/fringe/ - Fringe

>>131110

It's almost as if Jewish people are individuals with varying interests.

>>131119

Cause it's one or the other right? Either every jew is an individualist or every jew is a conspirator

>thinking individual = individualist

/pol/ really is a mind virus

>>131121

Not just jews.

EVERYONE is a conspirator (conscious or not) or an individualist (many conspirators think they are individualists but when asked, would not be able to articulate anything for themselves).

Every entity is one or the other. There is no middle ground.

>>131126

It's a conspiracy of individualists against conspirators. I say we gas the individualists before they kill us all with their transnational schemes.

>>131128

Not every conspiracy is bad.

Or are you a satanist that wants to overthrow God as well? Off yourself.

>>131133

Ask god to grant you a sense of humor. Who knows, maybe he'll grant your wish.

>>131142

That's some deep insight you have for yourself, good job getting it out, but it's for you.

>>131106

Almost all the theory allowed to be shared is the nonsensical perversion. Your ego is incorporated into the Self. You are still an individual after liberation. The distortion pushed by the mongrels is that "I" don't matter. That my individuality is just an illusion, and we are actually all one thing. It's nonsense! It's spiritual suicide. This "Brahman" is always thought of as some "other" thing, and if you think of it as an "other" that's your own fault because you aren't "enlightened enough." The answer, according to these people, is to extinguish the ego.

>>131161

You are close to right, the ego is not extinguished. If a state occurs in which the ego is outright done away with, that state is not liberation, because that would be a conditioned state with a gap or a loss, and thus subject to arising and ceasing. However, as much as LHP types are right to reject the notion of going totally without an ego, solipsism is also bound to produce a great heap of nonsense ideas in which the conditioned ego believes that it is the whole of the self, which is not the case. What is the case is beyond the ego, but not its destroyer.

>>131161

How do you incorporate the ego into the self?

>>131301

Ah yes, the battle cry of every bullshit occultist since the dawn of man 'I'm powerless because I'm a level 7 ascended master so I'm beyond using my powers, trust me bro!!!'.

I don't care about religious superstitions, I care about magic, and magic is causing tangible, effective change according to your will in the physical world. If you can't do that, I don't care; you can go be an enlightened being somewhere else.

>>131161

You misunderstand, Advaita is not something that is designed to be pushed on everyone, it is only for the intellectual elite, those who have the intellectual capacity and willpower to seek total transcendence and union with the One, most people can't understand it's doctrines which are very subtle. In his commentary on the Bhagavad-Gita Adi Shankara writes about how for the lower castes the paths of devotion (bhakti-yoga) and selfless work (karma-yoga) are more appropriate than the direct path of knowledge (jnana-yoga) of Advaita.

There is no deception or hidden motive, it is only meant for those rare brilliant people who are done with phenomenal/mundane existence and its transitory results and who seek the highest. The path of Advaita leads to a undecaying fearless bliss and freedom, but to reach this you have to overcome your ego. It's not meant for everyone nor should it be. It is only for those who are intellectually qualified (it literally says this in the Brahma Sutras) and who possess the requisite qualities.

Non-dualism itself is the very pinnacle of the esoteric Hyperborean Aryan metaphysical tradition, but being the pinnacle it remains somewhat inaccessible to the masses, many of whom can't parse it because they fear letting go of unimportant phenomena and their attachments to them.

>>131301

I view Shankara's Advaita as being much closer to the truth of the Upanishads, although I still respect Prabhupada and consider his teaching to be a valid spiritual path

>>131305

Magic is the province of the lower-classes, of spiritual charlatans.

>>131323

>Magic is the province of the lower classes, of spiritual charlatans

I remember being warned against magic by people who had never done it, back when I was interested in advaita and had never even considered esoteric anything. The reason people warn against magic is because they themselves have never done it, so they don't understand its mechanics or real effects, let alone its purpose. They judge it based on what they're told secondhand or see from others, assuming that all magic is of the same type or has the same "low" or material character. It would be like if I said that all Hindus were cannibals because Aghori (full respect to them btw, they mean their nondualism for sure) eat from corpses. Those are the preliminary kinds of magical toys given to new people in order to illustrate principles in the higher stages.

Meanwhile, what do you see holy men do? Laying on hands, healing the sick, granting blessings, invoking deities or even the godhead itself in mantras, studying the nature of matter and the mind and their unity and/or interaction, warding against malign or confused influence, basically everything magicians do. "Magic," like an inverse god of the gaps, is to those who admonish against its use, relegated strictly to those acts which are considered morally dubious, and so becomes no more than a term meaning "heterodox."

As for spiritual charlatanism, that would be the same charge levied against ontological nondualists by epistemological nondualists, who could claim that ontological nondualists do not apply their own principles back on those principles in order to come to a full understanding of what nondual really implies. With that in mind, "spiritual charlatanism" should probably be a charge made against specific charlatans for more specific reasons, rather than levied at broad-stroke and ill-defined groups.

>>131305

>effective change according to your will

Ironically, the "will" Crowley referred to in that description of magick was not your wants, but your higher self's True Will. Which is precisely what you're saying is bullshit.

>>131326

The magic of holy men is most often derived of channeling spirits that require their complete service to others and selflessness. That is not magic. Unless it is "your will", but I don't believe in that definition either way.

You use big words. You must be very smart.

>>131326

>As for spiritual charlatanism, that would be the same charge levied against ontological nondualists by epistemological nondualists, who could claim that ontological nondualists do not apply their own principles back on those principles in order to come to a full understanding of what nondual really implies.

What? Not at all. Jesus Christ what a word salad. You obviously didn't understand OP's post. Charlatanism is simply that, deception, or in the case of the magicians he's talking about, self-deception. He's talking about the witch that can make things happen but lacks spiritual growth beyond the here and now where her powers are needed.

Which brings me to

>>131323

>Magic is the province of the lower-classes, of spiritual charlatans.

Spiritual evolution is inherent to magical skill. In fact, intellectual engagement with the practice is often of little use beyond stroking the magician's ego or satisfying his intellectual curiosity (which is a valid goal). It's the main trap religion sets for the masses: words. Spiritual growth occurs with action, sometimes even having nothing to do with magic and certainly nothing to do with mysticism.

Spiritual truths are learned not by reading them, but by living a mundane existence. And only then will they be understood in writing if come across. You are not your egos, fools. The true you cannot speak and cannot read. No matter how much your ego insists in finding enlightenment through incessant mental masturbation, it cannot happen. Practical magic is the only legitimate form of mysticism. And practical living the only legitimate way of living.

>>131335

My post is coherent and has a point. I'm well aware what charlatanism OP is referring to. I'm saying that those in glass houses should not throw stones.

As an example of the criticism I mean, I quote from Saraha's Treasury of Songs (whatever you may think of this, it's just an example to prove I was referencing an actual strain of criticism of Advaita, and I am not intending to get into a discussion of Saraha it his work here):

<The Brahmins who do not know the truth,

<Vainly recite the Vedas four.

<With earth and water and kusha-grass they make preparations.

<And seated at home they kindle fire,

<And from the senseless offerings that they make,

<They burn their eyes with the pungent smoke.

<In lordly garb with one staff or three,

<They think themselves wise with their brahmanical lore.

<Vainly is the world enslaved by their vanity.

<They do not know that dharma's the same as non-dharma.

<With ashes these masters smear their bodies,

<And on their heads they wear matted hair.

<Seated within the house they kindle lamps.

<Seated in a corner they tinkle bells.

<They adopt a posture and fix their eyes,

<Whispering in ears and deceiving folk,

<Teaching widows and bald-headed nuns and such like,

<Imitating them as they take their fee.

If you want to criticize how I expressed this, fair enough, but I did mean something in my original post.

As for the rest of your post, it's exactly right.

>>131342

reported

>>131342

Wrong question, laity faggot.

>duhhhhh do you believe in a soul? gotcha, now I don't have to know more about it!

Don't feign interest when you have all the capacity of a urinary tract infection, you mundane nigger.

>>131351

>I'm going to be clever by changing my tune from all my other faggy posts, did you know that I'm capable of reading?

No duh he said that you fucking saggy nutsack, that's the foundational belief of advaitic thought, every idiot who can even read a wiki article knows the premise is that at man and brahman are ultimately one and the same. So in the same way, even though it was your mom who dropped you on your head as a child, it was also god, probably because he knew you deserved it.

>>131358

I'm impressed you have the self-awareness to know that everyone who knows you wishes you were aborted.

>>131338

> it's just an example to prove I was referencing an actual strain of criticism of Advaita,

Nothing in that post is actually a real criticism of Advaita or it's teachings/philosophy but is just criticizing some random aspects of the lifestyle of some Brahmins and says they don't know the truth, that's like the 8th century equivalent of scribblings on a bathroom wall "anon is gay". None of the Buddhists of India or any later classical Buddhist thinkers of Tibetian, Chinese, Japanese Buddhism etc ever succeeded in writing a comprehensive refutation or takedown of Advaita, whereas Shankara did exactly that with many of the Buddhist doctrines of his time.

>>131079

Based and Brahma pilled

and here I thought I was the only person in the world that had heard of Advaita Vedanta

>>131383

Blavatsky yaps about it a lot.

>>131387

Best post you ever wrote

>>131388

Too bad I still won't read it with that faggy sig.

>>131097

This. We're Jarl's Kin. We're divine, and we ought to think of ourselves as divine beings.

Be smart, be strong, be righteous and be proud of yourself.

>>131687

I was meant to type

>Who is to say there is a "True WIll"?

But since I'm making this redaction I might as add that yes, I am saying that the whole concept of "your higher self's true will" is a load of vague bullshit. Anything Crowley or Blavatsky or any other of /fringe/'s equivalent of e-celebs are just full of shit poseurs who haven't prove they have an iota of talent.

Instead they do what any other talentless loser does and create their gay little groups and make money off gullible people.

>>131687

>Yeah those grapes sure are sour, huh?

You tell us :^}

>>131693

>n-no u!

>>131387

I actually did some more research and found Shankara held that the subtle body carries with it the tendencies of the previous life with it, and he cites the example of people who are born with innate talent at art, speaking etc as examples of this; but as I described it is mostly correct.

>That is not a satisfactory answer from Shankara, as it is not immortality of myself but immortality of something subtle to the point of meaninglessness.

>why should I care about immortality if I am not immortal.

You don't get it anon, this is not something that's supposed to 'convince' you or something that is supposed to 'appeal' to you, it comes from an exegesis of the Upanishads, This teaching is for people who desire to understand the truths contained in the Upanishads, it doesn't care at all about comforting people and appealing to them; it is for people to raise themselves to the level of the teachings, not for the teachings to compromise themselves so that people like you feel more comfortable.

>And if Shankara would assert that something without identity, something so subtle as generic consciousness without character is I, then I assert that I am actually more than that subtle definition.

First off you are not your subtle body, you are taught to be the Supreme Self, the Atma, the pure awareness which observes and illuminates the subtle body, the subtle body is itself inert and unconsciousness and is not 'you' at all, you are the formless awareness which gives it light and allows it to function.

>Stripping me of all my other parts down to that subtle, means I have died and all that's left is a meaningless life source I hold no care for.

Again, in Advaita you are not the subtle body but are God himself, the Atma (Atma = Brahman), there is no difference in the Atma now or ever; it is itself unchanging. Fully realizing and actualizing this entails liberation and freedom from rebirth/transmigration; at which point one just remains in one's own truth nature as the Supreme Being or God, consisting as Sat Chit Ananda (existence, consciousness, bliss); God is taught to existent forever as pure blissful presence/awareness, forever untroubled and unaffected by anything, without need of anything and forever free.

>Consciousness without character is consciousness not worth having.

Brahman/Atma is not considered to be without character but exists as eternal bliss as mentioned above. It is attachment to form and material matters which obscures this. One *already* exists as the divine blissful awareness but you have to 'wake up from the dream' before you can realize this.

>>131688

>To the pure Advaitin, nothing has happened, is happening, or ever will happen.

…and that's a good thing!

>Brahman is a static entity

Not exactly, Brahman is taught as prior to and beyond any sort of distinction or category, it is transcendental to all thought. Something can only be designated as static in relation to the movement of something else that it is contrasted to; there being nothing else other than Brahman, there is no 'other' movement whereby Brahman could be considered to be static in relation to. Brahman is still considered to be unchanging (based on the Upanishad verses which say so); but to try to castigate the Advaitc Brahman as a lifeless static X is sort of a strawman argument based on the unexamined premise that motion = good. It's taught in Vedanta that Brahman exists forever as eternal bliss that is forever at rest, forever contented, without need of anything; what purpose what motion or activity play here? When all desires are satisfied, when there is no hole in one's heart that needs to be filled, what could be the point of activity, there is nothing that activity would add to this other than being a needless distraction. The idea that the Supreme Being needs to have some way to amuse Himself to be complete comes from the mistaken projection of the vices/desires of one's ego onto Him.

>and the entirety of reality that one has perceived or ever will perceive is an utterly false illusion, like a coiled rope that one misperceives as a snake in the darkness.

True, but with the addendum that the conscious witness itself is the reality, and that from the conscious experience of presence that we can deduce that there is an ultimate reality which everything is predicated on, emerges from, is sustained by and dissolves back into; it's important to not wrongly imply that Advaita denies that there is any reality whatsoever

>According to Śaṅkara's own beliefs, he spent his life speaking to illusions and preaching to shadows, a completely empty and fruitless task.

Lol, this is wrong. First off according to his system the Atma animating all the people he interacted with was real, so it was not as though he was preaching to shadows. This is not a fruitless task to preach to them but by spreading the truth of the Upanishads he was helped the Divine Being reach its own natural state of liberation; which is the reason the scriptures emanated from it in the first place; he was just helping to speed along and further this process.

>He also emphasized śruti far too much

There are not any Hindu or Tantric non-dual teachers that don't ultimately source their ideas from some scriptures, however Shankara extensively uses logic in his works and defends his ideas from pretty much every angle. Like half of the pages in his works are just the back-and-forths of him writing devils-advocate objections to Shankara's ideas by hypothetical opponents that he logically refutes. The idea that he only relied on authoritative texts is stupid and could only come from someone who hadn't actually read him.

>rather than tasting the reality of nonduality directly through meditation.

Shankara himself wrote in his works that ultimately it all comes down to direct experience through knowledge and/or meditation on the truth, and that one has to move past thinking about the scriptures to reach the highest state, so this attack on him is also wrong

>Armchair intellectual and a hypocrite.

lmao, yes, Shankara who renounced all possessions and was initiated as a Sannyasin at age 6 or 7 and remained one his whole life was an 'armchair intellectual', what a retarded thing to say. That term applies far more to non-dual teachers like Ramanuja and Abhinavagupta (even though I do respect them) who preached non-duality but who weren't willing to take up the ascetic/renunciate lifestyle and would come up with justifications why it wasn't needed. Shankara was the one who actually practiced what he preached by living as a possessionless monk and by selflessly traveling around India debating people and establishing temples. Nothing he did was really hypocritical unless you misunderstand him in some big way.

>>131326

> that would be the same charge levied against ontological nondualists by epistemological nondualists, who could claim that ontological nondualists do not apply their own principles back on those principles in order to come to a full understanding of what nondual really implies.

Epistemological non-dualists don't have any valid critiques of ontological non-dualists and no Buddhist thinker ever wrote any. If by epistemological non-dualists you refer to schools of Mahayana Buddhism that's highly ironic since Buddha's ideas largely come from the pre-Buddhist Upanishads that Advaita is also based on. The Mahayana Buddhists after Buddha mostly remained ignorant of the Upanishads and early Vedanta, and then after Vedanta finally began to flourish and was refuting Mahayana and Theravada doctrines left and right the Mahayanists were unable to come up with any cogent response. The Mahayana Buddhists mostly ignored Vedanta and in the few texts where they mention it they didn't understand it very well and they failed to refute it by ascribing mutually incompatible ideas to it that Advaita doesn't even hold and then claiming that these contradictions are proof of it's wrongness (Bhaviveka makes this mistake and failed to refute anything). Most of the time when epistemological non-dualists complain about Advaita online if's because they create an imaginary strawman of regarding Advaita as a substance ontology without realizing that Advaita also extensively uses negation and apophatic theology/ontology, and indeed that the 'anatta' negation of Buddhism stems from the 'not this, not this' of the pre-buddhist Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.

>>131387

>buh-but I want to keep my memories and my egoic persona forever!

Tough titties.

>>131739

>It's taught in Vedanta that Brahman exists forever as eternal bliss that is forever at rest, forever contented, without need of anything; what purpose what motion or activity play here?

And yet our experience is a proof of the existence of motion and transmigration.

>When all desires are satisfied, when there is no hole in one's heart that needs to be filled, what could be the point of activity, there is nothing that activity would add to this other than being a needless distraction.

So how did this universe came into being? If the eternal Brahman is not endowed with the capacity for action then nothing could have ever happened, including the perceived differentiation into objects and subjects, which is our condition. Conversly - any action could not have taken place either - including dropping of wrong views regarding the Self.

>That term applies far more to non-dual teachers like Ramanuja and Abhinavagupta (even though I do respect them) who preached non-duality but who weren't willing to take up the ascetic/renunciate lifestyle and would come up with justifications why it wasn't needed.

Why would non-dual teachings require renounciation? On the contrary - if the whole of reality is an expression of yourself then what would you renounce and for what reason? Everything is equally permeated with divine consciousness, if something was more sacred than other then it would make a doctrine preaching such a thing dualistic.

>Shankara was the one who actually practiced what he preached by living as a possessionless monk

Abhinava never preached a necessity for not having possessions (on the basis of scriptures) so you can't say that he was a hypocrite. On the contrary - he fully embodied his teachings and was a realized master in many lineages of Tantra, posessing many siddhis and leading countless others towards enlightenment. If he were a possessionless monk - that would be hyprocritical.

>come up with justifications why it wasn't needed

No-one came up with any justifications, those teachings were revelead by Śiva for those who were graced by this teaching.

For example:

"In the practice of this tantra there is neither purity nor its absence; no concern for what may be eaten and so forth; neither dualistic observance nor its rejection; neither such rituals as linga worship nor their abandonment; neither the rule of owning nothing nor its opposite… Everything may be enjoined or forbidden in this scripture. This is strictly ruled in it, O Empress of the Gods, that the meditator, striving with all his strength, should fix his awareness firmly on Reality. He may adopt whatever form of practice enables him to achieve that."

~ Malinivijayottara Tantra 18.74-79

People are anxiously inhibited out of ignorance; because of it, there is creation and destruction [of limited realms of experience].

All mantras are sounds, and all sounds are Śiva. All beverages, whether they ‘ought to be drunk’ or ‘ought not to be drunk’ are equally forms of the element Water; whatever ‘ought to be eaten’ or ‘ought not to be eaten’, it is all Earth; whatever is beautiful or ugly, it is all visible Light; whatever ‘ought to be touched’ and ‘ought not to be touched’, understand it to be nothing but the element Wind, and every bodily aperture or opening is merely Space. One who offers food to the Deity, [whatever it is,] receives blessed food. Everything [in the sensual world] without exception consists of the five [Elements]. The self generates desire [freely]; why should it be inhibited?

~ Sarva-vīra-samāyoga

>>131739

"The individual soul is a cognizer, a conscious agent, who consists of everything [that arises in its sphere of experience]; therefore, as the Spanda-kārikās teach, "the state that is not Consciousness does not exist in words, thoughts, or things," whether past, present, or future. The real meaning of this verse is that everything has God as its real nature. – And since it is so, the conscious perceiver is an active *experiencer* who exists as the feeling-state of the given object of experience, yet remains the same, neither lessened nor increased, at all times and in all loci of experience, such as the various tattvas and worlds. Nor can any object of experience whatsoever be something separate from its experiencer. So the Spanda-kārikā verse (2.4) establishes that in actuality there is no difference whatsoever between Śiva and the individual soul. Thus, one should not think oneself incomplete or imperfect with regard to any state of the body, mind, etc. On the contrary, one should know “My essence-nature is Śiva, undivided Awareness, in the form of this very state.”"

"The Great Lord is the power-holder and His

powers are the universe.

(This implies) that whatever manifests is

all the light of consciousness because it is unrea-

sonable to maintain that what is unmanifest

(literally: not light) could (ever) manifest. And

for the same reason as is evident (to everybody)

when we think or dream, consciousness engen-

ders the outpouring of manifestation. Moreover

(the very nature) of experience (confirms) that

the energies of the Blessed One, Who is the

Light itself, make up the manifest universe. Col-

lectively they constitute a 'Wheel' which con-

sists of the wonderfully varied ways in which

they come together (and separate), etc. (This

fully) manifest (and expanded state - sphitata)

is its 'power'. Its 'source', in the sense of that

from which it arises, is one's own essential

nature (svasvabhava) which is the ultimate real-

ity (paramartha) of all that manifests in any

way. As is said below:

Everything arises (out of) the individual soul and

so he is all things because he perceives his identity

with the awareness (he has) of them. (Stanza 28)

Thus it is possible to be aware of (manifest

phenomena) only because there is an essential

identity (between them and consciousness)."

~Rājānaka Kshemarāja

>>131342

It would probably assert that consciousness transmigrating is an illusion, just like the rest of life.

>>131097

Insane cringe, please swiftly kill yourself trash.

>>131106

The "Aryans" were brown people.