/lit/ - Literature

Guenon was a retarded monkey

>>20810143
He made the mistake because he was confused from all the opium and weird occult shit he was psyopping himself into. Then he allowed himself to confirm all biases by skim reading and then insulting anyone who disagrees with him as a confused modernist, despite never engaging with the argument in good faith.

an amateur orientalist did something dumb? what a surprise.

>>20810143
Because CHADVAITA VEDANTA is an unsurpassed, supreme, irrefutable, most most excellent, perfectly consistent, sublime, elegant, divinely-revealed truth that best conforms to the meaning of the Upanishadic scripture and which is the final red-pill and final end-game of all metaphysics philosophy and religion!!!!!

>>20810837
Advaitinas reek of insecurity when they constantly post how they're irrefutable. It's like a neurotic tic they can't hide whenever they're anxious.

>>20810143
Not even Hinduism agrees with Advaita. Only white theosophists believe in Advaita.

>>20810143
Because he realized that Advaita was true so he tried to assimilate it to western religion so that westerners won't feel inferior to the hindus. After he failed with catholics, he tried to convert westerners to islam because it was still abrahamic.

>>20810933
nice projection lmao

>>20810944
>Not even Hinduism agrees with Adva-
“This self was indeed Brahman in the beginning. It knew itself only as "I am Brahman." Therefore it became all. And whoever among the gods had this enlightenment, also became That Brahman. It is the same with the seers (rishis), the same with men. The seer Vamadeva, having realized this self as That, came to know: "I was Manu and the sun." And to this day, whoever in a like manner knows the self as "I am Brahman," becomes all this universe. Even the gods cannot prevent his becoming this, for he has become their Self. Now, if a man worships another deity, thinking: "He is one and I am another," he does not know. He is like an animal to the gods. As many animals serve a man, so does each man serve the gods. Even if one animal is taken away, it causes anguish to the owner; how much more so when many are taken away! Therefore it is not pleasing to the gods that men should know this."
- Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10.

https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-brihadaranyaka-upanishad/d/doc117939.html

>>20810961
That's so cool. Westerners should hate themselves and move to India or Egypt.

>>20810969
The Upanishads contradict themselves constantly and to quote one passage as if this is representative of them all, or that they all push this sort of non-dualist line is low IQ. There’s a reason why Pajeets came up with a million different systems in order to attempt to pretend that the Upanishads have a systematic viewpoint between them, whether it be Advaita, Dvaita, Shuddhadvaita, Vishishtadvaita, Bhedabheda, etc.

>>20810837
OP here I 100% agree with Advaita, It is very clear that guenon got advaita wrong, and his followers perpetuate his mistakes, it is clear that guenon may have had some sense of "pure metaphysics" - Advaita, by stressing "exoterism" and religous "rites" Guenon seems to only represent a deviation from the primordial tradition, for example Guenonfags, and Guenonians promote "Dhikr" which is a mantric repetition of the "Divine Names"

but according to Shankara

> “ Mantra repetition can be used in the case of meditation which must produce results, as it is possible that a certain intensity, with the practice of repetition, can produce such effects. But in the case of the knowledge of the Supreme Brahman, which reveals that Brahman is the very Self of the seeker, eternally pure, conscious and free, what purpose would its repetition serve? […] If it is said that the knowledge of the identity of Brahman and Ātman does not arise by listening to the teaching only once and therefore its repeated meditation must be considered necessary, we reply that this cannot be; because it is not conceivable that a result will be obtained in the case of repetition. [To be clear,]if listening to the Vedāntic teaching once, such as "you are That" does not produce knowledge of the identity of Brahman and Ātman, there is no hope that the same mahāvākya, heard repeatedly, can produce that knowledge "( Brahma Sūtra Śaṃkara Bhāṣya IV.1.2).

and according modern traditional representatives of Advaita:
Svāmī Satcidānandendra Mahārāja adds:
>“ The repetition of śravaṇa and manana is necessary for those who have not understood the meaning of those terms ” ( Doctrine and Method , cit. P. 154).

Yet Guenon stresses "dhikr" or mantra as a "primordial rite"

according to Guenon:
>The word dhikr, in Islamic esoterism, is used of the rhythmic formulae that correspond exactly to Hindu mantras. The repetition of these formulae is intended to bring about the harmonization of the different elements of the being and to cause vibrations which, by their repercussions throughout the whole hierarchy of the states, are capable of opening up a communication with the higher states. This is, moreover, generally speaking, the essential and primordial purpose of all rites.

Guenons view of "Higher and Lower states" couldn't be further from "pure metaphysics," in which there can be no question of a "descending or ascending "realization" " which Guenon and Guenonfags repeat.

>>20811087
>Traditional advaita says:

> " In conclusion, some, according to their school, proclaim that this knowledge of the mahāvākya" I am Brahman ", which is obtained from listening to the Vedāntic text, at first does not completely remove ignorance, but, by meditating day after day for a long time about this [ mahāvākya ] , all ignorance is eliminated without any residue remaining, as a result of the accumulation of intense feeling, because, as śruti says: "One becomes a God and one is then counted among the Gods. " "(Sūreśvara , Naiśkarmyasiddhi , I.67).

Except the distortion of Guenonfags says:

"The development of the present human cycle brought us in Kali-yuga, and due to this “fall” we need initiation. In the Golden Age the initiation had no reason to be. Today we live the end of Kali-yuga, and for this reason there are so many difficulties – some insuperable – with regard to initiation and spiritual realization. As René Guénon explained, because today the profane point of view invaded the world, the neophyte needs, more than ever, “supports” to help him travel along the initiatory path or just to aid him escape the profane. That is the role of exotericism. There are people who think that today we do not need to participate to the exoteric rites anymore, that the initiation and a pure contemplation are sufficient. This is an illusion, like the others, with regard to initiation. Today, more than ever, exotericism is necessary as one of the supports for spiritual realization. The modern individuals live an important part of their life overwhelmed by profane activities and the so much criticized Templars could be a good example for them."

It seems Guenonfags emphasize illusion and "lesser mysteries"

Guenon:
>"Initiation into the ‘lesser mysteries’ and subsequently into the ‘greater mysteries’ is essentially a retracing of the journey backwards through the descending yuga cycle, only now ascending, back towards the primordial state"

Guenon was an advocate of "lesser mysteries" this is what the "initiation" he outlined entails

>>20810143
Guénon was a Freemason, that is all you need to know. Perennialism has always been a Masonic enterprise. Masons are only required to believe in a generic ‘God’, and is thus supra-denominational at its core. Hindus and Freemasons have a similar goal, which is destroying religious foundations of the West. It is no surprise that proponents of Advaita Vedanta such as Ramakrishna and his disciple Vivekananda were both well-known for saying that all religions were true or path to the same thing. Did you know that Vivekananda was a Rockefeller-funded Freemason too? All New Age / Perennialist / Syncretist pseudo-spirituality is pushed by elite groups who want to bring about an alchemical transmutation of Western man into a fundamentally ‘New Man’, justified by a return to a mythic ‘golden age’ or annihilation of ego in a monistic cosmology. This ties in with materialism too, as Darwinism itself is a Masonic doctrine that aims at transhumanism, and the transmutation of man into superman. Guénon’s thought—esoterically speaking—leads to the destruction of its adherents and is ungirded by occultism and an anti-human / antichrist agenda

Guénon is a bad actor and subversive individual.

>>20811098
>>20811087
Guenon says and advocates starting from illusion and delusion with Sufism or something like this and then in this way, grasping the "Real" whilst this is possible, The Primordial and Unanimous "purely intellectual" traditions of the East, Begin with the Real, they Begin with the Mahavakyas, they don't larp with sufi dhikr, and exoteric ritualism, in that way there are no "formal" levels to traverse or "degrees" to graduate through, this is obviously a misunderstanding of guenon which became engrained through his many years of larping with "masonic degrees" and "rites" and smoking opium.

>>20811078
>The Upanishads contradict themselves constantly
That's just simply not true and it suggests that you haven't read them and are speaking about a topic on which you are uninformed. The very few apparent contradictions in the Upanishads are easily reconcilable as speaking about an issue from different perspectives. All throughout the Upanishads the Atman is identified with Brahman and the perception of multiplicity or the belief that it is real is consistently said to be linked to ignorance and suffering

>>20811116
>dude, what if everything was like… one, duuude… we’re all part of the same genus of existent things… whoa
Take a bath, hippy

>>20811087
>>20811098
Does Guenons attempt to connect the "Grail" to Kundalini Yoga correspond wit reality?
>Perhaps the clearest expression of the Grail’s essential significance is found in the account of its origin: it tells that this cup had been carved by the angels from an emerald which fell from Lucifer’s forehead at his downfall. That emerald strikingly recalls the urnā, the frontal pearl which, in Hindu (and hence in Buddhist) symbolism, frequently replaced the third eye of Shiva, representing what might be called the “sense of eternity”. It is then said that the Grail was given into Adam’s keeping in the Earthly Paradise, but that Adam, in his turn, lost it when he fell, for he could not bear it with him when he was driven out of Eden. Clearly, man being separated from his original center, thereafter found himself enclosed in the temporal sphere; he could no longer rejoin the unique point whence all things are contemplated under the aspect of eternity. In other words the possession of the “sense of eternity” is linked to what every tradition calls the “primordial state”, the restoring of which constitutes the first stage of true initiation, since it is the necessary preliminary to conquest of “supra-human” states. . . .

>>20811163
cont. then in "King of the World" he elaborates
>The luz (muladhara) is said to be located toward the lower end of the spinal column; this might seem rather strange, but becomes clear when it is compared with what the Hindu tradition says about the power called Kundalinī, which is a form of Shakti considered as immanent in the human being. This force is represented by the figure of a coiled snake in a region of the subtle body corresponding precisely to the base of the spinal column; this at least is the case in the ordinary man, but by means of practices such as those of Hatha-Yoga, it is aroused, uncoils, and ascends through the ‘wheels’ (chakras) or ‘lotuses’ (kamalas) that correspond to the various plexuses, to reach finally the region corresponding to the ‘third eye’, that is, the frontal eye of Shiva. This stage represents the restoration of the ‘primordial state’, in which man recovers the ‘sense of eternity’, thereby attaining what we have elsewhere called ‘virtual immortality’. Up to this point we are still in the human state; in a subsequent phase the Kundalinī finally reaches the crown of the head, and this last phase relates to the effective conquest of the higher states of the being. What seems to follow from this comparison is that the location of the luz in the lower part of the organism refers only to the condition of ‘fallen man’; and for terrestrial humanity considered as a whole the same could be said of the location of the supreme spiritual center in the ‘subterranean world’.

>>20811112
>The Primordial and Unanimous "purely intellectual" traditions of the East, Begin with the Real, they Begin with the Mahavakyas, they don't larp with sufi dhikr, and exoteric ritualism
Yes, but the crucial difference is Advaita (and real initiation into it) is meant for a tiny intellectual elite who are naturally intelligent, self-controlled and spiritually discerning and who have the willpower to enter into celibate monasticism etc while on the other hand any average pleb can join a Sufi order and all he has to do is just keeping following the sharia while maybe adding some extra practices like dhikr etc; so it's to be expected and quite normal that a spiritual path that readily available and open to the masses and which doesn't have stringent requirements will be different than one like Advaita which isn't. The masses are incapable of being Advaita monks so they are better off following watered-down teachings; that's partly why Shankara says non-sannyasins should practice karma-yoga instead of jnana-yoga in his Gita-bhasya.

If you are someone like Guenon who believes Advaita is a primordial truth then it would be consistent with that to view non-Advaita esotericisms as being routes intended to deliver people first to the Brahmaloka (and then eventual moksha) instead of directly conferring liberation which they don't have the aptitude for regardless. If you are incapable of practicing jnana-yoga and your remaining alternatives are 1) no spirituality or 2) a lesser path that's not the direct route of jnana-yoga then obviously following some watered-down spiritual path that results in a higher-quality transmigration or entry into the brahmaloka would be your best option wouldn't it?

>>20811197
>view non-Advaita esotericisms
not all but some of them (as some are more like Advaita like)

>>20811166
In reference to this quote here, where guenon quite explicitly assimilates the chakras or lotuses to various plexuses he elaborates:

>This said, it is easy to grasp that there are ‘centres’ in the human being corresponding respectively to each of the groups of tattvas enumerated by us, and that these centres, although belonging essentially to the subtle form (süksma-sarïra). may in a certain sense be ‘localized’ in the corporeal or gross form (sthida-sarira), or, to say it better, in relation to different parts of the latter, these ‘localisations’ in reality being but another way of expressing those correspondences of which we have just spoken, correspondences, moreover, which imply a very real and special link between such a subtle centre and each such determinate part of the corporeal organism. It is, thus, that the six centres in question are related to the divisions of the vertebral column, called meru-danda because it constitutes the axis of the human body, just as, from the ‘macrocosmic’ point of view, meru is the ‘axis of the world’ the first five, in ascending sense, correspond respectively to the coccyginal, sacral, lumbar, torsal and cervical regions, and the sixth to the encephalic part of the central nervous system. But it must be clearly understood that they are not at all nervous centres, in the physiological sense of this word, and that one must in no way assimilate them to different plexuses as some have claimed (which is, moreover, in formal contradiction with their ‘localisation’ inside the vertebral column itself), for it is not at all here a question of an identity but only of a relation between two distinct orders of manifestation, a relation furthermore that is sufficiently justified by the fact that it is precisely by means of the nervous system that one of the most direct liaisons of the corporeal state and subtle state is established.

Does anyone in the thread know what this all means, the "world axis" always talked about by guenon, "Meru" is infact the "spinal column," what does this all mean?

>>20811087
>Guenons view of "Higher and Lower states" couldn't be further from "pure metaphysics," in which there can be no question of a "descending or ascending "realization" " which Guenon and Guenonfags repeat.
In his commentaries Shankara writes about realizing identity with Hiranyagarbha as an optional intermediate step on the path to complete realization; you can see some of these sections in AJ Alston's "A Sankara Sourcebook"

>>20811197
>2) a lesser path that's not the direct route of jnana-yoga then obviously following some watered-down spiritual path that results in a higher-quality transmigration or entry into the brahmaloka would be your best option wouldn't it?
Why weigh options at all, and why be economical about it? is there some sort of Risk?
>>20811202
The Closest esoterism to Advaita which I have seen is Dzogchen Buddhism, Guenonfag said Chan buddhism is also similar, here is a translation of a text from Jigmé Lingpaʼs Great Vastness Heart Drop Cycle:

Once known, mind itself is like space.
The nature of space is that there is nothing that is space.
In the same way, examples cannot really point out awareness.
Yet I rely on such methods to shed light on key points.

What is it like when a poor man has
A priceless treasure in his home
But doesnʼt know it? Just as he remains poor,
You remain entangled in a net of unaware thinking
How heartbreaking, you beings, benighted in samsara!

What is it like when you turn your back on the natural path?
Because you are enthralled by mistaken beliefs,
Your puritanical practice is lopsided,
Based as it is on some flawed metaphysical theory
How reactive you are, you irrational extremists!

Mind itself, originally pure, is like space.
As long as you look for it with conceptual tools,
You are like a bug encasing itself in its own spit —
In your obsession, you turn your back on what is truly meaningful.
How worn out you must be, you listeners, from rejecting everything!

Mind is the source of all experience, patterned or free.
You wake up completely when you rest and do nothing at all.
Instead, you are dogmatic and single-minded in your belief
In the teachings of ignorance, interdependence and samsara.
How pleased you must be, you self-reliant ones, with your artificial awakening!

Mind itself, innately complete in all its potential,
Is conceived in uncontrived naturalness.
Yet you sophists, who take the two truths literally,
Distort being itself with your logic and analysis.
How long your journey, you followers of awakening-being philosophy!

While mind itself doesnʼt take up the good or give up the bad,
A meticulous practice of purity acts as an added pollutant.
With the forms of dualistic fixation you distort what is not two.
You seek a sublime state where there is nothing to be attained.
How elegant you are, you followers of ritual philosophy!

In experience itself, which doesnʼt become better or worse,
The conventions of outlook, practice and behavior fall away.
Yet, because of your investment in intelligent and skillful action,
The way you think leads you astray: you act when there is nothing to be done.
How tiring your chosen disciplines, you followers of behavioral tantra!

>>20811245
cont.

No outside, no inside and nothing in between —that quality of attention is
Mind itself, free from conceptual distortions.
Yet your thinking creates symbols for what is profound and clear.
How ineffective, you followers of union philosophy!

Effort and potential donʼt affect how mind is.
It is what it is: you ride the result.
While complex practices may restore vitality to mind, channels and energy,
How tiring they are, you followers of similar union!

Mind itself has no heads, hands or regalia.
Seeing what arises as a deityʼs form, or hearing sounds as a mantra —
Such fixed notions lead you astray.
You wonʼt see mind itself through the path of great union!

>>20811236
>Shankara writes about realizing identity with Hiranyagarbha as an optional intermediate step on the path to complete
I will get the book of Libgen thanks for the recommendation

>>20811236
>In Advaita teaching there is ultimately no duality. All deities, therefore, are reducible in the end to the non-dual Self. In their own
true nature, as distinct from their form as manifest or conceived, they are identical with the true nature of the person meditating on them. It is therefore possible for a meditator to reach through meditation an intuitive awareness of his identity with the deity on
whom he is meditating, and that awareness may have different degrees of intensity, ranging from a full sense of identity to a mere
sense of proximity, according to the degree of intensity with which the meditative path is pursued. The first and second Extracts below expound the possibility of attaining partial or full awareness of one’s identity with the Cosmic Vital Energy, the external adjunct of the Self which embraces all lesser adjuncts and of which the various deities and all the human powers of activity and knowledge are so many modifications.

>The third Extract stresses that realization of a sense of one’s identity with the object of meditation is already possible in the
present life. The fourth deals with meditation on Hiranyagarbha as present in the heart. The fifth and last Extract explains how
meditation on particular deities, which are in fact meditations on aspects of the Self, may lead to the emergence of the soul at death through a subtle canal (nadl) in the body that is in contact with that deity and enables it to reach the ‘world’ of that deity, and how only those who pass along the subtle canal called the susumna pass to the world of Brahma and escape further transmigration (until mahapralaya) , while those who go to other deities have to return eventually to the evils of worldly life. The subtle canal called the susumna was for Sankara the subtle canal of that name proceeding from the heart-centre as taught in the Upanishads, which cannot be identified with the susumna of the Hatha Yoga treatises, which rises up from the base of the spine.
- AJ Alston

>>20811266
>which are in fact meditations on aspects of the Self
This is what the tibetan tantras teach, may lead to the emergence of the soul at death through a subtle canal (nadl) in the body that is in contact with that deity and enables it to reach the ‘world’ of that deity, and how only those who pass along the subtle canal called the susumna pass to the world of Brahma and escape further transmigration (until mahapralaya), while those who go to other deities have to return eventually to the evils of worldly life.

They talk about going to the "pure land" etc. the "Pure Dākiṇī Land" etc. They also have explicit mentions in the tantras, that the initiate into them, will possibly be able to experience liberation during the "death bardo," etc. and talk about the dissolution of the subtle and gross body in death etc. how as you're dying you enter a meditative state etc. how its a free ticket as for a moment all the defilements are released, e.g sensory impressions, a dissolution from gross to subtle, subside as you die etc. they also teach the central channel stuff etc. also in some tibetan traditions they teach about a "subtle channel" coming from the heart centre - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zx2ia0zZ7po,

>>20811266
>The subtle canal called the susumna was for Sankara the subtle canal of that name proceeding from the heart-centre as taught in the Upanishads, which cannot be identified with the susumna of the Hatha Yoga treatises, which rises up from the base of the spine.
I wonder if it was similar to what is called the "crystal kati channel" in the tibetan traditions, which is a "different channel" from the "central channel" however this one they stress emerges from the heart and connects to the eyes, there is no "visualization" etc. for it.

>>20810163
This

>>20811109
>It is no surprise that proponents of Advaita Vedanta such as Ramakrishna and his disciple Vivekananda were both well-known for saying that all religions were true or path to the same thing. Did you know that Vivekananda was a Rockefeller-funded Freemason too? All New Age / Perennialist / Syncretist pseudo-spirituality is pushed by elite groups who want to bring about an alchemical transmutation of Western man into a fundamentally ‘New Man’, justified by a return to a mythic ‘golden age’ or annihilation of ego in a monistic cosmology.
In my naivety I used to believe that they were all "paths to the same thing" but I think this is just what the priestly castes say to console the public, there seems to be an objective "outcome" and different "conclusions" - which do depend on the spiritual realization once has attained in this lifetime... but the "variation in outcome" I think can only be so because of ignorance, I think the conditions will all be "self-imposed."

>>20811293
>They talk about going to the "pure land" etc. the "Pure Dākiṇī Land" etc.
Shankara says that the person who is fully enlightened and liberated while in the body does not need to do this but when his physical body dies the successive layers of non-self vanish of their own accord naturally while the Self remains; based on Brihadaranyaka 4.4.6 which goes

Regarding this there is the following verse: ‘Being attached, he, together with the work, attains that result to which his subtle body or mind is attached. Exhausting the results of whatever work he did in this life, he returns from that world to this for (fresh) work.’ Thus does the man who desires (transmigrate). But the man who does not desire (never transmigrates). Of him who is without desires, who is free from desires, the objects of whose desire have been attained, and to whom all objects of desire are but the Self—the organs do not depart. Being but Brahman, he is merged in Brahman.

I don't know if they say the same in Tibetan Buddhism or not

>>20811410
>Shankara says that the person who is fully enlightened and liberated while in the body does not need to do this but when his physical body dies the successive layers of non-self vanish of their own accord naturally while the Self remains;
How would you compare this to entering sleep? Are there writings comparing the dreamless sleep state and death state or something like this?

>>20811410
As in, the practices about mediating on a deity at death or escaping through a channel or whatever would only have any purpose for someone not yet fully enlightened because an enlightenment man would have no reason to do them, but at the same time that doesn't remove the practical value they have for people insofar as leading to superior states of future empirical experience until eventual enlightenment and for that reason would be valued over going to a lesser state or non-human state in the next transmigration etc

>>20811425
that is entering the sleeping state from the waking state vs. entering the death state from the waking state, or however it would be expressed.

>>20811410
>Being attached, he, together with the work, attains that result to which his subtle body or mind is attached
So it follows from this that the "pure land" is indeed this attachment or residual desire of the subtle body, viz. the kundalini yoga etc. done in the past lifetime?

>>20811245
>Chan buddhism is also similar
Question: In our case, what is this mind of void and calm, numinous awareness?

Chinul: What has just asked me this question is precisely your mind of void and calm, numinous awareness. Why not trace back its radiance rather than search for it outside? For your benefit I will now point straight to your original mind so that you can awaken to it. Clear your minds and listen to my words. From morning to evening, throughout the twelve periods of the day, during all your actions and activities-whether seeing, hearing, laughing, talking, whether angry or happy, whether doing good or evil-ultimately who is it that is able to perform all these actions? Speak! If you say that it is the physical body which is acting, then at the moment when a man's life comes to an end, even though the body has not yet decayed, how is it that the eyes cannot see, the ears cannot hear, the nose cannot smell, the tongue cannot talk, the body cannot move, the hands cannot grasp, and the feet cannot run? You should know that what is capable of seeing, hearing, moving, and acting has to be your original mind; it is not your physical body. Furthermore, the four elements which make up the physical body are by nature void; they are like images in a mirror or the moon's reflection in water. How can they be clear and constantly aware, always bright and never obscured and, upon activation, be able to put into operation sublime functions as numerous as the sands of the Ganges? For this reason it is said, "Drawing water and carrying firewood are spiritual powers and sublime functions." There are many points at which to enter the noumenon. I will indicate one approach which will allow you to return to the source.

Chinul: Do you hear the sounds of that crow cawing and that magpie calling?

Student: Yes.

Chinul: Trace them back and listen to your hearing-nature. Do you hear any sounds?

Student: At that place, sounds and discriminations do not obtain.

Chinul: Marvelous! Marvelous! This is Avalokitesvara's method for entering the noumenon. Let me ask you again. You said that sounds and discriminations do not obtain at that place. But since they do not obtain, isn't the hearing-nature just empty space at such a time?

Student: Originally it is not empty. It is always bright and never obscured.

Chinul: What is this essence which is not empty?

Student: As it has no former shape, words cannot describe it

>>20811456
Chinul: This is the life force of all the Buddhas and patriarchs-have no further doubts about that. Since it has no former shape, how can it be large or small? Since it cannot be large or small, how can it have limitations? Since it has no limitations, it cannot have inside or outside. Since there is no inside or outside, there is no far or near. As there is no far or near, there is no here or there. As there is no here or there, there is no coming or going. As there is no coming or going, there is no birth or death. As there is no birth or death, there is no past or present. As there is no past or present, there is .no delusion or awakening. As there is no delusion or awakening, there is no ordinary man or saint. As there is no ordinary man or saint, there is no purity or impurity. Since there is no impurity or purity, there is no right or wrong. Since there is no right or wrong, names and words do not apply to it. Since none of these concepts apply, all sense-bases and sense-objects, all deluded thoughts, even forms and shapes and names and words are all inapplicable. Hence how can it be anything but originally void and calm and originally no-thing? Nevertheless, at that point where all dharmas are empty, the numinous awareness is not obscured. It is not the same as insentience, for its nature is spiritually deft. This is your pure mind-essence of void and calm, numinous awareness. This pure, void, and calm mind is that mind of outstanding purity and brilliance of all the Buddhas of the three time periods; it is that enlightened nature which is the original source of all sentient beings. One who awakens to it and safeguards that awakening will then abide in the unitary, "such" and unmoving liberation. One who is deluded and turns his back on it passes between the six destinies, wandering in saṃsāra for vast numbers of kalpas. As it is said, "One who is confused about the one mind and passes between the six destinies, goes and takes action. But one who awakens to the dharmadhatu and returns to the one mind, arrives and is still." Although there is this distinction between delusion and awakening, in their basic source they are one. As it is said, "The word 'dharma' means the mind of the sentient being." But as there is neither more of this void and calm mind in the saint, nor less of it in the ordinary man, it is also said, "In the wisdom of the saint it is no brighter; hidden in the mind of the ordinary man it is no darker." Since there is neither more of it in the saint nor less of it in the ordinary man, how are the Buddhas and patriarchs any different from other men? The only thing that makes them different is that they can protect their minds and thoughts-nothing more.
- The Collected works of Chinul by Buswell

>>20811109
Fascinating post.

>>20810143
Guenon is a crypto-buddhist like Shankara
Bhuddism is the only metaphysical system with a relation based ontology instead of the classical substance based ontologies of theological systems, that made Bhuddism ideal to engage with modern philosophical and metaphysical systems that are also have relation based ontologies, the only problem with buddhism is that it doesn't have a God, so Guenon used the advaita system that is just crypto buddhism with a pseudo god to appeal to the hindu paradigm, in order to appeal to the judeo christian/muslim paradigm of his era

>>20811109
>Guénon was a Freemason, that is all you need to know.

Literally a freemason who hates the west and thinks you should move to the third world to pray for oblivion.

>>20810163
Guenon means female monkey in French

>>20811439
>So it follows from this that the "pure land" is indeed this attachment or residual desire of the subtle body, viz. the kundalini yoga etc. done in the past lifetime?
Yes, albeit one that has practical value insofar as once there you have until the dissolution of this universe billions of years from now to work on moksha after which you'll start transmigrating again in the next universe if you fail to reach it during that time-span, and for someone who is too bound by desires and sensuality to become and remain fully awake or for someone who doesn't have the intellectual abilities to fully grasp the teaching this is the best option viz what actually has a good chance of success for them individually. For a lot of the masses it is

>>20811109
This, unironically.

>>20811509
I read his introduction to the Hindu doctrines book, and it was amazing how much time he spent shitting on the West and claiming that we had stolen everything from the East. His ideas boil down to moving to Egypt, smoking opium and race-mixing with Arabs

>>20811109
>destroying religious foundations of the West
this was thoroughly accomplished in the fourth century by Christians

>>20810837
that's just Buddhism for hereditary pajeet priests

>>20811109
>Hindus and Freemasons have a similar goal, which is destroying religious foundations of the West.
Absurd, the Hindus have always just wanted to be left alone which is why they dont send missionaries to other countries, it has been the west and Muslims who went over to India to bother and annoy Hindus and to try to convert them

>It is no surprise that proponents of Advaita Vedanta such as Ramakrishna and his disciple Vivekananda were both well-known for saying that all religions were true or path to the same thing.
That means duality is subsumed by non-duality, it’s not a call for the creation of a world religion, maybe Vivekananda’a ideas were like that but ironically it’s largely because of western ideas and influence that he thought that way in stark contrast to traditional Hinduism

>Did you know that Vivekananda was a Rockefeller-funded Freemason too? All New Age / Perennialist / Syncretist pseudo-spirituality is pushed by elite groups who want to bring about an alchemical transmutation of Western man into a fundamentally ‘New Man
They mean through computers or biological life extension which is a false imitation of the traditional Hindu doctrine and has nothing to do with it. It only takes about 10 minutes of engaging with traditional Advaita sources to see that they would condemn the NWO idea of immortality through science as metaphysically impossible and as an inversion of spirituality by trying to bind oneself forever to matter, but evidently the truth doesn’t matter when you’re lost in partisan nonsense and using dumb guilt by association tactics like yourself
>Guénon’s thought—esoterically speaking—leads to the destruction of its adherents and is ungirded by occultism and an anti-human / antichrist agenda
No, its about finding the immortal everlasting divinity within yourself and finding that you are free from death and complete already, and that everything is exactly as it should be.

>>20811730
The Hellenic/Roman mysteries are not the foundation of the west, many of them the Hellenic ones in particular were of Eastern origin, the Samothracian, Dionysian and Orphic-Pythagorean, etc. of course they were modified, the Mediterranean civilizations were overwhelmingly rationalistic/individualistic, of course they were inheritors of a Hyperborean/Primordial tradition, and had their priestly castes, Hierophants, etc. but these contemplatives have always been a minority, and by the time Christianity took hold, the Mysteries had degenerated, and only preserved by far smaller and closed off groups of initiates, e.g Dante was late in the line initiates into the Orphic-Pythagorean mysteries which had come to Magna Grecia/Sicily, Parmenides himself was an Orphic-Pythagorean initiate and the fragments, we see where he talks about the immutable Being, etc. is more or less like the Vedantic Metaphysics, So the Mysteries degenerated for the most part and were absorbed for the most part into Gnosticism - with the Donkey-Headed God, then there was the usurpation of the Pontifex by the pope, etc. Anyway, all the worthwhile streams of Late Greco-Roman Platonism/Aristotelianism were integrated into Christianity, and the middle ages had it good,

anyway the point is, Druids/Hierophants/Brahmins etc. have always been the minority, they were certainly not the "foundation" of the West, the foundation of the "West" is something far far newer.

>>20811795
I came across this orphic "fragment" recently pic. related which is good too

>>20811730
The Gospel fulfilled all previous European philosophical and spiritual traditions, bringing them to perfection. Europe lost nothing in destroying its idols, false gods, pederasty, transvestite priests and many other remnants of debased pagan spirituality.

>>20811763
> why they dont send missionaries to other countries
Who was the Freemason Vivekandanda but a missionary to the West? Who was Parahamsa Yogananda? Who was Srila Prabhupada, ordered to spread ‘Krishna Consciousness’ by his own guru to the West? There are countless other examples. Do not even attempt to claim these are not ‘real’ Hinduism, because these pagan ideas have infected the Western consciousness. Millions of Westerners now believe in ‘karma’, eat vegetarian, practice asanas and engage in things such as astrology. This is not even to touch on the whackier Hindu gurus who have attempted to spread their doctrines in the West, many quite successfully.

> No, its about finding the immortal everlasting divinity within yourself and finding that you are free from death and complete already, and that everything is exactly as it should be.
i.e. gnosticism — this is little different than the Darwinian transhumanist agenda that has been pushed by the Masons—the one model believes ‘you’re God and you just don’t know it (what sort of God is this?), while the other posits that one is God in embryo, as an acorn becomes an oak. As W.L. Wilmshurst says:

“This – the evolution of man into superman – was always the purpose of the ancient Mysteries, and the real purpose of modern Masonry is, not the social and charitable purposes to which so much attention is paid, but the expediting of the spiritual evolution of those who aspire to perfect their own nature and transform it into a more god-like quality.”

In an un-Guénonian fashion, you confuse the externals with the internals, exoteric with esoteric. The agenda is the same, the outer layer is different. It all comes down to “I AM GOD”. All of your rambling about ‘matter’ is literally no different than kabbalistic ideas of Tikkun Olam from Luranic Kabbalah, which believes the world is a cosmic abortion to be mended by the acts of man. Destroy God, to create God. Salve et Coagula — another Masonic alchemical term. Modern science is identical with occultism. If you had researched the fringe edges of mind-body research, you would realize that tons of bugmen are pushing for Advaita Vedanta. This agenda is the true ‘Sophia Perennis’ of the Craft

>>20811670
>claiming that we had stolen everything from the East.
>If an idea is true, it belongs equally to all who are capable of understanding it; if it is false, there is no credit in having invented it. A true idea cannot be ‘new’, for truth is not a product of the human mind; it exists independently of us, and all we have to do is to take cognizance of it; outside this knowledge there can be nothing but error
- guenon (pbuh)

Also it is worth understanding that for a truly primordial metaphysics like advaita, that it has been transmitted to this day in the language sanskrit, and in the subcontinent of india, attributes are in themselves incidental, especially when with pure metaphysics we concern ourselves with the ineffable, transcendent, infinite and formless,

Nothing has a monopoly on the Self or on Metaphysics.

>>20811851
Smoking opium and losing your sense of self from being in a drug-induced stupor is not ‘metaphystics’ or ‘le primordial tradition’

>>20811795
Who said anything about the elitist philosopher cults? The religion of the peoples and of their cities, of the backbone of Hellenstic culture, was genocided wholesale by the Christians, who picked among the bones for fashionable trinkets such as neoplatonist theology, the use value of which was tremendous for converting the educated—one is allowed to become a Christian without sounding menial and retarded.

>>20811851
pythagoras (pbuh) confirming Guenons attestation:

>Porphyry, Life of Pythagoras
[ . . . ] What has become best known of all is first that he said that the soul is immortal; then that it passes into other species of animals; and also that what is born is born again sometime after determinate periods of time; and that there is absolutely nothing new; and that it must be thought that things that are born ensouled belong to the
same race. For Pythagoras seems to have been the first to have introduced these doctrines into Greece.

>>20811835
>The Gospel fulfilled all previous European philosophical and spiritual traditions
I presume the arguments for this are even lazier and more contrived than the arguments for the New Testament "fulfilling" the Old Testament.

>>20811873
> The religion of the peoples and of their cities, of the backbone of Hellenstic culture, was genocided wholesale by the Christians
Deus vult, heathen.

>>20811885
you will never be a chosen people

>>20811835
>christcuck spammer posting anime girls
ywnbaw

>>20811879
It is a fact that Plato and many other early philosophers got their wisdom from Egypt, who in turn had gotten it from osmosis from Moses, who had received direct revelation and experience of the Living God, ‘I am who I am’. It would be the same being that Plato, Xenophanes and other philosophers would speak about in a veiled manner, attempting to grasp. Same with those such as Heraclitus or the Stoics who spoke of the Logos, which is spoken of centuries earlier in the Bible as God’s divine Word by which the heavens were established, or the divine Memra of the Targumic texts. Justin Martyr realized the same thing—all of those who partook of the Logos prior to Christ were in a sense ‘Christian’

>>20811873
>The religion of the peoples and of their cities, of the backbone of Hellenstic culture, was genocided wholesale by the Christians
Most of the people became Christians the common folk, non-initiate classes, were sheep, the culture was also in a period of decadence, as we said, pederasty and sensuality was in the open
>who picked among the bones for fashionable trinkets such as neoplatonist theology,
You can call it "picking among bones" but the church via St. Dionysius the Aereopagite, integrated Neoplatonism into Christian theology, they still have iconography, Marian veneration, etc.
it is what it is. Read the bishop synesius, or clement of alexandria, roman/greek initiates into the mysteries, voluntarily settled with christianity, however what is not talked about is that before the rise of christianity, jews pumped out propaganda in Greece/Rome to "hebraize" the inhabitants - a projection of their cultural exclusivity, to make "kosher gentiles" this is how Christianity proliferated earlier on, the Hellenised/Romanised jews converted and then the judaised Hellenes/Romans followed suit.

>>20811889
Christians are the seed of Abraham.

>>20811909
especially after the mass exodus of jews post-second temple destruction, Christianity was also mandated in the late roman/byzantine empire etc.

Rome fell, barbarians happily accepted arian Christianity etc. in italy

>>20810143
I am a Muslim who is sympathetic to Traditionalism but what OP describes is a major problem I have with Guénon. Why should I take Advaita seriously as pure metaphysics? Why do I need to spend time reading all these books of Guénon on Advaita when I already have a tradition, and in fact my tradition prohibits me from having extra-Islamic religious beliefs? If Guénon had taken Ibn Arabi or Mulla Sadra as his point of departure, it woule have been a different matter of course, and far more useful to me, and in fact to himself as someone who supposedly followed Islam.

>>20811895
I’d rather be a Bride of Christ than a tranny

>guenon is wrong when he says the esoterism of most religions points directly or indirectly to what Advaita teaches and this is bad because it shows he is being simplistic and making it up
>guenon is correct when he says the esoterism of most religions points directly or indirectly to what Advaita teaches and this is bad because it's all the same gnostic satantic heresy that goes against the truth of Christianity and that the NWO pushes and which has to be confronted wherever its found

>>20811904
>who in turn had gotten it from osmosis from Moses,
this is not true, who had received direct revelation and experience,
what does it tell you of the Semitic traditions if their main priestly castes had an oracular/prophetic function? anyway, Christianity capitalized on the "nazareanism" which became a sort of platonised chaldeanism, which were different from the mainline jews.

>>20811937
>this is your brain on opium

>>20811936
Gnosticism is the correct Christianity. Whatever you follow is the heresy that happened to win over the Gnostics by genociding them.

>>20811951
God’s providence ensured that the real Christians would crush antinomian incels and antinatalist cults

Since when did vedanta become a benchmark to judge other philosophies?

>>20811922
>Why do I need to spend time reading all these books of Guénon on Advaita when I already have a tradition, and in fact my tradition prohibits me from having extra-Islamic religious beliefs?
You don't have to, Guenon never said everyone in other religions should study it, but rather that people should just follow the traditional model of their own religion and that basically its up to each person fit their attitude to perennialism into how they feel it properly goes with their own respective religion; if someone is interested in studying it and feels like it wouldn't conflict with their religious vows and rulings then that's their business but he never insisted everyone had to view Advaita as more true then their own spiritual teachers teachings etc he just had a personal preference for using it as his base model of comparison

>>20811904
>Plato and many other early philosophers got their wisdom from Egypt, who in turn had gotten it from osmosis from Moses
you have this entirely backwards because you are committed to the slave revolt's volcano fairy tale. Moses is an Egyptian name, and himself a renegade Egyptian. Egyptian wisdom/philosophy/mystery religion does not come from Moses to Egypt, it comes from Egyptian civilization, and Moses expresses a version of it, which his little community of exiles corrupts, and their heirs corrupt it further, and then you get Christianity, a revolt in toto against the mediterranean civilizations and their pantheon (which is itself of a broader origin and reflected as far away as in Persia and India, not just in Egyptian influences on Hellenistic or early Greek religion). Christian theologians like Justin Martyr are the same poisoned source so naturally they want to appropriate antiquity as their rightful loot having overthrown its actual keepers. After all, why be led out of Egypt if you aren't allowed to bring its treasure? That is indeed the entire point, the revolt against Egypt, against Seleucus, against Rome, against Europe. Now, you may of course be fine with all this, but it is always worth pointing out to christlarpers that no amount of Greek fanfiction changes the fact that Yahweh is not their tribal war god and the only ruling "He" has made about them is that they ought to be cleared out like Canaanites or smote like Egyptians. You have no covenant with the volcano demon.

>>20811960
Yeah, because 'real Christians' ought to be killers just like Jesus was. Imitiate Christ!—kill everyone who disagrees with you.

>>20811909
>in the open
Ah surely it is more preferable in secret, in cloisters and monasteries and seminaries, where it is harder to avoid becoming victimized! Or caught as the victimizer!

>>20811983
>Since when did vedanta become a benchmark to judge other philosophies?
since Guenon was refuting hylics on day one!

>>20811909
well it sounds like you understand then that it is someone else's religion and covenant theology, and no such deal was made with the Greeks except through the pamphlets of Saul the soteriology salesman

>>20811912
I agree, hence the appropriateness of acknowledging the genealogy of its morals!

>>20811928
bottom surgery is nu-stigmata

>>20810837
>>20810933
>>20811484
>>20811737
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_influences_on_Advaita_Vedanta

The influence of Mahayana on Advaita Vedanta, states Deutsch, goes back at least to Gauḍapāda, where he "clearly draws from Buddhist philosophical sources for many of his arguments and distinctions and even for the forms and imagery in which these arguments are cast".[11]


The Upanishadic inquiry fails to find an empirical correlate of the assumed Atman, but nevertheless assumes its existence,[56] and Advaitins "reify consciousness as an eternal self."[57] In contrast, the Buddhist inquiry "is satisfied with the empirical investigation which shows that no such Atman exists because there is no evidence" states Jayatilleke.[56]


Shankara and his followers borrowed much of their dialectic form of criticism from the Buddhists. His Brahman was very much like the sunya of Nagarjuna [...] The debts of Shankara to the self-luminosity[note 6] of the Vijnanavada Buddhism can hardly be overestimated. There seems to be much truth in the accusations against Shankara by Vijnana Bhiksu and others that he was a hidden Buddhist himself. I am led to think that Shankara's philosophy is largely a compound of Vijnanavada and Sunyavada Buddhism with the Upanisad notion of the permanence of self superadded.[46]

>>20811922
>when I already have a tradition, and in fact my tradition prohibits me from having extra-Islamic religious beliefs?
Guenon is not for you then, he describes a gnosis which goes beyond religious forms, the attachment to the religious form is viewed unanimously as an initial support, as you come to Self-knowledge or God realization.

>>20811984
>he just had a personal preference for using it as his base model of comparison
I will read them at some point for the sake of comparative studies, but my question again is why his preference had to be Advaita, as opposed to many other Indian or non-Indian expositions of metaphysics. Why not Ibn Arabi? Why not Kashmir Shaivism?
>>20812154
This is all well and good, but doesn't address my issue. Why did he have to describe it via Advaita?

>>20812170
because for him advaita was like the 'purest' way, very close to the 'primoridial tradition', and also because all legit traditions in it's original and nondegenerated states culminate in the non-duality of advaita, thats wny it's beyond religions and any type of 'form'

but anyway just get into buddhism >>20812148

>>20812170
>Why did he have to describe it via Advaita?
Precisely because Advaita is the true "Primordial Metaphysics" with no equivalent in Sufism Advaita is indeed the Metaphysics of the Primordial Tradition, or Shaivism and Tantra, it is the highest contemplative tradition, which represents the Greater Mysteries, whereas, the krama methods invested in actions, levels and stages of realization are respectively non-Supreme.

>>20812243
*with no equivalent in Sufism, Tantra, Shaivism, etc.
It is the highest and most purely intellectual tradition conceivably existent

>>20812222
Checked.
>because for him advaita was like the 'purest' way, very close to the 'primoridial tradition',
Again, why? How could he have known? What is the proof of this?
>but anyway just get into buddhism >>20812148 #
Keked
>>20812243
If by writing this you wanted to make a case against Guénon, you did a great job.
>pick some random pajeet tradition
>praise it to the highest heavens like your life depended on it

>>20812222
>and also because all legit traditions in it's original and nondegenerated states culminate in the non-duality of advaita
I don't think they do today, except in individual cases, there is no "regularity" to getting to advaita from sufism, etc. unless the sheykh introduces the disciple to advaita, or say in hesychasm etc. unless the disciple is introduced all the same, following the typical guenonian path you have to essentially opt for a "pseudosufic" crypto-advaita islam, otherwise you're just continuing with the gradualist/action-invested schools inferior to advaita, schuon etc. reinterpreted alot of sufism trying to say that some sayings in arabic are the equivalent of mahavakyas, etc. trying to make it conform to advaita, but this is the post-guenon interpretation.

>>20812281
>If by writing this you wanted to make a case against Guénon, you did a great job.
I have arrived at this conclusion independently, I am just being objective. Advaita is the metaphysics of the primordial tradition, its not something mutable, its eternal, it has nothing to do with some special symbolism etc. there is no higher truth than advaita, it is a tradition without a human origin.

>>20812312
You are unironically making me sympathize with the "crypto-Buddhist annihilationism" anon.

>>20810797
>Then he allowed himself to confirm all biases by skim reading and then insulting anyone who disagrees with him as a confused modernist, despite never engaging with the argument in good faith
Kind like what youre doing except you know much much less than him.

>>20811904
>>20811985
Yeah the funny thing is that if one wants to play this game then Egyptian and Mesopotamian religion are both thousands of years older than Judaism and clearly influenced the latter. Jews even adopted the Babylonian calendar with months named after Babylonian gods. If anything it’s far more likely that Moses or whoever got the idea of monotheism from Akhenaten’s reforms of Egyptian religion.

>>20810143
>when Islam and Christianity
Why are you using exotericism to try to argue esoteric truths? Almost everyone who goes after Guenon have almost no idea what they're talking about. What kind of fool approaches metaphysics without an understanding of the most basic principles?

>>20812403
>Moses or whoever got the idea of monotheism from Akhenaten’s reforms of Egyptian religion.
absolutely, non-dualistically a true and veritable fact

>>20812412
>What kind of fool approaches metaphysics
only fools approach metaphysics

>>20812356
Annihilationism is true but it is a bit more nuanced. There is no preservation of individuality, no memory, no intellect, no sensation, no doer or ego, everything is superimposition upon the non-dual Brahman

>>20811109
110 IQ post, aka midwit post.

>>20812423
Memorizing theories and then "debating" as if it were some college course is definitely not the way to go about it.

>>20812412
No I mean even esoterically

see
>>20806255
>>20806263
>>20807686
>>20806266
Guenon was wrong about Ibn Arabi, even esoteric sufi metaphysics are different.

>>20812445
>>20807587

>>20812403
Moses stole esoteric knowledge from the Egyptians for the jews. One of the most accomplished esotericists in the world says that in his book. He also claims that Guenon is useful for theoretical knowledge but when it comes to realization he is useless, and his fanatics are even worse. No I will not post the book here, so the profane shitskins and trannies can start shitposting about him too like they've done with Guenon.

>>20812445
I trust his authority more than yours.

>>20812459
>>>20807686

>>20812434
Are you the same poster dichotomizing into esoteric and exoteric as a form of pseudo-intellectual faux-elitism? What is putrid is putrid for a reason, and unless one understands putrefaction as putrefaction how can he leap to understanding putrefaction as not putrefaction? If the exoteric is so foul you must explain it away in order to feel better about it, you have not understood anything basic yourself. What does "esoteric" mean in Islam? It means something is Persian or Indian trying to express itself without being beheaded. Just so, in Christianity it is something Greek trying to avoid its own decapitation. These religions are bad fertilizer. They are not even putrid enough to give life! Better to be told at the front door that you must know thyself, or that there is nothing [else] to be known. Not every system suffers from the ailments of the covenant theologian's.

>>20812463
I made this post>>20812452
Probably not the first time you're wrong either. Why are you are so attached to this?

>>20812475
Exoteric = outer truth (for the profane masses)
Esoteric = inner truth (for the spiritual elite)

Islam and Christianity are both essentially plebian semitic cults. Abrahamism is part of a semitic virus that is leveling the world.

Esotericism is first and foremost experential.

I just got a feeling this is the best book ever written, so, let me know if you guys can vibe with that.

>>20812539
Why yes! it's the Primordial Tradition itself. This is no mere book—it's the Eternal, Immutable, Pure Metaphysics, the Greatest Mysteries, handed down to us not by humans, but by the Absolute Himself! Now let me judge all the religions in the world by comparing them with it.

>>20810999
yes westerners will embrace nondualism and become chad

>>20812298
>I don't think they do today, except in individual cases, there is no "regularity" to getting to advaita from sufism, etc.
I don't think they ever did! that's what Guénon thought, not me
>>20812312
>I have arrived at this conclusion independently, I am just being objective. Advaita is the metaphysics of the primordial tradition, its not something mutable, its eternal, it has nothing to do with some special symbolism etc. there is no higher truth than advaita, it is a tradition without a human origin.
kek 'non-human' origin, it seems that with all those talks about Being, Non-Being, Absolute zero, Guénon was still an occultists and couldn't escape the 'mystery' trap
>>20812426
>Annihilationism is true but it is a bit more nuanced. There is no preservation of individuality, no memory, no intellect, no sensation, no doer or ego, everything is superimposition upon the non-dual Brahman
this 'Self', 'nondual Brahman' is a superimposition; buddhism for brahmins,

liberation is to be free from all forms of self-identification

>>20812222
The funny thing about advaita being the closest philosophy to the primordial tradition is
the Upanishads are the youngest, final addition to the Vedas, compiled about a thousand years after the Rigveda
Vedanta is the youngest, latest school of Indian philosophy, again developing about a thousand years after the Upanishads were written
and the Advaita Vedanta of Shankara was a later development within Vedanta, and a minority school surpassed in popularity by Bhedabheda for centuries until the second millennium.

So it just seems weird to me for Guenon to pick this one, historically marginal and unknown tradition, that took millennia to gestate, as the purest representation of primordial philosophy.

>>20812600
he's just a dissenting theosophist, and the idea that he is something more than that comes from those less read

>>20812600
(I'm the Muslim anon above.) Thanks for posting this. This shows the great need for a justification of Guénon's choosing advaita. One cannot just pick a random Indian tradition and say "this is it!", and leave it at that.

>>20812585
>this 'Self', 'nondual Brahman' is a superimposition; buddhism for brahmins,
as just names and conceptual elaborations, flatus voci,
>>20812600
what indicates obviously to me that Advaita Vedanta has a "primordial origin" is that it is clearly, something which goes beyond itself, that is, it is something only incidentally related to Shankara, or to Sanskrit, in this way it epitomizes what is "non-human," it is divested of all concepts, philosophies, it seems to be totally "pure" the conclusion seems only natural for a primordial human, of course there is the dialectical aspects, these things are as well only I think adventitiously related to its historical expression.

>>20812689
Advaita is simply a more refined and subtle Hindu (using the Upanisads as a foundation) expression of the doctrine/philosophy of Being; no different from Parmenides or Sabzavari.

The problem is that this kind of doctrine is bound to be limited by language, that's why they are all apophatic; when you get to the ultimate level following this method you're lost and become subject to either mysticism (if you came from a traditional/religious background) or mere metaphysical speculation; from that comes lower expressions (qualified non-dualism, dualisms, etc) and a manifold of symbols to express the 'inexpressible'. But the thing is that you could avoid all that by letting go from the beginning of such abstractions as substances and qualities, essences and even Being itself.

That's what the buddhists did, by following a purely analytical and empirical method they bypassed such obstacles; you can't find any metaphysical Being or Self, that's an abstraction; everything is impermanent, so you have to rely on 'Sacred Scriptures' like the Vedas or 'Divine Inspirations' or Dreams like Parmenides.

>>20812689
yes, it's obvious that primordial humans followed a pure, highly abstract metaphysics and not like, "the southern wind is evil but the northern wind is good," right... this is your brain on Theosophy nonsense! Hyperborean supermen are not real, they are not our primordial ancestors! Primordial humans worshipped trees and shit, mate.

>>20810837
Step 1 should be learning Sanskrit or another modern Indo-Aryan language that you can consistently find translations in. A world of difference between the original and an English translation, even if done by a scholar and master.

>>20812492
Checked

>>20812852
Perennialism/primordialism/traditionalism only makes any sense whatsoever in the worldview that people in the first half of the 19th century and earlier believed where the world was created around 4000BC and the gods taught the first humans ancient wisdom which became lost as they scattered around the world. Literally orientalists like Sir William Jones went to India to study Sanskrit in order to figure out how the language related to the Tower of Babel and how Indians were descended from Noah and the Flood. To think any of that is relevant now is laughable.

>>20811425
>>20811433
This is some interesting lower-level “occult knowledge”, if you want it: the three bodies a human being is comprised to be made up of according to some Hindu classifications, are the sthula sarira, the sukshma sarira, and the karana sarira, or the gross body, subtle body, and the causal body. They correspond to waking, dreaming sleep, and deep dreamless sleep, respectively. When awake you are as if in your gross body, when in dreaming sleep as if in the subtle body, and when in deep dreamless sleep in the causal body, at least according to some Hindu yogis, rishis, and sages and the Upanishads.

When the sthula sarira or gross body drops away and dies, this is the death of the physical body or “the first death,” leaving the subtle and causal bodies behind. Hence, the immediate death state after the “first death” would correspond to dreaming sleep, as you are now apparently present through your subtle body, the sukshma sarira, and this is also similar to the Tibetan teachings on the bardos as well as practices of dream yoga and teachings of an “illusory body”. You are hence in the “subtle realm,” the afterlife state and also strangely the state corresponding to dreaming while we are still alive. Then, there is held to be a “second death” in which even the subtle body or sukshma sarira disintegrates and dies, which then puts one in the “causal realm” with one’s causal body as the vehicle one is then apparently manifesting through, and which apparently corresponds to the state of deep dreamless sleep while we are still alive.

The belief seems to be that it is the “causal body” which then chooses new subtle and physical vehicles to reincarnate through, until/unless one has awoken in the state of turiya (lit. “the fourth”, beyond waking, dreaming, and deep dreamless sleep) samadhi and transcended the desire for the repetition of life on Earth.

>>20812962
its awesome how humans love mysticism and symbolism, all of that just to describe the dissolution of the aggregates of clinging

>>20812962
>Hence, the immediate death state after the “first death” would correspond to dreaming sleep, as you are now apparently present through your subtle body, the sukshma sarira, and this is also similar to the Tibetan teachings on the bardos as well as practices of dream yoga and teachings of an “illusory body”. You are hence in the “subtle realm,” the afterlife state and also strangely the state corresponding to dreaming while we are still alive. Then, there is held to be a “second death” in which even the subtle body or sukshma sarira disintegrates and dies, which then puts one in the “causal realm” with one’s causal body as the vehicle one is then apparently manifesting through, and which apparently corresponds to the state of deep dreamless sleep while we are still alive.
This I guess is the natural conclusion, considering the causal body is considered the transmigrant, and the three bodies correspond to the three states, from grosser to more subtle there would be a sort of reabsorbtion, I guess with the causal body you'd be left in a "state" akin to dreamless sleep, and this can all be correlated to the 5 bodies, and the various organs and elements, to get a general sense of it, however are these states themselves not considered relative to the gross indivdual state, so even then it cannot be said that the "entering of the dream state" whilst disembodied would "be" the same experience as the embodied dream, or am I mistaken? I guess there probably will be some slight different between the disembodied vs. embodied experience of the three states, as everything in manifestation takes as its reference point the "gross modality," the three states though are considered "Unreal" all together though, so whatever experience or appearences arise, perhaps it'd be best to just ignore them.
>low-level occult knowledge
What would you consider high-level occult knowledge?

>>20813054
>, however are these states themselves not considered relative to the gross indivdual state, so even then it cannot be said that the "entering of the dream state" whilst disembodied would "be" the same experience as the embodied dream, or am I mistaken? I guess there probably will be some slight different between the disembodied vs. embodied experience of the three states, as everything in manifestation takes as its reference point the "gross modality," the three states though are considered "Unreal" all together though, so whatever experience or appearences arise, perhaps it'd be best to just ignore them.
I believe the contention would be that while we are primarily resident in the gross body, the subtle and causal bodies are more “veiled,” tautologically enough “dreamier” to us, because of our obsession with and habituation to sensate awareness.

In a very simple sense, this could be said to be why we often don’t remember or give much consideration to our dreams and certainly don’t have a good memory of the state of deep dreamless sleep except as a comfortable refreshing void. So with the complete falling way of the restriction of the physical sensate body upon death, the corresponding afterlife states would be far more intensely experienced upon death. An analogy may be to an organism accustomed to living underwater, then sometimes getting close to surface, getting some vague sense of the reflection of the sky, land, maybe even passing boats or swimming people. This might be the analogue to how dreaming sleep and deep dreamless sleep reflect those states or realms. But actually being taken fully out of the water and then habituated to the land — suddenly transformed into an amphibious organism — would be analogous to actually dying and then more permanently and solidly inhabiting and experiencing those realms.

>>20813054
>What would you consider high-level occult knowledge?
Complete Brahmajnana (God-realization) or Atmajnana (Self-realization or knowledge of the Self).

>>20812962
>>20813054
>>20813108
>>20813146
all of this can be directly verified by practice and attainment of the jhanas

>>20813471
>verified by the jhanas
Where would you begin with the jhanas?

Its all in the upanishads, brahma-sutras etc. too, that is explicitly the reabsorption of the various faculties etc. into the jivatman,

E.g
>When a man is about to die, speech, followed by the remainder of the ten external faculties [the five faculties of action and the five faculties of sensation, manifested outwardly by means of the corresponding organs, but not identical with those organs themselves since they separate from them at this stage] is reabsorbed into the inward sense [manas], the activity of the external organs coming to an end before that of this inward faculty [which is thus the final term of all the other individual faculties in question, just as it is their starting-point and common source]. This latter faculty thereupon withdraws in the same way into the ‘vital breath’ [prāna], accompanied in its turn by all the vital functions [the five vāyus, which are modalities of prāna and thus return into an undifferentiated state], these functions being inseparable from life itself; furthermore this same retreat of the inward sense is also to be observed in deep sleep and in ecstatic trance [accompanied by complete cessation of every external manifestation of consciousness].
— Chhāndogya Upanishad VI.8.6.

>>20812620
this

>>20813627
you could read some general article or theravada book, just type 'jhanas' on amazon.. or something more scholarly like Early Buddhist Meditation by Keren Arbel

One question anons: why did Guenon NEVER speak about anime girls wearing tights? I believe this is the question that must be answered before reaching true Initiation

Why does Guenon make inbred muslim halfwits, pajeet turds and christcuck jew simps seethe so hard? Just stick to exotericism if he upsets your beliefs.

Which one of you autists wrote this up the other day?
Tell me moar please

>One of the central philosophers in Shaktism was man named Bhaskararaya; in particular he is considered the main authority of the Sri Vidya school of Shakti-Tantrism from what I understand. In his works he heaps praise upon Adi Shankara and his disciples like Suresvara etc and Bhaskararaya includes Shankara in his guru parampara (chain of teachers) and basically says that Sri Vidya is a part of Shankara's tradition. From what I have read about Bhaskararaya (I have not read his works yet and only a few are translated) is his metaphysics is inspired or very influenced by the late-medieval Advaita philosopher Appaya Dikshita; the only major difference that Im aware of in their metaphysics is that Sri Vidya regards the world as a real creation/emanation unlike Advaita; although I have seen people write that Bhaskararaya downplays whatever differences his metaphysics has with Advaita when they come up in his works. So Sri Vidya isn't a 1:1 copy of Advaita although it gets pretty close (and westerners can be and have been initiated into it; I think the best place to do so is Devipuram in Andhra Pradesh). They are not supposed to remain celibate or aloof from the world from what I understand but like other tantra it's about integrating layers of complex rituals and meditations etc into your normal household life so that you focus on and remember divine unity while going about your normal activities.

>Other Hindu tantra schools like the various Shaiva ones seem more opposed to Advaita even when a lot of Advaita concepts find their way into those Shaiva systems in one form or another. But even when they differ philosophically one could still argue that they point to the same end goal of attainment of union with the highest Supreme that is formless, invisible, unconditioned, beyond the akasha etc. The marathi poet-saint Dyaneshwar combines the teachings of the Nath sect of Shaivism/tantrism and Advaita in his works which are fascinating and wonderful reads

>Some Buddhist tantric/vajrayana schools also agree with Advaita on various points but that's a whole other complex discussion

>>20814028
Particularly about accessible initiatory paths
What would even be the most pragmatic way of approaching it?

>>20813973
I am the Muslim who posted earlier in the thread. In fact Guénon is one of the figures in the 20th century that I am more favorable towards, and I am all for esotericism. I only ask how it could be justified that Advaita is pure metaphysics and the closest to the Primordial Tradition rather than other Indian or Islamic metaphysical expositions. Sorry to offend your guru by the way.

>>20814028
>Dikshita
you guys are just making this up as you go along
t. sri peepoovijaya

So now that we know Advaita Vedanta cannot be refuted, where do I start with Guénon?

>>20812852
It is if you actually bothered to read anything, like the Rigveda for instance, instead of just parroting common myths about the origin of humanity, which are far less supported than the views you seem to think are ridiculous.

>>20810143
All transcendental religion is based on non-dual meditation. This exists in both Christianity and Islam. Many people have come to this conclusion without the influence of Guénon.

>>20814988
Miscellanea
Start with his essay on Mormonism and work backwards

>>20814988
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HA15y2oQ0E

>>20814467
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appayya_Dikshita

>>20814037
You can be initiated in Sri Vidya in Devipuram in Andhra Pradesh and they also have a temple in upstate NY that I believe will initiate people too although the one in India may or may not be more authentic; both have contact info if you want to reach out and enquire before traveling to them. You can also be initiated into Tibetan Buddhism as another kind of tantra by just joining a local group and proceeding with the lessons and signing up for receiving things like empowerments etc; you could even do both if you wanted to and thereby be initiated into multiple traditions like Guenon was

>>20811909
>jews pumped out propaganda in Greece/Rome to "hebraize" the inhabitants - a projection of their cultural exclusivity, to make "kosher gentiles" this is how Christianity proliferated earlier on, the Hellenised/Romanised jews converted and then the judaised Hellenes/Romans followed suit.
how on earth does this work

what "propaganda" would they pump out. What about all the un-ending anti-jew polemics from early christians as well

>>20814037
>>20815139
I second Tibetan Buddhism. Or go to an Orthodox Christian monastery where you can learn the Hesychasm. Both seem pretty accessible in North America. Or maybe just where I live.

>>20815176
>In the prophetic literature, in the Psalms and in the Book of the prophet Daniel, there is often mention of a figure who would come in the near future to defeat all the “nations” and subjugate them to the dominion of the “chosen people”. This mysterious person is credited with the title of “Messiah”, the Lord’s anointed one7. His coming would coincide with the end of the current historical cycle and would begin the long lasting Kingdom of God on earth. One must also refer to rabbinical interpretations to fully understand the function of this mysterious figure. First of all, the coming of the Messiah would have been announced by a prophet, presumably Elias, miraculously returned to the earth [8]. The title of Messiah, as we have already discussed, is attributed in the Tōrāh to a King of Israel or Judah who had been anointed with a priestly ritual. Therefore, this future Messiah was predominantly described as a warrior King, descending from the blood of King David and hence belonging to the tribe of Judah. However, in the period between the 2nd century BC and the 2nd century AD, the Jewish royal function was usurped by the priests. Therefore, many prophecies of that period alluded to the coming of a priestly Messiah, descending from the tribe of Levi. In some cases, the Hebraic literature of that period mentions two Messiahs, one priestly and one royal, who were supposed to sanction the victory of Judaism throughout the world. Naturally, the priestly Messiah would have played a sacred role superior to the purely military role of the other Messiah. Some writings even make the warrior and priestly Messiah one person. In addition to these uncertain and sometimes contradictory ideas, there is also the case of a possible Messiah who would come to be killed. After his death he would have migrated to heaven to found a Kingdom of Heaven [9]. All texts, however, agree in affirming that the Messiah would become aware of his mission only at the moment of his anointment. Therefore, during the first part of his life, his true identity would remain somewhat hidden to everyone.

>>20815543
cont.
The centuries when these controversial prophetic texts were written saw a fervent expectation of the Messiah by the Jews. It seemed that the end of the world was near and that the Roman domination was the sign of the greatest abomination to which the world had been subjected. Figures prophesying the coming of the Messiah emerged everywhere. Some even proclaimed themselves Messiah, and the frenzy of the Jews led to an increasingly unstable political situation with real acts of rebellion, guerrilla warfare and terrorism against the foreign occupants, as well as, the Jewish ruling classes who collaborated with the imperial authorities. At the same time, in the different cities of the Roman Empire where Jewish communities had migrated, began a very aggressive missionary action. Considering the Jewish exclusivist mentality, this missionarism did not aim to convert the “polytheists” to Judaism, but rather to make them semi-converts (Hebr. ger-toshab) ready to accept their inferiority and submission to the “chosen people” [10]. They also undertook an activity of manipulation of the texts of Greek and Roman literature interpolating sentences, paragraphs or chapters of Jewish propaganda. All this provoked a vast anti-Semitic reaction throughout the Empire: the accusations against the Jews of being worshipers of the infernal donkey-God multiplied [11]. Such hostile reaction increasingly convinced the Jews of the imminent end of time and the proximity of the arrival of the Messiah.

etc. etc.

References:
7. See www.vedavyasamandala.com, Western Tradition, From Cosmos to Chaos, Ch. 21. The Semitic Religions.

8. According to the biblical account, Elias did not die, but ascended into heaven on a chariot of fire. He should, therefore, return to earth at the end of time to announce the coming of the Messiah and only then, eventually, die.

9. Geza Vermes, Jesus el Judio, Barcelona, Muchnik Ed., 1977 (1st ed. Jesus the Jew, London, W. Collins Sons, 1973), pp. 140-154.

10. Hugh J. Schonfield, Those Incredible Christians, London, Element Books Ltd., 1968, Ch. 3.

11. In 160 BC, Antiochus Epiphanes, King of Syria, conquered Jerusalem and entered the sanctum of the Temple, where he found an idol in the shape of a donkey (Tacitus, Histories, V. 6). In 63 BC the Roman general Pompey the Great conquered all of western Asia; he too entered the sanctum of the Temple of Jerusalem where he found a donkey-headed idol (Publius Annius Florus, Epitome de Tito Livio, III, 5.).

this is all just copied and pasted from:
https://vedavyasamandala.com/en/22-the-origins-of-christianity
I think it is trustworthy source, you can confirm the details by following up the references

>>20815549
>a donkey-headed idol
any idea who this is supposed to be?

>>20815560
>We have already described this terrible deity that the Egyptians called “Set”, the Greeks “Typhon” and the Maya of Mexico “Hurekan” (hurricane). It is the scariest form of the donkey-headed Atlantean demon. See chapter 8 in this Website. “Atlantis Other sources (II)”.

>However, all the countries invaded by the Sea Peoples underwent to their influence. Even Egypt was later governed by two Libyan dynasties belonging to Sea Peoples (10th-8th century BC). There is no doubt that the Sea Peoples were the descendants of the Atlantean colonies, who were continuing their evil conquest plan of whole the world. The Egyptians called themselves Rutennu, the red people, and red men is the meaning of the Phoenician name, the ancient inhabitants of today’s Lebanon, one of the “Sea Peoples”. The Atlantean tradition was precisely the civilization of the red race, the color of the sun when it is setting and empurpling the Western sky; and color of the victim’s blood that the Atlanteans drank in their rites [9]. Even the worship of the red donkey, which we are discussing later, shows this disturbing presence in the Egyptian tradition. This demonstrates to what extent the Egyptians were influenced by Atlantean civilization.
>Indeed, in the oldest period, Egypt was divided into two Kingdoms. The southern Kingdom, or upper Egypt, was devoted to the worship of Seth, the donkey headed anti-God (asura), while the northern Kingdom, or lower Egypt, had as the main deity Horus, the hawk headed God. The Pharaoh Meni [10] unified the two Kingdoms and gave them a common legislation around 3500 AD. However in Egyptian Tradition two streams continued to live: the first of Atlantidean origin, corresponding to witchcraft worship of Seth, and the second one, the Horus sacred Dharma of Hyperborean origin. According to Egyptian mythology, the latter had arrived on the coasts of Africa from an Eastern country beyond the sea. It is fair to think that it was India. There are many clues proving this origin, as the form in which the Horus priests appeared: they had a śikhā on their shaved head, and wore a white dhoti under a leopard skin, as the śaiva ascetics. Instead, Seth’s evil cult transmitted a witchcraft sādhana to all other western civilizations [11]. That is the root of the any evil afflicting still today the West and which is propagating throughout the whole planet.
>The red donkey headed Seth was the asura of the burning storms of the African desert. The Greeks called him Typhoon, (Gr .: Τυφωέυς read Typhéus), the burning one [12].When Egyptian tradition extinguished, its wisdom continued in the other Mediterranean Religions under the shape of Hermeticism or Alchemy [13]. And in its bosom hiddenly propagated the Sethian seed.

>>20815602
sources:
9. Everywhere in the world red is the color of the Kings as well as in India it is the color of kṣatriyas
10. As often it happens, the founder of a new civilization assumes a name that reminds Manu, the first man.
11. According to a legend, Seth had two children, Hierosolymus and Judeus. The mount of the biblical prophets as well as of Jesus Christ was the donkey. According to the Sīra of Ibn Ishaq, the Burāq who brought Muhammad to the heavens was an animal “between the mule and the donkey”. This connects the donkey to some dark aspects of Jewish, Christian and Islamic religions. In India also the disquieting Goddess Śītala rides a donkey.
12. Native Mexicans of Antlantiedan origin, called the same anti-God Hurricane (Taino: Hurakàn).
13. Kemì, “Black Earth”, ancient name of Egypt; later al-kīmiyā in Arabic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexamenos_graffito
"That was based on the "misconception" that Jews worshipped a god in the form of a donkey, a claim made by Apion (30-20 BC – c. AD 45-48) and denied by Josephus in his aptly-titled work Against Apion."

>"The main examples of counter-initiation to which Guénon pointed included the cult of the Egyptian god Set, whose remnants have survived since the most ancient times along with multiple snake cults in the Middle East. In Guénon’s perspective, the mysterious brotherhood of the Red Donkey (or Red Dragon) exists to this day and is secretly directing the main processes of civilization in an infernal vein. If we digress from the “detective” flavor of this conceptualization, another consideration presents itself: How could an esoteric group of people engaged in the sacred – albeit in such an infernal, serpentine, and possibly fragmentary dimension – have provoked the modern world’s complete ignorance of the sacred, and contributed to the widespread assertion of the primacy of quantity and the radically anti-initiatic approach characteristic of the modern way of life?"

>In the meanwhile, let us remark that an adequate view of counter-initiation, a clarification of its nature, essence, and “localization”, will lead us to the most horrifying secrets which, while hidden behind the dubious myth of the modern world, are ready to find their nightmarish, chilling incarnation in front of a hopelessly slumbering humanity drowsily wandering towards slaughter. Contrary to the naive stories of the “Order of the Red Donkey” and exotic and relatively harmless “Luciferians”, the true mission of counter-initiation is dizzyingly large-scale, effective, and ubiquitous. It is preparing a terrible fate for all peoples and civilizations. But in order to recognize this approaching catastrophe, it is necessary to look at things soberly and intently beyond the romantic haze of residual occultism and the “detective plot” of cheap horror novels.

etc. etc.

>>20815611
is the final sethian plot the extinction of the masses via mRNA-vaccine induced infertiliy and early death and the disabling of future generations by spike-producing proteins being incorporated in the DNA of vaccine-takers and passed down to that persons children? stick around and find out!

>>20815611
>Everywhere in the world red is the color of the Kings
in Europe violet is the color of the kings

>>20812148
brahma in advaita is just a new name for the dhammakaya, the self revelaing light that let existence be

Within the radiance of the nature of phenomena, primordially unceasing, diverse appearances arise like reflections within a mirror.
Although myriad conditioned phenomena appear like reflections, all these appearances seem to cease; yet at the moment they cease, their unceasing, fundamental nature is like a mirror. The mind realizing this is wisdom that is mirrorlike.
Within phenomena primordially nonabiding like the sky - even though all myriad appearances seem to abide - at the moment of appearing to abide, ultimately they are nonabiding. This is evenness, and the mind realizing this is the wisdom of the nature of evenness.
The nature of the mind is naturally pure, nonconceptual, or without characteristic, like the center of a calm ocean or the pristine sky.
Within this, although all cloudlike or illusory concepts appear in myriad ways as conceptual - such as those to be accepted or rejected - at the moment these diverse conceptualizations occur, they are baseless from the root.
The fact that conceptual fixation and characteristics are by nature nonexistent is discerning awareness. The mind realizing this is the wisdom of discerning awareness.
Phenomena, like magic, are originally free from coming and going. Within that, various appearances and insight come and go and seem to appear.
At the moment of appearing to come and go, the fact that self-nature remains with nothing to come or go is all-accomplishing activity. The mind realizing this is all-accomplishing activity wisdom.

>>20816427

A few Buddhist scholars made the opposite criticism in the medieval era toward their Buddhist opponents. In the sixth century AD, for example, the Mahayana Buddhist scholar Bhaviveka redefined Vedantic concepts to show how they fit into Madhyamaka concepts,[83][better source needed] and "equate[d] the Buddha's Dharma body with Brahman, the ultimate reality of the Upanishads."[84] In his Madhyamakahṛdayakārikaḥ, Bhaviveka stages a Hinayana (Theravada) interlocutor, who accuses Mahayana Buddhists of being "crypto-Vedantins".[85][86][note 8] Medieval era Tibetan Gelugpa scholars accused the Jonang school of being "crypto-Vedantist."[87][88][note 9] Contemporary scholar David Kalupahana called the seventh century Buddhist scholar Chandrakirti a "crypto-Vedantist", a view rejected by scholars of Madhayamika Buddhism.[89]


many buddhists seem to have distanced themselves from the teachings of the Nikayas

there's simply no 'Metaphysical reality' or 'Absolute' in early buddhism, no Noumenon behind phenomena, the higher states attained by the jhanas are not Nibbana, not even nirodha-samapati is regarded as Nibbana, its actually a higher level of happiness (but not Nibbana).

Nibbana is the cessation of suffering and karma, absense of conceptual proliferation, absense of the notion of 'self' and all self-identification.

"What we need to remember is that an arahant is one who has extirpated passion, aversion, and delusion. This is precisely what qualifies him to be called an arahant. However, the arahant can experience many levels of happiness while being completely free from passion, aversion, and delusion. For instance, when he is in different levels of jhāna, he experiences different levels of happiness, and when he is in the attainment of cessation, he experiences the highest level of happines"

but yeah, the mahayana influence on advaita vedanta is quite obvious

>>20816828
>but yeah, the mahayana influence on advaita vedanta is quite obvious
not really; the early Upanishads talk about the Atman being a self-revealing light/awareness and talk about non-dualism literally like 700-800 years before the Buddhist writings start talking about that stuff

>>20816846
the upanishads is full of contradictions, in each quopte were non-dualims is mentioned you can find ten quotes preaching a dualist reality
the point here is that shankara created a vedantic system that translate the buddhist doctrine to a hindu paradigm, is brahma god is just the dharmakaya and his notion of atman is just the bodhichitta

Did Guénon (ﷺ) know about Sikh?

>>20816891
he didn't seem to like syncretism

>>20816873
>the upanishads is full of contradictions
No they are not do you have any examples or are you just making random shit up?

>in each quopte were non-dualims is mentioned you can find ten quotes preaching a dualist reality
Thats simply not true do you have any examples or is this more made up bs?

>the point here is that shankara created a vedantic system that translate the buddhist doctrine to a hindu paradigm, is brahma god is just the dharmakaya and his notion of atman is just the bodhichitta
Thats just simply not true and it actually shows how heavily the Upanishads and Hindu Tantra influenced Buddhism where it adopted these Hindu ideas until it no longer resembles the Pali Canon anymore. Shankara just explained what is already taught openly in the Upanishads and what their system is. The pre-Buddhist Upanishads like Brihadarnayaka and Chandgoya from centuries before Buddha already say all the things about the Atman/consciousness that Shankara says like its a self-revealing light shining in the heart that is pure and unconditioned and our foundational awareness and it underlies all mental acts etc and they say it is Brahman and underlies everything even the element sand the ether etc

>>20816891
He and Schuon considered it as a quasi-continuation of existing initiatic lineages in Hinduism and Islam and not a fully new thing

>>20816924
>Upanishads and Hindu Tantra influenced Buddhism where it adopted these Hindu ideas until it no longer resembles the Pali Canon anymore
there seems to be some truth in this because in early buddhism there's no Metaphysical Reality or Absolute to be found, it's analytical method simply doesn't allow such abstract ideas to come up. I don't know if some mahayana thinkers really adopted some reified Absolute or Unity, even though they still held the doctrine of nonsubstantiality (noself), but its quite clear that there was an interaction between mahayana and vedanta

>>20816982
bodhichitta was designed to help people which couldn't grasp the notion and functionality of the non-self concept, that is bodhichitta serves a s a node in which to focus your attention, no longer a soul but a center of compassion, a similar concept but that still managed to avoid the need of a substance, from that a metaphysics can be created, it's pretty interesting to see how buddhism managed to create a metaphysical system without the need of a substance

the pre-Buddhist Upanishads talk about non-dualism and self-luminous awareness centuries before Buddha existed, like when the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad uses the word Advaita in 4.3.32. and then goes on to identify the Atman with Brahman in many other verses

>It becomes (transparent) like water, one, the witness, and without a second. This is the world (state) of Brahman, O Emperor. Thus did Yājñavalkya instruct Janaka: This is its supreme attainment, this is its supreme glory,
- Brihadaranyaka 4.3.32

In the below verse it talks about the Self beings its own source of illumination ie self-revealing or self disclosing (reflexive awareness) .

>When the sun has set, Yajnavalkya and the moon has set and the fire has gone out and speech has stopped, what serves as light for a man?" "The self, indeed, is his light, for with the self as light he sits, goes out, works and returns.
- Brihadaranyaka 4.3.6. .

In the below verse it talks about how everyone can realize their own Self as Brahman.

>This self was indeed Brahman in the beginning. It knew itself only as "I am Brahman." Therefore it became all. And whoever among the gods had this enlightenment, also became That Brahman. It is the same with the seers (rishis), the same with men. The seer Vamadeva, having realized this self as That, came to know: "I was Manu and the sun." And to this day, whoever in a like manner knows the self as "I am Brahman," becomes all this universe. Even the gods cannot prevent his becoming this, for he has become their Self. Now, if a man worships another deity, thinking: "He is one and I am another," he does not know.
- Brihadaranyaka 1.4.10.

In the below verse it says Brahman is the Atman within all and it transcends hunger and death and delusion etc (which means not affected by maya/avidya/ajnana)

>"explain to me the Brahman that is immediate and direct—the self that is within all.’ ‘This is your self that is within all.’ ‘Which is within all, Yājñavalkya?’ ‘That which transcends hunger and thirst, grief, delusion, decay and death"
- Brihadaranyaka 3.5.1.

>>20816873
see>>20817011

>>20816924
>Thats simply not true
tell that to any dwaita vedanta schoolar

>>20817011
>talk about non-dualism and self-luminous awareness centuries before Buddha existed,
yeah but in a different context, that's the whole point, the context in which shankara handle those concepts is identical to the mahayana doctrine, he jsut changed some names

>>20817034
>tell that to any dwaita vedanta scholar

>Madhva’s attempts to locate his controversial views in the canonical Vedanta texts often proved difficult. He is perhaps most famous for his idiosyncratic rendering of the Chandogya Upanisad’s statement tat tvam asi or “you (the atman) are that (brahman).” By carrying over the ‘a’ from the preceding word, Madhva rendered the phrase atat tvam asi or “you are not that.”
https://iep.utm.edu/madhva/4

In any case its just proving my point that you are forced to keep falling back upon appeal to authority fallacies instead of being able to give a real argument or any example like a citation of a passage

>>20817046
>yeah but in a different context, that's the whole point
No, there isn't any context about the text that would suggest a different meaning but everything the early Upanishads say is fully consistent with the Advaita theory; the Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya also mentions illusion and ignorance and people confusing their Atman with their mind etc just like Advaita says, if you want to claim that that the context is different then you should give an real example with citations but there are none

>>20816897
>>20816961
I think that it is a distinct religion if you look further into it, and that those similarities can be understood precisely in the light of the trascendent unity of religions.

>>20815543
>>20815549
>>20815602
Yeah this is nonsense

So first of all, if you actually read the old testament prophets, their polemics were against the kings/priests of Israel. The prophets were from the southern king of Judah, which was separated from the northern kingdom of Israel.

The northern kingdom of Israel was a mercantile region of "globalist" shills. These people had assimilated into the empire banking system and had introduced Baal worship into Israel.

The prophets were similar to the bible belt today. They lived in a religious region, and hated the north. This is why they were constantly feuding with northern Israel priests/kings. So they would write all this fire and brimstone stuff against the northern government. Many of the polemics openly say "God's covenant will be taken away from Israel and given instead to the Gentiles". Gentile just means foreigner.

So all this shit about Sea People's invasions has nothing to do with Old Testament prophets or Christianity. The sea peoples, who were the Phoenicians, were globalist merchants who hated the god of Abraham and worshipped Moloch.

pic related, Amos condemning the Baal priest of Israel

>>20817074
>but everything the early Upanishads say is fully consistent with the Advaita theory
Why did it take a thousand years for anyone to find Advaita in the Upanishads then?

>>20817905
and with a little (or big?) help from the buddhists

>>20817803
>The northern kingdom of Israel was a mercantile region of "globalist" shills. These people had assimilated into the empire banking system and had introduced Baal worship into Israel.
Baal was a native Canaanite god worshiped by pretty much everyone in the Levant, including the Hebrews. Yahweh was a non-Caananite god who originated to the south of Canaan including Judah and Israel, in Northern Arabia among the Midianites and Edom.

What happened was that Yahweh became popular in Judah, possibly through trade with copper miners and metalworkers in the southern desert who worshipped him, and he became slowly identified with El (another popular Canaanite god) and took a position as the patron god of the cult in Jerusalem. Then after the destruction of the northern Kingdom of Israel by Assyria in the 720sBC, the kings of Judah in Jerusalem decided to take over leadership of the Israelite people by promoting the god and temple cult of his capital in Jerusalem and telling the refugees fleeing the destruction of the kingdom of Israel from the north that their patron god Baal was sucky and stupid, and Yahweh/El was so much better. Then in the 6th century the Babylonians destroyed the kingdom of Judah and deported the elite Yahwist priests in Jerusalem to Babylon, where they probably compiled the core of the Torah to prove that Judah was destroyed too because they didn't worship Yahweh hard enough. Then they were fortunately liberated by the Persians, who sent them back to Judea and put them in charge again, where the Jerusalem priests again propagated their understanding of monotheistic Yahweh only-worship to the rest of the Jews.

>>20818177
>their patron god Baal was sucky and stupid, and Yahweh/El was so much better
Tranny hands typed this

ignoring the different perceptions of ultimate reality these two gods represented is ignoring the entire point of the story. Baal represents self-interest, power, prometheism, slave-trade, and Faustian tendencies. The God of Moses represents an adherence to the natural order via revelation.

>Yahweh/El
your entire trannygraph is just a bunch of rocekfeller bible-scholar funded nonsense. God has never been called "Yahweh". YHWH is a reference to the revelation of Being at the burning bush

>>20817905
>Why did it take a thousand years for anyone to find Advaita in the Upanishads then?
We have no way of knowing if that is true or not because so many texts from the pre-Christian era were lost. The fact that numerous different texts predating Gaudapada and Shankara by hundreds of years including the Mahabharata and Puranas talk about maya/illusion/ignorance/ajnana in an Advaita-like manner is strong evidence that people were long talking about those ideas way before Gaudapada and Shankara. Quotes abound in the Mahabharata and Puranas talking about multiplicity being fake and the one non-dual Brahman appearing as a multiplicity because of maya. There are countless passages from texts predating Shankara and Gaudapada by many hundreds of years that dont make sense outside of being read in an Advaita-like context. The rope-snake analogy is in the Katharudra Upanishad, the Uttara Gita in the Mahabharata says maya is an illusion and not a real creation as Vaishnavas understand it etc, the Bhagavata Purana goes on and on about non-dualism etc etc

>>20817935
Basically of the Buddhist ideas that Gaudapada and Shankara engage with they criticize as illogical in their writings, and yet Buddhists persist in this peculiar mythology “that indian philosopher who btfo’d us actually liked us just trust me bro”

>>20818261
>“that indian philosopher who btfo’d us actually liked us just trust me bro”
Shankara didn't even understand basic buddhist doctrines like impermanence and dependent arising

>>20818303
>Shankara didn't even understand basic buddhist doctrines like impermanence and dependent arising
Wrong, he did understand them and he showed what was illogical about them. The former is totally inconsistent with our experience and has numerous additional absurd consequences and the latter leads to an untenable regress if you claim that it accounts for one’s present samsaric experience, as Buddhists do claim. Whenever Buddhists takes issue with his words they just nitpick his exact words for describing doctrines not *exactly* like how they describe it but they don’t actually address his argument head on and show why its wrong, they just engage in pilpul silliness

>>20818223
>Baal represents self-interest, power, prometheism, slave-trade, and Faustian tendencies.The God of Moses represents an adherence to the natural order via revelation.
To the Yahwist authors, yes. That's the point.
>God has never been called "Yahweh". YHWH is a reference to the revelation of Being at the burning bush
YHWH is just how Yahweh is written in Hebrew script, which lacks vowels.

There are literally inscriptions from Kuntillet Ajrud carbon dated to 800BC that read "YHWH [Yahweh] of Teman and his Asherah" (Asherah being Yahweh's consort goddess), with a drawing of them.

Sorry to interrupt with the most basic of inquiries. What do you think about the Evola - Guénon intellectual relationship? Should I read one of them, or both?

>>20818235
>We have no way of knowing if that is true or not
Well ok. So the entire perennialist case for advaita relies on blind faith that a school only attested from the Christian Era really existed for centuries or thousands of years before that. And if you squint hard enough these earlier texts kinda sound like what Shankara meant!!

>Shankara didn't even understand basic buddhist doctrines like impermanence and dependent arising

>>20818372
kek i didn't expect things to come to a state like this
okay i'll bite, show me something permanent and unconditioned, independent of causes and effects but i don't wanna hear about your abstract superimposition called 'Self'

not only Shankara but you too don't have a single idea of what anicca and paticcasamuppada means

>>20818430
neither

>>20818527
if he really understood he'd become a buddhist

>>20818541
Noted. Any recommendations in the same vein perhaps?

>>20818472
>Well ok. So the entire perennialist case for advaita relies on blind faith that a school only attested from the Christian Era really existed for centuries or thousands of years before that.
Well yes that IS what the textual evidence strongly indicates since many of these text from centuries before Gaudapada mention ideas that are really only accepted by Advaitins.

>if you squint hard enoug these earlier texts kinda sound like what Shankara meant!
No, its often word for word

>>20818537
>kek i didn't expect things to come to a state like this
>okay i'll bite, show me something permanent and unconditioned, independent of causes and effects but i don't wanna hear about your abstract superimposition called 'Self'
Its just a loaded question and not a real argument to ask for an example of something but then arbitrarily ruling out accepting as an answer something that perfectly fits that criteria. The Self or Atman of our foundational consciousness is partless, pure, independent of causes and effects, truly-existent, unconditioned, ever-peaceful and ever-fulfilled.

>not only Shankara but you too don't have a single idea of what anicca and paticcasamuppada means
I do, they are just unproven dogmas which Buddhists accept on faith

>>20818548
Toshihiku Izutsu
Yakupitiyage Karunadasa

>>20818573
you're in self-denial

this so called Atman is no more than a conceptual abstraction like Parmenide's Being.

there's no 'faith' in buddhism

>>20818573
>unproven dogmas which Buddhists accept on faith
Not that there is inherently anything wrongly with dogmas, but the Buddhists wrongly claim or act like these have been proved true but they never have been and Buddhists cant. Furthermore the particular details about these concepts, in the manner they are usually formulated by Buddhists, involve things which are illogical and easy to refute as Shankara points out

>>20810837
Advaita makes the incredibly amateurish error of mistaking the image of the One for the One Himself. Shankara himself didn't really have an answer as to how maya could overtake Brahman, so there's no logical argument for it, it's just based on a faulty reading of scripture.

So far from being irrefutable, a five-year-old could refute it. It cannot be overstated that the only reason people latch onto Advaita is because of a nauseating Schopenhaueran Orientalism. You thought it sounded cool, so you jumped into blindly.

>>20818606
>this so called Atman is no more than a conceptual abstraction like Parmenide's Being.
That’s not a real argument but is basically just name-calling like “your idea is dumb”, okay I can say anatta is silly nonsense and mistaken too

>there's no 'faith' in buddhism
Wrong, Buddhists accept karma (affecting future lives) on faith, they accept rebirth on faith, they accept stages like “stream-entrant” on faith, they accept that following Buddhism can end rebirth on faith, they accept that Parinirvana is not an annihilation on the basis of faith and many other things like this which are given as unproven metaphsycial claims

>>20818537
Advaita is not reducible to some theoretical speculation, it is the real experience of Being.

>>20818608
>things which are illogical and easy to refute
god is dead, sorry Shanks. Buddha figured that out pretty early. There's a couple of sutras in the nikayas where he debates your buddy Brahmā[n] and explains to him that he only thinks he's the absolute because he doesn't remember anything before being first, "god" only exists because other beings have paid him homage as such. In other words, if god does exist he has the same ignorance at the root of his conceptual impositions as we do. It's all in your head. Meds now. Gate gate paragate

>>20818428
>To the Yahwist authors, yes. That's the point.
sophistry
>carbon dated
cope

>>20818667
Not an argument.

>>20818656
>he only thinks he's the absolute because he doesn't remember anything before being first, "god" only exists because other beings have paid him homage as such. In other words, if god does exist he has the same ignorance at the root of his conceptual impositions as we do.
The names and such used to describe Brahman, namely "Brahman," nondual, satcitananda svarupa, etc. Are not to be discursed on as limitative conditions, as conceptual abstractions, they are merely pointers to the phenomenalogical experience - Brahman which is the Self is pointed to by Discrimination, between the Self and Not-Self in a way which is purely negative only when pointed to, in the sense of "Not this" until both speech and non-speech cease, and there is only I of course not even the the concept of "I" is to be assumed, if you are going to say that, all your criticisms would apply only if Brahman were meant as some conceptual theoretical name, some nominal fixed conception, of course in its Being it is the Only thing principially encompassing Everything not in its contingency which is unreal, but as it really is, none of it is really anything to understand as Im sure you will,
I see no problem with saying the "Anatman" and "Atman" are the samething, from some point of view.
As sankara says:
>I am not the body, I am not the senses, I am not the mind, I am not the ego, I am not the prāṇa, I am not the intellect. I am the one who is far from his wife, children, farm, home, etc. Verily I am that Śiva who is direct Witness, who is the eternal and intimate Self.
>Just as dreaming occurs through sleep, this whole unreal world of duality appears due to error and delusion. For this reason it is not real. I am Śiva who is pure, total, eternal and one without a second.
>There is no real world of duality besides me. Whatever exists externally is wrongly thought or imagined due to māyā. This appears in the 'I' which is not dual, just as the reflection appears in the mirror. Therefore I am Śiva.
>I or I was never born, raised and died. These qualities of Prakṛti, which seem to be in me, actually belong to the body. Kartṛtva (Being an agent), bhoktṛtva (The fact of being a user) etc. they belong only to ahaṃkāra and not to me who am made of pure Consciousness (cinmāyā). I am the only Śiva.
>Only thinks so because memory...
If the Buddha is still thinking and dwelling on memory, then the sort of "enlightenment" of the Buddha which says "God is Dead" is nothing but a rational discursion of sorts, it is quite entertaining that you think something like that.

>>20818750
this is so fucking stupid, how much of a midwit do you have to be to be impressed by this?

>>20818656
advaitins on annihilation watch

>>20816891
not ye olde enough for them

>>20818759
Loss is actually gain, the poor are rich, also what i meant by a "cessation" etc. These are all symbolical, and I am being analogical of course, nothing can neither stop nor start start really, just as there is neither birth nor death etc.

Either you are taking the prasangika position, and just saying oh no you cant describe it, so just dont! its wrong with muh philosophy, but you are forgetting that these buddhists wouldve had corresponding experiences, etc. They were not just larping as rationalist intellectuals, well who knows maybe that is the case, i know many braindead buddhists who take it absolutely literally.

>>20818759
If it makes an impression on the reader than they are a midwit, the whole point is freedom from all samskaras.

>>20818801
go rip off someone else

>>20818827
I am not trying to be original.

>>20818836
go fool someone else

>>20818750
>god is real because antinomianism
based and Bataille pilled I guess, but also crypto-Buddhism (atheism)

>>20818656
Brahmā != Brahman.

>>20818883
next you're going to tell me Zeus isn't Deus

>>20818905
No, it would be more like saying dea and deus mean the same thing.

>>20818917
It's a semantic trick regardless. Brahmā and Brahman are both supreme absolute theological concepts in Vedic thought. It's like saying Nietzsche's criticism of Christianity's origins and morality rooted in them doesn't apply to Russians because a byzantine greek theologian said you can do a henosis a thousand years later. So are you telling me Shankara is an atheist if Brahma and Brahman are so opposed?

>>20818430
Both - but don't jump on the bandwagon right away. By this I mean don't become a zealous guenonfag or evolatard after reading one book or two, but take time to understand and assess their strengths and flaws.

>>20818942
It's not at all. Try reading the literature, it's not even worth me engaging with you otherwise.
>Brahmā and Brahman are both supreme absolute theological concepts in Vedic thought.
No, Brahmā is not supreme, he is the masculine creator god as part of the Trimurti. Brahman is beyond creation, being, and all of the concepts which Gautama criticized of Brahmā.

You two, guenonfag and crypto-buddhistfag, are you two ever going to give up repeating these constant tiring arguments? Everyday it's just the same thing. I might quit /lit/ just because I've grown really tired of reading your shit everyday.

>>20818975
so if brahman is not jeetgod, shankara is an atheist (crypto-buddhist) insofar as they both agree the notion of such a god or brahma is dead

>>20819001
I only come here in a self-serving way to build and build, make myself surer and surer, convince myself, exercise all my powers of thought and discrimination, to the point of exhaustion, and in those moments in which I realise, "I cant conceive anymore" I feel like a rich poorman, catching these intermediate states of transformation and destruction, going higher and higher for a longer fall, it is all only part of a transient intellectual exercise of an alltogether secondary and individual importance, but the truth is there are worse things that I good do with my time, so that I repeat myself, like a drug-addict, is something which I like to do, making myself dizzier and dizzier in some way, entering into a state of confusion in which I have lost myself, into moments where I am feeling evernew and fresh, and then I test myself hear repeating the same old things again and again, to see if I am beyond tiring and energising.

>>20819001
I will continue on, but you are completely right, I am only involved in something indefinite, a mere perpetuity, I am only extending the individual state of mental exercise, of reaction, argumentation, rebuttal, I have to go beyond both creation and destruction all together, /lit/ is just a distraction.

>>20819112
mental illness

meds now

>>20818627
>Shankara himself didn't really have an answer as to how maya could overtake Brahman
maya doesn’t “overtake Brahman” in Advaita you pseud, Shankara clearly states in his works that Brahman is completely unaffected by maya

>>20818656
>In other words, if god does exist he has the same ignorance at the root of his conceptual impositions as we do
there is no argument that Buddhists have that would prove or demonstrate this to be true but this is just an empty slogan that buddhists repeat to feel good and validated

>>20819248
>prove or demonstrate this to be true
any day now, theists will be providing us with evidence that their mental constructs are ontologically more real than those of atheists... until then what is god but one's mere cognition?

>>20819232
>Shankara clearly states in his works that Brahman is completely unaffected by maya
But we're affected by maya
And we are atman
And Brahman is atman
???

>>20819232
>Brahman is completely unaffected by maya
this is just transcendental dogma, you've put a gap between the absolute and the apparent, and have the nerve to call this nonduality; but it's just a species of nihilism to deny all experience as illusion and insist the real—that is to say the real thing to be valued—is nowhere.

>>20819319
You are not autonomous but you are a slave to memes and social programming and when you see people talking about non-Buddhist forms of apophaticism it activates the lizard part of your brain and initiates a hostile response in order to preserve your sense of tribal identity intact

>>20818627
>Shankara himself didn't really have an answer as to how maya could overtake Brahman
By the terrible Baroque painting I'm guessing you're a tradlarper who is ironically oblivious to the fact that this refutation is just a differently formulated version of the same problem of evil that refutes Christianity and every religion.

>>20819339
calling other people pseuds or lizard-brained won't change the fact that transcendental theology sets up god or the absolute in complete suspense from 'the world;' you are not being apophatic in calling everything we know and experience fake, you are being a nihilist who hopes no one notices

>>20810143
>Guénon
Who the fuck is he?

>>20819307
>But we're affected by maya
Try to prove it, you’ll quickly find that you can’t

>I can see and hear the objects around me, since they are maya-objects Im therefore affected by being aware of them as opposed to not being aware of them
That doesn’t prove anything, because Advaita teaches that the insentient intellect is what perceives objects and knows thoughts when its illuminated by the light of awareness, awareness is just a pure subjectivity or pure luminosity, the pre-cognitive “I am” which is prior to any sort of thought or perception, this pure “I am” is invariably found in all intentional (object-directed) mental states or actions and it isnt possible to show that this self-illuminating presence is ever changed or otherwise affected by any of them and their respective contents because It characterizes all of them equally as that self-disclosing presence is precisely what allows that changing content to be experienced *for a someone* and this stays true regardless. People who havn’t studied esoteric Hindu or Tantric teachings normally don’t know what awareness actually is and they confuse it with the mind/intellect. Awareness never actually knows anything as an object and is fundamentally non-dual (only the intellect/mind actually knows things as objects when awareness is acting as a flashlight or lighthouse for it) and the subject-object distinctions in the intellect are just like clouds appearing and vanishing in the span of infinite non-dual awareness without ever affecting or producing a change in It. Awareness only seems to be affected by objects by people who don’t fully realize Its true nature as the Unconditioned.

>but I can perceive my awareness is changed or affected when the mind has a thought or sees an object like a river, its not just a totally unaffected resplendent divine light shining in the heart (intellect)
How? In order to affect awareness a change has to be produced in awareness, but since everything you can describe as a known change is invariably a witnessed object of awareness and not awareness itself, this rules out the possibility of directly observing and showing any change in awareness ipso facto and thereby rules out showing using some process of observation that its changed or affected when the mind knows an object.

>Why can’t I observe my awareness, it simples is both subject and object
Awareness is partless so it doesn’t have two parts that cant split into the subject and object

>awareness isn’t partless but it’s a relation between a subject and an object which are its parts
This claim falls apart after about 2 seconds of analysis because since the subject admittedly knows the object and not vice versa in this example you are still actually attributing sentience (awareness) to the subject alone but just lumping in the object with it arbitrarily while implicitly acknowledging that you are combining two qualitatively distinct things and pretending they are one thing

>>20819319
>you've put a gap between the absolute and the apparent, and have the nerve to call this nonduality;
Correct, there is an apparent difference between the apparent and the real, because reality is non-dual. Now go back to skimming Nietzsche and pretending to "know" that reality is actually nothing at all (which is real nihilism).
>experience as illusion
Experience is fundamentally real, but you have no idea what that actually is. You pretend experience is some external thing rubbing against your sense organs. These are all just objects of experience, not experience as it is, without a second.

>>20819465
>only the intellect/mind actually knows things as objects
So according to Advaita I am not my intellect or my own mind?

My true nature is Atman, which has no thought, or intellect, or perception, or any cognitive processes at all?

>>20819500
>My true nature is Atman, which has no thought, or intellect, or perception, or any cognitive processes at all?
Correct as none of these are the Atman's automatic and effortless reflexive knowledge of itself but the things you listed inhere in the manas/buddhi and all involves changes and come and go while on the other hand reflexive self-disclosure is the very nature of primordially-present awareness and hence doesn't "come" or "go"; by reflexive it is self-disclosing aka self-revealing; there is no distinction of illuminator vs illuminated or knower vs known. Self-disclosure is the same thing as self-awareness presence since what is being disclosed is this very presence and its disclosure just consists of presence being present as itself; absent any reference to anything there is just pure non-dual unaffected luminosity

>>20819522
*Self-disclosure is the same thing as (reflexively, non-discursively, pre-cognitively, spontaneously) self-AWARE presence

>>20819522
So why do we need liberation at all? Isn't Atman already liberated? And all our cognitive processes are already illusions anyway?

>>20819534
Atman is permanently liberated, in fact liberation is even out of the question because that would imply there is something else it could be constrained or enclosed by. The task is to identify yourself with Atman so as not to be overtaken by its own overabundance and overflowing of power (maya - "magic") - the corporeal personality. To know the True Self as That, which is beyond all limits, rather than the jivatma which will be inevitably dissolved and overcome by its intoxication.

>>20819477
>Experience is fundamentally real
Uh, pretty sure your guy thinks it's all maya and only jeetgod is real (also real is us being aware that we are aware that we are aware that we are aware [...] and this awareness of nothing except awareness is equivalent to jeetgod). So it sounds like experience, phenomena, objects, life, the world, are all out as fake or illusory. That can't be right since you'll take steps to avoid being hit by a car when you cross the street.

>>20819543
>Uh, pretty sure your guy thinks it's all maya and only jeetgod is real
"Experience" = pure awareness = Atman = Brahman.

>>20819542
But I'm already identified with Atman, apparently. And since I'm Atman, I'm already liberated. So what even is there to do?

How is it possible for "me" to choose to "identify with Atman" when my own (apparently illusory) cognitive processes aren't "me" anyway?

>>20819545
Pure awareness excludes maya, correct? And maya is all the non-brahman stuff like phenomena, mental objects, sensation, etc., yes?

>>20819546
>But I'm already identified with Atman
Not consciously, evidently, because you're still asking questions about it. Your awareness is still obscured by buddhi, nama/rupa, tamas/rajas, the subject/object dichotomy which awareness is masked by. Every night when you go into deep sleep you reunite with Brahman. But this appears as nothingness, a mere time-skip, to you because you are not reintegrated actively, only passively, you aren't able to stand the brightness of its direct, infinite presence yet. So it is not a "choice", but a realization.

>>20819559
Okay. And how is it possible for "me" to "realize Atman" when my own (apparently illusory) cognitive processes aren't "me" anyway?

I started this questioning by asking how it is possible I can be both Atman (and therefore Brahman) while being affected by maya. You said maya only affects cognitive processes that aren't me. Now you want me to use those cognitive processes to realize Atman. Do you see the problem?

>>20811236
Do you have a link for this book? Cant find it on libgen or z libray

>>20820442
https://b-ok.cc/book/5224385/475d31

>>20820606
You are most kind anon

>>20819562
>Okay. And how is it possible for "me" to "realize Atman" when my own (apparently illusory) cognitive processes aren't "me" anyway?
You don’t, because you are already free and complete already and are beyond realization and non-realization, the mind where volition resides and which isn’t you has to work out liberation of its own accord and this liberation is a change that happens in the mind and not the Atman i.e. you.

Until liberation people habitually identify themselves with the psycho-physical complex even when they may get the idea of de-identification with it on verbal or theoretical level, and so it’s acceptable and often necessary to speak to someone asking questions about the doctrine with sentences like “you have to do this” or “work on this with your mind by studying the Vedanta etc” because it’s actually coming down to the level of that person and catering to their perspective and assuming that they are their mind and an agent, since they deeply believe this to be true themselves and would struggle to grasp any other perspective.

If they are successful in their studies they eventually discover that they were never the thinking mind characterized by volition which sought out liberation in the first place but the whole time what they have always been is this background presence of blissful unaffected forever-liberated awareness which is complete and perfect already and that was only apparently associated with maya according to a delusion of the mind and this delusion was always only affecting the mind/body complex and never once affected the Atman, but this has to be fully realized experientially and discovered within oneself in enlightenment in order to reap the full fruits of it, one cannot reap the same fruits just by pondering the concept as a discursive hypothesis. Pondering the idea discursively might have positive benefits for mental health in terms of making the mind more happy or carefree but that isnt the same as liberation.

>I started this questioning by asking how it is possible I can be both Atman (and therefore Brahman) while being affected by maya. You said maya only affects cognitive processes that aren't me. Now you want me to use those cognitive processes to realize Atman.
Any time someone speaking from the Advaita perspective says “realize this” it is because for the reasons I’ve said; because that is the level you are presently on and which you aren’t used to going beyond, and you have to start somewhere within the frame of the conceptual-matrix of the habitual confusions that unenlightened people have if you want to indicate with language viz. how to go beyond that and reach enlightenment. Because we already have knowledge of the Absolute in a general way as our own awareness, once the wrong ideas are eliminated the Absolute is automatically revealed. This involves no change in ever-liberated non-dual Self just like the sun doesn’t stop shining when there is clouds etc.

>>20820712
But how (wonders an objector) is it possible that that which is eternal and raised above all change should ‘attain’ by itself to its own true nature? In the case of gold and other such substances, it is intelligible that the true forms should be lost through contact with other external substances and that their true qualities should fail to manifest, and that in this condition they could be made to ‘attain’ to their true nature through polishing with corrosive material. Similarly, in the case of the stars, it is intelligible that their light should be overpowered each day by the sunlight and that they should again ‘attain’ their real form at night when that which had overpowered them is removed. But nothing can conceivably overpower the eternal and constant light of the Self as Consciousness, as it is beyond contact with the material objects, just like the ether, and as it would contradict our actual experience to maintain that it did. For sight, hearing, thought and knowledge constitute the very essence of the soul, and these are found in constant association with the soul, even in the case of those souls who have not yet transcended the body. For every soul enjoys empirical experience through seeing, hearing, thinking and knowing, and could not enjoy empirical experience otherwise. If it were contended that this Consciousness, as constituting the essence of the soul, was only ‘attained’ after transcending the body, that would be in contradiction with the fact that we enjoy empirical experience before transcending the body. What, then, is this ‘transcending the body’? And what is this ‘attainment of the soul’s true nature’?

>>20820748
To this we reply that before the rise of discriminatory knowledge, the true nature of the soul, which is the light which animates sight and the rest, does not seem in any way distinct from such external adjuncts as the body, the senses, the mind in its lower and higher aspects and the sensations arising from the experience of objects. Compare the case of a piece of transparent crystal where, before the introduction of a discriminating cognition, the true nature of the crystal, which is really whitish and transparent, does not seem to be different from such external adjuncts as the red or blue colour of the objects near which it is placed. But after the rise of a discriminating cognition, the crystal becomes distinct, and is said to have ‘attained’ its true nature as whitish and transparent, although it was really exactly the same all along. In the same way, when the true nature of the soul is not yet discriminated from the body and other external adjuncts, the cognition arising through the Veda that does effect this discrimination is what constitutes ‘transcending the body’.

And the ‘attainment of the soul’s true nature’ is nothing more than knowledge of the true nature of the Self, the result of the discriminating cognition. The question of whether the soul ‘has’ or ‘has not’ a body depends simply on whether discrimination has or has not arisen. For the Vedic text says, ‘Existing in bodies, itself without a body’. And the derivative literature, too, teaches that there is no real distinction between having a body and not having one, in the text, ‘Though existing in the body, O son of Kunti, He does not act and is in no way stained’. Hence we say that when through absence of discriminatory knowledge, the soul’s true nature is hidden, it is then revealed through the rise of discriminatory knowledge. But the true nature of the soul cannot really either manifest or lose another form, from the mere fact of being the soul’s true nature. Hence the distinction between the individual soul and the highest Lord arises from false knowledge and not from reality. For in reality both are relationless like the ether (and hence identical)

>>20820755
...

Therefore, all that has to be effected is the cessation of superimposition onto the Absolute. No positive efforts towards knowledge of the Absolute have to be made as one is (in a sense) familiar with it already. In the case of those who cannot practice discrimination, knowledge of the true nature of the Self is obscured by the particular manifestations of name and form that are imagined through nescience. Hence it comes about that that which is in closest proximity to them, which is their own Self, which is very well known and perfectly familiar, appears as if it were unfamiliar and hard to know and as if it were another. But in the case of those who have withdrawn their minds from preoccupation with external objects and who have received illumination from the Teacher and the Self, nothing else is such a joy as the Absolute, nothing so firmly in their grasp, nothing so well known and close.

Some persons, however, believing themselves to be very wise, say that the intellect cannot attain to the Self because the latter is formless, so that perfection in knowledge is difficult to attain. True indeed, it is difficult to attain for those who have no Teacher and belong to no tradition, who have not heard the upanishadic texts in the traditionally prescribed way, whose minds are deeply attached to external objects and who have not pursued the right path with diligence. But for those who are the contrary of all this and have all these qualifications, the (opposite) idea of the reality of the dualism of the empirical perceiver and his object of perception is even more difficult to attain, since they are aware of nothing else except the Self as pure (homogeneous) Consciousness. It follows, therefore, that it is only the cessation in the mind of all notion of distinction based on external forms that can lead to true knowledge of the Self. For the Self is never at any time (completely) unknown to anyone, neither is it susceptible either to acceptance or rejection. Indeed, if the Self were entirely unknown, there could not be a motive for any of our actions (and hence we would not commit them, which is absurd). Nor can we conceive of them as being performed for the sake of the body or any other non-conscious being. And neither happiness nor misery exist for their own sakes, while all practical activity leads ultimately to experience for a Self.

>>20820774
Therefore, just as (on account of its immediate proximity) no special means of knowledge are required in order to take note of one’s own body, so none are required in order to take note of the Self, which is the inmost principle of all. Hence it stands proved that, for those who can practise discrimination, establishment in knowledge of the Self is already accomplished fact. Even those (the Purva Mimamsakas of Kumarila’s school) who try to maintain that knowledge is formless and not itself immediately known, have to admit (according to their own theory) that knowledge, just like happiness and other attributes of the mind, is evident to immediate inspection, for awareness of an object can only occur through knowledge. Further, it is (logically) impossible to seek for knowledge of knowledge. If knowledge were initially unknown, like the object of knowledge, then we should have to seek knowledge of knowledge, just as we seek knowledge of an object. In the case of an object of knowledge, like a pot, the knower seeks to encompass the object with his knowledge. If this were also the case with knowledge, the knower would seek to encompass every cognition with another cognition. But (this would lead to infinite regress and) we do not find that this is so. Knowledge, therefore, is immediately evident, as also is the knower. Hence no effort has to be made to gain knowledge of the Self. It is to put an end to false identification of the Self with the not-self that efforts have to be made. The path of knowledge, therefore, is something perfectly within our grasp.

Objection: Then, what is this that even the learned say like the worldly people, 'Thus [Possessed of aristorcracy etc.] am I,' 'This [Body, wife, etc.] verily belongs to Me'?

Reply: Listen. This is that 'learnedness' which consists in seeing the field as the Self! On the contrary, should they realize the unchanging Knower of the field, then they will not crave for enjoyment or action with the idea, 'May this be mine.' Enjoyment and action are mere perversions. This being so, the ignorant man engages in action owing to his desire for results. On the other hand, in the case of an enlightened person who has realized the changeless Self, engagement in action in impossible because of the absence of desire for results. Hence, when the activities of the aggregate of body and organs cease, his withdrawal from action is spoken of in a figurative sense. Some may have this other kind of learnedness: 'The Knower of the field is God Himself; and the field is something different and an object of knowledge to the Knower of the field. But I am a mundane being, happy and sorrowful. And it is my duty to bring about the cessation of worldly existence through the knowledge of the field and the Knower of the field, and by continuing to dwell in His true nature after directly perceiving through meditation God, the Knower of the field,' and he who, understands thus, and he who teaches that 'he (the taught) is not the Knower of the field,' and he who, being under such an idea, thinks, 'I shall render meaningful the scriptures dealing with the worldly state and Liberation'-is the meanest among the learned. That Self-immolator, being devoid of any link with the traditional interpreters of the purport of the scriptures, misinterprets what is enjoined in the scriptures and imagines what is not spoken there, and thereby himself becoming deluded, befools others too. Hence, one who is not a knower of the traditional interpretation is to be ignored like a fool, though he may be versed in all the scriptures. As for the objection that, if God be one with the knower of the field, He will then become a mundane being, and that, if the knowers of the fields are one with God, then from the nonexistence of mundane beings will follow the absence of the mundane state, -these two objections have been refuted by admitting Knowledge and ignorance as having different characteristics.

>>20821057

Objection: How?

Reply: By saying that any defect imagined through ignorance does not affect the supreme Reality which is the substratum of that (imagination). In accordance with this an illustration was cited that a desert is not made muddy by water in a mirage. Even the defect of the possibility of nonexistence of the mundane state, consequent on the nonexistence of individual souls, stands refuted by the explanation that the mundane state and the individual souls are imagined through ignorance.

Objection: The defect of mundane existence in the knower of the field consists in his being possessed of ignorance. And sorrowfulness etc. which are its products are matters of direct experience.

Reply: No, since whatever is known is an attribute of the field, therefore the knower-the knower of the field cannot reasonably be tainted by the defects arising from it. Whatsoever blemish-not existing in the knower of the field-you attribute to It is logically an object of experience, and hence it is verily a quality of the field; not the quality of the knower of the field. Nor does the knower of the field become tainted thereby, because of knower cannot possibly have any conjunction with an object of knowledge. Should there be a conjunction, then there will be no possibility at all of its (the latter's) becoming a knowable. Oh! Sir, if being ignorant, sorrowful, etc. be qualities of the Self, how is it that they are directly perceived? Or how can they be qualities of the Knower of the field? If the conclusion be that all that is known consititutes the field, and that the one who knows is verily the knower of the field, then, to say that being ignorant, sorrowful, etc.are the qualities of the knower of the field and that they are directly perceived is a contradictory statement having only ignorance as its basis. Here, (the opponent) asks: To whom does ignorance belong? (The answer is that) it belongs verily to him by whom it is experienced!

Objection: In whom is it perceived?

Reply: Here the answer is: It is pointless to ask, 'In whom is ignorance experienced?'

Objection: How?

Reply: If ignorance be perceived (by you), then you perceive its possessor as well. Moreover, when that possessor of ignorance is perceived it is not reasonable to ask, 'In whom is it perceived?' For, when an owner of cattle is seen, the question, 'To whom do the cattle belong', does not become meaningful.

Objection: Well, is not the illustration dissimilar? Since, the cattle and their owner are directly perceived, their relation also is directly perceived. Hence the question is meaningless. Ignorance and its possessor are not directly perceived in that manner, in which case the question would have been meaningless.

Reply: What will it matter to you if you know the relation of ignorance with a person who is not directly perceived as possessed of ignorance?

>>20821065

Opponent: Since ignorance is a source of evil, therefore it should be got rid of.

Reply: He to whom ignorance belongs will get rid of it!

Opponent: Indeed, ignorance belongs to myself.

Reply: In that case, you know ignorance as also yourself who possess it?

Opponent: I know, but not through direct perception.

Reply: If you know through inference, then how is the connection (between yourself and ignorance) known? Surely it is not possible for you the knower to have at that time ['When you are knowing your own ignorance.'] the knowledge of the relation (of the Self) with ignorance which is an object of knowledge; ['After having perceived ignorance as an object of your knowledge, how can you who continue to be the knower cognize yourself as the knower of that ignorance? For this would lead to the contradiction of the same person becoming the subject and the object of cognition.'] because the cognizer is then engaged in cognizing ignorance as an object. Besides, there cannot be someone who is a (separate) cognizer of the relation between the knower and ignorance, and a separate cognition of that (relation), for this would lead to infinite regress. If the knower and the relation between the knower and the thing known be cognizable, then a separate cognizer has to be imagined. Of him, again, another knower has to be imagined; of him again a separate cognizer would have to be imagined! Thus, an infinite regress be comes unavoidable. Again, whether the knowable be ignorance or anything else, a knowable is verily a knowable; similarly, even a knower is surely a knower; he does not become a knowable. And when this is so, [Since the knower cannot be known, therefore his relation with ignorance also cannot be known by himself or by anybody else] nothing of the cognizer-the knower of the field-is tainted by such defects as ignorance, sorrowfulness, etc.

>>20821073

Objection: May it not be said that the (Self's) defect is surely this, that the field, which is full of defects, is cognized (by It)?

Reply: No, because it is the Immutable, which is consciousness, by nature, that is figuratively spoken of as the cognizer. It is just like figuratively attributing the act of heating to fire merely because of its (natural) heat. Just as it has been shown here by the Lord Himself that identification with action, cause and effect are absent in the Self, and that action, cause, etc. are figuratively attributed to the Self owing to their having been superimposed (on It) through ignorance, so has it been shown by Him in various places: 'He who thinks of this One as the killer...' (2.19), 'While actions are being done in everyway by the gunas of Nature' (3.27), 'The Omnipresent neither accepts anybody's sin...' (5.15), etc. It has been explained by us, too, in that very way, and in the following contexts also we shall explain accordingly.

Objection: Well, in that case, if identification with action, cause and effect be naturally absent in the Self, and it they be superimpositions through ignorance, then it amounts to this that actions are meant for being undertaken only by the ignorant, not by the enlightened.

Reply: It is true that it comes to this. This very fact we shall explain under the verse, 'Since it is not possible for one who holds on to a body...' (18.11). And, in the context dealing with the conclusion of the purport of the whole Scripture, we shall explain this elaborately under the verse, '...in brief indeed, O son of Kunti,...which is the supreme consummation of Knowledge' (ibid. 50) It is needless here to expatiate further, Hence we conclude.

Objection: Have sex

Reply: Cope and seethe

the vedantic Atman is no different than the Being of Parmenides, looks beautiful and perfectly logical on the paper, but it's no more than an empty concept.

>>20812492
Christianity and Islam both have exoteric, mesoteric and esoteric sides. You're just ignorant. Do more research.