The final?
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI
— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI
— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
True, but Meister Eckhart is the secret final boss.
he is the final LULZ boss of western thought
the final LULZ boss of the east is Shankara
right
Quads of truth
>224 The attainment of the onepointedness of the mind and the senses is the best of austerities. It is superior to all religious duties and all other austerities.
>23. Sensuous perceptions are to be regarded as the waking state, Those very perceptions revealed in sleep as impressions constitute the dream state. The absence of perceptions and their impressions is known as deep sleep. The witness of the three states, one's own Self, should be regarded as the supreme Goal to be realized.
>26. What is called deep sleep, darkness, or ignorance is the seed of the waking and dream states. It gets perfectly burnt by the fire of Self-Knowledge, and it no more produces effects, like a burnt seed that does not germinate.
>27. That one seed, called Maya, is evolved into the three states which come one after another again and again. The Self, the Substratum of Maya, though only one and immutable, appears to be many, like reflections of the sun in water.
>56. Appearing to be in the body owing to Ignorance and, therefore, appearing to be of the same size as the body, the Self is regarded as different from things other than the body (and possessed of its qualities) like the moon etc. reflected in the water and appearing to be possessed of its qualities.
>57. One who merges the gross external objects experienced in the waking state in the subtle objects experienced in dream, and these again in Ignorance (deep sleep) and then comes to know the Consciousness of the Self attains Brahman and has not to follow any path, northern or southern.
>58. Having thus renounced the three states of the undifferentiated etc, one gets across the great ocean of Ignorance, for one is by nature established in the Self without qualities, pure, awakened, and free,
>59. One is not born again when one knows that one is unborn, deathless, devoid of old age, free from fear, pure and knowing all particular things and things in general.
>60. How can one be born again who has known the oneness of the Self and Brahman and is sure of the non-existence of the seed called Ignorance stated before?
>One is not born again when one knows that one is unborn, deathless, devoid of old age, free from fear, pure and knowing all particular things and things in general.
This is just Buddhism for brahmins. The thousand-year brahmin-breaking was so thorough that the poos changed their entire philosophy from selling ritual services to the purification of consciousness.
>This is just Buddhism for brahmins.
This is just what the Upanishads teach, including the pre-Buddhist ones. Whatever apparent similarities are due to Buddhism being influenced by Upanishadic/Vedic thought, probably through when Buddha studied with a Samkhya teacher (which is openly derived from the Upanishads).
Moreover, most of the time you cannot even say “you are deathless and pure” on LULZ eastern threads without Buddhists freaking out and crying “noooo you are le miserable suffering and you will die, stop thinking you are anything other than a miserable physical body that will die and cease to exist!!! So, it’s really rich that you now want to claim this as “Buddhist”
>The thousand-year brahmin-breaking was so thorough that the poos changed their entire philosophy from selling ritual services to the purification of consciousness.
This is wrong on both counts, Vedic rituals continue to be a part of Hinduism even today, and none of the great Vedanta theologians saw anything contradictory between Vedantic teachings and Vedic ritual both having a valid place in society. And it has nothing to do with “purifying consciousness” since consciousness is already primordially pristine and spotless without beginning; according to Advaita it is only through a faulty analysis that consciousness can be conceived of as being in need of purification in the first place.
https://vedavyasamandala.com/testi/tradizioni-occidentali/labyrinthos/meister-eckhart-e-la-conoscenza-dellassoluto/
"By its nature, the esotericism of monotheisms, as is well known, expresses a wisdom limited to knowledge of the non-Supreme. This aparavidyā uses the same language of outward theologians, repeatedly obscured by eulogies and devotional formulas, to indicate a path of inner reintegration traveled in stages of approach to a personal God, stages marked by rituals performed with body, speech and mind. The path of pure knowledge beyond all action remains almost totally unknown, precisely because of the absence of an exclusively metaphysical magisterium. It happens, however, that even in the religious sphere there appear personalities endowed by birth with exceptional qualifications. These rare cases, while benefiting from minor initiatory environments, thanks to their natural inclinations quickly attain perfect purification of the mind (antaḥkaraṇa) thus 'accessing' higher knowledge. Because of such exceptionalism, in the texts they produced, exposition of doctrine prevails, while methodical indications are scarce. Among such figures certainly stands out Meister Eckhart (1260-1328), author of pieces of pure metaphysics which, as will be appreciated from Marco Perini's insightful study, is in many ways comparable to the śaṃkarian Advaita. It is indeed symptomatic that, precisely in the agonic period of Tradition in the West, the two highest champions of Christian esotericism appear: Eckhart for the ars sacerdotalis, Dante for the ars regia. Both, to varying degrees, were subject to suspicion and investigation by the Inquisition. It is truly amazing how little contemporary esotericists have held Meister Eckhart in esteem, which speaks volumes about their inability to understand truly metaphysical doctrines; not to mention academic scholars who even considered him a precursor of Protestantism!"
Ibn Arabi is better than both. Lived a cooler life too.
dualist. like ramanuja
some muslims that COULD compare to shankara and eckhart are Ibn Sab'in, al-din Balyani or Muhammad Ibn Fazlallah El-Hindi
Ibn Arabi saw further than both Eckhart and Shankara, his work is more comprehensive and his vision is more emcompassing.
He spent his entire life as a travelling mystic and engaged with theology of every stripe. An absolute giga-genius.
I'm not denying his sanctity and greatness. I'm just pointing out that his doctrine is not comparable to the pure metaphysical (non-dual) standpoint of Shankara and Eckhart.
It is comparable since he is often directly responding to those doctrines.
>Ibn Arabi doesn’t engage in substantive debate and logical argumentation on anywhere near the same level as Shankara.
>both of their writings occur in an unsystematic format
None of that is true. You've probably only read secondary sources on Ibn Arabi.
>It is comparable since he is often directly responding to those doctrines.
Kek, he lived before Eckhart and he had no access to translations of Shankara so it was impossible for him to engage with either. And there was certainly nobody alive in Ibn Arabis time that was repeating a close enough copy of Advaita that Ibn Arabi can be considered to have addressed it via proxy (this whole notion is an absurd cope)
>None of that is true.
Can you give an example of any work in which Ibn Arabi engages in sustained logical arguments that build upon each other for hundreds of pages, much less almost a thousand? I already gave an example to support my claim and you have not given any. I dont see how Ibn Arabis works can be called systematic either.
Kek, he lived before Eckhart and he had no access to translations of Shankara so it was impossible for him to engage with either. And there was certainly nobody alive in Ibn Arabis time that was repeating a close enough copy of Advaita that Ibn Arabi can be considered to have addressed it via proxy (this whole notion is an absurd cope)
You've never read him. Many, many times he considers positions identical to those of Shankara and an Eckhartian type of mysticism and acknowledges they have validity but critiques them and goes further.
>Can you give an example of any work in which Ibn Arabi engages in sustained logical arguments that build upon each other for hundreds of pages, much less almost a thousand? I already gave an example to support my claim and you have not given any. I dont see how Ibn Arabis works can be called systematic either.
Yes, the Futuhat. It's clear you've never read him.
>still hasn't posted an example
beginning to think the shankara-fag is in the right here.
>It's not Buddhism, but it's just not okay?
>Yes, the Futuhat. It's clear you've never read him.
Do you mean Al-Futuhat al-Makkiyya? That's an account of a visionary experience and not a work of straight logical argumentation. There are arguments that occur here and there in Al-Futuhat al-Makkiyya but I don't see how that's comparable. Also you have never posted any actual examples or quotes of Ibn Arabi's arguments that would be relevant.
>Ibn Arabi saw further than both Eckhart and Shankara
I disagree
>his work is more comprehensive
I don’t see how this can be substantiated, both of their writings occur in an unsystematic format, but Shankara’s writings are more comprehensive because he spends much more time engaging in logical arguments defending Advaita against objections and critiquing rival views. The Brahma Sutra Bhasya is like 900+ pages of non-stop back and forth debate between the Vedantin and the purvapkasin opponent, it’s like one massive Platonic dialogue. Ibn Arabi doesn’t engage in substantive debate and logical argumentation on anywhere near the same level as Shankara.
>and his vision is more emcompassing.
Ibn Arabi’s was more encompassing of quotidian concerns like romance, which weren’t the focus of Shankara’s writings since his works primarily deal with the life of a monk aside from his Gita-Bhasya which also concerns householders. However, Shankara’s writings go beyond Ibn Arabi’s writings in other regards like in their comprehensive analysis of consciousness.
>He spent his entire life as a travelling mystic and engaged with theology of every stripe. An absolute giga-genius.
According to virtually every medieval source the exact same is true of Shankara. He become a monk at age 8 and then spend the rest of his life traveling around, teaching, debating and engaging with almost all of the different schools of Indian thought of his time.
>Shankara’s writings go beyond Ibn Arabi’s writings in other regards like in their comprehensive analysis of consciousness.
Isn't it just Buddhism but coping that Sunyata is actually "the Absolute?"
>Isn't it just Buddhism but coping that Sunyata is actually "the Absolute?"
No, this is a brainlet take that couldn’t be farther from the truth. Shankara’s position on both consciousness and metaphysics is diametrically opposed to most Buddhism. Metaphysically, Shankara is closer to classical theism than anything else, his position on consciousness is highly similar to Suhrawardi’s.
The final LULZ boss is Finnegans Wake. That's it. That's the book.
>he doesn't know 82 languages
>not punning in Gaelic, Latin, and reconstructed proto-Indo-European in the same sentence
are 21c writers even trying?
I’ve read him already. Might as well start reading eastern thought
Hey, isn't he a Catholic?
Serious question, I know Martin Luther was obsessed with him, but isn't he himself a Catholic? Or was he more of a proto-protestant?
Yes. I highly recommend getting involved in Catholicism.
>I highly recommend getting involved in Catholicism.
>Catholic
Both saw themselves as catholics, both had trouble with the Vatican.
uhh I think Joyce was pretty hostile to his cradle Catholicism
Oh boy, here we go again
There is no final boss in literature. It isn’t a video game. You evolve as a person and what you look for in a book evolves too
Pope Francis is a fag enabler, globalist, and satanic jesuit.
>Roman Catholicism
>globalist
imagine my shock
Popes can be heretics in Catholicism.
>Christcuck #273647292874 is the truth!
Do you retards even read or just find random Christcucks to namedrop?
Eckhart is really just Plotinus.
I dont think you ever read Eckhart. He is profound even among atheist circles