Gnosticism and eastern philosophy

[Anonymous No.16455508]

/lit/ often says that neoplatonists btfo the gnostics, but nobody ever elaborates on that statement.
How is the idea of a malevolent demiurge refuted by the Enneads?
In a way, aren't hinduism and buddhism also "gnostic" schools of thought since they follow the same principles, namely that this world is a prison/that we are being kept here (either by Archons or by samsara) and that one should seek to transcend it (through gnosis or moksha)? Were buddhism and hinduism refuted too?

[Anonymous No.16455579]

>>16455508
IIRC the conflict between Gnostics and other trad currents was the Gnostic stance on the human body, but I can't remember the details.

[Anonymous No.16455595]

any who criticises gnosticism misunderstands it, I am not even joking

[Anonymous No.16455597]

>>16455595
How do you mean?

[Anonymous No.16455629]

>>16455597
saying that gnostics believe the world is evil or that you just have to die to escape etc etc

[Anonymous No.16455637]

>>16455629
What are the true gnostic beliefs? You have to admit the core tenants are pretty muddled, if only because there are so many diverging branches of gnosticism
>the world is evil
Don't gnostics think that the world is a prison?
>you just have to die to escape
I thought the condition for escape was to achieve gnosis, whatever that actually entails.

[Anonymous No.16455692]

>>16455637
the world is not evil, simply inferior because it was crafted by a lesser being with lesser material
achieving gnosis is the same as escaping samsara and works the same as well

[Anonymous No.16455705]

>>16455692
>works the same as well
Through meditation? Isn't gnosis supposed to be about knowledge?

[Anonymous No.16455709]

>>16455508
>by samsara
by craving from ignorance that craving is the condition for dukkha

[Anonymous No.16455714]

>>16455709
But how do you escape craving?
And isn't the desire to escape craving also craving in itself?

[Anonymous No.16455723]

>>16455714
>And isn't the desire to escape craving also craving in itself?
In Buddhism, there is difference between "desire" and "attachment". Most desire is caused by attachment, but desire for enlightenment is not.

[Anonymous No.16455728]

>>16455714
>>But how do you escape craving?
by knowing that craving is the condition for dukkha, and then removing more and more cravings, first craving to go away is craving for sensual pleasure, then craving for existence & non-existence.

>>16455714
>>And isn't the desire to escape craving also craving in itself?
that's true for people not even partially enlightened, because they go by faith and desire. People at least partially enlightened go back ''independent knowledge'' until they are fully enlightened.

[Anonymous No.16455729]

>>16455705
so is meditation, it's self knowledge, realizing ones own nature

[Anonymous No.16455730]

>>16455723
Are >99% of humans therefore condemned to reincarnate again and again since the amount of people who can be said to have truly rid themselves from attachment is presumably extremely low?
To get back to gnosticism, where is Christ in all this?

[Anonymous No.16455733]

>>16455508
Gnosticism is gay and made-up, it was BTFO by the Council of Chalcedon, it's BTFO'd by neoplatonists. Gnosticism has been dead for hundreds of years and it's only been brought back by retards who adopt the most esoteric of beliefs to seem cool.
/thread

[Anonymous No.16455735]

>>16455728
>go back ''independent knowledge''
go with

[Anonymous No.16455737]

>>16455733
>BTFO by the Council of Chalcedon, it's BTFO'd by neoplatonists
Did you read the fucking OP, retard? Or do you just get an autistic meltdown every time the word gnosticism is mentioned anywhere regardless of its context?

[Anonymous No.16455744]

>>16455737
Yeah I read the OP, and this thread is stupid. Cry about it.

[Anonymous No.16455750]

>>16455744
What a fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.16455753]

>>16455750
Keep crying bitch.

[Anonymous No.16455756]

>>16455729
There are many forms of meditation, but not all of them are conducive to gnosis, are they?
>>16455728
>removing more and more cravings
Wouldn't you end up obliterating the ego eventually?

[Anonymous No.16455761]

>>16455753
Keep seething brainlet.

[Anonymous No.16455766]

>>16455730
Christ is the guy who was sent to earth to give people a manual. God knows about the demiurge and about the souls that get trapped there out of ignorance but he wants to give hem a choice. Christ is there to give you that choice by telling you how to come home again.

[Anonymous No.16455767]

>>16455730
>Are >99% of humans therefore condemned to reincarnate again and again since the amount of people who can be said to have truly rid themselves from attachment is presumably extremely low?
According to mainstream Buddhism, yes. Personally, I believe the individual soul is obliterated on death.
>To get back to gnosticism, where is Christ in all this?
He's just a messenger that reintroduces the concept of gnosis.

[Anonymous No.16455769]

>>16455733
>t. has never read anything by neoplatonists and barely skimmed the wikipedia article on Chalcedon

[Anonymous No.16455775]

>>16455756
>>Wouldn't you end up obliterating the ego eventually?
well there is no ego in the first place.

[Anonymous No.16455780]

>>16455766
>telling you how to come home again.
But in the Bible, isn't faith the way, rather than knowledge?
>>16455775
>there is no ego
Then what perceives "I"?

[Anonymous No.16455781]

>>16455756
>but not all of them are conducive to gnosis, are they?
No, some of the most popular Buddhist-style 'mindfulness' meditations taught in the west just sedate your mind and turn you into an NPC without any gnosis involved, which is why they are being pushed by corporations to turn people into obedient ant worker drones.

[Anonymous No.16455787]

>>16455767
>Personally, I believe the individual soul is obliterated on death.
How is that practically different from nihilism?

[Anonymous No.16455793]

>>16455780
>Then what perceives "I"?
The part which you must free from attachment. The part of you which says "I" enslaves itself to the concept of an "I" the moment it identifies with it.

[Anonymous No.16455798]

>>16455780
The Bible doesn't teach gnosticism. However, imo both paths eventually lead to the same result. Knowledge not being the actual way to escape but the tool through which you escape leads you to the same mindset as utter devotion and trust in Christ. A free gift there for the taking.

[Anonymous No.16455802]

>>16455781
I'm very ignorant regarding meditation. The mindfulness "clearing your mind" form is samatha, yes?
What are the actually valuable forms of meditation?

[Anonymous No.16455803]

>>16455787
>How is that practically different from nihilism?
Personally, I believe the individual unenlightened soul is obliterated on death.*
I should have been more specific.

[Anonymous No.16455807]

>>16455769
Cry about it hylic bitch

[Anonymous No.16455812]

>>16455807
>>16455761

[Anonymous No.16455815]

ITT: brainlet retards arguing over their long BTFO'd brainlet religion

[Anonymous No.16455821]

>>16455793
When happens to perception or consciousness once this part is freed?
>>16455803
Does that imply a new soul is made every time an unenlightened one is obliterated? Then are enlightened souls also made (in the determinist sense)?

[Anonymous No.16455828]

>>16455815
Seethe more brainlet

[Anonymous No.16455835]

>>16455780
>Then what perceives "I"?
the ''I'' is an idea, and like all ideas, or in buddhism mental formation, it is perceived by ''mind consciousness''

[Anonymous No.16455842]

>>16455798
>The Bible doesn't teach gnosticism
I thought gnostics took the NT as canon.
Regardless, if knowledge and faith are both equally valid tools through which escaping becomes possible, why the theological disagreements between gnostics and christians? Isn't the aim fundamentally identical even though the chosen methods differ?
>A free gift
Faith alone seems more "convenient" to me than the work knowledge implies.

[Anonymous No.16455864]

>>16455821
>When happens to perception or consciousness once this part is freed?
Nirvana. After you reach Nirvana, you learn to descend back into Samsara in a new way.
>Does that imply a new soul is made every time an unenlightened one is obliterated? Then are enlightened souls also made (in the determinist sense)?
In my view, soul is the form spirit takes when it inhabits human life. It sustains the soul, then is freed and recycled. An unenlightened soul is consequently obliterated because its form is gone and it has reverted to raw material which can then be used to form another soul. This does not necessarily happen, but it can happen. An enlightened soul on the other hand is freed by being reabsorbed into spirit during one's lifetime and is therefore aware and free, so death does not reduce it to formlessness.

[Anonymous No.16455877]

>>16455842
It does indeed seem more convenient. You gotta have an option for everyone. Universal salvation is the whole point.

[Anonymous No.16455914]

>>16455864
>Nirvana
But what is nirvana exactly?
>An unenlightened soul is consequently obliterated because its form is gone
Doesn't the Bardo Thodol give a more "practical" approach that is supposed to allow even the unenlightened to avoid the traps that lead back to reincarnation?

[Anonymous No.16455924]

How are buddhists not terrified of death in general? This worldview implies that a life devoted to meditation is the only way to avoid samsara, yet most eastern people are not monks, obviously.
>>16455877
>Universal salvation is the whole point.
That's what I don't get, if everyone is saved in the end, why bother working for it? I don't mean to be cynical but I can't find another way to word it.

[Anonymous No.16455931]

>>16455924
>How are buddhists not terrified of death in general?
non enlightened people are sacred, but they prefer sense pleasures and a good rebirth, ie a birth were life is full of sense pleasures.

enlightened people are not scared about death.

[Anonymous No.16455935]

>>16455914
>Bardo Thodol
that's a book from tibetan intellectuals and it's more hidnuism than buddhism, like all vajrayana

[Anonymous No.16455940]

>>16455924
They are, for the same reason that Christians are terrified of death: all people are terrified of death. At an existential level, you've got plenty of time. The importance is making sure you're reborn a human (there are ways to assure this).

Secondly, you can't "avoid" samsara, you're already there. You have to STOP samsaraing.

[Anonymous No.16455947]

>>16455931
>enlightened people are not scared about death.
Understandably, since they're the only ones whose soul will retain its form.
The part I find scary isn't samsara in itself, but rather the obliteration of the soul. After all, it doesn't matter if the substance that used to form "me" is reincarnated since that "me" will have become formless and been remodeled into an entirely different awareness.
I don't want to stop experiencing things which is what makes the prospect of obliteration scary to me.

[Anonymous No.16455963]

>>16455940
>Christians are terrified of death
Christians have the guarantee that their soul will be saved "as is" if they follow a set of rules. Buddhists don't.
>making sure you're reborn a human (there are ways to assure this).
What are they?
Where is this stated, in the Dhammapada?
>You have to STOP samsaraing.
Yes, that's what I meant, my bad.

[Anonymous No.16455965]

>>16455924
everyone isn't saved automatically, as I said you are given a choice, the universal part is that the choice needs to be viable for anybody

[Anonymous No.16455968]

>>16455935
I'm not fully clear on the actual differences between the two, do buddhists not believe in the "in-between state" as hinduists do with the bardo then? What makes buddhism more valid than hinduism, for you?

[Anonymous No.16455981]

>>16455965
>everyone isn't saved automatically
The technicalities of salvation differ depending on the branch of Christianity but speaking in general, belief in Christ and his sacrifice is the main requirement, isn't it? Yes, you are given a choice, but to make such a choice is infinitely easier than to attain a particular state of transcendence by yourself as buddhism requires.

[Anonymous No.16455991]

>>16455508

gnosticism posits that the demiurge is evil becase the world was designed that way as a punishment, neoplatonists disagree by saying that evil is in the world because of so many steps of removal from the one. big difference. gnostics also take neoplatonic cosmology and reincarnation and apply it to christianity without much thought. there is no rebirth in christianity, you're born as a human once, and then await judgement

[Anonymous No.16456009]

>>16455981
I don't think so, buddhist enlightenment is pretty easy, I got enlightened twice this year alone

[Anonymous No.16456012]

>>16456009
How?

[Anonymous No.16456015]

>>16455508
>>16455595
Indeed. The only difference between Origen's and Evagrius gnosis before Valentinian gnosis is the "myth" of creation; the positing of the Demiurge and the fall of Sophia, who creates the world through the Demiurge- through the soul, we should say.

[Anonymous No.16456018]

>>16455914
>But what is nirvana exactly?
Liberation from maya, freedom.
>Doesn't the Bardo Thodol give a more "practical" approach that is supposed to allow even the unenlightened to avoid the traps that lead back to reincarnation?
If you're referring to the Tibetan Book of the Dead, it deals with the lives of monastic initiates who have not progresssed far enough during their lifetime. In the cases of partially awakened monastics, their guru may provide them with assistance to help make up their lack.

[Anonymous No.16456021]

>>16455508
>>16455595
Indeed. The only difference between Origen's and Evagrius' gnosis before Valentinian's gnosis is the "myth" of creation; the positing of the Demiurge and the fall of Sophia, who creates the world through the Demiurge- through the soul, we should say.

[Anonymous No.16456041]

>>16455968
That guy is a moron who accuses every type of Buddhism aside from Theravada Buddhism of being secretly Hinduism. Hindus don't believe in what the Tibetian Bardo Thodol teaches, there is a different intermediary process between lives which is described in the Upanishads and Brahma Sutras. Most of what that poster says is just circular reasoning, e.g. X is wrong view because Buddhism says so therefore X is wrong and bad.

[Anonymous No.16456044]

>>16456018
>Liberation from maya, freedom.
What does it entail consciousness-wise? Since nirvana seems to be described as a state rather than as a true higher plane or afterlife.
> their guru may provide them with assistance to help make up their lack.
Is that it? It's just a book for partially awakened initiates to weasel their way into escaping the cycle of rebirth?

[Anonymous No.16456047]

>>16456012
the journey towards this is full of idiosyncrasies making it impossible to convey in a coherent or effective manner, nevertheless I simply started by enhancing my natural inclination towards asceticism and followed my heart from there :)

[Anonymous No.16456065]

>>16456041
> there is a different intermediary process between lives
I haven't read the Bardo Thodol yet but from the little I've seen, the bardo is described as an unclear, deceptive and illusory state, and so the soul needs to see through the illusions to be able to transcend. Is that right?
How is hinduism's intermediary process like, comparatively?

[Anonymous No.16456073]

>>16456047
>enhancing my natural inclination towards asceticism
Yes, this is what I'm doing as well, but I'm not sure where it's leading me. There are too many beliefs and philosophies, perennialist skepticism seems like a lukewarm copout yet I'm not entirely convinced by any belief system in its entirety, it always feels deep down as if something is lacking, and what I'm looking at is not truly all-encompassing, or just doesn't feel quite right.
Would you mind sharing your own experience, as personal and unapplicable to my own as it may be?

[Anonymous No.16456078]

>>16456041
Crack up some books on logic, fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.16456108]

>>16456009
>I got enlightened twice this year alone
Very funny anon. Veryfunny.
>>16456044
>What does it entail consciousness-wise? Since nirvana seems to be described as a state rather than as a true higher plane or afterlife.
Nirvana is a state you reach once you have conquered a higher plane. If you really wanted a description of it, a free, detached hyper-awareness is the most accurate possible description. Keep in mind that descriptions like this are completely useless and not particularly relevant to nirvana, from nirvana's own point of view. A verbal description of nirvana is necessarily a "description from below".
>Is that it? It's just a book for partially awakened initiates to weasel their way into escaping the cycle of rebirth?
That's a very unappreciative way of putting it. It contains descriptions of what comes after death, as well as instructions about methods that can be pursued after death to achieve the ultimate goal. Keep in mind that from an enlightened perspective, the death of the body is not the death of the being, so the pursuit of strategies for enlightenment after death are completely valid for those capable of using them.

[Anonymous No.16456114]

>>16456073
>There are too many beliefs and philosophies
I know what you mean
honestly large part was just brooding/obsessing over the same things and eventually making lucky connections that synthesize relevant portions into a cohesive thing, I wouldn't go as far as calling it a system because the feeling I get afterwards it's full of content bliss that I stop seeking and therefore don't have the chance to formalize it. This is bad because sometimes I have to undergo the same thing I already did but it is largely good because it allows me to feel instead of think.
I do not wish to go into detail, just keep at it, if you are already on the path the only thing left to do is wait

[Anonymous No.16456122]

>>16456018
>>Liberation from maya, freedom.
There is no maya in buddhism.

[Anonymous No.16456125]

>>16456073
Not the guy that you are responding to, but there is nothing wrong with an intelligent perennialism. Certainty of perennialism does not preclude you from following an ascetic tradition you wish to choose on the basis of suitability.

[Anonymous No.16456171]

>>16456065

It gets kind of complicated and I'd rather not have to write a series of posts summarizing everything, but basically one option is that the soul which engaged in meditations and spiritual practices during its life (but which didn't attain complete enlightenment) can ascend to Brahmaloka, which is a heavenly realm lasting until the end of the cycle of universal manifestation, you can become liberated there but if you fail to attain liberation there you become an embodied being undergoing transmigration again when the next cycle of universal manifestation arises. This first option is called, the northern path, the way of the gods or devayana. The second option is that people who engage in rituals etc but don't have the requisite level of inner spiritual understanding have their souls ascend to the moon where it spends a while and then it returns down to earth and enters into another body for another life. This is called the southern path, the way of the fathers or pitriyana. The third option is for people are completely spiritually ignorant and who have committed serious sins, depravity, etc, they are immediately reborn as plants, bugs etc without first ascending to the moon. Someone who attains liberation or moksha in this life immediately merges with Brahman at the death of the body without going anywhere, similar to how the space inside a pot merges with the all-pervasive space when the pot is shattered.

[Anonymous No.16456177]

>>16456078
What are you talking about? Also the expression is "crack open", not "crack up"

[Anonymous No.16456189]

>>16456108
>a free, detached hyper-awareness
So you will know when you have attained it, right?
Which meditation methods are said to be conducive to nirvana? I mentioned samatha earlier but I'm pretty sure that's not it.
>description from below
This may be a stupid question, but how would someone who has attained nirvana appear to the eyes of others? How much does it change you, on this material plane?
>That's a very unappreciative way of putting it
I know, I was exaggerating.
Regarding those descriptions of what comes after death, is it known how they were acquired? I think there's been a resurgence in interest for the Bardo Thodol precisely because the way it describes the intermediary states is similar to the usual descriptions of near-death experiences.
>methods that can be pursued after death
There's a time limit though, isn't there? If I'm not mistaken, a person only stays in the bardo for about a month before being reincarnated.
Also, I think there was something about the way you died being very important, since a violent death would preclude you from being fully aware in the bardo, and therefore much easier to fool and stumble into the cycle of rebirth again.

>>16456114
>making lucky connections that synthesize relevant portions into a cohesive thing
Did you pretty much pick from several philosophies to construct your own thing, then?
>it's full of content bliss that I stop seeking
So you go through this step of knowledge accumulation and self-reflection and then just get the feeling that it is right, and you stop there? I'm bad at expressing what I mean, I think I understand your post though but I'm just making sure.

[Anonymous No.16456191]

>>16455842
yes both have things in common, both are rooted in the meassage from the gospel of john and the concept of logos, "in the beginning was the logos and the logos is God", if you don't understand the concept of logos you will not understand a thing, the logos is the pure conciousness from where "the waters come down" (this type of symbology is everywhere in early christian writers)

the "logos" is the logic that created the universe, we have a "divine spark" because we have logos this is what allows us to observe and study the universe, the revelations of Christianity are profoundly Greek philosophy and this concept of logos is paramaount, John tells us directly "the logos is God"

the "logos" is basically the cornerstone of conciousness and this is what Kant and Heidegger were trying to study like some anons have correctly pointed out in other threads (in the case of heideger the logos would be the core of "being")

the big difference is that gnostics consider nature to be an error created by a third entity the "demiurge" not by the Logos directly, and christians don't consider it an error, they consider nature was created by the logos BUT nature has a "fallen" quality same as us humans because only the logos/logic itself is pure or "perfect" nothing created after it can be as pure as it ("but they told me God was perfect"...this is an ontological kind of thing: a copy or emanation can not be 100% equal to the source, in this sense God can not make a 100% equal copy of itself)

for gnostics salvation is: knowing that the Logos/logic exist and having an spiritual life and dont fall into materialism so as to return to "him" (similar to any other christians)

[Anonymous No.16456222]

>>16456125
>there is nothing wrong with an intelligent perennialism
I'd like for mine to be intelligent, but I'm full of doubt and I don't wish to fall into the trap of a wishy-washy new age take on spirituality, so I'm treading carefully.
There is always a dissonance between my deeper feelings and the impressions I get from specific religious dogmas which almost always fill me with fear and uncertainty instead of reassurance.
>does not preclude you from following an ascetic tradition you wish to choose on the basis of suitability.
If we take the perennialist view as the right one, then it seems to me that the differences in the various ascetic traditions available would be essentially aesthetic and perhaps influenced by cultural bias. At that point, why follow one of them in particular?

[Anonymous No.16456242]

>>16456189
>Did you pick
not really, the connections made themselves

[Anonymous No.16456245]

>>16456191
>the logos is the pure conciousness from where "the waters come down" (this type of symbology is everywhere in early christian writers)
>we have a "divine spark" because we have logos this is what allows us to observe and study the universe,
>the "logos" is basically the cornerstone of conciousness
This seems to have a direct parallel in the Paramatman or Supreme Self of Hinduism.

[Anonymous No.16456253]

>>16456171
Thanks for the informative post. So hinduism has three possible paths depending on the level of spiritual advancement, then, not counting moksha.
I should really just read the relevant texts because the more I inquire into buddhist and hinduist cosmogony, the more confused I become.

[Anonymous No.16456264]

>>16456191
>the big difference is that gnostics consider nature to be an error created by a third entity the "demiurge" not by the Logos directly....

That's false, dear anon. Study the Valentians gnostics. Here is an article that may help you: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1583600#metadata_info_tab_contents

[Anonymous No.16456267]

>>16456171
>Someone who attains liberation or moksha in this life immediately merges with Brahman at the death of the body without going anywhere, similar to how the space inside a pot merges with the all-pervasive space when the pot is shattered.
When atman is assimilated into brahman, does atman disappear (or is destroyed), or does it simply become part of a greater oneness without losing its property as a unique phenomenon?

[Anonymous No.16456269]

>>16456222
>At that point, why follow one of them in particular?
Not him, because without joining one tradition and adhering to its precepts it will be extremely hard or impossible to find someone who is a repository of that traditions wisdom who can directly instruct you in it in order to help you ascend. Self-studying will also be greatly inferior to being personally instructed by someone who knows.

[Anonymous No.16456288]

>>16456189
>So you will know when you have attained it, right?
Yes.
>Which meditation methods are said to be conducive to nirvana? I mentioned samatha earlier but I'm pretty sure that's not it.
There are many. Look into a Buddhist tradition and see what its recommended methods are. Speak to a representative.
>This may be a stupid question, but how would someone who has attained nirvana appear to the eyes of others? How much does it change you, on this material plane?
Buddhists typically view arahants as nonhuman. "How much does nirvana change you?" is a question the answer to which depends on the detailed definition of every single word in the question. Everything you know will be superseded. Does that mean that you will abandon everything? That depends on your enlightened will. As I mentioned earlier, the aim of Buddhism isn't just to achieve nirvana, but to unify samsara and nirvana within your personal life for the duration of your earthly existence. The terms on which you do that are determined by you.
>Regarding those descriptions of what comes after death, is it known how they were acquired? I think there's been a resurgence in interest for the Bardo Thodol precisely because the way it describes the intermediary states is similar to the usual descriptions of near-death experiences.
I do not know. Maybe some do, but I doubt either of us can access them.
>There's a time limit though, isn't there? If I'm not mistaken, a person only stays in the bardo for about a month before being reincarnated.
Yes, there is a time limit, but the specifying the duration is a very challenging prospect.
>Also, I think there was something about the way you died being very important, since a violent death would preclude you from being fully aware in the bardo, and therefore much easier to fool and stumble into the cycle of rebirth again.
I am not aware of such thing, but it may be possible. One of the important things to do before dying is to remain active and move with initiative. If you're reduced to automated instinct at the very moment of death, that may have possible consequences, though there is no way to be completely certain.
If you have particular interest in the Tibetan Book of the Dead, Evola's Doctrine of Awakening also briefly examines it.

[Anonymous No.16456297]

>>16456269
Wouldn't it create some kind of cognitive dissonance in the long term to adamantly follow a specific tradition's precepts while also subscribing to the idea of perennial wisdom?

[Anonymous No.16456330]

>>16456222
>I'd like for mine to be intelligent, but I'm full of doubt and I don't wish to fall into the trap of a wishy-washy new age take on spirituality, so I'm treading carefully.
You may want to look into the Traditionalists. They dealt with precisely this topic and had a very antagonistic relationship with the Theosophists, who are the origin of New Age spirituality.
>There is always a dissonance between my deeper feelings and the impressions I get from specific religious dogmas which almost always fill me with fear and uncertainty instead of reassurance.
Depending on which parts of the dogma fill you with fear, you may either have a natural inclination towards transcendence that steers you away from lifeless dogma or you may be shackled by attachment that does not want to concede primacy to any dogma.
>If we take the perennialist view as the right one, then it seems to me that the differences in the various ascetic traditions available would be essentially aesthetic and perhaps influenced by cultural bias. At that point, why follow one of them in particular?
The differences are not purely aesthetic. You can look at Evola's "Yoga of Power" for reference on Tantrism, if you'd like. Tantric yoga promotes a totally different worldview, completely opposed to something like Buddhism, for example. The different traditions are different paths to reach the same goal, but not all are suitable for all. Some have aptitude for one tradition and others for a completely different one.

[Anonymous No.16456372]

>>16456267
>When atman is assimilated into brahman, does atman disappear (or is destroyed), or does it simply become part of a greater oneness without losing its property as a unique phenomenon?
Only an unenlightened soul is "absorbed" into Brahman in the sense that you're thinking, the rest retain their autonomy and strength.
>>16456297
No. The source is the same. You may retain a sense of distance and respect, but that's only a bad thing if you make it a bad thing.

[Anonymous No.16456379]

>>16456288
>Look into a Buddhist tradition
Meditation is also practiced in other religions. Should non-buddhist meditative practices be dismissed, though?
>nonhuman
Is that because nirvana is associated with detachment from all forms of material influences, including emotions?
>The terms on which you do that are determined by you
Does this imply that an arhat or bodhisattva could choose to adopt a way of living that is completely novel (though maybe not antithetic) to what is usually depicted in tradition?
>specifying the duration is a very challenging prospect
I got this
>Both the Mahāvibhāṣa and the Abhidharmakośa have the notion of the intermediate state lasting "seven times seven days" (i.e. 49 days) at most. This is one view, though, and there were also others.
But as they say themselves, this is only one view.
>remain active and move with initiative
What of those who cannot do this due to injury, or those whose very consciousness is affected, like in the case of neurodegenerative diseases? Are those people simply meant to enter the cycle of rebirth regardless of what they do?

[Anonymous No.16456382]

>>16456191
>"Logos is the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning."

>"The Gospel of John identifies the Christian Logos, through which all things are made, as God and further identifies Jesus Christ as the incarnate Logos. Early translators of the Greek New Testament such as Jerome (4th AD) were frustrated by the inadequacy of any single Latin word to convey the meaning of the word logos as used to describe Jesus Christ in the Gospel of John. The Vulgate Bible usage of "in principio erat verbum" ("in the beginning was the word") was thus constrained to use the (perhaps inadequate) noun "verbum" for "word"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos


>Agustine: The greek “logos”, in latin signifies both Reason and Word. here is better to interpret it "Word" as it represent not only the Father but also the creation of things, "Word" is operative power whereas Reason, though nothing it can make (on its own), is rightly called Reason.
>(latin) Augustinus: Quod Graece logos dicitur, Latine et rationem et verbum significat; sed hoc melius verbum interpretatur, ut significetur non solum ad patrem respectus, sed ad illa etiam quae per verbum facta sunt operativa potentia. Ratio autem, etsi nihil per eam fiat, recte ratio dicitur.
https://ecatholic2000.com/catena/untitled-89.shtml#_Toc384506989

[Anonymous No.16456388]

>>16456379
>Should non-buddhist meditative practices be dismissed, though?
For buddhists yes. Only loving kindness meditation is okay and yet wrong meditation.

[Anonymous No.16456394]

stop seeking
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KXidr0z1RY

[Anonymous No.16456408]

>>16456288
>Evola's Doctrine of Awakening also briefly examines it.
Evola'svew on asian teachings is utter crap.

[Anonymous No.16456410]

>>16456297
I don't think so, if you honestly believe perennialism to be true than I don't see why such a person wouldn't consider the precepts of that one tradition to just be part of the appropriate disciplines and austerities one is supposed to undergo for good reasons like mental cultivation, spiritual fortitude, abstinence from harmful substances/behaviors etc. It is not as though the point that they all lead to God suddenly all makes all the rituals, preparations, observances, asceticism etc from each tradition invalid or pointless.

Guenon wrote in a 1947 letter to Alain Daneliou:

"But, in spite of this, I am obliged at least to rectify erroneous assertions when they occur; For example, I cannot let it be said that I am "converted to Islam", because this way of presenting things is completely false; anyone who is aware of the essential unity of traditions is by this very fact "unconvertible" to anything, he is even the only one who is; but he can "settle down", if it is permitted to express himself in this way,"

I can agree with the sentiment he is expressing here, that someone who views all the valid traditions being united in an essential agreement on the ultimate metaphysical truth can still settle down into one without any major contradiction or cognitive dissonance. Also, there is a long history in the Indian sub-contingent and to a lesser degree elsewhere of popular saints and ascetics like Kabir and Sai Baba having both Muslim and Hindu followers; and there is a long history of Sufis and Hindus interacting and learning from eachother, and various quotes can be dredged up from various historical figures propounding the unity of the faiths. The 4th Mughal Emperor Jahangir in his memoirs recounted many hours spent in conversation with the Brahmin ascetic Jadrup and Jahangir describes that Jadrup was learned in the science of the Vedānta, which Jahangir wrote in his memoir "is the science of Sufism".

[Anonymous No.16456420]

>>16456288
>the aim of Buddhism isn't just to achieve nirvana, but to unify samsara and nirvana within your personal life for the duration of your earthly existence.
This is completely false wtf. What you are parroting is Mahayana.

[Anonymous No.16456473]

>>16456379
>Meditation is also practiced in other religions. Should non-buddhist meditative practices be dismissed, though?
Practices are designed to serve the purposes of their specific traditions, so sometimes even practices that are designed for a different sect of the same tradition may be useless to its practitioners.
>Is that because nirvana is associated with detachment from all forms of material influences, including emotions?
It is because our current definitions of "human" refer only to things "attached" to this world and do not describe one who has gone beyond that state.
>Does this imply that an arhat or bodhisattva could choose to adopt a way of living that is completely novel (though maybe not antithetic) to what is usually depicted in tradition?
Theoretically, yes. There have been traditions who have led their practitioners to very "unenlightened" ways of life as their path to enlightenment, such as tantrism, for example.
>But as they say themselves, this is only one view.
There's also the question of whether that time period is literal or symbolic and if it is symbolic, what is it meant to symbolise? For example, why write it down as "seven times seven days" instead of just 49 days? Is it because there is some symbolism there that is lost with pure arithmetic?
>What of those who cannot do this due to injury, or those whose very consciousness is affected, like in the case of neurodegenerative diseases? Are those people simply meant to enter the cycle of rebirth regardless of what they do?
This is not meant in the literal sense. To remain active is an inner state, one can be completely passive externally and still remain active. The question of brain disease is more interesting. Personally, I don't think it would matter, because from a spiritualist perspective the brain has only a superficial and subordinate relationship with consciousness.

[Anonymous No.16456487]

>>16456408
You need to be 18 to post on this website.
>>16456420
I doubt you even understand what I mean when I say "samsara" and "nirvana", anon. I would be willing to accept criticism to what I have said, but not in this form.

[Anonymous No.16456540]

>>16456264
>that is false because one debatably gnostic branch of gnosticism says so

[Anonymous No.16456541]

>>16456330
>You may want to look into the Traditionalists.
Thank you, I will.
>the origin of New Age spirituality.
The part of new age I don't dislike is its holistic view of existence and emphasis on the importance of the self not only as an unfortunately fragmented part of a whole.
>Depending on which parts of the dogma fill you with fear
To express it clearly is tricky, but the two main difficulties I have with the belief systems I've come across are 1. the impression that they are not as absolutely overarching as I feel a genuine path towards truth would need to be, or in other words that they are needlessly limiting and dogmatically specific (this is admittedly more of a personal feeling than a conclusion I've come to rationally). The emphasis that is put by most belief systems on the primalcy of this particular state of existence seems arbitrary, which is not to say I'm looking for something that downplays the importance of our particular experience in this here and now, but rather for something less narrow in scope.
The second reason is definitely motivated by attachment which is that I have a lot of trouble subscribing to a system which teaches that the annihilation of the self (I mean the self in the more primordial and substantive sense, not necessarily the ego) is the inevitable conclusion of existence.
Sorry if that was long-winded.
>The different traditions are different paths to reach the same goal, but not all are suitable for all. Some have aptitude for one tradition and others for a completely different one.
This makes me more hopeful, thank you.

[Anonymous No.16456552]

>>16455508
How to refute Gnosticism 101
>CIRCULAR
>LOGIC

[Anonymous No.16456561]

>>16456410
good post

[Anonymous No.16456597]

>>16456410
>Guenon
Guenon is a bohemian bourgeois desperate to feel good about himself and craving to hear retarded spooks from eloquent intellectuals.
No wonder atheists like him so much

[Anonymous No.16456604]

>>16456597
bad post

[Anonymous No.16456606]

>>16456267
>When atman is assimilated into brahman, does atman disappear (or is destroyed), or does it simply become part of a greater oneness without losing its property as a unique phenomenon?
According to the Advaita school, there are not separate Atmans, there is only one Atman which is Brahman. Awareness or Consciousness (the Atman) is infinite, the objects of awareness are the only things which are discrete, but not the Awareness in which they appear. When someone attains liberation while still in the body, they revel in the freedom and bliss of their newly discovered essential identity as the Atman, they can still perceive the forms around them and are capable of holding conversations, debates, writing things etc, but they regard all these things without any dualistic conceptions, as being only appearances of the power of the one infinite Self which they are, they would not regard their body and its mind as being "them" anymore than the inanimate objects also perceived around them. The body, mind, thoughts, emotions, rocks, trees, air etc all equally being transient appearances in the infinite Consciousness which is different from all of them. When the body of this person dies, their Atman, which is already infinite Awareness, continues as such without any more residual remaining association with discrete objects of awareness such as are experienced while liberated in the body; it ceases to experience discrete objects and instead becomes omnipresent and omniscient bliss or bliss-awareness.

So it's not as though the Atman disappears, or assimilates itself into a greater pre-existing oneness without losing individuality, but there is only one base or substratum Atman all along, and through Its power are created these "telescoping emanations" for lack of a better term extending in every direction like rays of light, but when you travel backwards back down through the rabbit hole or down the beam of sunlight, back to the metaphorical center the person inside every emanation realizes that their particular emanation had been observed by the one Atman, and that they as sentient beings had in fact been that one Atman all along, and not the individualized persona extending from the Atman or projected by Its powers which they had been identifying with previously.

[Anonymous No.16456667]

>>16456541
>The part of new age I don't dislike is its holistic view of existence and emphasis on the importance of the self not only as an unfortunately fragmented part of a whole.
That's understandable, but that's not really a component of New Age per se. Ideas like this are ancient. Brahman is a typical example.
>1. the impression that they are not as absolutely overarching as I feel a genuine path towards truth would need to be, or in other words that they are needlessly limiting and dogmatically specific (this is admittedly more of a personal feeling than a conclusion I've come to rationally). The emphasis that is put by most belief systems on the primalcy of this particular state of existence seems arbitrary, which is not to say I'm looking for something that downplays the importance of our particular experience in this here and now, but rather for something less narrow in scope.
This sounds to me like a type of bias held towards what should and should not constitute transcendence. Keep in mind that transformations and changes of state are not merely personal, but serve the important function of connecting you (in the material sense) with spirit. Once you strengthen your spirit and identify yourself with it, the work is done and there is no other goal beyond that. At that point, you have the superior freedom and confidence to do as you like. There is nothing else that needs to be secured or realised.
>The second reason is definitely motivated by attachment which is that I have a lot of trouble subscribing to a system which teaches that the annihilation of the self (I mean the self in the more primordial and substantive sense, not necessarily the ego) is the inevitable conclusion of existence.
Is there such a system? If we understand the true and primordial self to be the spirit, then the goal would be precisely to awaken and strengthen it. Annihilating the self sounds antitraditional.
>This makes me more hopeful, thank you.
You're welcome anon.

[Anonymous No.16456756]

>>16456379
>>Both the Mahāvibhāṣa and the Abhidharmakośa
Buddhist commentaries aren't buddhism.
Buddhist commentaries are books made up by the most intellectual non-enlightened monks struggling to understand, hundreds and thousands of years after the buddha, what the fuck the buddha said in the few sutras that they had in whatever small monasteries they lived in.

They did a piss poor job and all they could understand was through the lens of the intellectual big living current in india ie Brahmanism, and sometimes Jainism (before it died too). Contrary to Buddhism and Jainism, Hinduism doesn't need some prophet, just a Brahmanical class of gurus supported by Royalties to teach their mental ramblings and rituals, which is why Jainism and Buddhim was pretty much dead India right after their prophets died.

As they fell back on The Upanishads, like in traditions based only on commentaries, like madhyamaka, the glorified monks and scholars added more and more Vedanta rituals, views and mediation (like mantras), which aren't buddhist at all and don't lead to the buddhist enlightenment.

[Anonymous No.16456858]

>>16456606
Do you have agency though?

[Anonymous No.16456892]

>>16455781
is transcendental the way?

[Anonymous No.16456897]

What if you want complete annihilation of the soul when you die? Are you just screwed then?

[Anonymous No.16456949]

can you have sex in nirvana?
what about vidya games?

[Anonymous No.16456954]

>>16456606
So it's not being assimilated as much as it is like zooming out from a narrow state of awareness to a more complete one?

[Anonymous No.16457002]

Historically speaking, why were Christians so afraid of gnostic sects to the point where they had to commit genocides to prevent their spread?
Was it the demiurge’s doing?

[Anonymous No.16457007]

>>16456606
>>16456858
I've read the post better and it seems you do, sorry English isn't my first language.

[Anonymous No.16457087]

>>16456892
If you can afford it, than yes I have heard good things. It was originally developed by one of the heads of the 4 main Advaita temples in India as a meditative practice that householders could practice, since certain meditations meant for ascetics are not appropriate for them, and then some guy who studied with this guy at this temple then went onto to repackage it as TM and spread it in the west.

[Anonymous No.16457195]

>>16457002
yes

[Anonymous No.16457260]

>>16457087
i sit and repeat a mantra and i have tuned in on the glowing ball and the glowing ball does the uploading thing where it goes upward and assimilates and it goes upwards again and it felt like brain ejaculation. is the experience where you pay money any different?

[Anonymous No.16457648]

>>16456667
>That's understandable, but that's not really a component of New Age per se
You might've misread, I said this is precisely the kind of idea I don't have an issue with. Though I haven't seen too many philosophies with as much of an emphasis on the individual experience of spirituality than new age.
>a type of bias held towards what should and should not constitute transcendence.
Perhaps, though it doesn't feel that way. It's more that every time I think about those things, I feel like something's missing, that there is an ineffable element that I'm not grasping when looking at things through the lens of the philosophical and religious systems I've been introduced to so far.

[Anonymous No.16457847]

>>16457087
What if I can't afford paying for meditation

[Anonymous No.16457853]

>>16456410
good post
Guenon has become a meme basically because the people making post and threads about him are VERY disengenous, they basically were trying to use Guenon as a movil for islam or new-age in this way making things even worse by adding even more confusion into the table


on my part I'm very glad to know E.michael jones because he was the one that showed me why the concept of logos was so important for western philosophy and thought, this guy might be a grumpy catholic old man but he's got a lot of proper esoteric/hermetic knowledge even if he doesn't care for those things

this is the key to understand ALL this about gnosticism and philosophy, kant, hume ,heidegger...at the core of all of this is the same logos that the gospel of John talks about, logos is the core of conciuosness, other anon said that this sounded like "paramatman">>16456245 well, as a parallel Jones even explains that zoroastrians had "fire" as a symbol and he proposes that this is a brute concept of Logos ("fire as a type of energy") is not complete the only way christianity could happen was within the sophistication of the greeks and the rest is history Christianity conquered ALL the west (one could ask, how come? why not islam when they tried to conquer europe?. or other religion?)

John is telling you directly: the logos/the "logic" is God, that is the revelation in that gospel


>41:15 after Descartes everybody separates the things of the mind from the things of the universe and the mind becomes this alien force in the universe it becomes the ghost inside the machine and nobody can explain how they're related well that's because you've lost contact with Logos because Logos is the link between the mind and the universe and the mind can apprehend order in the universe because it was created by the same God who created the universe so all these dilemmas disappear, the Logos becomes the bridge between seemingly unbridgeable realities

>1:03:00 God gave you reason (logos=logic, word, language...) and reason allows you to make judgments about this universe that are accurate and worth following because there's a logos in the universe that corresponds to the logos in your mind like a key to a lock your mind is the key that can unlock the universe because both share in Logos


https://youtu.be/c8vD5gYXYhc

[Anonymous No.16457870]

>>16457847
Some anon who had done the course posted this thread where he supposedly explains how to do it and gives the instructions how despite giving his word to the TM people that he wouldn't. I have not undergone the course myself and cannot verify if it's legit but I don't see any indication he is lying.

>>/lit/thread/S15719361

[Anonymous No.16457928]

>>16457870
Thanks man
So what makes TM so different from other forms of meditation anyway?

[Anonymous No.16458012]

>>16457928
I'm not sure myself, it seems to be a type of mantra meditation, which is actually quite common in Hinduism, Sufism, Vajrayana Buddhism, etc. Mantra meditation appears to be less common in the west because the type of meditation taught here is more often of the mindfulness type and tend to be rooted in Theravada or Zen which don't really place a major emphasis on mantra meditation as far as I'm aware. I know that some people and schools consider it to be much more efficacious than either not thinking about anything, or concentrating on your breathing etc.

[Anonymous No.16458070]

>>16455963
There's for stages of Enlightenment. The first is
>Stream Enterer
If you're in this, you can't go below human. You can be reborn as a deva or something higher (which is still bad), but you won't go to hell. You do this be no longer clinging to the Three Fetters: Self-View, rites-and-rituals, and skeptical-doubt. You don't have to be a monk to do this. What EXACTLY this means is debatable, but there are traditions that hold that the laity can achieve this. Obviously, grievous karmic fuckups can still be done that take you to hell, but those are stuff like "raping your mom". This is from the Alagaddupama Sutta. There's more stages of enlightenment, but that's beyond the point of this.

>Christians have the guarantee that their soul will be saved "as is" if they follow a set of rules. Buddhists don't.
That doesn't mean that they aren't scared of death, they're just confident in what happens after. Buddhists are as well, that they'll either be reborn, at minimum.

[Anonymous No.16458123]

>>16458070
I think what he means is that christianity guarantees some level of continuity for your particular experience of consciousness while buddhism does not

[Anonymous No.16458139]

>>16456756
>I have no idea what I'm talking about, but...
Then why have an opinion? Why wouldn't you take five minutes to actually check what the people whom you disagree with actually believe, and why they believe it? What you're doing will convince nobody. At best, outsiders think that you personally are an idiot, and disregard everything you say. At worst, they think your doctrine is abominable for attracting retards like you.

>>16457002
They weren't, and they didn't. Chrisitanity and Gnosticism were never in competition. Gnosticism had zero interest in anything exoteric. The fact that most (I'd go so far as to just say all) Gnostic sects believed that there are just some people who cannot achieve any form of spiritual growth, ever, at all, is a testament to this.

>>16458123
Fair enough.

[Anonymous No.16458172]

None of this matters. We're going to die and be forgotten.

[Anonymous No.16458203]

>>16456606
The question of the loss of individuality in this is something I have been looking for answers for, thank you anon

[Anonymous No.16458211]

>>16457648
>You might've misread, I said this is precisely the kind of idea I don't have an issue with. Though I haven't seen too many philosophies with as much of an emphasis on the individual experience of spirituality than new age.
Why do you think I might have misread? I was making a point that you shouldn't associate this view only with New Age thinking, because it's something New Age has appropriated from ancient thought, rather than something original and specific to it.
>Perhaps, though it doesn't feel that way. It's more that every time I think about those things, I feel like something's missing, that there is an ineffable element that I'm not grasping when looking at things through the lens of the philosophical and religious systems I've been introduced to so far.
Sounds about right. The missing element is yourself, specifically your spirit. Religious forms and philosophy especially are dead and lifeless without spirit. This is arguably also why religion is in such a poor state today.

[Anonymous No.16458301]

>>16458211
Right, I was the one who misread, my bad. Thanks for clarifying.
>yourself, specifically your spirit
Isn't it a self-perpetuating cycle of sorts? These philosophies do not awaken anything within me because they don't appeal to my spirit, yet I can't artificially insufflate "spirit" into a belief system that feels meaningless to me, as it would be disingenuous and lacking in meaning.

[Anonymous No.16458407]

>>16458211
Is there anything New Age hasn't appropriated from other sources anyway?

[Anonymous No.16458509]

>>16458301
>Isn't it a self-perpetuating cycle of sorts? These philosophies do not awaken anything within me because they don't appeal to my spirit, yet I can't artificially insufflate "spirit" into a belief system that feels meaningless to me, as it would be disingenuous and lacking in meaning.
You have the relationship backwards. The senses are at the bottom, then there's rationality and spirit is at the top. Grappling with philosophies purely rationally may resonate with you, but it will not bring meaning on its own. Meaning is infused into things by the spirit. The spirit does not find meaning in things - not outside of the meaning it chooses to infuse into them, anyway.
>>16458407
Now that you say it, no, though I was trying to make a narrower point than that.

[Anonymous No.16458614]

>>16458509
But by which process does the spirit infuse meaning into things?
If meaning should be given rather than found, how does one give meaning to an idea?
Is it a gradual process, meaning that I should simply go for anything and nurture that belief so that it eventually blooms into something that will feel profoundly meaningful and more personal?

[Anonymous No.16458911]

>>16458614
You do it unconsciously all the time. I am doubtful that I can express the dynamics. I also doubt that is necessary. Just keep in mind that before a thought is truly thought, it is also willed.
>Is it a gradual process, meaning that I should simply go for anything and nurture that belief so that it eventually blooms into something that will feel profoundly meaningful and more personal?
Your dedication, determination and effort will make a huge difference, but you should also try to choose wisely what you will put those virtues towards. With luck, reading the Traditionalists should provide you a compass to guide you in the right direction.

[Anonymous No.16458968]

>>16455508
as someone whos actually read moth major texts in both traditions and taken extensive notes, i do not think plotinus really understood what manichaeism was. keep in mind that the term 'gnostic' was actually invented by christians to group together all manner of divergent christian sects, regardless of how compatible their beliefs were. whereas in the modern day we usually say 'gnostic' usually to refer to manichaeans specifically. plotinus seems a bit confused about what exactly they believed, and mixes together ideas from different sects as if they are part of the same belief system when he is writing Against the Gnostics

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.16459186]

>>16455508
>How is the idea of a malevolent demiurge refuted by the Enneads?
It is not, nor can it, being an accurate inflection of reality, be refuted.

>In a way, aren't hinduism and buddhism also "gnostic" schools of thought since they follow the same principles, namely that this world is a prison/that we are being kept here (either by Archons or by samsara) and that one should seek to transcend it (through gnosis or moksha)? Were buddhism and hinduism refuted too?

1. Hinduism is a demonistic religion that is unrelated to Gnosticism.

2. Buddhism is only meditatorially, partially gnostic, contrary to Christianity, which is mediatorially, totally gnostic, comprising within its ambit, both: the internal mediative practice of meditation, and: the external mediative practice of optimization.

Better to know than to be ignorant; worse to be idle with knowledge than to excel with knowledge.

Gnosticism is a theological modality that is rooted in Nobility (derived from root: "-gno") --that is: in noble lifestyle, which is ultimately actualized in the mediatory motion of optimization of: oneself, the world, and this kosmos; true gnosis consists in the total --physical, mental, spiritual-- synthesis of knowledge --through reception of God's grace, with direction toward God's plenitude; this can only be done with a root in Nobility, hence the reflected/common etymological root.

In theory, and in practice, Gnosticism, and Christianity, are one and the same thing, the former name gradually obscuring, and displacing, the latter name with the decline in vulgar understanding of what both names --particularly the former-- originally referred to (the teachings of Jesus Christ, as divulged by his disciples), in direct proportion to the rise of Judeochristianity, which constitutes a Judaized corruption of Christianity, in the same way that "Neoplatonism" constitutes a Judaized corruption of Platonism, though to a lesser degree than the former.

[Anonymous No.16459313]

>>16459186
>1. Hinduism is a demonistic religion that is unrelated to Gnosticism.
>"Neoplatonism" constitutes a Judaized corruption of Platonism

[Anonymous No.16459624]

Is this something to just study for shits and giggles or does it actually give some tangible benefit. Trying to decide if I want to continue pursuing this stuff or not.

[Lon𝖊 Int𝖊ll𝖊ctu𝖆l !xVZee/J6YQ No.16459665]

>>16459624
>>16459313
>>16459186
>>16458968
>>16458911
>>16458614
>>16458509
>>16458407
>>16458301
>>16458211
>>16458203
>>16458172
>>16458139
>>16458123
>>16458070
>>16458012
>>16457928
>>16457870
You're not intelligent.

[Anonymous No.16459680]

>>16459665
Doesn't answer my question.

[Lon𝖊 Int𝖊ll𝖊ctu𝖆l !xVZee/J6YQ No.16459690]

>implying i read his post

[Anonymous No.16459693]

>giving a tripfag attention

[Anonymous No.16459705]

Ok, so these last 2 posts answers my question. You guys are idiots, so I'm no longer studying this crap.

[Anonymous No.16459715]

>>16459705
It is worth studying my friend (maybe not Gnosticism specifically but certainly the area in general), you were just unlucky with timing

[Anonymous No.16459725]

>>16459715
But what are the benefits?

[Anonymous No.16459727]

>>16459186
absolutely based

>>16459313
>>16459665
noxious insectoids

[Anonymous No.16459919]

>>16459725
unsurpassable and unceasing bliss

[Anonymous No.16459960]

>>16456954
Yes

[Anonymous No.16460989]

>>16456606>>16456954

>>16459960
No that's confusing mindfulness with enlightenment.

[Anonymous No.16461043]

>>16459919
holy...BASED

[Anonymous No.16461108]

>>16456108
>If you really wanted a description of it, a free, detached hyper-awareness is the most accurate possible description.
No, mindfulness is not enlightenment.

[Anonymous No.16461596]

>>16459665
Actually I am

[Anonymous No.16462286]

bump

[Anonymous No.16462471]

>>16461108
>he thinks awareness of the profane mind is the only awareness possible

[Anonymous No.16462824]

>>16459186
Please explain this “judaized” platonism that is “neo”platonism? Also what do you think about mystical jewish sects being a direct influence in gnostic christian sects and christianity itself?

[Anonymous No.16463224]

bump

[Anonymous No.16463269]

>>16460989
No, that post is not talking about meditation. You are that same retard who comes into every thread and calls everything he doesn't understand meditation.

[Anonymous No.16463925]

so no one wants to keep talking about this

[Anonymous No.16464041]

>>16463925
What do you want to talk about?

[Anonymous No.16464163]

[Anonymous No.16465100]

>>16459186
>2. Buddhism is only meditatorially, partially gnostic, contrary to Christianity, which is mediatorially, totally gnostic, comprising within its ambit, both: the internal mediative practice of meditation, and: the external mediative practice of optimization.
this is false