Averroism & Traditionalism

[Anonymous No.22139987]

Would Guenon and Evola count as Averroists with their talk of a universal, impersonal "Self" above the ego?

pic semi-related

[Anonymous No.22140014]

>>22139987
Averros wrote about a universal intellect that is involved in everyone's thinking, and it seems to be related to the universal Soul/intellect of Neoplatonism, which is actually quite different from the conception of Atman/Brahman as non-conceptual ineffable supra-individual reflexive awareness that underlies the entire psycho-physical apparatus.

[Anonymous No.22140188]

>>22140014
>which is actually quite different from the conception of Atman/Brahman as non-conceptual ineffable supra-individual reflexive awareness that underlies the entire psycho-physical apparatus.
Explain. They seem structurally similar to a point where it seems like it's a quibble to distinguish the two.

[Anonymous No.22140926]

bump

[Anonymous No.22141325]

>>22140188
>Explain. They seem structurally similar to a point where it seems like it's a quibble to distinguish the two.
One thinks and the other doesn't. In Vedanta, Samkhya and Yoga the intellect (buddhi) is something different from the foundational consciousness of the Atman/Purusha. Buddhi (intellect) and mind (manas) are like higher and lower mental functions, this combined higher/lower mental object appears to be conscious when the buddhi 'reflects' or 'catches' the light of the Purusha (consciousness), like when a stained glass window is illuminated with the sun's light and appears to glow with light despite itself being non-luminous.

>The question again arises that though puruṣa is pure intelligence, the guṇas are non-intelligent subtle substances, how can the latter come into touch with the former? Moreover, the puruṣa is pure inactive intelligence without any touch of impurity and what service or need can such a puruṣa have of the guṇas? This difficulty is anticipated by Sāṃkhya, which has already made room for its answer by assuming that one class of the guṇas called sattva is such that it resembles the purity and the intelligence of the puruṣa to a very high degree, so much so that it can reflect the intelligence of the puruṣa, and thus render its non-intelligent transformations to appear as if they were intelligent. Thus all our thoughts and other emotional or volitional operations are really the non-intelligent transformations of the buddhi or citta having a large sattva preponderance; but by virtue of the reflection of the puruṣa in the buddhi, these appear as if they are intelligent.

https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/a-history-of-indian-philosophy-volume-1/d/doc209802.html

see also:

https://www.academia.edu/81836850/Absolute_Space_and_the_Structure_of_Consciousness_in_Advaita_Ved%C4%81nta_Philosophy?f_ri=9040

[Anonymous No.22141334]

>>22141325
To add, Aristotle and a good amount of later western thought seem to collapse the intellect and the Purusha into one and assign a "subjective aspect" to the intellect that is supposed to account for it's own experience or awareness of its own thoughts. Although there are a few passages scattered here and there that seem to intimate the Atman, the Greeks don't seem talk about consciousness or awareness as distinct from the intellect, while on the other hand this is like an elementary distinction in a lot of Indian thought.

[Anonymous No.22141818]

Bumpu

[Anonymous No.22141858]

>>22139987
In the sense you describe, perhaps Guenon (quite a gulf of difference between the two, him and Evola); as for Evola, more along the lines of Higher & Lower selves in Platonism(s), consubstantiality. Neither the horse nor the chariot nor the reigns are the Rider.

>>22141325
>>22140188
>One
>Indefinite Dyad

They drew from similar wells enough to make the distinctions more hair splitting than anything.

[Anonymous No.22142230]

>>22141325
Wait, so which philosophical entity *isn't* thinking, and why describe it as an "intellect" and a "self" of some kind when the main thing that defines "intellect" and "self" is thinking and consciousness?

[Anonymous No.22142281]

>>22142230
I’m sorry but I don’t fully understand your question. The Purusha or Atman is held to be an unthinking entity more or less consisting of pure consciousness and is treated as the real self. The intellect (buddhi) is what has higher-order mental functions but is itself unconscious and only appears to be conscious by virtue of its proximity or qualitative similarity to the Purusha, without the presence of the Purusha to ‘illuminate’ or ‘reveal’ it however its mental actions would remain unexperienced and unknown. Thus, the self is treated as being of the nature of consciousness and the intellect of the nature of thought, which is what the last part of your post seems to be asking about. Does that answer your question?

[Anonymous No.22142399]

>>22141325
>One thinks and the other doesn't. In Vedanta, Samkhya and Yoga the intellect (buddhi) is something different from the foundational consciousness of the Atman/Purusha. Buddhi (intellect) and mind (manas) are like higher and lower mental functions, this combined higher/lower mental object appears to be conscious when the buddhi 'reflects' or 'catches' the light of the Purusha (consciousness), like when a stained glass window is illuminated with the sun's light and appears to glow with light despite itself being non-luminous.
You are actually wrong. The one does not Think in the neoplatonism of Plotinus, it is ineffable, supra-individual, non-discursive and self-reflexive. The one transcends the intellect (nous) consider that for a moment, Plotinus simply relates an ascent to the One, and that the intellect is a higher part of the soul so to speak, by soul he means manas somewhat, by nous buddhi, and that the one which transcends both the soul and intellect, is realized as that luminous self-reflexive (one without second - a phrase literally in the enneads) principle illuminating the intellect itself, and the soul, notice both soul, intellect and life are transcended by the one. Plotinus simply hones in on the interaction between the buddhi and the atman essentially - in that relationship is the entirety of theurgy, he speaks losely and from the point of view of man and his soul, instructively, he never compromises on the One's ineffability which is the essential identity of the individual, by attributing to it thought, that would be a contradiction in terms.
>The transcendent and ineffable One is the source (arche) of all beings and the ultimate goal of philosophizing. Since the One “fills all things,” it is “everywhere” and “nowhere.” The supreme Principle transcends Being and Intellect, which constitute the second divine hypostasis. In this respect the Neoplatonic One is analogous to the ancient Egyptian Nun (or the hidden Amun), the ineffable Principle from which the solar Intellect, Atum-Ra, emerges along with the entire noetic cosmos. Thus, the three Plotinian hypostases, namely, the One (to hen), Intellect (nous), and Soul (psuche) are close to the Egyptian theological triads such as Nun, Atum-Ra, Osiris, or Amun, Ra, Ptah. According to Plotinus, Hesiod’s three gods—Ouranos, Kronos, and Zeus—are also equiva-lent to those metaphysical principles: Ouranos represents the One, Kronos the Intellect, Zeus the Soul. The mutilation of Ouranos in the Hesiod myth may be interpreted as Intellect’s return towards the One, and the binding of Kronos in chains means that Intellect keeps the pure Ideas apart from matter.

[Anonymous No.22142406]

>>22142281
How can consciousness not think? I suppose the consciousness grants it a "personable identity" (for the lack of a better word, trying to describe what makes it a "Self"). But what makes something conscious then, and how is thinking separate from consciousness?

[Anonymous No.22142408]

>>22141334
>the Greeks don't seem talk about consciousness or awareness as distinct from the intellect,
Filtered, as soon as Plotinus recognized an absolute ineffable principle as the true reality (one without second) which transcends the intellect and being, he agrees in essence with Advaita Vedanta, and the discussion is ended. Where neoplatonism diverges is in the focus on theurgy, which is essentially an attempt to permute those non-intelligent substances, essentially tantrism, in the enneads Plotinus talks about the absence of duality in this principle which transcends intellect, but that the intellect is illuminated and is divinized by it, the consequences of which is essentially the justification for tantra and theurgy, he writes in a great way about beauty too, and how beauty or perfection can actually manifest in the individual through spiritual discipline, which is not an impossibility to the Hindu at all.

[Anonymous No.22142422]

>>22142399
>You are actually wrong. The one does not Think in the neoplatonism of Plotinus,
?? I never said that the One does think in Neoplatonism so I’m not sure why you are saying I did. I’m already aware of the interpretation of the One as Atman in Plotinus, and have even cited the passages myself where he refers to the One as autos (self) when discussing this with other people before, but this isn’t by any means the standard view of Plotinus and various scholars disagree with it, so I don’t uncritically present it as being his view. The Enneads span from over the course of his life and some passages seem to go against this interpretation while others agree with it.

[Anonymous No.22142428]

>>22142408
>which transcends the intellect and being, he agrees in essence with Advaita Vedanta, and the discussion is ended
He doesn’t explicitly identify it with pure consciousness/awareness though. I personally think that he was keyed into the same idea but that he just doesn’t draw out the distinction as clearly and explicitly in a self-conscious as the Indians do, which is really all I meant by that.

[Anonymous No.22142430]

>>22142428
*in a self-conscious manner

[Anonymous No.22142465]

>>22142406
>How can consciousness not think?
The Indian schools that were mentioned hold that consciousness does not think because it’s just a partless and self-disclosing immediately-present awareness that transcends subject and object. Thinking is a part of the display of phenomena that is presented to this awareness, that is why you can describe different types of thoughts, each with their own distinct quality that differentiates it from another, because they are appearing to/within awareness as part of the non-aware display and thus allow themselves to be known as objective content, this is similar to seeing different types of trees in the external world.

> I suppose the consciousness grants it a "personable identity" (for the lack of a better word, trying to describe what makes it a "Self"). But what makes something conscious then, and how is thinking separate from consciousness?
The intellect isn’t conscious except in an indirect sense, which is compared by Shankara and I’m sure other thinkers as well to how an iron ball is said to burn things even though it was really the fire which imparted the heat to the iron ball and thus allowed it to have the capacity to burn something. The Atman/Purusha can be said to be conscious because it is inherently self-aware of itself, not in the sense of taking itself as its own object but in the sense that its immediate self-disclosure or self-revealing of itself to itself as self-aware presence is the basic nature of itself and not some additional action/function which is over and above or in addition to its nature. Thought involves some additional content besides this simple and self-intuiting immediate presence.

[Anonymous No.22142467]

>>22142428
>He doesn’t explicitly identify it with pure consciousness/awareness though. I personally think that he was keyed into the same idea but that he just doesn’t draw out the distinction as clearly and explicitly in a self-conscious as the Indians do, which is really all I meant by that.
He doesn't but when Plotinus in the enneads talks about an awareness he calls pure seeing, which is indicated by the absence of seer and the object seen, - he excludes the mediate principle between seer/seen but in transcending both that is implied, to me I read that as essentially him referring to an intuitive vision of the atman, I think we essentially agree. Plotinus fundamentally says One = Self, all the extra speculation about existences, intellect, motion and rest, life etc. Are in Being which the One/Self transcends, as Pure Seeing/intuition, well whatever I read into whatever what I like to and I create my own meaning. I do not mean to enter into a debate or argumemt with youmor anything. Happy moksha to you

[Anonymous No.22142472]

>>22142465

Here is S. Dasgupta elaborating on this basic idea:

The fact of consciousness is entirely different from everything else. So long as the assemblage of the physical or physiological conditions antecedent to the rise of any cognition, as for instance, the presence of illumination, sense-object contact, etc., is being prepared, there is no knowledge, and it is only at a particular moment that the cognition of an object arises. This cognition is in its nature so much different from each and all the elements constituting the so-called assemblage of conditions, that it cannot in any sense be regarded as the product of any collocation of conditions. Consciousness thus, not being a product of anything and not being further analysable into any constituents, cannot also be regarded as a momentary flashing. Uncaused and unproduced, it is eternal, infinite and unlimited. The main point in which consciousness differs from everything else is the fact of its self-revelation. There is no complexity in consciousness. It is extremely simple, and its only essence or characteristic is pure self-revelation.

The so-called momentary flashing of consciousness is not due to the fact that it is momentary, that it rises into being and is then destroyed the next moment, but to the fact that the objects that are revealed by it are reflected through it from time to time. But the consciousness is always steady and unchangeable in itself. The immediacy of this consciousness is proved by the fact that, though everything else is manifested by coming in touch with it, it itself is never expressed, indicated or manifested by inference or by any other process, but is always self-manifested and self-revealed. All objects become directly revealed to us as soon as they come in touch with it.

Consciousness is one. It is neither identical with its objects nor on the same plane with them as a constituent element in a collocation of them and consciousness. The objects of consciousness or all that is manifested in consciousness come in touch with consciousness and themselves appear as consciousness. This appearance is such that, when they come in touch with consciousness, they themselves flash forth as consciousness, though that operation is nothing but a false appearance of the non-conscious objects and mental states in the light of consciousness, as being identical with it. But the intrinsic difference between consciousness and its objects is that the former is universal and constant, while the latter are particular and alternating. The awarenesses of a book, a table, etc. appear to be different not because these are different flashings of knowledge, but because of the changing association of consciousness with these objects. The objects do not come into being with the flashings of their awareness, but they have their separate existence and spheres of operation.

[Anonymous No.22142473]

>>22142472

Consciousness is one and unchanging; it is only when the objects get associated with it that they appear in consciousness and as identical with it in such a way that the flashing of an object in consciousness appears as the flashing of the consciousness itself. It is through an illusion that the object of consciousness and consciousness appear to be welded together into such an integrated whole, that their mutual difference escapes our notice, and that the object of consciousness, which is only like an extraneous colour applied to consciousness, does not appear different or extraneous to it, but as a specific mode of the consciousness itself. Thus what appear as but different awarenesses, as book-cognition, table-cognition, are not in reality different awarenesses, but one unchangeable consciousness successively associated with ever-changing objects which falsely appear to be integrated with it and give rise to the appearance that qualitatively different kinds of consciousness are flashing forth from moment to moment. Consciousness cannot be regarded as momentary.

For, had it been so, it would have appeared different at every different moment. If it is urged that, though different consciousnesses are arising at each different moment, yet on account of extreme similarity this is not noticed; then it may be replied that, if there is difference between the two consciousnesses of two successive moments, then such difference must be grasped either by a different consciousness or by the same consciousness. In the first alternative the third awareness, which grasps the first two awarenesses and their difference, must either be identical with them, and in that case the difference between the three awarenesses would vanish; or it may be different from them, and in that case, if another awareness be required to comprehend their difference and that requires another and so on, there would be a vicious infinite (regress).

[Anonymous No.22142477]

>>22142473

If the difference be itself said to be identical with the nature of the consciousness, and if there is nothing to apprehend this difference, then the nonappearance of the difference implies the non-appearance of the consciousness itself; for by hypothesis the difference has been held to be identical with the consciousness itself. The non-appearance of difference, implying the non-appearance of consciousness, would mean utter blindness. The difference between the awareness of one moment and another cannot thus either be logically proved, or realized in experience, which always testifies to the unity of awareness through all moments of its appearance.

It may be held that the appearance of unity is erroneous, and that, as such, it presumes that the awarenesses are similar; for without such a similarity there could not have been the erroneous appearance of unity. But, unless the difference of the awarenesses and their similarity be previously proved, there is nothing which can even suggest that the appearance of unity is erroneous. It cannot be urged that, if the existence of difference and similarity between the awarenesses of two different moments can be proved to be false, then only can the appearance of unity be proved to be true; for the appearance of unity is primary and directly proved by experience. Its evidence can be challenged only if the existence of difference between the awarenesses and their similarity be otherwise proved. The unity of awareness is a recognition of the identity of the awarenesses, which is self-evident.

source:

https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/a-history-of-indian-philosophy-volume-2/d/doc209866.html

See also for additional clarification:

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Intentionality-and-Presence%3A-On-the-Intrinsic-of-a-Fasching/0e54daf69f40fe2d4318e04b777c264693c72a16

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Prak%C4%81%C5%9Ba.-A-few-reflections-on-the-Advaitic-of-as-of-Fasching/b0d194d3546abd490c22c32f3131aa27589c7645

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Consciousness%2C-self-consciousness%2C-and-meditation-Fasching/e0cc76d8c200d9dca2ea6a5719861f5672b7c7b2

[Anonymous No.22142478]

Why would Guenon agree with Averroes, the Muslim who tried to refute Sufi metaphysics, when Guenon repeatedly refers to the metaphysics of Ibn Arabi and Al-Farabi as esoteric truths?

[Anonymous No.22142479]

>>22142465
I want to know what you think about the relationship between trauma and a the dissolution of the ego? In early childhood this experience is often premature, and neuroses follow. What would shankara say? I have read biographies of modern advaita sages and they are always called young to it, and usually they have the characteristic "disassociation" or enmeshment symptoms, and have childhoods. I can't help but feel there is a connection between derealization/depersonalization and childhood trauma-induced disassociation and the "idea" of an advaitin sage, always quiet etc.

I say this as someone who was not self-aware discovered advaita and was always quiet never fir in as a kid etc. Never had a real sense of individuality and thought hecken based, then did psychedelics and realized I was in an abnormal trauma-induced state, of weak-individuality which is why I was so attracted to the vision of advaita and shankara in the first place, a detachmemt which I could be saved from the fluctuations of life.

[Anonymous No.22142484]

>>22142479
I am now more interested in building up my individuality, and reinforcing multiplicity and complexity, so I can appreciate life more as opposed to dispassionate shit like
"Woman etc. Is a modification of flesh, shit, skin, fat etc." I think I still have a long way to go, whilst I even still acknowledge the truth of advaita, something about it feels like a sort of castration - which it technically shouldn't because - affirmation of absolute positive existence, being should be the opposite. I just feel like I need an ego to begin with before I can really appreciate that positive existence reality.

[Anonymous No.22142517]

>>22142479
>>22142484
Trauma is a default state of existence for unenlightened beings, it's what keeps them craving after the pleasant and averting the unpleasant (mortal beings are not self-sufficient, and therefore always in need of something to help them). Trauma can be seen as a new term for the ancient notion of karma (not to imply, however, that victims deserve what they received). Advaita's basic goal, along with Buddhism also, is removing the stain of karma from your existence, which extends indefinitely. There is good karma and bad karma, and one leads to the other cyclically, because no matter how good your actions are, there will always be traces of the other gunas in yourself so long as you are a manifested being (manifestation = subjection to the gunas) who enjoys the fruits of their actions. So yes, you can reverse your traumatic experiences and lead a "better life." But ultimately you will still be trapped within the duality of "good" and "bad", unless you actively pursue the Truth which, if attained, is supposed to cleanse you of all stain (of good and bad). The point of these doctrines is understanding that both "good" (e.g., a "productive", "non-traumatic" life) and "bad" are both insufficient, and that one will inevitably lead to the other in time. You're reinforcing your ego in this post >>22142484 as part of that cyclical karmic response, which is desire (for the pleasant) and aversion (to the unpleasant). Of course, bettering yourself is a good thing indeed, but it needs to be done with the highest aim in sight, otherwise you will continue running circles. Instead of desiring multiplicity and illusory individuality (which will cease when you die, receive brain damage, etc.), desire the absolute good and unity, which encompasses multiplicity within it without being bound by it. Pursue truth, honesty, kindness, wisdom, unity, justice, charity. Make sacrifices (which requires strength of character, not "weak-individuality") to display your devotion to that which is supreme over yourself. In this way you demonstrate your strength of character, while also demonstrating its relative position in relation to what is Absolute, i.e. renouncing pride.

[Anonymous No.22142548]

>>22142517
>which is desire (for the pleasant) and aversion (to the unpleasant).
Yes absolutely, I am still a young man and inexperienced, I really do desire at least a taste of the pleasant, it's a feeling which goes beyond my conditioned personality - which is trauma-induced which actually made me align with dispassionate renunciation, but after getting a taste of "experience" through psychedelics as I said I realized how artificial that spirit of renunciation was in my case, it was merely a response or reaction no matter how intellectualized to a shitty childhood, where I was exposed to the impermanence and futility of things just by living,
Even so, after the drug induced experience I realize that I do Want, I really want the pleasant indeed, if I had my taste of the pleasant and good to begin with and then came to the realization of the impermanence of it, I would indeed have a more impassive spirit of renunciation, but because I am merely coming from the opposite scenario, trauma and unpleasantness, I feel like I am getting cuckolded by existence if I reject the pleasantness which I never even got to experience. I feel like shankara and these brahmins are like rich buddhas telling peasants and people with shittty lives who have never had the riches to reject, to reject riches, it just seems odd and unfair. I don't remember some previous lifetime where it was any different.
>desire the absolute good and unity, which encompasses multiplicity within it without being bound by it. Pursue truth, honesty, kindness, wisdom, unity, justice, charity. Make sacrifices (which requires strength of character, not "weak-individuality") to display your devotion to that which is supreme over yourself. In this way you demonstrate your strength of character, while also demonstrating its relative position in relation to what is Absolute, i.e. renouncing pride.
Yeah absolutely, anyway I have a lot of "work" to do, even though I read and agree that the shankaran spontaneous effortless realization demands no work, just the right conditions which I essentially lack.
I think all humans become tired eventually , still since life feels so short in years, I wouldn't mind living another one in a better situation where I do have access to those pleasant objects and experiences which I have lacked in this one, I do choose a better life as opposed to an enlightened no life, until I attain am objectively better life, I refuse to quit the cycle! Hahaha I guess it will never end for me

[Anonymous No.22142553]

>>22142548
And of course I know that shankara recommends poverty, renunciation of wealth etc. But still I feel like that is unecesserily nihilistic, for example I read in an advaitin text that jnanis like king janaka who rule their realm whilst intuiting the absolute reality are actually of the highest order. I want to at least have a pleasant worldly condition before I go all the way into this, not just some malformed individuality coper.

[Anonymous No.22142896]

>>22142465
>
The Indian schools that were mentioned hold that consciousness does not think because it’s just a partless and self-disclosing immediately-present awareness that transcends subject and object.
Is there simply no need to think, e.g. due to having omniscience? Is thinking predicated on there being change, yet this conscious entity is eternal, actualized, etc., and does not change? Is that the wrong way of looking at it and the point is to simply recognize the "unity" of its "thinking" which precludes the ability to think distinct thoughts as we know it besides this immediate, transcendent awareness?

[Anonymous No.22142901]

>>22142465
>The Indian schools that were mentioned hold that consciousness does not think because it’s just a partless and self-disclosing immediately-present awareness that transcends subject and object.
Is there simply no need to think, e.g. due to having omniscience? Is thinking predicated on there being change, yet this conscious entity is eternal, actualized, etc., and does not change? Is that the wrong way of looking at it and the point is to simply recognize the "unity" of its "thinking" which precludes the ability to think distinct thoughts as we know it besides this immediate, transcendent awareness?

[Anonymous No.22143604]

bump

[Anonymous No.22144740]

bump

[Anonymous No.22145709]

>>22142553
>And of course I know that shankara recommends poverty, renunciation of wealth etc.
He only recommends it for Brahmins who want to seek moksha while their body is still alive, but he says for everyone else it's more proper and fitting to practice karma-yoga or some equivalent spiritual practice (bhakti-yoga, tantra, hatha yoga etc or equivalent stuff in other religions) that still elevates oneself spiritually but which isn't going all the way like renunciate jnana-yoga; people who excel at this later path can enter the Brahmaloka at death and eventually reach moksha there instead of transmigrating to another body.

>But still I feel like that is unecesserily nihilistic, for example I read in an advaitin text that jnanis like king janaka who rule their realm whilst intuiting the absolute reality are actually of the highest order.
Janaka is the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is actually ignorant and he is instructed by Yajnavalkya over the course of the text, Shankara says monasticism helps severs all bonds that stand in the way of moksha, and that in rare cases someone who isn't a monk could be liberated by the right instruction, but that such a person would eventually naturally enter into monasticism because they would have no reason to continue to occupy any position in secular society if they don't consider themselves to be an individual anymore (as opposed to supra-individual) he only makes an exception for someone continuing temporarily so as to provide a good example to others in certain situations but that even this kind of person would eventually enter into it. It's therefore implied that Janaka eventually became a monk. A possible reasonable exception in the modern world would be someone who occupies some role to provide bare sustenance but while still living basically a spartan-like barebones celibate monk lifestyle while doing so, which is what Nisargadatta Maharaj basically did.

> I want to at least have a pleasant worldly condition before I go all the way into this,
Any and all desire/attachment stands in the way of moksha, if you aren't ready now then you simply aren't ready now, you have plenty of time. You can also follow a less direct spiritual path and thereby possibly attain moksha later some time after death (or otherwise be reborn into a more auspicious life), if you aren't a Brahmin then it's not your destiny/dharma to be a sannyasin monk in the first place (traditionally at least although there is variance in practice across history). For the qualified person who successfully assimilate the teaching fully, all possible objections against monasticism really become irrelevant or non-starters, at that point you don't care about what other people may object to about it.

[Anonymous No.22145749]

>>22142517
wow. The Eastern dialect on this kind of metaphysic is so profound. As a follower of Christ, I wonder how karmic cycles translate into Western religious thinking.

[Anonymous No.22145797]

>>22142901
>Is there simply no need to think, e.g. due to having omniscience?
The one Self of all beings is already eternally free and liberated without beginning, this is equally true of the catatonic, the lowest IQ retards and the greatest savants and sages alike, as also bugs and plants. The need for anything is relative to what your goal is, if you want some practical end then you have to think about it. If you want to be liberated/enlightened or even start to approach it and make spiritual progress that grants entry to Brahmaloka or sows positive and uplifting karmic seeds that fruition in the future, then you have to study spiritual teachings (preferably coupled with a practice and involvement in a tradition) with all the subtle and arcane thinking that this involves. Simply stopping thought won't make you enlightened because there is the base ignorance/false understanding that will remain when thought is suppressed, and this is only uprooted by spiritual insight/enlightenment/gnosis.

>Is thinking predicated on there being change
The world of phenomena that thinking takes place in is constantly changing, yes.
>yet this conscious entity is eternal, actualized, etc., and does not change?
yes

>Is that the wrong way of looking at it and the point is to simply recognize the "unity" of its "thinking" which precludes the ability to think distinct thoughts as we know it besides this immediate, transcendent awareness?
Yes, that is wrong, you don't have to suppress or preclude distinct thoughts to realize/sense it, it's actually constantly self-revealing, even right now, but this is only made evident and this awareness fully realized when the ignorance (which is not simply an absence of knowledge but involves misunderstanding) obscuring it is corrected, like how when the curtain is pulled back the stage is revealed automatically to the audience without any additional action being needed by them to know it since they are already facing it. It's so incredibly difficult to understand this based on 3rd hand descriptions or reading one or two texts though, IMO you have to pretty much read all of Shankara's commentaries (like ~4k pages) to get a decent firsthand understanding of his explanation of how awareness/Atman differs from other things and the misunderstandings that people have about it, since there are so many subtitles to it and questions that can only be understood by seeing firsthand how he treats the subject and all the things that come up in relation to it. The only thing that can really act as a substitute for patiently studying his works (or that can come close to doing so) is being the direct disciple of a fully realized teacher.

[Anonymous No.22145802]

>>22145709
*Janaka in the Brihadaranyaka is presented as being ignorant in the beginning of the text

[Anonymous No.22145804]

>>22145709
i agree in general part of me is still indeed attached to sensual life, during psychedelics I experienced total silence - if I can put it that way, and something inside me was born which went "I want" and I felt "heavenly sensations" is the best way to put it, I realized then that I am not yet ready to detach from sensory stimulation, I had a typical rebirth feeling, before that I felt my consciousness is expanding and becoming one with all manifestation - then I entered that total silence then I actively went I want and I experienced literal birth or generation, it was like the recalling of my birth. I feel as if I am here by my own power in this body now, that I am here to appreciate life to it's fullest whilst giving no thought to detachment.

[Anonymous No.22145810]

>>22145804
Anyway there is no rush, and I have time to think over things, thanks for your help.