I think reading Schop has made me enlightened. When I hear people speak I only think of their individuality as a vessel. What is actually speaking is the One WIll, as this or that person, here in this particular place and this particular time. It is easy to notice that most people say the same things, that difference is a local illusion. In other words there are far less people in the world than there are bodies. Unique individuals which speak from their true nature, i.e. geniuses, are rare, but even they are manifestations of the One Will. An identity in space and time, the possession of a consciousness, what are these but phenomena? If there are true individuals in the world, they are its geniuses--but these are in fact the ones who see past the illusion of individuality, who hear the One Will speaking, who feel its freedom as their freedom, noticing that there is really nothing singularly unique about the utterances, which is to say the willing, of the great majority of individuals. It is not an inhumane feeling, this enlightenment--it is not the thought that persons are mere matter; the critical philosophy knows that matter is transcendental, like space and time. It is the thought that egotism thrives only by the illusion of alienation. The ego is truly alone, because it does not know the One Will. But the genius is a friend to all, and understands all, and sees all living and breathing and willing in the same world--and true alienation is impossible, it is the only illusion. It is an illusion that we can annihilate anything. It is an illusion that we came from nothing and are threatened by death. I am the One Will and I see myself in all things. I recognize all things as myself--nothing is unfamiliar to me, nothing is outrageous to me, and therefore I never act with spite. I have no ignorance to hide, I know that all deception affords only an illusory haven. The same Will which I might deceive is the Will that sees what I have done and knows the truth through me. There is no hiding, because I cannot conceal anything from myself. Everything is exposed, everything is brought to light, everything is revealed. There is no darkness left. There is no hatred, dread, ambition, anxious desire, no will to deceive. There is no will to lie, no reason to lie.
I think reading Schop has made me enlightened. When I hear people speak I only think of their individuality as a vessel...
Other urls found in this thread:
realization.org
twitter.com
Based, I'm right here with you.
>There is no hatred, dread, ambition, anxious desire, no will to deceive. There is no will to lie, no reason to lie.
sounds like you are in ignorance of your will
Based
No will but the will of God.
Based, sounds a lot like Ashtavakra Gita:
realization.org
It'll wear off in a few weeks
enjoyed reading that. have a good one user
Not if OP actively meditates on it. Don't let it go to waste, OP. Take time to think about it and reread Schopenhauer every now and then.
That's literally because it is. Hindu philosophy was a driving influence on Schopenhauer's thinking.
Actually no sweetie. Only the raw urge for consciousness to wriggle its way painfully into existence.
The translations of Hindu texts appeared only after he had written his book, so he was even more impressed that his thought and theirs converged independently.
He quotes from the Upanishads in world as will and representation. He read the Latin translation. It could have been that this was added in the later editions of the book.
You can read the fifth chapter of part X of Thomas Mann's Buddenbrooks for a literary rendering of a guy who reads Schopenhauer, feels enlightened and thinks he has figured everything out, and then later falls back into depression.
Also the first translation of the upanishads was the Latin translation of the by Anquetil du Perron was published in 1801. He published WAWAR in 1818
>Also the first translation of the upanishads was the Latin translation of the by Anquetil du Perron was published in 1801.
Butchered this sentence lol but the salient fact is somewhere in the mess.
You're not very intelligent.
Sounds like dude got close, but didn't realize enlightenment doesn't mean constant bliss, it just means indifference to all your emotions, good and bad, neither accepting, nor rejecting them.
"To this day Schopenhauer remains the only great Western philosopher to have been genuinely well versed in Eastern thought and to have related it to his own work. However, the nature of the relationship have been commonly misunderstood: his philosophy is often said to have been *influenced* by the Eastern thought, and that is not correct in the sense in which it is usually meant.
He did not begin to make acquaintance of Eastern thought until the end of 1813, when he met Majer, and by this time "The Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason" had been written and published. As he was later to write (in a marginal note dated 1849): " already in 1814 (my twenty-seventh year) all the dogmas of my system, even the subordinate ones, were established." And this is true, as can be verified from the notebooks.
What happened is that, working entirely within the central tradition of Western philosophy -- before all else continuing and completing, as he believed, the work of Kant-- he arrived at positions which *he then almost immediately discovered* were similar to some of the doctrines central to Hinduism and Buddhism. The discovery came to him as a revelation, and throughout his subsequent writings he made play with the parallels.
But the relationship is not one of Influence. Indeed, in his mind the most important point lay in the fact that there was no influence: the profoundest thinkers of East and West, working unknown to each other in virtually unrelated traditions and languages -- evolved quite separately over huge stretches of time, indeed in different historical epochs and completely different kinds of society -- had been led to the same fundamental conclusions about the nature of the world." (Bryan Magee's The Philosophy of Schopenhauer page 15)
Schopenhauer had a bad Westernized reading of the Upnishads. Read René Guénon (pbuh) instead.
Sure! Just let me get my copy
While I admire Schopenhauer greatly, I do not agree with his monist metaphysics. In fact, there may be dual conflicting wills, which are in irreconcilable tension, and perhaps, you are either experiencing one at the expense of the other or having theory influencing your perception (i.e., perception is theory-laden)? I do not see how one can derive certain metaphysical "knowledge" from infrequent, anomalous meditative experiences even with the absence of abstract or conceptual thought forming a "barrier between subject and object". One feels single-pointed concentration or absorption, yet this does not say anything in regards to there being a "One Will". What if you felt this union with pure love vs. pure hatred? Would not their characters be of an entirely different nature? Why assume love and hatred exist in a complementary dynamic rather a conflicting one? Why assume they have a common source rather than entirely different ones such as pic related? Perhaps, it is possible to become one with hatred at the expense of love or one with love at the expense of hatred?
Again, why does henosis have to indicate monism? Could not the source be a duality or plurality rather than an all-inclusive or preternatural "infinite potential"? Why not a duality or even a plurality of Wills, which are monomial to themselves? Are the best moments of Moominvalley one with the hell of Maldoror's chamber?
Regardless, I do think Schopenhauer is a great philosopher, and he was one of the few engaging writers too.
>While I admire Schopenhauer greatly, I do not agree with his monist metaphysics. In fact, there may be dual conflicting wills, which are in irreconcilable tension, and perhaps, you are either experiencing one at the expense of the other or having theory influencing your perception (i.e., perception is theory-laden)? I do not see how one can derive certain metaphysical "knowledge" from infrequent, anomalous meditative experiences even with the absence of abstract or conceptual thought forming a "barrier between subject and object". One feels single-pointed concentration or absorption, yet this does not say anything in regards to there being a "One Will". What if you felt this union with pure love vs. pure hatred? Would not their characters be of an entirely different nature? Why assume love and hatred exist in a complementary dynamic rather a conflicting one? Why assume they have a common source rather than entirely different ones such as pic related? Perhaps, it is possible to become one with hatred at the expense of love or one with love at the expense of hatred?
>Again, why does henosis have to indicate monism? Could not the source be a duality or plurality rather than an all-inclusive or preternatural "infinite potential"? Why not a duality or even a plurality of Wills, which are monomial to themselves? Are the best moments of Moominvalley one with the hell of Maldoror's chamber?
>Regardless, I do think Schopenhauer is a great philosopher, and he was one of the few engaging writers too.
profane philosophy detected. we on Yea Forums prefer to rely on revelation instead of mindless pseudery.
OP's post isn't about revelation either. It's about an anomalous experience of immanence.
His post would be considered pseudery too by the High Priests of Yea Forums.
>pseudery
While I don't agree with Schopenhauer's metaphysics, it's not pseudery.
>there may be dual conflicting wills, which are in irreconcilable tension
I once felt something like that union. It was the union of the suffering of a murder victim and the suffering of their murderer. It was in that union that I felt God.
His metaphysics are just a bad reading of revelation. That's only natural, for he was detached from the living tradition of that revelation and didn't even read Sanskrit. on the other hand is just vain philosophy and pseudery.
And whose philosophy is based on revelation and therefore not psuedery? Pbuh (guenon) perhaps? Could it be...
Dualism is absolute.
I see. Well, I don't believe your experience meant much. It was more of a delusion.
Shankaracharya (pbuh) and his avatar in this fallen world Guénon (pbuh).
Go back to your containment thread and call yourself based hundred times.
>dual conflicting wills, which are in irreconcilable tension
>absolute
A low-IQ heretical reading of Christianity cannot be "absolute".
If you like Hinduism so much, why are you sympathetic to Islam? It doesn't make sense. Muhammad was kind of a barbaric warlord, which both Hume and Schopenhauer were right to bring up. Just jump to the source material like Upanishads and Adi Shankara's commentaries if you like Advaita so much. Bringing up Guenon doesn't make sense.
I'm not Christian. I actually think Gnosticism, such as Manichaeism, is more Zoroastrian rather than Christian. I don't like monotheism due to problem of evil, which Schopenhauer talked at length about in one of his essays.
>Go back to your containment thread and call yourself based hundred times.
Cringe. The brother is right. Vain philosophy has been retroactively refuted by Shaykh Rene Guenon (pbuh).
Holy based...
>I don't like monotheism due to problem of evil
We know. That's a common delusion among various types of onions-boys.
>why are you sympathetic to Islam?
t. has never read Guénon
>I'm not Christian.
>muh ""problem of evil""
And there we have it. Another high quality thread (much better than all of Yea Forums recently), where OP talked about genuine experiences reading of a philosopher (genuine philosopher) had on him is ruined by deranged derailing spams of Yea Forums's resident delusional. Is there really no way to ban this unhinged ape? Why are the mods not taking action?
>I don't like monotheism due to problem of evil, which Schopenhauer talked at length about in one of his essays.
So this is the power of Schopenhauer... At last, I truly see...
Well, you can't really have both an omnipotent and all-good god. Given how much of our reality is impermanent, I choose to believe god is not omnipotent but all-good. The world as a battleground of good and evil was created via a cosmic accident.
Well, the thing about being dualist, rather than a nondualist or monist, is I can say certain people are pure evil without any possibility of redemption, which means I am more likely to pick up the sword and slay them without any regrets. I am pro-execution unlike basedboys. I do not believe God's presence is in everyone; some peoples' divine fragments have vanished, leaving only darkness. Your own mysticism does not permit for this perspective.
I'm not even a Guenonfag. My blessings go out to him though for derailing vain philosophy threads.
>you can't really have both an omnipotent and all-good god
Only if you hold to the materialist heresy (no afterlife or Day of Judgement) or to the "mummy i want to feell good all the time" heresy. It's amusing how this single issue is sufficient to detect heretical hylics without failure.
>Well, the thing about being dualist, rather than a nondualist or monist, is I can say certain people are pure evil without any possibility of redemption, which means I am more likely to pick up the sword and slay them without any regrets. I am pro-execution unlike basedboys. I do not believe God's presence is in everyone; some peoples' divine fragments have vanished, leaving only darkness. Your own mysticism does not permit for this perspective.
And on the basis of which revelation do you hold this?
You are acting quite haughty. If your Abrahamic God and kike Jesus were real, I would have already been dead, for I wrote the most sinful story in existence.
While I am not sadistic and hate cannibals, I would make a special exception for your beloved kike on a stick. I would send you its preserved eyes as a gesture of kindness.
If it were up to me, all of Jerusalem and Mecca would be leveled to the ground and replaced with fire temples. The Sassanian-Byzantine wars never ended. Many of us still exist and are ready to slaughter every last adherent of Abrahamic filth.
>materialist heresy
It's the truth though. There are two material wills fighting over control. One is Evil, One is Good but weak, as explained so eloquently.
I came to this by pondering the questions by myself. I require no tradition to tell me the truth.
shit anhedonia means enlightenment?
>I would have already been dead
Where does the incarnate second person of the Holy Trinity promise anything like this? He only tells us that you shall be resurrected after your death and judged for your deeds like the rest of humanity.
>the rest of your hylic ramblings
Repent, brother. It is not proper for a man to write such things.
>I came to this by pondering the questions by myself. I require no tradition to tell me the truth.
>guenonfag vs zoroasterfag
Wow this is quite a thread
Holy based...
(pbuh)
>While I am not sadistic and hate cannibals, I would make a special exception for your beloved kike on a stick. I would send you its preserved eyes as a gesture of kindness.
>If it were up to me, all of Jerusalem and Mecca would be leveled to the ground and replaced with fire temples. The Sassanian-Byzantine wars never ended. Many of us still exist and are ready to slaughter every last adherent of Abrahamic filth.
>problem of evil
We only need to add the Albanian khomeinifag to make the cycle complete.
Holy based...
Even Guenon's two books completely refute most (if not all) of modernity.
>you can't really have both an omnipotent and all-good god
>I choose to believe god is not omnipotent but all-good. The world as a battleground of good and evil was created via a cosmic accident.
Is there a view more cringe than this?
If you acknowledge experiences of union can occur with diametrically opposed valences, intentions, events, or whatever, then it is a logical conclusion.
>diametrically opposed valences, intentions, events
>logic
Retroactively refuted by René Guénon (ﷺ).
The blind man telling the sighted colors are a delusion.
That's just what someone living in Kali Yuga would think (as opposed to someone in contact with the primordial nondual initiatory tradition of the ancients).
I was not using logic in a strict and precise sense in that regard. The issue is that I feel all formal and paraconsistent forms of logic have many layers of assumptions, and they cannot reasonably be used to determine ontological matters. What we are stuck with is inductive reasoning based on experience. Therefore, it becomes a matter of interpreting the anomalous mystical experiences and their relationship to the nature of reality, rather than trying to uncover some kind of rationalist argument. The fact of the matter is, one can create countless rational arguments in favor of one theory or the other, but without experience or evidence, it becomes hard to verify which is true.
Regardless, from my own mystical experiences, oneness is typically directed to diametrically opposed opposites. It is a union with "what is", and "what is" is not one. Why does your theological system have negative or positive karma? Think about it.
The base of reality is a rudimentary dualism, not a rudimentary unity.
Okay, listen, the reason I am able to maintain a degree of respect for you is due to your immersion in Vedanta. Even though I do not personally agree with the religion, I can respect it. However, this worship of Guenon is getting out of hand. You are taking it too far. I almost think you have some kind of homoerotic obsession with this man. It reminds me of how Sri Ramana Maharshi was crying when people tried to drink the water he used to wash his feet.
>diametrically opposed opposites
OH NO NO NO NO NO
diametrically opposed valences, intentions, events, or whatever*
You're manic. You're horizons have opened. If you do not press on, they can recede, and you'll be left on the shore.
based brother...
>I'm not Christian. I actually think Gnosticism, such as Manichaeism, is more Zoroastrian rather than Christian. I don't like monotheism due to problem of evil, which Schopenhauer talked at length about in one of his essays.
I wonder who could be behind this post...
Cyrus the Idiot should have slaughtered all of the Jews. It would have saved this world a lot of misery. If I could travel back to any point of time, I would ensure the utter destruction of every last Semite.
Whoa! Truly based
>this intense self-hatred
I wonder who could be behind this post...
I mean, Jewish views of monotheism are closer to your own. Jews don't really believe in a good and evil.
>Jewish views of monotheism are closer to your own
Jews believe in a good Jewish god and in a lesser evil Christian God. They literally claim that they created Christ to divert the gentiles and collect their souls, that's how delusional they are.
>Jewish views of monotheism are closer to your own
>absolute divine simplicity
>Christianity
OH NO NO NO NO
In Judaism, in higher levels of realization, one sees good and evil as false perceptions of duality. God is beyond good and evil in Judaism. The same applies to Christianity to a large extent. I had compiled quotes from both the Old and New Testament kind of indicating this stuff.
I was criticizing monotheism as a whole.
absolutely based
>profoundest thinkers of East and West, working unknown to each other in virtually unrelated traditions and languages -- evolved quite separately over huge stretches of time, indeed in different historical epochs and completely different kinds of society
Indeed
Kinda. My impression is anhedonics don't feel at all, and yearn for happy/exciting fee-fees. Whereas in the established state you still feel everything, but you never desire something different than you're currently feeling.
But it's ultimately ok. There's no need to accomplish anything in particular.
Based, bravo, well put.
When I realized I could stop pretending to be separate I was content. I hope meditation better allows me to maintain that. It sometimes feels like awareness slips away.
Yearning for that awareness to always be there is a fetter.
That seems true. If I seek awareness when I am unaware, is that different from eating when I'm hungry and sleeping when I'm tired?
Yes, because you already are always in that state, unlike hunger and thirst. Moments when it seems the state is no longer there is just you 'blinking'.
realization.org
>our oral traditions
what oral traditions? does he think there's an unbroken chain of tradition to his neo-pagan larping?