>>151823
You are correct, or at least it's a Jewish view:
>It may also have a connection with later rabbinic teaching, formulated in the liturgy, that each day God continually renews the work of creation. The most radical theoretical expression of this view was the occasionalist teaching of the Islamic theologians that God continually creates the world by recreating, moment by moment and out of nothing, the ephemeral atoms and accidents of which it is comprised in whatever configurations He wishes.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/cause-and-effect
Of course, that is only the first of two views, the second being that causal efficacy does exist by itself in the works of God. It lines up with Averroes' response to Al-Ghazali, The Incoherence of the Incoherence, which reaffirms similar ideas and was also very popular.
>>151865
Consider what you mention in this post: a way of life, works, and broad correlations, but you don't mention the basic differences in how they describe the world. Buddhists deny the existence of a soul yet reaffirm reincarnation, uphold the nondualistic unity of subject and object as they arise in tandem, consider that none of the gods (not even Brahma) have the level of understanding of the Buddha, and even argue that there are four logical states of being (is, isn't, both, neither). Vedic religions are relatively open and can indeed incorporate Jesus as a teacher of the dharma (or inversely Christians can take Gautama as a virtuous pagan), but they do not adopt Christian metaphysics, and if you believe the aforementioned differences can be easily bridged then I would like to hear how you go about it.
>>152063
This is too conspiranoic for me. Something that conspiratards often do is find genuine connections between one thing and another but, because they consider there are nebulous dark powers trying to make everything worse, interpret this as signs of corruption and pollution and how everything's fucked and totally compromised rather than it being standard human interactions between people sharing the same environment.
>>152101
>And of course, Christ's sacrifice is what allowed for the forgiveness of the original sin. It is no longer a relevant "problem", all can and will be forgiven.
>This is what the Christian faith is about, all the ritual and spirtuality and prayer are far, far less important than doing good. It is faith through works.
I'm not sure about that:
>If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.
>If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.
¥t. the Catholic Church at Trent
The taint of original sin continues to mark the fallen nature of humans, and this is why grace is required for one to come to God. If you're arguing that grace is not necessary and men can simply choose to behave in accordance with God without Him acting through them, that's the good ol' Pelagian heresy. It also sounds like you're preaching for universal salvation or at least salvation of people who have no faith in Christ and continue to be outside of the Church, which would certainly be problematic for Christian theology. It would make itself obsolete.
>>152110
>>152111
>>152143
>In all cases this is of course not the case, they were just using these things to try and explain concepts.
There's a parallel to draw between that and mechanistic metaphors for the body. Just like today people try explain the brain as if it were a computer (which it is not), in the past it's been argued to be like an aqueduct, then a hydraulic machine, then clockwork, then electric, as the ages changed so did the metaphor. Though I would argue that as the metaphors evolved, so did the understanding of the thing being conceptualized, that the technology they had at hand was not only a point of reference but a mediator which does to a degree determine the extent of someone's imagination.
I like the respect you show to alchemists, and I agree, they did a lot of important work, and that it is crucial to understand the logic of past frameworks which often tackled their problems as best as they could back then. However, this seems to contradict your later statement that the current inclination towards mechanistic causation is a product of modern materialism. The Peripatetics, Stoics, and Epicureans all believed in rational mechanistic causality, and these were dominant ideas well before Christ that would continue to influence western philosophy, including Islamic thought. The Muslims who picked up on Greek research and worked on it at the same time that Europe was going through the early middle ages used mechanistic frameworks, and so did the Euros after they started to translate their texts. Even later on in the 1600s, people were trying to implement Epicurean atomism into the Thomist-Aristotelian framework because it helped better explain the advances of alchemy at the time, and it became a very big deal. I understand if you believe that occasionalism is necessary for a proper conception of an absolute God, and we could expect a rational God to maintain a rational arrangement for reality persistent throughout time whose creations are able to understand, but I have not managed to catch if there was at any point an argument in its favor in the practical, observable sense. God the Architect is a very workable notion, and all it requires of him is an initial action and a plan.

Now if only the local 仙人 could stop trying to pwn the Judaeo-Christians....

I think something stupid is going on in this thread and I don't want to read all this text to know it.
I don't think of religions that assume a higher sentient power as having any value at all. No one cares about you in an abstract plain of existence.

I personally like to derive meaning in the value of consciousness. On one hand I like the theory that souls are able to transcend time and space and that the universe has a stock of existence that can be passed around.
The other theory is that there's some form of dualism where the mind is separate from the body and people exist in the ether.

As far as religion goes, I'd just say I'm taoist. Taoist writings generally fit my personal philosophies and doesn't get in my way with arbitrary nonsense.

>>152270
>dualism
Dualism is the pathway to suicide. If the body is merely an ephemeral vessel, and not an integral part of the self, then the logical conclusion is that the sooner you die, the better.

>>152273
If that's literally the only tenet of your religion then sure.

>>152270
Well it doesn't matter much anyways I think. A total atheist who is effective can be much closer to and actively channeling the forces of a god than someone who is much more aware but passive.
It's like gravity; a creature doesn't have to understand it to still fall.

I'm just Christian. I was baptized Catholic, but I don't consider myself Catholic anymore. I had an agnostic phase in middle school, but I don't think I was ever strictly athiest.

I don't understand this modern use of the word "spiritual." Aren't we all "spiritual" since we all have a spirit? Assuming you believe that. I think "believes in the metaphysical" is a better descriptor but it is more long-winded.


dear god I just scrolled up

>>152276
By posting in this thread, you now MUST voice your throughts on the De Auxilis controversy. Do you believe the Dominicans were right, or do you lean more towards the Jesuits' molinism? Does God have middle knowledge, or is this just a fanciful invention?

>>152276
I'm a Catholic, I still go to church, and I like to call myself religious but not spiritual as a bit, but mostly because of the woo/scams/new age bullshit surrounding the word spiritual.

>>152271
Taoism is the perfect religion for an otaku/NEET. I will expand more on these thoughts later.

>>152279
Looking forward to reading that.

>>152277
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT SHIT MEANS

>>152261
seek professional help.

>>152277
Certainly that's an...important question.
One with no easy answers, a lot of factors are at play here.
>Does God have middle knowledge
I agree, definitely, the comparisons are there

>>151072
I'm aggressively opinionated on the matter in spirituality, religion, paranormal — to the point that I'd rather never talk about them for where there could be argumentation, except maybe esoterically. It's unrewarded common sense if someone agrees with my views, and it's annoyingly obnoxious if someone doesn't agree. "I already solved it, it's right there in any region's any field of data that's low on half-hearted assumptions, do you really need more?" It's that people are usually too full of themselves to stay at the issues of the matter without kneejerk reactions, simplifications, overwhelment by awe, obsession to reject their own experiences, et cetera. At the end of the day, the best evidence is to beat the skeptic up. Fun, but I have better uses of my mortal time.
I mostly dropped using magic — compared to my peak of frequency and intensity of using it while I was probing everything in it — because the magic that actually works in this world is utterly boring. It's partially my fault for seeking optimization, but also I am repulsed by any theatrics that aren't heartfelt chuuni.
Drawing anime has all the things I wish using magic had just like in my anime and manga about magic. You get talent, you get magical geometry of basic construction that doesn't solve everything but is a great guide for your flows, you get a regional school of magic that's best used by those who contain themselves to it, you get intuitive feels for things, there are direct benefits to discovering and inventing your own tricks and techniques that work for you best, it's almost essential to use mind's eye (Kim Jung Gi didn't draw anime, but his skills were as good as they were because he devoted himself to brute-force training of his mind's eye by tracing and redrawing objects and people from reality in it), integrating scientific theories is awfully helpful, and so on.
My last purposefully disrespectful Goetia summon went so successful that it's probably the main reason why I care about paranormal practices less. Oh, I also did a New Year's session of doing the same with all of Goetia + God sigils, because I felt like it and it was a great opportunity. I stopped being mercantile about prayers after enlarging my peepee, and saving a friend (who broke up with me later) — I only have sessions of gratitudes. Funnily and creepily, prayer often gave me "deal with the devil" kind of "yes/no" offers that nothing else had. I still do sex magic and blood magic whenever any of the relevant life essences get out of me: I can't be wasteful. I always do chaos magic, because one doesn't really get to choose. I have a habit of giving most disliked people curse ultimatums — I don't know what happens to them in the end, because I don't end up sticking around them for long and it's a waste of effort to check up on them. During training, I use oriental techniques and some others that I kind of consider my own inventions. This and that. I admit I didn't have success with changing my personality for something I'd prefer better, and seemingly no success in getting together with a girl that doesn't give me nausea, but at least I grew to enjoy my personality. At the the end of the day, all such practices are impotent, because even God doesn't have the power to erase my soul without a trace. We had really tried, okay?
So, I disassociate from any of such discussions hard and do the meditative approach of observing and moving past my judgements and desires to talk. I gaslight myself into convincing myself that I have no thoughts or knowledge on the matter beyond maybe some historical facts.
Some anons are positively cute.

>>151770
>"If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him."
Easier said than done, exterminatus isn't practically feasible.

>>151783
>the sum of all instances of all archetypes
I recommend reading up on Jung's "psychoid."

On the other hand, I'm curious as to what would happen if I were to put in the effort to be committed and constructive in talking.

>>152345
I'm gonna need you to elaborate on that.

I'm not into organized religion stuff but I do think that the buddhists and gnostics were onto something. This place only makes sense as some sort of farm/trap.

this thread was so nice in the beginning...

>>152395
Things collapse under their own weight...

I want my foreskin back.

I paused my daydreaming session to write this up. (You) better read this.

You shouldn't even waste time trying to think about certain topics before you get yourself involved with the following. In this world, as of now, there exist some materials that are universally as useful as dietary supplements. Actual dietary supplements are useful, too (neuroplasticity and gut-brain axis health are especially important). I'm not your dad to tell you how to metabolize either. I'm risking anyone else getting deeper understanding than I do, you know. Ranking and score are cool, this is serious business.
If you having issues in finding a book, it's on Anna's Archive.

The vitamins.
Esoteric reading. There are books on how to do it, and you don't need even a single one of them. Once in a while, pretend an author means something most sensible and good as a whole at least on their unconscious level, and try to figure out what it is. Actually, nevermind, there are no books on this, as this is also steelmanning. I didn't realize how significant it is until I wrote this up. If you had encountered something important but didn't employ esoteric steelman reading - re-encounter it. You have to be hyper delicate to ever use this in interactions with people.
Heart Sutra. No comments.
Diamond Sutra. No comments.
Twilight of the Idols. It's just beneficial to see how an inferior version of the previous two looks like.
Language is inescapable. Aleister Crowley was repulsive and often off the mark, but his "etymology asserts the identity" (Letter No. H to Cara Soror) phrase was spot-on. If you feel controversy around a word, do a thorough research on the word.
Jung and Jungianism. I kinda hate them, but they're useful. You don't have to go deep all at once. It's better if you juggle it gradually with the rest. https://archive.ph/FHWBH

Buddhism.
The suggestion from me is just this section to clear up mistranslation misunderstandings that became commonplace.
https://archive.org/details/WhatTheBuddhaThought/page/n83

Christianity.
The entire website is fun, the webpage is essential. Some anons even here can't tell the difference between Yahweh and El Elyon. Sweet baby Jesus Christ, this is embarrassing.
https://archive.ph/yRGlz

Religion. Anthropology. Magic.
The Ancient City.
The Golden Bough.

Metaphysics. Ontology.
Plato's potentiality and actuality are cool, but the oriental practices are the ones that actually bother to look into the "origin/bridge/goal" of the two. Out of Western thinkers, I had seen only a single unimportant Christian theologist accidentally address the important, and it was quite something that he didn't realize the significance of his discovery. Taoism gets closest to it, but it's not the Tao, and it exactly does not and can not come closer, because Tao is not it (you could also interpret it as truth VS reality. A bit irrelevant to the section, too short to have a section of its own, but important enough to write).

Consciousness. Death.
Orch-OR, Stuart and Hameroff branch. Hameroff's most accessible explanations are scattered all over his twitter account, if you need them. Really try to understand them from the basics, take your time, use all the tools out there for this. I had been reading around for 5 years and I'm still behind any publishing proponent of the theory.
You need to get a good basis on your own death meditation. How it would be like to be a cell line of brain cells? How it would be like to be a brain organoid? Monks do the death meditation on corpses and skeletons, but you're lucky to have internet - you can go further without it being illegal. There is enough footage with the cameraman dying in hearable soundful agony out there. You ought to do this until you have nightmares of your existence being actively rewritten. The contents of such nightmares are useful.

Science.
There are no good books on this. The scientific method is reliant on unprovable assumptions (a Munchausen Trilemma classic), and, by laws of anything of language, objectivity can't exist without the sweet subjectivity. If you disagree, it's because you're wrong you haven't taken the vitamins.

Acausality. Magic.
By laws of anything of language, causality can't exist without acausality. If you disagree, it's because you're wrong and bound by gravity of karma you haven't taken the vitamins.
Atom and Archetype.
Neville Goddard's Feeling Is the Secret.

Drugs.
Many preach that drugs are needed to get anywhere meaningful. They're right: everyone is an endocannabinoids and endoopiod junkie getting their daily hits in the first place. Let me guess, you need more? Stroke your placebo muscle.

>>152091
>I strongly encourage everyone to study these traditions and to experiment with the practices they provide. I especially warmly recommend focused attention meditation and the various Taoist bodily practices. Spiritual reality is not "out there", it's right here, and while this might be projection, browsing internet all day long in shrimp posture will kill your ability to interface with it.
The least everyone here should do is a combination of horse stance Dan-Tian holotropic breathing that includes death meditation intermeshed with microcosmic orbit meditation and Chi Kung's "feel the endless ground below, feel the endless sky above" meditation. Doing it on relaxed powerwalks or literally any other activity instead of the horse stance is fine, too. The more consistence and frequency of the practice there is, the better. Ito Ittosai's school of thought (Eric Shahan, as usual, made a great translation) is also useful to keep your motions and spirit fluid even in everyday life.
One has to be always on the prowl to see if one could go even further.

>>152362
It's the arational no-consciousness source realm of archetypes (i.e. platonic ideas as they're processed biologically) and synchronicities. It's not inaccurate to say it's what the biological gets as its realm of potentiality or Platonic ideas. There are probably better ways to word this. Atom and Archetype elaborates on this the most.

Cybernetics.
"As Above, So Below."
Conway's Game of Life.
Control theory.
A Thousand Plateaus (schizoanalysis' only good book that's also standalone).
Any field's propagation theory. Germs, radiowaves, memes, whatever.
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=131506

>>152395
I blame people framing their answer to OP in the form of lists of homework and implications that no one knows shit except for them.

>>152369
I'm reminded of this classic image.

>>152341
Yes mr. inquisitor, it's this guy! The sex-having demonologist who keeps making graven images of the highest order!
Now, while we wait for reinforcements to arrive, I would like to tell you this, which I find pretty interesting: in the Renaissance there was a spike in demonology, which in fact took place even (or particularly) in monasteries:
>According to reports that reached the papal curia, the Bolognese Carmelites were causing a great scandal throughout the city by publicly preaching that summoning demons in order to obtain responses from them to specific questions was not heretical.
>Necromancers were commonly individuals who were clerics, including university students and men in minor orders — often monks, friars, or diocesan priests.
https://annas-archive.org/scidb/10.1086/664084/
It's worth mentioning that this case took place 1473 (and at that point had been a thing for decades), which was well before the Lesser Key of Solomon or its predecessor the Pseudomonarchia Daemonum were published in later centuries. With that, I leave your fate up to the ecclesiastical court... saraba, he who consorts with the forces of Heck.
>>152399
>Jung and Jungianism. I kinda hate them, but they're useful.
I know folklorists usually despise Jung (and Campbell with his monomyth), what do you dislike about him? You recommend The Golden Bough, so I assume it's not just archetypal analysis.
>Buddhism.
I can see in the sutras that "all forms are illusive and unreal" or that forms are emptiness/sunyata and vice versa, which I was aware of, and other ideas I need to dwell more on, but there's an issue I have that was mentioned in >>152091 and in the passage you point to that I'm not sold on. Gombrich argues that an ultimate unchanging reality does exist as per the Upanishads, and seemingly that atman actually exists as well, but does the Buddha not explain that no one who believes this can be his disciple? It's strange that he would argue native buddhists misunderstood this, but he's the one getting it right by applying a rival school of thought. I want to hear your take on it. Given your mention of the laws of anything of language I assume you would argue that both atman and anatman occur, but maybe I'm getting ahead of myself.
>Any field's propagation theory. Germs, radiowaves, memes, whatever.
This one's certainly interesting. One paper I came across when looking at this stuff was this one analyzing variation in folk songs as if it were DNA:
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(22)00092-6.pdf
My personal belief is that these commonalities come from basic limitations that determine the scope of possibilities, in this case imperfect reproduction. Both DNA and human learning commit little mistakes (or to use a less loaded term, deviations) when bits are transferred, which implies a whole set of ramifications. Kind of like slime mold's pathfinding lining up with human-made route-building, due to optimizing for the shortest length with some sort of basic heuristic, which ends up converging in its results even though the mold appears to be radically simpler. Make of that what you will.
>horse stance Dan-Tian holotropic breathing
Those are a lot of words I am not familiar with.
>>152401
I believe for Jung the archetype is something that actually exists as a part of the world, as opposed to a pure Platonic ideal, right? From a cursory reading consciousness interfacing with the material world is a big theme, but I'd have to dig further into it. Just in case, do you believe it's only the unconscious that is shared, or also active consciousness?

fuarrk it's late

>thread supposedly about spirituality
>ingredients : 100% intellectual masturbation
Why is it always like this?

>>152520
On 4chan I would have already tried to derail the thread with fat Yuyuko tits in an attempt to make anons relax. I try to be better here.

>>152520
>want people to turn their brains off and be religious
>people keep pointing out the nonsense, obvious lies and indisputably evil shit in religion instead
Why can't modern people just listen and believe like previous generations?

>>152520
>>152524
Who are you quoting?

>>152521
Yuyu's yuyus are a way that one can find spirituality which resides within themself.

>>152526
I think boobs are part of my religion, yes.

>>152526
>>152528
Which religion contains the most boobiful gods? I may be open to converting.

>>152520
this guy voted in favor of executing socrates

>>152546
Based on boobhus, I assume Shinto or Buddhism or a mix of both.

>>152581
But I don't know if the gods will allow you to devote yourself to more than one of them. Maybe you'd need to consult one of their Mikos about that.

A splinter discussion was made for this thread after a certain part of it went too political. If you want to find and continue that discussion you can use this thread >>>/secret/37244

Yuyuko saved the day...

>>152506
I considered and still consider Goetia et al. to be fanfiction about Solomon, and Goetia et al. fans to be insufferable, but it's still amusing that I got something out of it, because I had approached it thoroughly and earnestly, even if while being upfront about rushed bruteforcing to bypass rituals I don't care about.
>in the Renaissance there was a spike in demonology, which in fact took place even (or particularly) in monasteries
Yup. Even up to that point, it had been extending as far as to any forbidden (non-folk) magic. I actually wanted to recommend a pair of my favourite books where the second one of them covers exactly this and more, but I thought it'd be just for the sake of nerding out for fun, funnily.
¥The Book of Grimoires: The Secret Grammar of Magic' (2013), Claude Lecouteux.
¥'Grimoires: A History of Magic Books' (2009), Owen Davies.
It's extra funny that what's seen as symbol of satanism by laypeople (Baphomet) was popularized by crusaders in the first place.

>I know folklorists usually despise Jung (and Campbell with his monomyth), what do you dislike about him?
Jung's own works are rather negligent on individuation, the methods towards experiences of transcendent are reliant on evoking awe no matter how shallow it may be, and the general structure of the thought system is based off the same impersonal patternage of society that it's supposed to clean up after. Most of Jungians are even worse, and only a few like Von Franz (I don't see how any real folklorist would have any issues with her books on fairy tales, myths, folk tales) and Robert Moore do better. Campbell is irredeemable for lazily shilling his monomything while mixing up Freudian and Jungian interpretations of terms and displaying no delicate sensitivity towards interpretations that even Jung kind of had, as Jung had avoided preaching about any interpretations as absolute truth.

>https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(22)00092-6.pdf
>My personal belief is that these commonalities come from basic limitations that determine the scope of possibilities,
Sensible.
>in this case imperfect reproduction
If it means that perfect reproduction should lead to ethnicities becoming as different as species, then I suppose so.

$1

Crudely speaking, this is directly related to how chimps perceive cooing as friendly, and loud behavior that shows teeth as a threat. The coolest thing there could be is figuring out which genres evoke what and why would one like them, on level of neurobiology and biosocial signaling theory. It's a non-spiritual tangent here, just my curiosity.

>I believe for Jung the archetype is something that actually exists as a part of the world, as opposed to a pure Platonic ideal, right?
Within the world as the whole of wholes? Yeah.
Archetypes are never something that a consciousness encounters or could ever encounter even through intuition, it encounters only its manifestations, models, representations, even if such are very accurate to the archetype.
I guess one could also interpret it that the world of potentiality that archetypes reside in are intermeshed with the basic particles that make the patterns. Schizoanalysis' body without organs and rhizomes would be the best to use as an alternative explanation of what are fields of archetypes in how they're manifested - accidental systems that happen to get definitive characteristics that define them as something separate from what it's not part of, while all it does is happening to run on nothing but chaos and entropy with no structure to it. It's the closest that a non-subjectivity system could get to subjectivity. It's a serious cybernetics thing to understand. I'm rambling a bit, but it's tangible in sensibility.
>From a cursory reading consciousness interfacing with the material world is a big theme, but I'd have to dig further into it.
For synchronicities, it's that synchronization occurs between one's consciousness and one's unconsciousness, enough that one's standpoint of experience (exactly the clearest definition of Ego) is involved. I now understand that my biggest gripe ever is people falling for the synchronicities that are not truly personal to them; pandering to egocentricity without subjectivity being involved.
>Just in case, do you believe it's only the unconscious that is shared, or also active consciousness?
I'm not sure what you mean by this question.
Personal consciousness and unconsciousness can never be shared fully, because they're around a subjectivity, specific qualia, a viewpoint based on the territory it holds (the sandwich of unconscious-subjectivity-consciousness is composite self, subjectivity is the archetypal Self. Jung's theory isn't actually advanced to this point to differentiate this much, it's just the clarification I had to figure out. It's funny that not a single spiritual system ever badmouths the phenomenon of subjective preferences); it's the collective consciousness and collective unconsciousness that are about shareability.
One could argue all of this even from purely a materialistic standpoint; I don't bother to talk to materialists deeply, but grounding is needed for clarity. I put belief only in things like "people are worth it for me to interact with them."

Thanks for helping out with stretching muscles in topics I haven't participated in for a while.

>>152606
>It's extra funny that what's seen as symbol of satanism by laypeople (Baphomet) was popularized by crusaders in the first place.
Well yes but they were burnt at the stake for that so it's not like Baphomet was ever a Church-approved figure...

>>152607
Yeah. I just don't think such things would have happened as much as they did if it weren't for the downstream consequences of predatory Roman Christianity subjugating other sects for sinful power-politics reasons and declaring them heretics. ( https://archive.ph/yRGlz )

>>152714
>predatory Roman Christianity subjugating other sects but this isn't the case.
Roman catholicism was the most successful version, not because of their power, but because of their willingness to accept other sects into their fold. And just as their beliefs influenced and subsumed those other sects, they were influenced by the smaller groups in turn.
katolikos is green and means all-encompassing and until the east Roman schism, it was.

>>152727
Tell that to all the gnostics and other heretics they slaughtered.

>>152727
That was just one tool in their toolbelt. There was just as much blood. The technique depended on the power dynamic of the individual clash of beliefs.
>>152737
Indeed, the crusade against the Cathars is the origin of the phrase "kill them all and let God sort them out." Grim stuff.

>>152737
gnostics are as christian as rastafari

>>152606
I want to continue this conversation, but it's gonna require me to read a bunch of stuff and I'm currently rather busy. I just want to say that I'm not backing out of this conversation, and that I'm still interested.