>>25255229
Based and Hegelpilled

File: 1746831294236265.png (107 KB, 1565x398)

107 KB PNG

I simply will not read corrupted, interpolated texts

>>25255229
> Nothing can be said of the emptiness that is the naked soul in itself
According to who? Not your opponent, you first have to demonstrate this is correct in order to base arguments on that foundation, which you never did but you instead just begged the question.

>it is indifferent, the only thing that separates you from me is solely binary otherness.
>Therefore this is not my self
This is presuming that the self in question must necessarily be individual instead of supra-individual or trans-individual, Advaitins teach that the latter is one of the main teachings of the Upanishads.

>this 'something' that weeps and loves cannot be saved, "this" who actually knows pain and joy is according to this not real.
That sensation of pain or joy is revealed by an immediate self-luminous awareness which is you, yet which is not reducible to that sensation, that immediate awareness itself never actually suffers or weeps or loves, all of those are properties of the mind which is revealer by free supernal awareness as an object is illuminated by the sun.

>But here is the only place where things can matter, how then can the indifferent matter?
If a mirror is the only place you see your race reflected back at you, does that render your face completely and utterly unimportant?

>I am only this fleeting moment of passion and it is lovelier than all eternity.
The indifferent is indifferent to me.
What you find lovely about it is ultimately nothing other than the fullness and fulfilled peaceful serene presence of that immediate awareness becoming more evident as desires temporarily recede or cease to pull on oneself as they are satiated, satiation of desires leads to a state where when the desire for external fulfillment has been temporarily quieted, leading to the the already-complete and perfect nature of the Self shining through in experience as elation or bliss.


An overall uninformed take by OP offered under an air of pseudo-sophistication.

3/10

The points granted were due to at least attempting to engage with the topic.

>>25255566
> corrupted, interpolated texts

(The Bhagavad Gita is) "The most beautiful, perhaps the only true philosophical song existing in any known tongue ....perhaps the deepest and loftiest thing the world has to show."
- Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767 – 1835)

"In the morning I bathe my intellect in the stupendous and cosmogonal philosophy of the Bhagavat Geeta, since whose composition years of the gods have elapsed, and in comparison with which our modern world and its literature seem puny and trivial…"
- Henry David Thoreau (1817 – 1862)

"I owed a magnificent day to the Bhagavad-gita. It was the first of books; it was as if an empire spoke to us, nothing small or unworthy, but large, serene, consistent, the voice of an old intelligence which in another age and climate had pondered and thus disposed of the same questions which exercise us."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 – 1882)

File: Phanes-God-of-light-truth(...).jpg (393 KB, 850x1225)

393 KB JPG

>>25255649
>According to who?
All nondualists (crypto gnostics—buddhists, Advaitins, Christians).
>that immediate awareness itself never actually suffers or weeps or loves,
Exactly. Therefore it is not me.
>satiation
The fact that we are Here but originated in the Satiated state shows that it does not exist. The abyss/void/waters/apeiron/emptiness/nirvana/Brahman/Buddha-Nature... is revealed by our separation from it to be nothing but absolute longing, the insatiable itself, the unseeing eye lusting to adore the Other. Therefore this to and fro state of flux from satiation to desire is in fact not a fall from Self but the flight away from mere self. THIS is theosis, we are in the midst of God's ascension out of the waters. We are the Apotheosis of the Autotheon. The Absolute does not yet exist.

>>25255925
>All nondualists
That's false and is at best a strawman, almost none of them say "nothing can be said about it", what they instead usually say is "It cannot be fully communicated through words" which means something completely different. They affirm that it's a peaceful, serene, self-aware plenitude of fullness and freedom, and that it's fully present in every epistemic act and perception while also playing a metaphysical role on top of an epistemological one. All of these can be affirmed as true statements while nonetheless failing to completely and exhaustively communicate Its nature in words.

>Exactly. Therefore it is not me.
That you say this is simply because you are operating under a condition of ignorance whereby you are confusing Self and non-Self for each other, analogous to taking the reflection-image of your face in a mirror to be your true face.

The face is indeed thought by men to be the same as the face in a mirror, for the reflection of the face is seen to be of the form of the face. And because they do not discriminate between this [ātman] which becomes falsely manifest in that [intellect] and that [intellect] in which this [ātman] becomes falsely manifest, all people naturally use the verb “jānāti.” Superimposing the agency of the intellect [upon ātman], [they] say that the knower “knows.” In like manner superimposing the pure consciousness [of ātman upon the intellect], [they] say in this world that the intellect is the knower. - Śaṅkara, Upadeśasāhasrī 179

The intellect and its acts, like emotions, rage, lust, craving, amusement etc cannot be you because they are another non-Self objective content revealed by the luminous sentience of immediate and self-evident Awareness. This Awareness cannot itself be established as being subject to any of the conditions or changes that the intellect is.

>>25255925
>>25256026

"Sureśvara, one of the direct disciples of Śaṅkara, sharpens his position further by formulating a strictly transcendental and modal argument from epistemic invariance in the Naiṣkarmyasiddhi that concerns the conditions of possibility of cognition as such. The core claim is not that awareness is felt as invariant, but that the intelligibility of epistemic predication logically requires a non-derivative, non-episodic illuminative principle. Any intellective state, such as a belief, perception, inference, error, or absence thereof, is identifiable as that state only insofar as it is determinately characterizable. Determinacy, however, entails contrast, exclusion, and modal contingency: this rather than that, now rather than then, true rather than false. What is thus determinate cannot ground its own determinacy without circularity, since the act of determination already presupposes the very intelligibility it seeks to explain.

If awareness were itself an intellective act or property of an act, it would inherit this modal dependence and would therefore require a further condition to be identifiable as awareness rather than non-awareness. This generates an unavoidable regress unless one posits a principle whose being is identical with its intelligibility, in other words something that does not become manifest but is manifest by virtue of what it is. Crucially, this conclusion does not rest on phenomenology but on a minimal logical constraint: there must be at least one element in the epistemic economy whose disclosure is not mediated by form, contrast, or operation, otherwise no disclosure could occur at all. Such a principle must be immutable (since change presupposes contrastive apprehension), partless (since parts require unification), and indeterminate (since determination presupposes illumination). On this account, intellect is necessarily secondary and derivative, while luminous awareness is not an explanandum within the epistemic system but its transcendental condition, something that is denied only at the cost of rendering denial itself unintelligible."

Thus the truth of non-dualism: Awareness is already primordially free, absolute, naturally perfect and unconditioned. Everything else is ultimately just an elaborate cope which begins by assuming a level of bondage/imperfection in Awareness which never actually occurs or is otherwise encountered in immediate experience.

In order to disagree with the non-dual thesis you have to take ignorant assumptions not based on anything factual, provable or demonstrable as your starting point of opposition.

>>25255925
>>25256027

>The fact that we are Here but originated in the Satiated state shows that it does not exist.
1) this is a non-sequitur
2) Awareness is always naturally completely fulfilled and satiated, it only depends on whether one recognizes this natural perfection or not.
>The abyss/void/waters/apeiron/emptiness/nirvana/Brahman/Buddha-Nature... is revealed by our separation from it to be nothing but absolute longing, the insatiable itself, the unseeing eye lusting to adore the Other.
No, that's false, it is revealed as a completeness that is absent of any longing or imperfection, and when one learns to naturally abides in it the root of dissatisfaction is itself permanently uprooted and there is no departure ever again from the unalienable natural perfection and completion in everything. Incorrectly describing the idea you are engaging with is not a logically valid argument.

>Therefore this to and fro state of flux from satiation to desire is in fact not a fall from Self but the flight away from mere self. THIS is theosis, we are in the midst of God's ascension out of the waters. We are the Apotheosis of the Autotheon. The Absolute does not yet exist.
It seems like you simply got heavily filtered by non-dualism and are trying to cope by coming up with strategies to metaphysically-justify basic normie/conventional assumptions about the soul and bondage that are ultimately false, rooted in ignorance, and are actually in fact contradicted at the level of empirical experience which actually supports non-dualism. And then you try to couch the intellectual bankruptcy of this in poetic language.

Also, a non-existing God conjuring itself up out of nothing through a process of undergoing change after previously being powerless and non-existent was refuted by basically every Greek, Christian, Muslim and Indian metaphysician who ever lived. You are basically just a goofy twitter larper reviving some obscure meme ideology at that point.

>>25256032
>Awareness is always naturally completely fulfilled and satiated, it only depends on whether one recognizes this natural perfection or not
The depths of delusion.
True self-knowledge is only the horror of the absolute incompleteness of the empty Self. And the utter need for the the eternal object of perfection—Agathon. The Beloved. Whom Soul loves. And God is the Love of the Lover and the Beloved—the insatiable desire and the overflowing Good. That He overflows is why Satiation is the true impermanence. For Heaven cannot be exhausted, and the shining stars peers down and found something new that no one knew. Again and Again completeness finds herself incomplete. For God exceeds the infinite and eclipses eternity.

>>25256050
> The depths of delusion.
True self-knowledge is only the horror of the absolute incompleteness of the empty Self.
Maybe if you are a masochist or a foolish nihilist who wants to wallow in misery, suffering and a sense of dissatisfaction, but there is no good reason metaphysically, spirituality, logically or epistemologically to take that view.

>And the utter need for the the eternal object of perfection—Agathon.
True and lasting satisfaction is only found within. Your error is in erroneously assuming yourself to be incomplete and lacking from the beginning, when this isn’t actually substantiated in experience.

If you start from an erroneous flawed basis as you are doing you will arrive at erroneous flawed conclusions. Also, stop larping as a Neoplatonist when they all thought your model was garbage and none of them teach the One undergoing any real modification or becoming.

>The Beloved. Whom Soul loves.
Already retroactively refuted by the Upanishads

“it is not for the sake of all things are all things dear, but for the sake of the Self they are dear” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.4.5).

>>25256032
>conjuring itself up out of nothing through a process of undergoing change after previously being powerless
>he doesn't know
The Ineffable cannot be remembered.
The child of satiation is separation, the consequence of separation is desire, the flame of desire is be quenched in truth and beauty and goodness. The child of quenching the flames of joy is satiation...
Love sires lovers seeking their love. You cannot empty what overflows, and you cannot fill the infinitely fertile womb.
The objects of perfection are infinite and no eternity reaches an end to the children of love and beauty in the Good.

>>25256140
Do you have any real and logically valid argument or are you just going to spam sappy hallmark-giftcard tier platitudes as a kind of substitution for valid arguments?

>>25256145
You could read Coffin Texts Spell 75 and 78-80
Epic of Gilgamesh
Ginza Rabba
Plato Symposium and Republic
Tap The Ching (Stephen Addiss and Stanley Lombardo translation)
Plotinus Enneads VI.8
Nirvana Sutra
And Tantraloka.

Of old, these came to be in possession of the One:
Heaven in virtue of the One is limpid;
Earth in virtue of the One is settled;
Gods in virtue of the One have their potencies;
The valley in virtue of the One is full;
The myriad creatures in virtue of the One are alive;
Lords and princes in virtue of the One become leaders in
the empire.
It is the One that makes these what they are. (XXXIX, 85)
The point is pressed home by what immediately follows,
Without what makes it limpid heaven might split;
Without what makes it settled earth might sink;
Without what gives them their potencies gods might spend
themselves;
Without what makes it full the valley might run dry;
Without what keeps them alive the myriad creatures might
perish;
Without what makes them leaders lords and princes might
fall. (85a)
If this tao which is behind the universe is to be described in physical terms, this is the result:
Its upper part is not dazzling;
Its lower part is not obscure.
Dimly visible, it cannot be named
And returns to that which is without substance.
This is called the shape that has no shape,
The image that is without substance.
This is called indistinct and shadowy.
Go up to it and you will not see its head;
Follow behind it and you will not see its rear (XIV 33);
and
As a thing the way is
Shadowy, indistinct.
Indistinct and shadowy,
Yet within it is an image;
Shadowy and indistinct,
Yet within it is a substance.
Dim and dark,
Yet within it is an essence.
This essence is quite genuine
And within it is something that can be tested (XXI, 49),
and
There is a thing confusedly formed,
Born before heaven and earth.
Silent and void
It stands alone and does not change,
Goes round and does not weary, (XXV, 56)

>>25256136
>“it is not for the sake of all things are all things dear, but for the sake of the Self they are dear” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.4.5).
Ironic how this affirms what I say and contradict (you)
I.e All Beauties and Goods are dear (loved) by the Self (Eros and Psyche, Matter, Soul, Zoe, Desire, Life—Dionysus.) Nothing is dear to what is indifferent.

>>25256258
>Tantraloka
Nice try pseud, but Abhinavagupta and other Trika authors heavily disagrees with your view and is much closer to the classical non-dualism of the Advaita model, often just making explicit what is already present informally in Classical Advaita. In Trika the highest universal reality of Paramashiva remains forever unconditioned, formless, immutable infinite Awareness which is totally unmodified by the contraction of its Sakti as the appearances of individual Jivas which are brought about via Its svatantrya.

Trika totally rejects the idea that the Highest One is doomed to some cycle of eternally entering and re-entering bondage, they say that each individual awareness is in fact identical already with the universal formless already eternally-liberated Awareness of the Paramashiva which is not bound. Both Trika and Advaita both say that each Self of every living being is already primordially liberated/free/perfect and identical with the highest Absolute, only the particular mechanism of how this undivided One appears as a plurality of souls is explained differently.

Trika’s Svatantrya is just formalizing what is already implicit in the Adisthana-nature of the Advaitic Nirguna Brahman, this svatantrya is described as non-volitional like breathing which in practice is hardly different from the Advaitic explanation of Maya proceeding as a derivative appearance from Brahman’s own nature/sakti non-volitionally and effortlessly. It’s some willed effort motivated by anything like a lack or desire or an emotion.

Trika also doesn’t endorse that gay sentimental nonsense about how the point of existence is to be eternally stuffing our faces or satiating base desires in objects, they rather say the whole question or “remain in samsara versus seek permanent unembodied freedom” is rendered meaningless by the realization that you are in your real identity the already-free universal field of Paramashiva formless absolute Awareness.

So, on the following points Trika & Abhinavagupta actually side with Classical Advaita over whatever dualistic sentimental pseudoplatonist garbage you are advocating:

1) The Self in each living being is already free and is the ultimate bliss/fulfillment Itself
2) The Self in each being is already identical with the Universal Self
3) The Universal Self is unmodified by its derivative appearances, i.e. Its not subject in any way to their ‘becoming’
4) The purpose of existence is not to chase after duality but to awaken to non-duality.
5) All duality ultimately gives way at the highest level of reality to non-duality, there is no ‘base’ or ‘primordial’ divine Other we are estranged from
6) The manifestation of the world is not driven by any lack or emotion in the Absolute or by any relation to anything other than Itself.

Guenon also shows in his works the convergence of Daoism with Classical non-dualism, but its clear from the above you are just citing random shit you dont understand.

>>25256268
>Ironic how this affirms what I say and contradict (you)
False, because what that Upanishad is teaching there is that the reason why empirical fulfillment feels positively luminous rather than merely neutral, and why objects repeatedly fail to provide lasting satisfaction is because they are misrecognized loci of a bliss that is in fact non-relational and ever-present as one’s own innermost Awareness and Self and which is not actually be found anywhere external, thus ordinary ignorant people operate under a misdirected search for an already-given plenitude. This is the opposite of your view and it actually seems to be one of the key points that you are getting filtered by, and is another point where Tantric non-dualism like Trika and Daoism side with Advaita over your view.

>>25256371
*It’s explicitly stated to NOT BE some willed effort motivated by anything like a lack or desire or an emotion (both in Trika & Advaita)

>>25255229
What's the issue? Yes, the life of the soul is more important than the life of the body. That's exactly why doing the right thing is more important than the material outcome. The body always dies, but immorality kills the soul.

>>25256371
That the dance of love never ends is the true immutable and impassable nature of the Ineffable.

>>25256833
>That the dance of love never ends is the true immutable and impassable nature of the Ineffable
Maybe in your meme cobbled-together patchwork worldview that literally nobody but you subscribes to but not in most Eastern traditions including Daoism, Vajrayana, Sufism, non-dual Vedanta and Tantra

In the Highest Reality in both Abhinvagupta’s Trika and Classical Advaita there is no love, just uninterrupted partless non-dual indeterminate immaculate unconditioned infinite ever-free divine light. Love in a literal sense is only a derivative, relational modality of expression that is parasitic upon and presupposes this non-relational basic Reality. Thus, love in a literal or human sense actually has really nothing to do directly with the nature of the Absolute, and its wrong to claim that view as the view of either non-dual Vedanta or non-dual Tantra like Trika. Love in relation to the Absolute is only true in a figurative sense where derivative modes of expression (‘reflections of the principle’) are figuratively interpreted as love in relation to the highest Principle/Reality.

Trika, just like Advaita, also holds that when someone attains perfect enlightenment they normally stop transmigrating and they thereafter abide as unembodied universal awareness of Paramashiva forever, their view on this is not fundamentally different from Advaita as regarding the endpoint. The idea that Trika thinks the point of existence is to always be chasing or dancing with the One but never actually attain complete and permanent union with It is just factually-wrong. They expressively deny that its the nature of the Highest Absolute Paramashiva that transmigration never comes to a permanent end for freed/enlightened souls.

Neoplatonism also fundamentally rejects that and views any attribution of love to the One as purely figurative and as being incompatible with the One’s nature in a literal sense that involves relationality.

File: Screenshot_20260506-005354~2.jpg (340 KB, 721x1998)

340 KB JPG

>>25256961
>Neoplatonism also fundamentally rejects that and views any attribution of love to the One as purely figurative
Really...

>>25257243
Yes, Plotinus is clear that its figurative throughout the Enneads, all of the later Neoplatonists are clear on this point as well, and basically all scholars are in agreement about that despite disagreements in their other interpretations. Literally nobody worth mentioning thinks Plotinus attributes any kind of non-figurative willing or love to the One as this contradicts and violates what he affirms as ultimately true about it such as its utter simplicity etc and would make it into a totally nonsensical and metaphysically-inconsistent philosophy (some would say: more than it already is)

In that passage you cited, Plotinus isn’t talking about the relational, emotional kind of human love and its frankly embarrassing that you think otherwise. He is talking about love in the abstract philosophical sense ties to self-sufficiency, unity and perfection.

This is effectively what he is saying there:

He Himself is lovable (= is ultimate object of desire because it is complete & perfect as the One), and love (not just an x that is loved but identical with principle of attraction/desire) and self-love (does not depend on anything else, is entirely ‘oriented’ inwards) insofar as he is beautiful only from and in itself (the Ones perfection is intrinsic, nor derived from anything).

This is effectively how all major Neoplatonists interpret Plotinus and Neoplatonism from his student Porphyry onwards to Proclus who is explicit that the One is not love and love merely mediates between levels. I dont know how you made such a amateur mistake, but somewhere along in your self-education you missed a few critical steps. I suggest you take a break from posting until you re-educate yourself on this topic. I’m not even a Platonist and yet I evidently have a better grasp of the Enneads than you do.

File: Roman - Bust of Plotinus (...).jpg (135 KB, 939x1260)

135 KB JPG

>>25257288
>The One is Love and Beloved
>Love is the Activity of the One
>Intellect is the Activity of the One
>Intellect has within itself the Soul and the World
>Intellect is the Love of the One for Himself (for he has only himself as his activity, his Love must = Being).
Ergo the Intellect and Soul and the World are the Love of the One for the Good.
And all things are then nothing other but the timeless and Ineffable and super essential moment of the One turning to the Good, experienced as otherness and reunion.

>>25257288
>love merely mediates between levels.
Imagining accusing to another one's own sin.
Mediator, Measurer, is the Immanence of the Good in all levels on Being. Since there is no measure other than God.
Ergo Love is the median factor in Being as a whole and in each Hypostasis of being. Meaning Mikton is the Unity of the Remaining and Proceeding. In Proclus especially the Third Moment is nothing other than the Act of God without agency in itself. Meaning every Epistrophe is the unmediated mediation of God's grace acting at each level. And ergo Epistrophe at every level is for the thing at that level the immanent realization of the Good as the Temps of each thing. And thus for each there is 'The One of Each' and for every one, then, God is uniquely known.

You will find that I am far beyond you.

>>25258718
Tldr
The Epistrophe/Conversion/Return/Union of any Effect—regardless of where in the chain of being it is—is, for that effect, a super essential henosis and experience of God. For the One of Each' thing is simply the Ineffable itself as known by Love for that thing, uniquely.

yeah man absolutely. your puny syllogistic figurations are definitely adequate to divinity. for sure. and the fault is clearly with your interlocutor if you fail to convince him.

>>25255652
>these three guys who are not Indologists and don't know how to read Sanskrit liked it, that means it doesn't matter that it's corrupt and interpolated
Huh?

File: HDllzk3W4AAjDPM.jpg (325 KB, 2048x1449)

325 KB JPG

Plotinus having multiple nuanced terms for love, gets mistranslated in its decontextualization from his own system. Eros, Aphrodite, Agape, these distinctions are muddied by unserious krauts that peddle their lebenphilosophie in their Epicurean-Straussian vital sophistry.