/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12940455]

Best non-duality lit?

[Anonymous No.12940463]

>>12940455
You mean like Vedanta non-dualism?

[Anonymous No.12940497]

Why do u need a book when U R DA BOOk

[Anonymous No.12940502]

non dualistic niggas be like

[Anonymous No.12940518]

literally my diary desu
also literally your own body and mind. Your urogenital system is non dualistic

[Anonymous No.12940521]

>>12940497
based and vedanta-pilled

[Anonymous No.12941053]

[Anonymous No.12941098]

>>12941053
For Zen, read the Diamond Sutra, Platform Sutra, and The Record of Linji

[Anonymous No.12941384]

>>12940455
Adi Shankara's Advaita commentaries are super good but you'll probably need to read a book on Hindu philosophy before you'd be able to understand them. Some other good translated works include the Ashtavakra Gita, Yoga Vasistha, Tripura Rahasya, Vivekachudamani etc. Some Sufi works also have elements of non-dualism like Ibn Arabi's writings, Sanai's The Enclosed Garden of Truth, Rumi's Masnavi, etc

[Anonymous No.12941630]

The Enneads.
Plato's Parmenides.
New Testament.

[Anonymous No.12941805]

The bhagavad gita. Metaphysics... haven't read that many, after all

[Anonymous No.12941829]

>>12941630
>non-duality
>New Testament.
fuck off

[Anonymous No.12942525]

>>12941829
brainlet

[Anonymous No.12942952]

>>12941829

J O H N 1 0 : 3 0

[Anonymous No.12943105]

>>12941630
>>12941829
>>12942952

Yes, God is the principle of Self operating through Semiosis, Dialectically. Most of all in Christianity. Christianity is not incidentally non-Dual or covertly non-Dual, but PROMINENTLY so.

[Anonymous No.12943143]

>>12940455
The bible

[Anonymous No.12944628]

What is to gain from reading stuff like this. Isn't it just endless reiterations of "i am everything and everything is me, woah". I mean maybe the idea has weight but what else is there to say?

[Anonymous No.12944645]

God Tier: Longchenpa - Precious Treasury of the Basic Space of Phenomena

[Anonymous No.12944647]

>>12940455
Jed Mckenna's Enlightenment: The Damnedest Thing
The Bhagavad Gita, I liked the My Gita version
St. Teresa of Avila and St John of God texts
also that enlightened nun Bernardette Roberts has some papers

[Anonymous No.12944670]

>>12944628
True non-dualism is mental non-dualism - overcoming like-dislike, past-future, pleasure-pain.

>"Whosoever truly wants a legitimate silence and not a false silence, a true quietude and not a false quietude, must be integral—that is, to not commit the error of dividing himself between subject and object, thinker and thought, “I” and not “I,” controller and controlled, Superior “I” and Inferior “I,” me and my thoughts, etc. To know how to meditate is to be on the path of inner illumination. If we want to learn how to meditate, we must comprehend that between me and my thoughts—in other words, between thinker and thought—there is no difference whatsoever."

>"Only when the mind is really quiet, only when the mind is in a true silence can we then experience that which is the Reality, that which is the authentic Being, the Innermost. It is totally impossible to become integral while the mind is bottled within dualism." - Samael Aun Weor

[Anonymous No.12944732]

>>12942952
>>12942952
Wow, one incredibly vague line, which doesn't even extend any human beings save for one of them. Here's another passage you should try to spin a non-dual assertion out of:

Genesis 3:19
By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.

Is God made from dust too? Wow, so empowering, me and the Almighty are both dust-buddies :^)

Canonical Christianity never reached any kind of genuine monism and it has forever failed to join the rest of the world's most sophisticated spiritual philosophies as a result. And far more people are leaving it today for those philosophies than joining it, recognizing the far greater coherence, subtlety and profundity in them. Go ahead though, try and rebrand yourselves as monistic pantheists now, acting like you always were, if you think doing so will make people believe in your theologies again.

[Anonymous No.12944742]

>>12943105
>>12942525
>>12944732
Intended to add you as well.

[Anonymous No.12944754]

>>12944732
extend to any*

[Anonymous No.12944774]

The essence of christianity is certainly non-dual :"whatever you do to the least of these, you do to me"
It is less explicably so, due to eastern philosophy being endless reasonings simply why and how things are non-dual, leading to questions like this>>12944628
Christianity is more of the principles of acting, given the truth of non-duality. Im talking about the gospel itself, who cares about different mis interpretations throughout time

[Anonymous No.12944866]

>>12944774
It really isn't, but you can keep trying to reframe it as such. For every limited passage you use to demonstrate it being so, I'll find you far more that squash any such conceptions. The bottom line in Christianity is that if I reject Christianity, denying both Jesus and the Father, then I am now officially condemned, and my soul is sentenced to a permanent duration of torment after my body expires. This is what we call "soteriological exclusivity", and there is nothing "non-dual" about it. If I can reject both Jesus as God and Jesus's God, while still being completely fine, you might be able to construct a case from there. This is not possible within Christianity however, as it denies the most fundamental premise of the religion, thus negating any need for Christianity itself.

[Anonymous No.12944894]

>>12940497
>>12940497
>SHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEIT
Let's burn down the library of Alexandria

[Anonymous No.12945044]

>>12944866
>>12944866
>implying that everyone of these are seperate entities
why are you wannabes always trying to be such smartasses only to reject christianity in favor of some foreign religions. grow out of it kid

[Anonymous No.12945079]

>>12944866
>thinks accepting Christ is different than realizing non-duality

[Anonymous No.12945112]

Ethics - Spinoza

[Anonymous No.12945132]

>>12945079
If I can't reject Christ without consequence, your religion isn't even close to "non-dual". Try again.

>>12945044
>foreign religions
Ah, the /pol/ religious tourist who uses theologies as an add-on to his racial identity. I wonder for how long you'll continue the charade.

[Anonymous No.12945165]

>>12945132
You cant reject "non-duality" without consequence either. It leads to samsara

[Anonymous No.12945184]

>>12943105
Christianity is dualistic, in the Hindu sense. The self is never equated with God, the closest it gets is theosis, which is becoming like God and being in union with Him. But there is a fundamental distinction between God and creation in Christianity.

[Anonymous No.12945209]

>>12945184
Non-duality though is just the union of opposites, the union of duality. Duality exists in the human experience. Non-duality is only a teaching which shocks our consciousness because it is unusual to our experience which is dual. So any religion that says we can have theosis, being in union with God, is in accordance with non duality, union of opposites. Obviously our soul is not God, but if it can unite with God it is a part of God.

[Anonymous No.12945243]

>>12945165
Yes, in the same way that an individual cannot reject water without suffering the consequence of dying sometime later. The distinction here is that while true, non-dual religions do not claim their own well as the only one leading to salvation, only the general principle that "water is needed for survival", Christianity claims itself to be the only well to be drunk from. All other water is poisoned; and drinking from them will lead it's drinker to an eternal, irreversible state of death.

[Anonymous No.12945298]

>>12945243
Mmmm you should go ask Tibetan buddists if they are the sole possessors of truth. They really believe their mountain kingdom is the only place on earth where reality is understood, and only by being born into this kingdom can you be saved.

Almost every religion is like this, not just Christianity. Its true because for that culture, their religion is the fount of truth. But in the modern world it is hard to see how different cultures all had the truth in essence expressed in very different ways.

Whether its realizing Christ or realizing non-duality, they both have consequences that without this realization the human soul is doomed to suffer.

[Anonymous No.12945397]

>>12945298
I don't really worry too much about the modern versions of these cultures, which I consider later corruptions of their earlier, pristine forms. Hinduism and Buddhism in their original forms did not incorporate such concepts of exclusivity, speaking purely of objective realities which they created systems - meditation, yoga, etc - to help alleviate oneself of (for the negative realities), and bring oneself closer to (for the positive ones). They were specific paths, but spoke of universal realities, which they acknowledged other paths could similarly speak on.

Christianity can be non-dual in some sense - of Christ being the spiritual model to embody and God being the essence to unify with - but not if the standard theology, predicated on exclusionism, is accepted. If Christ is specifically and literally the only path to salvation, rather than some kind of generic "Christ-consciousness" that extends beyond the original figure and can be embodied without the contingently-encountered knowledge of Jesus, the Gospels, etc, then Christianity is not non-dual. And that's final.

[Anonymous No.12945407]

>>12945132
>Ah, the /pol/ religious tourist who uses theologies as an add-on to his racial identity. I wonder for how long you'll continue the charade.
Ah, summoning the /pol/ boogeyman. You know what kid, I'm just old enought to have wittnessed a time where there was only one religion around. I know a young sport can't remember and thinks religion is just like a cafeteria like eclecticism that allows you to pick only what suits you best rather than a practice your life was build around even if you don't felt religious at all

[Anonymous No.12945433]

>>12945397
>I don't really worry too much about the modern versions of these cultures
>but the modern and castrated version of Christianity is what I don't like
Read the Bible and its clearly not about exclusionary fanaticism. You just dont like it I assume because it is a part of your culture. Buddhists feel the same way about their own and convert often, because you are too close to the subconscious problems of that culture and tradition, they are a part of you. But the essence of Christianity which has been handed down by orthodox mystics, anchorites, saints, is a true path to reality. There is abundant non-duality in Christianity, if you choose to ignore it and focus on a bible belt form of christianity, thats nobodys fault but your own. But know that if you were in India or Thailand, the amount of fanaticism and ignorance you could find in their religion would be the same. You just get the jewels from 1000 years ago without the baggage because you are not in that culture.

[Anonymous No.12945520]

>>12945433
What's "modern" about the notion of Christianity being the sole path to salvation? That's always been the case, and I'll point you to John 14:6 or Augustine's writings on non-believers if you need some canonical proof of that. Have you yourself read the Bible? Where in it does it say "you don't need Jesus to be saved"? Precisely nowhere.

I'm neither Hindu nor Buddhist, nor planning to become one. But the fact remains that you'll find no such statements of exclusivity within their canonical scriptures from more than two millennia ago. The "abundant non-duality" you claim of Christianity is an absolute joke compared to form of it in those religions, which do not even require one to be Hindu or Buddhist to reach enlightenment, let alone be permanently punished for not following their path during your lifetime. I could again point you to lines like in Genesis here >>12944732, which you'd only humor me if you attempted to spin non-duality out of that. Or the doctrines of predestination, the necessity of God's grace, etc, and similar ones that mark the clearest separation of creature from creator, in such a way that the former isn't even ultimately in control of their own unification with the latter. I'm not as familiar with Orthodoxy as I am Catholicism, but regardless most of the support for soteriological exclusionism can be found in the Bible, which disproves anything you're attempting to peddle here.

[Anonymous No.12945556]

>>12945520
>What's "modern" about the notion of Christianity being the sole path to salvation?
Nothing, that wasnt what I was addressing. I was talking more about "just believe in jesus and youre saved", rather than using the Christian doctrine for a profound transformation in your Being.
It is absolutely true that the essence of Christianity is the sole path to salvation and without it you will suffer. However that essence is found within Buddhism etc. If these religions have their intended effect on your Being, you can be saved from suffering, simple as that.

> the fact remains that you'll find no such statements of exclusivity within their canonical scriptures
That's not true. Buddhism came into being because it believed hinduism was completely mistaken in regards to their "view", and without right view in buddhism salvation is impossible. Their scriptures are incredibly exclusive, its simply not true to say otherwise. They argue over minor points on the right view, and believe that only buddhists have it.

[Anonymous No.12945725]

>>12945556
We are in agreement on Christianity as being a valid path for the transformation of one's Being. I have never believed otherwise. I have only contrasted it's doctrines with those of the truer, non-dualist traditions like Buddhism or Advaita, which in their purest forms speak only of realities, and may disagree on the nature of these realities, but do not discriminate between people on the basis of metaphysical faction. All paths see themselves as the purist and "best" ones to the destination being travelled to, but while Buddhists might believe Hindus to hold a less-correct view than Hindus do, they don't hold them to be going to a Naraka eternally for doing so. Nor did Siddhartha ever say one has to be a Buddhist to reach enlightenment. There is no personal God in Buddhism, to which one must gain approval of. It's all far more directly and explicitly non-dual. Anyone who argues that Christianity is "more" non-dual than it is either dishonest or simply confused.

[Anonymous No.12945786]

>>12945725
Buddhism and advaita are definitely more explicitly non-dual, but really its reality that's non-dual. Christians are dealing with the same reality, not a different one. Christianity isnt "more" non-dual in its doctrines because that is the property of Buddhism, but its effect is the same in mystics

Buddhism is about stilling the mind to be filled with God/the True Reality. Christianity is about prayer and aspiring to this which leads to a still mind and peace etc, with the example of Christ who became completely at one with God.

Christianity was corrupted as well to intentionally leave some of this out. In the KJV, the Kingdom of heaven is within you, became "the Kingdom of Heaven is in your midst", indicating that the physical person of Jesus was the kingdom of Heaven.
And in his baptism, the line translated as "this is my son, in Him I am well pleased". in the original greek states "this is my son, this day I have begotten Him", meaning that a transformation occured and Jesus became Christ itself.

[Anonymous No.12946349]

bump