell upon? Surely it's not upon himself since Brahman is not affected by illusion?
Why isn't there any answer to this problem in Advaita?

>>20285877
>It doesn’t ‘exist’, it is just falsity
exactly it "IS" falsity, it needs to exist in order to manifest as falsity, if something can manifest without being then it has more reality than being itself, it has more metaphysical substance, since is more independent
thus making the whole thing ilogical, that's in part what Evola is arguing here, failing to expalin how maya can manifest and just saying"it is casted"or "is in brahma nature to do so" end up creating a loophole where maya end up being more concrete and real than brahma

>>20285877
>A =\= B =\= C
you're aware that with this model you can say that A=C since both A and C are unequal to B, you're saying that brahma is equal to nothingness

>>20285877
>Saying “Falsity isnt being or non-being
that breaks the law of non contradiction, it's like saying something can be a bear and not a bear at the same time

A = A
B = B
C = C

A + B + C = ABC

Why does this Hindu guy argue against Buddhism so much anyway? I have no idea where the argument started, it just sort of did.

>>20285996
a + b + c = a + b + c
abc = a * b * c

>>20285996
Thread theme
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71h8MZshGSs

>>20285833
>this is not quite correct, since if you say
A =\= B =\= C this is unfalsiable, because there's no further articulation,
Advaita doesn’t simply say A =\= B =\= C without further articulation but this has to do with their teaching of three distinct ontological categories that all have different and distinct natures, it’s not falsifiable using empirical means but it is certainly something that can be subjected to logical analysis to see if it violates logic (it doesn’t), the dualists of India didn’t consider it unfalsifiable but they attempted and failed to falsify/refute it. None of this changes the fact that to attempt to refute it solely by asserting that there is no 3rd category amounts to circular reasoning.

>is when you articulate things in base to that formula when you can faslify it, for example, if eternity is A and space time is part of B and the vedas where written in space and time and are thus part of B then they're not related at all with brahma, making the whole body of work of shankara a fallacy since nothing that exist in B can relate to A or the model you just pose inadequate
This doesn’t make Shankara’s works a fallacy at all because the Vedas are simply a part of the false maya, they indicate Brahman to us using analogies, hints, symbolism etc but without directly showing Brahman or existing in a real relationship with Brahman (the real existent has no real relation with what has no existence). The Vedic sages composed the texts within spacetime, but the essential understanding imparted by the text is considered to be an eternal message that is revealed supernaturally to sages in every universe cycle including this one.

>but no, you can't commit a circular fallacy against that model because that model has no logical validity, you're just saying 3 things aren't equal without explaining how or why
Incorrect, the 3-way model is entirely logically valid, and Advaita DOES explain how and why they aren’t equal. They say that the Real (Brahman) is independent, unchanging, and unconditioned and that it EXISTS, and that the false (mithya/maya) is different from Brahman because the false is contingent, changing, because it lacks being/existence and because it can be sublated and eventually cease to be experienced forever, and that non-being is further distinguished from maya because non-being is an unchanging complete negation that is incapable of even manifesting as an appearance/illusion. Maya appears as that which is neither being nor non-being because its cast like a spell by Brahman, and non-being/nothingness does not even appear or even ‘exist’ in its own abyss/negative realm but is used as a conceptual distinction to differ illusions from pure negation, but without considering pure negations to have any sort of existence even as falsity/illusion.

>>20286004

>>20286007
>they indicate Brahman to us using analogies
that shouldn't be possible since brahma=A and the vedas=B and according to your own logic A=/=B
>>20286007
>that is revealed supernaturally to sages in every universe cycle including this one.
in order for this to be possible a bridge that link A with B is needed, inwhich case both need to share the same essence or any comunicationbetween the two to be possible, bit if two things share an essence they're the same substance thus A=B end up being not only possible but necessary

>>20286002
A + B + C = "ABC"
is that better

>>20285802
>have you not read his Metaphysics yet?
This is not a game you want to play (or are capable of playing).
Yes, I’ve read it, and contrary to you I have actually read the text and not a Wikipedia summary. Nowhere in the metaphysics does he say that the dyad “is generated from the One”. In fact he says that
>it is peculiar to him [Plato] to posit a duality instead of the single Unlimited
And
>his conception of the _other principle_ as a duality to the belief that numbers other than primes5 can be readily generated from it, as from a matrix. (Emphasis added)
You are again conflating the philosophy of Plato with later Neoplatonist interpretations.
In short, you are mentally handicapped.

>>20285951
>I thought Brahman was something beyond action?
He is
>Isn't "casting a spell" an action in itself?
No, since it's simply Brahman's nature being passively and effortlessly expressed/fulfilled without Brahman even devoting any attention or willpower to it, there is no effort expended and no change in Brahman involved. To speak of undertaking a action without any change in the actor makes no sense. 'Spell' is meant as an analogy and not as a literal description.
>And whom does Brahman cast this spell upon?
Nobody, the semblance of a multitude of entities is downstream of the spell and arises from it instead of being upstream of the spell.
>Surely it's not upon himself since Brahman is not affected by illusion?
correct
>Why isn't there any answer to this problem in Advaita?
I just gave you the answers! Consider yourself lucky, it's not everyday that someone answers all your questions.

>>20285972
>>It doesn’t ‘exist’, it is just falsity
>exactly it "IS" falsity, it needs to exist in order to manifest as falsity,
Incorrect, saying "it IS falsity" is just denoting the status of the illusion, it's not saying the illusion has existence. Now you are retreating back to a fallacious argument that I have already pointed out numerous times is the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. When you are trying to disprove that falsity is neither existence nor non-existence by asserting that falsity has to exist in order to be falsity, that's the logical fallacy of circular reasoning since you are citing the conclusion you want to be true as the reason why that same conclusion is true, and that's self-refuting nonsense. You seem unable to stop yourself from committing logical fallacies.

Manifestation means "to appear" or "to reveal something", and illusions appear and are revealed to observers, so just because illusions manifest (appear) as illusions doesn't in fact entail that they exist, because non-existent falsity already entails manifestation (appearance) by virtue of it being falsity or a false appearance, which distinguishes it from non-being (which doesn't manifest/appear ever).

>if something can manifest without being then it has more reality than being itself, it has more metaphysical substance, since is more independent
Falsity cannot manifest (appear) without itself being contingent upon the being of Brahman who is casting it, that doesn't make falsity more real than reality (Brahman) itself, the contrary is true, what is contingent (falsity) is less real than the independently-existing being that the contingent (falsity) is contingent upon. Falsity is not a substance (that which exists independently) because falsity is contingent upon the being of Brahman and therefore it's logically impossible for falsity/maya to be considered something that is independent.
>thus making the whole thing ilogical
What you just wrote above was pure sophistry that tried to imply that falsity appearing *without itself possessing being* amounts to falsity appearing independently i.e. not in dependence upon anything, but since is obviously wrong since falsity only appears *without itself possessing being* BECAUSE it's contingent upon the being of Brahman casting that falsity, which refutes the claim that falsity is independent or that it appears independently.

wait if brahma is the only thing real and is in no way related or linked to maya, why we experience maya if we're part of brahma?

>>20286144
Apparently you are not part of Brahma, you are part of maya. Maya is illusion appearing to other illusions. Brahma doesn’t even notice it. As I gather from the above explanations.

>>20282641
Terry Davis mentioned Shasta

>>20285976
>you're aware that with this model you can say that A=C since both A and C are unequal to B, you're saying that brahma is equal to nothingness
No, that's wrong, just because A and C are both different from B doesn't automatically entail that A and C are equal, just like yellow and green both being different from purple doesn't make yellow and green equal, and just like grapes and apples being different from bananas doesn't make grapes and apples equal.

Two items sharing a single trait =/= complete identity of both items with each other

A and C both share the trait of not being B, that doesn't make them wholly equal (sharing all traits, i.e. being identical)

>>20285989
>that breaks the law of non contradiction
No it doesn't, that's already been refuted here >>20285052 and >>20284019 and in countless other threads.

When being and non-being are used in their absolute sense, that doesn't violate the LNC because it's not affirming two mutually exclusive statues about anything.

It's not affirming two mutually exclusive things about Brahman

It's not affirming two mutually exclusive things about falsity either.

"not belonging to being (in the absolute sense) and "not belonging to non-being" are not mutually exclusive categories unless you assume a priori that there is no third category which can have the nature of being neither of these (such as falsity) but this is what you are trying to prove so if you assume this a priori in order to assert that the LNC is being violated, that consists of circular reasoning and is hence a logical fallacy by you.

All of your arguments keep devolving into blatant sophistries and/or the logical fallacy of circular reasoning.

>>20286140
>is just denoting the status
status comes from the latin "to stand" that is, to be in a place, to exist, if your ontology can only articulate the existence of phenomen as something that has not non-being or non-being, then that's a really mediocre ontology that can't handle the most important and interesting aspects of existence, and that's what Evola is arguing

>>20286130
>Nobody
so why does he cast that illusion? and how that affects us if such an illusion isn't casted upon anyone or anything?

>>20282641
>Cali
>Kali
>Kali Yuga
Helooo

am I Buddha

>>20286216
Nobody is under illusion and therefore nobody ever achieves moksha. There is no liberation. Advaita degenerates into blatant Mahayana Buddhism. Samsara = Nirvana.

>>20286232
Vishishtadvaita is more logical imo because it posits that there are real individuals and these achieve real liberation.

>>20286203
>No, that's wrong, just because A and C are both different from B doesn't automatically entail that A and C are equal, just like yellow and green both being different from purple doesn't make yellow and green equal, and just like grapes and apples being different from bananas doesn't make grapes and apples equal.
but the possibility is open, you can argue that A=C

>unless you assume a priori that there is no third category which can have the nature of being neither of these
i don't need to do it, the negation itself does it by itself, negation also bring determinationto an object, if i negate A then it becomes (-A) so if if i negate thenegations of A -(-A)=A thus if i say that something is not X or the negation of X i'm saying that something is it's own negation, like syaing something is a fish and not a fish at the same time, a clear contradiction, the object is irrelevant, since we're talking about logical systems, what gives logical determination is the negation here

>>20286227
If you have to ask or tell, no.

>>20286240
those gusy did the best criticism of shankara

Sri Ramanujacharya was apretty wise dude

>>20286035
>they indicate Brahman to us using analogies
>that shouldn't be possible since brahma=A and the vedas=B and according to your own logic A=/=B
No, it's entirely possible, because an analogy is a form of a comparison, the thing you use as an illustration in an analogy is always necessarily different from what you are making the analogy about in the first place. If they were the same you wouldn't need to make an analogy but would just say they are the same.

Furthermore, the Upanishadic analogies, lessons etc function so as to eliminate ignorance and false understandings of what is our self vs non-self etc, and since it is these wrong understandings that are the immediate cause of people not fully realizing their own Self/Atman, when these false understandings are removed through fully understanding the import of the Upanishadic text then the Atman-Brahman is automatically disclosed and fully revealed to us as our own Self without any further action being required.

>>that is revealed supernaturally to sages in every universe cycle including this one.
>in order for this to be possible a bridge that link A with B is needed
No, that's wrong, since the lessons of the Vedic teaching is not Brahman itself but is just part of the information already pre-encoded into maya by default, it's part of the pattern that characterizes maya. When Brahman casts maya as falsity, that itself already includes the Vedic teaching being a part of maya and it appearing in every maya-universe-cycle.

I just want to thank everyone for the intelligent posts. You can’t find this kind of discussion nowhere else IRL or on the internet. Please go on.

>>20286240
Shame that at the end of it is 'Godhead = a blue dude with four arms'

>>20286261
Thank you for your answer

>>20286144
>wait if brahma is the only thing real and is in no way related or linked to maya, why we experience maya if we're part of brahma?
You are not a part of Brahman, Brahman is partless, the Self of all beings is just one Self, which is wholly identical with the partless Brahman. The mind experiences maya, the Self of awareness doesn't. When you say "I am experiencing maya" you are actually talking about your mind and identifying your mind as constituting your selfhood instead of correctly regarding your self as being your actual self of undifferentiated partless awareness. This actual Self is just absorbed in its own non-dual awareness without being involved in maya, it's due to ignorant understandings arising from maya that the minds of living beings conceives of their underlying Self of awareness as being directly involved in maya as the experiencer, the actual experiencer is the mind and not the Self. Awareness as it really is in itself is non-dual and free from subject-object distinctions, and it only seems to be engaged in a subject-object relations as their subject to the minds of indiscriminating beings who confuse their mind with awareness and who don't clearly realize the innermost awareness dwelling in the heart which is blissful, immortal, non-dual and self-illuminating.

>>20286212
>status comes from the latin "to stand" that is, to be in a place, to exist,
The etymology of the English words used is irrelevant, most languages use the same words to describe existent things to talk about non-existent things instead of coming up with an entirely new set of words, the words that seem to have an connection with 'existence' are being used provisionally with the understanding that they are being used in a different sense then usual; that people use words in a provisional sense to discuss a non-existent thing doesn't refute the premise that falsity is neither being nor non-being, since grammar and language are downstream of reality and not vice-versa, the limits of reality or how the universe functions are not constrained and determined by the bounds or patterns of any human language.
>if your ontology can only articulate the existence of phenomen as something that has not non-being or non-being, then that's a really mediocre ontology
No it's not, that's just a weak and unsubstantiated rhetorical attack

>>20286270
>because an analogy is a form of a comparison,
in order to make suc ha fucntional comparison, i should be able to compare A with B but if i'm in B i can access A and if i'm in A i can access B, that's what A=/=B logically implies

>part of the information already pre-encoded into maya by default
if that information has any functionality, then it needs to possess an aspect of A but A=/=B so nothing in B could articulate A, B can only manifest or express B

>>20286216
>so why does he cast that illusion?
Because it's Brahman's nature to do so, if Brahman did so because of some extraneous motive or purpose aside from his nature, then he wouldn't be totally unconditioned and independent, but He is
>and how that affects us if such an illusion isn't casted upon anyone or anything?
It doesn't affect you (speaking about you in your real identity as the ever-liberated Atman-Brahman), it affects the mind. The illusion involves there being the illusion of minds, which are what experience the world. The real you is the unaffected unconditioned spotless light that provides the illumination for the mind to function including having subject vs object distinctions. The source (you) of that illumination in itself is non-dual and without subject and object distinctions.
>>20286232
>Advaita degenerates into blatant Mahayana Buddhism.
No it doesn't, since Atman admits we have an immortal Atman and that underlying samsara is an independently existing spiritual reality, the normative Madhyamaka interpretation of Mahayana that is considered its philosophical mainstream rejects these two central pillars of Advaita. Buddhists generally can't even admit that anything about us remains in final liberation after the body dies, while Advaitins do.
>Samsara = Nirvana.
Advaita disagrees with this for violating the law of non-contradiction among other reasons, Advaita recognizes Brahman as non-identical with Maya (samsara)

>>20286383
>it affects the mind
where's the mind then?

>>20286306
>You are not a part of Brahman
>It doesn't affect you (speaking about you in your real identity as the ever-liberated Atman-Brahman)
so which one is it?

>>20286252
>but the possibility is open, you can argue that A=C
Only if you were talking about the letters of the alphabet on their own as representing abstract unknowns with no relation to Advaita, but this is completely inapplicable and untrue with regard to the 3-way model ontology of Advaita because A (Brahman) and C (non-being) have completely different and mutually exclusive natures (such as sentience vs insentience or existence vs non-existence) which means they cannot be considered identical in any sense whatsoever without violating the law of non-contradiction and the indiscernibility of identicals.

>>unless you assume a priori that there is no third category which can have the nature of being neither of these
>i don't need to do it, the negation itself does it by itself, negation also bring determinationto an object, if i negate A then it becomes (-A) so if if i negate thenegations of A -(-A)=A thus if i say that something is not X or the negation of X i'm saying that something is it's own negation, like syaing something is a fish and not a fish at the same time, a clear contradiction
You are making a very basic and laughable logical error here of arguing that to deny that X belongs to Y category is to automatically make X the opposite of that category. But this is wrong because both X and the opposite of X are not exhaustive, and this is proven by the fact that B, C, D, E, F are not A but are also not equal to the opposite of A (A-). It's proven by the fact that 10, 15, 35, 75 are all not the number 5, but they are also not the opposite of the number 5, which is -5 and not 10, 15, 35, 75 etc.

-A is the opposite of A.
-5 is the opposite of 5

B, C, D, E, F etc are all not A
10, 15, 35, 75 are all not -5

In the same way, "being" and "non-being" are opposites but to deny that X (falsity) belongs to one doesn't automatically make X into the opposite of that category, just like denying the number 47 is the number 5 doesn't make the number 47 into the opposite of the number 5 which is -5.

It seems you can't do basic logic or even anticipate where your reasoning leads to absurdities, like saying if 47 isn't 5 then it's equal to -5 (which is what your """logic""" would entail).

>>20286355
>in order to make suc ha fucntional comparison, i should be able to compare A with B but if i'm in B i can access A and if i'm in A i can access B, that's what A=/=B logically implies
That's really inconsequential since it's not a human observing both and making an observation and thereby coming up with the important lessons of the text based on his observations, the important lessons of the text are already predetermined by default due to them being pre-programmed in as part of the default settings of maya already, due to the casting of maya by Brahman.

A realized sage would have realized his own Atman and could speak from experience on this matter, as many have done including in modern times (such Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj), but the essential contents and the central teaching or implied wisdom of the Upanishads is supernaturally revealed *to the sages* according to most Hindus and not based on a sage coming up with his own unique understanding and then sharing it. The Sruti is held to be apauruṣeya, i.e. authorless, which really means without a human or creaturely author.

>>part of the information already pre-encoded into maya by default
>if that information has any functionality, then it needs to possess an aspect of A but A=/=B so nothing in B could articulate A, B can only manifest or express B
Just because language takes place within maya doesn't mean that we cannot use language to indicate truths about Brahman. Brahman is sentient, but the Vedic scripture doesn't itself doesn't need to posses that aspect of Brahman by being itself being sentient in order to simply say that Brahman is sentient. In order for the revealed scripture to correctly communicate the fact that Brahman is sentient, it simply has to be pre-programmed to do so, which it is.

>>20286389
>where's the mind then?
It's considered the subtle extension of the body, that's why there is a gross body (Sthula sarira) and a subtle body (Sukshma sarira) which includes the mind. The mind's location is tied to wherever the gross body is within the false maya-illusion universe. The false maya illusion itself has no physical location, the very concept of 'physical location' is a false understanding that's part of maya and doesn't correspond to or accurately reflect the non-dual undifferentiated reality underlying maya, as explained at the beginning of this thread.

Anyway. Back on topic. Another reason why Evola (in my interpretation) thought that Shaivism was more based than Advaita was because in the latter Brahman cannot stop himself from creating the world and is ultimately indifferent to it, rendering the universe an accidental — dare I say demiurgic — creation and ultimately meaningless, and so our sojourn through this material world. Whereas Shaivism accounts for all that with the doctrine of Lila. Shiva freely (not like some involuntary discharge) creates the universe for his enjoyment and purposefully enters in it (or at least his lower emanations). The samsaric round, from meaningless suffering, becomes a game of love (a-mor) whereby the lover Shiva chases his darling Shakti throughout countless reincarnations, who plays hide and seek using an infinitude of disguises (but ultimately wants to be found and possessed by her lover), and always finds her in the end (while Sada-Shiva=para Brahman remains impassible and unchanged throughout. The narrative is much more endearing than the dry, right-handed and priestly (that is, celibate) narrative of Advaita. IMO!

>>20282597
>>20282697
Its amazing how well connected scientology is to other forms of counter initiation

>>20286433
>You are making a very basic and laughable logical error here of arguing that to deny that X belongs to Y category is to automatically make X the opposite of that category. But this is wrong because both X and the opposite of X are not exhaustive, and this is proven by the fact that B, C, D, E, F are not A but are also not equal to the opposite of A (A-). It's proven by the fact that 10, 15, 35, 75 are all not the number 5, but they are also not the opposite of the number 5, which is -5 and not 10, 15, 35, 75 etc.
you didn't understand what i'm asaying, is not the object but the negation the one doing the determination, x,y,5,Pr is irrelevant, the imprtant thing here is the negation in play, you can spell all theletter in the alphabet that doesn't change the fact that something being not being and not non-being is like saying (X=-X) which breaks the LNC, the first thing you learn from logic is that the letters aren't important the logical denominators are which moves the logic, a cat, a chair, being itself, it deson't matter at all

>>20286500
>and could speak from experience on this matter
how? language is part of maya

>ust because language takes place within maya doesn't mean that we cannot use language to indicate truths about Brahman
it means exactly taht, langauge is somethingbond to space, time, culture and material conditions like the speech apparatus

>>20286521
but how i'm aware of maya if i'm in brahma and the mind which isn't me is in maya?

>>20286428
>>You are not a part of Brahman
>>It doesn't affect you (speaking about you in your real identity as the ever-liberated Atman-Brahman)
>so which one is it?
The two sentences you quoted are not contradictory or inconsistent, when I denied that your real identity was a "part of Brahman", it was because I was asserting that your real identity is INSTEAD the entirety of Brahman and not just an incomplete part of Brahman (who is without parts).

>>20286543
>you didn't understand what i'm asaying
I did, but it was illogical nonsense that leads to absurdities like 47 = -5 when applied across the board to other situations
>, is not the object but the negation the one doing the determination, x,y,5,Pr is irrelevant, the imprtant thing here is the negation in play, you can spell all theletter in the alphabet that doesn't change the fact that something being not being and not non-being is like saying (X=-X) which breaks the LNC,
No, that's totally wrong, because denying that anything (x) belongs to a certain category (P) doesn't automatically make that thing (x) into the opposite of that category (-P) in situations where the category (P) and it's opposite (-P) are non-exhaustive, and you cannot assert that the categories of being and non-being are exhaustive to begin with without recourse to circular reasoning (since that's what you are trying to prove so that cannot be cited as a reason why its true) which is a logical fallacy and hence self-refuting. All of your arguments when analyzed boil down to sophistries and circular reasoning!

Saying that falsity isn't being or non-being isn't saying (X = -X), it's saying that X and -X are non-exhaustive and that something which fits into neither category is neither X nor -X, so if A (being) and C (non-being) are opposites and falsity is B, then A =/= B =/= C.

Recognizing that something (falsity) fits into neither of two non-exhaustive opposites doesn't violate the law of non-contradiction, since it's not affirming two mutually exclusive statuses about anything. Not belonging to either of the two opposites isn't mutually exclusive when they are non-exhaustive and they cannot be asserted to be exhaustive without the fallacy of circular reasoning.

>>20286590
>f A (being) and C (non-being)
that's not how you express that logically
A(being) -A(non being) thus A=-A thus the law of nn contradiction is being broken

>>20286558
>>and could speak from experience on this matter
>how? language is part of maya
So? As explained before that doesn't prevent us from making statements that accurately reflect Brahman's nature. Just because language is a part of maya doesn't make it any less true to say that Brahman isn't insentient (because Brahman actually is sentient). Knowledge of Brahman cannot be fully communicating through language, but making accurate descriptions of Brahman's nature and using other methods like analogies help push people in the direction of realizing Brahman within themselves, even though they have to do the final steps themselves, discursive language is used as a springboard or basis for people to awaken to non-discursive awareness of their own Self (Atman), like how you can point out the moon to someone by first point out various objects like a tree, and then they see the moon shining through the tree from behind its branches.

>>ust because language takes place within maya doesn't mean that we cannot use language to indicate truths about Brahman
>it means exactly taht, langauge is somethingbond to space, time, culture and material conditions like the speech apparatus
That doesn't prevent us from expressing truths about Brahman, explain why if what you said is correct why it would be incorrect to say that Brahman is sentient or undecaying (you can't)

>>20286562
>but how i'm aware of maya if i'm in brahma
You aren't aware of maya, the awareness that's actually you is just abiding in non-duality, the mind is what's aware of maya, everyone who is still in samsara is there because their mind has a beginningless misidentification of the self and non-self, this characterizes all spiritually-ignorant beings. This is why you have the incorrect belief that your self is the mind perceiving maya, because you have not fully realized and awoken to what your actual self is. If you pay attention to your conscious experience and pay attention to what's actually aware and not-aware, you'll find that when you subtract everything that's not aware from your experience (like thoughts, sense-perceptions, emotions, etc) and isolate the knowing awareness, you'll just be left with spotless partless pristine unaffected awareness itself without anything indicating that it's observing maya and without any sort of subject-object duality.

>>20286653
>the mind is what's aware of maya
then there's two awareness? wasn't awareness brahma itself?

>>20286619
>that's not how you express that logically
>A(being) -A(non being) thus A=-A thus the law of nn contradiction is being broken
That's already been refuted you sophist, denying that something belongs to a status doesn't entail making it identical with the opposite of what that status is in cases where that status and its opposite are non-exhaustive and admit of other statuses to which something can belong. And you can't assert they are exhaustive without committing the fallacy of circular reasoning.

These three groups all express the exact same thing

A =/= -A
B =/= A
B =/= -A
Therefore: A =/= B =/= -A

being =/= non-being
falsity =/= being
falsity =/= non-being
Therefore: being =/= falsity =/= non-being

3 =/= -3
9 =/= 3
9 =/= -3
Therefore: 3 =/= 9 =/= -3

If what you said was true, then 9 would be equal to -3 (because 9 is not 3 aka its the opposite of that i.e. -3 according to your brainlet "logic") which we know is wrong.

>>20286653
>As explained before that doesn't prevent us from making statements that accurately reflect Brahman's nature.
you didn't explain how something from maya can articulate brahma's truth, you just say that it does it, there's no actual argumentation that cna lead us to believe that if A=/=B in B we can expect truths about A, since B can only be equal to itself and not A, thus any articulation about A sould be impossible, how can A thus be articulated in B?

STOP WITH THE LETTER AUTISM!

>>20286683
>That's already been refuted you sophist,
it wasn't refuted because it's a fundamental law of logic, but i'm gonna explain you why a is bieng and a- is non being, if you wanna say that a=being and non being=Q then Q is not actually non-being, Q is "another" being, if non-being is not thenegation of being, then it has anotehr substance, thus the problem comes up, you can all of the sudden articulate more letters R,K,L,G etc, how many? well an infinite number, if non-bieng is not the negation of being, then you have an infnite numbers of substances and your metaphysical system falls into pieces

>>20286675
>then there's two awareness?
The "awareness" of the mind is regarded as being only awareness figuratively. It's not the actual awareness. When the insentient mind is illuminated by the actually existing awareness of the Atman-Brahman, the insentient mind falsely seems to the undiscriminating to flash forth as if the mind itself were aware:

>Manas (mind) is viewed essentially as an organ, the special organ of cognition, just as the eyes are the special organs of sight. ... This imposition of conceptual/linguistic structure on the field of raw sensation is one of the basal activities of manas, and forms the distinction between brute sensation (nirvikalpaka) as opposed to differentiated perception (savikalpaka). In addition to its perceptual activities, manas is held to be responsible for the cognitive functions of analysis, deliberation and decision. It is closely allied to buddhi, which is somewhat roughly translated as the faculty of ‘intellect’ or ‘reason’. Buddhi is a subtler and more powerful faculty than manas, and is responsible for higher level intellectual functions, which require intuition, insight and reflection. The Indian buddhi is in some ways comparable to the Greek noûs, while manas is responsible for lower level discursive thought and analysis. But buddhi is still regarded as a manifestation of prakṛti, albeit the most subtle and refined form which material substance can assume.
>Now, to return to the interplay of consciousness and matter, resulting in apparently conscious mental events. It is the subtle ‘thought forms’ of the buddhi which allow mental events to appear conscious, because the refined buddhi substance is held to be ‘transparent’ to the light of consciousness. Thus conscious thoughts and perceptual experiences take place when buddhi (intellect) receives representational forms, both perceptual and conceptual, from manas, the ‘organ of cognition’. So buddhi receives cognitive structures from manas, and conscious ‘light’ from puruṣa (same as Atman), and in this manner specific mental structures are illuminated by an external source and thereby appear conscious. To fully exploit the optical analogy, the conscious representational structures involved in, say, visual perception, can be compared to transparent photographic slides. The photographic image stored in the film is composed of matter, but it is both representational and translucent. Therefore, when the film is held up to an external light source, such as the sun, the illuminated representation is analogous to the structures of perceptual experience which glow with the sentience of puruṣa. Only the subtle thoughtforms of buddhi are transluscent with the light of puruṣa, while other configurations of matter are opaque to this radiance. And this is why minds appear to be the loci of sentience in the physical world, while stones and tables cannot assume conscious guise.

>wasn't awareness brahma itself?
It is

>>20286721
how then the atman doesn't fall into the illusion of maya if he's the one being actually aware?

>>20286685
>you didn't explain how something from maya can articulate brahma's truth, you just say that it does it, there's no actual argumentation
I don't have to prove that it does, there is no reason why it wouldn't unless you are misunderstanding what is being talked about. You can use an illusory method of communicating to deny falsehoods about the transcendent. I asked you to explain why maya would make it untrue to say that Brahman is not insentient or that He is undecaying and you couldn't explain why, at that point you should just admit the loss and move on since you yourself are unable to explain why it's incorrect when I say Brahman is sentient or that he isn't insentient.
>since B can only be equal to itself and not A, thus any articulation about A sould be impossible, how can A thus be articulated in B?
fortunately, there are such things as symbolism, inference and implications, which you seem to have forgotten

>>20286707
>it wasn't refuted because it's a fundamental law of logic
No it's not that's sophistic bullshit that you pulled out of your ass, fundamental laws of logic don't entail saying that 9 = -3, but what you are saying DOES entail this

>but i'm gonna explain you why a is bieng and a- is non being, if you wanna say that a=being and non being=Q then Q is not actually non-being,
That's not what I'm saying you sophist, I'm saying that Q is neither being nor non-being

Denying that Q is being would mean Q = non-being ONLY IF THEY WERE EXHAUSTIVE, which you can't assert without circular reasoning
Denying that Q is non-being would mean that Q = being ONLY IF THEY WERE EXHAUSTIVE, which you can't assert without circular reasoning

guenonfag is a broken record, just keeps repeating the same contradictory shit believing that if he makes the last post he wins

>>20281095
>who are somehow separated from God, who is their principle, and therefore are not to be identified with Him
Wrong we possess Holyspirit
We always possessed it
Realisation of holy spirit is most beautiful experience ever
Jesus our lord and almighty is the only way
Follow him and realise holy spirit
Do what he did in getsamane and surrender everything to the God what you consider brahman.
Surrendering our fear, anger, desires and pride to god without resistance is ultimate teaching of Christianity
It's very subtle many fall down by thinking Christianity is about acting righteously good as a people pleaser while denying our real emotions. Christianity is about being true to your self. Accepting yourself and loving yourself fully. Allowing yourself to become a child again. The doing good part will come naturally because in that state you will have no hate only love.
A verse from gospel of thomas. I know its not included please bear with me.
>His disciples questioned Him and said to Him, Do you want us to fast? How shall we pray? Shall we give alms? What diet shall we observe?
>Jesus said, Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered.
Just ponder on the ultimate truth of this verse for a min
We all have been angry at people but scared to say it out thinking it will be too impolite or fearing rejection from them. The anger does not subside it stays with us. It controls all our thoughts and run us.
So is lord saying to be an asshole ? Absolutely not. There is only one right way
Which is to Surrender all your emotions to god don't feel guilty about it. Lord itself felt fear anger and grief. What is important is to be with it fully and surrender it to god. Think about things that make you angry stay with it until thinking about it doesn't tense up your body anymore. The more you surrender the more lighter you will feel. Little by little your ego will breakdown you will realise your true self which is Holy spirit the first realisation is exactly similar to what apostles felt. A ecstasy that surpasses all drugs and earthly pleasure. The more you surrender the more You will realise you are already full complete like father and son.
If you deny the existence of your Holyspirit and be stuck in your egoic self it is hell here on earth and after life.
Sorry for my English
If you disagree it's okay please use polite language

>>20286754
>how then the atman doesn't fall into the illusion of maya if he's the one being actually aware?
He doesn't fall into the illusion of maya since his awareness consists of remaining in unaffected unconditioned tranquil non-duality, while his casting of the maya-spell includes within that spell a passive effect whereby the luminosity of the Atman falls upon the transparent Buddhi of the intellect and thereby making the transparent Buddhi appear (to the undiscriminating) as though the Buddhi itself is the source of the illumination and thereby endowed with awareness itself, whereas what the unenlightened person thinks is their awareness is just the insentient transparent Buddhi receiving the light of the unaffected Atman, like a stained window-panel in a Church receiving sunlight and thereby appearing to itself glow to onlookers inside the church, even though that light is actually coming from the sun.

>>20286786
>guenonfag is a broken record, just keeps repeating the same contradictory shit believing that if he makes the last post he wins
I've been refuting the sophists in this thread and all their contradictory nonsense, as per usual

>>20286819
like clockwork, broken record

>>20286848
All the arguments in this thread against Advaita, especially those of the very dishonest ESL-anon, have amounted to strawmen, blatant sophistries, or circular reasoning.

You are welcome to try to provide an example of an argument which wasn't one of those.... but I won't hold my breathe waiting.

>ITT

>>20286881
broken record

Guenonfag once again has separated (in a non-dual way) the light from the dark, the truth from the falsehood, dispelling doubts and sophistries, enlightening many, showing why Advaita is the gold standard of esotericism — the different traditions more or less approaching it —, why Brahma is the absolute and why Shankara and Guenon are its mouthpieces.
Peace be upon him
Shanti shanti shanti

vedanta neoplatonist bros we won

>>20286950

>>20286779
>ONLY IF THEY WERE EXHAUSTIVE
it's exhaustive by the negation, you keep trying to argue that this Q is non exhaustive by virtue of Q but i' keep saying you what amkes it exhaustive is not the letter but the logical notation if something is not q then is -Q if something is not -Q then your negating a negation, making it an affirmation, this is somethign you learn in your first class in introduction to logic, if something is not q(-Q) nor non Q (Q) the that double negation turn q exhaustive
but if we follow this
>that Q is neither being nor non-being
this then breaks the chain of causation of substantiality and we can presupouse even more substances than Q,since there's not a fundamental substance(being) as ontological fundament for Q,since Q is not being(A) or non-being(-A) then we can expect an infnite number of substances(L.R.K.F.G.Pr,PT.Ph and so on and so on),making the whole metaphysical system crumble

>that's sophistic bullshit
there's an old philosophical saying, sophist love to call other people sophist

>>20286815
but then how is it aware of maya? or how is themind aware of maya if it needs the awareness of the atman?

>>20286881
>>20286884
>>20286933
>>20286950
>>20286961

this level of samefagging is insane

I'm first time on /lit/ and I have no clue what the fuck I'm reading

>>20286933
Thank you… Guenonfag…
We are not worthy

>>20286991
Also where to start to understand this thread

>>20287013
By lurking and reading Guenon

Can Christianity be integrated with Vedanta?

>>20286978
it's also important to note that this little logical aspect of the whole thing is really important to understand what Evola is saying, because it shows that if maya is not created by pure being then this creates an unatural division betwen being and becoming which end up creating an infinite set of worlds and substances, a proliferation of "pseudosubstances" would emerge
this logical aspect shows why Evola is right on his criticism about shankara

>>20286991
The secret of all future development is a recognition that everything achieved by man from a right comprehension of evolution is a sowing of seed which must ripen into love. And the greater the amount of love-force, so much the greater will be the creative force available for the future. In that which will grow from love, will lie the mighty forces leading to that culminating point of spiritualization described above. The greater the amount of spiritual knowledge that flows into human and terrestrial evolution, so much more living and fruitful seed will be stored up for the future. Spiritual knowledge is transmuted through its own nature into love... The wisdom of the outer world becomes inner wisdom in man from the Earth period onward and when it is concentrated in him, it becomes the germ of love. Wisdom is the necessary preliminary condition for love; love is the fruit of wisdom, reborn in the ego.

The aim of the Ahrimanic powers is to prevent...development... to harden and freeze up the earth, to shape it in such a way that, together with the earth, man remains an earthbound creature. He becomes hardened... and continues to live in the future ages of the world as a kind of statue of his past... The earth could not reach its goal if the Ahrimanic powers were to gain the victory, if man were alienated from his beginnings, from the powers who supported him at the beginning of his evolution. Outwardly, the human being would develop in a way entirely in keeping with the earthly sphere, but by suppressing his innate disposition, which must lead him beyond the earth. The Ahrimanic powers could not touch man while the intellect was still rooted in the spiritual through an old inheritance, as was the case during the past three or four centuries. But this has changed since the beginning of the 20th century. The ancient Indian wisdom knew this, and fixed the end of the 19th century as the end of the “Dark Age,” of Kali-Yuga. Thus it had an intimation of a new age. This new age was to indicate that from the beginning of the 20th century, our deepest concern should no longer be that of clinging to an old spiritual inheritance, but of absorbing the new light, the pure light, in our earthly life.

>>20286884
Kek. Can someone explain Jains to me and their relationship with Traditional Hinduism

>>20287091
that's what Guido de Giorgio tried to do (according to Evola)

a vedantized catholicism
(idk nuffin about it tho - only available in italian)

>>20287216
Holy shit this guy seems interesting thank you very much for this. Luckily I read Italian ok

>>20287233
No prob
Go to gornahoor.net and search his name for some qrd

There are published letters between him and Guenon that are interesting (they walk about Evola

>>20287277
Thank you again friend. Do you know much about gornahoor? Does it represent a particular subset of the Guenon crowd? I've always been curious

>>20286933
>>20286950
>>20286961
>>20287011
thank you my brothers, I do it in part because I love this board and its denizens, know that I hold you all close to my heart...

>>20286978
>ONLY IF THEY WERE EXHAUSTIVE
>it's exhaustive by the negation, you keep trying to argue that this Q is non exhaustive by virtue of Q but i' keep saying you what amkes it exhaustive is not the letter but the logical notation if something is not q then is -Q
You are making the brainlet mistake of conflating something being non-identical with something else with the SEPARATE claim of them being opposites or negations of each other. Just because two things are non-identical doesn't automatically render them into opposites or negations of each other.

That sort of thinking is invalid and self-refuting, as shown by numerous examples where it produces incorrect results, i.e. the color blue is the opposite of the color orange. However if you take the color blue and symbolize it as A, and then compare it to the color purple and say "purple is not blue (A), and therefore purple is (-A) i.e. the opposite of A", then that will produce the incorrect answer that purple is the opposite color of blue, when in actuality the opposite color of blue is the color orange, and NOT purple. If the reasoning you are using produces incorrect results then its simply wrong, full stop.

>if something is not -Q then your negating a negation, making it an affirmation
That doesn't mean you are affirming it as Q, that just means that it's not the opposite of Q, saying that the thing is not the opposite of Q (negating a negation) is not saying the thing itself is Q, because it can be something else entirely that isn't Q or Q's opposite, as shown by the above analogy of colors
>this is somethign you learn in your first class in introduction to logic, if something is not q(-Q) nor non Q (Q) the that double negation turn q exhaustive
No, it doesn't because not everything is automatically reducible to Q or its opposite, that's retard-"logic" that produces incorrect results like "47 = -3" and "blue is the opposite of purple"
>but if we follow this that Q is neither being nor non-being this then breaks the chain of causation of substantiality
No it doesn't, Brahman remains the only thing with independent existence, falsity isn't a substance and doesn't have existence
>and we can presupouse even more substances than Q,since there's not a fundamental substance(being) as ontological fundament for Q,since Q is not being(A) or non-being(-A)
Brahman remains the ontological fundament that Q (falsity) is contingent upon.
>then we can expect an infnite number of substances(L.R.K.F.G.Pr,PT.Ph and so on and so on),
Wrong, since falsity (Q) isn't a substance because its contingent and not independent, and if Brahman has no nature to cast anything else aside from falsity than he won't (and he doesn't) so there is no reason or necessity to assume other categories.

>>20287091
I’m afraid not, seeing as how Vedanta is a Gnostic-Luciferian doctrine and all.

>>20287282
Gornahoor and cologero (the dude who runs the blog) are based af

He’s a big Bernard of Clairvaux guy
maiy tradcath but talks about Islam and Hindu all the time

>>20286984
>but then how is it aware of maya?
The Atman isn't in truth, saying that the Atman is the "witness" of maya or of one's mind is an incidental description designed to help direct people to it via tracing back the radiance to its source, it's not a definition of what it's actually like in truth,
>or how is themind aware of maya if it needs the awareness of the atman?
Because the mind needs the luminosity it receives from the Atman to act as a stand-in for the subject of the subject-object distinctions, this is what allows mental states to appear as though they are conscious/aware. Awareness is non-dual and intrinsically free of subject-object distinctions, when the luminosity of this non-dual awareness is received by the transparent Buddhi, the mind conceives of that luminosity as being the subject of its subject-object distinctions, the mind notices the radiant presence of the pure reflexivity or pure self-directed subjectivity of the Atman and falsely appropriates that aspect of subjectivity to itself to make it (from the minds perspective) the observer of mental contents when the Atman is actually beyond dualistic distinctions like observer vs observed.

>>20287107
>it's also important to note that this little logical aspect of the whole thing is really important to understand what Evola is saying
Kek, you just don't get it and keep repeating the same mistakes
>because it shows that if maya is not created by pure being
Maya IS cast as falsity BY the pure being of Brahman
>then this creates an unatural division betwen being and becoming which end up creating an infinite set of worlds and substances, a proliferation of "pseudosubstances" would emerge
No, there is no reason why this would be the case when Brahman's nature is simply to cast maya and not anything else.
>this logical aspect shows why Evola is right on his criticism about shankara
It's premised on grug-tier misunderstandings and he later recounted his views about Advaita.

>>20287317
>the color blue is the opposite of the color orange
the color blue is not the negation of the color orange,in this case non-orange would be the negation of orange, so you can see how absurd it sound if i say something is orange and non-orange at the same time or what is the same, this thing is not orange but also not non-orange, something can be non orange(any other color or thing) or not non orange(whih would be orange) but if it's both then you have a contradiciton, again, the exhaustivity is not given by the color but by the negation, the same apllies to being or any other ontological "substance" you can think off
the whole rest of your post rest on this same problem

>>20287397
>the mind notices
but then the mind is aware, how can the mind notice something if it doesn't have an aware of its own?

>>20287389
Yeah the problem with being a perennialist and a Catholic is that trad caths are all too aware of Guenon and perennialism and will call you out immediately. The claims of perennialism are fundamentally at odds with Catholicism, as it dogmatically teaches that there is no salvation outside the church. So you’d have to hide your perennialism behind layers of ambiguity and deception or be called out (you’d be called out anyway. Trad Caths have an eye for these things and an almost obsession with what they view as “Gnosticism” within trad circles).
Ironically the only people who would agree with some perennialist claims are the liberal/modernist wing of the Catholic Church.

>>20287336
What does that mean?

>>20287431
I like Olavo RIP

Gornahoor isn’t one of those types of tradcath blogs FYI. It’s definitely a Guenon + Evola traditionalist blog first and foremost.
It’s very based
Dago approved


But yeah I agree with you on how muh no salvation outside the church stuff.

>>20287212
>Kek. Can someone explain Jains to me and their relationship with Traditional Hinduism
The oldest Upanishads and the earlier Vedic layers are the earliest known texts talking about Dharmic-type spiritual ideas (karma, rebirth, ignorance, liberation etc), the oldest known Upanishads are around 8th-7th century BC and in certain Vedic layers from even earlier the same ideas can be found, but occurring at a less frequent rate than in the Upanishads. Jainism and an early form of the Hindu school Sankhya were organized into formal schools before Buddha started teaching and probably influenced Buddhism. Jains claim that their ideas come from a long line of Jain teachers extending back thousands of years before this, but there is no evidence for this. If we just simply go off the textual sources, it appears that Dharmic ideas come from the Vedas+Upanishads and spread outwards, being picked up by various people outside the Brahmanical orthodoxy and being modified and turned into Jainism, Buddhism etc.

Jains and Buddhists like to claim that there was a group of ascetics who already existed then that the Dharmic ideas come from and that they don't originate from the Vedic corpus, but there is virtually no evidence of this, it's pure conjecture which seems suspiciously like a self-serving narrative designed to downplay their indebtedness to the Vedas+Upanishads. From the beginning Jainism appears to have regarded itself as a path outside the Hindu orthodoxy, but following the same goal that the Upanishads were talking about, i.e. liberating oneself from karma and rebirth. Jainism like Hinduism teaches that every being has an immortal Atman or Self, although they understand it to mean something different from the different kinds of Self taught by the various Hindu darshanas (which differ from each other, including within individual darshanas like Vedanta where every Vedanta school teaches different things about the Atman).

In ancient and medieval India there were series of Jain vs Buddhist critiques, Jain vs Hindu critiques, and Hindu vs Buddhist critiques, along with some other marginal players like Charvaka, Ajnanas and Ajivikas. The Jains attacked Buddhists for various reasons including their denial of an Atman (regardless of whether Buddha himself did), when it came to Jain vs Hindu debates they agreed that living beings have Atmans but disagreed about exactly what this means, how the Atman functions, what is the Atmans relation to the mind etc. The Jains demanded a more strict form of ascetism than what is demanded by Buddhist or Hindu ascetics, which probably made less people attracted to join them as monks, although the Jains also allow laypeople who believe in Jainism to take Jain layperson vows. The Jains throughout history have flourished in niche businesses including to this day and become wealthy despite their austere values, apparently because of their reputation for honesty.

>>20287509
muh no salvation outside the church stuff is cringe **

>>20287513
What's the difference between an Aryan Veda supremacist claiming online that Aryans created all real ideas in India, and a Dravidian online supremacist claiming that Dravidians created all real ideas in India?

The Dravidian supremacist is probably actually Indian and Hindu. The Aryan Veda supremacist is probably an American and doesn't practice Hinduism.

>>20287531
The truth is somewhere in the middle. There are Dravidian layers in Hinduism that got aryanized, most notably shaktism, tantra, etc., probably Rudra/Shiva cult. The Indus Valley civilization was a thriving civilization before the Aryans arrived. So both peoples contributed but the Aryan element predominated, comprising as it did the dominant echelons of Indian society for so long.

>>20287745
Only as far as Videha

Witzel and Bronkhorst are the most interesting writers on this, Bronkhorst goes too far with his Greater Magadha thesis and just creates too much of an opposite extreme like you suggest
https://networks.h-net.org/node/6060/reviews/16094/wynne-bronkhorst-greater-magadha-studies-culture-early-india

But I think there were multiple centers to Indian philosophy. It's so stupid to think of India as like "Greece", it's more like what the Mediterranean was to Greece and many other civilizations, with lots of different civs interacting and overlapping over time. Hard to tell which strands came from which original strata.

I try not to listen to extremists on either side, Dravidian nationalists are even louder than Aryan ones these days...

>>20287763
What is the name of that IE with a Baltic-sounding surname?

>>20287417
>the color blue is not the negation of the color orange,
Yes, it's the opposite of orange and not its negation
>in this case non-orange would be the negation of orange, so you can see how absurd it sound if i say something is orange and non-orange at the same time or what is the same
That would be violating the LNC by saying something both has a positive quality and the negation of that same quality, however, falsity in Advaita is not violating the LNC this way because they are not saying that falsity has a positive quality (being) and its opposite (non-being) at the same time, Advaita is instead saying that falsity is neither of these, they are both inapplicable to falsity.
>this thing is not orange but also not non-orange, something can be non orange(any other color or thing) or not non orange(whih would be orange) but if it's both then you have a contradiciton, again, the exhaustivity is not given by the color but by the negation, the same apllies to being or any other ontological "substance" you can think off the whole rest of your post rest on this same problem
Wrong, that's not what Advaita is talking about you sophist.

Saying "falsity is neither being nor non-being" is not equivalent to saying "this thing is not orange but also not non-orange" because both "not orange" and not-not-orange BOTH REFER TO MODES OF BEING, the not-not-orange is orange, and the not-orange is another color like blue or red, both of these colors are a mode of being, even if one is the negation of the other, this is completely different from what Advaita is talking about where the two options ARE NOT BOTH MODES OF BEING like your example. Because being and non-being when used in an absolute sense (like Advaita does) doesn't simply refer to the presence of worldly objects and the negation of that same presence by a contrary thing having being but they are *different orders of reality or ontological categories* entirely, there is hence there is no contradiction in their simultaneous denial, as Madhusudana Saraswati already noted when he refuted your argument centuries ago. IT WOULD ONLY BE A CONTRADICTION IF THEY WERE BOTH MODES OF BEING.

Your whole sophistic argument involves wrongly equating talking about TWO CONTRARY MODES OF BEING with the separate discussion of TWO DIFFFERING ONTOLOGICAL CATEGORIES WHICH ARE NOT BOTH MODES OF BEING

An object WITH BEING cannot have the MODE OF BEING of "orange" while also having a contrary MODE OF BEING that is "not-orange" like blue, because these are two contradictions ON THE SAME ONTOLOGICAL LEVEL

Denying that falsity is being and also non-being isn't producing the above contradiction of the same object having two different contradictory colors, because those contradictory colors ARE BOTH ON THE SAME ONTOLOGICAL LEVEL AS MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE MODES OF BEING while on the other hand NON-BEING ISNT A MODE OF BEING AND SO THEY AREN'T ON THE SAME ONTOLOGICAL LEVEL SO MUTUAL DENIAL PRODUCES NO CONTRADICTION!

>>20287422
>>the mind notices
>but then the mind is aware
No, because "noticing" is an insentient material mental-form that is pervaded by the light of unaffected awareness.
>how can the mind notice something if it doesn't have an aware of its own?
Because the "mind noticing" is just the (material) subtle elements (tanmatras) making up the mind and intellect rearranging themselves in response to other material and energy inputs from the rest of the body and its sense organs, it's simply a shifting configuration of a subtle material structure that changes in response to external inputs while also delivering effects to other things through controlling body movement etc. It's only when this subtle material structure is illuminated by the light of awareness and glows with this light like a stained-glass window receives and glows with the light of the sun that sentience is mistakenly attributed to the subtle material structure making up that mental thought-form or perception-form.

>>20287531
>What's the difference between an Aryan Veda supremacist claiming online that Aryans created all real ideas in India, and a Dravidian online supremacist claiming that Dravidians created all real ideas in India?
Well, the Veda supremacist actually has his claim rooted in the earliest known spiritual writings from India, while the Dravidian supremacist doesn't.
>>20287745
>. There are Dravidian layers in Hinduism that got aryanized, most notably shaktism, tantra, etc., probably Rudra/Shiva cult.
Is there any serious reason to support this conclusion aside from conjecture? Not trolling but I'm genuinely curious. Quotes talking about the Supreme as female are found in the Vedas and quoted regularly by Shaktists, Tantra is a Sanskrit word with multiple meanings that is found throughout the Vedas, Rudra also comes from the Vedas too. The earliest Shaivite writings like the Pāśupatasūtras and Pañcārthabhāṣya are written in Sanskrit and not any Dravidian language, similarly the earliest Tantras like the Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā, Vīṇāśikha, Brahmayāmala etc are mostly Sanskrit works.

>>20287802
>Because being and non-being when used in an absolute sense (like Advaita does) doesn't simply refer to the presence of worldly objects
i'm not talking about wordly objects here, i'm just using worldy object as an clear example to show how negation works in a logical argumentation, i said this before, what's important here aren't the logical variables, you can use orange or being, it's the same here, in both cases the law of non contradiction is broken, since a thing an it's negationa are being presented as the same thing, "modes of being" here are given by the logical notations, in this case negation, not by the letters
so this right here:
>TWO CONTRARY MODES OF BEING with the separate discussion of TWO DIFFFERING ONTOLOGICAL CATEGORIES WHICH ARE NOT BOTH MODES OF BEING
means absolutely nothing to my argument, you should instead explain how something can be it's own negatiion and still be logically coherent with the LNC

is it time to crank up the racism ITT?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsl3Ka6IVNw

>>20287958
Tantra is a hotly debated topic, none knows for sure. The IR scholar with Baltic-sounding surname (Parvo?) sees proto-Tantra, shaktism, Durga worship connected to the slaying of the buffalo in the Hindus Valley civilization and even in the BMAC. I thought it was interesting. He also thought Indra was a Finno-Ugric hyper-Korean deity so take it with a grain of salt.

>>20288329
IE* scholar

He is also hated by the Dravidian supremacists out of India crowd, but not as much as Reichsfuhrer Michael Witzel.

>>20288019
>i'm not talking about wordly objects here,
Your example that you are using to demonstrate the supposed contradiction in what Advaita is talking about is inapplicable because it involves relying upon a contradiction taking place where the two contradictory things both belong to the same ontological level, i.e. they are both on the level of being/existence (taking this word in the normal sense). "Not-orange" refers to another color like red and hence something on the ontological level of being ("not-orange" doesn't denote nothingness in your example like how "non-being" means nothingness in what Advaita is talking about), while "not-not-orange" refers to the color orange, which is also on the plane of being. This involves a violation of the LNC because it's attributing two contradictory properties on the same ontological level to the same thing (even though one is expressed with a negation, it's still referring to a positive property with being, i.e like a color existing as something's property)

If one of the colors didn't exist as in it was replaced by nothingness, there would be no contradiction, because you'd be saying "the object with being has the property blue, while redness doesn't exist". Claiming that redness doesn't exist might violate sense perception, but it's not contradicted by the simple fact of the object with being having the property of being blue. That in itself doesn't violate the LNC.

> in both cases the law of non contradiction is broken, since a thing an it's negationa are being presented as the same thing,
No, that's incorrect. Saying "falsity isn't being or non-being" isn't presenting being and the negation of being as the same thing, it's denying that either apply to something else which itself is neither of them.
>"modes of being" here are given by the logical notations, in this case negation, not by the letters
You are making the mistake of interpreting the "non-being" or "not being" that Advaita distinguishes falsity from as a 'mode of being' which can be applied to something else, but this is not so since this refers to an ontological category that is nothingness, a total and complete negation; nothingness is not a certain mode of being that can be predicated about something but is another order of reality/ontology entirely. So Advaita isn't violating the LNC, because denying that falsity is non-being and being just means that it's the 3rd option of falsity instead. "Not-being" is not a positive property that can be predicated about an object or principle in contradiction of some other positive principle. Contradictory things can only contradict each other if they are on the same ontological level or level of reality.

>you should instead explain how something can be it's own negatiion and still be logically coherent with the LNC
Try to explain how falsity neither belonging to the ontological level of being nor non-being involves something being it's own negation: you can't without making mistakes

>>20288329
>The IR scholar with Baltic-sounding surname (Parvo?) sees proto-Tantra, shaktism, Durga worship connected to the slaying of the buffalo in the Hindus Valley civilization and even in the BMAC. I thought it was interesting.
Does he have solid evidence or is it just conjecture? Tracing the actual philosophy and doctrines of Tantrism to ancient Buffalo-hunting cultures simply because of some later myth of Durga slaying a demon (recorded in a Sanskrit text) is quite the leap.

It seems like everytime I press people for answers on this topic it amounts to something like "uh..... primitive brown people seem more likely to worship snakes and nature and mommy-gods.... uuh... therefore if we assume the same is true, then everything that resembles this in Hinduism has Dravidian origins", but that's just lazily applying a model derived from studying other races and cultures, it's not actually rooted in strong evidence if that's how you arrived at it. It may "feel" intuitively true but that can easily just be confirmation bias.

>>20288444
*nothingness is not a mode of being or property that can be predicated about something while that thing still has being or existence

Nothingness thus doesn't exist as a positive property on the level of existence which can be contradicted by another mutually-exclusive property that's also on the level of existence and thereby violate the LNC.

>>20288444
>Your example that you are using to demonstrate the supposed contradiction in what Advaita is talking about is inapplicable because it involves relying upon a contradiction taking place where the two contradictory things both belong to the same ontological level, i.e. they are both on the level of being/existence (taking this word in the normal sense). "Not-orange" refers to another color like red and hence something on the ontological level of being ("not-orange" doesn't denote nothingness in your example like how "non-being" means nothingness in what Advaita is talking about), while "not-not-orange" refers to the color orange, which is also on the plane of being. This involves a violation of the LNC because it's attributing two contradictory properties on the same ontological level to the same thing (even though one is expressed with a negation, it's still referring to a positive property with being, i.e like a color existing as something's property)
>If one of the colors didn't exist as in it was replaced by nothingness, there would be no contradiction, because you'd be saying "the object with being has the property blue, while redness doesn't exist". Claiming that redness doesn't exist might violate sense perception, but it's not contradicted by the simple fact of the object with being having the property of being blue. That in itself doesn't violate the LNC.
i already expalñined this to you, it'sirrelevant hat i use orange and non orange or being and non being, when you say that somethign is not being and is not non being you're exhausting all options by virtue of its negation, not by the quality of its object, logic ws conceived to understand states of being, so it's perectcly applicable to states of being and ontologicalmatters, that's the whole point of the metaphysics of aristotle
and not only that i already explain you why that's the case, the fact that sometihng can't not be and not non-be at the same time si taht if that where the case then you could pose an infnite number of substances, sicnethere's no ontological order or chain of casuation that can mantain it, if we follow your logic and we seriosuly beliebe that sometihng that not A or -A can be B then in some place must exist a C, and a D and a Q Q1 Q2 Q3 etc ad eternum
and that's why it breaks the LNC

>>20288474
>does he have
I can’t even remember his name, if you haven’t noticed.
> uh..... primitive brown people seem more likely to worship snakes and nature and mommy-gods.... uuh... therefore if we assume the same is true, then everything that resembles this in Hinduism has Dravidian origins
Their arguments more or less amount to that, but in scholarspeak.

>>20288345
Why do people hate Witzel ?

>>20288510
>i already expalñined this to you, it'sirrelevant hat i use orange and non orange or being and non being, when you say that somethign is not being and is not non being you're exhausting all options by virtue of its negation,
That's wrong, because they are not exhaustive if there is a third alternative as I've already explained to you, Absolute being and non-being (nothingness) are not exhaustive because in the middle between them is falsity aka relative being.

When falsity is the middle ground between absolute being and nothingness, it's not negated as an option by the denial of absolute being and it's not negated by the denial of nothingness.

>not by the quality of its object, logic ws conceived to understand states of being, so it's perectcly applicable to states of being nothingness isn't a state of being, it's a complete all-encompassing absence/negation that is a different order of reality entirely than existence/being, someone positive negating something else that is positive isn't the same thing as nothingness
>and not only that i already explain you why that's the case, the fact that sometihng can't not be and not non-be at the same time si taht if that where the case then you could pose an infnite number of substances,
Why? That's just unjustified nonsense that you pulled out of your ass like so much else, there is no reason why this leads to an infinite number of substances, it doesn't even lead to one substance, let alone multiple ones.
>sicnethere's no ontological order
Wrong, the ontological order is Absolute being vs falsity vs nothingness
>or chain of casuation that can mantain it,
Wrong, falsity as an ontological category is sustained and maintained by the Brahman on the level of being that is casting it like a spell, this has been explained to you already
>if we follow your logic and we seriosuly beliebe that sometihng that not A or -A can be B then in some place must exist a C, and a D and a Q Q1 Q2 Q3 etc ad eternum
You keep saying this like it's true, but without every proving or showing why, is this your new cope?
>and that's why it breaks the LNC
You haven't explained how anything Advaita is saying violates the LNC, the "muh extra substances" is specious unrelated bullshit that has nothing to do with the LNC

>>20288562
Check out this hilarious text by an angry Pajeet

>Aryan Panzers launch a Blitzkrieg into India:

Elsewhere, Witzel elaborates on the role played by the chariot (‘Vedic tank’) and the horse in enabling the Aryans secure elite domination over the descendants of Harappans39:
“The first appearance of thundering chariots must have stricken the local population with a terror, similar to that experienced by the Aztecs and Incas upon the arrival of the iron-clad, horse riding Spaniards.”
On wonders if Witzel seriously thinks that the ‘Vedic tanks’ (see next quote) were capable of cross the Afghani mountain ranges when even American tanks can do so today.
He elaborates further40 –
“Something of this fear of the horse and of the thundering chariot, the "tank" of the 2nd millennium B.C. is transparent in the famous horse 'Dadhikra' of the Puru king Trasadasya ("Tremble enemy" in RV 4.38.8) ........The first appearance of thundering chariots must have stricken the local population with terror similar to that experienced by the Aztecs and the Incas upon the arrival of the iron-clad, horse riding Spaniards.”
Witzel draws also an analogy from Japan, where a few ‘aggressive horse riders’ from Northern China were able to influence the Japanese culture dramatically41 .

https://pt.br1lib.org/book/3514794/5e1ea2

>>20288600
Another one

>the German-American linguist Michael Witzel is better known as a crusader in support of his pet Aryan invasion (or migration) myth

Notice the rhetoric: he begins by poisoning the water with a paragraph about racism. Then remarks that Witzel is “German-American”, subtly associating him with Germany, and subliminally with Nazism. Then he calls him, not an advocate, but a “crusader” (Crusades, hello?) in favor of “his” “pet theory”, which is a “myth”. Shit is funny af. This is the level of argumentation we get from Pajeets.

https://www.dailypioneer.com/2014/book-reviews/recycled-racism-in-a-new-bottle.html

>>20288575
>That's wrong, because they are not exhaustive if there is a third alternative as I've already explained to you, Absolute being and non-being (nothingness) are not exhaustive because in the middle between them is falsity aka relative being.
and i already epxlained to you that if they'renot exhaustive then that produce an infinte number of susbtances

>>20288575
>but without every proving or showing why, is this your new cope?
you never proved how brahma cancast an illusion to nowhere

>>20288575
>Why?
because tehre's nothign that can regulate teh numebr of substances once there's sometihng besides A and,-A, i already told you and it's pretty clear, when you have a substance A and thena subtscance B ha syou propouse, then a substance C can be articulated and so on and so on, the only way that couldn't hapen is if the only substance is A, when B and C exist, the you lose all possibilitie of preventing a substance D to be articualted, so then expalin this, how canyou have 3 substances without the articulation of a possible 4th one and so on?

>>20288643
>and i already epxlained to you that if they'renot exhaustive then that produce an infinte number of susbtances
No, you just unilaterally asserted it without explaining why or offering justification and according to the definition of substance the intermediate 3rd option of 'falsity' isn't a substance anyway, so it's not a serious argument at all but is just nonsense.

1) Falsity isn't a substance because it's contingent on being (Brahman), anything that's contingent *by definition* isn't a substance
2) Falsity is only an ontological category due to it being Brahman's nature to project/cast it as such
3) Since Brahman doesn't have the nature to project/cast any other ontological category aside from falsity, there is no plausible reason to assume any others over and above the ontological category of falsity, because the factor that permits falsity to be an ontological category isn't present for them like it is for falsity, so in the absence of that necessary factor they wouldn't arise and in fact never could

>>20288651
>you never proved how brahma cancast an illusion to nowhere
Because that's not necessary to prove in order to point out that it's logically consistent and doesn't violate any logical laws to place falsity or 'relative being' as a 3rd ontological category between absolute being and nothingness. Other people were trying to disprove it and say it's illogical, me refuting their arguments doesn't require that I somehow prove that Brahman is what falsity is contingent upon, all I have to do is merely explain how it's logically consistent and refute the opposing arguments which I've been doing.

>>20288665
>>Why?
>because tehre's nothign that can regulate teh numebr of substances once there's sometihng besides A and,-A,
This nonsense was refuted in the top half of this post

1) Falsity isn't a substance by definition since its contingent
2) There is no cause for any other 4th or 5th ontological category aside from the 3rd of falsity, in the absence of any cause they wont arise - problem solved

>i already told you and it's pretty clear, when you have a substance A and thena subtscance B ha syou propouse, then a substance C can be articulated and so on and so on,
That's not what I'm proposing ESLanon, only Brahman can be considered a substance (has independent existence), falsity is contingent and hence not a substance, it's really that simple. Nothing I've said implies multiple substances
>the only way that couldn't hapen is if the only substance is A, when B and C exist, the you lose all possibilitie of preventing a substance D to be articualted, so then expalin this, how canyou have 3 substances without the articulation of a possible 4th one and so on?
I'm not talking about 3 different substances you dumbass, only Brahman is a substance, the ontological categories of falsity and nothingness are not substances according to any definition of substance, you seem incapable of even accurately describing what I'm talking about

It still hasn't been explained exactly what in Advaita's 3-way ontology violates the LNC by the way. Only vague unjustified assertions were made about "other substances" despite there being no reason to assume them existing, and in any case their proposed existence doesn't prove any violation of the LNC by the 3-way ontological model itself.

>>20288722
>I'm not talking about 3 different substances you dumbass
you actually are, you just don't realise it, when you say that something that is nether being or non-being is "something else" the only thing it can be then is another substance
or in logical terms, if only brahma is substance then brahma=A and nothingness=-A if you pose something else like B, then that's another substance, but if there's a tihng that is "just somethign else" then an infinite numebr of otehr things can be articulated
that's why the idea of falsity doesn't make any sens,e an inifnite number of maya composiitons can be formulated and since there other thing besides being or not being non of them are linked to brahma or need it in any way, so they're independent of him, at least that's what you're impliyng with your reasoning, i know you don't wanna imply that, don't get me wrong, but you're doing in anyway, that's what your ontology end up creating, now i don't think even shankara beleievs this, i think you're doing an awful job trying to defend his point and end up creating a metaphysical mess that makes no sesne at all

>>20288722
>1) Falsity isn't a substance by definition since its contingent
it is if it's not part of A or -A
>>20288722
>There is no cause for any other 4th or 5th ontological category aside from the 3rd of falsity, in the absence of any cause they wont arise - problem solved
there's no cause for B either but in your logicla system B still exist, so a 4th 5th andmore can be articulated at any time, since the creation of substances here dseon't need causes

>>20281708
>I live in the mid-Atlantic area (pic related), I have lived on the west coast too
Holy shit, same. Grew up in WA, now I live in VA.

>>20288722
>Falsity isn't a substance because it's contingent on being (Brahman)
then is part of brahma
which is what Evola say at the begginign of this post
>namely, there is nothing outside of it, not even created beings that are subject to ignorance and to experiencing the world according to the illusion of maya. If we uphold Vedanta's Advaita monism, we are thereby forced to conclude that maya, in its irrational and miragelike nature, could mysteriously arise within brahman itself (since nothing exists other than it)

but you want tohave your eat and eat it to, so when its no longe convenint maya isno longer part of brahma, but this for some reason don't make it a substance
this is a contradiction
and if you try to say that brahma just is catsing it, that stillmakes it part of brahma as an unique susbtance, since if not, then you have to create a substance that can contain brahma AND maya into itself
maya has to have a cause if not is just nothingness, wathever his cause is that's is substance, if brahma isn0t his substance then something else is in which case you have two subtances; brahma and the cause of maya or one substance: a thing that caused maya and brahma

>>20288843
>you actually are, you just don't realise it, when you say that something that is nether being or non-being is "something else" the only thing it can be then is another substance
According to what criteria of substance? If the criteria of substance is something with independent existence, then the "something else" that's maya/falsity isn't a substance because it's contingent on Brahman. Neither is it a substance if the criteria of substance is "actually existing" since only Brahman actually exists, illusions not having actual existence doesn't preclude them from falsely appearing as seemingly existent, the meaning of 'illusion' is the non-real appearing as though real, in case you forgot.
>or in logical terms, if only brahma is substance then brahma=A and nothingness=-A if you pose something else like B, then that's another substance
You haven't provided the criteria yet according to which it's valid to label the category of falsity as a substance, so this ploy can be dismissed as nonsense until you specify what criteria is being used, under one of the most common criteria's of 'being non-contingent (independent)' it's not a substance, under another criteria of 'actually existing' it's not a substance either.
>but if there's a tihng that is "just somethign else" then an infinite numebr of otehr things can be articulated
Why? What is the reason for this, unless you explain why these random assertions are justified they don't have any force as arguments but just come off as nonsense that you are making up on the spot after your previous arguments are refuted.
1) The ontological category of falsity can justifiably be 'articulated' as a coherent position by Advaita because it's Brahman's nature to project it as the 3rd and as the 3rd alone without any separate 4th or 5th etc category
2) Ontological categories don't magically arise from nothingness on their own willy-nilly, and in fact nothing actually does this
3) Hence, if there is no specific reason for extra ontological categories to be valid, they won't be.
4) In the absence of any specific reason to assume there would be additional 4th, 5th, 6th categories etc, your argument that allowing the 3rd (falsity) to be contingent upon Brahman automatically opens us the door to the multiplication of more categories in a problematic manner can be dismissed as complete nonsense—there's no reason why that would present itself as an issue, it's an entirely false and contrived problem.

>>20288843
>that's why the idea of falsity doesn't make any sens,e an inifnite number of maya composiitons can be formulated
But you never actually showed or explained why this logically follows, you got too far ahead of yourself in your sophistry and forgot to link one argument to the other.
>and since there other thing besides being or not being non of them are linked to brahma or need it in any way, so they're independent of him
Wrong, that has already been refuted many times in this thread already, Maya/Falsity *isn't* independent because it's *entirely contingent* on Brahman casting it, without Brahman being present it would vanish in an instant. There cannot even be other ontological categories aside from maya/falsity arising in contingent OR independent manner since it's not Brahman's nature to project them, what you are talking about is logically impossible!

>>20288924
>then the "something else" that's maya/falsity isn't a substance because it's contingent on Brahman
thenis part of brahma

>Why? What is the reason for this,
becaus ethat's how logic works guenonfag, you can't leave loopeholes or lose ends, you have to articulate why only a set numbers of things can exist, if not there's no reason to believe your system or take it seriously

>>20288851
>>1) Falsity isn't a substance by definition since its contingent
>it is if it's not part of A or -A
Wrong, that's not proof that falsity is a substance, since in it's unique manner as the 3rd ontological category it's entirely contingent upon the fact of Brahman (A) casting/projecting it. You didn't provide any reason why being the 3rd ontological category that's neither A nor -A would render falsity into a substance, so this can be dismissed as more unjustified nonsense.
>>There is no cause for any other 4th or 5th ontological category aside from the 3rd of falsity, in the absence of any cause they wont arise - problem solved
>there's no cause for B either but in your logicla system B still exist, so a 4th 5th andmore can be articulated at any time, since the creation of substances here dseon't need causes
Wrong, that's been refuted already in this thread multiple times:
1) Your claim that "there's no cause for B either but in your logicla system B still exist" is wrong, since Brahman having the inherent nature of projecting the 3rd ontological category is the sole and necessary reason why there is a 3rd ontological category that's valid
2) Hence, the latter part of your sentence "so a 4th 5th andmore can be articulated at any time, since the creation of substances here dseon't need causes" is wrong and has been refuted, since the 3rd ontological division or category of falsity didnt come about spontaneously and independently but it came about as a valid ontological distinction precisely because it's Brahman's nature to cast it.

>>20288896
>>Falsity isn't a substance because it's contingent on being (Brahman)
>then is part of brahma
Wrong, because B being contingent upon A is not sufficient to render B into a part of A, this is sophistic nonsense that violates rules of logic, it was refuted already here >>20285052 but I will do so more at length.
1) Whatever the properties of the parts are end up being properties of the whole that the parts constitute, since the wholes' properties are the sum of its parts properties
2) Therefore the parts cannot have mutually exclusive properties with the whole's properties
3) Brahman is undivided and wholly sentient, what you are trying to do violates the law of non-contradiction because it's trying to make X into something constituting Brahman even though they have mutually exclusive attributes (sentience vs insentience, immutability vs changing etc), and so you'll end up violating the LNC by trying to combine two mutually exclusive things into one and proclaiming them as united.
4) This is refuted by endless examples from life, music is contingent upon the living body of a musician enacting their will upon an instrument, but the music isn't a part of that musicians body or his mental willpower (which is soundless), it violates the LNC to say the non-organic non-alive sounds are parts of the living organic musicians body and thereby constitute it as parts constitute a whole etc.
5) So instead of the absurd nonsense of saying maya is then a part of Brahman which leads to endless logical contradictions, maya is instead the 3rd ontological category that is projected as falsity by Brahman, it's not a substance because it's contingent upon Brahman projecting it, it's not a part of Brahman because A) Brahman is partless B) they have mutually exclusive natures C) they are different ontological divisions, categories or levels of reality entirely. The unique thing about illusions/falsity is that they appear without having real existence

>but you want tohave your eat and eat it to, so when its no longe convenint maya isno longer part of brahma, but this for some reason don't make it a substance
It's not a substance or a part of Brahman for reasons explained in this very post (see 1-5)
>this is a contradiction
No it's not
>and if you try to say that brahma just is catsing it, that stillmakes it part of brahma as an unique susbtance
No, this claim has been refuted above in this very same post, (see 5)

>>20288896
>since if not, then you have to create a substance that can contain brahma AND maya into itself
No, there is no reason for this
>maya has to have a cause if not is just nothingness,
It's reason is that its Brahman's nature to project it as the contingent non-substantial illusion that is different from Brahman, duh!
>wathever his cause is that's is substance
Brahman is the substance maya is contingent upon
>if brahma isn0t his substance then something else is in which case you have two subtances; brahma and the cause of maya or one substance: a thing that caused maya and brahma
There is just one substance, Brahman who is identical with his nature that constitutes him, the same nature that makes Brahman project/cast maya as the contingent non-substantial illusion that is different from Brahman

>>20288941
>thenis part of brahma
Wrong, this nonsensical, unjustified and illogical claim is extensively refuted in this post here in lines 1-5 >>20289049

>>Why? What is the reason for this,
becaus ethat's how logic works guenonfag, you can't leave loopeholes or lose ends, you have to articulate why only a set numbers of things can exist, if not there's no reason to believe your system or take it seriously
Advaita does do that ESLanon, I'm not sure who you think you are fooling by pretending otherwise, and in any case you've still failed to demonstrate any real logical contradiction in what Advaita is talking about: Brahman is the only substance because only It has independence, the 3rd category of falsity is the only ontological category/division/level-of-reality that is projected because Brahman only has the inherent nature to project it and not any others (this doesn't make it a part of Brahman, see the post linked above where that's refuted), hence there are no loose ends and they are perfectly articulated reasons for why there is the 3rd ontological category, namely that it's the inherent nature of the self-existent immutable substantial reality to cast/project it. The 2nd ontological category of nothingness doesn't even need to be projected because it simply doesn't exist and it doesn't even appear like falsity does.

>being contingent upon something makes what is contingent a part of the thing that it is contingent upo-
Most plants are contingent upon the sun for their growth but plants aren't a part of the sun
Human life is contingent upon the sun being present, but humans and their life is not a part of the sun
A gun shooting is contingent upon a finger pulling the trigger, but the bullet moving or the detonation of the gunpower are not a part of the finger
Skydiving is contingent upon planes, but that doesn't mean as a rule that planes have skydiving as one of their parts that comprises them
Getting in a car crash is contingent upon getting in a car, but car crashes are not invariably a part of getting in a car
The leaves of the tree are contingent upon its roots for their survival, but the exterior leaves on dozens of feet above the ground are not a part of the trees roots
Doing a skateboard kickflip over a set of stairs is contingent on the stairs being there, but that doesn't make that kickflip a part of the stairs
etc
there is literally no reason to accept that as a universally true axiom or something that automatically follows when one thing is contingent on another

>>20288953
>Wrong, that's not proof that falsity is a substance
yes it is, since A =being, and being is by deffinition a substance, if something is not A or-A then by logical deduction must be another substance
>since in it's unique manner as the 3rd ontological category it's entirely contingent upon the fact of Brahman
then is part of substance A

>You didn't provide any reason why being the 3rd ontological category that's neither A nor -A would render falsity into a substance
i did, i say it again " since A =being, and being is by deffinition a substance, if something is not A or-A then by logical deduction must be another substance"

>>20288953
>since Brahman having the inherent nature of projecting the 3rd ontological category is the sole and necessary reason why there is a 3rd ontological category that's valid
that's only the case if this 3rd category share an essence with the subtsance of being, if not it must has it's own being thus being a substance on iits own

>falsity didnt come about spontaneously and independently but it came about as a valid ontological distinction precisely because it's Brahman's nature to cast it.
then is part of brahma, since brahma it's his cause and his essence its given by brahma thus both share an essence thus both are the same substance

>>20289049
>nonsense that violates rules of logic,
which lawof logic is being violated? i'm using basic ontological principle, like aristotelian OUSIOLOGIA
>>20289049
>3) Brahman is undivided and wholly sentient, what you are trying to do violates the law of non-contradiction because it's trying to make X into something constituting Brahman even though they have mutually exclusive attributes (sentience vs insentience, immutability vs changing etc), and so you'll end up violating the LNC by trying to combine two mutually exclusive things into one and proclaiming them as united.
i agree with this, but this doesn't show tahtim wrong, this shows that the advaita system doesn't make sense since it can create a system that ca nexplain how maya can be artioculated, since it can't have any kind of existence since is not part of brahma, but for some reason still exist as phenomena, tyhus making a contradiction in terms,
>>20289049
>4) This is refuted by endless examples from life, music is contingent upon the living body of a musician enacting their will upon an instrument, but the music isn't a part of that musicians body or his mental willpower it violates the LNC to say the non-organic non-alive sounds are parts of the living organic musicians body and thereby constitute it as parts constitute a whole etc.
wrong you want to create an ontologicla category using the example of the musician and themusic, and saying the're not the same, music isn't part of themusician, butthat only works in an anatomical level, music isn't part of a musician "anatomy" but is part of themuisican mental escape AND much more important both are the same ontologically, thing in existence

>>20289049
>So instead of the absurd nonsense of saying maya is then a part of Brahman which leads to endless logical contradictions, maya is instead the 3rd ontological category that is projected as falsity by Brahman, it's not a substance because it's contingent upon Brahman projecting it, it's not a part of Brahman because A) Brahman is partless B) they have mutually exclusive natures C) they are different ontological divisions, categories or levels of reality entirely. The unique thing about illusions/falsity is that they appear without having real existence
maya is part of brahma in the same sense that a musician and music are both parts of reality, both share existence, the musician creates music, and the music makes a simple person a musician, both are part of the dinamics of being
>It's not a substance or a part of Brahman for reasons explained in this very post (see 1-5)
i just refuted all of that
>>20289051
>No, there is no reason for this
yes it is, since maya needs to be contained in some way, if brahma doesn't make thejob something else must
>>20289051
>It's reason is that its Brahman's nature to project it as the contingent non-substantial illusion that is different from Brahman, duh!
if that's the case then is part of brahma just like music is part of a musician repertorie, i'm using your own examples by the way
>>20289051
>Brahman is the substance maya is contingent upon
then b deffinition maya is part of brahma, go read aristotles metaphysics if you dont believe me
>There is just one substance
again, that makes maya part of brahma, where else could maya exist and manifest if brahma is the only substance?
>>20289083
>Wrong, this nonsensical, unjustified and illogical claim is extensively refuted in this post here in lines 1-5
to bad i just refuted that
>>20289083
>that is projected
if it's "projected" and only brahma exist. then is projected upon brahma, thus being part of brahma and being perceived by brahma, thus brahma if falling into his own spell, it's like azatoth, the lovecraftian dumb god of chaos that live perpatually hipnotized by his own creation

bump

>>20289176
That's basically the same argument that Vedanta makes, in that the parts do not make up the whole, the whole precedes the parts. The parts (plants as a weak example) do not make up the sun (which would be a type of pantheism if transposed to metaphysics), but the sun must be present for each to have existence, without thereby making the plants a constitutive part of "Sun." Thus each lesser item presupposes a higher principle for its own existence, yet the higher principle does not presuppose the contingencies arising from it.

>>20286057
>Yes, I’ve read it, and contrary to you I have actually read the text
So did you miss the dozens of chapters Aristotle spends seriously refuting Plato's conception of The One as the fundamental principle? This is a serious question. If you actually read the book instead of picking a quote out arbitrarily (which only showcases a relative duality, a Dyad being derived from the One) you would not have missed this.
> Nowhere in the metaphysics does he say that the dyad “is generated from the One”
I will open the book and quote as many as I can find from memory of where they are located:
Third Objection:
>[In the Critique of Plato's Ideal Theory]: Generally speaking, all these arguments respecting the Forms do away with what we value more than the Ideas: They make number prior to the Dyad.
Thirteenth Objection:
>But Plato speaks of the One as if it were homogenous, like fire or water. Now if this is so, the numbers to which it gives rise will not be substances [according to Aristotle]
Seventeenth Objection:
>(a) The great and the small [The Indefinite Dyad] are treated as predicates and differentiae of substances [ie secondary principles] or matter rather than matter itself.
Eighteenth Objection:
>What the Platonists imagine easy to prove, viz. that everything is one, is in fact not so; because even if we grant all their assumptions, their exposition does not prove that everything is one, but only that there is an Absolute One.
From Chapter VI of Book A:
>He believed that numbers are derived from the Indefinite Dyad by participation in the One.
>He believed, as did the Pythagoreans, that Unity is a substance and not a predicate of something else, and that numbers are the causes and essence of everything else.
>Such, then, was Plato's view. It appears from the evidence that he recognizes only two causes - the formal and the material: The Forms [Indefinite Dyad as number] are the formal causes of other things, and the One of the Forms.
From Book M Ch. VII-VIII:
>for he [Plato] treats the Indefinite Dyad as having received the Definite Dyad and made two Dyads because its nature was to double what was received.
From Book M Ch. IX:
>How, then, is the One a first principle? 'Because it is indivisible' say the Platonists. [...] Plato accordingly makes the One primary in both senses.
From Book N Ch. I:
>[Plato], of course, treats the unequal, the great and the small [Indefinite Dyad], as One, regardless of the fact that although they are one in definition, they are numerically distinct.
From Ch. 2:
[...] They treat as the material principle a relative term (the unequal; The Dyad) which is not really opposed to Being or the the One, either as contrary or contradictory, but is simply one kind of being as are substance and quality.

>>20286057
>_other principle_
You also seem to have misunderstood that the "other principle", as Aristotle has just said, is itself duality. It is not a singular opposed to another singular, it is duality (The Dyad, Great and Small or Unequal) opposed to singularity, which is, in a sense, a third principle, but in another sense the only principle as it is the uniting factor of the Dyad (as can be seen from my quotes).

>>20285662

I miss the Fascist Forge shitposting chat so much it's unreal. Half the people who posted there are in prison now.

HIndus dont have a solution tot he problem of evil.

>>20290677
>Fascist Forge
qrd?

>>20290417
principles are a rationalist mental constructs

Damn with all this insight to the nature of reality Guenonfag must have reached some supernatural perceptions or abilities, as is common of people who realize the truth of reality in Hindusim.

>>20290689
>problem

>There is delusion
>Only Brahman exists
>Ergo Brahman himself is deluded
I don't see how you can escape that conclusion

>>20290701
>supernatural perceptions or abilities
let's hear it

>>20290696

The online forum hangout for Siege/Iron Gates Gang before everyone got vanned. Lots of posters on there were unironic O9A followers, there was a dozen page pro-rape thread and the website founder was a flat earther who recruited for The Base. The Wire shitpost chat attached to the forum was even better.

There was also a related website called Siege Culture that published new stuff from James Mason, as well as some truly batshit Christian Identity-Gnosticism crossover articles.

>>20290734
thanks for the qrd
out of all those groups I think JoS is the most cringe

> Siege Culture
I remember that site, I liked the dark Charles Manson stuff desu.

>azatoth
I think the pessimistic view that Brahman is a dumb, stumbling god, a la Lovecraft's Azatoth or Schopenhauer's will, can certainly be one interpretation of at least the Brihadaranyaka, whereby Brahman appears alone, feels scared and creates another (then tries to rape it, lmao), feels cold and creates fire, feels hungry and creates food, feels tired and sleeps, giving rise to monsters from his pores (a la Ymir in Norse Cosmology). This demiurgic cave ogre god seems the farthest thing removed from the later Brahman (neut) of orthodoxy. Hindus claim that this being is actually Brahma (masc), the creator god (as if the two were clearly different beings in the pre-Puranic era, as if it were okay for a divinity to behave like a hill giant), but I don't see this in the text itself.

Wtf are you guys talking about. Does this shit even exists or it’s just meme concepts?

>>20290774
>hill giant
Brahman in this view can be seen to be connected with the myth of the Purusha in the Rig Veda, the giant person that was sacrificed by the gods to create the cosmos. The word Purusha is rationalized and re-signified in later doctrine, but in the Rig Veda he is simply a giant. Seeing as other IE peoples had a similar myth of a giant being slain to create the world, his blood making up the rivers, etc., makes it highly probable. The giant in these myths was a dumb and violent brute, who pursued material pleasures and gave birth to monsters, not unlike Brahman in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. Moreover there was hardly a distinction between the material and the immaterial in these legends (and there wasn’t even among the more sophisticated pre-Socratics, as Aristotle relates). Likewise in the Rig Veda and the aforementioned Upanishad the primeval giant seems to be purely material.
Of course Hindoos and perennialists will have you believe that there is a unity of mind and doctrine in the Upanishads (their identity and worldview being dependent on it), that the “sages” were already back then full-blown yogis and vegetarian hindoos, but I don’t think that is the case. It see a gradual development in doctrine from primitive mythology to more speculative and metaphysical over time and the Brahman/Brahma seems to me to originally belong to the mythological strata.

>>20290701
>>20290729
after all, we are not hylics

>>20290697
everything is a mental construct
your mind always comes first

>>20290734
yeah that's all glowie shit. they were exposed by NJP
https://national-justice.com/national-justice-exclusive-notorious-nazi-satanic-group-illegal-counter-intelligence-operation

>>20289218
>>20289246
this i where guenonfag's sophistry runs dry and he will just leave the debate until another thread about hinduism shows up and hell will run through his tirade again

>>20291516
Guenonfag is a bot. He has stock responses that he spams repeatedly until those who have a life go do something else then he counts that as a victory and goes back to sleep mode. His program is a brute force, hard-coded algorithm not a machine-learning one.

>>20289218
>>Wrong, that's not proof that falsity is a substance
>yes it is, since A =being, and being is by definition a substance, if something is not A or-A then by logical deduction must be another substance
That's incorrect and has already been refuted, "logical deduction" is not a valid criteria for calling something a substance, it's meaningless because you didn't specify what the underlying logic of that so-called "deduction" was that justified calling it a substance, you just talk in circles and are evasive but never give your underlying reasons or logic for calling it a substance despite it being contingent (and hence not a substance), because you don't actually have any valid reasons for calling it one and you are just being a sophist, as per usual.
>the falsity between A and -A is contingent on A and hence not a substance because it's contingent.
>then is part of substance A
No, the claim that being contingent on A would make falsity a part of A was already refuted here >>20289176 and in 1-5 here >>20289049, falsity cannot be a part of A because they have mutually exclusive natures and because they are different orders of reality or ontological divisions entirely.
>>You didn't provide any reason why being the 3rd ontological category that's neither A nor -A would render falsity into a substance
>i did, i say it again " since A =being, and being is by deffinition a substance, if something is not A or-A then by logical deduction must be another substance"
That's not a reason dumbass, it's avoiding giving any reasonsing whatsoever and trying to cover that up with vague allegations of your decision being rooted in some unexplained """"logical deduction""""". Saying "this must be so because of logical deduction" is an entirely meaningless and unjustified statement if you don't actually explain what is the logic used in that deduction and why it's valid, that's just you running away from actually trying to present any argument which is implicitly conceding that your wrong. Falsity is contingent and hence by definition not a substance, what """"deduction""" could possibly overturn this?

>>20289218
>>since Brahman having the inherent nature of projecting the 3rd ontological category is the sole and necessary reason why there is a 3rd ontological category that's valid
>that's only the case if this 3rd category share an essence with the subtsance of being, if not it must has it's own being thus being a substance on iits own
There is no necessary or reason why this would need to be true, the essence or nature of maya is falsity, it doesn't need to have an "essence with the substance of being", that's unsubstantiated nonsense. Brahman is endowed with the nature of being able to cast maya/falsity, and this is perfectly sufficient to cast maya as falsity, nothing else is needed and it cannot be logically shown why anything else would be needed. Maya doesn't need being or substance in order to be projected as falsity, if that's your argument then that's actually the logical fallacy of circular argumentation, since what you are trying to argue against is that there can be the 3rd category that is neither being nor non-being; so if your argument against it is that it has to have being, then that's just citing the conclusion you want to prove as the reason why it's true, I.E. it's simply more of the same circular reasoning fallacy.

>falsity didnt come about spontaneously and independently but it came about as a valid ontological distinction precisely because it's Brahman's nature to cast it.
>then is part of brahma, since brahma it's his cause
No, since causes are different from their effects, especially when both have mutually exclusive natures, affirming them to be the same violates the LNC, your claim has been refuted many times already, you keep talking in circles and going back to the same position I've already refuted.

>step 1 of the sophist: set up a false dichotomy where something contingent either has to be a substance or a part of its causes
>step 2 of the sophist: never actually justify the above claim but just talk in circles and use circular reasoning, retreating back to stating and presupposing the above even when its repeatedly refuted
>step 3 of the sophist: try to supplement the above with the assertion that falsity has to have being to be a valid ontological category, which is the circular reasoning logical fallacy since that's the very point all your arguments are trying to prove and hence that's invalid argument in support of that because its circular
>step 4 of the sophist: ???

>>20289218
>since brahma it's his cause and his essence its given by brahma thus both share an essence thus both are the same substance
No, that's logically impossible since falsity is contingent and hence cannot by definition be a substance. According to Aristotle the essence of something are the properties of something that make it what it is, Brahman and maya have different essence/properties because Brahman is immutable infinite Bliss-Awareness that actually and truely exists and has the nature of projecting maya; while Maya/Falsity has the contrary nature of being changing, insentient false and sublatable, so maya/falsity and Brahman by definition cannot be considered to have the same essence or be the same substance; since they have mutually exclusive properties/essence and one depends on the other. What you are saying is complete nonsense when logically analyzed. Brahman doesn't "give" his essence/properties to maya, Brahman casts falsity as something different from Brahman but contingent upon it.

>>nonsense that violates rules of logic,
>which lawof logic is being violated? i'm using basic ontological principle, like aristotelian OUSIOLOGIA
Already answered, you are violating the LNC by trying to say two things with mutually exclusive natures are one, hence you are attributing two mutually exclusive properties to the same thing, which is the classic violation of the LNC
>>3) Brahman is undivided and wholly sentient, what you are trying to do violates the law of non-contradiction because it's trying to make X into something constituting Brahman even though they have mutually exclusive attributes (sentience vs insentience, immutability vs changing etc), and so you'll end up violating the LNC by trying to combine two mutually exclusive things into one and proclaiming them as united.
>i agree with this
Okay, then so you so agree that your reasoning is retarded and violates the LNC
>but this doesn't show tahtim wrong, this shows that the advaita system doesn't make sense since it can create a system that ca nexplain how maya can be artioculated
Advaita has already done this perfectly well, YOUR understanding of metaphysics is what produces the above logical contradiction, and not Advaita's.

>>20289218
>since it can't have any kind of existence since is not part of brahma, but for some reason still exist as phenomena, tyhus making a contradiction in terms,
Again, that's because falsity doesnt exist you sophist, that's already been explained, this is you retreating again back into the same circular reasoning where you are trying to disprove that falsity can be neither being nor non-being by saying that's wrong because it cannot be neither being nor non-being (circular reasoning fallacy)

>>4) This is refuted by endless examples from life, music is contingent upon the living body of a musician enacting their will upon an instrument, but the music isn't a part of that musicians body or his mental willpower it violates the LNC to say the non-organic non-alive sounds are parts of the living organic musicians body and thereby constitute it as parts constitute a whole etc.
>wrong you want to create an ontologicla category using the example of the musician and themusic, and saying the're not the same, music isn't part of themusician, butthat only works in an anatomical level, music isn't part of a musician "anatomy" but is part of themuisican mental escape
No it's not a part of the musician's "mental escape", whatever that means, the actually existing music that exists as sounds isn't the same thing as the musicians internal idea or understanding of the music that will be produced, the musicians idea of the music has no sound, sound are manifested through airwaves on the physical plane but ideas themselves silently take place inside peoples minds, they have no sounds and dont involve traveling airwaves and so they cannot possibly be the same. The sound produced by a body in response to a thought is a downstream result of an idea about the music and is different in nature/properties from the thought of the sound that preceded it.

>>20289246
>maya is part of brahma in the same sense that a musician and music are both parts of reality, both share existence, the musician creates music, and the music makes a simple person a musician, both are part of the dinamics of being
That's backpedaling on what you were saying before, where you were asserting that maya is a part of Brahman in the sense that parts constitute the whole. It also doesn't logically follow from how you wrote the sentence, you wrote over a dozen times "Maya is a part of Brahman", then, when you were confronted with how this made no sense and that your assertion violated the LNC, you are now trying to say "uhh... I m-meant that maya and Brahman are b-both a part of .... something else! like being!"

This is complete bullshit! Do you really expect me to believe that you meant to say "maya and Brahman are both a part of something else" but each of the dozen or so times you accidentally wrote "maya is a PART OF Brahman"? that's retarded

In any case, that's not even true since Brahman and maya are both not a part of of some greater reality containing them, Brahman is the metaphysical Infinite and cannot be contained by anything else, nor is there anything actually existing can could even be posited as a possible candidate that could contain it. Falsity/maya is not a second existent thing and so there is not necessity that it needs to be included within Brahman's existence or included within some existence that Brahman also is a part of; this is just more of the same circular reasoning fallacy that you seem unable to argue without resorting to.

You are unable to refute or demonstration and contradiction in the Advaita 3-way ontology of Being/Falsity/non-Being, so you just keep resorting to circular reasoning tactics which are self-refuting, presupposing that falsity has to have being or be a part of being along with Brahman in order to be a valid ontological category is presupposing and trying to use as an argument precisely what you are trying to prove! That's yet another classic example of the circular reasoning logical fallacy.

Guenonbot still going at it I see. You realize nobody is reading those computer-generated responses.

>>20289246
>>It's not a substance or a part of Brahman for reasons explained in this very post (see 1-5)
>i just refuted all of that
No you didnt you sophist, you backtracked on your previous argument and claimed NOO I AKSHUALLY MEANT BRAHMAN AND FALSITY HAVE TO BOTH BE A PART OF SOMETHING ELSE, but this amounts to saying that falsity has to have being to be an ontological category which is the conclusion that you want to prove true so that can't be your reasoning or it's the circular reasoning logical fallacy! Almost every single one of your responses is either some vague unjustified assertion or the circular reasoning fallacy.
>>No, there is no reason for this
>yes it is, since maya needs to be contained in some way, if brahma doesn't make thejob something else must
No, there is no necessity that it be contained, there are not even any spatial distinctions and distinctions of container/contained in absolute reality; falsity is not an existing object contained by something else as a container that was explained as wrong in the first 10 posts of this thread already, falsity doesn't have existence or being and it hence has no spatial location. Brahman directly casts maya as the illusion that has no location and so nothing else is needed
>>It's reason is that its Brahman's nature to project it as the contingent non-substantial illusion that is different from Brahman, duh!
>if that's the case then is part of brahma just like music is part of a musician repertorie, i'm using your own examples by the way
No, I've explained why that's wrong. The actual manifested sound of the music is something totally different in its nature/properties from the musicians mental memory and idea of the song in their mind; there are two different things entirely. They cannot be asserted to be the same without violating the LNC, like saying manifested sound is the same as something which has no sound

>>20289246
>>Brahman is the substance maya is contingent upon
>then b deffinition maya is part of brahma, go read aristotles metaphysics if you dont believe me
Advaita goes several steps beyond Aristotle's metaphysics chump! What you said isn't even true by the way, you are a liar. Aristotle defines substance as being the underlying reality or substratum of all things, something that depends on an ultimate substratum is never the same or as or comprises (is a part of) the substratum upon which it depends, or the meaning of substratum becomes meaningless! Therefore maya cannot be a part of Brahman logically. If you mean to say that maya HAS TO HAVE BEING OR BE PART OF BEING in order to be a valid ontological category, that is exactly what you are trying to prove and so citing that as the reason that proves that conclusion is the circular reasoning fallacy, like how almost all of your arguments are the circular reasoning fallacy
>>There is just one substance
>again, that makes maya part of brahma, where else could maya exist and manifest if brahma is the only substance?
Maya doesn't exist and doesnt need to in order to appear, manifestation means appearance not existence; again if you say maya needs being to appear that's the circular reasoning fallacy
>>>20289083
>>Wrong, this nonsensical, unjustified and illogical claim is extensively refuted in this post here in lines 1-5
>to bad i just refuted that
You didn't, as I detailed in the above series of posts, you are nothing more than a sophist and all of your arguments rely on circular reasoning
>>>20289083
>>that is projected
>if it's "projected" and only brahma exist. then is projected upon brahma, thus being part of brahma and being perceived by brahma, thus brahma if falling into his own spell,
No, this has already been explained to be wrong. Brahman remains unaffected, and only the false minds within maya are fooled and have the false experiences.

>>20290689
>HIndus dont have a solution tot he problem of evil.
It's not a problem to begin with if ultimate reality is non-dual and beyond both and good and evil don't really exist but are mistaken human perceptions. Also, whether good or evil befalls someone is largely the result of their own past actions via karma anyway. In the book "Indian Thought and the Problem of Evil" the author examines most major philosophies and religions and the author concludes that only the Hindu schools of Advaita Vedanta and Vishishtadvaita Vedanta provide a full solution.

>>20291516
>this i where guenonfag's sophistry runs dry and he will just leave the debate until another thread about hinduism shows up and hell will run through his tirade again
Kek, ESLanon is the real sophist here and I just refuted his arguments, all of the reasoning supporting his arguments amount to circular reasoning, since when pressed his underlying logic for saying everything he did amounted to "falsity has to have being/existence in order to be an ontological category", but since this was the end-conclusion that his arguments were supposed to be demonstrating true, it was nothing more than a massive pile of sophistic circular reasoning.

ESLanon is probably the worst sophist that I've had the pleasure of refuting on /lit/, he is also a dishonest liar too and has been called out before for repeatedly lying about philosophers he doesn't like and attributing fake made-up ideas and positions to them. Take note lurkers, don't end up like ESLanon!

>>20291619
>Guenonfag is a bot. He has stock responses that he spams repeatedly
Then how could I have possibly identified the circular reasoning underlying all of ESLanon's arguments? A true mystery.

>>20292637
>Guenonbot still going at it I see. You realize nobody is reading those computer-generated responses.
And yet here you are reading them and still whining, how amusing

>an ontological category has to have being in order to be an ontological category
If this was true (it's not), then non-being couldn't be an ontological category due to it lacking being and hence everything would just be being and there would not even be the possibility of non-being

>>20290827
>Does this shit even exists or it’s just meme concepts?
Yes they exist, in this thread is being debated the legacy of the legendary and glorious Sri Shankaracharya (pbuh), promulgator of the pristine and undefeated metaphysics of Advaita Vedanta

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/shankara/

>How can anyone who has enjoyed the felicities offered by the heavenly creeper of Sankara's commentaries, abounding in the tender leaves and flowers of literary beauty and philosophic wisdom, entertain, even through infatuation, an attraction for other teachers' apology of commentaries, which, with their hollow contents and laboured styles, are a blot on Saraswati, the Goddess of learning? Literary men in general have their minds rendered weak by the numerous shafts of sensual passions inflicted on them by the hunter Cupid.

>Their writings are, therefore, useless in releasing man from his bondage, or in giving, any true and ennobling enjoyment. What wonder is there if such writings do not command the respect of those whose minds have been purified by the non-dualistic outlook advocated by the Acharya's writings? If one tries to produce a work in imitation of the Acharya's writings, which, by their clarity, sweetness and power, surpass a river of nectar, what one achieves will only be an artificial channel with a lean flow, utterly insignificant before the current of the mighty Ganga issuing from the matted locks of Siva.

>By his hymn of Kanaka-Lakshmi he brought prosperity to a poor family; by his hymn called Soundaryalahari he has revealed the unique glory of the Divine mother; by his Siva-bhujanga he has produced a cure for the obsession of fear in men. How wonderful and varied are his works! They present a veritable Devaloka, the heaven of Indra. For, the flow of words in them is a rain of flowers from celestial trees; the grandeur of their meanings is the glow of rubies worn by celestial women in their hair; and the abundance of implied wisdom they contain is like the limitless delicious milk in the udder of the heavenly Kamadhenu.

>His works are, indeed, like a bunch of luscious banana fruits - their meanings, the hunger-appeasing capacity; their implications, the attractive flavour; and their sweetness of diction, the delicious juice. Even a single fruit of a verse from that bunch of his writings is enough to give the highest delight and satisfaction to wise men and spiritual aspirants. Possessed, they are, of matchless beauty of form like a bouquet of jasmine flowers, pregnant with meanings like a newly blossomed lotus full of nectar, and carrying the aroma of sanctity like the fragrance of the flowers of the celestial tree, his works will provide thrills of deep joy and spiritual inspiration to all who approach it.

>>20292795

>It is said that, animated by jealousy and ill-win on hearing such glorious praise of Sankara's commentary, some followers of Gautama's Nyaya philosophy inhabiting some region of the Ganga's banks, once went to Sankara for a controversy. They held the view that inference is the only way to knowledge. Their confrontation with the Acharya was excelled in stupidity only by the attack of moths against fire. Such controversies and attacks of critics only helped to highlight the excellence of his commentaries.

>For, see how the lustre of gold is only enhanced when subjected to heating and hammering. The moon of commentaries that rose from the milk-ocean of the Acharya's genius rained its nectarine light on all the world of learning. The lunar light it shed, while satisfying the Chakoras of the wise, drove away the darkness of sophistry from among scholars. The Amrita of his commentaries, churned out of the eternal milk-ocean of Vedic wisdom, saved spiritual aspirants from the senility and old age of ignorance, and conferred on them the immortality of divine knowledge.

>The light shed by the sun of his commentaries caused the blossoming of the heart-lotus of good men, the removal of the darkness of ignorance, and· the expulsion of the owls of sceptical critics. The Amrita of Sankara's commentaries, born of the milk-ocean of the Vedas, on being churned with the Mandara mountain of logical thinking, confers immortality on wise men who consume it even in this life. The holy Ganga issued only from the feet of Vishnu, whereas these commentaries flowed from the mouth of Siva.

>The former only drowns the earth and its inhabitants in its floods, while the latter saves men drowning in the flood of Samsara. The sage Vyasa offered to the world a collection of golden beads of Vedic wisdom strung together with his Sutras (meaning 'string' as also 'aphorisms') into a necklace. But scholars could not go in for it, as its Artha (signifying 'value' as also 'meaning') was beyond their capacity. But today these have been brought within their reach through the liberality shown by the Acharya in writing his commentaries on them. The sage Vyasa, too, must be happy to see the necklace of the Sutras made by him on the necks of so many scholars. Wonderful is the benevolence of this great teacher!

i hate when one schizo obsessed with a topic ruins all threads about it on /lit/. is guenonfag the worst example? i cant remember any as bad

>>20292802

>His commentaries are like a garland of jasmine decorating the coiffured tresses of the damsel of Vedas. They are like a fortune, a treasure, come into the possession of the Goddess of Learning. They are the fruits of the long prayers and austerities of sages. They are the manifestation of the indescribable sweetness and sanctifying quality of Vyasa's great work. All Jivas who have taken their last birth will certainly seek them.

>The great sage's work is like the mighty Mandara mountain in churning the ocean of Vedas and bringing out the nectar of wisdom contained in them, to the great edification of all wise men. By casting around the brilliance of his dialectical thought, they have not only scattered the accumulated darkness of perverse doctrines for travellers trudging along the high ways of spiritual seeking, but also revealed that clear path for all good men to traverse.

>The doctrine of Brahmavidya that Sankara preached, which confers salvation through the elimination of all duality, reigns victorious over the country-from Rameswaram in the South, where Rama built his bridge dividing the seas, to the northern boundaries marked by the Himlalaya mountains which bowed down with its peaks to Siva at the time of the conquest of the Tripuras; and from the Eastern Mountains where the sun rises, to those of the West where he sets.

>i hate when one schizo obsessed with a topic ruins all threads about it on /lit/. is guenonfag the worst example? i cant remember any as bad

>i hate when one schizo obsessed with a topic ruins all threads about it on /lit/. is guenonfag the worst example? i cant remember any as bad

>>20290701

>>20292808
talk about advaita was in the OP text tho

>>20292530
>, "logical deduction" is not a valid criteria for calling something a substance
parmenides created the concept of being as substance with a logical deduction, as a matter of fact, tomost philosophers parmenides created logic with his deduction of being as a substance, which later aristotle articulated with the categoires which he take form greek law, so yes, in fact you can ttoally use logial deductions to establish a substance
so no you didn't refutte me
>>20292530
>That's not a reason dumbass, it's avoiding giving any reasonsing whatsoever
how is saying that if A is a subtsance and B is not part of a thus must be another substcance is not a logical reasoning?it's in the deffinition of substance that if something is not part of a substance it must be another substance, what else could it be? if its something its a substance, so if its not substance A then it must be a substance B
>Saying "this must be so because of logical deduction" is an entirely meaningless and unjustified statement
i established each of the arguments in the deduction at it's conlcsion, you must have missed it
>There is no necessary or reason why this would need to be true
of course it's a neccesity, since it must have it's essence from something, if it's form itself then it is it's own substance, but then advaita become sa duality since there's two substances, if it's form anotoher thing then the thing giving it its essence is his substance, thus it's part of that thing

>No, since causes are different from their effects, especially when both have mutually exclusive natures, affirming them to be the same violates the LNC, your claim has been refuted many times already, you keep talking in circles and going back to the same position I've already refuted.
if that's the case then maya shoudl exist in other place of form, which then agains it will turn maya into another substance since it can exist by itself, making oce again advaita a dualism, and brahma stop being itself, since there's somethign else existing in some other way, by some other means

>that's actually the logical fallacy of circular argumentation
lol no, you're the one doing that, here:
>. Maya doesn't need being or substance in order to be projected as falsity,
you're creating a "rule" to back up your point
i'm not creating the neccessity of something neededing an essence to exist, that self evident, everything posses an identity, and each essence must come from somewhere or be dependent of something else, in the most fundamental case, of being itself, being is what make a person and a mirage have effective existence, and both have the same xistence as things that have being, if something can exist outside being, then that means that it has "another being" so saying that maya exist outside brahma is saying that maya has another being, another existence
>>20292539
>set up a false dichotom
maya and brahma are different
>ever actually justify the above claim
brahma just "cast it" because

>>20292539
>>20292539
>>step 3 of the sophist: try to supplement the above with the assertion
maya and brahma can't never be the same because a logic i can'0t explain say so

it seems you'r ethe one doing sophistry here

>>20292543
>No, that's logically impossible since falsity is contingent and hence cannot by definition be a substance
i know, so maya must be a part of brahma, since its the only way to have existenc,e i already explained this to you,>>20292543
>Brahman and maya have different essence
nope, if that's teh case, then they shoudl be different susbatnes, since the essence of brahma is being, and maya need to have being in order to manifest, if maya doesn't have being, is nothingness and we shouldn't be able to speak about it or even experience phenomena

>because Brahman is immutable infinite Bliss-Awareness that actually and truely exists and has the nature of projecting maya; while Maya/Falsity has the contrary nature of being changing
indeed, taht's a contradiction, and that's why advaita metaphysics has so many problems it can't really explain maya, which is why this whole thread started

>Brahman casts falsity as something different from Brahman but contingent upon it.
this is a contradiction in a number of ways, if being is unchanging then it cant "cast" anything since that's an action and that requires movement/becoming
>>20292565
>Again, that's because falsity doesnt exist
>>20292565
if doesn't exist then is nothingness and phenomen shouldn't be able to manifest
>>20292565
>, the actually existing music that exists as sounds isn't the same thing as the musicians internal idea or understanding of the music that will be produced, the musicians idea of the music has no sound, sound are manifested through airwaves on the physical plane but ideas themselves silently take place inside peoples minds, they have no sounds and dont involve traveling airwaves and so they cannot possibly be the same. The sound produced by a body in response to a thought is a downstream result of an idea about the music and is different in nature/properties from the thought of the sound that preceded it.
again that's only in pure materialistic pointview, music is not only soundvawes, music also exist as a concept, and canonly exist thanks to a musician, but a musician can only be that if he creates music, that's besides the point tho, the point here is that ontologically both music and musician are part of being, both need being to exist, thus both are part of the same substance, just as maya needs being in order to manifest

>>20292602
>That's backpedaling on what you were saying before
lol no is not, i'm using the example of how both music and musician are part of the same substance, being, your idea that they could be essentially separated if faulty, sicne as much aas you can separate a musician from his music, they both share the essence of being thing that exist, if something don't have that essence, then it can't exist in reality

>at least one deluded being exists
>Brahma is the only being that exist
>Brahma is deluded

>>20292655
>No, there is no necessity that it be contained
yes it is, how canmaya exist as maya if nothing is giving it his essence? if maya doesn't need an essence thenis self sufficient then a substance itself, thus advait aonce againbecomes a duality, so it needs to have his essence of something else, if not it couldn't exist ad thus phenomnena and the world as we know it wouldnt exist


>They cannot be asserted to be the same
music is not a sound, it's a cocnept, if music where a sound then a fart would be music, other things are needed, this is an extremelly hylic view point comming from you guenonfag
>>20292658
>something that depends on an ultimate substratum is never the same or as or comprises (is a part of) the substratum
this is just wrong, to aristotle the substance is the prime matter, of EVERYTHING, so everythign is part of the substance, substance for aristotle is the most perfect commondenominator for every thing in existence, that is "being" and nothign canexist or manifest,"or be cast" outside of being

>>20292658
>Maya doesn't exist
if mata doesn'0t have being then you cant experience it, and that's the problem witha dvaita, its notion of being is so bad that they conceive thingmanifesting ouside of being, even when that's a contradiciton, sinc eanythign outside of bieng, is just, nothing
>>20292658
>ou didn't, as I detailed in the above series of posts
lol no you didn't , you just repeat your same unjustified point, most of them fallacies of circular reasoning, the "brahma just cast it bro, he can do it becaus ehe's god, even when that makes no sense" is my favorite
>>20292658
>. Brahman remains unaffected, and only the false minds within maya are fooled and have the false experiences.
where are those minds ifn ot in brahma? nothing else exist

>>20292703
>is the real sophist
no my friend, you're the only sophist here, i'm just using the correct notion of being, which a car and an unicron both posses, sicne both of them need it to have an identity, both exist in different ways, you on theotherhand are mixing being with a shallow notion of reality,in which some thing really exist and other "don't exist" even when they have identity and functionality, this is important becaus eit show the big problem with advaita, the moment you turn ultimate reality into this shallow notion of "being" then a lo tof aspects of the world cannot be explained or articulated and youneed to rely on contradictory ideas liek brahman "projecting" falsity itno somewhere esle, which is ipossible since nothing beyond brahma exist, so by necessity brahma is proyecting falsity into itself(at least that you think there's a second substance that can fall prey of such illusion, which is what advaitas really believe, butthey can't call it a substance because that break their whole non dual thing)

>>20290827
the important aspects of this are articulated by parmenides, plato and aristotle

>>20293625
imagine being that much of a midwit

>>20292810
watched tha tmovie last night
some of the indian acting was so bad I laughed out loud on several occasions

nevertheless, the core message was based PBUH

>>20294708
if this is the best answer you can give him then you're te midwit, the critic is completly valid, since show the problem advaita has establishing a metaphysics of substances

>>20293520
> parmenides created the concept of being as substance with a logical deduction,
We are not talking about Parmenides metaphysics but Advaita, if you are going to insist falsity is a substance then its on you to provide the criteria for that judgement and the explain why that criteria is justified, which you never did but you just used circular reasoning. Stating non-Advaita metaphysical takes as a subjectively self-evident truth does nothing to refute Advaita.
>so no you didn't refutte me
I did refute you by pointing out that your assertion that falsity couldn’t be an ontological category without being a substance (independent being) was nothing more than circular reasoning, since it relied on assuming that a priori as the reason why that’s true.
> how is saying that if A is a subtsance and B is not part of a thus must be another substcance is not a logical reasoning?
Because its assuming as true a priori the conclusion that it seeks to prove and then citing that a priori conclusion as proof that it’s true - the classic circular reasoning logical fallacy.
>it's in the deffinition of substance that if something is not part of a substance it must be another substance
Stating that as true a priori is circular reasoning, since its the end assertion that you are trying to argue is true. For Advaita falsity is a contingent non-subtsance, stating the above as a self-evident truth that somehow disproves the Advaita position is just circular reasoning, it’s not relying on any logical demonstration that your position is actually true. Are you really so dumb that you dont see how this is circular?
>what else could it be? if its something its a substance, so if its not substance A then it must be a substance B
That’s not true is the something else is the 3rd ontological category of non-substantial falsity, saying “but it has to be a substance” to refute what Advaita is saying is putting the cart before the horse, its purely circular reasoning and hence a logical fallacy.
>of course it's a neccesity, since it must have it's essence from something,
the nature of maya is projected/cast by Brahman, this has already been explained
> if it's form anotoher thing then the thing giving it its essence is his substance, thus it's part of that thing
Advaita disagrees, and so you cant assert thay claim as the reason why that claim is true in an attempt to refute Advaita or its purely circular reasoning you dumbass
> if that's the case then maya shoudl exist in other place of form, which then agains it will turn maya into another substance since it can exist by itself,
No, it doesnt have existence and its falsity is contingent and hence not independent (not a substance), saying “so it has to be a part of Brahman OR a substnace” in response to this is just circular reasoning sophism, since its just restating your a priori position without giving any reason why its true

>>20293601
> maya and brahma can't never be the same because a logic i can'0t explain say so
I have explained why, because they have mutually exclusive natures, one exists and the other doesnt

>it seems you'r ethe one doing sophistry here
I’m not, because I’m not trying to advance any argument with circular reasoning like you are, Im just explaining how Advaita is free of all logical contradictions and demonstrating how all your attempts to prove the contrary involve the fallacy of circular reasoning

> >No, that's logically impossible since falsity is contingent and hence cannot by definition be a substance
>i know, so maya must be a part of brahma, since its the only way to have existenc,
You have not given any logical reason why that’s true but throughout this whole thread you’ve only asserted that as an a priori truth in a completely circular manner, how embarrassing. I suppose the least bad option is that you are just a sophist because if you were doing that unintentionally without realizing the fallacious nature of your argument and not intentionally as a deliberate sophism than your IQ must be sub-100
> nope, if that's teh case, then they shoudl be different susbatnes, since the essence of brahma is being, and maya need to have being in order to manifest
Thats exactly what Advaita disagrees with, so stating that as an a priori truth as you’ve done is the fallacy of circular reasoning
> indeed, taht's a contradiction,
No, it’s not, its saying two different ontological categories have different natures, there is nothing contradictory about it
>and that's why advaita metaphysics has so many problems
it doesnt have a single problem
>it can't really explain maya,
It already has, it just adheres to a different metaphysics than certain other thinkers
>which is why this whole thread started
it started because Evola wrote some brainlet takes about something he had not studied, and he later disavowed these takes
>maya doesn't have being, is nothingness and we shouldn't be able to speak about it or even experience phenomena
Thats exactly what Advaita disagrees with, so stating that as an a priori truth in an attempt to refute Advaita is purely circular reasoning
> this is a contradiction in a number of ways, if being is unchanging then it cant "cast" anything since that's an action and that requires movement/becoming
Wrong, cast is not meant literally but in the sense of somethings immutable function being accomplished timelessly in an immutable manner, so there is no contradiction
> if doesn't exist then is nothingness and phenomen shouldn't be able to manifest
Wrong, because falsity appears without having existence because existence =/= appearence, stating what you wrote above to disprove this is purely circular reasoning, since you are just citing your own position as an a priori truth

>>20293601
> both need being to exist, thus both are part of the same substance, just as maya needs being in order to manifest
The whole thread you’ve just been repeating that as an a priori truth without ever demonstrating why the contrary position cannot be true, so you’ve just been using circular reasoning the whole time

>>20296492
>We are not talking about Parmenides metaphysics
that's irrelevant, it's proof enough that deduction can be used to achieve ontological conlusions
>>20296492
>> how is saying that if A is a subtsance and B is not part of a thus must be another substcance is not a logical reasoning?
>Because its assuming as true a priori the conclusion that it seeks to prove and then citing that a priori conclusion as proof that it’s true - the classic circular reasoning logical fallacy.
no is not, if i say A is a substance and B is not part of A thus making B a substance itself, i'm not establishing any a priori principle, i'm just using 3 arguments, substance is anything that is self contained and can exist on itself,A is a substance, B is not A, thus B must be a subtsance, ther'es no ciruclar reasoning here, unless youthink being/substance is something besides being self sufficient and self contained, but that would be a contradiction, since then non-being could be part of being, as parmenides already established

>Stating that as true a priori is circular reasoning, since its the end assertion that you are trying to argue is true. For Advaita falsity is a contingent non-subtsance, stating the above as a self-evident truth that somehow disproves the Advaita position is just circular reasoning, it’s not relying on any logical demonstration that your position is actually true. Are you really so dumb that you dont see how this is circular?
now you're just repeating yourself like a broke record again
>the 3rd ontological category
just saying "is a 3rd ontological category" dosen't justify your point, that's in fact cirucla rresoning, because you need to justify why falsiy can be a 3rd onotlogical category, since the only two obvious ontological categories are being and non-being any other category must explain how can exist without "being" or in which way cannot exist without being "non-being" you only say "it's a 3rd category" like a broke record and make your point from that, thus making a circular reasoning
>the nature of maya is projected/cast by Brahman, this has already been explained
and t w salready explained to you taht just saying "its in his nature" isnt an explanationat all, is like saying it's in garvity's nature to atrract mass, is not an explaination at all, no knowledge can be obtained from that
>in response to this is just circular reasoning sophism, since its just restating your a priori position without giving any reason why its true
aren't you tired of repeating the same thing ove rand over?
>>20296550
>I have explained why, because they have mutually exclusive natures, one exists and the other doesnt
if one doesn't exist then is non-being which is nothingess in advaita ontological categories
>>20296550
>I’m not trying to advance any argument with circular reasoning like you are
yes you dou, i actually pointe dout a fw, but you ignored it, how curious?

>>20296550
>You have not given any logical reason why
i did, you're just ignoring it becaus eyou don't know how to answer, if maya doesn't "exist" then it can't be even articulated with is worng, the only thing that posses no existence at all is nothingess, which isn't even a thing, so maya mut possess a sort of being inorder to manifest, in order to have identity, must possess an essence, if that essence is giving by himself, then by deffinition he's self sufficient thus a substance, he get his being fromitself, if not, he get's it form somethign els,e in this case brahma, since brahma is the substance in advaita's system, but if his essence it'0s givenby brahma then it must be part of brahma, sicne how can a think share an essence without being in some way part of his subtsnac,e i'mgoin to use yoru example of music and a musician again, both have different way of existing in this world, both in material and mental existence, but both share an essence that is, both exist, both have being,that's why themusician canmake music, andhow the music that he makes make sh im not only a human but also a musician, both of them can't be completly different entities, both are conected, by numerous thing the most fundamental being "being itself" and that's why all things that share an essence also are part of the same substance, so saying that something can share an essence but not substance is just a contradiciton in terms, themoemnt you say that the whole concept of being stop making sense, and that's why advaita metaphysics is kinda meidocre and why Evola made a fair critic here

>ebola
>gaynon
cringe

>>20293649
> yes it is, how canmaya exist as maya if nothing is giving it his essence?
Maya doesn’t exist, it is the category of falsity which isnt existence or non-existence, this has been explained to you repeatedly already. Brahman immutably casts/projects falsity as this category without any change. Responding to this with:

1) It needs being/existence to be an ontological category
2) If it doesn’t exist its just nothingness
3) If Brahman projects it as neither existence nor non-existence then it must share Brahman’s being/essence
Are all invalid responses since its just restating your own contrary position as an a priori truth without demonstrating logically why the contrary cannot be true; its just circular reasoning and this a logical fallacy!
> music is not a sound, it's a cocnept
Manifested music is comprised of sounds, the mental idea of music is not manifested as sound and is different from the actual manifested music comprised of sounds
> if maya doesn't need an essence thenis self sufficient then a substance itself
By essence do you mean being/existence or its properties/nature?
If its the former then thats circular reasoning since you are just stating a contrary position to Advaita as an a priori truth without actually showing why it is true; it ifs the latter thats wrong, Im saying maya has the property or nature or characteristics of being false, neither existence not non-existence.
> this is just wrong, to aristotle the substance is the prime matter, of EVERYTHING, so everythign is part of the substance, substance for aristotle is the most perfect commondenominator for every thing in existence, that is "being" and nothign canexist or manifest,"or be cast" outside of being
To assert his position as an a priori truth without demonstrating why the contrary cannot be true is circular reasoning, Aristotle never refutes the premise that falsity is neither being nor non-being

> if mata doesn'0t have being then you cant experience it,
Not is falsity appears without existing, stating what you just stated as an a priori truth without demonstrating why the contrary position cannot be true is the fallacy of circular reasoning
>and that's the problem witha dvaita, its notion of being is so bad that they conceive thingmanifesting ouside of being, even when that's a contradiciton,
Its not a logical contradiction if manifestation (appearence) is not the same as existence, insisting that it has to be the same as existence is just citing your own contrary position as an a priori truth, which is the fallacy of circular reasoning
> where are those minds ifn ot in brahma? nothing else exist
They are in the false illusion that is neither existence nor non-existence

>>20296550
>so stating that as an a priori truth
it's not a priori truth, if somethign cna amnifets without having being it's a contradiciton in terms, it's like syaing a mirage doesn't have ebing just because it doesn't have materiality, a mirage still "is a mirage, even if it's not what i thnk it is
>>20296550
>>and that's why advaita metaphysics has so many problems
>it doesnt have a single problem
lol nice answer there
>Thats exactly what Advaita disagrees with,
if soemthign doesn't have being but at the same time is not nothingness, then is a thing made of being and non-being a contradiction in terms and break the LNC
>>20296550
>existence =/= appearence
you're making a circular reasoning here, the whole point is to prove that existence isn't equal as existence, if youa lready use it as an a priori principle youre making ciruclar reasonign,maybe you're the sophist here after all
and no, apparence must posses a way of existence, in which other way can be manifested then?
>>20296563
>so you’ve just been using circular reasoning the whole time
nope, you're the one using ciruclar reasoning, here for example"Wrong, because falsity appears without having existence because existence =/= appearence"
you never proved that existence=/=appearance

>>20293625
> >at least one deluded being exists
The sole existence Being is not deluded, delusion belongs to the minds that are a part of the illusion and which are hence neither being nor non-being

>>20293685
> no my friend, you're the only sophist here, i'm just using the correct notion of being,
No, you are just citing non-Advaita metaphysics as if they were an a priori truth, without actually demonstrating any logical contradiction in what Advaita says, every single one of your arguments ties back to other circular a priori claims, so they all lack any force and can all be dismissed as sophistry

all the problems of advaita metaphysics are made obvious when you realise that if brahma "cast" maya, the only place or thing he can cast it is upon itself since nothign else exist, making once again, maya part of brahma

>>20296780
>Maya doesn’t exist
and the, the next sentence is
>>20296780
>it is the category of falsity which isnt existence or non-existence,
>non-existence

you just contradict yourself in the same paragraph
>this has been explained to you repeatedly a
indeed and it makes no sense, that's why i keep attacking such contradictory term, you onthe othe rhand canonly keep repeating this illogical nonesense like a broken record, becaus eyou don't have a better answer to give
>Aristotle never refutes the premise that falsity is neither being nor non-being
yes it does, to aristotle falsity doesn't exist, period
>Not is falsity appears without existing
that's like saying a dream doesn't exist, you have dreams, they don't exist in thematerial world but they have existence, you can experience them and they have an identity, your whole notio n of existenc is increidble materialistic geunonfag, you're such a hylic
>manifestation (appearence) is not the same as existence
but you didn't prove that, you're doing circular reasoning! how dare you!

>They are in the false illusion that is neither existence nor non-existence
that doesn't answer the question, and this is important, here is wher eyoua ctually are doing circular reasoning in it'smost degenearte way
if brahma cast an illusion on themind, then them ionds must be in other place outside of brahma in order for brahma to no be part of the illusion, but then the minds itself are alsopart of the illusion, so where's that illusion then? the only thing that exist is brahma, so once again, we arrive at the conlusion that brahma cast the illusion upon itself, thus the illusionis part of brahma, you're trying to create more places and things to evade this problem but none of them make sense

>you are just citing non-Advaita metaphysics as if they were an a priori truth,
i'm just using theproper notion of substance to make the point, if advaita i a logical and coherent metaphysical system it should be able to handle corss examnation, if advaita needs to back track into it's own axioms, then is dogmatic and all your argument would fall into circular reasoning, since you back track into your own particular unproven and dogmatic notions to explain logical problems

>>20296729
> no is not, if i say A is a substance and B is not part of A thus making B a substance itself, i'm not establishing any a priori principle
Yes you are dumbass, you are asserting a priori that anything thats not substance A has to be another substance, which as an a priori claim is circular reasoning and a logical fallacy. Just because some people define the word substance that way doesn’t make the accompanying metaphysical claim it involves an a priori truth, but you are acting like it does and try to deflect with “buts that what the word means” while forgetting that even if the word means something that doesnt make the related metaphysical claim an a priori truth
>i'm just using 3 arguments, substance is anything that is self contained and can exist on itself,A is a substance, B is not A, thus B must be a subtsance, ther'es no ciruclar reasoning here,
The circular reasoning you are making here consists of taking as an a priori truth that “if something is not substance A, them it must be substance B”, Advaita disagrees with this metaphysical claim, so to assert that as an a priori truth in order to attack Advaita is purely circular reasoning, just because someone defines substance in that way, doesnt make the underlying metaphysical claim involved in that definition into an a priori truth.

> just saying "is a 3rd ontological category" dosen't justify your point, that's in fact cirucla rresoning, because you need to justify why falsiy can be a 3rd onotlogical category
No its not dumbass, I’m simply explaining how Advaita doctrine is internally consistent and free of logical contradictions, it would only be circular reasoning to cite Advaita doctrine IN ORDER TO ARGUE THAT THIS SAME DOCTRINE IS NECESSARILY TRUE; but thats not what Im doing. Demonstrating the lack of logical contradiction in X isnt trying to prove that X is true
> the only two obvious ontological categories are being and non-being any other category must explain how can exist without "being" or in which way cannot exist without being "non-being"
I’ve given all the necessary details, falsity is neither being nor non-being, its projected as such by being. Non-being doesnt have being and yet you admit it as an ontological category despite you saying this is impossible, so you contradict yourself
> and t w salready explained to you taht just saying "its in his nature" isnt an explanationat all,
Yes it is
>is not an explaination at all, no knowledge can be obtained from that
knowledge that it comes about naturally via Brahman’s self sufficient nature is obtained!
> if one doesn't exist then is non-being which is nothingess in advaita ontological categories
Advaita disagrees, stating that as a self-evident truth to refute Advaita is circular reasoning fallacy

>>20296812
This is the inescapable conclusion, no matter how many word games one tries to play.
>oh but not really because A can be A and not A at the same time (if I call not A B)
But my gibberish become increasingly like a mantra that I repeat to convince myself more than others, since others can see through it

>>20296783
> it's not a priori truth, if somethign cna amnifets without having being it's a contradiciton in terms
Wrong, that is an a priori metaphysical claim you dumbass. You havnt shown why its wrong to define manifestation as in appearance, as in falsity, as in neither being nor non-being; in order to assert this is wrong you would have to show how its contradictory, but your only argument that its contradictory is to make an a priori metaphysical claim that manifestation = being; which is the circular reasoning fallacy
> if soemthign doesn't have being but at the same time is not nothingness, then is a thing made of being and non-being
Thats an a priori metaphysical claim which you have not proven, so thats circular reasoning fallacy; in truth it doesn’t have to be made of either if its the 3rd category of falsity which is neither
>it's like syaing a mirage doesn't have ebing just because it doesn't have materiality, a mirage still "is a mirage, even if it's not what i thnk it is
The mirage is false, neither being nor non-being, its not being because what you the think the mirage is doesnt actually exist, its not nothingness because it appears
>existence =/= appearence
>you're making a circular reasoning here, the whole point is to prove that existence isn't equal as existence, if youa lready use it as an a priori principle youre making ciruclar reasonign,maybe you're the sophist here after all
No, because we aren’t on equal grounds dumbass, its not circular reasoning to show how there is no logical contradictions in a system that is internally consistent, you are the one making a positive claim about something and Im demonstrating why all your arguments involve a logical fallacy without trying to prove that Advaita is true
>and no, apparence must posses a way of existence, in which other way can be manifested then?
manifested as falsity, manifestation means “appear”, so its a false appearance and not being
>>20296563 (You) #
>so you’ve just been using circular reasoning the whole time
>nope, you're the one using ciruclar reasoning, here for example"Wrong, because falsity appears without having existence because existence =/= appearence"
>you never proved that existence=/=appearance
Again dumbass, I dont have to prove that in order demonstrate that it doesn’t violate logic and is internally consistent, what I am proving is that your attempts to refute it involve circular fallacies through a priori metaphsyical claims

>>20296812
> all the problems of advaita metaphysics are made obvious when you realise that if brahma "cast" maya, the only place or thing he can cast it is upon
There is no logical necessity that it has to be “cast upon something”, they dont mean cast literally
>itself since nothign else exist, making once again, maya part of brahma
this is making a circular a priori metaphysical claim

>>20296911
> This is the inescapable conclusion
only if you rely on circular a priori metaphysical assumptions like a dumbass

>>20296926
Gotten to.

>>20296860
>Maya doesn’t exist
>and the, the next sentence is
>it is the category of falsity which isnt existence or non-existence,
>you just contradict yourself in the same paragraph
No, thats not a contradiction, because both maya (B) and non-existence (C) both share the similarity of not being existence (A) , but maya (B) is further distinguished from non-existence (C) by having the nature of being a false appearance, when I say “maya doesnt exist”, Im not saying “maya (B) IS non-existence (C)”, im saying “maya (B) lacks existence (A)”, there is a fundamental difference between the two statements

>this has been explained to you repeatedly a
>indeed and it makes no sense
it makes perfect sense
>, that's why i keep attacking such contradictory term
every time you try to show what the contradiction is you make an a priori metaphysical claim
>Aristotle never refutes the premise that falsity is neither being nor non-being
>yes it does, to aristotle falsity doesn't exist, period
Thats not a refutation lmao
>Not is falsity appears without existing
that's like saying a dream doesn't exist, you have dreams, they don't exist in thematerial world but they have existence, you can experience them and they have an identity,
You cant argue they exist instead of being falsity without arguing that “experienced phenomena = existence” which is an a priori metaphysical claim and thus circular
>your whole notio n of existenc is increidble materialistic geunonfag, you're such a hylic
nice projection
>manifestation (appearence) is not the same as existence
>but you didn't prove that, you're doing circular reasoning!
Its not circular reasoning to show how there is no logical contradiction in a system that defines things in a certain way, thats all im doing unlike you who are committing fallacies

>>20296860
> They are in the false illusion that is neither existence nor non-existence
that doesn't answer the question
Yes, it did
>and this is important, here is wher eyoua ctually are doing circular reasoning in it'smost degenearte way
No, Im not, Im explaining how a system of metaphysics is internally consistent, it would only be circular if I tried to prove that system was true using the claims of that same system as a priori truths, which is what you are actually doing with being/non-being 2-way metaphsyics
>if brahma cast an illusion on themind, then them ionds must be in other place outside of brahma in order for brahma to no be part of the illusion, but then the minds itself are alsopart of the illusion, so where's that illusion then?
The minds are part of the illusion and generated by it, they are not two separate things
>the only thing that exist is brahma, so once again, we arrive at the conlusion that brahma cast the illusion upon itself,
No, because there is no logical necessity that it needs anything else to be cast upon
>thus the illusionis part of brahma, you're trying to create more places and things to evade this problem
Theres not problem unless you are an idiot making a priori metaphysical claims in a circular manner
>you are just citing non-Advaita metaphysics as if they were an a priori truth,
>i'm just using theproper notion of substance to make the point
No, you are taking the related metaphysical claim that definition involves as an a priori metaphysical truth, which is circular reasoning fallacy
>if advaita i a logical and coherent metaphysical system it should be able to handle corss examnation,
It has, Ive literally exposed in this whole thread how every single on of your arguments falls back on circular a priori metaphysical assumptions
>if advaita needs to back track into it's own axioms, then is dogmatic and all your argument would fall into circular reasoning
Its only circular if Im trying to prove that system is true instead of just showing how it involves no logical contradictions

>>20296982
>when I say “maya doesnt exist”, Im not saying “maya (B) IS non-existence (C)”
Is he just trolling us at this point?

>>20297077
> Is he just trolling us at this point?
No, I just thought I was talking to people with above room-temperature IQ

When falsity and non-existence both lack the trait of being existence, but also each have further differences that make them different from each other, saying “maya is not the category of existence” isnt saying “maya is the category of non-existence”, just like denying that a molecule has a positive change doesn’t mean it has a negative charge, because some molecules are neutral instead

>>20296861
>anything thats not substance A has to be another substance,
this is not an a priori axiom, is defined by neccesity, i already explaine dthis to you, substance is anythign that exist by itself, if B is not part of A then it must have his on substratum, thus being his own substance or being part of a substance that is not A, there's no apriori axiom but dedutcion thru neccessity, which is the opposite of circular reasoning, you on the other hand never explained how is neccesary that a 3rd ontological category can exist, you just say it's in brahmas nature to be this way, which is not a logicla argument but a dogmatic axiom

>, Advaita disagrees with this metaphysical claim,
no, advaita disagree with this logical principle, thus advaita is an ilogical system, the fact that you can't prove how maya can exist(and yes it exist somehow, just like a mirage has relative existence or an unicorn or the concept of music) without being in some way part of that which is being, just prove thelimits of advaitas logical rethoric
>>20296861
>IN ORDER TO ARGUE THAT THIS SAME DOCTRINE IS NECESSARILY TRUE
the you admit that advaita has no way to prove any tyoe of truth and needs to backtrack into his own dogmatic axioms to mantain the apparence of a truemetaphysical system
this really proves Evola right, advaita really can't prove how a trascendental existence can function and how an ontologicla hierarchy can be articulated, and that's because their notion of maya is logically flawed, the fact that you just recognize the impossibility of adviat to endure cross examination with logical systesm and substance based ontologies just put the nail in the coffin
>>20296861
>I’ve given all the necessary details,
no baby, you just give contradiction, the same ones over and over, i alreay expalined to you logically how saying that someting has neithe rbeing or non-being is logically flawed and breaks the LNC, and you're commiting circular reasonign, since you use your own non proven logical term to back your agrument, that is taht something that is neither being or non-being can still not be somethign that have being andnon-being, even when that's logically tehcase, since negation creates the determination, not the object of the logical argumentation, your only dfeence against this is saying that those are"other"states of being, whic i already proven is an irrelevant refutation, since that's not how logic works, this is again not a cirucla rreaosning, becasue teh fact that enegation is what brings detemrination isnot something i mad eup or somethign created to back my point, but a simple rule of logic that you learn your first class in into to logics, from tha talone we an already articulate that maya is a ocntradiciton isnce is two contradictory things, so his pseudo existence is never fully explained, thus we can't say that maya exist outside of brahma, thus brahma and maya are in some way part of the same, which is indeed a contradiction

>>20296861
>Non-being doesnt have being and yet you admit it as an ontological category despite you saying this is impossible, so you contradict yourself
lol your lust for getting me into one of your pathetics "gotcha moments" is really showing, but again you're pretty much worng, saying that non-.being is a ontological category doesn't mean that non-being exist, it just mean is a category i can use to explain and articulate ontological argument
>>20296861
>Advaita disagrees, stating that as a self-evident truth to refute Advaita is circular reasoning fallacy
you dont quite understand what circular easoning is, circular reasoning is when i try to use as argument one of the aspect of my dsired outcome, you're the one doing that, for example when you say that brahma "cast" maya s an illusion, since the question is, how can being create something that outside bieng, sicne that would be a contradiciton in terms, sinc ebeing ir required for things to have existence/being, when yoru answer is taht it just "cast it" that already take for granted that such a thing can happen, that being canmove from itself and cast something(which is also a paradox since it would need to go against his nature of being unmovible unchanging, thus you cant just say its in his nature to do so, because that would make brahma posses two contradictory natures)
>>20296912
>why its wrong to define manifestation as in appearance, as in falsity, as in neither being nor non-being;
i did, you just keep ignorign it, if somehting is neither being or non-being is like saying somethign isn't a cat or anon-cat, a ocntradiciton in terms, to that your response is, that negation just means there's a third option, which bring us to the problems
1)that's not how negations work, if negatuons work like that then detemrinationwould be impossible and aninfnite nuimbers of existence could be possible, a thing need to be a cat or a non-cat, if it both or neitehr of them then negation stop being somethign that creates determinationin things and thus things stop beign determinated thus this existence wouldn't be possible because it's made of meaning/determionation/identity
so a third form of existence is impossible, you can try to epxlain how such an existenc eis possible but until now you were completly unable, you just keep saying that advaita say so, now you need to expalin how an existence outside of determination is possibel unitl then we have to go with our logical arguments
2) not only that you're unable to prove that this third onnotlogical category exist even if we ignore the problemof negation, you just say it is beign casted, i already estabilshed the problem with that, where is it cvatsed? to the minds that suffer the illusion is your answer, but thenyou say that those very minds are part of theillusion, so you can't cast somethigninto itself, it defeat the porupose and deffinition of something being "cast" so brahma you like it or not is catsing the illusiononto himself

>>20297829
>>20297829
>this is not an a priori axiom, is defined by neccesity,
Wrong, that’s an a priori metaphysical claim, the metaphysical part is where you “anything that’s not substance A has to be substance B”, its making the metaphysical claim that everything has to be a substance, which Advaita disagrees with. Since you are just making an a priori metaphysical claim (that everything has to be a substance), you are committing the circular reasoning logical fallacy.
>substance is anythign that exist by itself, if B is not part of A then it must have his on substratum, thus being his own substance or being part of a substance that is not A
That’s an a priori metaphysical claim and hence logical reasoning fallacy
>there's no apriori axiom but dedutcion thru neccessity, which is the opposite of circular reasoning
It doesn’t have to be a substance if its the non-substance known as falsity, you can’t claim this is wrong unless you make an a priori metaphysical claim that everything has to be a substance, which is circular reasoning
>you on the other hand never explained how is neccesary that a 3rd ontological category can exist,
I dont have to in order for Advaita to remain logically consistent. Thats a non-sequitur that you are bringing up because you cant handle the circularity of your own arguments being pointed out
>you just say it's in brahmas nature to be this way,
And there’s nothing logically inconsistent about that
>no, advaita disagree with this logical principle, thus advaita is an ilogical system,
Wrong, all your arguments attempting to show that its illogical involve the logical fallacy of circular reasoning
>the fact that you can't prove how maya can exist
Falsity isnt existence, its neither existence nor non-existence, there is no necessity to prove in order to show that Advaita is logically consistent and free from contradiction

>>20297829
>IN ORDER TO ARGUE THAT THIS SAME DOCTRINE IS NECESSARILY TRUE
>the you admit that advaita has no way to prove any tyoe of truth and needs to backtrack into his own dogmatic axioms
Not a single philosophy in existence proves all of its claims or its system as a whole, this is the norm and so Advaita isnt an exception, Advaita refutes all the arguments its opponents raise against it which is enough

>this really proves Evola right
You know that in that same essay he condemns rationalism right?
>advaita really can't prove how a trascendental existence can function
They prove their theirs is free of contradiction, which is enough
>and how an ontologicla hierarchy can be articulated,
they articulate it by explaining the 3-way ontology and related matters
>that's because their notion of maya is logically flawed,
No, and all your attempts to explain why have involved the fallacy of circularity
> you just recognize the impossibility of adviat to endure cross examination with logical systesm and substance based ontologies
I’ve demonstrated in this how you can’t even argue against Advaita from their perspective with the fallacy of circularity, i.e. your attempt was a total failure

>I’ve given all the necessary details,
no baby, you just give contradiction, the same ones over and over
Its not a contradiction unless you make an a priori metaphysical claim, which is a logical fallacy
> i alreay expalined to you logically how saying that someting has neithe rbeing or non-being is logically flawed and breaks the LNC,
No, you didnt, all you did was make a priori metaphysical claims
>and you're commiting circular reasonign, since you use your own non proven logical term to back your agrument
Thats not circularly since its demonstrating the absence of a contradiction instead of trying to prove it true
>, that is taht something that is neither being or non-being can still not be somethign that have being andnon-being, even when that's logically tehcase
When falsity is neither, there is no problem. You dont have any arguments against this that dont involve logical fallacy of circularity
>since negation creates the determination, not the object of the logical argumentation, your only dfeence against this is saying that those are"other"states of being, whic i already proven is an irrelevant refutation, since that's not how logic works
That logic is invalid, since it produces incorrect results like 47 = -5 as I pointed out earlier
> but a simple rule of logic that you learn your first class in into to logics,
You can tell your “”teacher”” Ive refuted them
>thus we can't say that maya exist outside of brahma, thus brahma and maya are in some way part of the same,
When its projected as false illusion then neither are necessary, what you are saying is actually a materialist way of thinking about things that tries to make everything immanent

>>20296912
>The mirage is false, neither being nor non-being
and here's your problem, you don'0t understand what being really means, of curs ethemirage has being, themirage has no material existence, but anyone prey to it can experience it, something possesing being isn't the same as something possesing material existence, if that where the case then by your own logic then brahma wouldn't exist, sicne brahma can't be experienced inthe material world,again a pretty hylic take comming from you, seems the materialistic push of modernity also grab you, guenon would be dissapointed in you
>>20296912
>I dont have to prove that in order demonstrate that it doesn’t violate logic
lol yes you have, that's how logic works, logic comes from the word logos that means "verb, meaning, opinion etc" a logical thrut is one that you can backl up with argumentation, vs a mythological thrut that you can only feel or get througt intuition, if you can't demostarte it then it has no logical ground

>There is no logical necessity
i mean you're the one who came up with that dumb concept, i'm just showing you how it doesn't work , the cas eis the same, if brahma is everthing that exist, the fact that he creates, cast, farts, an illuison only means that he's doing it otno himself
>>20296982
>when I say “maya doesnt exist”, Im not saying “maya (B) IS non-existence (C)”, im saying “maya (B) lacks existence (A)”,
love the bizarre play on words you have to do to mantain this farse
if maya get his qualit>>20296982
>nice projection
how i'm being ahylic, you'r ethe one using thematerial wolrd as the fundament of being, i know you don't want to, but tihs is where your argument lead you, to contradict yoruself and become a hylic

>show how there is no logical contradiction in a system that defines things in a certain way
lol that's exactly what circular reasoning is, when you put your own dogmatic arguments as fundamentala xioms taht's ciruclar reasonign me on the other hand, i explaine dto you how the ogic i use operates, and all yoru answer are more or less, "advaita doesn't agree with that" which become a circular reasonign when you try to sell those arguments as fundamental axioms of logic, for example that somethign that as neithe rbeing ornon-being can be articulated, which is a contardicton taht you just canexplain, you just say, "advaita just say so" and"it's onbrahmas nature to this contradiction to exist"
>>20297031
>Yes, it did
lol no, again is liek responding why most plants are greencolored? with, it's on plant's nature to do so, which just ignores the treu answer that is the pothosnitetic process and the chlorophyll
>>20297031
>The minds are part of the illusion and generated by it, they are not two separate things
exactly, so the illusioncan't be casted upon them, since that would be casting the illusioninto that same illusion, like trhowing a dart onto itself

>>20297883
> saying that non-.being is a ontological category doesn't mean that non-being exist,
I can say the same about maya/falsity

>you dont quite understand what circular easoning is, circular reasoning is when i try to use as argument one of the aspect of my dsired outcome
No, its circular when you make a priori metaphysical claims and then claim they refute Advaita without any independent evidence aside from them or other claims that rely on them (this all you have done the whole thread)
>you're the one doing that, for example when you say that brahma "cast" maya s an illusion
Thats not circular because its not trying to prove a system true or another system false like you are trying and failing to do, its just explaining how a system is consistent and contradiction free, elaborating this requires explaining why this so dummy,
>since the question is, how can being create something that outside bieng,
its doesnt create, it projects a false illusion
>that being canmove from itself
there is no movement or deviation or change since it does so timelessly

>why its wrong to define manifestation as in appearance, as in falsity, as in neither being nor non-being;
>i did, you just keep ignorign it, if somehting is neither being or non-being is like saying somethign isn't a cat or anon-cat, a ocntradiciton in terms
A false cat-illusion that neither exists nor does not exist is not violating the LNC because its not attributing two mutually exclusive properties to something
>to that your response is, that negation just means there's a third option, which bring us to the problems
wrong
1)that's not how negations work, if negatuons work like that then detemrinationwould be impossible
wrong
>and aninfnite nuimbers of existence could be possible
wrong
>a thing need to be a cat or a non-cat
wrong
,> if it both or neitehr of them then negation stop being somethign that creates determinationin things
No, because its just a 3rd thing instead and hence there is no issue, that doesnt entail negation “creating anything” unless you are making retard circular a priori metaphysical claims

>>20297031
>because there is no logical necessity that it needs anything else to be cast upon
how so? epxlain taht or you wuld be doing a circular reasoning, the concept of casting presupouse a place or thing onto which to cast, you can't have your cake and eat it to, you used thenotion of casting to help yourself out of the problem that since only brahma exist the illusionmust be onto himself, to that you said he'snot really creating or sustaining the illusion, he just cast it, so youunderstand that tehre's differences beteen create somethign and cast something, so thisnotion of catsingmust be important for your point, BUT if what'shappening here is actually a castingof an illusion, then you need to explain where or to who is catsed upon, if not, the ntion itself of casting becomes irrelevant, and we can again articulate the option thabrahma created the illusion onto hiself, since he's the only thing that exist
>>20297031
>you are an idiot making a priori metaphysical claims in a circular manner
this "circula rreaong"thing doesn't work for you anymore, i'm epxlaining all my arguments, and you're just evadng all teh answer and going into "broken record mode" again, the fact that you're falling into insult more often also speaks tons onhow you're losing your chill, to what i have to answer:guenonfag chill, it's not so bad, where just haivng fun here, doing some philsophical rethoric, no oen here really hates advaita, we only like to show their ocntardicitons because you get crazy triggered, but everythign has ocntradicitons, if you learnto just love them and let it go, youll have a much better time, learn from your avdiata brother and sisters that just embrace the ohter dharmic paths and just want tobe bette rprcaticioner without becoming prey to aversion and negative mindsets, i will deescalate and stop calling you names so you cna have your groove back
>>20297031
>Its only circular if Im trying to prove that system is true
you're not trying to prove that your system is true?

>>20297955
> and here's your problem, you don'0t understand what being really means, of curs ethemirage has being
nice circular a priori metaphysical claim
>if that where the case then by your own logic then brahma wouldn't exist, sicne brahma can't be experienced inthe material world,
Everyone knows Brahman which is pure existence in every moment as their own awareness, but people confuse it with their mind and mix up self and non-self via indiscrimination so they normally dont notice it but know it mixed up in other things
>I dont have to prove that in order demonstrate that it doesn’t violate logic
>lol yes you have
No, I just explain how it dossnt violate logical laws and then refute all attempts to show otherwise, such as by pointing out how all your arguments involve circularity
> i mean you're the one who came up with that dumb concept, i'm just showing you how it doesn't work
Wrong, you are just claiming a priori it needs to be cast upon something which as an a priori metaphysical claim refutes nothing
> lol that's exactly what circular reasoning is
its not circular to simply point out how a logical is free of contradictions
> lol no, again is liek responding why most plants are greencolored? with, it's on plant's nature to do so
And part of the plants nature is to have those chemicals so thats not actually wrong
> >The minds are part of the illusion and generated by it, they are not two separate things
>exactly, so the illusioncan't be casted upon them, since that would be casting the illusioninto that same illusion, like trhowing a dart onto itself
They are generated by the illusion and are thus effected by it always, so there is no problem

>>20297987
> how so?
Because saying that it needs something to be casted upon is presupposing multiplicty, but multiplicity is only downstream of it being casted and not before
> this "circula rreaong"thing doesn't work for you anymore, i'm epxlaining all my arguments
And in in doing so you’ve exposed the fact that every single one on them relies on circular a priori metaphysical claims, thus confirming yourself to be a sophist