Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

[Fixed Cross]

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

Duhh yes.
Why do you think I engaged your "insolence" this intensely during 16 years? To develop myself. You are a diamond against which I polish my sword.
I can't crack you. You don't understand me nearly anything close to perfectly at all, but who cares? As long as you keep understanding yourself I will do the same. Contrast.

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".

Anger outward turns into joy, anger turned away from joy, inward, is "depression", also a very awesome state. Many die of it but it is no less meaningful.
Achilles was the most joyful warrior. He was a God in a mortal coil. His joy was mistaken as vengefulness. He just was busy making a name for himself, i.e he was creating he Occident. He was creating us. And he felt all that in his heart, he must have, his valuing reverberated trough Homer and Alexander, his reactance to not self-value even in the most unreasonable ways. His will was absolute. Atreus' legacy shuddered on its pedestal. But the Gods had bigger plans and did not discriminate between Achilles and Agamemnon in the end. Achaioi or nothing, and thats what it will always be, until the Sun sets in the East. And that is just one facet of a diamond in a great cosmic diamond robbery on a tv that a small kind watches, and yet in truth it is the one and only singular reality that enables any diamond to exist. Yeah we walk the facets and precariously climber from one to another across the ridge once or twice in our bravest lifetimes but only because we are at east at the heart of he diamond. We walk our own moon.

Earth became man to touch the moon.

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.

Splendid indeed. Contrast.
Neither state is a goo. Both are goods.

[Fixed Cross]

of course anger is only joyful if it leads to conquest
But that speaks for itself.

[Fixed Cross]

What was lacking in Buddhism so far was a sense and notion of honour.
Honour before the facts. Honour before the Void.

Only from a position of honour, an honourable perspective on no-thingness, can That (being nor non-being) be appreciated.

In some fortunate and well-turned-out sects of Buddhism, we see an emphasis on a kind of porto-honour, which translates in things like martial arts and the stoicism of a zen master. So I can't rightly state that honour was truly lacking - but it has only played a part in Buddhisms physical disciplines.

The renunciation of physical disciplines is itself dishonourable. "Hygiene" can not exist without such discipline. After all mind and body are truly one.

I now realize that I have, so far, failed to place emphasis on the cultivation of a strong and subtle body to the aim of understanding my philosophy. I will in the future focus primarily on that aspect.

[Prismatic567]

What was lacking in Buddhism so far was a sense and notion of honour.
Honour before the facts. Honour before the Void.

Only from a position of honour, an honourable perspective on no-thingness, can That (being nor non-being) be appreciated.

In some fortunate and well-turned-out sects of Buddhism, we see an emphasis on a kind of porto-honour, which translates in things like martial arts and the stoicism of a zen master. So I can't rightly state that honour was truly lacking - but it has only played a part in Buddhisms physical disciplines.

The renunciation of physical disciplines is itself dishonourable. "Hygiene" can not exist without such discipline. After all mind and body are truly one.

I now realize that I have, so far, failed to place emphasis on the cultivation of a strong and subtle body to the aim of understanding my philosophy. I will in the future focus primarily on that aspect.

One moment you stated there is no honor in the Buddhism and the next moment correct yourself to say there is honor in Buddhism.

Note Aristotle's;

Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way - that is not within everybody's power and is not easy. - Aristotle

The above is the same within Buddhism proper
Within Buddhism proper, in progressing towards an enlightened state, one can do anything as long as it is within the above conditions, i.e. with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way, i.e. within the Noble 8 Fold Paths.

So in essence, there is no lacking of a notion of honor in Buddhism proper.

[Fixed Cross]

It is entirely dishonourable to be angry as a form of obedience to another man or his "list of truths". The 8 fold path is dishonourable and slavish, the "noble truths" are wretched lies. Anger that is not the child of ones own heart is pure murderous psychopathy.

This is indeed Buddhism supreme dishonour, why it has been a slave-religion spawning many goo-like sub-entities.

The most daring and modest (silent/poetic, as opposed to systemic and dogmatic ["the horror, the horror" - Marlon Brando]) Buddhist men have cultivated a proto-honor as I said, which has prepared some of the most healthy minds in the world for an actual honourable form of Buddhism.

The Yoga of Valuing.

[Mitra-Sauwelios]

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.

[...]

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?

I remember, 16 years ago, when I used the phrase "in the heat of the moment" positively before Bill, and he answered: "Spare me your heat, slave." (I think I half meant to provoke him, but I'm not sure.) My mentality back then was indeed slavish, albeit like Zarathustra's "noble slave", rebellious. I would inflame myself with tonal music, for example. I suppose I kept doing this until less than four years ago (and still do so today with modal music, though that's really subtle), but what changed when I discovered my "Shiva-dancing" was that I no longer pined, but now fought. It's the difference between feeling and willing...

Almost eight years ago, I found the key to understanding Nietzsche's philosophy in the notion of overfullness. I came to see the will to power, like the Primordial Will, as such an overfullness. Thus less than three years ago, I still wrote:

"[Camus's] Sisyphus is happy because he finds joy in pushing the boulder up the slope, in exerting his strength; his happiness is a rejoicing in his own strength." (http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2521570#p2521570)

Now, sensible as this may sound, his strength is only equal to a boulder. You may say, "But it's a big boulder!", but that's relative. Does a full glass contain a lot of water, or is it a small glass? Fullness, as I understand it now, is relative, and so is overfullness: not much liquid is needed to make a small glass run over.

Likewise, time and "worthships" (to speak with Bill again). If your life is overfull in worthy things to do, you won't have the time to do them all; if your life is overfull in time, that means there just aren't enough worthy things to do to spend all your time on.

Now I'm spent. Take it or leave it.

[Fixed Cross]

There is only one worthy thing to do, and thats to fight at my side.

[Mitra-Sauwelios]

Now since I "crossed the Abyss" of self-valuing, I know how nihilism can be "not unpleasant" (to use Socrates' evaluation of refuting others). See my signature quote:

My signature quote has changed. Here's the quote I meant, which got me "through" the Abyss:

"The dissolution of the self means a complete identity with the Infinite and therefore with nothing partial. No event can trouble the individual who has perceived this Reality, for there can be no anxiety or fear of death if there is no one there to die, so to speak. The identification with any partial, component thing has been transcended and therefore any occurrence to these things does not disturb the Hermit. It represents equanimity of the mind raised to the highest possible degree." (https://iao131.com/tag/crossing-the-abyss/)

Also, I meant "I suppose", not "I supposed"; typo.

And in the meantime, I've found corroboration for my reconciliation of Buddhism and Hinduism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangtong-Shentong

Also, see this thread:

https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=116&t=27382

Compare:

Different people have different saḿskáras – some carry the vrttis of anger, shame or hatred, while others are the victims of fear and attachments. Due to the variations in saḿskáras there are differences in the nature of human beings. Some people are calm and peace-loving by nature, some are honest and some dishonest. Some people are artistically creative and dream of imitating the great poets Rabindranath Tagore or Milton, whereas others dream of sailing the seven seas to discover new lands like Columbus or Vasco da Gama.
The differences in people’s thoughts, ideas, manners, customs, dress and food habits are all due to the varying saḿskáras. The moment the individual saḿskáras are removed, the mind loses its existence and only the soul remains. It too, becomes one with the universal soul, like a drop of water merging into the vast ocean.

Thus the fundamental entity is one. Outwardly he appears to be many. Ekaḿ sad vipráh bahudahá badanti. The Supreme entity is the only one unchangeable entity. The intellectuals or vipras have given Him various names. The saḿskáras of all individuals could be withdrawn in one moment if Parama Puruśa so desired. But He does not because it would stop His entire creative flow and lead to the dissolution of this world.

The diversities and variations of the universe are due to the veil of Máyá. Remove it and you will see this diversity vanish in a second like camphor, leaving the One Supreme Entity. Neither this material universe nor any living beings will remain. Saguńa Brahma, the creator, and Puruśottama, the Witnessing Entity, will both be non-existent. The process of Saiṋcara and Pratisaiṋcara will be suspended and the variegated expression will cease forever. In a word the entire creation will be dissolved.

To continue the flow of His divine play, it is not desirable that all entities of the vast universe should attain the Supreme stance at one time; neither is it the natural process. Thus human beings must strive to attain individual salvation. If Parama Puruśa is pleased, they will surely succeed in their efforts.

c. 1969

Published in:
Ananda Marga Philosophy in a Nutshell Part 5

[Mitra-Sauwelios]

"Heidegger observed early in his lectures on Nietzsche in 1937 that the doctrine of eternal recurrence 'thinks nothing else than the thought that pervades the whole of Western philosophy, a thought that remains concealed but is its genuine driving force. Nietzsche thinks the thought in such a way that in his metaphysics he reverts to the beginnings of Western philosophy' (Nietzsche I, trans. Krell, 19). It is interesting, therefore, that Heidegger did not inquire into the aporetic temporal character of the khôra but instead took a decidedly Parmenidean slant on its interpretation and related it to the khorismos or gap between Being and beings. In other words, instead of reading the strong indications in Plato that khôra is a material entity that lives eternally between Being and becoming, Heidegger de-realizes it as an existent being and reinvents it as a mere gap or notational spacing or interval:

An interpretation decisive for Western thought is that given by Plato. He says that between beings and Being there prevails the khôrismos; é khôra is the locus, the site, the place. Plato meant to say: beings and Being are in different places. Particular beings and Being are differently located. Thus when Plato gives thought to the different location of beings and Being, he is asking for the totally different place of Being, as against the place of beings.
To make the question of khôrismos, the difference in placement of beings and Being at all possible, the distinction--the duality of the two--must be given beforehand in such a way that this duality does not as such receive specific attention. (What Is Called Thinking? 227).

Heidegger's natural tendency as a thinker runs so powerfully in the Parmenidean direction of thinking, not toward the interminable impurity of the difference, which is Nietzsche's obsession, but toward purity and noncontamination of the duality of beings and Being, of their 'totally different' sites. Heidegger thus missed a great opportunity to link khôra to the secret history of eternal recurrence, that is, to the secret history of its names and discourses that think the possibility of an unthought relation between time, eternity, and the living.
[...] I want to consider a chapter in that history that has thus far gone entirely unnoticed. It is once again a matter of the interpretation of the meaning of khôra, more precisely of Plotinus's interpretation of the khôra as Khôragus, which becomes the name, not only for the totality of becoming, but for the total structure containing all the modalities of Being and becoming." (Lukacher, Time-Fetishes, pp. 20-22.)

"Beholding this Being--the Choragos of all Existence, the Self-Intent that ever gives forth and never takes--resting, rapt, in the vision and possession of so lofty a loveliness, growing to Its likeness, what Beauty can the soul yet lack? For This, the Beauty supreme, the absolute, and the primal, fashions Its lovers to Beauty and makes them also worthy of love." (Plotinus, Enneads 1.6.7, trans. MacKenna.)

Saint Petersburg Aerial Timelab.pro