Dharmic ways are madness

[Anonymous No.16873327]

What do you think non-attachment and dispassion are?
What do you think the reason is for Krishna telling Arjuna to identify with the supersoul (not even his individual soul) and not his body?
Why does he make the point that it's okay to kill your own teacher and family members if ordered to by a superior, with the reason being that the body isn't the self so you aren't really killing and they aren't really killed?
You can read all this for yourself, many translations of Bhagavad Gita are online.
The Yogic method is about withdrawal from sensual arousal in order to attain an equilibrium where you don't feel and don't care about anything in this world.

And that my friend is clinical Dissociation and Depersonalization.

Dharmic ways are madness. Both Hinduism and Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.16873406]

Based

[Anonymous No.16874254]

Yep eastern religion causes mental illness. Westerners especially aren't adapted to it so whne they take up the practice very earnestly and get brain damage.

[Anonymous No.16874421]

>>16873327

>What do you think non-attachment and dispassion are?
spiritual virtues, signs of a discerning man with self-control
>What do you think the reason is for Krishna telling Arjuna to identify with the supersoul (not even his individual soul) and not his body?
Because the supersoul is Arjuna’s real self or Atman, and when we regard the body which appears to us as our self, it is like mistaking a video game character one is controlling for one’s true self
>Why does he make the point that it's okay to kill your own teacher and family members if ordered to by a superior
There is no clause in any nations military anywhere on earth which says “if a soldiers family members join the enemy forces, the solider is allowed an exception and doesn’t have to follow orders anymore, even if those family members are killing his comrades-in-arms”. Krishna is not saying its okay to kill people just because your boss said so, but he is saying people should not shirk the duties which they willingly sign up for. If those family members didn’t want to get killed them maybe they should not have taken up arms and joined a bloody war? Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
>the reason being that the body isn't the self so you aren't really killing and they aren't really killed?
This is not the reason why Krishna tells Arjuna to fight, but he just tells him this to remove Krishna’s ignorance about the soul.
>The Yogic method is about withdrawal from sensual arousal in order to attain an equilibrium where you don't feel and don't care about anything in this world.
True, but this mostly true of the classical yoga darshana and not other types of yoga, in any case this type of spiritual method is only an accessory to help one on the road to enlightenment, it is not necessary or the only path to enlightenment. The Upanishads don’t teach this sort of withdrawal, but primarily they teach Atma-Vidya or Self-knowledge.
>And that my friend is clinical Dissociation and Depersonalization.
More like, dumb hylic shows off his ignorance

[Anonymous No.16874966]

Find Christ the rest are just adhering to demons and their teachings to lead you directly to hell

T ex-buddhist/taoist

[Anonymous No.16875018]

>>16874421
I don't get this, so the "super soul" is your "real self", whereas your individual soul isn't?

[Anonymous No.16875024]

>>16874966
Based

[Anonymous No.16875026]

>>16874254
doesn't help that there's this crossover between eastern mystic culture and psychedelic drug use.

[Anonymous No.16875143]

>>16875018
In truth, there is no individual soul, what we perceive as the individual soul is the result of falsely attributing the nature of our observing consciousness (sentience) to the non-sentient things which it observes such as the body, thoughts, memories, emotions, sensory perceptions and so on. When we isolate sentience from the things which it observes we find that it turns out to be not individual.

>but surely even when we remove all the contents of experience/sentient, surely my sentience differs from others by the very fact that it has a different set of images appearing to it than other sentences
This objection to the soul or sentience being non-individual is not sound, because when you isolate sentience from its objects, there are no distinguishing features remaining which can be used as proof of its difference from the sentience or soul of others. Every distinguishing feature is really a non-sentient thing observed by your sentience which you are describing. But sentience itself is formless, homogenous, without partitions, transparent and immediately self-revealing knowing.

[Anonymous No.16875190]

>>16873327
>"hmmm today I am going to use midwit psych grad tropes to slander ancient and veritable spiritual traditions"
Absolute state of you, lol.

[Anonymous No.16875305]

>>16873327
>madness
read Foucault

[Anonymous No.16876571]

>>16873327
You've been seething about dharmic religions for weeks now

[Anonymous No.16878167]

>>16874421
Again, Kshatriyas are a caste. They are not a modern Volunteer Army.
They do not sign up. They are born into the military.
And in any kind of army, your C.O. is your boss.

[Anonymous No.16878214]

>>16875143
This is pure bullshit, the awareness is the Ego, it is the thing that is always-me.
Rogozinski talks about this at length in The Ego And The Flesh.

>>16874421
>spiritual virtues, signs of a discerning man with self-control
"They're good" does not address what they do, and does not define them.
Dispassion=Not Having Passion=Dead Inside. Non-attachment=Not Caring About Anything In Life.
How the fuck is that a virtue? That's less than human, and it's life-denying!

[Anonymous No.16878217]

>>16878167
Don't bother, he's mentally ill and will keep vomiting word salad at you until you concede

[Anonymous No.16878239]

>>16878217
Never give up, never surrender.
THIS IS OUR BOARD, FUCK THIS LITTLE CREEP.
He's never read a single Purana or Epic, yet he's an authority on Vedic Religion.

[Anonymous No.16878284]

>>16878214
>This is pure bullshit, the awareness is the Ego, it is the thing that is always-me.
What you said here doesn't at all contradict what the other anon said, so I am not sure what the "bullshit" is. If awareness is the Ego, then the the body, the psyche and the thoughts of the psyche are not the Ego, but rather tools of the Ego (awareness). That's precisely the Dharmic point of view. The only extension - which by no means impacts anything just mentioned - is that this awareness is universal. It is yours, but it is not "yours" if you take the point of the body, since the body belongs to it and not vice versa.
>Dispassion=Not Having Passion=Dead Inside. Non-attachment=Not Caring About Anything In Life.
>How the fuck is that a virtue? That's less than human, and it's life-denying!
Dispassion only appears as "deadness" to those who are so completely dead that there is nothing in them other than passion. From the Dharmic perspective, a man who has lucid consciousness does not allow himself to be swayed by passions - which would make him passive, inert, asleep - but rather remains active, chooses and wills his own thoughts and his own feelings. This is why in Eastern spirituality there is so much talk of awakening, of illumination of enlightenment - the negation of sleep, death, darkness and decay.

[Anonymous No.16878289]

>>16878214
>and it's life-denying!
Yes. Fuck life.

[Anonymous No.16878295]

>>16878289
Based wheel of samsara breaker

[Anonymous No.16878309]

>>16878284
>>16878289
>>16878295
He still hasn't read any epics or puranas.
It's like an Evangelist preacher that has only read Romans and nothing else from the Bible.
Fucking retardation

[Anonymous No.16878313]

>>16878309
What are you talking about? If you have some backstory with some poster here, please don't drag me into it, I'm not your lover.
These are my only posts in this thread:
>>16875190
>>16878284

[Anonymous No.16878326]

>>16878313
Okay, so name the epics and Puranas that YOU have read

[Anonymous No.16878340]

>>16873327
>Why does he make the point that it's okay to kill your own teacher and family members
It’s his dharma as a kshatriya

[Anonymous No.16878364]

>>16878340
>Don't think, just do as you're told because you were born into your job
Wow, truly the superior way

[Anonymous No.16878368]

>>16878326
I've read the Gita, Sri Aurobindo's commentaries on the Gita and a very sizeable amount of European Traditionalist writings on Eastern spirituality. More importantly, I've understood them. What's it to you? If you have some argument you'd like to make, I'd be happy to hear and address it.

[Anonymous No.16878380]

>>16878364
>"don't think"
Hello? Did you forget that the entire Gita is a fucking dialogue? What the hell do you mean, "don't think"?

[Anonymous No.16878387]

>>16878364
Krishna is the creature of the four castes, that is Arjuna’s nature as an individual, so yes he should kill his family members in what is a lawful war. The dharma of caste takes precedence over that of the family. Also the Kurus deserved it

[Anonymous No.16878388]

>>16878368
>I've read several books by Joel Osteen and the book Romans from the Bible, I am qualified to preach with full authority, reading the whole bible or going to seminary isn't necessary

Puranas and Epics define the very dharma you're pretending you know all about.
You don't know shit (as evidenced by thinking Ancient India had volunteer armies like the US or NATO countries today).
It's sad

[Anonymous No.16878393]

>>16878368
>reading a bunch of modern pseuds
No

[Anonymous No.16878398]

>>16878387
>The State takes priority over family
How fucking commie

[Anonymous No.16878411]

>>16878398
>the state
Yikes I hope you aren’t projecting your modern ideas back to 3,000 BCE

[Anonymous No.16878435]

>>16878411
What makes it not a State?
Were the Sumerian City-States modern?
A large part of Ramayana is about the ideal King, ideal Prince, ideal government of an ideal State.

Read the fucking epics you retard

[Anonymous No.16878446]

>>16878388
I am neither preaching, nor do I claim to be the foremost authority on Eastern spirituality. If you have an argument you wish to make, I am willing to listen to it. The issue is that you don't have one, because you haven't read anything other than a Wikipedia list of the names of Hindu texts. That's why you're engaging in desperate ad hominem in an attempt to undermine my position without attacking it at all.
>You don't know shit (as evidenced by thinking Ancient India had volunteer armies like the US or NATO countries today).
What the fuck are you talking about? I already told you not to confuse me with your lover.
>>16878393
You are the pseud, anon.

[Anonymous No.16878470]

>>16878368
>I've read the Gita, Sri Aurobindo's commentaries on the Gita and a very sizeable amount of European Traditionalist writings on Eastern spirituality
I read one twelfth of the Mahabharata, and a commentary on that same twelfth, and a bunch of shit by Europeans from an era when most of the texts were untranslated.

Oh word, well, fuck, guess you're an expert

[Anonymous No.16878477]

>>16878388
Joel Osteen is the most important Christian theologian alive

[Anonymous No.16878483]

>>16878470
>I read one twelfth of the Mahabharata
Yikes

[Anonymous No.16878491]

>>16878470
I refer you to what I said here >>16878446

[Anonymous No.16878502]

>>16878446
>I am neither preaching, nor do I claim to be the foremost authority on Eastern spirituality
And yet you are preaching and claiming authority on the subject matter.
And yes, that's how much of the Mahabharata you've read, a fraction.
Bhagavad Gita is a small part of Mahabharata, which you'd know if you weren't 12yo

[Anonymous No.16878524]

>>16878446
If you read even just Markandeya Purana, you'd have some actual arguments for Advaita point of view.
But you won't put in time, or do the work, because you're a lifestylist dudeweed faggot

[Anonymous No.16878546]

>>16878502
>And yet you are preaching and claiming authority on the subject matter.
Really? How?
>Bhagavad Gita is a small part of Mahabharata, which you'd know if you weren't 12yo
I'm assuming this was meant for this anon >>16878483
Anyway, do you have an argument or are you just going to keep crying?
>>16878524
This is a post about the Gita. If you think anything I said is contentious, then challenge it instead of dancing around it.

[Anonymous No.16878565]

Krishna is based

Christianity is Jewish mind poison

[Anonymous No.16878567]

>>16878546
You haven't disproved any point in the OP.

[Anonymous No.16878592]

>>16878567
I have made no effort to do so, because the OP is low effort schizo bait, written by a retard who obviously doesn't care. What I did was respond to this anon >>16878214 here >>16878284 because I thought that he seems capable of dialogue.

The OP on its own isn't worth addressing which is why I didn't bother with it.

[Anonymous No.16878593]

>>16878239
>He's never read a single Purana or Epic, yet he's an authority on Vedic Religion.

Puranas are not the Vedas anon, the Puranas are part of a later stage of Hinduism which scholars refer to as Puranic Hinduism, not Vedic Hinduism or the Vedic religion.

[Anonymous No.16878613]

>>16878593
Upanishads aren't Vedas either, and neither are the Advaita texts, and neither are Agamas, which are the very latest, after Puranas.

What is your point?
None of that negates my points.

[Anonymous No.16878627]

>>16878613
> Upanishads aren't Vedas either
Yes, they literally are a part of the Vedas, they are the last layer of writings to be included into the Vedas. That’s why when you read the writings of Hindu philosophers they’ll sometimes cite the Upanishads and call the Upanishad verses they cite “Vedic texts”

[Anonymous No.16878634]

>>16878565
Based and Krishnapilled

[Anonymous No.16878645]

>>16878627
They aren't.
There's just four Vedas. Four.
Upanishads are not in the list:
>Rig, Yajur, Sama and Atharva

[Anonymous No.16878690]

>>16878645
Yes, they are. Try picking up any book on the Vedas or spend 5 minutes on google and you’ll see that I’m right. The primary Upanishads are interspersed throughout the Vedas in different layers. It’s funny to me that you would throw a fit about people not reading the Puranas while not even knowing that the Upanishads are a part of the Vedas.

> Each Veda has been subclassified into four major text types – the Samhitas (mantras and benedictions), the Aranyakas (text on rituals, ceremonies such as newborn baby's rites of passage, coming of age, marriages, retirement and cremation, sacrifices and symbolic sacrifices), the Brahmanas (commentaries on rituals, ceremonies and sacrifices), and the Upanishads (text discussing meditation, philosophy and spiritual knowledge).[7][9][10] The Upasanas (short ritual worship-related sections) are considered by some scholars[11][12] as the fifth part

[Anonymous No.16878750]

>>16878690
If you use this structure then you also have to accept Puranas and Agamas as fully Vedic.

Anyway, Bhagavad Gita (Mahabharata that is) is post-Upanishadic.
Bhagavata Purana is THE major center of Vedanta in the Vaishnava world.

Deal with it, you don't know shit.

[Anonymous No.16878836]

>>16878750
>If you use this structure then you also have to accept Puranas and Agamas as fully Vedic
No I don’t, what are you talking about? The Puranas and Agamas are not included in the Vedas in the same way that the Upanishads are. You have large gaps in your knowledge of Hinduism, maybe you should read up on it more before any further deranged schizoposting.

For example, The Aitareya Upanishad forms the 4th, 5th and 6th chapters of the second Aranyaka of the Aitareya Brahmana, which is itself a part of the Rig-Veda. There are no Puranas or Agamas which are included in the Vedic text itself like how the primary Upanishads are.

[Anonymous No.16878870]

>>16875143
>When we isolate sentience from the things which it observes we find that it turns out to be not individual.

What makes you think so?

[Anonymous No.16878892]

>>16878870
Because what you're left with is a perfect unity. The existence of an individual presupposes a Me-Not Me duality.
>t. not that anon

[Anonymous No.16878895]

>>16878592
>I have made no effort
Not him but Anon, you've written quite a few posts there. I think you've put a bit of efforts into it. The truth is, you're going for rhetorical victory rather than adressing the topic, exactly what you attack that other guy for doing. Please repent.

[Anonymous No.16878930]

>>16878836
Informed poster
>>16878750
Schizo cult-following (“devotee”?) poster

[Anonymous No.16878973]

>>16878895
That's actually what you're doing right now, though? The points I have made in this thread have all been very specific. They have also gone completely unaddressed. This is fact. I am not "preaching", nor appropriating myself any authority on the matter - I am simply making some arguments, restricted to specific points that other people have made. Stop trolling me.

[Anonymous No.16878976]

>>16878892

Pretty vulgar ideas of Monad-Dyad, eh?

[Anonymous No.16878992]

>>16878976
In this hypothetical situation we are examining, stripping away all objects of observation leaves us with awareness alone, correct? If you are left with awareness alone and nothing to be the object of that awareness, where do you see a dualism? There is nothing other than the unity of awareness on its lonesome, isolated from any objects that may be used to establish a dualism.

[Anonymous No.16879094]

>>16878992
I can’t refute your argument. I will now sit down at the feet of Shankaracharya.

[Anonymous No.16879114]

>>16879094
Uhhh based? Shankara terrifies me, though. Getting comfy with the Buddha seems way more fun imo.

[Anonymous No.16879138]

>>16878992
>where do you see a dualism?

I don't. My point being that the individual is the Monad proper, that the Monad is all there is, not in the figurative sense of everything else being "illusory" or whatever, but in the literal sense of everything that is not the Monad also being a Monad, the THE-A distinction being neither Monad-Dyad refraction nor even an "intermonadic" reflection, but a true Monad-Monad non-contradiction wherein the Monads are inside each other Dialectically and, moreover, are both "positive" or "open" Monads in being so not by exemption from anything and everything else but in spite of it.

[Anonymous No.16879169]

>>16879114
Buddhists avoid some traps in positing that ignorance is without cause and beginningless, while Vedantists affirms a state of absolute unity thus begin the question of how the one became two.

[Anonymous No.16879182]

>>16879138
Sounds like an asspull not backed by any authentic spiritual tradition.

You might as well posit that the universe is comprised of very tiny invisible unicorns.

[Anonymous No.16879483]

>>16879138
If I understand your point correctly, then in conceptual terms there is little, if any difference between your perspective and the Eastern perspective. Everything hinges on how you define "individual". If you consider awareness to be the same as the individual, then you're in conformity with the Dharmic perspective. If you consider the individual to be a compound of body, mind, thought, awareness etc. then you are way off the mark.
Alternatively, you've devised some extremely autistic and impossibly contrived view where two separate objects are actually one object because they have the same properties and somehow remain one single object while simultaneously being in dialogue with each other (dialogue of course necessarily requiring at least two objects). In that case, you should undergo an immediate detox of whatever bullshit you've been reading recently.
>>16879169
This. Also Buddhists offer a clearer path on bridging the gap, since they acknowledge a Point A different from Point B.

[Anonymous No.16879587]

>>16874966
please stop

[Anonymous No.16879748]

>>16875018
Just for the record, I am not really sure "super soul" should be the term used in this context. It sort of works, but only sort of.

[Anonymous No.16879935]

>>16879169
>Buddhists avoid some traps in positing that ignorance is without cause and beginningless
Something which can come to an end like how beginningless ignorance is eliminated in enlightenment, cannot itself exist without being contingent on something else. It cannot either be said to give rise to illusory entities in a cycle, but in order for there to be ignorance there have to already be entities who can be ignorant, but if the ignorance is the cause of them this cannot be so.

>while Vedantists affirms a state of absolute unity thus begin the question of how the one became two.
The question of how the one becomes two is only a problem for emanationism or Parinamavada, but not for the Vivartavada doctrine of Advaita; in Advaita the two is actually just the eternal one itself eternally appearing otherwise through its own omnipotent power, but it never actually became two, emanated into two, or otherwise modified itself into becoming two.

>‘—that teaching by which what is never heard becomes heard, what is never thought of becomes thought of, what is never known becomes known?’ [Śvetaketu asked,] ‘Sir, what is that teaching?’.
>O Somya, it is like this: By knowing a single lump of earth you know all objects made of earth. All changes are mere words, in name only. But earth is the reality.
>5. O Somya, it is like this: By knowing a single lump of gold you know all objects made of gold. All changes are mere words, in name only. But gold is the reality.
>6. O Somya, it is like this: By knowing a single nail-cutter you know all objects made of iron. All changes are mere words, in name only. But iron is the reality. O Somya, this is the teaching I spoke of.
- Chandogya Upanishad 6.1.3.—6.1.6.

>>16879483
>This. Also Buddhists offer a clearer path on bridging the gap, since they acknowledge a Point A different from Point B.
Vedanta admits that there is a point A which is our normal experience of ourselves as human beings as living agents who suffer and experience elation, this is what people normally identify as. By mostly denying that there is a self except for a few smaller Buddhist schools regarded by the rest as practically heretics, the Buddhists in fact muddle the path by not acknowledging that there is a real existing entity. In order to buttress their claim that consciousness or sentience cannot be the Atman because it is transient, conditioned, and dependent on other things Buddhists feel obliged to try to analyze and reduce their own consciousness or sentience into its constituents while forgetting that if they can be aware of that process of analyzing then they are not actually analyzing the sentience which is the subject of that analysis.

[Anonymous No.16880153]

>>16879935
I am the second anon you replied to. What I am more interested in is to see what you think is the correct path to go from point A to point B from a Vedantist perspective. The reason the Buddhists deny the existence of a self is because with the decay of the spiritual climate, there is nothing in the life of human beings that can be said to have a truly permanent and active transcendent character. Buddhism outlines the path to a radical break with profane reality in order to restore that higher nature to man. If you think that already there is a transcendent element in the human self, how can we hope to introduce radical change and achieve true awakening?

[Anonymous No.16880736]

bump

[Anonymous No.16880914]

>>16880153
>If you think that already there is a transcendent element in the human self, how can we hope to introduce radical change and achieve true awakening?
Because it is our self-nature and it is obscured by ignorance. With ignorance removed it is naturally manifested as our own nature. How can something ever become or transform itself into something else completely different (the mundane vs the transcendent) which is not already its essential nature? By being a transformation which is attained or created after that transformation being previously non-existent, one’s liberation would have a beginning. But things which have beginnings cannot by default be eternal, and so any liberation which has a beginning also has an end and one would return to the cycle of samsara and transmigration. The only way for souls to be eternally liberated without logical contradictions is for a) for that to already be their essential nature, which doesn’t require a magical and unexplained transformation, and b) it would have to always have been the case, with this being only obscured by ignorance. When this ignorance is removed it doesn’t create a beginning for this ever existent reality, it merely means that this reality is no longer obscured. For similar reasons eternal liberation cannot be attained through actions like mediation.

[Anonymous No.16880925]

>>16880914
*meditation

[Anonymous No.16880943]

>>16879935
>Something which can come to an end like how beginningless ignorance is eliminated in enlightenment, cannot itself exist without being contingent on something else.
You hold an essentialist view, born out of delusion, of ignorance as some thing, but ignorance is merely lack of knowledge. It is without beginning, not because it is some essentialist eternal substance, but because there will never be a time when samsara will cease to be-come.
>It cannot either be said to give rise to illusory entities in a cycle, but in order for there to be ignorance there have to already be entities who can be ignorant
Another deluded essentialist view. You posit an entity or soul that is capable of becoming deluded from a previous state of non delusion. There is none such entity. All there is are nibbana and the elements, such as eye, visible objects and eye-consciousness, which ever arise and cease, giving rise to attachment, suffering and rebirth.
And yes, (true) Buddhism (Theravada) is pluralist.

[Anonymous No.16880954]

>>16873327
Of course. Nothing good can come from a religion conceived by demons. (Goes double for Islam.)

[Anonymous No.16880957]

>>16880943

Is it not an "essentialist view" that samsara will never cease to become?

[Anonymous No.16880975]

>>16880914
>Because it is our self-nature and it is obscured by ignorance. With ignorance removed it is naturally manifested as our own nature. How can something ever become or transform itself into something else completely different (the mundane vs the transcendent) which is not already its essential nature?
Up to here there is not difference with Buddhism, though, is there? It's simply a difference of extent of what is defined as ignorance, rather than a difference of approach.
>By being a transformation which is attained or created after that transformation being previously non-existent, one’s liberation would have a beginning. But things which have beginnings cannot by default be eternal, and so any liberation which has a beginning also has an end and one would return to the cycle of samsara and transmigration.
This is not in conformity with the Buddhist view. Upon achieving Nirvana, the profane sense of time is destroyed. We are not speaking here of transformation as much as we are speaking of awakening. If I had to give a comparison, it would be to that of a man who, having once been conscious and fallen into a coma, awakens from the coma - that's what Nirvana is about.
>The only way for souls to be eternally liberated without logical contradictions is for a) for that to already be their essential nature, which doesn’t require a magical and unexplained transformation
The issue here is that you are putting unwarranted emphasis on the soul. Buddhism acknowledges the higher nature of human beings, but this isn't due to any of the aggregates - it's rather owed to a deeper force.
>b) it would have to always have been the case, with this being only obscured by ignorance.
No difference with the Buddhists here.
>When this ignorance is removed it doesn’t create a beginning for this ever existent reality, it merely means that this reality is no longer obscured.
This is a great way to put it, but when ignorance is erased, does that not usher in a period of clarity that has an obvious beginning? As I understand it, that's precisely the premises of Buddhism.
>For similar reasons eternal liberation cannot be attained through actions like mediation.
What actions do you propose instead?

[Anonymous No.16880994]

>>16880957
Nay. Because what becomes never is

[Anonymous No.16881010]

>>16880957
Nay. Because what e’er becomes never is

[Anonymous No.16881060]

>>16881010

Whence its relation to being then? Wouldn't it be Epistemologically sound, per Buddhist principles, to remove becoming from the equation, rather than being?

[Anonymous No.16881136]

>>16881010
>>16881060

[Anonymous No.16881142]

>>16873327
dumb philippot poster

[Anonymous No.16881161]

>>16881060
There is neither being nor its contrary. These are wrong views born out of ignorance. Ignorance gives rise to volition, volition to consciousness etc. until birth, old age and death without beginning or end. Cut the root of ignorance and achieve nibbana.

[Anonymous No.16881170]

>>16881161

You have not answered my question.

[Anonymous No.16881319]

I need advice on how I can make my stammering attempts at meditation go better

[Anonymous No.16881390]

Anons, what do I have to read to reach the schizo levels of this thread?

[Anonymous No.16881449]

>>16881390
Which are you referring to, anon? The anti-Dharmic or pro-Dharmic schizos?

[Anonymous No.16881474]

>>16881170
You seek dialectics. Rather seek enlightenment.
Follow the Aryan Path of the blue-eyed Sage of the Scythians (Sakyamuni).

[Anonymous No.16881497]

>>16881161
where does ignorance come from?

[Anonymous No.16881522]

>>16881497
Absence of right views, this is ignorance.

[Anonymous No.16881547]

>>16881522
surely there's a step missing here somewhere. there is neither being nor non-being, then there is absence of right views. at least one step should be missing

[Anonymous No.16881605]

>>16881547
There are those, oh Anon, who hold the wrong view that being exist. The same are deluded, abide in ignorance.
There are those, oh Anon, who hold the wrong view that being does not exist. The same are deluded, abide in ignorance.
There are those, oh Anon, who hold the wrong view that being both exists and does not exist. The same are deluded, abide in ignorance.
There are those, oh Anon, who hold the wrong view that being neither exist nor does not exist. The same are deluded, abide in ignorance.

This, oh Anon, the Tathāgata understands. And he understands: 'These standpoints, thus assumed and thus misapprehended, lead to such a future destination, to such a state in the world beyond.' He understands as well what transcends this, yet even that understanding he does not misapprehend. And because he is free from misapprehension, he has realized within himself the state of perfect peace. Having understood as they really are the origin and the passing away of feelings, their satisfaction, their unsatisfactoriness, and the escape from them, the Tathāgata, bhikkhus, is emancipated through non-clinging.

[Anonymous No.16881612]

>>16881449
The pro Dharmic are spouting some pretty fire deliriums, I wanna get that shit too.

[Anonymous No.16881643]

>>16881605
Heh, the nigger...

[Anonymous No.16881826]

>>16881612
Yeah that's me, honestly I just read the Gita, some Hindu commentators and the Traditionalists. I really like Evola's writing, I can definitely recommend it - especially if you're as cynical as you and unfamiliar with the terminology, reading him will be a totally outlandish experience. Have fun anon!

[Anonymous No.16882209]

>>16873327
Madness from the point of view of people who live within the illusory narratives of this world, sure. This is exactly why it's hard for normies to do this because they are so attached to these viewpoints.

[Anonymous No.16882319]

>>16881390
It ain't schizo you've just been brought up in a world of people that have no clue what's actually going on or what this existence is, so they have mistakenly invented their own reality based on what's apparently true to them and the culture they grew up in without questioning whether any of it actually is true. You are the guy looking at shadows on the cave wall believing that to be reality, ignorant to the reality that actually is.

"We accept the reality of the world with which we are presented" -- Ed Harris character from the Truman Show

[Anonymous No.16882417]

>>16878214
Why should you care about anything in life? it's all transient and if rebirth is correct you've done it all before many many times, how many more times do you need? This life isn't even for us, it's for god, we are just his sensors we are only here for him to complete himself.

[Anonymous No.16882492]

>>16882319
And you just accept this bullshit because it's exotic and it contradicts everyone you resent.
You never recognize that everything is in flux.
The only constant is change itself.
Even consciousness changes.
Matter is neither created nor destroyed, but that's not relevant: matter is constantly changing.
Devi, Shakti, she is the true absolute reality.
Read Devi Gita & Devi Mahatmya

[Anonymous No.16882599]

>>16882492
>you just accept this bullshit because it's exotic

I don't see it as exotic, I don't care for where it comes from I care about the content. The difference between it and most religions and beliefs is the focus on disillusionment whereas other belief systems are clearly just illusions and delusions. In any case it's just information, I want to understand things I don't care where the information comes from. To my mind, so far, this lines up with how I view reality, it makes the most sense and I've seen it with my own eyes, unlike religions like Christianity which rely entirely on faith and have clear emotional reasoning and fairytale-thinking within them rather than being based on logical assessments of the world.

What does the world being in flux have to do with anything? Yeah things change, who's denying that? big whoop.

[Anonymous No.16882820]

>>16881612
start here

https://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-Vol-1.pdf
https://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-vol2.pdf

[Anonymous No.16882902]

>>16873327
>>16874254
Can confirm. Pic related Westerner on Advaita.

[Anonymous No.16882913]

>>16875143
Traditional Hindu art is so much better than this modern kitsch crap

[Anonymous No.16883450]

>>16882492
>You never recognize that everything is in flux.
>The only constant is change itself.
If everything is in constant flux, that itself remains an unchanging fact, which makes the point a non-starter, a contradiction in terms.
>Even consciousness changes.
How would you know? If you can perceive that something is changing, that's not consciousness you are perceiving but something changing you are observing with your consciousness, you cannot observe your consciousness with itself, just as the eye cannot perceive its own color or how fire cannot burn itself. The subject is always different from the object.

[Anonymous No.16883484]

Why don't you retarded LARPers bother to look things up before opening your stupid mouths? No one who is into Buddhism or Hinduism is going to take you seriously if you say garbage like
>The Yogic method is about withdrawal from sensual arousal in order to attain an equilibrium where you don't feel and don't care about anything in this world.

At best, they'll just ignore you. At worst, it'll just reinforce their views that you and your views are retarded AND they'll ignore you.

[Anonymous No.16883509]

Yes. Spread the word.
Plato is King. Read Iamblichus, Corpus Hermeticum, Damascius, Simplicius, Priscian, and Olympiodorus. (Plotinus and Proclus have more self and world denying tendencies, but you can find the same life affirming doctrines there by reading carefully.)

[Anonymous No.16884095]

>>16880943
Repeating every five seconds the unfalsifiable allegation that someone's views are due to ignorance is not a real argument
>You hold an essentialist view, born out of delusion, of ignorance as some thing, but ignorance is merely lack of knowledge.
Advaita doesn't reify ignorance into an existing thing but says that it is neither a positively existing thing nor nothingness but is anirvachaniya. Your comment doesn't change that as a lack of knowledge, ignorance is necessarily contingent on there being an existing entity before that ignorance who can have that lack of knowledge. If there is no prior entity, there can be nobody to have that ignorance or lack of knowledge. So if you claim that ignorance is beginningless then there must be a beginningless entity who is prior to or ontologically above that ignorance as the already existing being which primordial ignorance presupposes, without this its completely illogical. But Buddhism doesn't admit this, but says that there is no eternal entity and that a new illusory entity arises in each birth so there is a fundamental contradiction.

>All there is are nibbana and the elements, such as eye, visible objects and eye-consciousness, which ever arise and cease, giving rise to attachment, suffering and rebirth.
Shankara refuted this, the explanation of consciousness given by Buddha in the Pali Canon makes no sense and is easily refuted, see below:


Of those who teach that everything exists (i.e. the Abhidhamma-based schools including Theravada), some admit the existence both of internal (mental) and also external realities. They admit the existence of elements external to consciousness and of products of those elements, and also of minds and of mental components. For the moment we will confine our refutation to them. In their doctrine, the elements are earth, water, fire and wind. The products are the four qualities, odour, taste, colour and touch, and the senses that perceive them, namely the senses of smell, taste, sight and touch. They hold that the four different kinds of primary atoms, the earth-atoms, wateratoms, fire-atoms and wind-atoms, being respectively solid, liquid, fiery and kinetic, combine to form the earth and other perceptible elements. There are also (as the basis for the appearance of an experiencing individual) the five ‘groups’ (skandha, of momentary factors of existence, dharma). These are formed respectively of the sense-organs and their objects (rupa), consciousness of objects associated with ego-feeling (vijnana), consciousness of objects associated with the feelings of pleasure, pain and indifference (vedana), determinate consciousness of objects (samjna) and the various drives and passions (samskara). And they believe that these groups combine to form the basis of all individual experience.

[Anonymous No.16884101]

>>16884095
On this we make the following observation. Our opponents hold to the existence of two separate aggregates, each having their peculiar causes. One is the aggregate forming the elements and the products of the elements, which has atoms for its ultimate material cause. The other is the aggregate formed by the five ‘groups’, which has the ‘groups’ for its material cause. They speak, indeed, of an aggregate arising from each of these two causes (i.e. atoms and ‘groups’), but, says the Sutra, ‘They have no right to do so’. That is, no aggregate is rationally possible (under their terms). Why not? Because the things entering into aggregate are non-conscious, since the mind (as they conceive it) could only acquire the light of consciousness if the aggregate were already assured. They do not admit any other conscious principle such as an experiencer (a permanent conscious individual soul) or a controlling God who should exist permanently and effect the aggregation.

If, however, they claim that aggregation is a spontaneous activity, it is clear that such spontaneous activity could never come to an end (and this contradicts their doctrine of nirvana or release). Appeal to the existence of ‘currents of consciousness’ (asaya) will not help either, as the latter are indeterminable as either different or non-different (from the series of pulses constituting the current). The theory also breaks down because the currents themselves are assumed to have the form of a series of discontinuous momentary flashes, so that they would be actionless and unable to promote action in others. Therefore the formation of aggregates would not be possible on the principles of the system. To this the Buddhist might reply that although no permanent conscious being effecting aggregation is admitted, whether as the experiencer or the controller, still, empirical experience is explicable on the basis of the causal chain (pratltya-samutpada) beginning with nescience. And if empirical experience is explained, nothing else is required. The factors of empirical experience, which begin with nescience, and each of which is the cause of the next member of the series, are found taught in various ways in Buddhist works, sometimes briefly, sometimes in more detail.

[Anonymous No.16884106]

>>16884101
One finds such a list as nescience (avidya), the will to sense-experience which leads to the formation of an empirical personality in a future birth (samskara), consciousness as the core of the individual (vijnana), the psycho-physical organism in its rudimentary state (nama-rupa), the six areas of contact (or sense-experience) (sad-ayatana), sensation (sparsa), pleasurepain feeling (vedana), thirst (trsna), activity based on thirst (upadana), changeful bodily existence (bhava), resulting from the merit and demerit of activity, birth, old-age, death, grief, lamentation, pain and despair. No one, they claim, can possibly deny this chain of causation beginning with nescience. And once the whole causal chain beginning with nescience is admitted to exist, and to be revolving continually like a wheel with buckets at a well, it is found to imply that the formation of aggregates must be possible.

But this is not right, as the causes so far mentioned lead to production (of the next effect in the series) only (and not to aggregation of any kind). An aggregate could be admitted if an intelligible cause were assigned for it. But it is not. Nescience and the rest may cause one another mutually in your cycle, but they only cause the rise of the next link in the chain. There is nothing to show that anything could be the cause of an aggregate. True, you claimed that if nescience and the rest were admitted, an aggregate was necessarily implied. To this, however, we reply as follows. If you mean that nescience and the rest cannot arise except in the presence of some aggregate and so are dependent on it, then (if you wish to defend your system) you still have to explain what could be the cause of the aggregate. Now, we have already shown in the course of our criticism of the Vaisesikas that aggregation is unintelligible even when supported by such assumptions as that of the existence of eternal atoms along with eternal individual experiencers who serve as permanent loci for the conservation of the effects of past action. So it will be all the less intelligible in a theory in which only atoms of momentary existence are admitted, without any permanent experiencer or any permanent locus for anything. If the Buddhist now claims that it is this causal chain beginning with nescience that is the cause of aggregation, we ask how this causal chain could ever be the cause of aggregation when it depends on aggregation for its own existence.

[Anonymous No.16884114]

>>16884106
Perhaps you will now try to counter by saying that in this beginningless world-process (samsara) the aggregates beget one another of their own accord in a temporal series, and that nescience and the rest pertain to them. In that case, we ask: Does each new aggregate arise from the previous one regularly, and is it strictly similar to it in kind? Or is it that there is no regularity about the process, so that the new aggregate could be either similar to the previous one or different? If the new aggregate were regularly similar to the previous one, the human individual (pudgala) could never attain birth as a god or an animal or sojourn in hell. If, on the other hand, there were no regularity in the process, the human individual could suddenly become an elephant for a moment, and then a god, and then go back to being a man. So both of the alternative consequences (of taking the aggregates as causing one another spontaneously) result in a contradiction with the tenets of the Vaibhasika school.

Further, you hold the view that the aggregate that exists in experience is not ‘an experiencer’ in the sense of constituting a permanent substance. But on this basis experience cannot be anything that is sought by anything else: experience must be for the sake of experience. And so liberation, too, will have to be for the sake of liberation. There cannot be anyone else, any seeker of liberation (mumuksu). If there were anyone who sought either experience or liberation, he would have to exist at the time of his experience of liberation. And if he did this, that would contradict the dogma that all is momentary. So the Sutra means that even if nescience and the rest (of the Buddhist’s causal chain) could cause each other to come into existence, there still could not be an aggregate. For the latter cannot be established when no experiencer is admitted.

[Anonymous No.16884172]

>>16873327
Yeah I like having a sense of self-identity and I think it's important.

[Anonymous No.16884230]

>>16875143
Enlightening, thanks anon

[Anonymous No.16884319]

>>16880975
>Up to here there is not difference with Buddhism, though, is there?
No, there remain many differences between the two like the existence of a self and whether or not the universe can arise without being caused by God
>This is not in conformity with the Buddhist view. Upon achieving Nirvana, the profane sense of time is destroyed.
Stating dogmatically that one's sense of time is destroyed doesn't rescue Buddhist doctrine from the paradox which it finds itself it.

1) Buddha says that Nirvana does not end, i.e. when you reach it there are no more births
2) Ergo Nirvana is an eternal liberation from rebirth
3) If something can have a beginning then it's not really eternal, because the meaning of eternality extends both directions in time, so liberation for that individual will not actually be eternal by virtue of it having a beginning, and by virtue of it being non-eternal the individual will again return to the cycle of birth and suffering

Stating that that ones sense of time ceases to exist doesn't change the fact that Buddha irrationally wanted to have his cake and eat it to by positing the existence of eternal effects which have a beginning.

>The issue here is that you are putting unwarranted emphasis on the soul.
The problem of how an eternal effect like release from samsara can have a beginning remains a problem for Buddhism all the same
> Buddhism acknowledges the higher nature of human beings, but this isn't due to any of the aggregates - it's rather owed to a deeper force.
Source? In the Sabba Sutta, Samyutta Nikaya 35.23, and in Pahanaya Sutta, Samyutta Nikaya 35.24, Buddha defines "all" as the six sense bases both internal and external, conciousness, contact and feeling; and he says that there is no "all" outside of this and also says in Ādittapariyāya Sutta, Samyutta Nikaya 35.28 that the "all" is aflame with delusion and suffering. There is no deeper force listed in that equation, and it seems like he denied there was one by his defining of the sense-bases etc as "the all"

>No difference with the Buddhists here.
There is, because the liberation is the essential nature of the soul in Vedanta, but Buddha in the Pali Canon doesn't say that or admit that there is an eternal soul who can have liberation as its nature, Buddha does not admit that there is any sentient entity or soul which continues in Parinirvana. Buddha in fact gave us no description of Parnirvana that would assure us that it was different from the complete annihilation or non-existence, he only assured people that it wasn't an extinction but he was unable to provided a coherent reason why in light of his denial of any existing sentient entities within Parinirvana.

[Anonymous No.16884330]

>>16884319
>but when ignorance is erased, does that not usher in a period of clarity that has an obvious beginning
Yes, in a way, but with Advaita Vedanta this does not in the beginning of an eternal effect like how it does in Buddhism. Freedom and clarity are always the nature of the Self, and when liberation happens it's realized that this always was and always has been the case, this was obscured to the Jiva because of its superimpositons onto the Self. But when the Jivas ignorance is destroyed by knowledge, it doesn't produce any new effect but permits the already beginningless and eternal reality to shine as it always has been, unobstructed by the Jivas superimpositons/ignorance. Shankaracharya refers to this below and speaks of how when you know the Self you see that there is no difference in It pre- and post-liberation, he uses "I" here to refer to the Self or Atman.

"I am not deluded by your efforts. For I have known the Truth and am free from all bondage and change. I have no difference in the conditions preceding the knowledge of Truth and succeeding it. Your efforts, oh mind, are, therefore, useless."
- Shankaracharya, Upadesasahasri 19.6.

But this is not true of Buddhism, since Buddha did not say that Nirvana was the nature of sentient beings. Even if one tried to argue that Nirvana is the underlying reality and that when ignorance ends Nirvana simply makes itself known like how the Self does in Vedanta, even in this scenario there is no explanation for why samsara exists in the middle of Nirvana. Buddha denied that samsara was caused by some transcend spiritual reality or principle. But if samsara can exist in the midst of Nirvana for no reason that implies beings can fall out of Nirvana.

>What actions do you propose instead?
It is only through knowledge that liberation can be brought about. The only way to attain to a pre-existing reality or truth eternally and remain there forever is if one is already there, with this being obscured by ignorance and then this ignorance being subsequently removed by knowledge

"Of all means, understanding alone can bring about liberation; as without fire there can be no cooking, so without knowledge of the truth there can be no real emancipation. Action cannot remove ignorance; but knowledge disperses it as light disperses darkness"
- Shankaracharya, Atma-Bodha 2-3

[Anonymous No.16884339]

Dude, what if like, we're all one or something? Like, what if you're actually god and I'm just a figment of your imagination, bro.

[Anonymous No.16884704]

>>16882913
>>Traditional Hindu art is
coomer art
which proves hinduism is wrong

[Anonymous No.16884906]

>>16883450
>subject is always different from the object
So difference is real, non-dualism is bullshit, agreed
>>16883484
Why don't you read the materials in question over again but this time pay attention, because that's exactly what the materials say.
Withdrawal of the senses and detachment from the phenomenal world.
Dispassion.
These are the actual terms.
You can't spin that into the opposite. This is why the Hindu sphere of influence collapsed from being all the way through south asia and into Pakistan to being only within current borders India and a few tiny islands.
And this collapse will only continue

[Anonymous No.16884938]

>>16873327
This was once all Hindu majority territory.
All it took was some caveman shit like Islam to utterly collapse it, so that it is barely the majority of current day India alone.

PAAAAATHETIC

[Anonymous No.16884947]

Imagine defending eastern cults with serious logical contradictions built on their core doctrines and whose endgoal is literally becoming a husk of a person.
I have seen cathatonics in the psych ward that fit the description of the total forfeit of the self.

[Anonymous No.16884957]

For reference here is the current majority Muslim world.
Twice the size of Hinduism at it's peak.
And it's growing not shrinking.

This is the real reason Guenon went Sufi instead of Poo. Hinduism is a dog that won't hunt.

[Anonymous No.16884964]

>>16879138
>"intermonadic"

This was supposed to be INTRAmonadic.

[Anonymous No.16884971]

>>16881474

This is not an answer.

[Anonymous No.16884984]

>>16873327
>with the reason being that the body isn't the self so you aren't really killing and they aren't really killed?
please don't let incarnation be true.
>please don't let incarnation be true.
please don't let incarnation be true.
>please don't let incarnation be true.
please don't let incarnation be true.
>please don't let incarnation be true.
please don't let incarnation be true.
pretty please don't let incarnation be true.

[Anonymous No.16885071]

>>16884938
>>16884957

quantity is not quality, simpleton.

[Anonymous No.16885149]

>>16885071
Scarcity is not quality, either, and evolution matters.
And evolution is a reproduction game.
Which is why advaita, like Mazdayasna, is dying even in it's homeland.
If the shit made people's lives better, they'd keep it.
It helps no one and thus goes into the dustbin of history, soon to be as relevant as Sumerian religion.

[Anonymous No.16885305]

>>16881060
>>16881136

STILL no answer. The absolute state...

[Anonymous No.16885488]

Look into Ashrama, friends. Nobody on this thread seems to even acknowledge its existence.

[Anonymous No.16885511]

>>16885149
What do you think of the dominance of Semitic religions? Is this an indicator they make people's lives better?

[Anonymous No.16885535]

>>16885149

Look at the word we have now, consumerism , environmental degradation to the point were whole areas of the world will become unhabitable, massive extinction of species due to destruction of forests, coral reefs and jungles. Nihilistic dependence on technology and cultural production.

All of this happened because man placed on a divine pedestal mirror image of himself and called it "God". "God" is all good, omniscient and the creator of all natural things by his will alone in Abrahamic religions. There is no space of for the natural world in this metaphysical schema, because it by definition divides the human mind and will from the whole Once that God died, man himself started to believe he was god himself, taking all the qualities and morality from that set of religious belief yet none of the conviction or modesty. The ego interpreted eventually as divine will is the source of all human misery we have today and it is because man himself is confused and misunderstands his spiritual place in the world.

[Anonymous No.16885551]

Being able to dissociate via years of practicing meditation have been of utmost use for me. Why? Well, i can culture and grow personalities of people that i know and let them think instead of me in different situation that require different outlooks. Also really fun thing to do, is when you discover that mind can be used and you can be master instead of slave. Also, depresonalization is liberating as fuck, no matter everyone says. This system have its guardians like Agent Smith in Matrix movie, and you are one. You will never know what it is like to spend your time in the woods just letting go. Anihilation occures and there is no you, no mind, just presence. Keep thinking, one day you too will wish to be free. I wish you the best op.

[Anonymous No.16886484]

>>16884906
>So difference is real, non-dualism is bullshit, agreed
That the knowing subject is different from the object which it perceives doesn't contradict the premise of ontological non-dualism as taught by Advaita. One is God and the other is His energy or power.

[Anonymous No.16886545]

>>16873327
based

[Anonymous No.16886561]

>>16885535
You're right. You might find this very interesting:

https://aphelis.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/CIORAN_1949_Genealogy_of_fanaticism.pdf

[Anonymous No.16886581]

SEETHING guenonfaggot shankarist

absolute non-dualism is a form of cartesian modernism

[Anonymous No.16886603]

>>16879935
Yes, there is only Logos. There can only be Matter if there is Logos, that is, a thing can only be something if it is intelligible, Matter in itself is nothing and nonexistent. The problem with Vedanta is doctrines like Gaudapada's, to which Shankara more or less adopted into his system, that is, the doctrine of ajativada. This is why many many vedantists end up with a Brahman-Maya duality, denying Maya as illusory, and by reason of this they are accused of crypto-Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.16886619]

>>16884906
What Hindu and Buddhist texts have you read that have given you this impression.

[Anonymous No.16886627]

>>16886603
>The problem with Vedanta is doctrines like Gaudapada's, to which Shankara more or less adopted into his system, that is, the doctrine of ajativada.
What is wrong with it? It makes sense, and it's strongly implied by the Upanishads which deny the reality of transformations in favor of the reality of the basis alone, i.e. in the example of clay and gold in Chandogya
>This is why many many vedantists end up with a Brahman-Maya duality
There is no duality because maya is sublated in enlightenment and maya doesn't affect Brahman Himself
>denying Maya as illusory, and by reason of this they are accused of crypto-Buddhism.
Advaita has always said that Maya is anirvachaniya, but is sustained by the actual reality of Brahman. this is different from Buddhism since Buddhism don't admit there to be any foundational or basis reality in which maya is rooted like Advaita does

[Anonymous No.16886813]

>>16884319
>3) If something can have a beginning then it's not really eternal, because the meaning of eternality extends both directions in time, so liberation for that individual will not actually be eternal by virtue of it having a beginning, and by virtue of it being non-eternal the individual will again return to the cycle of birth and suffering
This appears to you this way because you are looking at it from the perspective of the individual soul and its individual biological-temporal experience. Just as when you change the channel of your TV to another one you are just accessing something already extant rather than creating something new, so it is with Nirvana.
>Source? In the Sabba Sutta, Samyutta Nikaya 35.23, and in Pahanaya Sutta, Samyutta Nikaya 35.24, Buddha defines "all" as the six sense bases both internal and external, conciousness, contact and feeling; and he says that there is no "all" outside of this and also says in Ādittapariyāya Sutta, Samyutta Nikaya 35.28 that the "all" is aflame with delusion and suffering. There is no deeper force listed in that equation, and it seems like he denied there was one by his defining of the sense-bases etc as "the all"
This seems like a very uncharitable interpretation. What is aflame with delusion and suffering is samsara and it indeed encompasses all of the life of an unawakened being. This is precisely why a subtler force that acts on another plane is necessary - I believe the term for it is "bodhi", understood as something the ascetic accumulates until he can go beyond samsara.
>but he was unable to provided a coherent reason why in light of his denial of any existing sentient entities within Parinirvana.
Unwilling, not unable. Parinirvana is supposed to lead to the ultimate Unmanifest - there is nothing within Parinirvana except awareness itself. Sentient "beings", such as gods for example, belong to a lower plane.

[Anonymous No.16886819]

>>16884319
>>16886813
>Yes, in a way, but with Advaita Vedanta this does not in the beginning of an eternal effect like how it does in Buddhism. Freedom and clarity are always the nature of the Self, and when liberation happens it's realized that this always was and always has been the case, this was obscured to the Jiva because of its superimpositons onto the Self. But when the Jivas ignorance is destroyed by knowledge, it doesn't produce any new effect but permits the already beginningless and eternal reality to shine as it always has been, unobstructed by the Jivas superimpositons/ignorance. Shankaracharya refers to this below and speaks of how when you know the Self you see that there is no difference in It pre- and post-liberation, he uses "I" here to refer to the Self or Atman.
This seems to me to be just a different formulation of the same perspective, except possibly more impractical. Both traditions aim to peel off ignorance until only knowledge remains - this is the same principles articulated in different terms. I do not feel freedom and clarity - even if that is the "nature" of my "Self", it is effectively nonfunctional. Without abolishing the present state, talk of "liberated nature" is cold comfort.
>But this is not true of Buddhism, since Buddha did not say that Nirvana was the nature of sentient beings.
If it were, why would it be so rare and hard to attain? Can you say that you have attained an analogous state? Why not? It's your nature, after all. Nirvana is not the nature of sentient beings, it is a possibility for those capable of knowledge.
>But if samsara can exist in the midst of Nirvana for no reason that implies beings can fall out of Nirvana.
I am not sure what you are referring to here. Craving for Nirvana is also craving. The accomplished ascetic, having once reached Nirvana, is urged to bring Nirvana to samsara rather than seek refuge from the latter in the former.
>It is only through knowledge that liberation can be brought about. The only way to attain to a pre-existing reality or truth eternally and remain there forever is if one is already there, with this being obscured by ignorance and then this ignorance being subsequently removed by knowledge
What methods do you recommend? Buddhism has its samadhi and jhanas. What do you offer?

[Anonymous No.16887059]

>>16886813
>Just as when you change the channel of your TV to another one you are just accessing something already extant rather than creating something new, so it is with Nirvana.
How does the channel changing work? If it's produced via an action like meditation then it has a beginning which makes it non-eternal. Buddha in the Pali Canon as far as I remember doesn't say that Nirvana is attained through knowledge but the Buddhists aim to attain Nirvana through meditative practices like vipassana and samatha which constitute actions. One cannot attain to an ever-existent reality through action.
>This seems like a very uncharitable interpretation.
Really? I have seen many Buddhists insist that there is no deeper thing beyond that aggregates and sense-bases, for fear that would constitute some sort of self.
>This is precisely why a subtler force that acts on another plane is necessary - I believe the term for it is "bodhi", understood as something the ascetic accumulates until he can go beyond samsara.
Do you have any scriptural citations from the Pali Canon in which Buddha describes there being some higher nature of human beings like bodhi? I have never heard of this before and am wondering if you are taking this from later Mahayana sutras or something.
>Unwilling, not unable. Parinirvana is supposed to lead to the ultimate Unmanifest - there is nothing within Parinirvana except awareness itself. Sentient "beings", such as gods for example, belong to a lower plane.
Do you have a source from the Pali Canon in which Buddha says that there is awareness which continues within Parinirvana? I have many other people deny this exact claim before. Buddha said that the aggregates die out and do not continue into Parinirvana, but he listed awareness/consciousness as one of the aggregates, so that would imply there was no continuing awareness in Parinirvana. That there would be an eternal awareness in Parinirvana sounds more like the view of the Upanishads which Buddhists typically try to separate themselves from.

[Anonymous No.16887061]

>>16887059
>>16886819
>Without abolishing the present state, talk of "liberated nature" is cold comfort.
If it's not already the present state being obscured by ignorance,, then it would either have to be a separate realm we would have to travel to, or some sort of new understanding or mental state which had not arisen before. I don't think I need to even bother explaining the problems with the first alternative. With the second alterative, if it's not something which is already our present state (but obscured) then it would be a new state which arises, but that which arises is not and can never be undecaying and permanent. Also, do you not see the contradiction with the first part of your post which is the first thing I replied to above?

You seem to want to deny that Nirvana is our true state here, but then above you tried to also insist that it was an ever present reality that we just had to change the channel too. If it's an ever-present reality, it can either be within us as our true nature or it can be outside and independent of us. The first is the view of Vedanta which you seem to be arguing against, but with the second alternative if we automatically land in Nirvana when delusion stops, then that implies Nirvana is our default state sentient beings are in when they have an absence of delusion, i.e. Nirvana is our true nature. Then the same objections which you raise against me about the transcendent not being already perceptible in the present state also apply to you as well then.

[Anonymous No.16887070]

>>16887061
>If it were, why would it be so rare and hard to attain? Can you say that you have attained an analogous state? Why not? It's your nature, after all.
I've had glimpses of it, and that has changed me, but Advaita Vedanta says that one cannot be established in it permanently without entering into monasticism, and I have seen no indication so far they are wrong on that point. Without monasticism, the attractions of householder life and all the possessions and ties which come with that present an unsurmountable obstacle to enlightenment.
>I am not sure what you are referring to here.
The point I am making is that if Buddhists posit Nirvana as the underlying true state or reality, then the question becomes "how can samsara/delusion/suffering arise within the underlying reality which is supposed to be free from those things". If there is no answer given (and Buddha never did answer this) then Buddhists have no reason to be sure that suffering cannot arise in the midst or Nirvana or Parinirvana again. After all, if you don't know how suffering/samsara arose in the midst of Nirvana to begin with, or why it did so beginninglessly, if you don't know why this is the case, you can't say with any assurance that it won't happen again. Vedanta doesn't face this problem.
>What methods do you recommend? Buddhism has its samadhi and jhanas. What do you offer?
I agree with the metaphysics of Advaita Vedanta, which teaches knowledge of the Self, Atma-Vidya, to people after they have become monastics. In Advaita they have a consistent explanation of how one can attain this eternally pre-existing reality, because is our essential nature which is obscured by ignorance; and this is merely revealed through knowledge instead of trying to reach it through action/meditation. The Upanishadic texts and the lessons in them conveyed by a Guru convey an ignorance-destroying knowledge to the disciple, which makes this already existent reality within the soul manifest itself like the sun shining after the clouds obscuring it have dissipated.

[Anonymous No.16887165]

>>16886627
>deny the reality of transformations in favor of the reality of the basis
This is dualistic, butchering reality and its whole process of proodos-epistrophe-stasis. The problem is not with the Upanishadic passages, not even with renunciative path taken by Gaudapada, Shankara, these are all legitimate, the problem is the systems and misunderstandings founded on it, which deny the whole process and paths of sublation to the Logos. See:

>Maya does not affect Brahman Himself
It comes from him and is superimposed on him, whence change? whence illusion? Brahman stands aloof to his own power? Brahman to be Brahman must make what Brahman does, this is his energia/entelechy and this is (or would be) expressed in His Maya. That is why the Trika Prakashavimarshamaya is much more sophisticated than advaita vedanta. Here there is affirmation of the process of Consciousness Sciring Itself, this is the re-cognition, pratyabhijna, of the Ultimate Reality (and the ''performance'' of the process of proodos-epistrophe-stasis).
Either Maya is together with Brahman and is reminiscent of Him for being what He does (after all this is His Power, His Energeia) or it is separated from Him and the is powerless and the dualism is actualized.
Same with most Buddhist schools.

[Anonymous No.16887188]

>>16879935
>- Chandogya Upanishad 6.1.3.—6.1.6.
Holy... this sounds A LOT like Parmenides’ philosophy. Have read any Parmenides?

[Anonymous No.16887241]

>>16874966
this

[Anonymous No.16887348]

>>16887165
>This is dualistic, butchering reality
No it is not. You have just baselessly reasserted that it is without explaining why. That Advaita has an internal ontological hierarchy which recognizes the contingent existence of duality doesn't make Advaita a dualistic system, since at the level of absolute reality or paramartha there is no maya.
>It comes from him and is superimposed on him, whence change?
Change is included within maya which is Brahman's power. While remaining unchanged as the unmoved mover, Brahman's power gives rise to all change within maya.
>whence illusion?
Uhhh... hello? Do you even know the slightest thing about Advaita? Maya/illusion is Brahman's power or sakti which is subservient to Brahman, it is a capability or device which Brahman always wields. Visnu always has his mace in hand.
>Brahman stands aloof to his own power?
Yes, Brahman is already complete and eternally satisfied, all His desires are eternally fulfilled, leaving Him desireless. Having a power to wield does nothing to add to Brahman's satisfaction. If Brahman's satisfaction and desirelessness were incomplete without Brahman having the power of maya, then Brahman would be imperfect. It is because Brahman is perfect that He is unconcerned with His power.
>Brahman to be Brahman must make what Brahman does, this is his energia/entelechy and this is (or would be) expressed in His Maya.
Brahman is Brahman, Brahman doesn't need to undertake any action in order to be Himself. Brahman is complete metaphysical freedom and is beyond all restrictions. If Brahman needed to do something in order to be Brahman, then as something subject to causal relations He would not be perfect, infinite and unlimited and the author of causation, but would be a contingent being.

[Anonymous No.16887354]

>>16887348
>That is why the Trika Prakashavimarshamaya is much more sophisticated than advaita vedanta.
Kashmir Shaivism is less logically coherent then Advaita Vedanta, Chandradhar Sharma discusses this at length in pic related and points out the various contradictions in its doctrines. Here is one of many examples of the logical pitfalls in Trika below. For the record I think Trika has spirtual value as do all doctrines which espouse non-monastic forms of non-dualism, but it simply isn't as logically coherent as Advaita, which makes me regard it as a slightly lesser path to the same truth.

>The transcendental unity in Advaita Vedanta is above the thoughtforms of unity and duality. Real unity cannot be ‘union of the two’, for if the two are equals they are two independent reals which cannot be related; and if one of the two is primary and the other secondary, this dependent ‘other’ will be found to be dispensable and will glide away into the principal which alone can be called real. It is Kashmira Shaivism which is afraid of losing the finite self and its world and therefore wants to retain them in some form even in the Absolute. If Shiva is the Supreme Self, the pure Subject, how can He be the unity of subject and object? No trace of the object can be ultimately retained in the subject. If this supposed ‘unity*, this ‘union of subject and object' is the subject, there can be no objectivity in it; and if it is an object, it cannot be the unity of subject and object.

[Anonymous No.16887361]

>>16887354
>Here there is affirmation of the process of Consciousness Sciring Itself, this is the re-cognition, pratyabhijna, of the Ultimate Reality (and the ''performance'' of the process of proodos-epistrophe-stasis).
The Pratyabhijna doctrine of Kashmir Shaivism is wrong, it is really just the aparokshanubuti of Advaita in disguise, the realization of the Self in Kashmir Shaivism upon analysis is not actually a recognition, but is just correct perception of that which was previously perceived incorrectly, as it is taught to be in Advaita Vedanta, Sharma explains this below.

>Kashmira Shaivism feels the necessity of self-recognition (pratyabhijha) for the removal of innate Ignorance and the consequent realisation of the Real. As the innate Ignorance is not empirical it cannot be removed by intellectual knowledge (bauddha-jhana). It can be removed by immediate spiritual awareness or intuitive knowledge which at once generates self-recognition or intuitive awareness of the identity underlying the two states (images) of the same substance. Intellectual knowledge (including perceptual knowledge) may remove the veil covering the object and consequently the object may be perceived or known. Yet, the ignorance of the real nature of the object may continue in the form of an imaginary distinction between the object now perceived and the object which we desire to perceive. In the example of a love-sick lady given above, she fails to get any joy even though her lover was present before her because she was mistaking him as some one else, but when she recognises him she becomes all joy. Similarly, the finite self who has heard about the qualities of the Supreme Self and who is always perceiving His manifestations which are really one with Him, does not obtain liberation unless he recognises his own self as one with the Supreme Self. When we analyse this self-recognition we find that it glides away in self-realisation or immediate spiritual experience. It is not recognition, but pure cognition or immediate realisation of the pure Self.

[Anonymous No.16887369]

>>16887361

>The lady who fails to recognise her lover who is present before her has no right cognition of her lover, because she is mistaking him as some one else. She is in illusion. When she gets rid of her illusion, his ascribed character which she was perceiving vanishes and his reality is directly perceived. The important point here is not the identification of the image of the lover formed and retained in the mind due to hearing about his qualities or his previous perception with the image generated by his present perception, but the direct perception of the identity of the person in spite of the difference in his states due to time, place, etc. Hence, it is right cognition, not recognition, which plays the crucial part here: the person must be perceived as what he really is and not as what he appears to be. By the use of the word ‘recognition’, this system wants to emphasise the fact that in moksa, the Self is not known for the first time. The Self is self-shining and eternal and is always intuitively perceived. It is the transcendental foundation of all knowledge and therefore its presence is never missed. As this system accepts the theory of ‘ apiirna-khyati' (a form of akhyati) it takes error as ‘imperfect knowledge' Hence, according to it, the Self which has been formerly perceived imperfectly is now fully perceived. Moksa is not knowledge of the unknown, but knowledge of the known (jhatasya jhanam). In Vedanta too moksa is not a new acquisition; it is the realisation of the realised (praptasya praptih). Kashmira Shaivism calls it recognition because in it that which was formerly cognised, though imperfectly, is again cognised in full. But error is not imperfect knowledge; it is wrong knowledge or misperception. Hence there is no recognition, but correct cognition; that which was formerly mis-perceived is now correctly perceived. It is not identification of the two; but removal of error by knowledge of the ground-reality on which the erroneous character was superimposed.

>Either Maya is together with Brahman and is reminiscent of Him for being what He does (after all this is His Power, His Energeia) or it is separated from Him and the is powerless and the dualism is actualized.
Same with most Buddhist schools.
That is a false dichotomy, Brahman doesn't do anything in the sense of taking specific actions. Maya is a power that is manifested effortlessly for all time, without any action, just as the sun permits light to emanate out from itself without taking any action or effort to do so. Advaita does say that maya in reminiscent of Brahman in the sense that it includes scriptures which point the way to Brahman, none of this makes Advaita dualistic. Maya is together with Brahman in the sense of being a continent and subservient power, but it is not absolutely real like Brahman is.

[Anonymous No.16887401]

>>16887188
Yes, there seems to be a minority opinion growing more popular lately in academia, which I'm inclined to agree with, that Parmenides wasn't simply teaching a sterile unchanging bland One of pure being as some later western philosophers tried to take him to task for but that he was trying to point the way to a more subtle religious conception which aligns closer to non-dual eastern traditions like Vedanta etc.

The book Reality by Peter Kingsley talks about that as also this article here

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/607655

>Kingsley's reading of early Greek philosophy and, in particular, of Parmenides and Empedocles, is at odds with most of the established interpretations. However, Kingsley contends that later ancient philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, and Theophrastus, among others, misinterpreted and distorted their predecessors; hence, conventional scholarship that uncritically accepts their misrepresentations of the presocratics is necessarily flawed. Kingsley's procedure is to read presocratic texts in historical and geographical context, giving particular attention to the Southern Italian and Sicilian backgrounds of Parmenides and Empedocles.

>Parmenides, most famous as the “father of western logic” and traditionally viewed as a rationalist, was a priest of Apollo and iatromantis (lit. healer-prophet).[4] Empedocles, who outlined an elaborate cosmology that introduced the enormously influential idea of the four elements into western philosophy and science, was a mystic and a magician.[5][6] Kingsley reads the poems of Parmenides and Empedocles as esoteric, initiatory texts designed to lead the reader to a direct experience of the oneness of reality and the realisation of his or her own divinity. A significant implication of this reading is that western logic and science originally had a deeply spiritual purpose.

[Anonymous No.16887407]

>>16887401
>The deep sympathy between the teachings of Parmenides and Empedocles is also found in the central, logical part of Parmenides' poem, often referred to as "Fragment Eight" or "The Way of Truth." As Kingsley notes, Parmenides' logic aims at demonstrating that reality is changeless, whole, unborn and immortal, and one—a description strikingly similar to the ways in which absolute reality is described in many mystical traditions, such as Advaita Vedanta, Zen, and Dzogchen. That this is no mere material or metaphysical monism is indicated by the initiatory motifs of the poem; the setting and hymnal language of Fragment Eight; the unnamed goddess as the speaker of these words; and the figure of the historical Parmenides as priest of Apollo. Kingsley reads Parmenides as saying that this "ultimate reality" is not on some supercelestial plane, but rather is very simply the reality of the world all around us. We live in an unborn and deathless world of oneness, wholeness, and changelessness—but we are unable to recognise it because mortal perception itself is dualistic. Thus, as in Empedocles, everything in Parmenides' cosmos is divine—and, importantly, the divine is not "somewhere else," but rather, right here and now.[12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kingsley_(scholar)#Parmenides_and_Empedocles

[Anonymous No.16887491]

>>16887059
>>16887061
>>16887070
>How does the channel changing work? If it's produced via an action like meditation then it has a beginning which makes it non-eternal.
You are missing the point, changing the channel *on your TV* has a beginning, but the channel itself is eternal. The channel (Nirvana) didn't come into being when you pressed the button, that's just when you accessed it.
>One cannot attain to an ever-existent reality through action.
I do not think there's a reasonable justification for this position.
>Really? I have seen many Buddhists insist that there is no deeper thing beyond that aggregates and sense-bases, for fear that would constitute some sort of self.
It's complicated. If a monastic emphasises Anatta to you, then he believes you're clinging too much to samsara to progress further.
>Do you have any scriptural citations from the Pali Canon in which Buddha describes there being some higher nature of human beings like bodhi? I have never heard of this before and am wondering if you are taking this from later Mahayana sutras or something.
I am not taking it from Mahayana, I acquainted myself with the concept from an analysis of specifically Pali Buddhism. Doctrinally, bodhi/panna are non-samsaric elements. The book I'm taking this from is "The Doctrine of Awakening", which is sourced.
>but he listed awareness/consciousness as one of the aggregates
Samsaric awareness/consciousness does not survive Parinirvana. I would argue that it doesn't even really survive Nirvana. What survives is what in the Gita would be called "the one in the body".
>With the second alterative, if it's not something which is already our present state (but obscured) then it would be a new state which arises, but that which arises is not and can never be undecaying and permanent.
It is as you say, but there is still a radical break and a new experience of things when you remove ignorance.
>You seem to want to deny that Nirvana is our true state here, but then above you tried to also insist that it was an ever present reality that we just had to change the channel too.
Here the Gnostic terminology of hylics, pneumatics and psychics applies. The state at which one arrives through Nirvana is the true state of all beings, but the vast majority will never return to it as Nirvana is unreachable for them. As I said earlier, it is the same principle of eradicating ignorance until one arrives at one's true nature, but in Buddhism the Point A/Point B distinction is more usefully formulated since the starting point is pure delusion and Anatta.

[Anonymous No.16887499]

>>16887059
>>16887061
>>16887070
>I've had glimpses of it, and that has changed me, but Advaita Vedanta says that one cannot be established in it permanently without entering into monasticism, and I have seen no indication so far they are wrong on that point. Without monasticism, the attractions of householder life and all the possessions and ties which come with that present an unsurmountable obstacle to enlightenment.
Lucky. As I understand it, it's possible to become permanently established in transcendence, but I currently lack the necessary qualifications to complete the operations and confirm it for you. Evola's "Introduction to Magic" outlines Hermetic methods to achieve and fix transcendent states - it might be useful to you. Keep in mind that like Buddhism, Hermeticism is a Kshatriya doctrine and if you have Brahmin inclinations it may not be the thing for you.
>The point I am making is that if Buddhists posit Nirvana as the underlying true state or reality, then the question becomes "how can samsara/delusion/suffering arise within the underlying reality which is supposed to be free from those things".
There are some explanations for this but they are generally considered unimportant and irrelevant for the quest of the ascetic. The book on Buddhism I mentioned earlier briefly goes into the spiritual anatomy of man - long story short, the human unit is a compound and the spirit is only one of its elements. This is why it becomes obscured when it enters the samsaric world. Once the spirit has been separated from inferior elements, it is returned to the pure and primordial state, immune to delusion.
>because is our essential nature which is obscured by ignorance; and this is merely revealed through knowledge instead of trying to reach it through action/meditation
Knowledge as in what, reading and reasoning? I can't see that doing anything for me. It's basically a profane activity and it generates nothing but profane effects in my mind.

[Anonymous No.16887722]

>>16887401
>>16887407
Plato and his intellectual progeny were also initiates lol, they did not distort anything, modern writers distorted them.

[Anonymous No.16887748]

>>16884172
why is it important?

[Anonymous No.16887961]

>>16887348
I did explain why, but maybe I'll make it clearer here.
>Advaita has an internal ontological hierarchy which recognizes the contingent existence of duality
There is recognition of contigency of duality but also of complete denial as illusion of Maya.
Look at the absurdities, you write:
>Maya is Brahman's power, Brahman's power gives rise to all change within Maya
>Maya/illusion is Brahman's power which is subservient to Brahman
This is not only a gap, passive of critique, but utter nonsense. A thing's energeia cannot be foreign to the very thing. I strongly recommend you to read Plato, Aristotle and the other platonists. It makes absolutely no sense in saying for example, the sun (an image to which you people love to recur) is always shining, the production of its light is its flow of energy, its energy of producing light is not foreign to sun's essence, the sun is the sun because it produces life, it does what is its nature to de. Essence and energy form one coherent thing, not a dualistic entity like Brahman-Maya in advaita vedanta, hence the dualism inherent in the system.

>Brahman is already complete and eternally satisfied, all His desires are eternally fulfilled, leaving Him desireless. Having a power to wield does nothing to add to Brahman's satisfaction.. It is because Brahman is perfect that He is unconcerned with His power.
You have two options here: either the power of brahman flows from his own satisfaction and makes the world an affirmation of brahman himself (and thus this will lead you to something very similar to prakashavimarshamaya) or maya is a coeternal parasitic principle emanating out of nowhere, god knows why, from him (dualism).

>Brahman is Brahman, Brahman doesn't need to undertake any action in order to be Himself.
Yes, this is a point of view that emphasizes the Brahman in itself, ultimate reality, without maya or anything. The thing is: we have maya and we are dealing with reality in its most comprehensive sense. If you say ''but there is only brahman'' you will run in circles because that is precisely what we are talking about.

[Anonymous No.16887974]

>>16887369
>>16887361
>>16887354
Read >>16887961.

[Anonymous No.16887994]

>>16887961
>the sun is the sun because it produces life
the sun is the sun because it produces light*
> it does what is its nature to de
it does what is its nature to do*

[Anonymous No.16888055]

>>16887361
>it is wrong
>it is really just... in disguise
decide yourself, please.

>it is not recognition, it is correct perception
this distinction is completely inexistent, specially when it concerns the recognition of the ultimate reality, or reality of Self. a correct perception can entail a memory being brought back. all knowledge is revelation and revelation is just putting something in front of you. you will know this thing because there will be recognition, you will not see it and become pensive about what you are realizing. you just realize. this is even against your doctrine. this is basic epistemology. read fucking plato at least

[Anonymous No.16888617]

bump

[Anonymous No.16888972]

have another bump, I guess

[Anonymous No.16888977]

>>16885305

[Anonymous No.16889870]

>>16887961
>There is recognition of contigency of duality but also of complete denial as illusion of Maya.
What are you talking about? Advaita admits that maya is not absolutely real like Brahman is, and that maya is illusory in the sense that it presents itself as reality, when it is not truly reality, which Brahman is.
>This is not only a gap, passive of critique, but utter nonsense.
No it's not. Maya includes within itself all change. Brahman simply needs to be there wielding it and sustaining maya for it to do everything else.
> A thing's energeia cannot be foreign to the very thing.
Maya is not foreign to or exterior to Brahman, this is pretty basic stuff I which thought you'd know already. Brahman is infinite and includes everything within Itself, including maya.
>the sun (an image to which you people love to recur) is always shining, the production of its light is its flow of energy, its energy of producing light is not foreign to sun's essence, the sun is the sun because it produces life, it does what is its nature to de. Essence and energy form one coherent thing, not a dualistic entity like Brahman-Maya in advaita vedanta, hence the dualism inherent in the system
Advaita says that it is Brahman's inherent self-nature or svabhava to always be wielding maya passively, but to consider Brahman as subservient to maya in any way is an error.
>Essence and energy form one coherent thing, not a dualistic entity like Brahman-Maya in advaita vedanta, hence the dualism inherent in the system.
I'm not sure if you are just confused or are deliberately using sophist tactics, Advaita is not dualistic in the final analysis, because in Advaita maya does not exist as a distinct separate entity at the level of absolute reality. Every point you bring up is just moving the goalposts around to try to avoid refuting this central point which shows that Advaita is not dualistic. See pic related, once you cross the dotted line there is no maya.

>You have two options here: either the power of brahman flows from his own satisfaction and makes the world an affirmation of brahman himself (and thus this will lead you to something very similar to prakashavimarshamaya) or maya is a coeternal parasitic principle emanating out of nowhere, god knows why, from him (dualism).
I don't accept your unjustified false dichotomy. Brahman's maya flows from His omnipotence as the Supreme Lord of the whole universe who is the author of time, space, causation etc; it's not a manifestation of His satisfaction or something that correlates to Brahman's satisfaction.

>Yes, this is a point of view that emphasizes the Brahman in itself, ultimate reality, without maya or anything. The thing is: we have maya and we are dealing with reality in its most comprehensive sense. If you say ''but there is only brahman'' you will run in circles
I'm not sure what the point of this was, it didn't adduce any new argument or point out a contradiction in Advaita

[Anonymous No.16889900]

>>16887361
>The Pratyabhijna doctrine of Kashmir Shaivism is wrong
Holy shit you are the most arrogant zoomer cunt

[Anonymous No.16889974]

>>16888055
>decide yourself, please.
There is no contradiction in what I said, it is wrong insofar as it claims self-realization is a recognition instead of a correct perception, self-realization is actually correct perception as Advaita says. I.e. the Pratyabijna Trika teaches with the examples of the woman and her lover upon analysis turns out to just be correct perception and not recogniton, as Sharma points out

>it is not recognition, it is correct perception
>this distinction is completely inexistent
False, Trika teaches that its recognition is the awareness of the the identity of two states of the same substance, it involves correlation. Correct perception does not involve this comparison and the notion of identity between the two. I can see a species of tree which I have never seen anywhere before from a distance, think that it is a different tree. And when I come closer I see that it was not the tree I thought, but a novel type of tree which I have never encountered. There is no recognition of identity between two things here but just the correct perception of the novel tree, ergo recognition in the sense meant by Trika and correct perception are different.

>especially when it concerns the recognition of the ultimate reality, or reality of Self. a correct perception can entail a memory being brought back.
It can but not all correct perception involves this

[Anonymous No.16889985]

>>16889900
How about you try to rebut Sharma's argument instead of tossing insults?

[Anonymous No.16890027]

stupid, dumb, absolute non-dualist scum

[Anonymous No.16890110]

>>16889985
But you've already admitted you have never read any actual hindu materials except the gita with Shankar's bhashya, and Guenon, and a smattering of upanishads.
How the fuck could you possibly be so arrogant as to categorically deny Trika from a position of such depths of ignorance.
It doesn't require a refutation, to do so would be pointless in the face of your shocking false-authority.

I'm just noting the absolute degeneracy of advocating something you only half-understand with such militancy.

[Anonymous No.16890169]

>>16890110
So many adjectives and adverbs

[Anonymous No.16890623]

>>16889870
> Advaita admits that maya is not absolutely real like Brahman is
>in Advaita maya does not exist as a distinct separate entity at the level of absolute reality.
I'm really confused.

>Advaita says that it is Brahman's inherent self-nature
Yes, I'm not saying Brahman is subservient to it, but that the only way for it not to be a dualistic system is to admit that Maya is known, willed and Brahman's natural flow, as hsi power/energeia for every energy is an energy of a particular essence. You call this sophistry but like all your dogmatic assertions, you can repeat it endlessly, it will always be nonsensical and easily refutable with basic logic.

>once you cross the dotted line there is no maya
like the other guy and chadradhar sharma, this is a very crass mentality, really even materialistic. energy and essence are not separate, they are not located at different points of space. this in the end is saying that in a part of brahman there is not a part of brahman.

>every point you bring up is just moving the goalposts around to try to avoid refuting this central point which shows that advaita is not dualistic
but this is precisely the only point i have been stressing in the whole thread, lol. you were not capable of answering it yet and contradict yourself all the time.

>i dont accept your false dichotomy, it is not this because this would prove me wrong
obviously you dont, the problem is you have not a single logical argument to sustain your dogmatism.

[Anonymous No.16890645]

>>16889974
so now i will ask you again: how there is knowledge of something you don't know? how will you know something you don't know? how is the imperfect perception (which already implies a knowledge to a certain degree) corrected to perfected perception and not to a less imperfect perception?
all knowledge is a-letheia, revelation - it is already in you.

[Anonymous No.16890662]

guenonfag is a shameful danish tranny

has guenon produced a single non-hack follower?

[Anonymous No.16890758]

>>16873327
>you aren't really killing them
maybe, but it is not for you to choose for them unless you do it anyway and choose death for them but that defeat the meaning of your argument and turns souls into a cannibalistic existing not much different from the material existence which means you're a retard that misinterpreted the poos or you got it right and the pood are the retards with flawed philosophical thoughts

[Anonymous No.16890870]

>>16890758
do not post

[Anonymous No.16890920]

>>16890870
do you believe you have the right to kill people?

[Anonymous No.16891194]

Opinion:

The Upanishads are some of the most profound texts ever written.
They are speculative texts by contemplatives and don't form a coherent system.
Hindus sects poo all over them with their sectarian bs:
>oh yes, that Purusha/Atman is Vishnu/Shiva/Shakti/Surya.
>when it says that thou art, it actually means blue man (theistically) created you, blue man is That and you are NOT blue man

[Anonymous No.16891344]

So what's the meaning behind defecating on the streets?

[Anonymous No.16891354]

>>16890662
They're all trannies, lugubrious.

[Anonymous No.16891605]

>>16891344
toilets are non-dual...all is one

streets are rigorously nothing when compared to the Monist Absolute, so just shit in them