Path of Return

[cejudesc]

Topal

Did the ancient sages teach the same than Buddhism (even Chinese Buddhism)?

Who has the wires crossed?

 

[Tohpol]

Did the ancient sages teach the same than Buddhism (even Chinese Buddhism)?

Who has the wires crossed?

Unless you come out and state exactly which "wires" you are using and back up your statements with examples instead of statements floating in the air (which you seem quite fond of) this discussion won't be going anywhere soon.

Topal

 

[cejudesc]

Did I make any statement?

What is your answer to my question? Did the ancient sages teach the same than Buddhism?

Please, notice than "ancient sages" is a tecnisism in the Yijing (Ta Chuan, for example) far before Buddhism arrived to China.

 

[cejudesc]

About back up... Non-being is another tecnisism. If you read Wang Bi, you can see this tecnisism has nothing about "fantasy" or "not be in the present". Now, can you back up your statement than general consensus is non being as satanism?

 

[Tohpol]

Did I make any statement?

Yes:

"if "non being" is this, ancients sages wouldn't teach to achieve "non being" as a goal to our development."

You also said: "One would saY: in a similar way than there can be antimatter"

Which implies that you do understand the point I was trying to make i.e. Non-being and Being and are therefore trying to be purposely difficult.

What is your answer to my question? Did the ancient sages teach the same than Buddhism?

I think not. But You have focused on Buddhism as the overriding factor while missing the point I was trying to make. Clearly you made the assumption early on that my attention was focused exclusively in the Orient. It was not. As you made the use of the term "ancient sages" I merely drew your attention to random examples to illustrate a point. if you had read the thread then it would, I hope have become obvious what I was referring to.

Please, notice than "ancient sages" is a tecnisism in the Yijing (Ta Chuan, for example) far before Buddhism arrived to China.

So Buddhism was an attachment onto a much older form of religion. Right. That is clear. This we know. Again, the problem is your assumption and lack of attention regarding the nature of the thread.

About back up... Non-being is another tecnisism. If you read Wang Bi, you can see this tecnisism has nothing about "fantasy" or "not be in the present". Now, can you back up your statement than general consensus is non being as satanism?

Again, you make the assumption that I was referring to oriental thought by jumping in with your "Ancient sages." It doesn't matter at all that Wang Bi doesn't mention "Fantasy" or "being in the present" these are generic properties and examples of literally infinite number of similar qualities inherent in the idea of Non-Being as generally understood in the occident.

But clearly, Wang Bi's interpretation of Non-Being or "nothing" is synonymous with the Dao. Yet this is wrong to suggest that they are advocating non-existence as a state of grace or development. It is in reference to "Spirit" or the all pervading nature of things that encompasses both the Creative and the Receptive and brings all things into BEING from Non-Being. This is largely a language issue and I think this is what your beef is about.

So, underlying this is the confusion of language and assumptions. Non-being as a developmental goal IN YOUR CONTEXT does not mean striving towards "nothing" as a contractual phase or entropic action, but achieving Oneness with the Dao. This Oneness is Being = REAL = Truth = objectivity, as oppose to subjectivity or fantasy i.e. lies and therefore attachment and identification. Any sage that is "flowing with the Dao" is I suspect, not talking about escapism into a void to return to primal matter.

So, Non-being and Being can be reversed in meaning for the "ancient sages" yet the essential truth beyond the language is the same. Orient and Occident. Like a mirror.

In the context of Occidental Non-Being - That is how I will refer to it now to avoid confusion - Existential Satanism or Satanism per se has many different beliefs but they all conform to the idea of the occult maxim of “Will to Power.” It is concerned with the “Whole Truth” tied as it is to one’s own individualistic intent and will – which is a God in Diapers. There is nothing outside individual needs and the will to claim them which means everything is allowed and by any means. Therefore, for those who are by nature, self-seeking adherents to self-Godhood, the results will be strictly material in every sense of the word - therefore, it can be said to be Non-Being - the descent into matter at the expense of the real - or you could say the Dao - Beingness. "Is-ness."

I hope this has clarified things.

Sure done my head in.

Topal

 

[bruce_g]

In the context of Occidental Non-Being - That is how I will refer to it now to avoid confusion - Existential Satanism or Satanism per se has many different beliefs but they all conform to the idea of the occult maxim of “Will to Power.” It is concerned with the “Whole Truth” tied as it is to one’s own individualistic intent and will – which is a God in Diapers. There is nothing outside individual needs and the will to claim them which means everything is allowed and by any means. Therefore, for those who are by nature, self-seeking adherents to self-Godhood, the results will be strictly material in every sense of the word - therefore, it can be said to be Non-Being - the descent into matter at the expense of the real - or you could say the Dao - Beingness. "Is-ness."

I hope this has clarified things.

Sure done my head in.

Topal

I fail to understand what "will to power" has to do with "Existential Satanism or Satanism per se", “Whole Truth, tied as it is to one’s own individualistic intent and will – which is a God in Diapers", or "self-seeking adherents to self-Godhood". You seem to be redefining and confusing a lot of terms. Will to power has nothing to do with humanism. It is a principle, just as Yi uses hex. 46 as a fundamental principle of nature.

Or have I yet again misinterpreted what you've said?

 

[Tohpol]

I fail to understand what "will to power" has to do with "Existential Satanism or Satanism per se", “Whole Truth, tied as it is to one’s own individualistic intent and will – which is a God in Diapers", or "self-seeking adherents to self-Godhood". You seem to be redefining and confusing a lot of terms. Will to power has nothing to do with humanism. It is a principle, just as Yi uses hex. 46 as a fundamental principle of nature.

Or have I yet again misinterpreted what you've said?

Actually, I must confess to be DOG tired today, so you're probably right it's not the clearest of posts...

"Will to Power" as an exclusive intent as enough in itself - the end justifies the means. Or the desire to exercise power over others for selfish ends variegated as they may be. Satanism, away from the theatrical tabloid nonsense seems to be another word that can be used to denote all kinds of things but it generally has the quality of exclusive gain based around certain occult principles. Will to power has everything to do with Humanism if you happen to be someone who follows a consciously Satanic path. Ethics are used as tools to manipulate and dupe for example. WtoP is a principle, and all principles have the middle way or the extremes within them right?

Topal

 

[bruce_g]

Any out of context and misunderstood idea can be used by anyone to further someone's personal agenda. Jesus, just look at Christianity today! But you are condemning a perfectly viable idea with indiscriminate sword wielding here, Topal. Perhaps a little research on your part on the term "will to power" will prove clarifying for you.

Wiki's a decent place to start:

"The concept of the "will to power" in Nietzsche's thought has had many interpretations, most notoriously its misappropriation by the Nazis, which amounts to its characterization as a "desire for and of power" ("power" here specifically denoting the more limited concept of "dominance"). Some Nazis (Alfred Bäumler, etc.) also upheld a biological interpretation of the Wille zur Macht, making it equivalent with some kind of social Darwinism, although Nietzsche explicitly criticized the latter in his works "

As I've said elsewhere, I'm no expert on the subject of Nietzsche or his works, but my understanding of "will to power" is more akin to hexagrams 1 and/or 46. Can 1 and 46 be used (misused) as a world domination theology? Course. Does that make 1 and 46 Satanic or even humanistic? Not in themselves, no. They are merely principles.

 

[Tohpol]

Any out of context and misunderstood idea can be used by anyone to further someone's personal agenda. Jesus, just look at Christianity today! But you are condemning a perfectly viable idea with indiscriminate sword wielding here, Topal. Perhaps a little research on your part on the term "will to power" will prove clarifying for you.

Wiki's a decent place to start:

"The concept of the "will to power" in Nietzsche's thought has had many interpretations, most notoriously its misappropriation by the Nazis, which amounts to its characterization as a "desire for and of power" ("power" here specifically denoting the more limited concept of "dominance"). Some Nazis (Alfred Bäumler, etc.) also upheld a biological interpretation of the Wille zur Macht, making it equivalent with some kind of social Darwinism, although Nietzsche explicitly criticized the latter in his works "

As I've said elsewhere, I'm no expert on the subject of Nietzsche or his works, but my understanding of "will to power" is more akin to hexagrams 1 and/or 46. Can 1 and 46 be used (misused) as a world domination theology? Course. Does that make 1 and 46 Satanic or even humanistic? Not in themselves, no. They are merely principles.

No, I'm not seeking to condemn this idea. I would be doing so if I chose to focus on the "Will to Power" outside of the subject of Satanism. This idea is however a major part of this ideology/religion in a way that the "Will to Love" is not.

I have done a little research into this area. Satanic ideas employ principles. Principles and their qualities are there to be inverted. MISAPPROPRIATION. (At least according to our own worldviews, to them it is perfectly appropriate). That is what I'm talking about here. Will to power is inverted and misused. And that is the point. all "perfectly good ideas" are rearranged towards specific agendas that require adherence towards an ideal that is anti-human. Indeed, you could say that about much of the human world right now which is following entropic or "Satanic" precepts.

Sure, 1 or 46 are in one sense neutral, it is HOW they are employed, as principles. 46 - correct me here - is about the seed of potential being realised. But what is that potential? That depends on who and what is being realised? Dark and light both have paths of realisation. But yes, I agree it doesn't make 1 or 46 as principles one thing or another - they just are.

Perhaps I've misunderstood what you're trying to say?

Topal

 

[bruce_g]

No, I'm not seeking to condemn this idea. I would be doing so if I chose to focus on the "Will to Power" outside of the subject of Satanism. This idea is however a major part of this ideology/religion in a way that the "Will to Love" is not.

I have done a little research into this area. Satanic ideas employ principles. Principles and their qualities are there to be inverted. MISAPPROPRIATION. (At least according to our own worldviews, to them it is perfectly appropriate). That is what I'm talking about here. Will to power is inverted and misused. And that is the point. all "perfectly good ideas" are rearranged towards specific agendas that require adherence towards an ideal that is anti-human. Indeed, you could say that about much of the human world right now which is following entropic or "Satanic" precepts.

Sure, 1 or 46 are in one sense neutral, it is HOW they are employed, as principles. 46 - correct me here - is about the seed of potential being realised. But what is that potential? That depends on who and what is being realised? Dark and light both have paths of realisation. But yes, I agree it doesn't make 1 or 46 as principles one thing or another - they just are.

Perhaps I've misunderstood what you're trying to say?

Topal

No, I think you've understood what I've said.

I hold a different view of good and evil, but I see no point going into that here, now. Maybe tomorrow I'll be feeling more feisty .

 

[Tohpol]

No, I think you've understood what I've said.

I hold a different view of good and evil, but I see no point going into that here, now. Maybe tomorrow I'll be feeling more feisty .

Yeah, well, I'm all out of feistiness too. But you know I'd like to hear more of your view on that...Who knows? We might agree - how boring!

Topal

 

[bruce_g]

Ooo, I doubt it.

 

[bruce_g]

Ok, in the spirit of being a good sport.

My view is that:

Good and evil beget one another, or in the alleged words of some old dude, say good and evil is born.

When one power reaches mid-day, another, equalizing power begins its ascent.

Depending on where you stand, one will be called evil and the other good.

Satanism is seen from a relative position, and is an equalizer to the deities, we place high in the heavens.

There is no place to climb but upon our own mountains. If we make gods, we make devils too.

Who is there left to fight?