Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Sauwelios » Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:12 am

Before I respond to Fixed Cross, here's another post that seems to have been rejected from the "Dharma Wheel" forum:

::

I propose Friedrich Nietzsche as the tenth and "last" mahavatar of Vishnu, the Buddha of the West--the ninth being the Buddha (of the East).

I've specialized in Nietzsche for 20 years, but only start to be an expert by becoming an expert in Buddhism, which essentially I've only recently begun.

The crucial Buddhist insight, in my understanding, is anitya or, more acutely, anatman. Now Nietzsche may paradoxically be understood as the Nitya avatar.

His teaching, of eternal return or recurrence, of time as a circle or ring--an indestructible, _diamond_ ring--may seem to contradict anitya, anatman, even duhkha.

Yet it only teaches the nitya of anitya, the atman of anatman, the aduhkha of duhkha--and the duhkha of aduhkha. The suffering of satcitananda.

This is the passion of the Buddha, who goes down like lightning, inlightning, the way down that seems so crooked, the impassioning, rajasic path.

To incarnate as a Sun like being. Becoming a Shiva, a seemin' demon, a Tantric transgressor of "the Path". A swellfoot, wisefoot, wise guy. An Indra (King).

Oedipus the Tyrant, Tyrannosaurus Rex. The Dark Lord Sauron. The Lord of the Rings.

I invoke thee within me, o great Nitya, o Übermensch! There's no escaping Karma, anyway! There is nothing worse than self-torment.

Know thyself means know thine own no-thingness, the anitya of your self, your soul. What forces this knowledge on you is the Other, the others, who define your self.

They may seem a destroyer, yet they destroy nothing; they only annihilate in the sense of reducing, inducing, seducing to no-thingness. No-thingness always has been.

The Other is the Tempter-God, Dionysus the Bodhisattva. Or Dionysa. Dionysx.

The End
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Mitra-Sauwelios » Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:44 am

Fixed Cross wrote:S -
The self-valuing logic of being disclosed to me the opposite: the world is entirely composed of the highest significances and of True Beings.


Well, the highest significances and True Beings, or the lowest significances and false beings... Does it really matter if there is no contrast?


As such, there is no ground to fear or despair, as whatever is lost will re-emerge many-fold.


Do you mean the same _type_ of thing will re-emerge? (If it re-emerges manifold where it was formerly onefold, it cannot logically be the same thing.) But does it really matter to _me_ whether someone or something _like_ me will emerge, even manifold? I think every self-valuing has a ground for fear or despair, and that that ground only falls away, only turns out not to exist, if--not when--the self-valuing realizes it is groundless in itself, is an indirect self-valuing, an other-valuing. This realization is frightening and desperating from the perspective of the non-self-realized self-valuing. And I think getting accustomed to the realization defeats its own purpose--or _would_ defeat it, if it could ever be achieved absolutely. Custom or habit is precisely the great _pacifier_ against the horror of the Real, that is, the empty, the groundless, the fleeting. Killing oneself or lasting mystical union is no solution, for the solution can only be experienced as such--and thereby _be_ such--in the contrast with the problem, the experience of life or consciousness as problematic.


But this is because I use the Will to Power that I embody and directly experience as myself as a standard for what exists, rather than an Idea.
I argue purely from experience, never from models - I rather arrive at models.


Do you mean "rather than using an Idea" or "rather than as an Idea"? I think I initially took you to mean the former, but now I'm not sure.

Ideas and models exist as direct experiences--unless by that you mean sensory as distinct from mental experiences (note that Buddhism considers mind to be the sixth sense (not the "sextessence" of the other five)). I supposed I reified the will to power until my recent "Understanding" of the self-valuing logic. Now I truly see that there are "no things [...] but only dynamic quanta, [... whose] essence lies in their relation to all other quanta, in their 'effect' upon the same." (yet again Will to Power 635.) The self-valuing called, among other names, Mitra-Sauwelios now values itself mostly, or ultimately _only_, as something that makes that understanding or insight possible for itself; likewise all its "others", its "world". For this however it needs some kind of dehin, an "alteration of the personality" (for this term see Will to Power 135-36), a higher self or blessed not-self to _sustain_ it(self) the needs and desires it needs to fulfill in order to "keep up the good work". I'm currently reading Chögyam Trungpa's Cutting through Spiritual Materialism in a Dutch translation Johannes gave to me, via you, some fifteen years ago, and which I repeatedly almost didn't keep (I guess I'm finally ready for it). The word mededogen as used in that translation, which is probably just its translation of "compassion", I've only been able to accept or understand in the sense of gedogen, "tolerance", at least with respect to _myself_ (he speaks of "compassion on oneself"). This tolerance is a kind of patience, of pain or suffering--the duhkha of Binah (the Master of the Temple being the Master of the Law of Sorrow according to "One Star in Sight"); compassion with the passions of all sankharas.
User avatar
Mitra-Sauwelios
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:24 am
Location: Mad Master

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:03 am

Sauwelios wrote:Before I respond to Fixed Cross, here's another post that seems to have been rejected from the "Dharma Wheel" forum:

::

I propose Friedrich Nietzsche as the tenth and "last" mahavatar of Vishnu, the Buddha of the West--the ninth being the Buddha (of the East).

I've specialized in Nietzsche for 20 years, but only start to be an expert by becoming an expert in Buddhism, which essentially I've only recently begun.

The crucial Buddhist insight, in my understanding, is anitya or, more acutely, anatman. Now Nietzsche may paradoxically be understood as the Nitya avatar.

His teaching, of eternal return or recurrence, of time as a circle or ring--an indestructible, _diamond_ ring--may seem to contradict anitya, anatman, even duhkha.

Yet it only teaches the nitya of anitya, the atman of anatman, the aduhkha of duhkha--and the duhkha of aduhkha. The suffering of satcitananda.

This is the passion of the Buddha, who goes down like lightning, inlightning, the way down that seems so crooked, the impassioning, rajasic path.

To incarnate as a Sun like being. Becoming a Shiva, a seemin' demon, a Tantric transgressor of "the Path". A swellfoot, wisefoot, wise guy. An Indra (King).

Oedipus the Tyrant, Tyrannosaurus Rex. The Dark Lord Sauron. The Lord of the Rings.

I invoke thee within me, o great Nitya, o Übermensch! There's no escaping Karma, anyway! There is nothing worse than self-torment.

Know thyself means know thine own no-thingness, the anitya of your self, your soul. What forces this knowledge on you is the Other, the others, who define your self.

They may seem a destroyer, yet they destroy nothing; they only annihilate in the sense of reducing, inducing, seducing to no-thingness. No-thingness always has been.

The Other is the Tempter-God, Dionysus the Bodhisattva. Or Dionysa. Dionysx.

The End
I find the above presentation very messy.


    I propose Friedrich Nietzsche as the tenth and "last" mahavatar of Vishnu, the Buddha of the West--the ninth being the Buddha (of the East).

The above claim is a put-off, especially when you have not provided any sound basis with details.

Note this clear-cut presentation;

In his writings, Friedrich Nietzsche consistently criticizes Buddhism, condemning it as a “nihilistic” belief system, and yet he also refers to himself as the “Buddha of Europe.”

On certain points, the thoughts of Nietzsche come very close to articulating some of the same insights voiced by Siddhartha Gautama thousands of years earlier; particularly on topics such as the impermanence of the world and the rejection of substance ontology.

On other points, such as his advocacy of self-assertion and the will-to-life, Nietzsche defines himself in direct opposition to The Buddha.

So, what is the connection between Nietzsche and Buddhism? This complicated and sometimes confusing relationship is explored in close and subtle detail by Antoine Panaïoti in his new book Nietzsche and Buddhist Philosophy.

https://marmysz.wordpress.com/2013/05/2 ... hilosophy/


The above is simple, i.e.
    1. Nietzsche criticized Buddhism [forget about the Buddha of Europe bit]
    2. The similarities between Buddhism and Nietzsche [ compare the critical elements]
    3. The difference between Buddhism and Nietzsche [ highlight the critical elements]
    4. Proposed reconciliations between difference between Buddhism and Nietzsche.
    5. Conclusion.

A better way would be for you to read the book and summarize the points rather than presenting your fanciful and Hindu terms.

I have not read the above book, but generally, I don't see the differences between Buddhism and Nietzsche can be easily reconcilable.

I am optimistic the major elements of Kant's philosophy are reconciliable to Buddhism's and with greater intellectual rigor.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1211
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Mitra-Sauwelios » Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:03 am

User avatar
Mitra-Sauwelios
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:24 am
Location: Mad Master

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:38 am

Mitra-Sauwelios wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:S -
The self-valuing logic of being disclosed to me the opposite: the world is entirely composed of the highest significances and of True Beings.


Well, the highest significances and True Beings, or the lowest significances and false beings... Does it really matter if there is no contrast?

The contrast is rather between true beings. A false being is no distinct thing. It is gooey, vague blob in a goo, not contrasting as I would use the word, though I get how from a linguistic base you may hold that point, that goo contrast marble. From where I stand this is an insult to both contrast and marble. Marble contrasts marble, this is how one builds order.

To form a contrast the artist needs two strong qualities.

I will await your response to this. Lets take this step by step.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6993
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:53 am

Mitra-Sauwelios wrote:Do you mean the same _type_ of thing will re-emerge? (If it re-emerges manifold where it was formerly onefold, it cannot logically be the same thing.) But does it really matter to _me_ whether someone or something _like_ me will emerge, even manifold? I think every self-valuing has a ground for fear or despair, and that that ground only falls away, only turns out not to exist, if--not when--the self-valuing realizes it is groundless in itself, is an indirect self-valuing, an other-valuing. This realization is frightening and desperating from the perspective of the non-self-realized self-valuing. And I think getting accustomed to the realization defeats its own purpose--or _would_ defeat it, if it could ever be achieved absolutely. Custom or habit is precisely the great _pacifier_ against the horror of the Real, that is, the empty, the groundless, the fleeting. Killing oneself or lasting mystical union is no solution, for the solution can only be experienced as such--and thereby _be_ such--in the contrast with the problem, the experience of life or consciousness as problematic.

Lets call it instinct. I don't fear the void or the empty room, as all Ive ever experienced is fullness. I know too well that equally as energy is never lost, so structural integrity of the self-valuig logics of being never deplete, as that is what is behind energy. And I know that at my most meaningful moments I am entirely embodying in experience my structural integrity as a self-valuing. So I know that whatever is truly me, will always exist as the most powerful thing in the universe. I am Ipsissimus, at least in bad weather (wink) - I don't mind all the mortal coil drama, I like it, as it adds depth to the dharmic reality of the cosmic wheel, which is sheer awesomeness in which I will always partake as goes for more Dragons and those with strong Aries; they identify with the impulse itself rather than with its consequences. I don't mind who carries the fruits of my work. Its my work that blessed man carries forth. And I have no shortage of it. This is existence, this is the bestowing virtue. I am only a part of nature. I am a rose, thorns and all. I don't need things to shatter, Ill put up poems on vases for giants to ram to smithereens, and some of these smithereens will be found by archaeologists and interpreted by philologists and I will be understood in ten thousand years once again - ! Oh the universe is full, over full, the horn of plenty is only a thin tangent. And scarcity of meaning is only another layer to meaning - a means to make it refine itself.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6993
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:01 am

But this is because I use the Will to Power that I embody and directly experience as myself as a standard for what exists, rather than an Idea.
I argue purely from experience, never from models - I rather arrive at models.

Lets say I never move toward the idea but from it and with its direction, its upward cascading dance of elements. I use it as an idea though, and yes I do also use Idea. Idea is of course not separate of the word as we discussed it.

Ideas and models exist as direct experiences--unless by that you mean sensory as distinct from mental experiences (note that Buddhism considers mind to be the sixth sense (not the "sextessence" of the other five)). I supposed I reified the will to power until my recent "Understanding" of the self-valuing logic. Now I truly see that there are "no things [...] but only dynamic quanta, [... whose] essence lies in their relation to all other quanta, in their 'effect' upon the same." (yet again Will to Power 635.) The self-valuing called, among other names, Mitra-Sauwelios now values itself mostly, or ultimately _only_, as something that makes that understanding or insight possible for itself; likewise all its "others", its "world". For this however it needs some kind of dehin, an "alteration of the personality" (for this term see Will to Power 135-36), a higher self or blessed not-self to _sustain_ it(self) the needs and desires it needs to fulfill in order to "keep up the good work". I'm currently reading Chögyam Trungpa's Cutting through Spiritual Materialism in a Dutch translation Johannes gave to me, via you, some fifteen years ago, and which I repeatedly almost didn't keep (I guess I'm finally ready for it). The word mededogen as used in that translation, which is probably just its translation of "compassion", I've only been able to accept or understand in the sense of gedogen, "tolerance", at least with respect to _myself_ (he speaks of "compassion on oneself"). This tolerance is a kind of patience, of pain or suffering--the duhkha of Binah (the Master of the Temple being the Master of the Law of Sorrow according to "One Star in Sight"); compassion with the passions of all sankharas.


You seek that which is worthy of being called Power. That which is clean and pure and balanced, that which clears up the air for you to steer your ship to where you need it to be. Your task is unclear, but your course is not. Power sets aims.

Your Dhenims and your Castes are your wheels and the thunder is your sibling.

Lightning never strikes twice at the same place, because each strike represent a ring of eternity.

these are some Buddhist thoughts, basically ideas as they form as structural integrity (taste, intellectual conscience, loyalty, etc) is bounced off of the void to become some form that contradicts its origins and thus exists.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6993
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:07 am

I am the Fountainhead. How could I endure for the fish in my waters or the waters themselves to be be eternal? How could I fill the void over and over again with my own unconditioned plenty? I must pour forth, thus nature must destroy.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6993
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Mitra-Sauwelios » Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:33 am

Fixed Cross wrote:Once we reduce our being to nothing, or no-thing, it comes to follow that the universe of which we are part and in which we partake is also nothing.


Not if the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Then all the parts may be zeroes, and yet the whole may still be more than zero.

It seems to me that no parts have being in the Parmenidean sense, but becoming itself _has_. Change never stops (being (change)).


When we exalt our being to embody the very standard of being, the world of which we are part becomes perplexingly meaningful and promising, not to mention fulfilling* - the idea that meaning is subservient to scarcity disappears, it is shown that ever single quiver of a blade of grass is the dance of a trillion eternal meanings.


That _sounds_ amazing, at least on first hearing, but doesn't that deeply devalue eternal meaning?

I can appreciate what you say about exalting our being as follows, though: when we transcend the self-valuing that we are into mindful awareness of the infinite whole, we embody that whole, because we are our embodied mind.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the idea that meaning is subservient to scarcity".


It is our notion of meaning; i.e. our meaning of the term meaning, that has depleted man in the west and that reduced him to nothing.
In fact there is nothing besides meaning. To try to state otherwise will logically only result in self-contradicting statements.

E.g. "there is no meaning" is a phrase that is uses different meanings (there, is, no, meaning) in a meaningful structure (grammar) to make the claim that none of these meanings exist. The statement is identical in truth-value to "this sentence is a lie".


Yeah, I don't find this very convincing... I mean, I think you're confounding different senses of the word "meaning" here.

Also, like above with the term "being", I don't think changing the meaning of "meaning" solves the problem of meaning.

What _is_ sensible is to ask what we mean by "meaning" in this sense. I think the answer is something like "intention". Then we do bring the two meanings of "meaning" somewhat together, yet there's still a significant difference between the meaning of _words_ and the meaning of the things those words refer to. For example, the word "you" refers to you, yet the meaning of "you" is not the same as the meaning of you... The meaning of "you" is what's intended to call to mind by the word "you", whereas the meaning of you would be the intention behind you. Thus if we replace you by Jesus in this example, we can indeed see him as Word with an intention behind it. What did God intend with Jesus? If the answer is "For him to die for our sins", then that's the meaning of Jesus. Likewise, classical philosophy considers the end of a thing the meaning of that thing--and it considers attaining to the complete logos the end of man. This similarity gains even greater poignancy when we consider that authentic dasein for Heidegger meant being-toward-death... "Know thyself" means "know that thou art mortal"; in Buddhist terms, it means "know that all selves are fleeting, that only fleetingness itself is not fleeting".

θάνατός ἐστιν ὁκόσα ἐγερθέντες ὁρέομεν, ὁκόσα δὲ εὕδοντες ὕπνος
"Death is all we see while awake, all we see while asleep is sleep."

(Heraclitus, fragment DK B21. More literally than "Enlightened one", Buddha means "Awakened one".)


*the caveat here is that in order to exalt our being to embody such a standard, it must already be deeply fulfilled.


This reminds me of the second of the "three marks of existence", though: "all saṅkhāras are unsatisfactory". Of course, "deeply" is a relative term, so it may be that, when our being is relatively fulfilled, we can exalt it to absolute fulfillment. I'm afraid this reminds me again of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, though, where the fulfillment of the highest need, self-actualization, rests on an adequate fulfillment of the lower needs. All I can offer for the sake of reconciliation at this point is that, when the need for self-actualization is adequately fulfilled, the "lower" needs turn out to be even higher than that (one goes back down, in a way), perhaps as needs for fuller self-actualization.


Thus, the self valuing logic go being as the WtP is a selecting principle as Nietzsche saw it: it simply doesn't hold for all humans. Only for those humans that are true beings; only those that are "animals and gods", and not "persons". Persons don't exist, they are masks, and they dance around a black flame waiting to be consumed.


That makes sense. But then being a "true being" means being aware that there are no beings in the Parmenidean sense (a person being the latter kind of being).


That is how I see the black and purple Avatar, as the devourer of persons, and the manifestation of self-valuing logic of being, which demands a degree of wildness and rage. Integrity is violence upon violence. And the act of consciousness that reveals Being as a Void is itself the end product of a very violent, forceful process of will to power.


Right. The will to truth. The lust (eros) for truth, or even moral indignation/vengefulness (thumos) against truth.


I know this from experience, as I would practice 4 hours of martial arts and yoga each day before I would allow myself into my two hours of meditation. Meditation that was always standing.

So of course I look down smilingly on anyone that claims to know what meditation is without having subjected themselves to utterly rigorous physical disciplines. And in the East, this is the commonly held view - one needs tp purify the body in order to know how one is connected to it; one must build this connection; only the consciously developed body truly exists (why the Greeks held Athletics in such high esteem) and only such a body can uphold a truly sound mind.

This doesn't mean one needs to be muscular to think, it means that one must be entirely aware of ones physical form. As such a Chironically afflicted man like Nietzsche can still hold an exceptionally sound mind. He was deeply and acutely aware of the processes that constituted his body and in great part derived his penetrating powers of mind from the conflicts he had to resolve physically. He was as far from lazy as a human being can get - and laziness is truly the great un-earther.


Right again. My jogging, for instance, tends to be quite meditative. I wonder what physical exercise our academic interlocutor gets.
User avatar
Mitra-Sauwelios
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:24 am
Location: Mad Master

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:34 am

The real contrast is the downside. This one is far worse than nothingness or meaninglessness.

It is the Sheol. The pit. Not hell, but just the antithesis of self-valuing, and the process of undoing that antithesis into nothingness. here are many unpleasant names for this but I don't like mentioning them except to those who are on their way and asking directions.



I see you posted - lolkek well my point was actually that it are the nihilists who are juggling different meanings of meaning and letting the balls drop which is the cause of their sorrow. They're just bad thinkers, thats whats causing the pain, like bad lumberjacks and bad pilots.

Bad philosophers are truly masochistic. HAHAHAHA it made me think of someone.

Anyway more later. I see you quoted Greek and I look forward to finding out what thats about. Glimmering of the sun on the crest of the tsunami.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6993
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:42 am

Yeah, I don't find this very convincing... I mean, I think you're confounding different senses of the word "meaning" here.



I honestly think you need to think this through some more.
Meaning wasn't originally a word.
Or if it was, it does not refer to anything that has ever existed outside of the word.

You see? Languague confounds. Period.
Meaning is.... that what life is, when you're not sick of the soul. )e.g. sadistic for no reason other than watching cartoons(
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6993
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:44 am

Does anyone honestly believe that an animal doesn't know it will die?
If it doesn't know of death, why does it run from it? All we know is death, at the outset. Whether we are mouse or man we just deal with it until it deals with us.

Its the lolkeks of 19th century science, truly below my contempt.

Animals are too noble to become nihilistic like humans get at the prospect of this one life not being enough for their fuckin ingrate shitty cunt souls. This is Achilles, - thumbs from the outside, gratitude as experienced in itself. Monster of Energy / the self-valuing logic of being.
'And nothing besides' - but a lot inside.

But... I suppose sheep and cattle are nihilistic... those that are being led to the slaughter have reason to be nihilist.
But is a nihilist ever truly led, except by his own beliefs in its lack of power to divert its own course?

Show these cows the light!
Yeah.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6993
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:55 am

θάνατός ἐστιν ὁκόσα ἐγερθέντες ὁρέομεν, ὁκόσα δὲ εὕδοντες ὕπνος
"Death is all we see while awake, all we see while asleep is sleep."

Haha, yeah exactly. But when we are asleep all we see is life. Hypnos, illusion, forms, distinct patterns of nothingness into sentience, yes this is vegetation, life.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6993
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:56 am

The word mededogen as used in that translation, which is probably just its translation of "compassion", I've only been able to accept or understand in the sense of gedogen, "tolerance", at


This is too funny
This is the most antichristian thing Ive ever ...

And yet, yes, I guess I have the very same.

It is no small feat to be tolerant of 7 billion people, considering all the things you know some of them are doing but even just the sheer number itself.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6993
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:59 am

I just want gods in my band, and of some gods I really fucking like to think I am sort of in their band.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6993
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:02 am

TO ORBIE



Mithras is a Landlord. He owns the Aquaduct that runs to what is now Nice, France.

He is mor Ethan just a landlord. He has, of course, a dungeon and a mystery cult inside of that -
but the dungeon is the head, and he thoughts are the mystery and speech is the holy water.

Rome is a word that conceals the world and imposes an Imperium.

Sometimes words come to be in the context of sayings. Sometimes a word is an entry that disrupts and intended meaning nd aspires to its own, using, us and everything to be valued into being and receiving the sustenance for self-valuing. As that often goes.....
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6993
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:07 am

Once a path
never last
trust your sand
always ready
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6993
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Mitra-Sauwelios » Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:42 am

Fixed Cross wrote:
Mitra-Sauwelios wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:S -
The self-valuing logic of being disclosed to me the opposite: the world is entirely composed of the highest significances and of True Beings.


Well, the highest significances and True Beings, or the lowest significances and false beings... Does it really matter if there is no contrast?

The contrast is rather between true beings. A false being is no distinct thing. It is gooey, vague blob in a goo, not contrasting as I would use the word, though I get how from a linguistic base you may hold that point, that goo contrast marble. From where I stand this is an insult to both contrast and marble. Marble contrasts marble, this is how one builds order.

To form a contrast the artist needs two strong qualities.

I will await your response to this. Lets take this step by step.


Goo contrasts with marble, different kinds of marble contrast which each other, and marble itself is still relative goo. In fact, it's absolute goo, the only absolute non-goo being the stream of all relative non-goos (literal goo itself is relative non-goo, too).
User avatar
Mitra-Sauwelios
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:24 am
Location: Mad Master

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Mitra-Sauwelios » Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:59 am

Fixed Cross wrote:
Mitra-Sauwelios wrote:Do you mean the same _type_ of thing will re-emerge? (If it re-emerges manifold where it was formerly onefold, it cannot logically be the same thing.) But does it really matter to _me_ whether someone or something _like_ me will emerge, even manifold? I think every self-valuing has a ground for fear or despair, and that that ground only falls away, only turns out not to exist, if--not when--the self-valuing realizes it is groundless in itself, is an indirect self-valuing, an other-valuing. This realization is frightening and desperating from the perspective of the non-self-realized self-valuing. And I think getting accustomed to the realization defeats its own purpose--or _would_ defeat it, if it could ever be achieved absolutely. Custom or habit is precisely the great _pacifier_ against the horror of the Real, that is, the empty, the groundless, the fleeting. Killing oneself or lasting mystical union is no solution, for the solution can only be experienced as such--and thereby _be_ such--in the contrast with the problem, the experience of life or consciousness as problematic.

Lets call it instinct. I don't fear the void or the empty room, as all Ive ever experienced is fullness.


I find this kind of claim hard to take literally. You just spoke of goo and vague blob in a disparaging way, so you have experience of that and it's not a fulfilling experience. Likewise, you regularly experience anger and it doesn't seem you like being angry.


I know too well that equally as energy is never lost, so structural integrity of the self-valuig logics of being never deplete, as that is what is behind energy.


Sure, there will always be self-valuings. Not the _same_ self-valuings, though. This is the problem of all self-valuings except those that realize themselves as individual self-valuings and transcend that, identifying with the universal principle of self-valuing (the logic of being itself). The individual self-valuing that I am will perish and probably never recur (though similar ones may occur, which is what "the" Buddha may have meant by reincarnation without transmigration of souls--historical recurrence, rhyming instead of repeating). The universal principle has always existed, however, and this may be what Picht understood by eternal recurrence--if we understand his Jesus (whose Second Coming Picht understood as the ER) as Nietzsche's Jesus, basically "a" Buddha. (Every Buddha is essentially _the_ Buddha--Buddha-nature itself, the whole of nature(s) or the Nature of nature(s).)


And I know that at my most meaningful moments I am entirely embodying in experience my structural integrity as a self-valuing. So I know that whatever is truly me, will always exist as the most powerful thing in the universe. I am Ipsissimus, at least in bad weather (wink)


Certainly, a Buddha must have perfectly adequate structural integrity, to sustain its very wakefulness. And now that you mention it, interesting that Crowley calls the highest grade Ipsissimus, as that suggests he understood Buddhism along the lines I've tried to draw here. The Selfmost one as "the Master of the Law of Unsubstantiality (Anatta)" ("One Star in Sight").

"He has identified Being and not-Being and Becoming, action and non-action and tendency to action, with all other such triplicities, not distinguishing between them in respect of any conditions, or between any one thing and any other thing as to whether it is with or without conditions.

He is sworn to accept this Grade in the presence of a witness, and to express its nature in word and deed, but to withdraw Himself at once within the veils of his natural manifestation as a man, and to keep silence during his human life as to the fact of his attainment, even to the other members of the Order." (ibid.)

Oops, you didn't do that... You were supposed (wink) to claim the grade in private at most, and thenceforth claim no higher than the grade of Magus. Of which latter it is said:

"A Magus can therefore only appear as such to the world at intervals of some centuries; accounts of historical Magi, and their Words, are given in Liber Aleph.

This does not mean that only one man can attain this Grade in any one Aeon, so far as the Order is concerned. A man can make personal progress equivalent to that of a 'Word of an Aeon'; but he will identify himself with the current word, and exert his will to establish it, lest he conflict with the work of the Magus who uttered the Word of the Aeon in which He is living." (ib.)

Formerly, I took Nietzsche to be the Magus of the new Aeon (the aeon of Thelema, Will), but I suppose I could accept you instead. Of course, it does not say that only a Magus can attain the grade of Ipsissimus, or make personal progress equivalent to that. In any case, I may at this point still be a Magister Templi at most.

"To attain the grade of Magus he must accomplish [...] the renunciation of His enjoyment of the Infinite so that he may formulate Himself as the Finite[.]" (ib.)

Perhaps it's because you formulate yourself as the finite that I find it hard to accept your claims. They seem too exclusive. I mean--at this point I'm reminded of something Lampert's first book says about Nietzsche--, you may have been the first to work out the self-valuing logic of being (Lampert came back from his exclusive claims about Nietzsche after his first book), but does it really matter who was the historical SV-Buddha? I'm just thinking aloud here.


- I don't mind all the mortal coil drama, I like it, as it adds depth to the dharmic reality of the cosmic wheel, which is sheer awesomeness in which I will always partake as goes for more Dragons and those with strong Aries; they identify with the impulse itself rather than with its consequences. I don't mind who carries the fruits of my work. Its my work that blessed man carries forth.


But do you feel he must acknowledge that? Can't the pioneering logician be forgotten yet his logic be remembered? To be sure, it may be helpful for understanding the logic to know what questions led you to it. The life of Siddharta Gautama is of course also remembered, be it shrouded in mystery, as a great way for many people to get into Buddhism.


And I have no shortage of it. This is existence, this is the bestowing virtue. I am only a part of nature. I am a rose, thorns and all. I don't need things to shatter, Ill put up poems on vases for giants to ram to smithereens, and some of these smithereens will be found by archaeologists and interpreted by philologists and I will be understood in ten thousand years once again - !


Perhaps. Or someone similar will come along and work out the logic in similar fashion, in similar circumstances. Or quite different. What matters is that there still or again be philosophy--otherwise they couldn't get to understand you, anyway.


Oh the universe is full, over full, the horn of plenty is only a thin tangent. And scarcity of meaning is only another layer to meaning - a means to make it refine itself.


Right, I can relate to this.
User avatar
Mitra-Sauwelios
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:24 am
Location: Mad Master

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Dec 05, 2017 7:25 pm

I am the logic.


I have perfected consciousness, now consciousness exists.


Yes, I do like being angry. I am, after all, kin to Thor. But of course I don't smile when Im angry.


I must perhaps cease my public discussion of these exalted matters, of which Ive given some glimpses here, perhaps so much as to blind the eyes... in any case, the path is for all to find on their own. I can only be a distant star to point the way. I don't obey scriptures or mystics almanacs, Ipsissimus following a command is of course not Ipsissimus.


Of course I do not care of my current name is remembered. I am not my name. I live in all beings that work with what I forged in depths and heat that no other man has endured or will need to endure. What endures is my accomplishment, which is what I am, which is the bedrock of the future.


Of course I know few will see the reality behind these words, and I know you will never see things the way I see them, in particular, you will always see me very differently from how I experience myself. That is a stimulus, a gift from you to the world, as it compels me to explain myself for all to enjoy and benefit.


This is how Thurisaz works.


Rip, thorn. Ragged, drawn out tear in the fabric. Gaping black out of which monsters (can) come. White teeth, cat teeth, sharks, or the horns of a bull. Wrathful, seriously pissed, lightning hurled down in irritation, flat, hard ramming. Then, silence to lick the wounds and wait until the beep subsides.

The Thurisaz rune initiates the world into the heart of a man, the awesomeness he loves in youth so as to not grow cowardly in age. Memory of disorienting rattling and wounds, a leg stuck to a spike, sudden blood, mesmerizing pain that forgets the future and becomes the now.

The blow of the axe, the small setback in the weaving of a fine fabric. The error around which we seek for re-perfection. In this sense Thurisaz is the father to god or the religious instinct. But it is not the religious instinct, rather the opposite. That which ruptures and ravishes before the maiden ready.

Cruel bindings, love of life's zig-zag motions, a too sharp curve in a roller-coaster, a voice breaking, becoming hoarse and truthful. A nail struck right on the head. A single hailstone that comes through the roof and splits the table, shattering the grails and goblets, then laughter and wine and gratitude for life.



Such is my fullness. Fullness isn't flaccid.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6993
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Dec 05, 2017 7:53 pm

I realize from the reasons of your questioning my fullness (that I am a being of fury) that you consider fullness to be a passive thing, a thing that pacifies. But fullness is pure fury. It is bestowing, not calmly like an auntie from a porcelain karaf, but like the Sun.

The Sun is fury. It is furious from fullness. In the same way all that bestows does so from fullness which is fury.

These are the ethics of your friend. Ethics, nature, taste, life, essence; the joy of fire.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6993
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Dec 05, 2017 8:03 pm

This all makes me realize that I do not know what, to you, the term fullness represents.

Now you know what it means to me, and also why I am angry: I am the embodiment of a world-shaping fury. This is the heat in which my ring of power was forged.

What "climate" do you associate with fullness?
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6993
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby James S Saint » Tue Dec 05, 2017 8:11 pm

Anger == the desperate pursuit of strength.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25792
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Dec 05, 2017 8:28 pm

James S Saint wrote:Anger == the desperate pursuit of strength.

Perhaps you and M-S will prove to have this as a shared belief.

Aint Christmas wonderful.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6993
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Postby Mitra-Sauwelios » Wed Dec 06, 2017 2:59 am

If you like being angry, does that mean I'm doing you a favor when I cause or catalyze anger in you?

I've always thought anger is an expression of sorrow. Compare the claim that depression is internalized rage, from The Sopranos. That, too, makes sense to me. It's only as an expression, an outlet, that anger is joyful, discharging excess sorrow and possibly even lifting depression. "Excess of sorrow laughs."

And be it only the sorrow of excess joy, excess energy. Thus Geist derives from a root meaning "anger".

::

Disclaimer: I wrote the above while sober. Splendid, that I can now excuse my sober writings as being sober and my intoxicated ones as being intoxicated! I write this disclaimer while being mildly under the influence of weed, by the way.
User avatar
Mitra-Sauwelios
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:24 am
Location: Mad Master

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron