Vedanta BTFO

[Anonymous No.17039587]

Its central message is “Atman is Brahman.” You are God. You are infinite. You may think that you are finite, but you actually are infinite. Your biggest spiritual problem may be that you continue to think of yourself as finite, and that you must learn that you are, in fact, infinite. Once you have attained that realization, you are set free of the cycle of death and rebirths. This is not an easy lesson because, after all, you experience yourself as finite, and you definitely have attributes of finitude, such as being limited by time and space and not knowing that you are infinite.

Well, of course this is hard, a Vedantist might reply. After all, most of what you consider to be “you” still belongs to the illusory realm of maya, and so the illusory part of you certainly would not know that it is Brahman for the simple reason that it is not Brahman. For a moment, that seems to clear up the problem—but then, on further review— the whole scheme falls apart logically.

Let me rephrase the previous point just a little bit: the finite part of you does not know that it is infinite because the finite is not infinite; it is not even truly real. But then the question arises, who exactly it could be that could quite possibly be spending a lifetime in pursuit of the spiritual goal of knowing that he is infinite? We just ruled out the finite person because the finite is finite and will never be infinite. Neither can it be the infinite that is spending a lifetime learning that it is infinite because the infinite certainly cannot have forgotten that it is infinite and now be in the process of learning of its infinity through meditation and yoga. The infinite must know that it is infinite or it would not be infinite, so there is hardly any deep spiritual meaning in declaring that the infinite is infinite. Conversely, of course the finite can learn that the infinite is infinite, but there’s nothing particularly new and startling about such an assertion either. This scheme would be meaningful only on the condition that something finite can also be infinite, an idea that Vedanta itself rejects. In short, even though Vedantic Hinduism has had a strong appeal to people who are trying to find fulfillment in a non-Western religion, it ultimately suffers from a logical breakdown from which it cannot recover.

[Anonymous No.17039596]

>guenonfag found a new mcdonalds that hasn't banned him yet

Welcome back and merry Christmas

[Anonymous No.17039629]

self identification with the divine is the satanic pride that led to satan's rebellion. in genesis he says: "and you will be like gods". it is always the same crap about identifying self as divine. (very common in demonic experiences induced by drugs)

madhvacharya was more right than any of the acharyas. how did he do it?

[Anonymous No.17040043]

>>17039629
kek

[Anonymous No.17040057]

>>17039587
Imagine you're a finger puppet of a larger being. That puppet is simultaneously the same as the larger body and yet appears separate simply by a rubber or plastic face with tiny features covering it. Whether the thin plastic veil is removed or not doesn't stop it from being part of the larger animating body. During the course of the drama (or game or play) the puppet could be born, have children, join a church, die, be born again, etc. It has never stopped being the hand which animates it, nor have the other puppets on other fingers and hands (as it were). And the body is aware that the puppet is a puppet for as long as the game lasts. When play ends, the covering is removed and the puppet ceases to be, and yet nothing really has changed. The animating body can at any time engage in play and have fun but will always be itself.

[Anonymous No.17040067]

>>17040057
>. When play ends, the covering is removed and the puppet ceases to be, and yet nothing really has changed. The animating body can at any time engage in play and have fun but will always be itself.

So:
Conversely, of course the finite can learn that the infinite is infinite, but there’s nothing particularly new and startling about such an assertion either.

[Anonymous No.17040070]

>>17039587
This is supposed to be a btfo?

[Anonymous No.17040078]

>>17040070
Yes, Vedanta is either contradictory or meaningless

[Anonymous No.17040095]

>>17040057
Screencapped I liked these words

[Anonymous No.17040106]

>>17040067
There is a difference between knowing and "knowing"

Usually confirmed by a certified sane person's ability to commit suicide at will, which is very very rare

[Anonymous No.17040129]

>>17040078
You're bloviating on all this finite vs infinite shit and what you're somehow supposed to get but you've missed the whole point. As >>17040057 mentions, vedanta sees the world like a drama. It's just a game. It's all a show. It sees the world as one infinite thing which one day thinks, maybe it would be fun if it played a trick on itself, maybe it would be fun if it dreamed for a while and then got so stuck in its dreaming it forgot it was all a dream after all, dreams up the other, acts out danger and good and evil, but the idea that all this is meant to be in pursuit of something is only part of the game you're playing.
In fact, this is the usual response to your objection. This whole feeling like you've got to get somewhere, you've got to pursue something and get somewhere other than where you are right now is the game itself.

[Anonymous No.17040132]

>>17040057
The Vedanta worldview cannot account for how humanity understands truth. Vedanta fails to provide a strong reason either in Brahman or in man to trust in the knowledge gained and processed. Through Maya, man’s sensory faculties are connected mysteriously with his spiritual Atman. Likewise, Brahman is mysteriously connected with the world we live in. Both in the physical and spiritual realms, there is no direct cognitive basis upon which anyone can rely upon the information that Vedanta posits. There are epistemological hurdles to believe
any Vedanta truth claims, when the recipient of the claim is the Atman, distinct from the
rational ego who receives spiritual knowledge. A strong divide between the metaphysical
and empirical selves, questions the normative process of information gathering and
processing, since there is no basis for trusting thought when the empirical actions are
nothing but helpful fiction. This obliges the over-evaluation of mystical experience
since propositions cannot be relied to accurately transmit truth in the recipient.

[Anonymous No.17040139]

>>17039587

[Anonymous No.17040149]

>>17040129
>its just a game bruh!
actually not answering the argument.

Who exactly it could be that could quite possibly be spending a lifetime in pursuit of the spiritual goal of knowing that he is infinite? It can't be the finite side of "you" (jivatma), since it wil never be infinite. It can't be the infinite side of "you" (atma), since its' already infinite. So basically, Advaita is as meaningless as knowing that infinite is infinite. Enlightenment is a finite being who remains finite and understands that the infinity that he is not really is infinite. In short, nothing changes. Thank you bruh

[Anonymous No.17040155]

>>17040139
Lmao based af

[Anonymous No.17040176]

Any religion with a concept of good or bad or punishment or reward is inherently just human fear manifesting itself into words

[Anonymous No.17040185]

>>17040149
There's no argument. You're not pursuing anything.

[Anonymous No.17040188]

>>17040176
>Any religion with a concept of good or bad or punishment or reward is inherently just human fear manifesting itself into words

[Anonymous No.17040191]

>>17040139
If anything this is NPC Buddhism vs Vedanta.

[Anonymous No.17040194]

>>17040185
>my religion is meaningless, my enlightenment too and there is no reason to seek it cuz there is nothing to search
Oh okay, thanks bro

[Anonymous No.17040198]

>>17040188
Why would God aim specifically for the human aesthetic opinion when he is infinite?

[Anonymous No.17040199]

>>17040198
>morality is human aesthetic opinion
fuckin NPC

[Anonymous No.17040207]

>>17040199
It varies person to person and is validated via mob rule on a temporal basis if you haven't noticed

[Anonymous No.17040223]

>>17040207
>confuses moral epistemology with moral ontology
braindead

[Anonymous No.17040230]

>>17040223
>theres a higher morality!!

Then my God created your God. See how that works?

[Anonymous No.17040236]

>>17040194
Why do you need to go in search of something else?

[Anonymous No.17040253]

>>17039587
>God must have very specific ideas on how you're supposed to live or life is meaningless

[Anonymous No.17040257]

>>17040230
you didn't understand my message, you lamentable idiot, I'm not saying that there is a higher morality, but that moral epistemology does not refute moral ontology in the same way that the progress of science does not show that the world is becoming more complex.

----> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z34ZXr3QEzI

[Anonymous No.17040265]

>>17040257
Nah, you didn't understand what I said, pseud. I am exactly referring to what you are claiming I'm not. Now you can move forward with your thoughts.

[Anonymous No.17040274]

>>17040265
cringe

[Anonymous No.17040284]

>>17040236
>shankara: bruh here is the path to enlightenment!

me: shows the bs of this doctrine

>vedantafags: there is nothin to search brrrrruuuuuh akchually u don't need to seek enlithenement lol

[Anonymous No.17040286]

>>17040274
So you have nothing else to say?

There is indeed an objective morality, of which you will never possess the capacity to know. You will only ever be witness to subjective morality.

[Anonymous No.17040302]

>>17040286
please leave this thread

[Anonymous No.17040306]

>>17040302
Coward

[Anonymous No.17040330]

>>17040284
No, the issue is that your idea of enlightenment is such that it's going to immediately clash with pretty much anything non Abrahamic right away. You haven't shown anything about Vedanta at all since you haven't really engaged with it.

[Anonymous No.17040340]

>>17040330
>No, the issue is that your idea of enlightenment is such that it's going to immediately clash with pretty much anything non Abrahamic right away. You haven't shown anything about Vedanta at all since you haven't really engaged with it.
cope harder faggot, who seek moksa ? the jiva who will never be infinite or the atman that already is? either case is contradictory, the last option is meaningless. seethe now

[Anonymous No.17040472]

>>17040340
You're completely misunderstanding the Indian perspective yet again.
Firstly in Indian philosophy at the time the "law of the excluded middle" was not a logical axiom like it was in the west. So this false dichotomy you present was not the way the Indians saw it. There is no contradiction here.

[Anonymous No.17040487]

>>17040472
>my logic is illogical so it's not illogical
cope harder

[Anonymous No.17040496]

>>17040487
If you're not aware of this point then you shouldn't bother with Indian philosophy. This is basic.

[Anonymous No.17040513]

>>17040472
>>17040472
One cannot dismiss the fundamental assumptions of Vedanta philosophy as simply a “different way of thinking.” The identity of cause and effect, the immutability clause of perfection, and the excluded middle are some problematic issues for the Vedantin whose qualifications involve laborious arguments. In arguing for immutability, Brahman is rendered imperfect if having a goal, since purpose implies something lacking in Brahman, according to Advaita Vedanta. This position is upheld even when Brahman is the acknowledged material cause of the universe. A purposeless creation is deflected by making creation a play, without resolving the conflict. Instead of accepting a goal or denying it, play becomes the excluded middle. With contextual qualifications and compounded categories, the excluded middle for Brahman and his complement is invoked for the status of the world, violating self-evident logic. Likewise, an affirmation and its negation cannot both be true at the same time in the same sense, as in calling Maya and Isvara both real and unreal. The relation between cause and effect in creation is wrong, the effect being identified with the cause, and failing to distinguish between ontology and function. Logic is bent here to stake a metaphysical claim. This is not another valid way of thinking, it is error

[Anonymous No.17040528]

>>17040496
Would a buddhist really tell someone what to do? A buddhist would not even bother asserting the person is wrong.

[Anonymous No.17040533]

>>17039587
Wtf actually smart and based critic, guenonfag can't answer lmao

[Anonymous No.17040544]

>>17040513
No I don't think this is true at all. I'd actually just say that the earlier neglect of the basic foundations of Indian philosophy and the lack of the law of excluded middle obviously destroys the whole philosophy since it's totally fundamental to the Indian worldview at the time.
At the time, the whole concept of advaita was based on this. Indians were happy to say that something can be both X and not X or neither X nor not X because they rejected the idea of duality to begin with. So the whole argument that these statements (which you will of course find a lot of in Advaita Vedanta as expected from the name) don't make sense or are contradictory is really just a tautology. So I don't think this argument is really anything other than a difference in worldview. It's simplified as "advaita says things which are different are also the same, and this is clearly wrong" and that's your argument.
While it isn't inherently incorrect to say this, the conclusion that the philosophy is self contradictory is unjustified because it intentionally disregards that this is the entire point of the concept of advaita. So you're really just debating the concept of what is "self evident."

[Anonymous No.17040554]

>>17040544
Who seeks moska? Answer faggot!

[Anonymous No.17040559]

>>17040544
Give me ONE (1) reason to abandon this elementary law of logic you pajeet?

[Anonymous No.17040564]

Has India reached the moon yet?

Case closed

[Anonymous No.17040577]

>>17040544
In the fourth chapter of the Metaphysica Aristotle deals with the principle of contradiction. This law is formulated as follows: ‘it is impossible for anything at the same time to be and not to be’. Let us imagine, says Aristotle, that somebody wished to oppose this view. Our opponent cannot hold a view which contradicts the law of contradiction without assuming the validity of this law itself: for otherwise he is not even denying what we are saying. The only alternative for him, then, will be to say nothing. So stfu.

[Anonymous No.17040597]

>>17040577
Ok I guess I'm dumb

Contradicting the rule would be "it IS possible for something to be and to not be" correct?

So then how is this assuming the validity of the rule? What am I missing?

[Anonymous No.17040605]

>>17040597
> opponent cannot hold a view which contradicts the law of contradiction without assuming the validity of this law itself: for otherwise he is not even denying what we are saying.

[Anonymous No.17040609]

>>17040605
Dude repeating it wont help me break it down a lot more than that please I have read your post 50 times it still makes no sense

[Anonymous No.17040611]

>>17040564
i love how atheist want material progress as happiness

[Anonymous No.17040621]

>>17040611
>material progress
>happiness

2 assumptions here that show the dirtiness of your heart

[Anonymous No.17040651]

>>17040577
this is irrelevant since you can't have counterarguments in two different axiomatic systems
>>17040554
Put simply, it's a state of bliss you achieve by feeling at one with the world or Atman. But there's no issue with saying that Atman seeks moksha even though he never lost it.

[Anonymous No.17040660]

>>17040559
it's not elementary and i can give a real life example
one example of when it doesn't apply is in quantum systems, since that's a ternary state where it's not that the state of an unmeasured particle is unknown, it's that it's undecided and neither X nor not X
e.g. if you don't measure the spin of a particle it's neither spin up nor spin down, it's a neither/nor third state and the law of excluded middle doesn't hold in this situation
this is why we often find quantum mechanics a weird thing to think about, because we implicitly expect the law of excluded middle to hold

[Anonymous No.17040682]

>>17040651
>But there's no issue with saying that Atman seeks moksha even though he never lost it.
No issue? Kek
It's just makes all your philosophy incoherent but yeah no issue
Since it is ignorance that makes one forget that atman = brahman and that atman-brahman cannot be ignorant, it is indeed jiva that seeks and the criticism of OP is valid. And even if it was the atman, OP is right, it remains incoherent and moreover it becomes meaningless.

[Anonymous No.17040695]

>>17040660
False
https://philarchive.org/archive/MCBWQM
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00245927

[Anonymous No.17040705]

>>17040682
There is no real distinction between Jiva and Brahman. The whole idea is that Brahman is the only thing there is.
It's not incoherent, but you could certainly say it is like atheism of a sort.

[Anonymous No.17040706]

>>17040660
Never heard of Pribram-Bohm hypothesis?

[Anonymous No.17040707]

>>17040609
I say: a thing can't be X and not X
You say: yes, she can

Either I'm right and you don't contradict me, or you contradict me and therefore confirm what I say, because even if a thing could be both X and not X, you would have to contradict my statement.
So you only have the sile left

[Anonymous No.17040713]

>>17040705
It's utterly incoherent and i proved it.

[Anonymous No.17040720]

>>17040695
Don't google things you know nothing about to try and score a gotcha. Everything I said about that was true.
Even in your own article you can read "some suggest that ..." which should tell you that your article's claims are heavily disputed.
This is not to mention the article you chose has a pathetic 9 citations and only 66 reads. It's not exactly what you'd expect of an amazing paper.

[Anonymous No.17040728]

>>17040706
I have, but I expected people wouldn't have heard of it in numbers enough to make it worth mentioning.
>>17040713
You proved nothing and repeatedly claiming you did is just a waste of space.

[Anonymous No.17040731]

>>17040720
>Don't google things you know nothing about to try and score a gotcha.
Ad personam
>Everything I said about that was true.
No
>Even in your own article you can read "some suggest that ..." which should tell you that your article's claims are heavily disputed.
Pic related
>This is not to mention the article you chose has a pathetic 9 citations and only 66 reads. It's not exactly what you'd expect of an amazing paper.
Cope harder, i gave two links, you can't answer pic related

[Anonymous No.17040738]

>>17040728
>You proved nothing and repeatedly claiming you did is just a waste of space
Who seeks moska k? :^)

[Anonymous No.17040739]

>>17040738
Brahman, because Brahman is the only entity.

[Anonymous No.17040743]

>>17040739
So brahman is ignorant?

[Anonymous No.17040745]

>>17040707
Um but what if something actually is both

[Anonymous No.17040748]

>>17040739

>Since it is ignorance that makes one forget that atman = brahman and that atman-brahman cannot be ignorant, it is indeed jiva that seeks and the criticism of OP is valid. And even if it was the atman, OP is right, it remains incoherent and moreover it becomes meaningless.

[Anonymous No.17040752]

>>17040743
Yes. Brahman is both ignorant and not.

[Anonymous No.17040761]

The vedantafags are sophists and jugglers. When it comes to explaining who is ignorant, the magical jiva is quite real. But when you point out the incoherence of the system, it's not so real anymore and everything is Brahman. So we show again that Brahman can't be ignorant and so on, it's endless, the loop.

[Anonymous No.17040769]

>>17040752
Heretics. Brahman is NOT ignorant according to Sankara.

[Anonymous No.17040777]

>>17040745
>>17040707
>>17040577
I am so sorry but I genuinely don't see how something being "both" validates the law of contradiction

If something is "both" then it IS possible for something to "be and not be"

This is clearly denying what he is saying

[Anonymous No.17040785]

>>17040752
So who seeks moska? The jiva that can't reach it or the atman that already has it? And how can knowledge liberate if nothing new is discovered?

[Anonymous No.17040793]

>>17040731
It's purely semantic. What he means by a superposition is exactly both X and not X just with different weights. When we observe it it is either X or not X. Which is precisely what I said. Until it is measured, you can consider it as being in a state of both X and not X.
What he said is just that if we exclude state X then the only remaining states are not X or not X and X.

[Anonymous No.17040801]

>>17040785
Because you stop seeking anything, and become serene.

[Anonymous No.17040821]

>>17040785
So OP critics is right u just said it

[Anonymous No.17040830]

>>17040801 *
So OP critics is right u just said it
>Because you stop seeking anything, and become serene

Meaningless
>Enlightenment is a finite being who remains finite and understands that the infinity that he is not really is infinite. In short, nothing changes. Thank you bruh

[Anonymous No.17040841]

>>17040785
I don't know why you need the concept of jiva explained to you so many times. It was explained to you that jiva is related to atman as fingers are to a hand - they're different but not entirely distinct or separate.
Jiva is basically just atman playing a game. I don't get why you're so hung up on there needing to be some grand revelation or deep meaning behind it all. You're told right from the start in vedanta that this is all just a game, and looking for a deeper point isn't really the way to go.
If you don't like that answer then that's fine, but it's not an incoherent way of seeing the world unless you're being deliberately obtuse.

[Anonymous No.17040848]

>>17040830
yeah no shit, vedanta never tells you that there's some deep meaning you have to figure out
it's on like page 2 or something
this is why i said way too many wasted minutes ago that the only issue you're seeing is because you're expecting some abrahamic style final revelation, whereas the hindus only see this as a big drama

[Anonymous No.17041068]

>>17039587
You ever stop to think, maybe you don't know what the fuck you're talking about? Try not to seethe. Actually ponder the question.

[Anonymous No.17041408]

>>17039629

Conceding the point, which party is Satanic and which is Godly? Satan being categorically not God per God implies that God sanctions the not God and Satan rebukes it, whereas Satan being categorically God per Satan implies that Satan rebukes the not God and God sanctions it, i.e. God is the Satanic party and the Satan the Godly.

[Anonymous No.17041807]

>>17039587
>Let me rephrase the previous point just a little bit: the finite part of you does not know that it is infinite because the finite is not infinite; it is not even truly real. But then the question arises, who exactly it could be that could quite possibly be spending a lifetime in pursuit of the spiritual goal of knowing that he is infinite?
The finite jiva does so, under the illumination provided by the guiding light of the infinite Atman. The Jiva itself is an appearance of Atman, and when the unreality of this appearance is understood, only the infinite Atman remains. The Jiva does not itself become or find out that it is infinite. The Jiva is like a video game character that you identify with and believe to be yourself, and then you snap back to reality and remember you are a person (Atman) playing a game (Jivahood), and that you are not the video game character but you rather preexisted them and was never them to begin with in truth.
>We just ruled out the finite person because the finite is finite and will never be infinite.
Advaita agrees, the false Jiva vanishing to reveal the underlying reality which had been sustaining the Jiva is not “the finite becoming infinite”. When you mistake a fence post for a person and then realize it is a fence post, the imaginary person is not transformed into a fence post, but they never really existed, it was only a false concept obscuring the actual object.
>Neither can it be the infinite that is spending a lifetime learning that it is infinite because the infinite certainly cannot have forgotten that it is infinite and now be in the process of learning of its infinity through meditation and yoga.
Advaita also agrees with this, the Atman is not affected or deluded by maya or samsara at all, the Atman is already eternally liberated. The Jiva covers up this reality with its own ignorance, superimposition etc, but when ignorance is removed by knowledge, no change is brought about in the Atman by that. The Atman is unchanging.
>The infinite must know that it is infinite or it would not be infinite,
The Atman never loses its infinite sentience or awareness, it does not have a thinking mind though

>In short, even though Vedantic Hinduism has had a strong appeal to people who are trying to find fulfillment in a non-Western religion it ultimately suffers from a logical breakdown from which it cannot recover.
Whoever wrote this is just making the mistake that the only two possible paths to moksha are 1) the finite Jiva becoming infinite Brahman, or 2) the infinite Brahman losing and then regaining enlightenment. But both of these positions are actually rejected by Advaita and they teach something different which is neither, as explained above

[Anonymous No.17041911]

>>17040198
Aim only exists in limitation, an infinite being has no relations.

[Anonymous No.17041922]

you will never be a _god_

[Anonymous No.17041923]

>>17041807
Where does the jiva come from?

[Anonymous No.17042211]

>>17039629
>self identification with the divine is the satanic pride that led to satan's rebellion.
You are using self here as ego or personality which is not how Vedanta uses it though. The Self or Atman identified with is supra-individual, it no more belongs to one individual over another, so pride can have no place in such an understanding. Similar to how valuing being a human being doesn’t in itself produce feelings or pride in comparison to other human beings, because they also possess that as well.

>madhvacharya was more right than any of the acharyas.
No he wasn’t, the Upanishads repeat over and over that the Atman is Brahman.

>>17040132
>Both in the physical and spiritual realms, there is no direct cognitive basis upon which anyone can rely upon the information that Vedanta posits.
And why would that be? Advaita Vedanta accepts the validity of 5 pramanas or means of knowledge, including sense-knowledge, inference, comparison, revealed knowledge in the form of scriptures. You can use the pramanas Advaita accepts to read their texts and see if what they say conforms to your own experience of consciousness etc.

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Pramana

https://murthy936.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-six-pramanas.html?m=1

>There are epistemological hurdles to believe any Vedanta truth claims, when the recipient of the claim is the Atman, distinct from the rational ego who receives spiritual knowledge.
The intellect of the jiva is the recipient of discursive knowledge and other knowledge pertaining to the world. The Atman merely observes and illumines this without involving itself in thought and without thinking itself. The Atman doesn’t receive knowledge and it doesn’t need to, the Atman itself is formless self-revealing knowing or knowledge of Itself. The Atmans knowledge of Itself cannot be replaced with knowledge of something else.

>A strong divide between the metaphysical and empirical selves, questions the normative process of information gathering and processing, since there is no basis for trusting thought
Advaita rejects this and says that the pramanas are valid with regard to the virtual word sustained by Brahman, true knowledge or Knowledge of the Atman (i.e. the intuitive realization of Absolute Reality) is not reached through the pramanas, but according to Advaita they are valid for basically everything else.

>This obliges the over-evaluation of mystical experience
since propositions cannot be relied to accurately transmit truth
Guenon correctly distinguishes the metaphysical from the mystical. If you want to learn about this there is a chapter in his first book which goes over this. Mysticism is essentially passive while metaphysics like Advaita is by comparison active and it involves the reader/disciple actively investigating the truth of metaphysical claims, meditating on and pondering the truth of metaphysical claims, and looking inward to see if they align with ones own experience.

[Anonymous No.17042238]

>>17042211
>You are using self here as ego or personality which is not how Vedanta uses it though.
not really. i just wanted to elaborate on one's atman not being brahman. anyone claiming to be god fell for satanic delusion, the worst type of pride.

you (your atman) will never be god
cope

[Anonymous No.17042288]

notice how all these monistic self-deification beliefs change the subject from God to one's own self in a mental gymnastics that his superior self is brahman. it is self-idolatry, blasphemy, pride. you worship yourself, crypto hylics.

[Anonymous No.17042294]

>>17039629
I guess Genesis is satanic then, since we are created betzelem Elohim.

[Anonymous No.17042303]

>>17041923
According to Advaita the Jivas don’t come or originate from anywhere, the Jivas are beginningless. Brahman has always been wielding maya without beginning, time is itself a product of maya. The jivas are beginningless images of Brahman for the reason that Brahman as a beginningless omnipotent entity has always been appearing as those images without any beginning. Vishishtadvaita also accepts that Jivas are beginningless but says they are parts of Brahman, and not images/appearances.

[Anonymous No.17042308]

>>17042294
creation in His image is different than claiming our highest part is reducible to God. The fact God sustains creation doesn't mean He is in it.

[Anonymous No.17042348]

just look and see if monists are actually adoring God, worshipping Him, God of infinitely good properties and infinite Beauty. No they are coping with the claim they themselves are divine too. They want to larp as god -- obtain "enlightenment", "bliss". They have the balls to preach "ego death" but what are they if not ego-centric? Do they adore God? No, they worship themselves.

[Anonymous No.17042570]

>>17039587
Third grader tier argument. What is "finite"? Nothing. Everything is infinite - both matter and spirit. The spirit, however, is also eternal, immutable and invincible. Matter and spirit are different, but intermixed and infinite. Samsara is Nirvana and Nirvana is Samsara. If you only know Samsara as Samsara, however, you would benefit from also understanding Nirvana. The only alternative is retaining your mutilated sense of vision.
>it ultimately suffers from a logical breakdown from which it cannot recover.
If that's the game you want to play, then all religion suffers a "logical breakdown" and the fedora atheists are correct. Oh, you mean to tell me that the entire universe revolves around a Jewish desert war god and his self-proclaimed son who was born just 2000 years ago? Yeah, right. Makes sense. I can almost understand why the fedoras say theism is a mental illness now.
>>17039629
>self identification with the divine is the satanic pride that led to satan's rebellion.
Literally the opposite is the case, Satan's rebellion is that of the limited ego intellect against superior values. There is no self-identification with the divine. There isn't even an usurpation. We are talking about downright rebellion against spiritual hierarchy. If Satan self-identified with the divine, he would at the very least have remained profoundly loyal to God, because how can one be disloyal to the divine if he identifies with the divine?

[Anonymous No.17042591]

>this thread
Guenonfag has done more damage to Hindu philosophy on this board in a year than /int/ could with the whole POO IN LOO meme in a decade, jesus christ.

[Anonymous No.17042596]

>>17042570
it is precisely because he assumed himself as God he did not feel obliged to any loyalty, since he viewed himself as God -- and God doesn't need anything

[Anonymous No.17042612]

>>17042238
atman is our 'good' inner dialogue (like Marcus Aurelius inner genius) that connects with brahma (the all), not brahman (the one, creator)

[Anonymous No.17042630]

>>17042591
could it be guenondude is a muslim professing taqiya to crash hinduism from inside with no survivors? that way he can finish the implementation of islam in india... hmmmm.... yes...

>>17042612
yes but non-dualists claim atman is literally brahman, which is false

[Anonymous No.17042632]

>>17042612
brahma beign collective unconcious gestalt archetype and brahman the creator archetype

[Anonymous No.17042644]

>>17042591
Stop samefagging.

[Anonymous No.17042659]

>>17042630
Then you should specify what form of vedanta you're talking about, whether advaita or dvaita because this will affect the answer

[Anonymous No.17042665]

>>17042659
advaita is the most common vedanta on lit

however madhvacharya retroactively refuted it

[Anonymous No.17042686]

>>17042596
If he viewed himself as God, why would he rebel against God? How can God rebel against himself? Are you retarded, anon?

[Anonymous No.17042726]

>>17042686
because it was pride that caused the self deification, the self identification with the divine, not an actual feasible enlightenment, a possibility within the metaphysical laws.

[Anonymous No.17042741]

>>17042570
Retard and crypto-mahayanist
>muh samsara is nirvana

[Anonymous No.17042758]

>>17042726
But it can't be a self-identification with the divine, because Satan literally identifies the divine in God and identifies himself as an opponent of the divine, separate from God. He attacks the divine and attempts to supplant it with something that is obviously not the divine. This is prideful, but it is hardly self-deification - on the contrary, divinity and arrogant pride are generally incompatible. The idiocy of Satan consists precisely in the fact that, while not being divine, he attempts to claim for himself a higher rank in the spiritual hierarchy than the divine itself. It's a rebellion from below, an attempt at inversion; it doesn't even qualify as an usurpation.

[Anonymous No.17042773]

>>17042741
Not even Mahayana. The world and matter aren't evil, retard, it's your limited, inferior and delusional perception, devoid of spiritual insight, that leads you to this conclusion. Having reached that conclusion, you then establish a rigid wall between matter and spirit and then marvel at your own intelligence when you try to suggest that they do not even interact with each other except for one single moment in which a being transitions from being 100% samsaric to 100% spiritual, when in fact you're both 100% samsaric and 100% spiritual. Absolute state of you.

[Anonymous No.17042822]

>>17042773
>world and matter aren't evil, retard
Nobody said that u braindead

[Anonymous No.17042829]

>>17042758
>while not being divine, he attempts to claim for himself a higher rank in the spiritual hierarchy than the divine itself.

we agree on this. it is without a doubt an inversion. and satan's inversion consisted of putting his will above the spirit which led to his self identification with the divine. the self identification was not a product of his spirit, but of his will.

same happens in all monistic beliefs: the will, fueled by pride, is crowned above the spirit while paradoxically claiming the spirit is God. it is all inversion, yes.

[Anonymous No.17042970]

>>17042591
translation: I hate Guenonfag for consistently pointing out all the sophistry and illogical doctrines in Buddhism; please go back to only talking about Buddhism guys REEEEEE stop talking about Advaita REEEE

[Anonymous No.17042977]

>>17042822
Sorry, did I give you way too much credit? What's your actual argument, then? That humans are finite and spirit is infinite? That they can never meaningfully interact with each other? Why and how are humans finite when we participate in the eternity of the universe? Why and how is spirit "infinite"? What does it mean to be "finite" or "infinite" at all? Why and how are those mutually exclusive in all cases? I assumed you were approaching this from a classic dualist angle, but maybe you aren't even familiar with the typical dualist position.
>>17042829
>and satan's inversion consisted of putting his will above the spirit which led to his self identification with the divine.
You are getting this part completely backwards. Self-identification with the divine (i.e. spirit, including YOUR spirit) is what leads to the will itself attaining divine properties through the spirit. This can even be seen in the panentheism of Christianity despite its general lack of metaphysical depth.
>the self identification was not a product of his spirit, but of his will.
On its face, this is a sensible thing to say, but that's simply not what a self identification is. Read some commentaries on Kabbalah - the way Satan is explained by the Kabbalistic system is wonderful. Satan doesn't engage in presumptious divinisation of himself, but rather in negation of the divine as a whole.
>same happens in all monistic beliefs: the will, fueled by pride, is crowned above the spirit while paradoxically claiming the spirit is God. it is all inversion, yes.
This is completely backwards. "Atman is Brahman" means that the individual Atman (form of the spirit and soul in its limited individual conception) is understood to be an extension of pure Brahman. Atman is divine because it is Brahman. If Atman is reduced to the mere physical ego, to the animal sense of self, then it is no longer Atman at all, since everything spiritual has been completely scrubbed off from that conception of it. The will of the animal dominates nothing - it is Brahman, which is Atman, that uses its intellectual faculties and its will in order to understand its true nature. The ego is completely overcome and can play no part in any authentic spiritual experience.

[Anonymous No.17042979]

>>17042238

Thoughts on this?

>>17041408

[Anonymous No.17042983]

>>17042970
Advaita and Buddhism are both based, Guenonfag is just retarded.

[Anonymous No.17043032]

>>17042977
>What's your actual argument, then?
Don't worry, we all saw that you didn't understand anything about the thread argument.

[Anonymous No.17043049]

>>17043032
I can see that you're REALLY trying hard to avoid revealing your retardation with these evasive one liners, but unfortunately I am afraid that you don't look any less stupid.

[Anonymous No.17043057]

>>17043049
>im not stupid, YOU stoopid!
Stfu

[Anonymous No.17043076]

>>17043057
This would be a great way to btfo me if your last three posts didn't consist in deflection and the baseless assertion that I am wrong/stoopid.

[Anonymous No.17043085]

>>17042977
you are wrong and spiritually deluded.

>read some commentaries on kaballah
lmao
you will never be god no matter how much you meditate and larp as indistinctively being god. i already said above the fact God sustains every being doesn't mean there is no distinction, or that He is 'inside' everyone

identification of one's atman with the divine IS THE SATANIC PRIDE. cope


(i never reduced atman to mere physical ego.)

[Anonymous No.17043119]

>>17039587
>more religious delusions just to cope with the fact that anon its another animal created by an infinite chain of coincidences with zero purpose aside of reproduction.
Religion it's probably the best sub genre science fiction ever done.

[Anonymous No.17043132]

>>17043085
Are you an Evangelical? Because even Christianity takes this exact position:
>there is no distinction, or that He is 'inside' everyone
Christianity is a panentheistic religion. This is a crucial tenet of Christianity. The Holy Spirit dwells in you and Jesus also dwells in you if you have invited him into your Heart. That Christianity keeps this connection more abstract and indirect does not make it qualitatively different from the Vedantic perspective in a metaphysical sense.
>you will never be god no matter how much you meditate and larp as indistinctively being god.
The point isn't to be god. To point is to go beyond godhood and master the realm of both being and non-being. That is the supreme aim of spirit.
>identification of one's atman with the divine IS THE SATANIC PRIDE.
Why? Identification with the divine means that you are accepting the divine as your soul and nothing else. This means burning away every purely animalistic, biological or "sinful" part of man - perhaps especially pride.

[Anonymous No.17043201]

>>17043132
no, i'm not an evengelical
>christianity is a panentheistic religion
no. aquinas deal with this
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1008.htm

the ultimate possibility is eternal salvation, not transcendence.

[Anonymous No.17043321]

>>17040149
>Who exactly it could be that could quite possibly be spending a lifetime in pursuit of the spiritual goal of knowing that he is infinite?
The non-infinite Jiva pursues the spiritual goal of moksha until it is revealed to the Jiva that they were actually the eternally-liberated, free, sorrowless, infinite Atman-Brahman all along, which had been merely observing the Jiva, and that this observing did not taint or entrap the Atman-Brahman in any way but only appeared to do so from the subjective perception of the Jiva. Until you intuitively realize this in your heart though in moksha you instinctively regard yourself as the embodied Jiva in a world of multiplicity, acquiring a merely verbal or theoretical knowledge of this doesn’t produce moksha or change the Jiva. The Jiva pursues liberation up until the Jiva vanishes in the realization of Brahman (i.e. Self-Knowledge or Atma-jnana, Atma-bodha) leaving the already-liberated Atman which had been providing illumination to the Jiva remaining in its place.

>It can't be the finite side of "you" (jivatma), since it will never be infinite.
The Jiva pursues liberation but does not become infinite, because it is like an inanimate puppet, the puppet merely has to be disregarded or seen through, the puppet itself doesn’t have to become infinite. The Atman animating the Jiva is already omnipresent and eternally free, once the ignorance of the Jiva is removed (which includes the wrong understanding of being a Jiva coming to an end), the liberated infinite Lord which had been animating it shines forth, like the sun after clouds obscuring it have passed away. Liberation in Advaita is not the production of a non-preexisting result, but rather it is the removal of the obscuration of an already existing reality which has been existing forever.

>It can't be the infinite side of "you" (atma), since its' already infinite.
It’s not

>>17040139
Buddhism is the proselytizing religion, not Advaita. Advaita is a spiritual elitism that purposely excludes people

[Anonymous No.17043354]

>>17040472
>Firstly in Indian philosophy at the time the "law of the excluded middle" was not a logical axiom like it was in the west.
Shankara takes the time in his work to explain why his doctrine violates neither the law of non-contradiction nor the law of the excluded middle
>’real’ and ‘unreal’ in advaita are used in the absolute sense. Real means ‘absolutely real’, eternal and unchanging, always and everywhere, and Brahma(n) alone is real in this sense; unreal means ‘absolutely unreal’ in all the three tenses like a ‘skyflower’ or a ‘barren woman’s son’ which no worldly object is.
>And in this sense, these two terms are neither contradictories nor exhaustive. Hence the Law of Contradiction and the Law of Excluded Middle are not overthrown. The Law of Contradiction is maintained since all that can be contradicted is declared to be false. The Law of Excluded Middle- is not violated because, 'absolutely real' and 'absolutely unreal' are not exhaustive and admit of the third alternative, the ‘relatively real’ to which belong all world-objects. Again, since avidya is only a superimposition it vanishes when the ground-reality, the Brahma(n), is immediately realised, just as the rope-snake vanishes for good, when the rope is known. Avidya can be removed only by the immediate intuitive knowledge of Reality, which is the cause of liberation. Removal of avidya, Brahma(n)-realisation and attainment of moksa or liberation are one and the same.

[Anonymous No.17043459]

>>17039587
logically if God is and all things are made by him then we may trace ourselves back to him. that doesn't mean that we can't have other levels of reality and experiences.

[Jesus No.17043465]

>>17039629
Satan is not divine, faggot? Satans will is not Gods will? Kys, heretic pederast, God is 1.

[Anonymous No.17043467]

>>17043201
He doesn't, I said panentheistic, not pantheistic.

[Anonymous No.17043468]

>>17043354
Very interesting

Gotta say this thread is taking my indian racism away from me

Am I in trouble for having eaten so many cows?

[Anonymous No.17043478]

>>17043465
>larping as Jesus
>calling others heretical

Heh

[Anonymous No.17043535]

>>17040132
>A strong divide between the metaphysical
>and empirical selves, questions the normative process of information gathering and
>processing, since there is no basis for trusting thought when the empirical actions are
>nothing but helpful fiction.
says the sleeper. try thinking less. it is hard for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.

[Anonymous No.17043601]

>>17043467
I know. That is a refutation of panentheism.

How can you say "the goal is to go beyond godhood" and not realize this is the satanic pride?

The fact the body is "the temple of the holy spirit" doesn't mean the holy spirit literally dwells inside the body. All that exists depends on being sustained by God, but that doesn't mean they are the very cause that sustains them. The leaf flying by the wind is not the wind.

[Anonymous No.17043622]

>>17043201
wtf i didn't know aquinas dealt with panentheism

[Anonymous No.17043671]

>>17040340
>the jiva who will never be infinite or the atman that already is? either case is contradictory, the last option is meaningless. seethe now
stupid human logic that can only think in ones and zeros. after you build your ones and zeros up enough you will understand that everything is logical, but not everyone has the capacity to be as logical as God. if I'm already infinite then it is logical that I would want to see what finite things are. I look in myself and there they are. I see this part of me and I recognize it as myself. now it and I am happy. I won't extinguish it for the Jiva is Atman. there is a universal soul and a personal soul, they are two sides of the coin, they are the male and female that are the androgen because the Son of God is fully God and fully man and my father is Brahman.

[Anonymous No.17043775]

>>17043601
>I know. That is a refutation of panentheism.
... How? Does God not dwell in your heart? If not, then how are you to be saved? What do you take the Sacraments for?
>How can you say "the goal is to go beyond godhood" and not realize this is the satanic pride?
Because the going beyond is conceived realistically in all the difficulties that entails. There is no pride to be derived from something like this, it is simply the right thing to do. The divine substance in man should attain such strength and purity that it will be incapable of being anything other than itself, nor will it feel any need for something other than itself, because it will be able to find the fullness of divinity in the closest place. This is not a rejection of the divine principle, but taking it to the highest possible level.
>The fact the body is "the temple of the holy spirit" doesn't mean the holy spirit literally dwells inside the body. All that exists depends on being sustained by God, but that doesn't mean they are the very cause that sustains them. The leaf flying by the wind is not the wind.
How do you understand it then? The symbolism of the temple is pretty transparent - it refers to the place where divinity is found.
>>17043622
He doesn't, though.

[Anonymous No.17043992]

>>17042288
>notice how all these monistic self-deification beliefs change the subject from God to one's own self in a mental gymnastics that his superior self is brahman. it is self-idolatry, blasphemy, pride. you worship yourself, crypto hylics.
you don't understand the nature of love. if God loves me then he has an attachment to me and counts me as himself. we are made from the very love of God. this is pure Christian logic. infinite love is easy to understand, become a child. of course this is one reason why Christians believe in a trinity. we would tend to say neither monism nor dualism is true, because we wish to uphold secondary realities as meaningful and real, with a purpose that is God's. to not be divine is to be incomplete and to suffer. what is finite finds Its meaning in that which is infinite. the infinite rejoices to be finite, he has no worries or cares. the only tragedy is that you reject the truth.

[Anonymous No.17044043]

>>17042308
>creation in His image is different than claiming our highest part is reducible to God. The fact God sustains creation doesn't mean He is in it.
Thomastic metaphysics are not final metaphysics. it is only in the Fallen world that the world is something separated from God. most people have no grasp of the Divine Darkness, how a world like this is both non-being and being which affords the appearance of everlasting things seeming to have beginnings and ends. when an immortal being dies he becomes mortal. but it is called the Valley of the "shadow" of death because it's as close to extinction as we could get. when you compare realities nothing is real compared to God. this is one reason that it is said that God knows us more than we know ourselves.

[Anonymous No.17044066]

>>17043671
>stupid hoomans with their... logic!!!!
cope harder

[Anonymous No.17044091]

>>17043201
>christianity is not panentheistic because Aquinas said so
>produces a quote where Aquinas literally describes himself as a panentheist, without using the term

[Anonymous No.17044100]

So did some research apparently you CAN eat cows and be hindu you'll just piss people off

Pretty sure I could fight 100 indians by myself easily so looks like I'll be having burgers on my spirit quest to India!

[Anonymous No.17044232]

>>17044091
no. i'm referencing aquinas because thomism is the official theology of the catholic church. and he is not panentheistic: the affirmation that all is in God (as sustained in being by Him) differs from that of all being His energies or the universe as immanent.

>>17043992
God loves you, yes, and this is the reason He created you and we are called to be holy, but to say "and counts me as himself" is nebulous to say the least What I attack is precisely the view that God is not to be loved in place of view of transcendece through knowledge that is greater than love. This goal of the metaphysicians is transcendence, not love. To desire transcendence, which is greater than salvation, is egoistical, intellectual, to love is not. There is no other meaning than love and to love. All metaphysical positions of enlightenment through wisdom are barren clanging cymbals. It is pointless. People need to stop larping as if they possess a certain divine spark, as if they can see the uncreated light, this is all pointless, vain. It misses the point.

[Anonymous No.17044251]

>brooo do you feel it we are divine sparks broo!!!
>i just attained enlightenment
>i'm beyond being

dead spirituality, metaphysical larp. salvation is the highest possible goal. if you want to transcend God you are no different than satan. accept your position as creature and learn to love Love.

[Anonymous No.17044290]

>>17044066
I'm hardly coping. I just get annoyed at how illogical people that claim to be logical are. they literally have to do complex mathematical equations to get to the same truth that is utterly simple and experiential. truly love arrives at the truth far quicker than knowledge.

[Anonymous No.17044365]

>>17044232
>People need to stop larping as if they possess a certain divine spark, as if they can see the uncreated light, this is all pointless, vain. It misses the point.
Divinity, love and wisdom are all the same thing. the ultimate goal of Salvation is only a theme for the sake of God's love. to be a creature is only for the sake of God's love. to be nothing is only for the sake of love. death and life are ours.

to be humble in a religious sense means that they care more about their teachings and their fears than they do about being near to God. that's why a bunch of religious people helped to murder Jesus. that's why prophets and geniuses tend to be outside of the church. a church can only accept so much. they need to have control and so systematize things in a way that reduces the truth to their own weak comprehension of a sinful consciousness. they are grade a blind authoritarians that don't understand real Authority, but God has Mercy on them and gives them what they can accept.

[Anonymous No.17044388]

>>17044365
nonsense.

[Anonymous No.17044391]

>>17044232
>the affirmation that all is in God (as sustained in being by Him) differs from that of all being His energies or the universe as immanent
if God transcends the Universe than the Universe is immanent to God, it must be fucking somewhere. Yeah it is a little sopa bubble floating in the wide infinite blue sky called God but it is still immanent. There can be no place where God is not, there can be no thing not contained within God, otherwise this entity you call God that does not hold within him all things is not God because it is contained inside another entity

[Anonymous No.17044409]

>>17044365
where are the saints outside of the church? keep your "geniuses" and false prophets all you want. you are the "spiritual not religious" type of person because you fell for "the church is opressive, authoritarian" meme.

you are not on the side of sanctity and you know it

[Anonymous No.17044424]

>>17044388
you're just a troll that i use as a tool but I like the 88 dubs.

[Anonymous No.17044447]

>>17044424
and you are the "spiritual not religious" person larping as spiritual and humble, as loving and wise while projecting your own false notion of humility that has no resemblance to reality. all this just to cope as a non-denominational --- really easy to live like that huh

[Anonymous No.17044464]

>>17044409
you think because you're part of a big group that you have fulness of the truth. your tradition is a cope for a guarantee that doesn't exist because only God is The Giver of Truth. you have a measure of Truth just like everyone else does, God is no respecter of persons and will give as much as a person can accept.

cain always slays Abel and yet the older brother Shall Serve the younger. it's a repeating pattern, that the flesh is a servant and that the second Adam is the son of God. religious people are so dumb that they can't accept the truth even though they are plainly told that they are the body of Christ.

[Anonymous No.17044465]

>>17044409
not the same guy senpai but the desert fathers didn't go to church

[Anonymous No.17044503]

>>17044465
they are the church

>>17044464
oh yeah, religious people are dumb copers and you are the enlightened one. truly a signal of a loving person, a living saint.

you are spiritually deluded. i don't care about anything else you can say. you speak for love against knowledge yet you act just arrogant as a gnostic

(your milieu is probably protestant)

[Anonymous No.17044519]

>>17044503
nigger, answer this:
>>17044391

[Anonymous No.17044538]

>>17044465
by church I meant Earthly church as opposed to the Heavenly Church. even in the Heavenly Church there angels that are greater and lesser. the best in the Earthly Church always exceed the normalcy of it. then the church accepts that which they can properly digest as official. some of the wolves in sheep's clothing ended up murdering various prophets and yet still those prophets became part of the tradition. they sawed Isaiah in half and they still do, but by some miracle he is part of the Canon. that is why I cannot say that the earthly church is fully blind. the desert fathers were awesome, they give me great joy. Instead of being part of the incorporation with rome, they fled from it. does not mean that any man is the Lord my God.

[Anonymous No.17044564]

>>17044519
panentheism argues that God is both transcendent and immanent, as constitutive part of the creation, not the creation, but as part of it, while He is only part as the operator. It is grace that permeates creation.

[Anonymous No.17044583]

>>17044503
you're right, Jesus Christ and other prophets were never disgusted by the religious people of his day. if I had not encountered for years and years the amount of pride and Folly in religious folks of various denominations, I would not be as I am. you're comfy with how you believe. eventually you're going to understand and know more and it won't be by me but by God who does it. it is your own fault if you will not see the face of God.

[Anonymous No.17044619]

>>17040513

>Brahman is rendered imperfect if having a goal, since purpose implies something lacking in Brahman, according to Advaita Vedanta. This position is upheld even when Brahman is the acknowledged material cause of the universe. A purposeless creation is deflected by making creation a play, without resolving the conflict.
This is correct up until the last sentence. Lila or divine play is used only as a metaphor or analogy, it’s not taught in Advaita that Brahman actually brings froth the world as play as in Shaivism and other sects. Its used as an analogy when Shankara comments on the section of the Brahma Sutras which mention it, but the context is not of Brahman fulfilling some desire for amusement, but rather the example is given of a King who has all desires fulfilled pleasantly wandering without aim in his garden; and even this is only an analogy which Shankara cautions against taking literally. To always wield the power of maya is Brahman’s inherent nature, just it is the suns nature to shine. Reasons for things or purposes for why things happen are really just causes spoken of differently. If Brahman had to do something or be a certain way for a certain reason, then Brahman would be subject to preexisting causal relations and He would no longer be the unconditioned and uncaused author of causation, time, space etc.

>Likewise, an affirmation and its negation cannot both be true at the same time in the same sense
Shankara agrees, he doesn’t do this in his Advaita metaphysics and in his Brahma Sutra Bhasya he attacks the Jains as illogical for doing this

>as in calling Maya and Isvara both real and unreal.
Isvara is a part of maya, Isvara is not different from maya. Brahman is the Paramisvara or Supreme Lord, but the regular Isvara is an appearance caused by maya. Maya not classified as real (used in the absolute sense) or as non-existent, but maya/avidya is classified under the third category of the relatively/conditionally/empirically real (vyavahara); this category includes things which are experienced but which are nonetheless sublatable such as dreams. Only unreal things can be sublated.

>The relation between cause and effect in creation is wrong, the effect being identified with the cause, and failing to distinguish between ontology and function.
I’m not sure what he is referencing here but he gets other stuff wrong so I wont bother trying to guess. The cause being identical with the effect is only true of the Isvara, Saguna Brahman or Hiranyagarbha, which itself forms the universe in a pantheistic ‘cosmic egg’; but the actual absolute reality of Brahman viz. Nirguna Brahman is qualitatively different from Isvara etc and the cosmic egg; everything else aside from Nirguna Brahman being an appearance of the latter; Nirguna Brahman is formless, without an appearance and non-identical with creation. It is the basis in which the creation appears, but the snake-rope illusion is not identical with the underlying rope.

[Anonymous No.17044632]

>>17044290
>he has a love bias on truth

Lol

[Anonymous No.17044678]

>>17044583
you are assuming the impossible to hold view that Christ did not found His church and instituted the sacraments.

>religious people of his day
Christ came precisely to fulfill the revelation and unify the church under one faith and baptism. What do hebrews killing prophets have to do with this? you are lazy and comfortable believing Christ did not establish His church, as if we are living in the ante-gratia, before grace, period before Jesus.

>ohh nooo but the hebrew zealots killed the prophets it is all pointless!!!!
>even thugh christ founded His last covenant, the church, and instituted the sacraments this is all meaningless false piety and oppression

just admit you are too lazy to belong to His church. you are not supra-moral, you have not gone beyond ethical stage, you are just lazy.

[Anonymous No.17044719]

I am God and I am not real. Have a good day.

[Anonymous No.17044810]

>>17044632
love leads to the blind attachment in the Divine Darkness where we are ineffable and know everything. love is the ultimate gnosis and is the same as wisdom. in some regard love, henosis, and detachment lead to the same place. but knowledge is fun.

[Anonymous No.17044828]

>>17044810
Blinding yourself to your bias I see

[Anonymous No.17044841]

>>17044619
To clarify: Nirguna Brahman being formless and all-pervasive has no direct appearance visible to the eye, all appearances/illusion/images etc are only indirect appearances of Brahman caused by Brahman’s power, but these things are not visual appearances of the Nirguna Brahman itself, being only appearances generated by His power

[Anonymous No.17044849]

>>17044678
I'm not saying that the Earthly church is meaningless. they preserve and protect much. especially in the past when it was mostly monks copying the Bible. God put me in the station that I'm at. not all personalities are the same. I don't feel a need to be part of a group that is not extremely close-knit and who would not understand me and call me a heretic. but hey, at least you guys wouldn't burn me and stone me to death nowadays. ;D

[Anonymous No.17044862]

>>17044828
the blinder I am the more I see. if I pick you over me then I still made an attachment, I'm just not dumb enough to make you my authority because I know how the spiritual World works. God told me not to look away from his face, then he called me to this world and I was born here. what are you, a Buddhist? lol

[Anonymous No.17044871]

>>17044849
this is called spiritual delusion, prelest, look it up. you have no sanctity to judge the humility of the religious people

[Anonymous No.17044879]

>>17044862
Look bud, your bias is nothing but a tool for you to keep moving forward relative to your aesthetic opinion of the world. Keep fooling yourself, it has huge utility value. But it is only a utility. A mere convenience that you can trick yourself.

[Anonymous No.17044930]

>>17040528
entirely untrue, one of the main tenets of buddhism is right action, which in turns means helping people realize they are wrong.
youre doing a great job of misrepresenting things you dont like in this thread.

[Anonymous No.17044958]

>>17044879
it's convenient of you to utilize the word bias since it has somewhat of a negative connotation when you could have said perception and desire instead, which is of the spiritual World which no one escapes from since they do not escape from themselves. neither do you escape from the reality of Master and slave.

[Anonymous No.17044981]

>>17044871
I'm well aware of the prideful in Eastern Orthodox Church who accuse Saints not in their own denomination of being Charmed. you love your church more than you love God and that's why you stopped and worship an image of the truth rather than Truth himself. you're the one carving an image of God and worshipping it like God told you not to do. some people's carvings are better than others and we all have an image of the truth. but God said that he will build an Everlasting temple that is formed without hands. I am such, and all shall be such because All Souls belong to him.

[Anonymous No.17044984]

>just surpasses the godhead bruh

[Anonymous No.17044988]

>>17044930
Mr.Dogen told me that you shouldnt tell people they are wrong as they will just double down

Nigger

[Anonymous No.17044992]

>>17044958
Word salad, butthurt schizo that thinks his sensation of love is a meaningful direction

[Anonymous No.17045010]

>>17044984
big YIKES, that anon literally proposed that as he talked about what was and was not satanic rebellion

[Anonymous No.17045011]

>>17044992
what is the truth then, my
non-schizo friend? it is word salad to you because you don't understand it. that is not to say that it has no wisdom in it. you cannot escape from your Aesthetics. whatever you call your master is what you will be like and serve. whatever you love is what you will become like. what you judge as knowledge will be your knowledge.

[Anonymous No.17045014]

Can someone tell me why God kicked Satan out of heaven?

[Anonymous No.17045023]

>>17045011
You cannot know it bro, the human filter makes it impossible. You will never escape the cave. You will only gain subjective tools that motivate you to continue forward. This should never be confused with truth.

[Anonymous No.17045042]

>>17045023
>You cannot know it bro, the human filter makes it impossible. You will never escape the cave. You will only gain subjective tools that motivate you to continue forward. This should never be confused with truth.
it is as a lord wandering around his garden and enjoying it.

[Anonymous No.17045050]

>>17042977
>is explained by the Kabbalistic system

you mean the system used by all ensuing sectarian heresies that border on satanic? color me surprised.

[Anonymous No.17045065]

>>17045042
Do not reproduce

[Anonymous No.17045100]

>>17044583
you are on the side of syncretism and the heresy that all religions are the same having a part of truth. while it is true that all religions might have parts of truth (thanks to God) to differing degrees, the full revelation of God has been manifest only in Jesus Christ. By accepting syncretism, the idea that all are the same or all have parts of truth, you are preparing yourself for the acceptance of something that is definitely not God.

[Anonymous No.17045118]

>>17045100
Indeed, it is the abomination of desolation. Of anti-christ exalting itself in the place of God through a false ecumenism, syncretism, gnosticism, self-deification, the synthesis of all heresies. Many will be deluded into following this "anything goes" "enlightened" "spiritual" idea but there will come of it no real good. Your God loves you, don't fall for false sugary doctrines that make you feel good or smart but are just old heresies repackaged by Satan.

[Anonymous No.17045130]

Why wont anyone tell me why God sent satan to hell???

[Anonymous No.17045152]

typical right-wing personality traits. Jesus Christ becomes an image of the Antichrist when the head is cut off from the body. that is why the lamb speaks with a voice of the Dragon. it is the same truth as a wolf in sheep's clothing. So Many religious do not understand that what happened in the past can happen unto this day. they assume that they have some kind of immunity from the spiritual virus that can occur in a religious tradition. you deny that God might have inspired me, you have judged for yourself that I am evil and that you are good.

[Anonymous No.17045171]

>>17045152
nobody has made that judgement about you but about your views.

[Anonymous No.17045201]

>>17045152
shut up. you are posing as if you were above the church established by christ, above religious people. but who are you? you are not a prophet, you are not a saint. don't you know your own heart? if you knew your own heart you would stop this arrogant nonsense.

Christ founded his Church for a reason, and instituted the eucharist ("do this in remembrance of me") and gave the power to forgive and retain sins. are you saying you are above his commandments? you are not above the Redeemer.

again: who are you? just shut up. you are another one who was unfortunate enough to be born in a protestant milieu and kept his protestant worldview. stop this whole "i'm above religion" façade

[Anonymous No.17045207]

truth is neither Collective nor individual. truth comes from God because he is the truth. all other things are secondary and dead without the life that he instills in it.

[Anonymous No.17045231]

>>17045201
>again: who are you? just shut up. you are another one who was unfortunate enough to be born in a protestant milieu and kept his protestant worldview. stop this whole "i'm above religion" façade
prove to me that you are not still a babe in Christ, because it sounds to me like you are. you are arguing for outside sayings. the Gentiles trample the outer courts. I'm a nobody but I have a little bit of understanding.

[Anonymous No.17045321]

>>17045231
>I'm a nobody but I have a little bit of understanding.
no. you have a cope. that's what you have.
oh, it must be nice thinking you are not bound to His commandments, right? that you are above the "religious people".
that you are like a prophet to be stoned by blind zealots.

i can see how tempting it might be, but that's how i can tell it is a cope. the beautiful things are always difficult, the gate is narrow, you opted for the wide gate. no matter how much understanding you have, you are not above the words of Our Lord, and you too are bound to His commandments whether you like it or not.

what you propose is: forget the church commanded by Christ, the teaching the apostles received by Him, the church fathers that preserved His sayings. all this to be free from the burden of His commandments (mainly the eucharist and confession). you want the wide gate. you want to be your own spiritual authority.

[Anonymous No.17045367]

>>17045321
i was ordained by God to be what I am. I know my imperfections but I'm not an authoritarian like most people are and that gives a completely new view of religion and understanding. the more one can be stripped of inferior things, the lighter their spirit becomes and they will contemplate the purity of God. you are accusing me of many things. you're the one that should shut up so that you might start to hear the voice of God rather than settling for table scraps. why don't you hate your father and your mother? we must hate our own selves and lose our soul. everyone that knows God has done this in some measure, but he is worthy of every iota of us.

[Anonymous No.17045402]

>>17045367
>i was ordained by God to be what I am.
no you were not. if you were you would not despise religion and religious people.

i'm not perfect, but you are the one putting yourself above religion and insulting the church of christ. again you claim to be a victim of accusations, but re-read everything you say, every accusation against religion and religious people.

tiresome

[Anonymous No.17045455]

>>17045130
>11 new posts
not the subject of this thread, retard

[Anonymous No.17045551]

>>17045455
Please tell me why

[Anonymous No.17045570]

My catholic church told me that when God made the mold of man there was a crack in the mold and thats why nobody is perfect

Were they bullshitting me

[Anonymous No.17045609]

>>17045570
can you please stop making up stories about your phantasmagorical catholic church? thank you.

[Anonymous No.17045676]

>>17045402
I can recognize some real Authority in your church. I can't say much to you other than God will keep increasing and multiplying you if you let him. this applies to all. the correct method of communion with God is an ascending forever.

[Anonymous No.17045691]

>>17045609
I did not make it up that is what they fuckin told me

Perhaps they were the ones making it up to make ne stop asking them questions this was sunday school and some roastie was in charge

[Anonymous No.17046339]

Bump

[Anonymous No.17047345]

bump

[Anonymous No.17048084]

>>17045551
Because Yahweh was originally the same as Satan; the breaking apart of the two is part of retconning and gaslighting that grafted Yahweh onto Christ

>Christians have always failed to see the biblical god’s utter contempt for their own nations, although it is repeated again and again: “All the nations are as nothing before him, for him they count as nothingness and emptiness” (Isaiah 40:17). “Devour all the nations whom Yahweh your god puts at your mercy, show them no pity” (Deuteronomy 7:16). The vulnerability of Christian nations to Israel’s collective sociopathy is directly related to the their self-inflicted blindness. For their own misfortune, Christians worship a deity who hates them (as one commenter to an earlier article put it).

>Christian exegetes never seem to have noticed either that Yahweh’s covenant—domination over the nations in exchange for exclusive worship—is basically identical to the pact that the devil tried to lure Jesus into:

>“the devil showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. And he said to him, ‘I will give you all these, if you fall at my feet and do me homage.’ Then Jesus replied, ‘Away with you, Satan!’” (Matthew 4:8-10)

>As a matter of fact, Satan is hardly distinguished from Yahweh in the Tanakh. He is called an “angel of Yahweh” in Numbers 22 and 32. In 2Samuel 24, Yahweh incites David to do evil, while the role is given to Satan in the same episode told in 1Chronicles 21, where Yahweh, “the angel of Yahweh”, and Satan are used interchangeably. There is also no trace in the Tanakh of a cosmic struggle between Good and Evil, as in Persian monotheism. Happiness and misfortune, peace and war, health and sickness, abundance and famine, fertility and infertility, all have their unique and direct source in the capricious will of Yahweh. In his own words, “I form the light and I create the darkness, I make well-being, and I create disaster, I, Yahweh, do all these things” (Isaiah 45:7).

>Christ’s teaching to “store up treasures in heaven” (Matthew 6:20) is alien to Yahweh. He is the Greedy One, who wants “the treasures of all the nations” amassed into his Jerusalem residence: “Mine is the silver, mine the gold!” (Haggai 2:8). “The wealth of all the surrounding nations will be heaped together: gold, silver, clothing, in vast quantity” (Zechariah 14:14). Interestingly, according to 1Kings 10:14, the amount of gold hoarded each year into Salomon’s temple was “666 talents of gold”—the “number of the Beast” in Revelation 13:18! Make of it what you want. Or ask Jared Kushner to explain it.

[Anonymous No.17048230]

>>17048084
....this just raises even more questions

[Anonymous No.17048850]

>>17048230
they say the truth is stranger then fiction

[Anonymous No.17048902]

>>17048850
you are just a retard

[Anonymous No.17048929]

>>17048850
So let me get this straight, Jesus rejects Satan's will which in many cases is identical to God's will? But Jesus is God?

[Anonymous No.17048940]

>>17048084
This is the most kikey thing ive ever read

[Anonymous No.17048959]

>>17048902
Well do you have a rebuttal

[Anonymous No.17049006]

>>17048959
yes, it's called an IQ test

[Anonymous No.17049020]

>>17049006
You are a weakling in every way and I am surprised at myself for being disappointed. Not the long winded jew that made that post btw, just a spectator.

[Anonymous No.17049074]

>>17048929
God is neither Satan nor Yahweh

[Anonymous No.17049079]

>>17049074
Source? What about Allah?

[Anonymous No.17049149]

>>17049079
The Tao, Allah, Brahman are all the Supreme under various aspects. Jesus was in relation to Him as Krishna to Narayana.

source: I’m a time traveler

[Anonymous No.17049249]

>>17049149
I mean I'm on the same page as you but seems others ITT disagree

[Anonymous No.17049409]

>>17049020
you will never be a woman

[Anonymous No.17049411]

>>17049409
Correct, you as well.

[Anonymous No.17049424]

>>17049411
>you too!!!!
<70

[Anonymous No.17049432]

>>17049424
You're a schizo misinterpreting my words

[Anonymous No.17050106]

>>17040139
A buddhist wouldn't get angry at this, this meme makes no sense

[Anonymous No.17050142]

>thread on eastern religion
>"christian" bugmen come proselytizing and attacking anyone who doesn't believe in their retardedly narrow soteriology
Like clockwork

[Anonymous No.17050196]

>>17040564

India is the moon so it has no reason to reach it or shit upon it. And also there is no moon, the moon is an illusive dream, as is the dream of shitting on the moon and wiping our hands in moon dust. And also the moon is infinite and god, and so only god can shit upon the moon, but because I am also god, and so are you, we've already shat upon the moon and there's no need to go there and do it again. And so that's why India doesn't go to the moon and shit everywhere big man, it could but it doesn't want to.

[Anonymous No.17050435]

>>17041408
>>17042979
>still no replies

Pathetic.

[Anonymous No.17050455]

>>17048084

Indeed. See:

>>17041408

[Anonymous No.17050831]

>>17041408
Christian theology is nonsensical

[Anonymous No.17052327]

>>17050831
no

[Anonymous No.17053664]

>>17050831
kys

[Anonymous No.17053924]

>>17039629
Yeah, I took shrooms once and this was my experience exactly. It is truly demonic.

[Anonymous No.17054001]

>>17053924
lol

[Anonymous No.17054253]

>>17053924
in religious practice it is a common thing that one must face the evils inside of themselves. you had to face evils inside of yourself when you took the mushrooms and then you called the mushrooms evil. well done.

[Anonymous No.17054297]

>>17054253
>the devil is inside you bruh
vade retro retardas

[Anonymous No.17054444]

>>17054297
everything is inside you.

[Anonymous No.17054588]

>>17054444
confirmed

[Anonymous No.17055696]

>>17054444
Quads of truth

[Anonymous No.17055926]

>>17054444
Leibniz is a retard

[Anonymous No.17055957]

>>17052327
>>17053664
Cope

[Anonymous No.17056168]

>>17040841
Just perusing. This is the single last satisfying response in the whole thread...

[Anonymous No.17056178]

>>17050142
I lied. This replyis just a waste.