Thread 24840808

Why is it so unusual in the history of thought for someone to be so thoroughly God-affirming yet so perfectly irreligious?

After Plotinus I can think of very few, and all are relatively recent. Even the germans, or the french spiritualists (think Ravaisson, Bergson) seem to remain open to religiosity on principle.

Notably, Eric Perl (neoplatonism scholar, former Roman Catholic) has apostasized in recent years, and theologian David Bentley Hart (though for some mysterious reason he still insists on calling himself a christian) does not seem terribly convinced about things like exclusivism or the real efficacy of religious rituals.

But by and large, people who are willing to admit that the world depends on a principle (call it what you want, really) tend to be open to or convinced of the notion that said principle could manifest or reveal itself in another special, priviledged way, that it could somehow act no longer as the principle, but as a being among beings, intervening among them and upon them.

This is obviously a very counterintuitive idea, and actually extremely hard to reconcile with what is commonly called "classical theism". It's not just that there is a gap between say, the quinque viae and religion, it's that there is an apparent (and I would say, probably actual) contradiction between the latter and any framework in which the former have any meaning.

So what gives? My bet is that historically most people working/writing in this field were initially religious and picked it up as apologetics. But they tended to surreptitiously equate theism and religion, metaphysics with legalism, ethics with casuistry. This, is turn, is off-putting to people who might otherwise have been interested in the topic, and, having been convinced that theology was essentially a part of religion, discard it altogether.

(Of course I'm not counting the deist thing as that has little to do with actual metaphysics/theology.)

I guess east asian civilizations as a whole tend to not care too much.
iirc, one of the core tenets of chan (or son, or zen) or some lineage thereof was precisely that one should free oneself of belief in "the real efficacy of religious rituals".
I'm no expert though. Maybe it has to do with the fact that, unlike abrahamic religions, east asian religions don't "personify" the principle.

>>24840808 (OP)
I'd say William James had it figured out years ago. Religion is a personal thing and if helps you, thats a good thing.

So I am guessing you never read Plotinus. If you actually did and this is your takeaway, I am afraid you are NGMI.

Source on Eric Perl?

>>24840808 (OP)
Can you say more about what you mean when you say "irreligious"? Do you mean in terms of practice or of belief?

>>24840808 (OP)
>said principle could manifest or reveal itself in another special, priviledged way, that it could somehow act no longer as the principle, but as a being among beings, intervening among them and upon them.
The principle of gravity didn't give Newton special privilege but it did reveal itself to him alone or at least only to the few men who dedicated themselves to it.
The mythicization of men like that is also not isolated to religion.
The Roman Christian traditions tend to avoid any talk about Jesus as a man since that was a source of major schisms and violence but the Bible always talks about Christ as a man. He had a similar childhood to John the Baptist, engrossed in religious scholarship and the prophecy of the messiah.

So let's say the man who from childhood strived to embody the perfect warrior king, the son of basically a wargod found that embodying something like the principle of love and creation would have longer lasting impact and fulfil all the laws and prophecies he was engrossed in.
By spreading his spirit across the world he became like a new sun leading to global peace and prosperity never dreamed of.
Did the man embody something "divine" or was he just a social engineer or whatever? Seems like just a matter of perspective, in ancient language he was clearly divine, in modern empirical language he was some guy who did a lot of good stuff.

>>24840808 (OP)
How in the heck is Plotinus irreligious?

>>24842102
>>24840969
When does he say anything that suggest he held to any particular belief? He uses names of gods in many passages of the enneads but this is obviously a product of his culture and a literary device. There is nothing in his writings that indicates he had any belief in the literal truth of any religion, be it greek, egyptian, or other.

That and Porphyry flat out says that he wasn't a religious sort of person.

I think anyone who is sort of conversant in neoplatonism knows that he is generally portrayed as an non-religious theologian, with no interest in rituals, theurgy and the like (as opposed to say Proclus), and for good reason.

Apart from the famous remark by Olympiodorus to this effect, one can also look to 20th century french neoplatonists (Hadot, for instance)

>>24842513
>When does he say anything that suggest he held to any particular belief? He uses names of gods in many passages of the enneads but this is obviously a product of his culture and a literary device.
How are you settling on the latter to reach the former? I'm aware that he sometimes says the One is like a god while quickly qualifying to say they're not the same, and I agree that he's distinct from his successors re: theurgy, but I think a fuller discussion of what you mean by "religious" and "irreligious" might be necessary

>>24841696
There was a thread on twitter last year (iirc) where the author's endeavoured to "debunk" Perl's reasons for leaving catholicism behind. Could not find Perl's statement though.

>>24841795
I would say that the defining feature of religiosity is holding dear the notion that the principle could or did intervene discretely and intra-historically. The flip side of this is that certain beings, things, events, enjoy a "relationship" to the principle that differs in kind from that of other things.

All in all, it seems to rest upon the assumption that there are "dealings" between principle and world, much like there are dealings between things (although the more sophisticated species of religion typically tries to maintain that the former are sui generis) or, better yet, that there is (or need be) a "supernatural order" parallel to the world yet higher, and demanding to be obeyed or respected.

This is commonly accompanied by belief in the real efficacy (as regards the dealings between creation and creator) of performing certain rituals or following certain rules.

Now some people behave as if this were a logical conclusion of there being a principle or "it" being a principle at all: "If God can create the world, then why wouldn't he be able to do this or that". This is just a category mistake, of course (or "apologistic" dishonesty).

Some others, while not purporting to bridge the gap in so expedient a manner, nonetheless embrace religion.

I don't think Plotinus falls into either category.

>>24842566
To be fair he does more than that. His writings are ripe with religious imagery from Egypt and Greece. He calls his "hypostases" (an unfortunate term) by the names of greek gods. But all in all, it is quite evident both from his writings and what is known of his life that he had little interest either in literal adhesion to a religion, or in ritual practice.

Now some beliefs of his might have a tougher time evading the charge, though (for instance, his belief in some sort of retributive justice at metempsychosis), but I'd say those are either things that can be explained otherwise, or byproducts of his culture, mentioned in passing, to which he wasn't necessarily married.

>>24840808 (OP)
>Why is it so unusual in the history of thought for someone to be so thoroughly God-affirming yet so perfectly irreligious?

Have you considered that it might be because claiming to have knowledge of muh higher spheres without special revelation is utterly retarded?

>>24842513
>no interest in rituals, theurgy and the like (as opposed to say Proclus), and for good reason
There are a whole bunch of examples in the Enneads and Life of Plotinus that demonstrate Plotinus was very well versed in theurgy, magic, divination and ritual. His tone throughout the whole text is also very pious. It's utterly absurd to think of him as a 'irreligious person'. He affirmed the existence of a supreme god, very many lesser deities and countless angelic beings. He also affirmed a cosmic hierarchy and the value of piety, purity and union with the divine. Whether he attended basic temple rites is quite irrelevant: he was de facto a super-monk, he wasn't desperate for the once a week sunday sermon.
What you are thinking of is the overexaggerated claim that Plotinus was a rationalist and took a stand against superstition. This is a misreading of what he is actually saying. For example, his critique of astrological divination is not a critique of divination as a whole, but only of the way divination was practiced in his time. Incidentally, in order to do this it seems he also possessed intimate knowledge of astrological divination. And this is something very few people did. So he was clearly very well versed in spiritual matters.

only trannies pretend being religious (aka ritualistic) is le bad and makes you miss the forest for the trees.

>>24843314
Exact opposite. I mean I doubt one can call the divine a sphere at all (or a realm, or anything of that sort).
But theology can and should be done (exclusively so) apart from religion.
In fact, it would have to be this sort of theology that serves as the criteria for revelation anyway.

>>24843366
>There are a whole bunch of examples in the Enneads and Life of Plotinus that demonstrate Plotinus was very well versed in theurgy, magic, divination and ritual.
That he knew about it (or even knew a lot about it) doesn't mean much. I know a lot about catholicism, I nonetheless think it's a joke.

>He affirmed the existence of a supreme god
>the value of piety, purity and union with the divine
This isn't inherently religious

>very many lesser deities and countless angelic beings.
I can be a plotinian or an aristotelian and believe in unicorns. That's folk belief, not religion. His thought isn't directly linked to this and he doesn't try to make it linked to this. Incidentally, he probably wouldn't have batted an eye if you told him none of this is *literally* true.

>What you are thinking of is the overexaggerated claim that Plotinus was a rationalist

No, that would be anachronistic, and anyway in modern parlance Plotinus would be an intellectualist (or, in 19th century terms, an intuitionist, or a spiritualist, or what have you).

>and took a stand against superstition.

I mean, who doesn't? Superstition is an inherently derogatory term. As such, nobody defends superstition qua superstition, not intellectually at least. But here's what I'm saying: there is nothing is Plotinus *as a thinker* that suggests he took [what we would now call] the superstitious element of his worldview to be integral, central, necessary, or even literal.

One can perfectly believe in mythical entities and occult practices, and merely consider them a mysterious part of the sublunar world.

Whether there is a tension here is none of my concern, to be honest

>>24844976
>That he knew about it (or even knew a lot about it) doesn't mean much. I know a lot about catholicism, I nonetheless think it's a joke.
You probably don't know a lot about Catholicism. You are also a bored NEET living in the digital age. In order to learn astrology in the ancient world you would have to go study under masters belonging to specific lineages who would charge a whole bunch of money and even then may choose not to instruct you if they don't feel like it. The fact that Plotinus knows that much about so many things actually already makes him a qualified expert in them, and demonstrates a strong interest (given the conditions of the time). Moreover these are technical disciplines quite different from learning about and subscribing to doctrinal positions.
>This isn't inherently religious
"Religion" is itself an anachronistic term when discussing the ancient world, the relevant categories would be devoutness and piety. If you have these, it would be more accurate to say that you are beyond religious rather than non-religious, especially if by 'religion' we understand a social mass organisation which seems to be what you take it to mean.
>I can be a plotinian or an aristotelian and believe in unicorns. That's folk belief, not religion. His thought isn't directly linked to this and he doesn't try to make it linked to this. Incidentally, he probably wouldn't have batted an eye if you told him none of this is *literally* true.
That is a deranged opinion.
>I mean, who doesn't? Superstition is an inherently derogatory term.
I agree but I am pretty sure you get my point.
>One can perfectly believe in mythical entities and occult practices, and merely consider them a mysterious part of the sublunar world.
Insofar as Plotinus' major concern was henosis we can say that anything and everything in the generated cosmos was a curious but irrelevant part of creation. But to affirm this absolutely would be weird and also unfair towards Plotinus.
>Whether there is a tension here is none of my concern, to be honest
That's not the problem, the problem is that you are completely incorrect. Maybe you are incorrect because you have failed at reading the text, or maybe it's because you are using very particular and impractical definitions for key terms. But your assertion is simply incorrect.

>>24846278
Weird to just assume someone is a NEET, grow up and touch grass

>>24846278
>"Religion" is itself an anachronistic term when discussing the ancient world
So you see no difference between, say, the cappadocians fathers, and Plotinus? Or even between Plotinus and people like Proclus or Iamblichus? Come on.
>beyond religious rather than non-religious
I feel like we're talking past each other on this point. You seem to think that I'm unaware that he was a mystic with a somewhat ascetic lifestyle or something (a "supermonk"). I'm saying that neither this, nor the various folk-beliefs he might have entertained, makes him religious. Call him "beyond religious" if you want: if you are "beyond religious", you are *not religious* by definition
>But to affirm this absolutely would be weird and also unfair towards Plotinus.
Not at all, it is perfectly consistent with the approach he takes, and follows from it quite clearly.
Which is not saying much since it also follows from that of, say, Aristotle, which didn't stop the medievals from pretending they could intellectually defend the possibility of revelation, the efficacy of rituals, etc.
But at no point does Plotinus say or imply that this or that ritual *actually* does something *supernatural*, at no point does he seem married to any particular beliefs about things that happen or happened in the world; in short, at no point would anyone get the sense that he would have allowed his theology (or his henology, same thing) to live and die by any *thing* or *event* in particular and -more importantly- that he would even have seen a place for such categories as sacrament, revelation, etc.

>>24847992
If Plotinus can't be described as 'religious', why does he take so much trouble to allegorize/philosophize Greek myths? If he wasn't 'religious' why would he even care? Plotinus was not a theurgist. But he was a religious pagan. He was if anything MORE pagan than Plato or certainly than Aristotle. His philosophical system actually explains how 'the gods' could exist (as stars, as daemons, as the hypostases, etc) The One is Cronus, Intellect is Zeus, Soul is Aphrodite. Do you want me to repeat that for you? Deal with it faggot.

>>24846278
Show me one passage where Plotinus demonstrates more than a superficial acquaintance with astrology. Next thing you'll be telling me he could read hieroglyphics.

>>24840808 (OP)
saying this guy believes in God is like saying Buddhists believe in God...Plotinus is an annihilationist who was coping about the hatred of his own body

>>24848022
>If Plotinus can't be described as 'religious', why does he take so much trouble to allegorize/philosophize Greek myths?
Gee, I don't know, maybe because he knew that they (or Egyptian myths, for that matter) could not be taken literally, but that the reason they held so much sway over greek culture was because they contained a truth that existed completely apart from them and from it?
Which again, would obviously make him NOT religious?

Idk, just a guess.

>>24848170
>saying this guy believes in God is like saying Buddhists believe in God...
Might be, depending on the buddhist. I'm no expert but it seems to me that some strands of East Asian Buddhism in particular came much closer to a sane (and greek) conception of God than the abrahamic magical sky daddy. Plotinus may have had some knowledge of Buddhist thought, though that's highly debated. (some in the 20th century have gone as far as speculating that Ammonius Saccas was a buddhist going by Gautama's nickname, Sakyamuni)

He wasn't an annihilationist, though. And the extent to which he actually was "ashamed of being in a body" is debatable. (though those are two unrelated concerns)

He probably wouldn't have believed in personal immortality (which makes him somewhat closer to Aristotle than to Plato), and how he would reconcile that with his belief in metempsychosis is a difficult, though not intractable problem.

There might be some truth in the anecdote that recounts his dying words, but at the very least I think it's true to the spirit of his writings.

>>24848058
Try all of Ennead IV.4. for starters. IIRC it contains not just references to technical astrological concepts but also a detailed overview of real metaphysical questions in astrology and astrological/theurgic magic.
>Next thing you'll be telling me he could read hieroglyphics.
I have never thought about it, it wouldn't surprise me if he could but I don't think that's relevant.
>>24848170
Take your meds annihilationism schizo.

>>24840808 (OP)
Unironically, Alan Watts

>>24841814
>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God
>And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us

Idk dude the Bible seems pretty straightforward on this one.

>>24848605
he hated his body and was an annihilationist, don't see what's so difficult about admitting that? are you embarrassed by your own positions? then why would you hold them?

Thoreau and Emmerson. Both believed in a god, but were anti-religion and anti-dogma. Despite being Americans, to me they resembled a pre-christian european mindset. Individualism, and not following others, be your own hero and don’t be swayed by the crowd. Very Aquarius vibes if one may be so bold!

>>24840808 (OP)
Because we come from a culture that's been Christian for thousands of years and that's just how we approach it. There are a ton of universalist/all religions are true/modernist things that view religion as a like cultural manifestation of how we can get into relationship with God I don't know what you mean by it. That's just a fairly common view. This was in fact what I'd say just the "normal" view of religion was for academics in the 20th century.
I think for you might be the issue of the material/ritualistic element? In that people all seem to even if they think "all religions are different way up the same mountain" and think there are various ways to God (one being say, philosophy) they still grant some point or meaning to material actions.
That's just like what the western worldview/attitude is, and what human nature is, people do things in community and physically incarnate body denying western stuff is basically just a larp imo.

I came to religion for philosophical reasons (grew up completely secular) and you are correct at how people conflate them. Any time an athiest is criticizing thiesm they just start attacking Christianity because they are too brain damaged to distinguish them.
Though you say there's a "contradiction" between the philosophical conception of God and say revelation (I think this is just you not understanding God, or at least acting like you can understand something so beyond to say "it's not capable of doing that") practically speaking just they do, and very obviously, make God more present in the world than he would otherwise.
A gothic cathedral, polyphony, are doing similar things to philosophy. To deny this is just kind of absurd, and the one doing this makes specific claims about revelation and doctrine which similarly seem to correspond with that and illuminate it in a way you could not otherwise.

Fore me a key thing is I do think the idea of knowledge of God only being accessible to like intellectuals is just kind of manifestly silly. I see great dignity in normal material/family life and those people are in far better contact with the Good than basically any modern intellectual. Revealed religion (catholicism specifically) effectively makes that principle accessible to any actual decent person, preserving the intellectual side as well. It being triune then becoming a person in Jesus Christ and teaching on this earth, dying for us, and then regularly being incarnate on each of his temples on this earth physically is hardly more unbelievable than the simple fact of creation as a whole.
>but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles

The thing is if it is possible, and if it did happen you kind of are obliged to conform to it. And basically anyone who is willing to considers it accepts such a "crazy" story because God gives them the gift of faith and is actively engaged in their life just as he holds each of us in existence.

>>24849363
Why would someone who supposedly hate his body also argued for the beauty of material embodiment? It's as if you read only Porphyry's Biography on Plotinus and disregard every Pro Life stance Plotinus ever makes.

P.S. Damascius is in line with incoherent Nagarjunian-Hegelian Nihilotheism

>>24844844
Okay...

Well in any case he's a magician who writes like other historical magicians and he has tricked you into thinking him a philosopher. And that's where you'll find him in the library... though you'll find in practice his biggest fans have him on the shelves next to texts on Hermes (the great)^3 and the kilt wearers/lovers of secret handshakes. His writing is only unique when you forget this fact, but a magician is what he is. It's the magicians who claim impossible knowledge of what is above/below without special revelation.

>>24849154
Nothing about that quote is even slightly straightforward you braindead burger faggot.

>>24849414
>Though you say there's a "contradiction" between the philosophical conception of God and say revelation (I think this is just you not understanding God, or at least acting like you can understand something so beyond to say "it's not capable of doing that") practically speaking just they do, and very obviously, make God more present in the world than he would otherwise.

It is precisely in believing that that last sentence has the meaning they must believe it has, that they fail to draw the correct conclusions about the divine.

>A gothic cathedral, polyphony, are doing similar things to philosophy. To deny this is just kind of absurd

Maybe, maybe not (it is not, in fact, absurd to deny they do, though it would be absurd to deny they could). The point is that the sense in which they proclaim God cannot be different *in kind* from the sense in which any thing or deed can proclaim God. Much like actions prescribed by religious law, even if they were actually good, could not differ *in kind* from actions that larpers would call "merely naturally good" or whatever. It makes no sense.

>Fore me a key thing is I do think the idea of knowledge of God only being accessible to like intellectuals is just kind of manifestly silly.

I agree. God is wholly present to all and the mere fact of thought or action shows that one already knows all there is to know. (this is not my preferred conception of God, but the only one that is vindicated by classical arguments)
Which is another thing that makes manifestly absurd the idea that one should "look" for God, or that God is a complex entity, acting intra-historically as a cause among causes, that also somehow is the simple Good and True.

>It [...] becoming a person in Jesus Christ and teaching on this earth, dying for us, and then regularly being incarnate on each of his temples on this earth physically is hardly more unbelievable than the simple fact of creation as a whole.

The only way you can think this is the case (apart from allegorizing it which would be to recognize it's not literally true) is if you think of creation as one action by one agent. Of course nothing would seem impossible to that agent, and nothing would be more or less believable that that creation, since it makes no sense.

>>24850229
However, obviously enough, God is not an agent, but agency. He is not a cause, but causality. He moves things, and if fact wins, by being *erōmenon*, and not by coming down in an act that would violate his transcendence, or being more someplace than other in an act that would violate his immanence, or by doing two things (creation and some other special thing) in an act that would violate his simplicity. Creation is the *simple* act of the principle and any intramundane, intra-historical intervention, is a complex event between complex things. The simple's omnipotence does not consist in being able to intervene and do any old thing. In fact, that would defeat his omnipotence. For it would make it a matter of *fact* (contingent) and no longer a matter of *law* (necessary) that the simple governs all things and has eternally won.

For God to be actually creator and actually omnipotent, it just is necessary that he cannot become a thing among things and act upon things as if he were another one of them.

God cannot be thought to be anything in particular, nor can he be thought to do anything in particular.

Now of course, one might try another way: what if this or that religious narrative was just the way things are? What if, say, miracles, or revelation, were not the product of a special or discrete intervention but embedded in the act of creation? Does that leave a space for them?
Well, not really. Because then they would not differ in kind from other events. A miracle would not be a miracle if it were simply explained by some property of the things it involves. Revelation would not be revelation in the religious sense if it were simply a case of a man saying some very true or doing some very good things, inspired by God no doubt, but no differently than anyone else.

>>24850232
this is an interesting argument. I myself am on the fence regarding religion, and always felt there was some dishonesty in popular apologetics.

It's easy enough to see that proving god does not prove christianity, but it's the first time I've seen someone claim that there was an actual contradiction...anyhow, bumping so it gets a response

>But by and large, people who are willing to admit that the world depends on a principle (call it what you want, really) tend to be open to or convinced of the notion that said principle could manifest or reveal itself in another special, priviledged way, that it could somehow act no longer as the principle, but as a being among beings, intervening among them and upon them.
The question I think is if we recognize a principle: fideism and the religions of the book "admit" a principle and supplement this admission with "special", legalistically and dogmatically circumscribed revelation. But if we recognize a principle it has already revealed itself to us, and not generically but at least incipiently particularly, existentially, not as "merely" a being among beings but as itself and therefore in a way we cannot foreknow, foretell. I am now skeptical that "classical theism" is more than a homogenized product that tries to flatten Judaism, Christianity and philosophical paganism (even including Indian traditions, etc) into closer company than they will bear. I think you are right with the field of classical theism being the resort of apologists.

>>24842579
>I would say that the defining feature of religiosity is holding dear the notion that the principle could or did intervene discretely and intra-historically. The flip side of this is that certain beings, things, events, enjoy a "relationship" to the principle that differs in kind from that of other things.
This understanding to me is an artefact of the paradigm of "classical theism". It's euphemistically referring to the Incarnation: the paradigm of "discrete" (utterly human and utterly divine, bodily, unique) and historical (structuring history and in the future ending it) revelation. This is not a generalizeable understanding of "revelation" or "religion". This is why you incline to attribute other understandings that depart from "classical theism" to "byproducts of culture", "folk belief". That forms of divine revelation aren't deducible but also aren't fixed in a single holy book to be authoritatively interpreted by a certain institution in a form ultimately reconcilable with Hebrew traditions is not necessarily unreflective, indifferent "folk belief".
>One can perfectly believe in mythical entities and occult practices, and merely consider them a mysterious part of the sublunar world.
You can try to treat them in a "rationalistic", quasi-scientific way but that ends up being itself superstitious and somewhat pointless, like trying to hunt down bigfoot or throw fireballs.

>>24850229
>God is wholly present to all and the mere fact of thought or action shows that one already knows all there is to know.
The philosophical reasoning that conduces to this understanding was a particular line of thought or action, it was a revelation "different" "in kind" somehow, before which the person in question did not understand themselves or the divine the way they do after. The divine literally was not present to them the same way before and after, other thoughts or actions were not symbols of the divine to them, they learned more and still can learn more, desire to learn more, desire the desireable: is its transcendence violated, is it more someplace than another, does it do two things thereby? Do I know beforehand how to learn more, am I myself a god by this initial revelation, can I foretell how I will draw closer to the divine, how it will communicate to me? I must trust myself, the divine, and other people to guide me.

>>24851378
>I am now skeptical that "classical theism" is more than a homogenized product that tries to flatten Judaism, Christianity and philosophical paganism (even including Indian traditions, etc) into closer company than they will bear. I think you are right with the field of classical theism being the resort of apologists.

There is definitely such a thing as philosophical theism. There have been philosophical theists who were irreligious.
Now of course I'm also making the claim that it is incompatible with religion, which is why I agree that philosophical theism construed as a doctrine capable of being built upon by religion is an artifact of the apologists. I agree that it cannot be extracted from any religion taken as a whole.

>That forms of divine revelation aren't deducible but also aren't fixed in a single holy book to be authoritatively interpreted by a certain institution in a form ultimately reconcilable with Hebrew traditions is not necessarily unreflective, indifferent "folk belief"

I would say this is beside the point, which is that the basis of what I'm calling religion is belief that God did or could do *something*. This goes much beyond christianity. One could perfectly imagine a person outside of any established religion and who nonetheless believes that God did or said this or that. That's what I'm calling a religious attitude.

>You can try to treat them in a "rationalistic", quasi-scientific way but that ends up being itself superstitious and somewhat pointless, like trying to hunt down bigfoot or throw fireballs.

I don't see how. I'm not even making any specific claim about method, though I guess since things are what are knowable, you could say I'm being scientific about it. I'm simply saying that what happens to things finds the entirety of its proximal explanation, or if you prefer, the entire content of said explanation, in things.

>>24851381
What you're speaking about is a process of thematization. I'd simply say that to think about God is to think about a concept, and that there is no logical reason there should be any practical difference between someone who has thematized their belief in God, and someone who believes in God implicitly, as anyone does.

>>24851648
>I agree that it cannot be extracted from any religion taken as a whole.
I'm questioning whether classical or "philosophical" theism is some kind of general doctrine that can be meaningfully argued for detached from any "religious" commitments.
>I would say this is beside the point, which is that the basis of what I'm calling religion is belief that God did or could do *something*. This goes much beyond christianity. One could perfectly imagine a person outside of any established religion and who nonetheless believes that God did or said this or that. That's what I'm calling a religious attitude.
For most traditions it would be this or that god or an intermediary spiritual being by which the divine would act or communicate with people and the world. Otherwise we are left with the question of what the relation is among the divine and us and the world, how we can know the divine at all, or the world and ourselves given that we depend on the world and the world depends on a principle. In the religions of the book this kind of mediated agency or communication is rejected as idolatry (or smuggled in via angelology, or co-optation of pagan beliefs and/or development of "esoteric", occult or magic traditions). But otherwise I don't see how you can get around it. You have to mutilate the pagan Greeks to extract a supposed "rational" irreligious core which is only done to lend religions of the book the clout and cogency of their arguments.
>I'm simply saying that what happens to things finds the entirety of its proximal explanation, or if you prefer, the entire content of said explanation, in things.
What about what happens to us, like when we know (the divine or things)?

>>24851716
Then I don't see why we should thematize agency or think we have explained it, and implicitly personality by using personal pronouns, or speak of "winning" or "governing". We are not even thematizing knowledge either since a concept doesn't know anything. These would then be "extra", not explained by or possessed by "the simple": if they are inferior to it, which is hard to understand, they are perhaps confusions or illusions. If they are are not inferior to it, they somehow stick their heads above "the simple" into--what? And why is this god or concept desired or loved if we love in the eminent sense a person, a sign or creation of a person, or a personlike being? Why is this concept also called the Good? I can see why there would be no practical difference between someone who has thematized their belief in this concept and someone who hasn't.

>>24843314
This is entire notion of special revelation is an actual Jewish scam and psyop to monopolize mysticism under the demonic canannite religion away from the Greek rational knowing of divinity. Rome should have beheaded every last one of you.

>>24851831
When I say that "to think about God is to think about a concept", I don't mean to say that God is a concept, I mean to say that conceptions of God are not God.
Much like "loving God", if it be taken to mean anything specific, would be worshipping an idol (in the etymological sense, of course).

>>24851959
Ok, well I don't think you've presented a coherent kind of philosophical theism distinct from religion. You're saying things are what are knowable, not god, who (which?) can only be thought about as a concept. This seems alien to Plato or Aristotle and akin to heretical christian apophaticism, but you don't like revelation or religion.
This is why I have a problem with "classical theism" discourse. It leads to being unclear about your own commitments by hoping that everyone can mean the same things by being vague about some supposed neutral baseline everyone can build on, when really it's mostly used by christians who smuggle their doctrines into the "neutral" "classical" arguments. I think there is something to be gained from christian and other traditions but you can end up trying to defend or reconcile things you don't even actually believe and neglecting more natural or fruitful lines of inquiry as "particular" or "religious" rather than "neutral" or "classical". Pagan Greeks and christians and Jews all being "monotheists" is one of these distortions.

>>24851849
Co-signed

>>24840808 (OP)
Pure philosophy is secondarily anti-religious, that includes anti-irreligious filth. Myths are a means but not the ends. Anyone with a shred of love for wisdom will end up denouncing their ir/religious upbringing. It's not unusual, they're just not given the spotlight among centers of attention at least in this epoch.

>>24852431
Being a thinker means being aware of your cultural conditioning whether that's religious or not. The worst retards are the ones who focus on religion as some special case while ignoring all their own unreasoned conditioning.
If you're raised Christian in burgerland you'll rebel against that conditioning but that doesn't change anything about the validity of what the church fathers were actually talking about. They were majority Greek neoplatonists with a background in philosophy and almost none of what they said had anything to do with what burger "Christians" yap about despite the burgers constantly quoting them as authorities.

>>24849463
>Why would someone who supposedly hate his body also argued for the beauty of material embodiment?

except it's an insincere argument since he immediately says it's better to move beyond the beauty of the material embodiment...he praises it just to ultimately dismiss it

Proclus is better and not annihilationist. Neither is Iamblichus. Neither is Ibn Arabi, despite what the half-baked boomer perennialists who skim-read everything want to tell you. Dionysius the Areopagite was not an annihilationist.

>>24853886
>everybody who doesn't have a sub-human sentimental attachment to the physical body and one's personality and a corresponding childish psychological need to be comforted like a blanket by the belief in their post-mortem preservation is an annihilationist

>>24853886
Proclus, the man that refused to eat meat that was given as a burnt sacrifice to the gods, that believed the Soul is fully descended within the Body dies with the Body, THAT Proclus you're calling not an annihilationist, was clearly a filthy Materialist and was a Soul Annihilationist proponent after death.
>Iamblichus
He's the dumbfuck that introduced a false dichotomy of the Ineffable and the One (they're really one and the same thing for Plotinus). He's also the idiot that threw in many sub-tiers within the Plotinian Second Hypostasis. Proclus followed suit his recursive autism and expanded their Noetic and Henotic stratas with more nonsense which has more recursive flaws than any benefits for it existing in shoving complexities all the way up without understanding why Plotinus set his system up in the way he had done so.
>Ibn Arabi
Genuinely don't give a shit about those Persians.
>Dionysius the Areopagite
The Christian that stole Proclusian talking points and contorted Aristotelian terminology further to have an "hyperousia" because the Christian Father-Son-Spirit system needed a fourth something that wasn't also blatantly a rip off of the Platonic-Plotinian One had opted for a strictly apophatic term for the One.

Everyone you've quoted to being better than Plotinus had made up fictional problems that they resolved to make themselves feel better. There are people alive in this era who are better than Plotinus on certain topics that can be improved upon concerning Matter and Evil, but as a whole, the Ancient Greeks and their Abrahamic counterparts had peaked with Plotinus and have never made genuine progress past Plotinus in their metaphysical grasp on reality. You are most certainly for the time being, not one of those people better than Plotinus.

>>24855686
>>24854000
Just say you're an annihilationist and it's a good thing. The way you have of coping that you're not an annihilationist while fully embracing annihilationism is cowardly and shows that deep down you know it's probably retarded and you're just on drugs.

>>24855686
Plotinus has so many dumb takes. Let's start with how he claimed to have 3 discrete moments of unity with the ineffable One. Guenon was right to see that he was a retard for thinking he could get unity with the One and then lose it. Plotinus frankly can't make up his mind about whether unity happens with the One or the Nous.

Proclus wasn't a soul annihilationist. Ibn Arabi wasn't a Persian. Do your homework, retard.

>>24856391
>Just say you're an annihilationist and it's a good thing.
The only annihilationist religions are certain types of Christianity and certain interpretations of Theravada Buddhism and I'm neither Buddhist nor Christian. I've talked about this with you before and you wrongly call things annihilationist which are not actually annihilationist, but you are either too stupid to understand this or you are mentally ill.

The assimilation or expansion of oneself into the One and abiding in that perfection forever is not annihilationism, it's a superior form of existence then abiding forever as a limited being who remains subservient and contingent. Anyone who doesn't have a childish attachment to their personality (spiritual materialism) can see this plainly. Any form of dependence is an imperfection and so it's logically irrefutable that anyone who attains complete independence as the One is more perfect than someone who attains a state of eternal dependence (imperfection).
he only annihilationist religion is some, but not all, interpretations of Buddhism

>>24856451
What's so bizarre about annihilationists is that they throw a temper tantrum any time you tell them what they are. Annilationists will literally tell you every trace of your existence gets voided but then get mad when you say that's annihilationism instead of some weird used car salesman "supra-existence" or "expansion of oneself" bullshit. Annihilationists always need to be cryptic and evasive like this which is a major red flag. Annihilationists can't explain why there is anything to be annihilated in the first place. Ultimately existence is a mistake but they can't follow through on their arguments and just say that and say that annihilationism is good because it's annilating a weird random mistake (existence).

At least the nihilists and the anti-natalists will downright tell you everything is shit and they hope to die. That honesty is respectable.

>>24856578
>Annilationists will literally tell you every trace of your existence gets voided but then get mad when you say that's annihilationism
This is exactly what I mean when I say you are mentally-ill, you invent totally false and blatant strawmen and attribute them to people you call annihilationists despite it being easy to confirm that’s not their actual view. Why would you tell easily-debunked lies when you are apparently trying to argue seriously? Do you not understand that this immediately undermines all credibility of your posts?

The only explanation I can think of for this foolish behavior is mental illness, hence why some posters here have started referring to you as the ‘annihilation tranny’.

Nobody says that “every trace of your existence gets voided”, depending on the school of thought either your self, your being or your consciousness expands infinitely to being the One or there is an unveiling which reveals that the being/self/consciousness you already possessed during embodiment as the core of your identity was the One all along.

Your self, your being or your consciousness abiding forever as infinite perfection is not “every trace of your existence being voided”, its taking the most fundamental part of your personhood or being and making it eternal and perfect or revealing it as such.

>Annihilationists can't explain why there is anything to be annihilated in the first place.
That’s factually wrong, this depends on the school but it amounts to the reason for embodiment in the first place which is usually something like it is the nature of the One to overflow or produce the world including embodiment, either as an automatic action or as a kind of spontaneous joyful play.

>Ultimately existence is a mistake but they can't follow through on their arguments
Literally nobody says that and neither is it the implication of any of these schools. The One doesnt make mistakes.

This kind of pathetic dishonesty by you is a clear sign of mental illness. Its one thing to tell a casual lie in one throwaway argument one time, but it’s another to keep coming time and time again to the same community and keep repeating the same false narratives even after people have BTFO’d you and demonstrated them to be factually wrong many times before. People like you make me wonder whether hylics unironically exist as a real category.

>>24856600
>Nobody says that “every trace of your existence gets voided”, depending on the school of thought either your self, your being or your consciousness expands infinitely to being the One or there is an unveiling which reveals that the being/self/consciousness you already possessed during embodiment as the core of your identity was the One all along.
>Your self, your being or your consciousness abiding forever as infinite perfection is not “every trace of your existence being voided”, its taking the most fundamental part of your personhood or being and making it eternal and perfect or revealing it as such.

This is the used car salesman pitch. When it's very clear they mean that "your identity is erased" they say "well actually it's subsumed in the infinite and it's still there even though it's completely unrecognizable and you will have no personal consciousness or memory of it, and that's a good thing."

The rest of your post is classic Advaita cope for the fact that it's a literal plagiarism of Buddhism, a religion that is honest and upfront about what it believes. Annihilationists are afraid to lose cult followers by being honest about what they believe.

>>24856609
>This is the used car salesman pitch.
That’s not an argument
>When it's very clear they mean that "your identity is erased"
No, they say the fundamental core of your identity is made eternal and perfect or revealed to be so. Stop telling lies
>they say "well actually it's subsumed in the infinite and it's still there even though it's completely unrecognizable and you will have no personal consciousness or memory of it, and that's a good thing."
If one is abiding in total perfection and bliss forever then you don’t need to recognize it after-the-fact or have personal memory of it, since your bliss and perfection doesn’t depend on recognition or memory, so that’s an unjustifiable complete non-issue. Most schools say you are inherently conscious of yourself as the One so the part about consciousness which you claimed is factually incorrect, like so much else of your garbage.

>The rest of your post is classic Advaita cope for the fact that it's a literal plagiarism of Buddhism,
Also wrong, the Upanishads predate Buddhism and they state basic Advaita doctrines openly, the other schools read those verses figeratively while Advaita takes them at face-value.

Every time you reply with more lies you just make yourself look like an even bigger retard every time.

Annihilationism is the belief that God specially destroys some (in general, the wicked). This simply has nothing to do with pointing out that numerical individuality is contingent upon the embodied condition and that there is simply no "spiritual body"/no individual soul (which is a fact that christcuckery can't cope with).

In fact, in order to be an annihilationist, one would first have to grant that there is such an individuality, but then add the caveat that wheter or not it continues on after bodily death is a matter of divine fiat.

What you metaphysical nihilists speak of is religious annihilationism and double predestination on both the elect and damned, and not of the philosophical annihilationism which denies any subject that becomes a recipient for "salvation" in transcending its current descended nature.

Religious annihilationism is usually but not always the strawman of Religious universalism(that all shall be saved)'s boogeyman, therefore, anyone going through eternal hell is evil, therefore, like Seventh Day Adventists, either Souls are destroyed after death, or like Christian Universalists, that Souls are never predestined to eternal destruction.

The Platonic (and Homeric) notions of the Soul presumes its ungenerated eternal origins, while there's tiers of the Soul that persists and doesn't persists after the departure of the Spirit/Higher Soul from the Body/Lower Soul as the Unity of the Form unto the Matter. The Higher Soul is the Daimon/"Guardian Spirit/God" that had descended from the Noetic into the Psychic realm and that Higher Soul can ascend into the All-Soul and even return to the Noetic realm completely. It is this Higher Soul that descends back into the world if they had done so previously, but there is nevertheless one All-Soul, the source of true Individuality for all things within the realm of motion. The Highest Soul is ultimately single and it is what is divided as the Cosmic-Soul that brings order within the phenomenal cosmos(ordering) and the Divided Souls that partake in the same elements as the Cosmic Soul, which is to say, en-cosmic souls are all hypostatically the same and only superficially differentiated from each other. All soul distinctions are hierarchically flattened within the All Soul as the Soul Hypostasis proper.

Regardless, the Lower Soul does die, but insisting that the Soul is strictly bound to Matter as the Living, is ironically neglecting not the possibility of the Higher Soul that's not truly descended within matter, but also the All-Soul itself, which is what ultimately can be argued to have been done by Aristotelians, Iamblichus, Proclus, and many Christians that adopt a naive and incorrect view of reality from Aristotle in neglecting the Platonic Principle/Cause of Motion that is the Soul is Beginningless and Endless. Anyone therefore affirming the destruction of the Higher Soul is denying the Highest Soul that hosts the cosmic, divided, bodily, material, within itself. Matter is ultimately an after effect of Motion of the Aether. The failure to understand that was the failure of all of the Ancient Greeks however. I deny the eternity of any specific instantiated matter to being truly self-existent apart from Motion, for without Motion, there is no Magnitude whatsoever, and without Magnitude, there's no Extension, no Dimension, no Distance, no Time, no Speed/Velocity, etc. I don't deny the existence of Matter to have always existed due to the Moving Image of Eternity also always pre-existing hierarchically prior to Matter.

Like half of the founding fathers of the USA were irreligious deists

>>24856400
PROPOSITION CCXI.
Every partial soul descending into generation descends as a whole; nor does one part of it remain on high, and another part descend. - Proclus in Elements of Theology, denying the Eternity of that Higher Soul that's temporarily bound to Matter as the Lower Soul(the Body)

Guenon is retarded, and Shankarafag doesn't understand Sri Satchidanandendra Saraswati Swamiji. Imagine defending Proclus who leans Vishishtadvaita, tsk-tsk

>>24857944
What do you think of Tesla?

>>24840808 (OP)
That is literally every single peasant and commoner in history. Most of them were firmly convinced of the God´s existence, but they didn't particularly care for religion on a day-to-day basis.

>>24857944
Three realms of reality: transcendent, physical and mental.
Three parts that make a human: eternal undivided soul, physical body/brain and the spirit of the mind.
Three aspects of God, one in each realm: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Only the Son dies but is reborn through the Spirit and then embodied by the church.

>>24857984
>Shankarafag doesn't understand Sri Satchidanandendra Saraswati Swamiji.
SSS was a westernized modernist NeoVedantist who was debunked by the Advaita tradition already

>claims to follow Shankara scrupulously to the letter
>invents a fictitious “atma-anubhava” that is completely absent from Shankara’s writings and which contradicts everything that Shankara wrote
pick one

>>24858050
He needed someone better than him to distill his findings. Eric P Dollard doesn't know much about Dr. Henry (Andrija) Puharich taking Tesla's research for MKULTRA.
>>24858081
Nicene Christians will attack you for having a Monarchic Modalism reading of Christianity of One/Father, Mind/Son, Soul/Spirit in a Plotinian system, not that Christians know anything ultimately from a strict scriptural insular exegesis that pretends there's no external philosophical paradigm that they're borrowing from.
>>24858082
Tradition is not the basis of metaphysical truths, not even metaphysical traditions are by any means perfect as they are also the source of confusion. The decline of the wisdom by latter day folks are exactly the sort of reasons why I outright reject the Athenian Neoplatonists. You are also a victim of misinterpreting a paradigm by their worst representatives, while making every thread turn into useless back and forth concerning SSSS, which I've only name dropped SSSS to make sure it was you who I'm dealing with and so I won't respond to your posts any further, but the SSSSfag is right to me overall than Guenonfag(s) although there is probably something to critique against anyone whatsoever if they tried hard enough in their Eristics of which you are engaging in the Philology of such Sophistry in pitting Proclus against Plotinus, whom again I remind you that Proclus leans more Vishishtadvaitin than Advaitin since all of the Athenian Neoplatonists argued for Ritualistic Devotionalism in engaging in Greek versions of Isvaras before one directly engages in Henosis. Regardless of that though, the Indians in general are negligent concerning the Greek historical dialectic discourse, and they are also negligent in understanding what Original Buddhism actually was about, which by that I don't mean the Pali Tipitaka but rather the Pali of the Digha Nikaya, Majjhima Nikaya, Samyutta Nikaya, Anguttara Nikaya, Dhammapada, Udana, Itivuttaka, Sutta Nipata, their respective Pali Atthakattas, none of the Vinaya, none of the Abhidhamma, nothing else, while realizing the Original Buddhist term for Sabba is contextually in reference to concerning the Khandhas which are Anatta, na me so Atta, and has nothing to do with a non-aggregate Totality that is One, which the Buddha spoke through the name and form of Gotama concerning false views on the Self does not deny Transcendental Monism. Original Buddhism was never critiqued by Shankara directly, he had only dealt with Sectarian Buddhist schools that had transferred some Self Affirming concepts through the Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Agamas into the Post-Buddhist Upanishadic schools.

>>24858381
>Nicene Christians will attack you
For thinking the physical Christ was made of physical meat but Christ is still the Trinity and equal with the Father. The entire physical realm is also a corrupted embodiment of the same Christ and God and it will die. Every person is a corrupted embodiment of the same Christ and will die. The undivided soul is shared and through the Holy Spirit transmitted through the Bible and Church we can transcend the corruption and embody Christ, bringing the three into alignment.

>>24858381
>but the SSSSfag is right to me overall than Guenonfag(s
Okay then you simply don't know what you are talking about on that topic.
>of which you are engaging in the Philology of such Sophistry in pitting Proclus against Plotinus,
That wasnt me kiddo, I have not said a bad thing about any Neoplatonist author or pitted them against each other in this entire thread.
>and they are also negligent in understanding what Original Buddhism actually was about,
They were concerned with engaging Buddhism as was actually being taught at the time since that was what was competing with them for followers, not trying to engage in hypothetical reconstructions of dead traditions which they didnt even belong to, which is for all intents and purposes a fruitless endeavor.

>>24858449
>Holy Spirit-Bible-Church
More like your system uses 5 items of Father, Son, Spirit, Bible, Church. Scriptures and Community is not a hard requirement for the Incorruptible Soul to transcend upwards and remain in the Absolute BEFORE the dissolution of the body. The Books and Peoples are a stumbling block for religious entities that get ensnared by Evil. The Christians place the Father, Son, and Spirit as Persons while placing "God" as "Beyond-Being", so they engage in a Modal Dualism of a Trinity to a Unity, while giving no explanation to how other souls and matter come from.

"God" Unity
Inseparable Duality
Father-Son-Spirit Trinity
__impenetrable separation for Aseity__
Souls
Matter
Life
__collective nonsense border__
Bible
Church
Church Doctrines
Church Rites

Overall, shit metaphysics.

I will say though, I don't get why it isn't a real quote, shankarafag.

>>24840808 (OP)
Not reading all that. Also you sound like a faggot. Go touch grass and get some pussy (you won't)

>>24858772
This also applies to all of lit just fyi, you're a bunch of faggots

>>24858711
>I will say though, I don't get why it isn't a real quote, shankarafag.
The only uses of anubhava in Upadesasahasri are:

na hy anubhava-siddhasya ātmano jñānāntara-siddhir asti

anubhavātmakaṃ hi jñānam ātmajñānam iti ucyate

śrutir eva hi bodhāya, na tu vastv-anubhāvataḥ

None of these involve the term "atma-anubhava" which is something SSS invents himself and which is completely absent from Shankara's authentic writings. This is no small matter as SSS falsely claims to only use terms and concepts which Shankara himself uses, and he makes a huge deal out of this in an effort to present himself as superior to other Advaitins.

Getting to the heart of the matter, the first two quotes are just talking about how the Self is already and always known through it being the self-luminous foundation of all mental activity as immediate self-knowing awareness, he isn't talking about a special type of intuition of the Self that happens in time and which appears after previously being absent. The whole concept of the Self literally having an anubhava is nonsensical as anubhava is a changing mental phenomena and the Self is immutable and without mental activity, the self-luminosity of the Self is inherent to it as its very basic constitutive nature and is not something in addition to the Self, i.e. this self-luminosity is always present in the Self everywhere and always no matter how ignorant a creature is that the Self is dwelling within. In the first two quotes Shankara is just using anubhava figuratively to refer to how the Self is always immediately known and self-evident in all experience in all creatures at every stage of their existence, even when avidya is active.

>>24858677
We need knowledge to transcend the corruption and we need community to distribute knowledge. The Biblical Church is "wherever two or more stand in my name there I am".
The Father is beyond everything but everything that is partakes in Him. The Father is Christ in heaven, the Son is Christ on Earth, the Holy Spirit is Christ as a spirit that can influence your mind, be accessed through writing, art, witnessing an action.

>>24858711
>>24858805
Additionally, the Self is ungraspable by any pramana and so there is not even the possibility of having a direct mental anubhava of it. Self-knowledge happens when the false superimpositions are sublated through assimilating the scriptural teaching fully, leaving the self-luminous Self that was already present remaining just as it always has but without the false mental attributions obscuring it anymore, but this is not an 'experience of the Self'.

In the third quote Shankara is actually directly refuting the position of SSS by emphatically stating that the Self is NOT known through a literal anubhava as SSS falsely claims but is realized through grasping the scriptural teaching which sublates the ignorance involved in superimposition, the passage translates to: "It is indeed the scripture that imparts knowledge, not direct experience of the object (as in perception).”

And this is not even getting into the fact that the Brahma Sutra Bhashya passage that SSS cites to try to claim an ultimate anubhava is necessary is a blatant mis-reading of the context of the passage, which is simply talking about the distinction between Vedic texts talking about rituals vs Vedic texts talking about spiritual knowledge and it says nothing about an ultimate anubhava of the Self that arises being needed. Also, if you examine the classic example of the snake-and-the-rope, it is the realization that the snake is not a rope (sublation) that immediately dissolves all mental ills associated with the false notion, a subsequent empirical experiencing of the rope as truly being a rope is completely unnecessary and it fulfills no purpose.

Welcome to the /lit/ teahouse, we have channels for discussing philosophy and theology
https://discord.gg/7aRekaBg

The pedantry Shankarafag is engaged with from a single image makes it clear as to the mental gymnastics he's engaged with.

Also, shoutouts to the nigger that made this bootleg translation (you know who you are)

>>24857954
>"(Of course I'm not counting the deist thing as that has little to do with actual metaphysics/theology.)"

>>24857954
fuck those freemason cucks

>>24852431
only cucks worship wisdom over god.

>>24858984
>The pedantry Shankarafag
It was not pedantry but I simply pointed that nowhere in Upadesasahasri (or any other work) which you cited does Shankara speak of a literal anubhava of the Self, in fact in the single instance where he uses anubhava literally in that text he is specifying that Self-knowledge is reached through scripture and not anubhava which directly refutes SSS.

>post a quote you dont understand
>have someone explain it to you
>get butthurt and cry in response
what is even the point? are you trying to look bad?

Nowhere in any of his works does Shankara posit a special faculty called anubhava through which one realizes the Self (it contradicts everything Shankara writes), its a fiction invented by SSS to make Vedanta seem like an empirical science of being because he was operating under modernist assumptions and wanted to prove its not "superstitious", aka "I'm not like those other religions, I'm special".

No anubhava is needed precisely because the Self is already known and self-evident:

>It follows, then, that there can be no injunction to acquire knowledge of the Self. All that requires to be effected is the cessation of the superimposition of name and form and other items of not-self onto the Self. There is no question of having to acquire knowledge of the Self as consciousness, for the latter is already known under the forms of all objects projected through nescience .....
>Therefore, just as no special means of knowledge are required in order to take note of one’s own body, so none are required in order to take note of the Self, which is the inmost principle of all. Hence it stands proved that, for those who can practice discrimination, establishment in knowledge of the Self is an already accomplished fact.
- Shankara, Gita-Bhashya 18.50

When he says "there is no question of having to acquire knowledge of the Self as consciousness" and "no special means of knowledge are required " that is tantamount to saying no anubhava is necessary whatsoever as this would constitute a "special means of knowledge" which is exactly what Shankara explicitly rules out, you can't get more literal and direct then that. Since "establishment in knowledge of the Self is an already accomplished fact" as Shankara states, anubhava serves no purpose, you don't need an anubhava of what you *already* know.

Posting random pages without engaging with my direct refutations of SSS is effectively conceding that I'm right and that you have no argument.

>>24856600
you're a midwit

>>24859118
You've lost to that dimwit, you midwit.

>>24859106
Nta. I've read the first part of Upadesasahasri, very enjoyable, especially because of
>Self is already known and self-evident.
But this might sound foolish, how will one know and realize the Self as self-evident. Is it a genuine intuitive sense of knowing?

>>24859069
OnlyCucks™ worship anything besides the True Self that is the Absolute, of which the Comprehensor of that is the Single-Pointed, Purified, Divine Intellect that had destroyed its inchoate agnosis "knows" that no one is being liberated from anything in the first place for they have always been free and always been the Absolute.

>>24860203
>that no one is being liberated from anything in the first place for they have always been free and always been the Absolute.

so why did plotinus claim to have 3 discrete moments of unity with the one if gnosis is realizing you were never disunited from the one in the first place? annihilationists are just retarded

>>24860981
Imagine taking an analogy too far. That's all it comes down to, mistaking a step by step guided unqualified(as in, beyond qualifications of the One as something other than the One) yet personal "gnosis" without the unconditionally transcendent insight sounds like gobbledygook, when in reality, that henosis can't truly be seen as distinct movements nor any motion to begin with. Just as the material body and the virtuous forms are used to climb up to the higher and truer hypostases to arrive at the Formless One that is above Noetic Being and Psychic Becoming, the various mediations is a means to the direct immediate Presence of the Absolute where for those who have seen it for themselves does not therefore require the knowledge of wisdom in order to behold the fruition of that wisdom in becoming "present" unto the Absolute. There are many other sorts of elaborations made concerning the One for the sake of epistemological purposes in speaking of the One in positive and negative, but that too, is still besides the ultimate end unto itself. The Mystical Union of the One of course, while alive, ends with returning back into the body, but it is a spiritual practice to extend one's abidance in The One in ecstatic rapture (out of body presence) for the sake of confidence in one's self nature in being able to forever stay in the Good when one's mortal body deforms, for the cause of death is life, so seeking the Life beyond life is the philosophical, soteriological means to the ends of eternal salvation, of which the Intellectual Life is perpetually fulfilled while mortally alive doing mundane things, the Higher Soul is still concerning itself with supramundane things. Another way to build self confidence is through dialectical discourse by hearing out valid critiques as well as defending valid truths regardless if one knows of them or not, but that is still secondary to the primary epiphany that one self cultivates for themselves, of which their "gnosis" is secondarily verified through comparison of the testimonies of others, but if gnosis is primarily a collectively verifiable task via consensus, then nobody even needs to know what they don't understand for themselves as they merely refer to tradition rather than refering to the direct source beyond the scriptures and communities. Come and see it for yourself, there is no eternal wisdom barred behind any tradition.