Dualism is absolute.

[Anonymous No.16831852]

All monism, monotheism, and nondualism are trash. Cosmic dualism is the way to go, you absolute morons.

[Anonymous No.16831854]

>>16831852
I don't know the difference

[Anonymous No.16831857]

imbecile

[Anonymous No.16831876]

>>16831854
2
1
1
not 2

[Anonymous No.16831884]

>>16831876
Yes but who or what draws the line between "things"

[Anonymous No.16832058]

>>16831884
Thi--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ngs

[Anonymous No.16832289]

>>16831852
>All monism, monotheism, and nondualism are trash.
You didn't write the antithesis so can't understand you
>Cosmic dualism is the way to go, you absolute morons.
Same here

[Anonymous No.16832896]

>>16831852
k

[Anonymous No.16833087]

>PROP. V. There cannot exist in the universe two or more substances having the same nature or attribute.
>Proof.--If several distinct substances be granted, they must be distinguished one from the other, either by the difference of their attributes, or by the difference of their modifications (Prop. iv.). If only by the difference of their attributes, it will be granted that there cannot be more than one with an identical attribute. If by the difference of their modifications--as substance is naturally prior to its modifications (Prop. i.),--it follows that setting the modifications aside, and considering substance in itself, that is truly (Def. iii. and vi.), there cannot be conceived one substance different from another,--that is (by Prop. iv.), there cannot be granted several substances, but one substance only. Q.E.D.

>PROP. XIV. Besides God no substance can be granted or conceived.
>Proof.--As God is a being absolutely infinite, of whom no attribute that expresses the essence of substance can be denied (by Def. vi.), and he necessarily exists (by Prop. xi.); if any substance besides God were granted it would have to be explained by some attribute of God, and thus two substances with the same attribute would exist, which (by Prop. v.) is absurd; therefore, besides God no substance can be granted, or consequently, be conceived. If it could be conceived, it would necessarily have to be conceived as existent; but this (by the first part of this proof) is absurd. Therefore, besides God no substance can be granted or conceived. Q.E.D.

[Anonymous No.16833102]

>>16833087
Mardanfarrox already refuted Spinoza's trashy arguments.

[Anonymous No.16833219]

>>16831852
Nondualism / monism / monotheism is intrinsically dualistic. Nondual implies dual. The real answer lies in negation--neither nondual nor dual. Neither good nor evil. All is void and void is neither form nor formless. Take the zenpill faggot, let go of your conceptions and freefall

[Anonymous No.16833226]

>>16831852
books

[Anonymous No.16833248]

>>16833219
It's like a multifaceted gem, singular with myriad reflections. If you take the reflections for reality, you're spun around and shackled by external conditions. If you take the singular gem for reality, you fall into reckless solipsism.

[Anonymous No.16833275]

>>16833219
Nonsense. That is all bullshit. I understand the logic of your nonsense better than you do since I used to be a Soto Zen Buddhist and read a nondualistic bullshit.
Dualism is absolute. Reality was largely formed from the collision of good and evil.

[Anonymous No.16833342]

>>16833275
If you got 'nondualism' out of zen, you wasted your time. Sorry to hear it anon. To call it nondualism is to stick a post in the ground to tether the donkey to. Wherever there's nondualism, there's dualism. Like I said already, neither dual nor nondual.

[Anonymous No.16833353]

OP is right, dualism is obsolete.

[Anonymous No.16833396]

>>16833342
No, I know what you're saying. It fits with the Japanese Zen saying of "Not One and Not Two". It basically fits into the saying of not clinging to emptiness. That is both the absolute "unity" and illusion have a complementary relationship. As this verse Diamond Sutra makes clear (typing from memory):
"Since the possession of attributes is an illusion, Subhuti, and no possession of attributes is no illusion, then by means of attributes that are no attributes, the Tathagata can, indeed, be seen." -- Red Pine transl, I believe verse 5
However, what you don't understand is I'm saying it's just dual. There is nothing nondual about the relationship between good and evil or truth and lie. Good can exist apart from evil, and truth can exist apart from lie. Good can be uncontaminated by evil.

[Anonymous No.16833407]

>>16833353
Nondualism/monism/monotheism are obsolete. Cosmic Dualism is the truth.

[Anonymous No.16833414]

>>16833407
Right, it's obsolete.

[Anonymous No.16833440]

>>16833396
>Good can exist apart from evil, and truth can exist apart from lie. Good can be uncontaminated by evil.
How would one go about orienting towards the optimal good in all situations? It has to be reflexive, without preconception. If you cleave to good from the outset, evil quickly results. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[Anonymous No.16833477]

>>16833440
Plus, what's good anyways? Not evil. What's evil? Not good. They're useless representational forms which only truly manifest in the midst of spontaneous action. It has to meet the condition with absolute swiftness, otherwise it's like a doctor giving you heart surgery for a broken leg.

[Anonymous No.16833485]

Nonduality is the sum of the "dual"

[Anonymous No.16833495]

>>16833485
Nondualism is not the sum of the dual. For every affirmation, there's a negation. Drop it!

[Anonymous No.16833523]

>>16833440
>>16833477
What you're saying ignores the core, the fundament, of what I am arguing: there exists *instances* of a good uncontaminated by evil and an evil uncontaminated by good. It doesn't matter if these instances come by way of dreams or moments of one's life. Regardless, if purity/impurity and good/evil have a degree of semi-independence, one cannot explain away their essences by referring to interpenetration. In fact, if one starts looking at the question more deeply, it's conceivable for one side of the pole to exist without the other. This means good and evil do not necessarily interpenetrate one another.
In other words, something like a mix of dualism and subjective idealism is closer to the truth, and you can use artwork as a proxy to understand this.
One means to do this is to read both children's literature and transgressive literature without a sense of self. You try to vicariously experience the perspective of the characters in both diametrically opposed fictional worlds, one being more benign/good and the other more miserable/evil. By doing this you will see dualism is closer to the truth.

[Anonymous No.16833546]

>>16833495
nigger is your only concept of the "dual" purely based off morality? the entire reason you can become aware of the affirmation and the negation is because there is some kind of source that gives the capacity for both to exist. the dual exists in the totality of the nondual, retard.

[Anonymous No.16833572]

>>16833523
I think we're pretty much in agreement. My 'neither dual nor nondual' incorporates both whenever the condition calls for it. If somebody swings at me, I'm obviously gonna dodge it. It's a matter of interpenetrating absolute and relative reality (see Tozan's Five Ranks). Science and Art, at their best, are a synthesis of the two--using relative forms to approximate the absolute. In the case of music, using discrete musical forms to approximate a functional whole.

[Anonymous No.16833584]

>>16833546
See >>16833572

[Anonymous No.16833605]

>>16831852
Yin-yang is both one and many. There is a higher and a lower but it is all of God. Non-dual does not mean monism neither does it mean dualism. All is one, one is all. Elohim is one and many.

[Anonymous No.16833612]

>>16831852
Dualism and Monism are obsolete garbage.
EMBRACE RADICAL ONTOLOGICAL PLURALISM

[Anonymous No.16833623]

>>16833605
I disagree.
>>16833612
I disagree.

[Anonymous No.16833630]

>>16833623
You're allowed to disagree.
You're wrong of course.

[Anonymous No.16833671]

>>16833440
>How would one go about orienting towards the optimal good in all situations? It has to be reflexive, without preconception. If you cleave to good from the outset, evil quickly results. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

"Why call me good? Only God is good."

[Anonymous No.16833691]

>>16833630
In your retard worldview, there's no such thing as being wrong.

[Anonymous No.16833692]

>>16833671
The man in whom Tao
Acts without impediment
Harms no other being
By his actions
Yet he does not know himself
To be "kind," to be "gentle."

[Anonymous No.16833706]

>>16833275
What you call "good" is godliness, what you call "evil" is ungodliness. What you don't realize is both "good" and "evil" are within godliness, with "good" being the more concentrated godliness and "evil" being the lesser. How could it be otherwise? god is all.

[Anonymous No.16833710]

>>16833692
The sage is not kind,
He treats the people as straw dogs

[Anonymous No.16833711]

>>16833691
ONTOLOGICAL PLURALISM, not cultural pluralism, you fucking idiot

[Anonymous No.16833749]

>>16833711
Oh, so I'm supposed to keep up with all of different posters and views in this topic especially when there are no IDs?

[Anonymous No.16833761]

>>16833706
Both good and evil have real existences. Evil is not just the absence of the good.

Yasna 30 (part from Gathas)

1 And I shall proclaim, O seekers [of Truth], those things
which [are] to be borne in mind, even for one knowing [them already]:
[Those] praises and hymns of Good Mind [to be sung] for the Lord and,
attentive ones, for Truth,
Which by [their] lights [will bring] joys beautiful to see.

2 Listen with [your] ears to the best things [said]
[And] observe with [your] mind, radiant,
The two alternatives of [your] choosing, each man for himself
Being careful to announce us to Him1 before the great retribution.

3 There are two primeval spirits, twins who are revealed
[to us] through dream.
In mind, in speech, and even in deed they are better and bad:
The good choose between them correctly, not the evil.

4 And what's more, when these two spirits came together
at the beginning of the world,
They bestowed [to it] both life and death. And likewise
At the end, a life most wicked will arise for followers of the Lie,
and the best thought [will arise] for the followers of Truth.

5 Of these two spirits, the one possessed of the Lie chose to execute
the most wicked things, [but] the beneficent spirit,
Who is clothed in the hardest stones, [chose] Truth,
[Just as those men do now] who readily satisfy the Lord, the Wise One,
with true actions.

6 The Daevas did not choose correctly whatsoever between these two,
since Deception approached them [as they were] deliberating [between
them].
[And] since they chose the worst thought,
They thereby rushed headlong unto [that very] wrath by which they [now] poison
the life of mortal men.

7 Yet He1 goes unto him2 with power, Good Mind, and Truth,
And youthful Armaiti gives [him] body [and] breath.
[And each] of these things will arise for you, [too], just as through retribution
by molten iron the former [followers of the Lie (?)
will be punished].

8 And so, when the punishment of these sins will arrive
Then dominion will finally obtain for You, O Wise One,
through Good Thinking.
[In order] to proclaim, O Lord, to those who will
give Deceit over to the Truth in both hands.

9 Therefore, may we be the ones who would make existence vibrant,
O Wise [Lord] and Lords, by means of the unbroken support [you have given?]
to me2 and by means of Truth,
So that our minds will remain unified whenever our judgment may be in doubt.

[Anonymous No.16833768]

>>16833477
>Plus, what's good anyways? Not evil. What's evil? Not good. They're useless representational forms which only truly manifest in the midst of spontaneous action. It has to meet the condition with absolute swiftness, otherwise it's like a doctor giving you heart surgery for a broken leg.

It must come from the most primordial and eternal reality, the innermost reality. Goodness must be judged from the foundations of reality, not merely from things growing out of it. Since evil is an unstable reality it perishes and is refined and is completed and filled with Eternal goodness. completed reality is actualized reality and only the Divine which is good exist. The fullfilment of being and non-being, which is becoming, is the creative energy of God who completes creation.

[Anonymous No.16833769]

>>16833761
10 For then the destruction of the prosperity of Deceit will descend
And the swiftest [steeds] will be yoked to the dwelling place of Good Mind,
Which will race ahead unto the good fame of the Wise One and of Truth.

11 When you, O mortals, learn those rules which the Wise One has given,
[When you learn that there is] freedom and constraint, and [likewise]
long-lasting destruction for the Possessors of the Lie,
But blessings for the Truthful, then through these things [you have learned]
the things that you desire will arise.

[Anonymous No.16833779]

>>16833495
The nature of reality is infinite therefore there is an ascending forever.

[Anonymous No.16833784]

>>16833749
You were replying to my comment which clearly states ONTOLOGICAL in all caps which I am now doing again.
This should be enough to make it obvious what kind of pluralism I am personally talking about.

[Anonymous No.16833802]

>>16833706
Unwise action, either for good or evil, results in failure. A wise man can derive good from evil wherever he stands.
"If the right man preaches the wrong way," said JoshIT, "the way
will follow the man and become right. If the wrong man preaches
the right way, the way will follow the man and become wrong." Joshu

[Anonymous No.16833805]

>>16833784
I responded to two people. One who was arguing for nondualism and another who was arguing ontological pluralism, you. I didn't know which replied with this post: >>16833630

[Anonymous No.16833846]

>>16833692
>The man in whom Tao
>Acts without impediment
>Harms no other being
>By his actions
>Yet he does not know himself
>To be "kind," to be "gentle."
I get that but maybe in a different way than you. Some people having a spiritual experience Proclaim that "everything is of order". Usually there are very many different ways to understand a saying. Cool saying, definitely something that can be reflected upon.

[Anonymous No.16834238]

>>16831852
>us vs them
cosmic dualism is what we are living in right nao

[Anonymous No.16834247]

>>16834238

[Anonymous No.16834400]

I sure hope the Zoroastrian posters here realize that Zoroastrianism is a true monotheism, that Angra Mainyu is not an anti-god.
Keep reading the materials though, you'll get there.

[Anonymous No.16834415]

>>16834400
Ahriman is an anti-god. Read Mardanfarrox's Doubt-Removing Exposition. Zoroastrianism was a ditheism not monotheism, but it did have a monist sect called Zurvanism.
Mazdak and Mani were also ditheists.

[Anonymous No.16834473]

>>16834415
This is false.
Lord Wisdom is the sole and only Supreme Being.
There are many subordinate beings, including Angra Mainyu, who will be dealt with on the Final Day.
You're thinking of Manichaeism.

[Anonymous No.16834491]

>>16834473
Nope, the Bundashihn and Doubt Removing Exposition of Mardanfarrox both argue Ohrmazd is not omnipotent. Here is a quote from Mardanfarrox's Doubt Removing Exposition. In fact, he criticizes Manichaeism in it:

[Anonymous No.16834503]

>>16834473
>>16834491
Here is the Doubt Removing Book which criticizes Manichaeism and other religions. Mardanfarrox argues for dualism in it:
http://www.avesta.org/mp/SGV.pdf
Zoroastrianism was a dualism, not a monotheism. Also, ditheism makes more sense than monotheism anyways.

[Anonymous No.16834608]

>>16834491
>>16834503
I trust Zarathustra, sorry, not some dude way the fuck later on.

[Anonymous No.16834614]

>>16834608
The only scripture that goes back to Zoroaster is the Gathas. I have read multiple translations, and it is honestly very difficult to determine whether Zoroaster believed both Ahura Mazda and Ahriman to preexist or Ahura Mazda created Ahriman. I think the former makes more sense.

[Anonymous No.16834619]

>>16834614
You think all kinds of erroneous shit

[Anonymous No.16834666]

>>16834619
What other scripture goes back to Zoroaster? Only the Gathas does based on the Old Avestan.

[Anonymous No.16834829]

BUNUNNIES!!!

[Anonymous No.16834865]

>>16831852
And if you put the two together, what does that make?

[Anonymous No.16834885]

>>16834829
He is an yazata/angel of Ahura Mazda.

[Anonymous No.16834892]

>>16834865
Since Ahura Mazda is stronger, he would overpower and banish Ahriman. The light and darkness are not two sides of the same coin; the light exists to banish the darkness.

[Anonymous No.16834894]

>>16834892
So Monism?

[Anonymous No.16834909]

>>16834894
Traditional Mazdaysna begins with a ditheism but progressively becomes a monotheism with the defeat of the ∀dversary.

[Anonymous No.16834976]

>>16834892
>>16834894
>>16834909
Not Monism. Monism is when there is only one entity that includes the entire universe.
Which is why careful Shankarafags call it "non-dualism" as a hedge.
As for Mazdayasna it is never a ditheism. Angra Mainyu is simply a powerful idiot, and we mortals are simply weak enough to be affected by his bullshit, which can only temporarily go on, because on the Final Day Ahura Mazda purifies the corruption of the Lie that Angra Mainyu has authored.

At no point whatsoever is Angra Mainyu as or more powerful than Ahura Mazda.
He is always just a fool that has caused the world to be damaged through his jealousy of Ahura Mazda's perfection.

Ahura Mazda just means Wise Lord. Guess what that makes his opposite?

[Anonymous No.16834998]

>>16834976
>Monism is when there is only one entity that includes the entire universe.
Zurvan-Akarana (undifferentiated and unlimited Time) kind of implies a degree of monism in Zurvanism.
>As for Mazdayasna it is never a ditheism.
I interpreted Gathas and early Mazdayasna as being a ditheism because Ahura Mazda is not responsible for the creation of Ahriman.
However, some parts of Zend-Avesta give contrary interpretations. Mobed would debate on this matter a lot. Yes, some mobed did take a monotheist stance, but it is difficult to infer from the Gathas whether Zoroaster originally intended a ditheism or monotheism.
>At no point whatsoever is Angra Mainyu as or more powerful than Ahura Mazda.
Maybe saying "mitigated dualism" makes more sense. I do technically agree that Ahura Mazda and Ahriman are not co-equal. The former is described as having an "edge" in the conflict.
>He is always just a fool that has caused the world to be damaged through his jealousy of Ahura Mazda's perfection.
Yes.
>Ahura Mazda just means Wise Lord. Guess what that makes his opposite?
Would a Wise Lord create his own enemy? Think about it. Would a wise man self-flagellate himself?

[Anonymous No.16835015]

>>16833219
>Nondualism / monism / monotheism is intrinsically dualistic. Nondual implies dual.
This is false, you are taking the sign for the thing itself being signified, In the writings of non-dualist traditions like Vedanta etc they make it clear that in spiritual realization one goes beyond concepts like dual and non-dual

>All is void and void is neither form nor formless
This is manifestly refuted by the non-void self-evident existence of our own consciousness

[Anonymous No.16835118]

>>16834998
>Would a Wise Lord create his own enemy? Think about it. Would a wise man self-flagellate himself?
Sure. I do things that hurt me but help my dependents all the time. That's just being an adult. It helps in the long run.
Ahura Mazda is teaching us to appreciate nice things by showing us how bad it can get.

[Anonymous No.16835136]

>>16835118
>I do things that hurt me
An infinitely wise entity would not do things to hurt itself.
>Ahura Mazda is teaching us to appreciate nice things by showing us how bad it can get.
That's a Christian way of viewing things. Zoroastrianism isn't like that. Zoroastrianism is about banishing the evil through strength. Appreciating nice things isn't about its contrast to the bad things.

[Anonymous No.16835144]

>>16835136
Well, like, that's just your opinion, man

[Anonymous No.16835160]

>>16835136
I also reject the idea that he is hurting himself. He's never damaged in any way by Angra Mainyu, Angra Mainyu inconveniences Ahura Mazda AT MOST.
WE MORTALS are the ones injured. It is of course completely possible to tune in to Ahura Mazda's truth and have a good life anyway.
That's all Mazdayasna is: The Good Way

[Anonymous No.16835168]

>>16835144
Nope, it's the Zoroastrian, Sassanian, and Achaemenid mentality.
I create horrible artwork not because I enjoy it but because it's necessary to confront the cruelty in life, including its underlying faulty thought processes, in order to become strong to aid in Ohrmazd's righteous battle. If I could get rid of all the darkness, I would however. The world would ideally be like a picture book or children's novel where nothing goes bad in my mind, and the possibility of transgressive thoughts would not exist.
Ancient Persian / Iranshahr was not a Faustian civilization in mentality.

[Anonymous No.16835183]

>>16835160
>He's never damaged in any way by Angra Mainyu
Uhm, both Ohrmazd and Ahriman are struggling against each other. A serial killer who abducts a child and tortures him in the basement is obviously doing the bidding of Ahriman against Ohrmazd. He is spreading Angra Mainyu more. In some areas, Ohrmazd's presence is generally weaker with Angra Mainyu's presence being stronger. Of course, the child still has great inner light, but the man is engaging in Ahriman's Lie and Chaos is bringing in more chaos. Something like the Japanese anime film, Midori, is obviously closer to Ahriman's nature.

[Anonymous No.16835201]

>>16835168
>I create horrible artwork not because I enjoy it but because it's necessary to confront the cruelty in life, including its underlying faulty thought processes, in order to become strong to aid in Ohrmazd's righteous battle
But this is exactly my point, you stupid fucking autist.

[Anonymous No.16835215]

>>16835201
Yeah, but it doesn't make sense to create your own adversary when it doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.16835217]

>>16835015
> In the writings of non-dualist traditions like Vedanta etc they make it clear that in spiritual realization one goes beyond concepts like dual and non-dual
Yeah, I get it. It's like removing a thorn with another thorn and discarding both. All I'm saying is that so long as a person clings to nondual teachings, they're still caught in duality. So long as there's any doctrine whatsoever to attain towards, it's not the genuine article (nothing)

[Anonymous No.16835221]

>>16834829

[Anonymous No.16835229]

>>16835215
It can, if there's no possibility of it getting anywhere.
Which is how Angra Mainyu is. He is a problem for US, not God.
Same as Satan in Judaism.

[Anonymous No.16835241]

>>16835229
He's described as being a problem for Ahura Mazda too. Ahriman's spirit of Angra Mainyu assailed Spenta Mainyu, and it led to conflict with Ahura Mazda trying to banish Ahriman. This manifests in our states of mind and also as words, deeds, and thought. Ahura Mazda has an edge, sure, but he's still fighting Ahriman. It's not like Satan who works for YHVH and metes judgment.
What's your issue with dualism anyways?

[Anonymous No.16835281]

>>16835229
>>16835241
Impurities do not arise from purity. Zoroastrianism has more in common with Shintoism with its emphasis on pure vs. impure forces rather than Abrahamism's conception of monotheism.

[Anonymous No.16835289]

>>16833087
BASED

[Anonymous No.16835298]

>>16835281
A big part of it is keeping the metaphorical 'wall' up where you can't be tainted by impurity. Rather, you can be in the midst of impurity without being shaken. Being is the beginning of becoming, but only if the guard is let down. Babies & young children (fundamental purity) let their guard down because they don't know any better, wise men don't.

[Anonymous No.16835327]

>>16835298
I can agree with that.
I left Soto Zen Buddhism for Zoroastrianism not because of nationalist reasons but because I believe in a fundamental duality between pure and impure forces. I do not believe they have a unity.

[Anonymous No.16835345]

>>16835327
How do you reconcile things like the trolley problem, or using impurity as a means for a pure end? Tough love?

[Anonymous No.16835405]

>>16835345
It's about whether the intention behind the word, thought, or deed was good and sincere. The trolley problem becomes a moot point then. Accidents and difficult encounters do happen in life, but it's about maintaining good intention, which is purifying in itself. However, one does have to sacrifice certain things in life for good purposes, but it's best to minimize the sacrifice to what is only essential while remaining sustainably minded. Sacrificing too much is bad. Life is about a balance of maintaining good intention and sacrifice.
>using impurity as a means for a pure end
It's impossible if one is physically fit and has good and honest intentions. It is logically impossible for someone with good intentions to sadistically harm another.
However, the question of sacrifice is more nuanced. For example, being in a situation where you have to hunt to feed your family requires sacrifice. So long as you hunt what is necessary, then it's fine.

[Anonymous No.16835484]

>>16835217
>Yeah, I get it. It's like removing a thorn with another thorn and discarding both. All I'm saying is that so long as a person clings to nondual teachings, they're still caught in duality.
You have not provided a reason for why this might be true, but have only assertively it dogmatically. It is a ridiculous notion, since attaining non-duality itself after following non-dual teachings obviates any further superimposition of false notions and obviates any further clinging. In non-duality there is nothing else remaining which one could cling to, since everything is the Self, ergo there is no clinging. "When to the man of realization all beings become the very Self, then what delusion and what sorrow can there be for that seer of oneness?" - Isha Upanishad verse 7.

>So long as there's any doctrine whatsoever to attain towards, it's not the genuine article (nothing)
If you don't have any doctrine, then you are simply trying to lobotomize yourself, which is not a genuine spiritual attainment, but is basically a non-surgical auto-lobotomy. Someone can spend their whole lives trying to do this and they will not be any better off than some schizo pumped full of valium and anti-psychotics watching cartoons at their psych ward all day.

[Anonymous No.16835519]

>>16831852
hehehe

Its amusing watching you little dualists quibble. the very idea of dualism is predicated on an a priori intuition of monism. face it. there is only the particular and the absolute, the former being a subset of the later, and the duality is synthetic and is only as such due to our myopathy of conception.

[Anonymous No.16835585]

>>16835519
hehehe

Its amusing watching you little nondualists quibble. the very idea of nondualism is predicated on an a priori intuition of dualism. face it. there is only the beneficient spirit and the deceitful one, the former being a irreconcilable with the later, and the duality is unbridgeable and is only as such due to our nightmares and blissful dreams.

[Anonymous No.16835637]

>>16831852
Have you solved the problem of substantial interaction? If not, then please go away.

[Anonymous No.16835647]

>>16835637
Edward Feser already solved it.

[Anonymous No.16835658]

>>16835585
>"Ah, but you see that in your example the "truth" which you give of there being only a beneficent and a deceitful spirit itself by being a single truth which in its reality includes both of them by default amounts to the single "absolute" spoken of by the anon which includes in its truth the existence of duality while itself transcending duality, i.e. the truth of the mutual existence of the two fundamental spirits is not contained wholly in one spirit, or in the other, and is not equally portioned out between them, but is a truth or reality which includes them both within Itself. You can't give a consistent account of dualism without it inevitably being subsumed with a single non-dual truth which unites them.

One the other hand, the non-dualist analysis of reality doesn't inevitably reduce down to duality in the same way that the dualist explanation reduces down to a non-dual one. And the reason for this is because it's correct."

[Anonymous No.16835713]

>>16835658
>"Ah, but you see that in your example the "truth" which you give of there being only a single primordial source that transcends and encompasses both spirits but in its reality includes its corrupting non-confined antithesis, i.e. the truth of the third source that subsumes the two fundamental spirits is not logically entailed by the conflict of the two spirits, and deconstructs phenomenal and apparent experiences of life, but is a truth or reality which includes only two colliding spirits. You can't give a consistent account of nondualism without it inevitably being split by a single dual truth which disunites them.

One the other hand, the dualist analysis of reality doesn't inevitably get encompassed by nonduality in the same way that the nondualist explanation reduces down to a dual one. And the reason for this is because it's correct.

[Anonymous No.16835777]

>>16835585
>>16835713
What is this /v/ tier "repeat the same argument and change some words so I don't have to use brainpower to make a rebuttal" tier shit?

[Anonymous No.16835829]

>>16835484
>since attaining non-duality itself after following non-dual teachings obviates any further superimposition of false notions and obviates any further clinging
It's not attained. I guess it's useful for getting people interested in it, though--silence doesn't fill the collection plate. Stories and promises are easier to sell people on.
> In non-duality there is nothing else remaining which one could cling to, since everything is the Self, ergo there is no clinging.
This is false, you are taking the sign for the thing itself being signified :^)

[Anonymous No.16835862]

>>16835829
why even bother replying snidely if you are not going to make any logical arguments, it's like you care just enough to make pointless passive aggressive comments but not enough to actually try to convince anyone through reason that you're right and that I'm wrong

[Anonymous No.16835892]

>>16835862
I'm talking to you in earnest. What does logical argument or reasoning have to do with it? Has anyone been 'convinced' in this domain, ever? Flower sermon maybe. And even then, no words were used. They'd only get in the way.

[Anonymous No.16835898]

>>16835862
It's because he's a dumb /pol/tard and doesn't know enough to make a reasonable argument.
One could attack both Dualism and Monism with the concepts of Overmining and Undermining from Object Oriented Ontology for instance.
He is of course trying to use Kantian Noumena/Phenomena to prove Dualism here.
This of course is silly, because the appearance of a thing versus the thing in itself are distinctions without difference, that is to say it proves neither position.

[Anonymous No.16835927]

>>16835892
And as for this buddhist notion of a void, this void is not a literal one.
Our consciousness projects that void concept onto the real, because we cannot ever directly contact the real.
That's the difference between a sensual and a real object in OOO or in Egoanalysis (see Jacob Rogozinski) it would be the Remainder.
Compare also to Petit Objet A in Lacan

[Anonymous No.16835945]

>>16835892
If when talking to people in earnest you simply restate points you've made without making any new point of relevance then you are a poor conversationalist.

>>16835898
>He is of course trying to use Kantian Noumena/Phenomena to prove Dualism here.
Positing the having of no views, positions or doctrines whatsoever as some sort of grand achievement or insight as that poster did is an indication not of dualists but rather it is an indication for either madhyamakafags or jewish tranny leftypol trying to make some point about Wittgenstein, or the people who exist in the intersecting region of the Venn diagram connecting these two camps. The Zoroastrian dualist poster is another person.

[Anonymous No.16835947]

>>16835898
I'm not trying to argue. I'm a lover, not a fighter.
>One could attack both Dualism and Monism >with the concepts of Overmining and >Undermining from Object Oriented Ontology >for instance.
>He is of course trying to use Kantian >Noumena/Phenomena to prove Dualism here.
Woah. I know about dualism and monism but I'm unfamiliar with those other words. But I've always loved sandcastles! Also I've never read Kant but I guess we have something in common. Maybe it's time to crack open a book of his.

[Anonymous No.16835983]

>>16835947

[Anonymous No.16836023]

>>16835927
>Our consciousness projects that void concept onto the real, because we cannot ever directly contact the real.
Whose consciousness? I'd like to speak to the manager of consciousness and give em a good talking to. Update: I just went to their office and nobody was there, huh. Out to lunch I guess.
>>16835945
Where did I say anything about no views? I like pizza. I like everything bagels. I like it when she shake it like that. There's some views.

[Anonymous No.16836085]

>>16835927
>Our consciousness projects that void concept onto the real, because we cannot ever directly contact the real
Assuming that you are basing this on Madhyamaka (as I have no interest in arguing against a vague pastiche of continental philosophy and buddhism which inevitably devolves into sophism and the shifting of goalposts) Nagarjuna argued in his works against there being any entities which arise independently of conceptual construction, but consciousness cannot itself be conceptually constructed, because that would require another sentient entity preexisting it to conceptually construct that entity, as only sentient beings can have conceptualizations of things. Empty, non-sentience cannot magically unconsciously construct itself into having an illusory sentience, Nagarjuna's explanation of how our experience of things comes about is so self-evidently absurd that I am amazed that so many people within Buddhism seem to think highly of Madhyamaka.

[Anonymous No.16836107]

>>16836085
I'm arguing against Vedanta and Buddhism in general, actually.

[Anonymous No.16836111]

>>16836085
Dharmakirti always made more sense than Nagarjuna.

[Anonymous No.16836124]

>>16836085
In fact, I am Radical ONTOLOGICAL Pluralism guy, and only the Skandhas are salvageable from Buddhism, that is to say elements in motion, with momentum being the thing that is Blown Out (Nirvana lit.)
For Vedanta, Madhva is closer to the truth, including his takedown of Shankara's notion of how Maya-shakti operates.

[Anonymous No.16836149]

>>16835983
See >>16836023 replace 'views' with thoughts
>>16835945
Anon, I did bring up new points. Check out flower sermon and try to see how it relates to >>16835892 primarily 'logic and reason' as a means.

[Anonymous No.16836171]

>>16836149
If that non-position was useful or satisfying in any way, you would not be here posting.

[Anonymous No.16836198]

>>16836111
It's funny you would say that as I find Dharmakirti to be just as absurdly illogical as Nagarjuna, but in other ways. I have never seen anyone even try to defend his metaphysics from Shankara's criticisms of it, either on 4chan, in books or in any published academic article.

>>16836107
So far, you have not really offered any arguments but have just stated your position and reiterated your belief in its correctness.

>>16836124
>For Vedanta, Madhva is closer to the truth including his takedown of Shankara's notion of how Maya-shakti operates.
Madhva most likely never read Shankara and seems to not have understood his metaphysics, as he introduces false bifurcations into maya which do not exist in Advaita as taught by Shankara. If you want to try explaining Madhva's argument against maya yourself I can point out for you how it's wrong.

[Anonymous No.16836203]

>>16836198
I'm good, Guenonfag

[Anonymous No.16836262]

>>16836171
>If that non-position was useful or satisfying in any way, you would not be here posting.
You could say the same of any philosopher who has written a book. Anyways, this discussion was pretty 'satisfying' to me. Hope it was 'useful' to you :^)

[Anonymous No.16836270]

Brainlet here but from what I understand non-dualism is a state? Waking life is dualism.

[Anonymous No.16836289]

>>16836203
Okay, when you're ready to finally talk about the philosophical arguments that you mention in passing, I'll be ready

[Anonymous No.16836307]

>>16836289
Ligotti:
"But here is the real catch: If you want to become enlightened you will never become enlightened, because in Buddhism wanting things is just the thing that keeps you from getting the thing you want. Less circuitously, if you want to end your suffering, you will never end your suffering. This is the “wanting paradox,” or “paradox of desire,” and Buddhists are at the ready with both rational and non-rational propositions as to why this paradox is not a paradox. How to understand these propositions is past understanding, because, per Buddhism, there is nothing to understand and no one to understand it. And as long as you think there is something to understand and someone to understand it, you are doomed. Trying for this understanding is the most trying thing of all. Yet trying not to try for it is just as trying. There is nothing more futile than to consciously look for something to save you. But consciousness makes this fact seem otherwise. Consciousness makes it seem as if (1) there is something to do; (2) there is somewhere to go; (3) there is something to be; (4) there is someone to know. This is what makes consciousness the parent of all horrors, the thing that makes us try to do something, go somewhere, be something, and know someone, such as ourselves, so that we can escape our MALIGNANTLY USELESS being and think that being alive is all right rather than that which should not be."

[doubtposting !!0CYbMy7gCdH No.16836339]

>>16831852
LISTEN UP BROS. Good implies evil like cock implies ball; they aren't "poles", but of the same nature. Nondual cock&ball refutes your meme dualism. It also refutes Guenon's meme dichotomization of supraconscious and subconscious; The cock and ball are one and the same, above AND below. Hermes wrote about the nondual cock and ball system, read the third book of the Corpus Hermetica and you'll see what I'm talking about.

[Anonymous No.16836343]

>>16836307
If you try, you fail. If you don't try, you're no better than a lifeless pile of shit. Quite the pickle huh?

[Anonymous No.16836346]

>>16836339
>Guenon's meme dichotomization of supraconscious and subconscious
Guenon denied that the subconscious exists whatsoever in his chapter "The Misdeeds of Psychoanalysis" from "Reign of Quantity"

[Anonymous No.16836347]

>>16836339
>Good implies evil like cock implies ball; they aren't "poles", but of the same nature.
Nope.

[Anonymous No.16836355]

>>16836347
>>16836339
But that's what poles are: extreme points of the same object.

[Anonymous No.16836357]

>>16836339
Based. We only treat 'cock' and 'ball' as distinct so that we can say "Grasp the cock but don't touch the ball". It adds zest to life. In other words, it takes two to tango.

[Anonymous No.16836363]

>>16836307
>wahhh I'm a pathetic basketcase loser who considers himself useless, you should feel bad like I do
Did you think that this quote is somehow a compelling argument or something? This reads like some emo 2003 blogpost

[doubtposting !!0CYbMy7gCdH No.16836367]

>>16836347
Shit bruh you got me.

>>16836355
How many poles are there on a sphere? If you admit to one, you have to admit to the other, but why the choice of one axis over another? Or to put it another way, can the up of a sphere be distinguished from the down or the left or the around and about? The cock and ball system, sans the hole, is homologous to a sphere. The cock and ball system, implies neither cock nor ball, but only "cock AND ball". What, then, is it that makes Good and Evil? See >>16836357, who's clearly seen the light.

[Anonymous No.16836368]

>>16836355
There are two poles intersecting.

[Anonymous No.16836385]

>>16836363
No, it simply highlights how stupid and pessimistic and life-denying Buddhism and Vedanta are.
I'm a Radical Pragmatist in terms of praxis, and a radical pluralist, ontologically.

[Anonymous No.16836396]

>>16836385
>No, it simply highlights how stupid and pessimistic and life-denying Buddhism and Vedanta are.
No, the passage only talks about Buddhism, which I also find to be stupid. It really has no implication whatever for Advaita Vedanta, although if you believe otherwise you're welcome to explain why you think so.

[doubtposting !!0CYbMy7gCdH No.16836398]

>>16836385
I like your choice of self-labelling. It sounds similar to my ideology. Have you read the scriptures of our lord and savior Jordan B. Peterson? Perhaps a little Carl Jung?

[Anonymous No.16836460]

>>16836396
There is a difference, yes.
Where in Buddhism there is Void, in Vedanta there is Consciousness.
But consciousness is the Maya-shakti, not God, who is a separate entity from every other entity, which all are also distinct from each other.
Consciousness can't even tell you that white light is really all colors, or that a rope is not a snake, all it can do is make poor caricatures models from limited sense-data.
Why would I trust a liar to tell me what it is for itself? Why would I believe it when it tells me it is the singular numerical entity and the supreme being?

[Anonymous No.16836466]

>>16836398
Peterson is a junkie and Jung is just okay.

[doubtposting !!0CYbMy7gCdH No.16836484]

>>16836466
You dismiss Peterson at your peril, young one. If not Peterson, at least drink the Neumann juice (Origins and History of Consciousness). I think you'll find the psychoanalyzing of scripture extremely useful in fleshing out your radical pragmatism. This, of course, only being the case if I'm right in thinking we're on the same ideological railroad.

[Anonymous No.16836489]

>>16836085
I know of nothing of anything east of east tyrol.

[Anonymous No.16836509]

>>16836484
I might suggest Roberto Unger's The Self Awakened: Pragmatism Unbound

[Anonymous No.16836560]

>>16836484
I might also suggest Graham Harman's Object-Oriented Ontology

[Anonymous No.16836564]

>>16836484
I might also suggest eating poo

[Anonymous No.16836584]

>>16836460
>But consciousness is the Maya-shakti, not God, who is a separate entity from every other entity, which all are also distinct from each other.
Wrong, in Advaita Vedanta consciousness is God, Brahman, Atman. Maya-shakti is everything else other than consciousness. Consciousness or the Atman, possesses maya as its power.
>Consciousness can't even tell you that white light is really all colors
Why should consciousness or the mind possess every single power of measurement and detection that scientific instruments have? There is no reason why this should be the case so is foolish.
>or that a rope is not a snake,
It is the mind which superimposes things such as illusions onto their substratum, not consciousness, which simply observes the mind and its actions. Consciousness or the Atman in Advaita is not actually fooled by illusions and does not need to be to told anything, it does not need to tell itself that the snake is a rope. It merely observes the mind without being affected or conditioned by the delusions of the mind.
>Why would I trust a liar to tell me what it is for itself?
Consciousness is not the liar in Advaita, the mind and its delusions are, the mind does not tell you what consciousness is but it is taught that the Atman or consciousness as the self-luminous Real and self-shining foundation of all knowledge directly manifests itself to the aspirant, without this taking place through the meditation of the mind and its flaws.
>Why would I believe it when it tells me it is the singular numerical entity and the supreme being?
That's for everyone to figure out on their own. Advaita has plenty of arguments for why this is the most logical and likely scenario but whether someone agrees with these arguments, or whether it's even arguments at all which convinces them instead of an intuitive realization is something which is dependent upon those people.

[Anonymous No.16836606]

>>16836584
Yes, I already know what Advaita says, and Advaita is wrong.
The Mind/Consciousness distinction is utterly asinine. Awareness itself is the thing making models, including the erroneous one of itself as God.

[Anonymous No.16836620]

>>16836606
>The Mind/Consciousness distinction is utterly asinine.
Based retard. The mind is the thoughts and contents but the consciousness is the quality of self awareness and experience in itself. Consciousness has all the qualities of “god” as omnipotence, since it gives rise to everything, omnipresence, since consciousness can experience being anywhere and anything, and is uncreated. Consciousness fits the description of god more than anything.

[Anonymous No.16836663]

>>16836620
Just because the world you have direct contact with is a model made by consciousness doesn't mean consciousness creates the world.
Television projects an image, but that image is not the same as the actors and sets filmed in order to produce that image. It does not mean that the television is the generative force involved. It's a medium.
Such is consciousness.
The vedantic claim that the mind is the mechanical thing and the consciousness not mechanical, is just plain artificial.

[Anonymous No.16836805]

>>16836663
>Just because the world you have direct contact with is a model made by consciousness doesn't mean consciousness creates the world.
Television projects an image, but that image is not the same as the actors and sets filmed in order to produce that image. It does not mean that the television is the generative force involved. It's a medium.
Such is consciousness.

Bogus analogy. We don't know anything beyond consciousness (unlike television), meaning there's no way to conceive of a 'broadcast system' or a studio where the content is being filmed. Any attempt to do so is total speculation. It's easy to make these leaps in logic when you have the dogma of a staunch physicalist, however.

[Anonymous No.16836838]

>>16836805
Who says I have Physicalist dogma?
Object-Oriented Ontology is against Physicalism, Literalism, Smallism, and Anti-fictionalism.
One of Harman's books is even called Immaterialism.

[Anonymous No.16837783]

>>16833523
based and spiritually healthy. non-dualists/monists are physically and cognitively decrepit

[Anonymous No.16837799]

>>16831852
Of course. But do you expect pseuds here to get it? They think of knowledge as a hierarchized series of 'realizations', rather than as the analysis of what is already there. They think of synthesis rather than adequate division as the task of science. Half would still think they are "platonicians" somehow kek.

[Anonymous No.16837823]

>>16833275
If reality is formed by the collision of good and evil, then duality cannot be absolute. Absolute means unable to be dissolved. How can reality be composed of good and evil but neither good nor evil be real?