Quote note (#317)

Alexandra David-Neel, from Magic & Mystery in Tibet:

The profane generally imagine that Buddhists believe in the reincarnation of the soul and even in metempsychosis. This is erroneous. Buddhism teaches that the energy produced by the mental and physical activities of a being brings about the apparition of new mental and physical phenomena, when once this being has been dissolved by death. […] There exist a number of subtle theories upon this subject and the Tibetan mystics seem to have attained a deeper insight into the question that most other Buddhists. […] However, in Tibet as elsewhere, the views of the philosophers are only understood by the elite. The masses, although they repeat the orthodox creed: ‘all aggregates are impermanent; no “ego” exists in the person, nor in anything,’ remain attached to the more simple belief in an undefined entity travelling from world to world, assuming various forms. …

Quality.

December 20, 2016admin 75 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Religion

TAGGED WITH : , ,

75 Responses to this entry

  • Paul Ennis Says:

    Metzinger, Being No One…

    [Reply]

    Aristocles Invictvs Reply:

    my thoughts exactly…

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 20th, 2016 at 9:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    In other words, the monist Idea re-assimilates its avatar.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Interesting phrasing.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 20th, 2016 at 9:27 pm Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    You should take this lesson to heart, collen ryan.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    These are all just ghosts playing games through our neuralnet

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 20th, 2016 at 11:05 pm Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    @ Wagner

    You´ve never made the logical argument that Land is a « Communist ». You´ve only ever made the accusation.

    Firstly, he does rather predictive work, not Ideological or activist.

    I.e. he describes processes that were already operant.

    You could though definitely say he´s the Karl Marx of techno-Capitalism.

    Communism advocates « that all property [should be] publicly owned » or at least all « means of production ».

    When A.I. replaces the public (in Land´s vision) hasn´t communism been achieved?

    Is that your reasoning? Of course, it´s faulty. If there is no community there is no communism.

    Marx and other commies didn´t advocate for the replacement of humans nor even their transcendence through posthuman cyborgs.

    What makes a Commie is is worship of (the idolized propagandized false image of) the manual laboring and intellectually lower class.

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    He substitutes all-souls-equal-before-god with all-souls-equal-before-AI.
    http://www.xenosystems.net/hyper-racism/
    The AI thing is a brand gimmick, an “I am an Edgelord” button.

    Its operation is such that racial strife is diminished through diagonalizing 3rd-eyes to a supposedly higher ideal. Should Jewbrits or Germans re-colonize the savages of India (no offense SVE)? Neither, they’re both so lowly compared to the (scifi) AI. It’s like he’s misting water on a dynamite fuse. If he’s not technically a member of her majesty’s secret service he is in spirit.

    You’re equivocating on my equivocation of communism. The underlying message behind communism, hippiedom, and Landism is that all people/s are equal. Notice Land doesn’t talk about aristocracy and kangs, he’s always diagnosing maladies but never treating them. The implicit suggestion is “It’s alright kids the AI is coming soon, no need to spawn a Hitler redivivus.”

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Communism is hippiedom? Get outta here.

    You´re an inexact thinker.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 21st, 2016 at 12:50 am Reply | Quote
  • collen ryan Says:

    maintaining your ego out of body is one thing maintaining it once that body is dead is practically impossible, this is mostly because you will realize there is no point. It would be sort of like volunteering for hell, well at least youre holding up the line, no I dont mean reincarnation.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    collen ryan shares with us his religious beliefs.

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    Well it seemed to be the topic, and one i have some personal experience of.I wouldn’t call it religious as my experiences were not precipitated by any religious yearning. i found them troubling from the perspective of my catholic upbringing. i treated them sort of scientifically. I did at first research some religious /spiritual leads for explanations, however I found while they had some practical advice their spiritual interpretations were optional.I dont believe in any religion, although i suppose its slightly likelier theres a first cause than the universe arose from true nothingness. That said without exposing myself to any more ridicule by getting specific Im convinced through very objective experience humans are capable of things science cant yet explain and Im sure one neednt be spiritual to experience these types of… Im fairly certain many people could train themselves and i know a lot more people experience naturally “para normal” phenomena than most are aware of.And yeah some can be explained otherwise, but not my stuff and im fairly confident many who shared things with me were not xrazy or lying. i also have experienced several times phenomena at the same time as others. I suspect science will explain it one day.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    i am a bottle of experience

    Wagner Reply:

    @collen: positivists, much like Erikson, are inherently autistic. What experiences are you talking about?

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    « metaphysical positivism »

    Wagner Reply:

    Touche. I’d still like to hear his account.

    Posted on December 21st, 2016 at 2:48 am Reply | Quote
  • collen ryan Says:

    @G. Eiríksson
    its that like marxists hes a anti human, scientific progressive.Or a meddling busybody.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    what is he to do? not describe or predict science?

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    One of these days Land is going to learn how to shut all of us up. His ego needs to be pushed to the breaking-point for that to happen.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Land is an amicable fellow, and I wish we´d stop the high-school antics

    SVErshov Reply:

    why you guys not just read ‘The Thirst for Annihilation-Georges Bataille and Virulent Nihilism’ instead, very challenging text. at least, after that some of your assumptions can make a sense.

    collen ryan Reply:

    land is a progressive like earlier progressives he thinks he can use “science” to remake the world, His ilk are evil is because others pay heavy prices for his hubris.Many of us in these parts are cerebral, but the difference is he like Stalin is anti human, which is why his vision like Stalin’s will fail, for all his talk of Gnon he does not get it himself.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    of course he´s a progressive. life is progressive
    a teleology. progress on teleos.
    revenge of the

    SVErshov Reply:

    “☆☆ Humans like to have two ends, and to keep them as distinct as possible; blessing telos and cursing terminus. In this respect a certain zenith is reached in the Kantian practical postulate of immortality, where the perfection of teleological process requires the infinite recession of extinction. One end supplants the other. We are all kantians now (I use the small case advisedly) and it has come to seem almost natural that our history be comprehended as teleological. It is only since Nietzsche that it has come to seem (immanently) terminal. ☆☆”

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    brilliant. the game of life obviously has teleos if people have it
    life is the hunger games with eternally developing weapons. welcome to battle royale

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGVZOLV9SPo

    people who pretend to have no teleos

    are losers. teleos=winners

    pointless=irration

    Posted on December 21st, 2016 at 2:52 am Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    same as in western philosophy, outsiders trying to scratch the ground. All these stories about elites knowing something is BS. this myth carefully supported and maintained, how to collect danations otherwise.

    buddism is rather great personal development system then centralised pholosophy distribution outlet. there is quite healthy imperative toward philosophy, which declare that desciple have to develop his own philosophy and it is realy does no matter if this personal philosophy primitive, or villiage barber kind of thing as long as it can serve pragmatic end of this person. there is some inspirational documentary about buddist monks in China ‘Amongst White Clouds’

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 21st, 2016 at 4:52 am Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    « Magic-emperors appear; they are lit from behind, they are circled in an arc, organised around carousel decoration, English art-deco figureheads, which are filled in with the representations of detailed botanical paintings, the use of myth, Buddhist-Kings. Such Binder-Gods, chime pleasantly when they are lit, they can see you, being covenant enhanced and resounding;- for example, Loci and his lamp, Radha with her dance, Arthurian legend, the one-eyed monster directing from a clearing, the animals gathered kiss the ground and become grass. The arc is woven with symbol and refrain, vulgar music, the clatter of mechanism as its appeal is telegraphed, transformed and transmitted. The half-circled regalia of the stance, pictures an horrific progression. You must play the game. The figures are lit from the back; they shine, it is hard to escape their gaze. »

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 21st, 2016 at 5:07 am Reply | Quote
  • Erebus Says:

    >”No ego exists in the person.”

    Under “ideal” circumstances, perhaps. Ligotti wrote about this, and what he wrote deserves quoting at length.

    “Like any system of thought that goes against the grain of regurgitated wisdom, Buddhism has enticed legions of the world’s choicest heads, or at least those in the cognitive vanguard. Aside from its lack of a god-figure, it sits atop two courageous and cogent observations, numbers one and two of the Four Noble Truths. The first is the equation between life and suffering. The second is that a craving for life is the provenance of suffering, which is useless and without value. (Pace C. S. Lewis [The Problem of Pain, 1940], whose apologetics are applauded by Christians for giving them ammo against logicians who cannot square an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful God with the demonic sadism of His world. Theodicy notwithstanding, what more could a believer ask for than a chance to clean up in the afterlife by wagering their pains in this one?) These Two Noble Truths lead off a philosophy of hopelessness that might have amounted to something if prescriptions for salvation had not followed, as they did with the Third Noble Truth: that there is a way out of suffering. Now everything was up for grabs. How tragic that Buddha, or the committee that wrote under his pseudonym, did not stop with the first two of the Four Noble Truths but wandered into preaching a way that individuals — and ultimately all of humanity — may be released from the shackles of suffering

    “In the marketplace of salvation, enlightenment is categorically the best buy ever offered (so say its ad-men). Rather than floundering in a world that seems to be nothing but smoke and mirrors, you may sign up to attain a conclusive vision of what’s what and what’s not. Roughly speaking, enlightenment is the correction of our consciousness and the establishment of a state of being in which muddy illusion is washed away and a diamond of understanding shines through. This is the supreme payoff . . . if it may be had, if it has any reality outside the pat or cryptic locutions that allude to it. Millions of people have spent their lives, and some have even lost their minds, trying to win it without ever comprehending, as they sucked their last breath, what it was they had gambled to get. Had they indeed attained enlightenment without being aware of having done so? Were there stages of enlightenment and, if so, how far had they gotten? But enlightenment seems to be a well-defended redoubt whose location cannot be triangulated by speech, the only rule being that if you have to ask yourself if you have arrived, then it is certain you have not.

    “Nevertheless, it does seem that a charmed circle of individuals have reached a state that corresponds to that of enlightenment as delineated — vaguely or rapturously — in scads of scriptures, diaries, copyrighted publications, and public depositions. And they appear to have come to it unwarned, sometimes as a result of physical trauma or a Near-Death Experience. Perhaps the capital instance of enlightenment by accident is that of U. G. Krishnamurti, who claims to have experienced clinical death and then returned to life as the kind of being glorified in the literature of enlightenment, although it should be added that U. G. never gave the least credence to any doctrine of awakening and blasted all religions as well as spirituality itself. (Contrary to the popular holy man Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi, who at the age of sixteen reported his death and enlightenment, then spent the rest of his life as a chain-smoking guru. U. G. once met with Ramana Maharshi and was not impressed.) Through his clinical death, which he called a “calamity” due to the pain and confusion he felt during this process, U. G. became a puppet of nature. To his good fortune, he had no problem with his new way of functioning. He did not need to accept it since by his account he had lost all sense of having an ego that needed to accept or reject anything. How could someone who had ceased to partake in the commerce of selves, who had discarded his personhood, believe or not believe in anything so outlandish as enlightenment . . . or any other vendibles of the seeker’s scene, none of which are hugely evident and all of which are as outmoded as the gods of antiquity or tribal deities with names that sound comical to believers in “real” religions?

    “Some would interpret U. G’s disrespect for spiritual beliefs to be in happy accord with the nature of enlightenment, which they have been taught cannot be pinned down by particulars of any kind. Others would deny this assertion, perhaps because they have been indoctrinated to believe that both irreverence and deference are off the mark once one has “awakened.” Neither side of this controversy would have tempted U. G. What he repeatedly exclaimed in interviews is the impossibility of human beings, except perhaps one in a billion, to keep their heads from overlaying teachings of any kind on their lives as animals who are born only to survive and reproduce, not to build either cultures or castles in the air. Mental activity beyond the basic programs of our animalism leads only to suffering, confusion, and self-deception. U. G never spoke of a solution for what our heads have made of our lives. We are captured by our illusions and there is no way out. That U. G. came upon a way out, as he told his countless interrogators, was nothing but luck, nothing that he knew anything about or could pass on to others. Why bother, then, to tell people that there is no such thing as wisdom and that they are doomed to live and die helpless among the slagheap of their illusions. Why? Because these people came to him and asked for his help. To their pleas he immediately replied that he could not help them, nor could they help themselves. No help could be had from any sector in which they searched. They could seek all their lives and still make it to their deathbeds with nothing but the same useless questions and useless answers with which they began. U. G. had his, but they would never get theirs. So why should they go on living? Naturally, no one explicitly posed this question to U. G. But they had his answer: there is no “you” that lives, only a body going about its only order of business—that of being alive and obeying biology. Whatever else people did with themselves was no concern of his, as he tirelessly reiterated to those who engaged him in conversation. He did not see his place to be a savior of humanity. That was something for the mountebanks of salvation who infested the world with this or that sect, each with its teeth bared to defend its trademarked trumpery. While he saw our race as hopelessly at loggerheads with itself, U. G. would not have backed Zapffe’s conclusion that we must put an end to ourselves. He was just not caught up in human life as a tragedy. That way of thinking was for those poor apes impossibly aspiring to be something other than what they are. The protocol that Zapffe advocated is no less hopeless than U. G.’s insouciant acceptance of things as they are. But it has the bonus that it would write finis to the great paradox that has bedeviled our species rather than shrugging it off as irrelevant. It would also quiet every one of those interest groups born of consciousness—with religions at the top of the list—that U. G. so disdained. Even a rational exchange of views is only a façade hiding irrational passions immune to all pretensions to “agree to disagree,” which is what people say when their attempt to crush you has failed, something they hope to set right at a later date.

    […]

    “As the ego-dead, our existence would be even more dissimilar than it already is from that of most mammals. They feed on one another without the etiquette of the slaughterhouse, and the fed-upon, one imagines, suffer more pain and anxiety than they would from a businesslike execution before the meal begins. Naturally, we would still have to feed, but we would not be omnivorous gourmands who eat for amusement, gobbling everything in nature and turning to the laboratory for more. Like other animals, we would continue to suffer pain in one form or another—that is the essence of existence—but we would not be cozened by our egos to take it personally, an attitude that escalates natural pain into unsustainable horror. To most people, this kind of world might seem drab—no competition, no art, no entertainment because all of these things are based on conflict, and in the world of the ego-dead there would be no conflict of the kind that fills stadiums and battlegrounds. There would also be no ego-boosting activities such as those which derive from working and acquiring more money than one needs, no scientific activity because we would not be driven to improve the world or know much about anything in it or outside it, no religious beliefs because those emerge from desperations and illusions from which we would no longer suffer. Our sights would be set no further than our natural needs, for the tastes and habits of our own invention only subjugate us to a life made unimaginable without them. (Ask any tobacco addict who goes into mourning the day he must choose between smoking and breathing.) Best of all, after becoming so excellently revised as human beings, we would never again have to “agree to disagree.”

    “For onlookers interested in the future of enlightenment, the field of neuroscience has made unmistakable headway. In Being No One (2003), the German neurophilosopher Thomas Metzinger provides a theoretical model of how the brain manufacturers the subjective sense of our existence as discrete “selves,” even though, as Metzinger explains, we would be more rigorously specified as information-processing systems for which it is expedient to create the illusion of “being someone.” This is precisely the crux of Buddhist enlightenment—the realization that we are not what we think we are. More honest and skeptical than Buddhist gurus, Metzinger concludes that it is practically impossible for us to attain willed realization of our unreality due to inbuilt manacles of human perception that keep our minds in a state of dream and delusion. But perhaps Metzinger never heard of U. G. and Wren-Lewis, both of whom speculate that scientists at any time could stumble upon a technique for disabusing us of our selves….

    Science and technology are indeed the only hope we have of deliverance. Those who seek ego-death should, one day, perhaps within our lifetimes, be able to find it there. I, for one, shall not be among them.

    [Reply]

    John Hannon Reply:

    Ligotti was involved as a literary advisor in the publication of “Haunted Universe” by Steven Norquist, who first became known for this essay describing his realization that he wasn’t there –

    http://www.hauntedpress.net/What_is_Enlightenment.html

    While most people to whom such a realization occurs describe it in terms of joy and bliss, Norquist’s description dwells more on the dark side (which is probably what attracted Ligotti), to the extent that he comes across as something of a drama queen.
    Still well worth reading though.

    [Reply]

    John Hannon Reply:

    Norquist’s only public appearance –

    http://www.hauntedpress.net/Steven_Norquist_2010_SIG.html

    (he talks about Ligotti from 31 mins)

    [Reply]

    John Hannon Reply:

    “… the popular holy man Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi, who at the age of sixteen reported his death and enlightenment, then spent the rest of his life as a chain-smoking guru.”

    Ligotti has got his gurus mixed up here. It was NIsargadatta Maharaj who was the chain-smoker, not Ramana. True, Ramana did have an NDE at 16, but he then lived a perfectly saintly life on the holy mountain of Aranachala, whereas the chain-smoking Nisargadatta was an argumentative old crumudgeon who lived and taught in a small attic in a Bombay slum (and sounds by the far the most fun) –

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPbqU9DBR3M&t=187s

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    They guy is a fake if there ever was one. His message amounts to « everything is an illusion ».

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    《everything is an illusion ».
    unfortunately not been proven otherwise since Kant. but, based on recent advances in black holes research, I’m sure Kantianism comming to its analitical end.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    everything is everything.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    and I am that I am

    SVErshov Reply:

    yahh function of liver produce bile, and function of brain produce opinion, what else…. we can produce…. quite natural, how is it happen that such smart guy as Kant did not get it.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Kant machines

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    I care not what it´s called, I care what it produces

    Luke Edwards Reply:

    To engage Buddhism intellectually is to engage it improperly. Sadly, this is the default mode of most Westerners, and they miss the profundity of the tradition. Buddhism teaches that sacred knowledge cannot be talked about, it can only be experienced. The doctrines of Buddhism, then, are a roadmap to those experiences.

    A purely intellectual critique of Buddhism is like deciding you don’t like a country based on its shape on a map. It’s an incredibly different thing when you actually go there.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    —>”Buddhism teaches that sacred knowledge cannot be talked about, it can only be experienced. The doctrines of Buddhism, then, are a roadmap to those experiences. ”

    This is exact.

    Once I opened a video with Zizek on Buddhism. I had to stop it.

    However, that is not to say we cannot intellectually engage it. Obviously we can. But it´ll be nonimpartial, like anything else.

    We can also deem it by it´s wordly fruits, however we´re not supposed to do that.

    Yet we do that. We can. We do. And we achieve.

    Resolutions. Of war. We win.

    They lose.

    John Hannon Reply:

    “To engage Buddhism intellectually is to engage it improperly.”

    This is true of what Aldous Huxley called the “Perennial Philosophy” in general –

    “The Perennial Philosophy has spoken almost all the languages of Asia and Europe and has made use of the terminology and traditions of every one of the higher religions. But under all this confusion of tongues and myths, of local histories and particularist doctrines, there remains a Highest Common Factor, which is the Perennial Philosophy in what may be called its chemically pure state. This final purity can never, of course, be expressed in any verbal statement. It is only in the act of contemplation, when words and even personality are transcended, that the pure state of the Perennial Philosophy can actually be known.
    A philosopher who is content merely to know about the ultimate Reality – theoretically and by hearsay – is compared by Buddha to a herdsman of other men’s cows, and for Mohammed the philosopher who has not realized his metaphysics is just an ass bearing a load of books. Christian, Hindu and Taoist teachers wrote no less emphatically about the absurd pretensions of mere teaching and analytical reasoning.”

    Likewise Rupert Spira (a non-dual teacher I’ve been to see a couple of times in Oxford) emphasizes that –

    “The true teaching is not in the words, it is in the understanding from which the words proceed and with which they are permeated.
    The words are just the packaging of the teaching. They are important only in so far as they lead back to their place of origin.
    Non-duality is a living experience not a mechanical formula.
    Seek understanding, not intellectual understanding, but experiential understanding, clear seeing.”

    (Still not found it yet. Only fleeting glimmers)

    Wagner Reply:

    Perennial philosophy is another kind of Equalism (it’s funny “Equalism” has a red squiggly line under it, it means it’s still mythological). Mysticism is the truest reality, could we agree on this, John? Rather, “mysticism” because without via negativa our Eg-0 will capture by sedimentingcementing patterns learned, and no pattern applies to the Moment. Mysticism noetically suggests Oneness. This interferes disastrously with Hierarchy, which is the backbone of the Right. It karate chops the spine in half. This is why I think rightists should gather in Epicurean gardens to get to the bottom of things. The internet woo it’s so free, not as free as real life.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    » “O monks,” said he, “everything in the world is aflame. The eye is aflame; all that it sees is aflame; all that we behold in the world is aflame. Why? Because the fire of love and of hatred is not extinguished. »

    One only sees through the organs of sight: eyesight, earsight, touchsight, toungesight, nosesight [five senses, John 4:18, *] and mindsight. Nothing is outside of them. All is interior to them. They receive the streams of fire [Daniel 7:10, 9 Rgveda 73:3-4], and those bound by them through fetish are in the nastier part, the lake of fire [Revelation 19:20, 10 Rigveda 39:9].

    » To Joshua b. Hananiah the emperor Hadrian said: “You say that no portion of the heavenly hosts sings praise to the Lord twice, but that God daily hears new angels who sing his praise [based on Lam. iii. 23] and then go. Whither do they go?” Whereupon Joshua replied: “To the stream of fire whence they emanated” (Dan. vii. 10). H.: “What is the character of this stream?” J.: “It is like the Jordan, which ceases not to flow by day or by night.” H.: “And whence comes the stream of fire? ” J.: “From the sweat of the living creatures of God’s chariot, which drops from them under the burden of God’s throne” (Gen. R. lxxviii., beginning, and parallel passages; compare Bacher, “Ag. Tan.” i. 178). Another theory is, that angels are half fire, half water, and that God makes peace between the opposing elements (Yer. R. H. ii. 58a). They feed on the rays of God’s majesty, for “in the light of the king’s countenance is life” (Prov. xvi. 15, Pesiḳ. vi. 57a). »
    [Jewish Encyclopedia]

    Mindsight is called the sixth sense in Buddhism and is (en-lightened by) the Angel of Thought and Manifestation, Metatron. For God, not condescending to come down to the external senses, sends His own words (logoi). [On Dreams i.12] His face is turned toward the past. Where we perceive a chain of events, he sees one single catastrophe which keeps piling wreckage upon wreckage and hurls it in front of his feet. The angel would like to stay, awaken the dead, and make whole what has been smashed. But a storm is blowing from Paradise; it has got caught in his wings with such violence that the angel can no longer close them. … [Theses on the Philosophy of History]

    When messages or messengers are fetishized or taken as idols, the dust of ideas swept up into a heap and even collectivized, this is history. Anti-immanence, anti-knowledge: perishable, profane [Obadiah 1:16, 1 Rigveda 170:1]. Ideas are only keys and if they don’t open doors they are false-keys [Matthew 23:13]. He is the key of life over the falsity of death [Matthew 16:19, 10 Rgveda 60:8]. Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. [Ephesians 5:11]

    Believing is seeing. If ye believe in death (from PIE root *dheu- “to pass away, become senseless”), you always see it looming on the horizon. Yes your body will decay and you do not want your personality to dissolve with it. That means you believe your personality is bound to time. As long as you believe that, that will be what you see; your eternity.

    But there’s no need to believe in death, not as an ending, as death it isn’t even logical and there is no proof of it (as the only proof is experience), just like there is no time neither in spirit nor science.
    Time is what keeps everything from happening at once. [Cummings (1887–1957)]
    But everything has already happened. At Once. Time is not a reality (hypostasis), but a concept or a measure (metron) [Antiphon].
    The horizon is nothing save the limit of our sight [Rossiter Worthington Raymond (1840–1918)].
    The past is malleable, as it is now. [John 17:5]

    No, life is a spiritual event of, and in, eternity. It is not subject to time, nor history. Time and history are subject to it. [Ephesians 5:11] It is unifique, uni[one]-queue.
    And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of Kek. [Romans 12:2]

    On a dark desert highway, cool wind in my hair
    Warm smell of colitas, rising up through the air
    Up ahead in the distance, I saw a shimmering light
    My head grew heavy and my sight grew dim
    I had to stop for the night
    There she stood in the doorway;
    I heard the mission bell
    And I was thinking to myself,
    “This could be Heaven or this could be Hell”
    Then she lit up a candle and she showed me the way
    There were voices down the corridor,
    I thought I heard them say…

    Welcome to the Hotel California
    Such a lovely place (Such a lovely place)
    Such a lovely face
    Plenty of room at the Hotel California
    Any time of year (Any time of year)
    You can find it here

    Her mind is Tiffany-twisted, she got the Mercedes bends
    She got a lot of pretty, pretty boys she calls friends
    How they dance in the courtyard, sweet summer sweat.
    Some dance to remember, some dance to forget

    So I called up the Captain,
    “Please bring me my wine”
    He said, “We haven’t had that spirit here since nineteen sixty nine”
    And still those voices are calling from far away,
    Wake you up in the middle of the night
    Just to hear them say…

    Welcome to the Hotel California
    Such a lovely place (Such a lovely place)
    Such a lovely face
    They livin’ it up at the Hotel California
    What a nice surprise (what a nice surprise)
    Bring your alibis

    Mirrors on the ceiling,
    The pink champagne on ice
    And she said “We are all just prisoners here, of our own device”
    And in the master’s chambers,
    They gathered for the feast
    They stab it with their steely knives,
    But they just can’t kill the beast

    Erebus Reply:

    >《everything is an illusion ».

    I don’t understand your objection. Is that not the single most repeated, if not trite, observation in the history of philosophy? And not just philosophy, but religion as well. One sees it in Plato, in zen Buddhism, in Gnosticism, in the Upanishads, in the works of every “pessimistic” philosopher worth his salt, and in every form of modern nihilism.

    The second most repeated observation is the closely related, but more aspirational, “we are thrust into a world which is absurd/meaningless/illusion, but we can impart meaning unto it, and must strive to do so.” The existentialists turned this trivial observation into an entire movement. One also sees it in the works of religious philosophers like Miguel de Unamuno and Kierkegaard. And, needless to say, techno-transcendentalism and transhumanism have their foundations in this.

    Either mode is enough to live by. In any case, it’s one of those things that is just about impossible to discuss in a rigorous and analytical manner. Nobody is necessarily a fraud for staking a position which corresponds to one of the above.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    This wasn´t necessarily an “objection”. Take it as an opinion if you want, and since you know, which guy was I referring to?

    « Fraud if there ever was one » is like saying that he´s an illusion if there ever was one.

    He said everything is an illusion, no?

    So there is no object

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Or we could alternatively speak of ‘the deceptive Object’

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    there is a spectrum h(a)unting indeed

    Posted on December 21st, 2016 at 5:33 am Reply | Quote
  • pyrrhus Says:

    The fact of reincarnation having been well established by innumerable examples of children speaking ancient languages, knowing everything about airplanes that crashed 70 years ago, etc., the beliefs of the Elites have been rightly disregarded by the average person in Asia and elsewhere.

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    That reminds me of an experience i once had that i was not remembering when alluding to experiences above, But this one i cant really say it proves anything you will see why.

    I had a lover i knew only for about a month and a half and had spent only one full night with before, however i had spent most of the previous month getting to know them quite well. This person was younger about 23 if i recall, intelligent, from a good home, attending a prestigious university studying art.They did have some minor emotional issues which they seemed to be aware of and working on, i suspected they would overcome them.

    That night I was awoken because they were speaking in their sleep, not too loudly but im a light sleeper. Im not a particularly fussy sleeper though and would have ignored it except it was so unusual even while asleep it broke through to my conscious being that i should wake up and listen because they were speaking in a foreign language,

    I dont speak any foreign languages beyond a few phrases and high school french and latin. But having lived my entire life in a large city i was used to hearing many and had a reasonable sense of what languages sounded like what. I cant say why but i immediately felt like this was a dead language, it sounded vaguely mideastern but not like the Jews and Arabs or even greek italian or Indian languages I had heard. Of course i could have been wrong i dont know any mideastern languages beyond what i have heard in places of business spoken by immigrants. The voice sounded wrong, it sounded like the wrong sex and sounded strange as well which is probably why i got the impression it was a dead tongue. I usually describe it as ancient Aramaic but thats really just a description and probably influenced from Hollywood,I am absolutely positive they were asleep they were a heavy sleeper the type whose whole face changes when they are asleep. I knew they had never mentioned knowing any foreign languages, as i said we had gotten to know each other quite well. I knew they were from rather affluent but parochial home, her father was a surgeon her mother a socialite in their second city. They were not cosmopolitan or immigrants. The speaking went on for about another ten minutes and then continued intermittently through out the night, In the morning I asked casually what languages they spoke and they confirmed they didnt speak any languages. I reported what happened and they were a bit puzzled but i though oddly uninterested, at least if someone told me i had done such a thing i would have been fascinated
    Obviously there could be explanations it could have been gibberish for all i know but as i said it went on for a long time and certainly didnt sound like giberish, it was spoken fairly quickly to quickly to make up nonsense that sounded so real over a long period of time, though im sure there is some clever person who could do such a thing somewhere conceivably.
    They could have been some sort of savant that had sub consciously picked up a foreign language and spoken it in their sleep.The relationship was long distance and ended after that so I never could learn more.

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    Seems this is common

    http://www.end-your-sleep-deprivation.com/sleep-talking-and-dreaming-in-different-languages.html

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enki

    I have talked also to that dark hooded guy one of those commenters in the link describe,at any rate a similar one

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    reincarnation is real.

    bodies are just conduits. channels.

    [Reply]

    John Hannon Reply:

    “Reincarnation and rebirth are mere stories for the ignorant masses.”

    – Nisargadatta Maharaj

    His uncompromising position regarding reincarnation and rebirth was that –
    “All these concepts only support, and are founded on, the false concept I am, and bolster and re-enforce the ego or ‘I’.”
    And as he stated on other occasions –
    “I want to blast all concepts and establish you in a no-concept state.”
    “It is seeing the false as false and rejecting it. Everything must be scrutinized and the unnecessary ruthlessly destroyed. Believe me, there cannot be too much destruction.”
    “This is a place where the intellect gets annihilated. The experiencer too along with the experience are both to be dissolved.”
    “My words, as knowledge, if planted in you, will remove all other words, all concepts.”
    “My talks are not meant for normal human beings.”
    “Anyone coming here will be liquidated.”

    Sounds a bit like Nietzsche after he went nuts.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    When you´ve convinced yourself everything is false. Chances are you´re gonna say this one more thing is false.

    That is not to say that the perspective is irreal. And that it isn´t liberating.

    But the perspective אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה is no less real.

    Everything is real. Everything exists.

    Question is, on which

    level of

    b

    collen ryan Reply:

    “metaphysical positivism” ?

    “reincarnation is real.
    bodies are just conduits. channels.”?
    Which is it?
    This is whats meant by your snark, you are all over the place intellectually, the only constant is your snide oneupmanship. You remind me of nothing so much as the graffiti artists of the 70s NYC, which you will likely take as a compliment.
    I never asserted anything as positive as’ reincarnation is real’, I simply offered my word as an atheist/agnostic and skeptic, for whatever anyone thought it was worth, that i had personal experience of things science could not explain, but that I expected one day science would explain. Its interesting the thing I pointed to as the least significant you find the most supportable because it ties in with your scatological mysticism you learned as a NAZI.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    No, I learned only later that the Romans took death-masks to recognize themselves as being, so to speak, re-incarnated through the gens.

    Also even more recently I learned that Germanics had a similar custom, of storing the deceased´s stuff in a haug so that the re-born (again carnated) could recognize himself through looking at his past skull and possessions.

    Incidentally, one commentator here (S.C. Hickman) did mention such not that long ago on his own web-log.

    « In the old Germanic imagery, Death is a temporary exile, from where you return you reincarnating in one of your descendants, provided that it is given your name! Otherwise, the child could succumb to a disease. That is to say the weight of beliefs! And the Church has tried to kill the ghosts! If you take the dialogues of Grégoire le Grand, in the middle ages, the ghosts are beside us, on Earth. We talk to them! Coming from a Pope, it’s amazing! Then, from the [?]emesiecle, the Church attempted to imprison them in his Manichaean scheme: the dead among the dead (hell, purgatory and Paradise), the living at home! Without bridge between the two worlds. Literature of Revelations speaks constantly of the manifestations of the dead from the living, even in the 13th century, but most of the time, in dreams. Otherwise, it’s purgatory, and they leave an indelible trace of their passage, like a burn for example. A tip: never shake hands with a ghost! »
    https://socialecologies.wordpress.com/2016/08/28/topology-of-the-unknown-a-fantastic-anthropology/

    How Evola said reincarnation is not in the true account of things is beyond me. I´ve come to learn that not only did the Germanics and the Romans (both descend from the same people, and their language from the same language, and their gods are analogues) in reincarnation, but practiced it. He never mentioned these things

    Germanic patriarchs (men, with a family and a lineage) were buried in mounds that you could enter, with their most valuable belongings, so that when they recognized themselves as having been reincarnated in the continuation of the bloodline could walk into the mound and recognize and reclaim their things. If not also recognize their past skull. (It is some of the same DNA anyway as took to create the previous skull. So it is aspectually the same skull. In duration there has been no biological absolute split. The idea of such a rift is a modern schizo-phrenia.)

    The Romans took death-masks so that they could recognize their faces having been reborn as their own descendants.

    Biologically this makes sense as we´re an organism that reproduces it self. The blood is never cut. From a whole-duration, indeed originary perspective, it´s the same organism. Recreating itself. Gene-ratios.

    One may entertain how this correlates with modern DNA theories of transgenerational effects.
    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1f27b5_bbc-the-ghost-in-your-genes-2006xvid_tech

    Perhaps it was Evola´s « absolute idealism » that wanted to leave this out. He was mixed with non-Germanic & non-Roman blood after all. Yet I´m sure he was re-born in the North

    Posted on December 21st, 2016 at 5:41 pm Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    While the dead have had many reasons to resent, perhaps even despise, the living throughout the centuries, our Roman Catholic Church remains hopeful and optimistic that the third millennium will change this reality permanently. The True Vatican City has seen the future and it is a technologically advanced, very wealthy world of kingdoms in which the living and the dead co-exist together in peace and prosperity. Sure, there’s still plenty of disagreements, fights, and even all-out war, but at that point, it’s all just a videogame that men and, and sometimes women, insist upon playing. Soon enough, the vast world of the mind, along with many different dream worlds, will become widely-accepted among the world’s scientific community. Those already involved in the initial exploration of these supernatural dimensions predict that their existence will continue indefinitely. These worlds will remain safe, perhaps even hospitable, for the living so long as biological life still thrives on planet earth.

    Although some may disagree with this recent undertaking of the Church, it must be understood that actual and increasing contact between the living and the dead, including commercial business activity, is the future and, like it or not, this is already occurring throughout the world.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    « Vatican Hill (Latin: Mons Vaticanus, Italian: Colle Vaticano) is a hill located across the Tiber river from the traditional seven hills of Rome. It is the location of St. Peter’s Basilica.

    The ancient Romans had several opinions about the derivation of the Latin word Vaticanus. Varro (1st century BC) connected it to a Deus Vaticanus or Vagitanus, a Roman deity thought to endow infants with the capacity for speech evidenced by their first wail (vagitus, the first syllable of which is pronounced wa in Classical Latin). Varro’s rather complicated explanation relates this function to the tutelary deity of the place and to the advanced powers of speech possessed by a prophet (vates) … »

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 22nd, 2016 at 6:10 am Reply | Quote
  • Wagner Says:

    Well, we know what the Buddha did to his family.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    he created a spiritual family instead

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 23rd, 2016 at 3:48 am Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    there are many interesting concepts in hinduism. for example we have only one reality, which unaccesible for us. quite pathetic. why not to have 3 or 4 reality or at least 2 like in hinduism. in sanscrit they called prakat and aprakat, vidible and unvisible. prakat manifested as illusion Maya. and aprakat is invisible spiritual plane (paralel universe). there is few secret holy places where aprakat manifest itself. I’ve been lucky to visit one such place. it was a garden, with very unusual trees, they were crooked and not growing much in height, like the same kind of trees outside of the garden. presence of some terrifiyng energy was so real, it was not garden where one can relax, intensity was unbearable. any one interested to visit, please contact me that can be arrrange. I would be not responsible, though.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    fascinating.

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    when you are coming

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    interesting to note that in hinduism illusion is intrinsic property of material energy Maya, external to human counsciousness, but in western Kantian tradition illusion is property of humans.

    some neurobiology research just adding to confusion here, for example agrument that we cannot make consciouse choise, because signal of choise originate from area which is not responsible for cognition. that is fatalistic/satanistic and deterministic science. this position is wrong, because consciousness is property of any neuron and do not require any complex neuronal network appear. I become suspiciouse of this proposition because I play a lot of chess blitz (5min for the whole game) back in the days. in such situation most of time spent on mechanically moving chess pieces, no body have time to ‘think’ but if your decisions is not consciouse you will never win. work of our brain is continouse (most of the time) and thus non deterministic and we do have free will and choise. on the same page with hinduism here.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 23rd, 2016 at 3:43 pm Reply | Quote
  • Wally D. Says:

    Certainly an interesting thread. I think there exists an altered state of consciousness found in Zen enlightenment which sees through the world of illusion we find ourselves enveloped in. Since that state of mind is entirely subjective, it is impossible to fully understand from outside that state. It can only be approached from an objective point of view. I like to think that that state of enlightenment breaks through the world of “illusion” and is much more profound than my limited grasp of understanding as to why we are even here, at all. Or, hope springs eternal.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    You are here to realize your desires.

    [Reply]

    John Hannon Reply:

    Adi Da’s* take on reincarnation –

    “The body is transformed at death into its elements. What you are at this level obviously can be destroyed, in the sense that it will no longer be you as an individual. But you are not reducible only to the material part. Therefore what you are is not destructible. Many features of what you seem to be are changeable and can be destroyed in the sense that that you cease to be them as an individual, but you yourself cannot ultimately be destroyed. You yourself are that which is appearing as everything and is indestructible.
    In other words, you are, as an entity, subtler than this gross body. When it drops and is reduced to the elements, you still continue in a subtler form, partially but subtly material, and you may even return to a gross physical state at some point. All that means is that you can continue to be transformed and troubled by conditional existence, even though you die.
    The Great Truth is that you transcend all these forms – not that you merely exist separate from them, but that their arising does not bind you in any sense and that you are That out of which everything is made and that you are eternally free even in the context of manifestation.
    This is the Great Truth. Survival of death and reincarnation are only secondary truths in the mechanics of the cosmos. In other words, you do not merely possibly migrate to higher planes of existence, but you transcend the cosmic domain itself, the planes of Nature itself, in all its planes, high and low.”

    *Sure he was a dodgy character (fiddling about with his female followers, giving them herpes, etc) but his ability to articulate the essence of Advaita is second to none.
    Linked to this before, but he really nails it here –

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTXDRx4VKOg&t=1000s

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    » Sure he was a dodgy character (fiddling about with his female followers, giving them herpes, etc) but his ability to articulate the essence of Advaita is second to none. »

    lol

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    this nigga tell the truth

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 23rd, 2016 at 6:20 pm Reply | Quote
  • No ego? Really no brain | Philosophies of a Disenchanted Scholar Says:

    […] http://www.xenosystems.net/quote-note-317/ […]

    Posted on December 24th, 2016 at 2:29 pm Reply | Quote
  • collen ryan Says:

    The maths make reincarnation problematic nothing a believer cant explain im sure.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 25th, 2016 at 3:04 pm Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    with a fire for every experience and an obsession for freedom that terrified me to the point that I couldn’t even talk about it, and pushed me to a nomadic point of madness that both dazzled and dizzied me

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 26th, 2016 at 5:53 am Reply | Quote
  • Wagner Says:

    John Rivers on twitter dug up this Churchill quote

    https://twitter.com/JohnRiversX4/status/813598492413280256

    The Jewish question should start from this premise more or less. If you’re English.

    Moldbug was a heresy, the alt-right is a heresy of a heresy. Imagine Pandora’s Box is the Christmas present you didn’t get. Mr. Yarvun unwrapped the wrapping anddd it’s time to peel the tape off the box. What’s inside? I’d say something outside but outside is pretty inside lately.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 27th, 2016 at 4:58 am Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    apparently Jordan B Peterson is commenting on buddhism in april 201666

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7T5cg1a77A

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 28th, 2016 at 8:21 am Reply | Quote
  • void psychosis Says:

    There is another way to look at the vulgar understanding of rebirth. The vulgar way is the post-mortem survival of the ego story. Okay. That just means never failed to make the ultimate Exit. You failed. Are you going to condemn yourself for another lifetime?

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 1st, 2017 at 8:06 pm Reply | Quote
  • void psychosis Says:

    In a thread that is literally about the absence of ego you are arguing over what this person Land is? Do you even see what you are doing?

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 1st, 2017 at 8:24 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment