Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Kapalika

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13
Satanism / Re: Hate Isn't the way of the Satanist
« on: March 14, 2018, 09:16:40 am »
Well said Mindmaster. I'm glad you get fully where I'm coming from. My view is a little more nuanced in that I think negative feelings are acceptable so long as they don't burden, but true hate always burdens, and preoccupies. So it's best to minimize feelings like that that don't aid in the path.

I admit I was being a bit of a devil's advocate, trying to balance it out with going a little too far in the other direction. If anyone has any thoughts I'm looking forward to it.

Actually........ I believe that your message is prophetic......
is inspired... and is comparable to a true daughter.........  speaking a message direct from the top........
rather than low level messages by servants........
who have little or no understanding of what is really happening.........

Didn't expect to see you here.

Some say "As Above, so Below" (although that saying wasn't Satanic in origin).  There is no reason to have a duality of Heaven/Hell when Satan is God :D

Satan is the source of All, it is the cause of all reality we see unfold and is the animator and animated, the formed and the formless. The creator, destroyer and preserver... and the creation and the rules that govern creation and those acts upon it. It is everything, it is the Shiva-Shakti.

So I have no need to sequester Satan to Hell; SATAN IS Heaven! Not just Samael, but the very existence of all of reality itself!

General LHP Discussion / Re: Lore on Lilith (Demon Goddess/Wife of Satan)
« on: February 28, 2018, 07:23:09 pm »
Sometimes I miss a topic that I really wish I hadn't until it resurfaces. This is one of those times. The last few months I had been rediscovering the my love of Lilith (who was the start of my path, long ago). I need to really think about what all was said but I just want you to know @Olive I really appreciate you posting this.

One time it could be seen as such. But it was a Christian pastor being toxic as fuck and cancerous saying all kinds of hateful shit and claiming SRA type of shit right to my face.

I met him at the park.

Fucking hated that scum bag.

General LHP Discussion / Re: Downsides of a solitary path
« on: February 21, 2018, 11:25:26 am »
I've noticed a lot of my problems come from my path being solitary lately. I mean there's stuff I can definitely fix on my own and still be solitary but some aspects that matter will not be the same.


I'd argue I should have self-motivation and dedication anyways. It's hard to remember to balance that motivation equally to mundane and spiritual life and it can be hard to come by at all on some days. It can be easier when you have someone that will check in on you periodically even if its just a social call cause as an extrovert, it sucks to not have anything new to talk about.

In the lack of a Guru, deep meditation or even a spirit guide can fulfill the role. Some say "be your own Guru", I suppose in the sense that a more ineffable part of ourselves is identified with the Divine.

Call it what you will, but the truth is inside all of us and that can be accessed via deep meditation. There is a deity inside all of us, and that can be accessed to help guide us towards are true, realized nature. This self-deity can be one's teacher.

A word of warning though, on spirit guardians; know their intention. Things can pose as something else and ultimately lead you to ruin.


It's hard to have that enthusiaism without someone to compare notes with. It helps you know if you're on the right track or not, course-correct. You learn alot from colleagues. The more I narrow my path down, the harder this comes to be. It's good to have someone to point out things you miss as well.

This is where the revelation of others particularly contained in your religion's scriptures comes in handy. I might not agree with everything written in my path's scriptures, but generally as I mature spiritually I find they are on point or close enough on most matters.

You can compare notes to your contemporary peers, but the problem comes with how far along your peers are. Rank, fame, infamy, or status does not matter here, nor does power. The way to assessing who's more spiritually developed will come down your beliefs I suppose, but after a while you start to develop a skill for assessing people to some degree of measurability.

So ultimately you have to use your own discretion in who it's worth comparing notes with.


Collaboraitive process has a way of jump starting creativity.

Particularly when you can play off of eachother's strengths.


As terrible of an idea as grades turned out to be in mystery schools in practice, I can see the want for the concept now. People around the same world view to talk with because while I'm not any type of prodigy or something: most of the people who I end up talkng to me about this are dabblers and it can be hard to relate or know how to converse about it with those people.

There is some argument to be made for a degree of secrecy within eastern traditions, but I think that the east's analog to western degree systems is justified as it's preserved a lot of teachings. In the west it often hasn't turned out that way, but that was due to other factors.

The benefit of such a system is really huge if the value system totally shuns nepotism. Perhaps this is why historically more ascetic types of lineages have fared much better than our more hedonistic western examples; in advancing in degree one tends to give up more of worldly living.

I personally think there can be a balance, using the convenience and comfort of worldly living without being consumed by it. In such a case modest living is a must.

However in light of what you pointed out, there are many cons perhaps best avoided. I kind of appreciate that about the Order of the Serpent, since it side steps many of the issues of a degree system. But at the same time I think that at least in theory something could be gained of it if implemented in such a way to not incentivise climbing it as a means of attaining more authority or power.

In that sense by looking at failures and successes in them, one can determine where they might benefit an organization or order. There are western and eastern systems where degrees worked well, and also where they failed miserably or got corrupted.

General LHP Discussion / Re: Weekly or Monthly Skype discussion
« on: February 12, 2018, 07:36:18 pm »
I'd be interested, but I'd probably not be able to handle the video. My internet is total garbage.

If ya'll want the "in real time" experience but without the hassle of skype and latency and all that crap... there is still always my chat over at

That said, I would be interested in some kind of 'scheduled' thing on some platform we could hear each other. I've talked with a couple of members here on the phone and hearing someone's voice is the difference of night and day; but that might just be how attuned I am to sound; I can read people pretty good just with their voice and them talking. Not so much any other way.

General LHP Discussion / Re: The main goal and path of magic?
« on: February 02, 2018, 06:10:53 am »
Magic has a goal?

I mean, I guess I have a goal when I decide to do much of anything... perhaps more so to me, magic is like living, you just do it, sometimes as a conscious goal sometimes not.

Lounge / LHP Chatroom (UPDATED)
« on: January 29, 2018, 08:47:44 am »
Okay! Big update and original post updated as well.

I got a better webchat client for our page, much better than the old one.

The page has also been updated to

Check the first post in the topic. We've also been linking for a good while back to this site. If you come check it out, please stick around a bit'. Sometimes we are not at our computer and lurking is very normal on IRC.

General LHP Discussion / Re: Process Philosophy and Process Theism
« on: January 27, 2018, 07:27:49 am »
Huge ass post...

In Hinduism we say the eternal self is Atman. In Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika this is a type of individuated soul. They say it contains karmic traces from each action of its incarnations, storing them up to ultimately be settled. (Therefore producing justice in the universe.) They also say that it is all-pervading, witness to all. And one has experience by moving Manas (Mind) through the Atman. The individual Manas enters into a special relation with the Atman at a certain location and time, and this is how consciousness of an event happens. In the Vedanta schools, the Atman is taken to be something that is not specific to an individual but is shared by all living things, and this is also Brahman. The core of us is therefore eternal in either school.

Well uh, ya I'm aware of all of that, I'm just not particularly thrilled by Vedanata, or any of the orthodox stuff with the exception of maybe Yoga.

That said, sure the atman ect. In my religion we tend to associate the aham (heart) with it though since citta regenerates into cit. Funny enough, (it's on my desktop that needs a new PSU) I have a song where I got the line "Aham Atman Bound" in the lyrics. Equating my own Atman with Shiva/Satan/Kali is pretty standard for me.

Quote from: Olive
Now what Shakyamuni Buddha is saying with the Anatman doctrine is this: This concept of a soul existing independently of a body has never been demonstrated. It is easy to run off on a tangent with this soul concept with what are ultimately shoddy premises. He is not saying that you are literally fake in that your experiences aren't actually real, because they are real enough. Instead he says that there is no eternal individual self that exists independently of the body. And the body/mind can't be considered an eternal self either because of impermanence - it is always changing. No steady "you" is carried throughout and beyond this process of life. So it is illusory in that sense, but they aren't saying it is actually fake.

To a Hindu that is basically saying you don't exist. But I've also legit heard this position from some Buddhists before too, that we don't exist.

Quote from: olive
So I agree, we and everything are always in flux and changing. This is impermanence. I suppose where you are losing me is - why are you calling this all pervading change a self? It is certainly eternal and transpersonal. Individuation is real (enough), but it is not preserved by this change nor does it will this change to be. In fact this change brought us to be as temporal beings, that had a beginning and will be destroyed. We can talk about Xeper and guiding manifestations, but none of these suggest the independent, eternal soul.

I'm not saying that change itself is a soul, but that change itself is proof of an eternal constant. Souls in of themselves are proven via scripture, visions, mystical experience and countless sages throughout the ages. I will say, however, that within my own divination, visions and mystical experiences that there are component, eternal parts to souls. Soul is a bit of an inaccurate word. Maybe I'll get around to defining it better and presenting my entire soul-reincarnation-us-ness-everythingness-spirity-ness theory ma-bob. It's an extension of Trika but it fits pretty well. I have a name for the most developed subpart of the theory but I never bothered naming the overarching generalized theory of it.
Quote from: olive
We can talk about things that are eternal or at least might be, like the ever-turning wheel of time (Kali/Kala) and the Will to Live, and other Ideas that are always reborn in this realm. But I don't see how one can say that those things are the soul. Or if you do, it seems folly to say at least that your awareness or consciousness becomes that after death, therefore continuing on eternally etc etc...

After death? Lol who ever said that? Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean but I didn't say that change itself is our soul or that we become them in death.

Quote from: olive
Vedanta tells you that this Atman is impersonal, it is not the Ego.

I don't believe in Vedanta but the Shiva Sutras. Actually Jaidev Singh in his translation/commentaries lays out exactly why the Vedanta goal is less ideal than Shivagama, if you want me to dig it up.

Quote from: olive
I think your Shiva/Satanism is a really interesting system, @Kapalika. To be clear I am not putting it down at all. It just seemed like you were arguing for a kind of individual immortalism, but I can't actually find anything that logically implies this in what you posted.

Well uh, thanks, but also I kind of was arguing for an eternal self. Most of what I said was just straight up from the Shiva Sutras. As I said, I just add Satanism to reflect back on it, and vice versa. The understanding ultimately is measured against Vasugupta's writings as the standard, and generally against Kashmir Shaivism/Trika.

I do now and then nuance it in my own way though, but I generally try to be transparent and direct about my deviations as far as I am aware of them.

Quote from: olive
You said your main problem with Buddhism was that they say that "we don't exist." But I think this is a misunderstanding. They aren't saying that you literally aren't there right now, looking at a computer screen. They are saying that this "you" is illusory because it is not stable, permanent, or discernible in mental or physical phenomena. It is always changing, and will be gone before you know it!

That just disproves an eternal ego not an eternal self.
Quote from: olive
Please forgive me if I've accidentally misrepresented anything you said. If you do believe in an eternal soul, a transmigrating soul, reincarnation that maintains your personal awareness, or individual immortality, I would be happy to continue to debate this issue - although in that case another thread might be appropriate as we are getting beyond the scope of process philosophy.

Of course I believe in an eternal soul, that's why I'm Hindu. If I didn't, I'd be Buddhist. However I'm not inclined to debate on it.

That said, Process Theory directly is related because if it's entirely true, we can't use any kind of eternal "self" as an inherent substance of atman.

Cheers! I hope you enjoyed your breakfast.  :)

Thanks. I can barely remember what all of random stuff I ate, but I know an ungodly huge orange was involved.

Actually, it's having self views which is considered a hindrance in Buddhism.  This includes both holding the view that there is an Atman, as well as holding the view that there is no Atman.  Holding views regarding Atman or no Atman builds up a philosophical thicket that you have to chop down in order to observe unobscured.

What is the annata if not... no atman? Isn't that literally what it means? I've talked about this with a lot of Buddhists from Middle Way, to randoms on the internet to a Vajrayana monk. It seems that they don't believe in an atman and take the annata stance. Unless I really didn't understand WTF they were saying, it sounded like holding we have no atman is required to be a Buddhist (and thus, according to him, practice "real tantra"). This was actually a point of contention and why any discussion broke down with me and the monk, sadly.

I'm curious who would be the "female" aspect of Horus-Set. Almost certainly Set.

Is there a type of Hinduism that believes in something like the WLHP concept of apotheosis?

How do Hindu traditions relate to Platonic Forms, if at all? For example, many argue that the platonic forms and Egyptian Neteru are more or less identical, is this true in Hinduism?

[Another question I forgot]?

As per apotheosis; I'm not keen on the nuances of it in western occultism but I've posted a lot about Shivagama within Trika/Kashmir Shaivism on this forum. I'm pretty sure I've singled it out as being self-deification since citta regenerates into cit and you reach the highest potential of magic possible since literally kali becomes your cosmic expression.

I also think I did, in my post here, ightly touch on a comparison of tattvas and platoism; more generally though, they are not strictly a mental thing:

I'm not sure on the specifics of Platoism; but tattvas can be reduced or expanded as much as needed. So they are recognized as models, not the reality itself:

"It is important to understand that, according to Kashmir Shaivism, this analysis of all phenomena into thirty six tattvas is not an absolute truth. It has been worked out by the authors of the philosophy as a tool of understanding for the ever-active and inquiring mind and as a form for contemplative meditation. Through further analysis, the number of tattvas can be increased to any level. Similarly, through synthesis, they can be decreased down to one tattva alone. In fact this has been done in the Tantraloka, where one can find doctrines of contemplation on fifteen, thirteen, eleven, nine, seven, five, and as few as three tattvas as well. The practitioners of the Trika system use only three tattvas in the process of a quick sadhana: Shiva representing the absolute unity, Shakti representing the link between duality and unity, and Nara representing the extreme duality."

- B. N. Pandit, Specific Principles of Kashmir Shaivism

@Olive I guess the misunderstanding is once again based on what we mean by self.

If I understand it correctly, @Kapalika means awareness per se, whereas @Olive means the mind/psyche, with a special focus on the ego/personality.

Shiva is consciousnesses, Kali is awareness of consciousness. Not sure how interchangeable consciousness and awareness is. I guess it stands to reason that awareness of the self allows change of the self hence why she is the agent and manifestation of change and Shiva that underlying nature.

Quote from: Liu
@Kapalika: I really enjoyed your post, and I'd gladly read your new blog post.
From my vague knowledge of Kashmir Shaivism I come to similar conclusions. I'd mainly equate Satan with Shiva in that system as Shakti is a part/emanation of Shiva and therefore he encompasses her as well (at least that's how I understood it in that book on Abhinavagupta you recommended me and which I recently started reading).

Regarding semiotics, well, I have some passing familiarity with it from a linguistic point of view - it's a very wide field, though, not a single philosophy/theory.

Thanks. Though I broke the site after breakfast so it might be a little longer until I fix it :s

As far as semiotics, the thingy about the signalled, signifer ect.  I wanted to explore that and it's implications in religious language and particularly in nuances in logic based on one's cultural background, if that's at all a thing.

Quote from: lui
Regarding the nihilism of Buddhism, I can't tell how Buddhist see it, but what you wrote reminds me of what I read in the texts of many an anti-cosmic Satanist when they talk about returning to the nothingness out of which everything would stem. I would guess the closest parallel to that in your belief system would be the pure awareness-aspect of Shiva, i.e. the unchanging part without Shakti. That of course is incompatible with our goals since we certainly don't want to completely stop experiencing the world. But it would seem likely to me that a philosophy like Buddhism would come to a different conclusion.

I'm not sure how you can have Shiva without Shakti. I mean, if you did that, nothing would ever happen yes. It would mean utter destruction of reality as we know it. Perhaps some state of somethingness might exist but it wouldn't be like anything we could conceptualize. Remember that Trika/Kashmir Shaivism holds that the physical world is very real and concrete. I guess to some total self-annihilation isn't a big deal. I find it rather suicidal in an indirect way.

General LHP Discussion / Re: Process Philosophy and Process Theism
« on: January 26, 2018, 11:50:45 am »
As I was reading the replies, I couldn't help but have a few different thoughts.

1. I find it pretty cool that people are drawing comparisons of 'aspects of god' and assigning it to deities as part of some whole. At least in Trika, we have this laid out pretty explicitly with Shiva-Shakti whereas Shiva is the unchanging part and Shakti is the changing, expressed part. Essentially from my perspective Set-Horus ect are fulfilling the same function of Shiva-Shakti here (that of Ishvaras, in a more yogic rather than tattva sense). It's a rather refreshing call-back to the Hindu roots of the Left Hand Path that I'm seeing unfold.

2. Speaking on tattvas actually, If Platoism useful to someone, then that's perfectly in keeping with the system since it (tattvas) is to be tailored to what someone needs. The trap that many fall into is mistaking the symbol for reflection for the reality behind it. Jnana is said to be one of the hardest yogas though.

On a similar note, is anyone here familiar with Semiotics? It explores similar distinctions but it seems rather dry and dense to me and I didn't really understand the wikipedia article or really anything I found on it. I probably just lack contextual understanding, since I'm not as familiar with western philosophy.

3. Okay, now for the last one... My main gripe with Process Theory is that it's essentially, to me, a third of Buddhism. The other third I don't like which Process Theory implies, and why I'm not a Buddhist, is that since there is no fixed, eternal "self" that we don't exist. @crossfire touched on this with me in the other topic, when I asked if this was why Buddhists believe in the Anatta. I actually had a bit of a debate about this with another Buddhist yesterday to no better understanding.


Essentially to me, the process of change doesn't indicate that the inherent nature has changed. Thankfully Satanism is gonna save my ass here and I'll explain in a moment, but from an orthodox Hindu perspective one would say that our eternal self is X (which may or may not have individuation) and that we realize that our ego ect is an illusion. Buddhism in a way came out of that thought but took it a little further, that we literally don't exist. The idea is not far removed from another Natiska school, Samkhya, but it's still further than even that.

Anyways since Buddhism says we don't exist, it has more in common with self-annihilation rather than self-deification. I know that this kind of nihilism is a stepping stone in Buddhism but no one's ever properly told me how you get out of that nihilism. My understanding of what comes after nihilism is partial but as I understand the final outcome it's utterly incompatible with my beliefs.


Now, back to how I can reconcile the fact that everything we know changes and yet there is an eternal self. While it's possible to attribute some eternal fixture to ideas such as platoism(at least at this stage) ect there is a simpler way, that also sidesteps the problems of a lot of Hinduism that everything is inherently conciousness; Satan.

Satan, is opposition, and so inherently change as dualistic forces work in both harmony and chaos as I had touched on my pro-cosmic Satanism topic. If we are to say that Satan represents human nature, and that nature is change, we can recognize Process Theory as being correct in this regard.

But then we might have to content with the logical implication that we don't exist, since we are not eternal. Like the river, it's a new river since the water was replaced. We sidestep this by recognizing that the dualistic forces are an emanation of sorts, that our individuation stem from Satan's inherent nature as change, or opposition.


You know who else is change? Kali. And again, we return to Shakti. I touched on Satan as a pro-cosmic figure in my one topic in the Satanism section, and it might be a lot to get into now (particularly as I'm over an hour into this post and getting a bit' worn out) but essentially Kali/Satan are change, and they are both us, as we are change and in flux.

But then that establishes an eternal self, an aspect of us that never changes. And if we were to ever change that aspect, we would cease to change and break the cycle anyway and Process Theory couldn't be totally correct. In other words, there has to be some eternal fixture at some point.

In Trika, we assign this to Shiva. I could also interchange this with Satan since Shiva although eternal is always remanifesting Kali/Universe. In Hinduism there is a belief of time as ages that repeat. I guess it's possible that this cycle could be broken, but then whatever came after doesn't have to be cyclic too.

I'm needing to figure out breakfast... so I'll try to wrap up quickly...


In either case, this non physical, transcendent aspect, the Shiva tattva, is the eternal self. It's Shiva-Shakti, and often to me Satan as both the change and the unchanging change. The source of function and the inherent self in us. I suppose someone could see Shiva/Satan in this respect as some kind of singular, reductionist platonic object, but I find that cumbersome since Shiva-Shakti is the reconciliation of subject-object while preserving individualization (hence also Satan).

This preserving of the individual despite non-duality is both supported by Kashmir Shaivism's scriptures and implicit in the more mainstream 36 tattva system of Shaivism. Satanism for me provides a secondary explanation and a mutual bridge of understanding. It's the same thing from different perspectives, that compliment each other well. I don't find this suprising at all though, because the Left Hand Path started in Hinduism. In my opinion the greatest revelations of the modern LHP always return to these roots. And it tickles me to see this unfold for others in front of me.


I just realized I forgot to integrate the aspect of Kali as our magical expression of change, black magick ect, but I can figure out a better explanation later... time for breakfast it's almost 7 AM.

Actually, if anyone is interested, I can expand on this and streamline my thoughts in my next blogpost (it's something I didn't have the statistical to expand on before anyway, and I wanted a 2.0 to my 'Tantra of Shiva and Satan' post anyway). I just revamped my blog recently and was gonna get it rolling again.

I just skimmed that for now but yes, the video is crazy biased. I see no reason process theism implies Christmas.

What about Saturnalia? :D

General LHP Discussion / Re: Index of Terms
« on: January 19, 2018, 09:25:49 am »
Why is D&D and Final Fantasy on the list?

General LHP Discussion / Re: Thoughts or input on this Map (draft)?
« on: January 18, 2018, 07:48:12 pm »
Just trying for philosophies here.

I'm not versed in all the possible positions but this is pretty good. I'm not able to really see anything incorrect with it. Of course one could always add more but for most uses this is going to cover the major things. At most maybe I could say that pluralism could connect to more (it technically could include all of these views), but the truth is pluralism probably connotates much better there as to most people it is similar to dualism but with them being different "worlds" as opposed to opposites in the same world.

I'm not familiar with platoism in general but I know there are all kinds of variations. I personally would label it as something more generic but the intention of the concept is there so it's probably fine. I think most people will get what is meant there.

I wouldn't really fit on here as a single category, but since it's currently a map of western philosophical thought I wouldn't expect to. I could see a lot of eastern systems that could be accounted on here but then I can also think of ones that won't fit easily (looking at you, Samkhya). Idealism is more rare in the west but you see this in shades and sometimes outright with things like the gnostics and Christian Science.

What is it you plan to do with this chart/map once it's done? I don't know if telling us would help feedback but so far it looks good.

General LHP Discussion / Re: Thoughts or input on this Map (draft)?
« on: January 18, 2018, 07:15:19 pm »
I fail to see how it's possible to not have a world view. One not on here sure, let me know where it would fit! But in general? I think we can withhold from preaching or pushing our view, but I think everyone has one, and monism/pluralism are pretty much the only two options at most basic.
Here is the closest Western philosophical school to my view that I have found:  it is not substance based.

Note to self to interrogate you later to pick your brain... I'm not too versed in this perspective but I can see similarities in my own understanding.

Also would you say this it is line of thinking is the justification of the Anatta? That the stream of consciousness can't be identified by Atman because of this constant change?

General LHP Discussion / Re: Thoughts or input on this Map (draft)?
« on: January 17, 2018, 11:08:48 pm »
Well holy crap, dualistic monism is a term too:

I'm not surprised of the concept (I'm very familiar with it) I just hadn't ever heard of either terms dualistic monism or dialectical monism before.

General LHP Discussion / Re: Thoughts or input on this Map (draft)?
« on: January 17, 2018, 10:36:45 pm »
Just a partial example of what I mean by categories, I made my own real quick so you know like what I meant by better ones:

I think it's kind of hard to streamline this down if you bring in dualism and nondualism ect because as you see it very quickly gets complicated because it depends on what you are talking about and what those things are believed to be made of.

Also notice on how the left most category, it starts to get hairy already. It would probably be like this for the other 2 categories, but since I know the most about that one it will be the most detailed.

You can probably guess that it will only get more complex until it becomes a massive web. We can already see where I had issues linking things across categorizes.

General LHP Discussion / Re: Thoughts or input on this Map (draft)?
« on: January 17, 2018, 09:49:51 pm »
I've attached the "map" below. If my intent is not clear from looking at the attachment let me know, because that is part of what I am trying to do. I kind of want people to be able to figure out where they stand, and understand how these different paths and ideas relate to each other.


I think the problem with charts that try to figure this out (trust me I've tried) is that they are not always mutually exclusive ideas. Similar to how you said that @Crossfire should "fit" somewhere she probably can't, just as I can't as is.

Also just generally, I've tried to make charts like this in the past. They almost always become exponentially complicated though because what conclusions people can draw depends not just on the elements they take but their subjective understanding. Even with a perfect understanding and flawless logic their cultural background will dictate different nuances in the rules of logic within their belief system. It gets hairy really fast and there will have to be some compromises or else the chart has lines linking nearly everything.

That said, some specifics;


As an example of exceptions (and why other categories would be better), you could easily have materialism lead to disillusion for Buddhists or idealism lead to "heaven" for dualistic Viashnavas. Likewise pansychism as I understand it differs from Idealism in that it holds a certain concreteness to the physical world that idealism usually doesn't.

Then I think those "ands" need to be "ors". Pluralism is usually in conflict with dualism so I think both of those categories can't be used as the two "main choices". If it said "dualism OR pluralism" and "idealism OR Pansychism" instead of "and" that would fix a lot of issues though but not all of them.


For me to fit you'd need to create broader sets. Otherwise the closest you'd have to draw a line from subjective universe to disillusion with the "Or" language. With that in place I could move from Philosophy, to pluralism or even side step it straight to subjective universe then go to disillusion. Then you'd need another line from disillusion to apotheosis. I'd also almost go through pansychism but it's not totally accurate hence why I'd jump straight to disillusion.

But that set up seems a little strange because I think you meant for to start at the top and go down.


This might be a little more nitpicky but the practice should go before the afterlife. since they are not the ultimate conclusion but the means to it. Another problem is that beliefs don't necessarily lead to one type of practice. This is reflected well on the far left side, but they are married to beliefs in the other parts. I understand that this marrying tends to be true of those who identify as WLHP due to it sharing philosophical roots with Christianity where that's a feature (the first Christians were Greek so this isn't surprising) but both of those should be, ideally, represented as possible combinations as opposed to strict categories.

I can accept that there is an argument to be made that since marrying practice and belief is the "norm" it should be the primary representation here, but I think then that really depends on what you are trying to actually communicate in this map. It would make sense in some contexts but not in others.


So all the stuff I said while I think should be accounted for, should also be streamlined in some way. Perhaps this is the streamline we are seeing now but if that's the case I think it needs to bet set up differently. Philosophy is kinda weird where it is, since it should be at the top and then basic axioms below it then everything else leading from that. This whole map seems to be what philosophies lead to what kind of belief systems and then their view of the afterlife essentially. The whole map is of philosophical ideas so it seems weird for it to contain itself.


I fail to see how it's possible to not have a world view.

Someone can be agnostic.

One not on here sure, let me know where it would fit! But in general? I think we can withhold from preaching or pushing our view, but I think everyone has one, and monism/pluralism are pretty much the only two options at most basic.

I can see from some Buddhist perspectives why they wouldn't subscribe to any particular idea or theory like idealism or dualism ect. Buddhism is primarily about how you live, not what you believe. Actually in my experience it's easier to define what Buddhists don't believe rather than what they do believe. This was true from Vajrayana monks to a guy who practices Middle Way to random people posting online.

So I believe her. For someone to have a belief on the topic they would need a degree of subjective certainty. Not everyone has that on every topic and Buddhism generally discourages those kinds of beliefs. It's why the Buddha said he didn't know or care whether or not god existed.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13