Author Topic: Process Philosophy and Process Theism  (Read 945 times)

Xepera maSet

Re: Process Philosophy and Process Theism
« Reply #15 on: January 26, 2018, 04:47:42 pm »
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]?

CLEARING MY HEAD, WILL LIKELY RETURN

Xepera maSet

Re: Process Philosophy and Process Theism
« Reply #16 on: January 26, 2018, 04:50:17 pm »
Oh my other point was I agree that Whitehead and process theism seem VERY biased towards RHP tradition. I don't think this has to be the case though, as I (tried lol) to explain above. It's looking like Monism can still account for Setian Metaphysics.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2018, 04:11:07 am by pi_rameses »

CLEARING MY HEAD, WILL LIKELY RETURN

crossfire

Re: Process Philosophy and Process Theism
« Reply #17 on: January 26, 2018, 04:55:20 pm »
<...>
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.

<...>

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.

<..>
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.
"Show me a sane man and I will cure him for you."
~Carl Jung

Liu

Re: Process Philosophy and Process Theism
« Reply #18 on: January 26, 2018, 04:56:46 pm »
@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.


@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.

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.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2018, 04:58:42 pm by Liu »

Kapalika

Re: Process Philosophy and Process Theism
« Reply #19 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.

Quote
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: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Tattvas36.gif

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.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2018, 07:32:31 am by Kapalika »
https://kapalika.com

My religion is Satanism & Trika via Vāmācāra

"God and the individual are one. To realize this is the essence of Shaivism." - Swami Lakshmanjoo

crossfire

Re: Process Philosophy and Process Theism
« Reply #20 on: January 27, 2018, 04:21:10 pm »
<...>


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.


Check out this link to the
Sabbasava Sutta:
Quote
"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
The idea of Self or No-Self is not fit for attention, as it creates a thicket of views that one does not get freed from.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2018, 04:22:57 pm by crossfire »
"Show me a sane man and I will cure him for you."
~Carl Jung

pi_rameses

Re: Process Philosophy and Process Theism
« Reply #21 on: February 25, 2018, 01:15:25 pm »
Oh my other point was I agree that Whitehead and process theism seem VERY biased towards RHP tradition. I don't think this has to be the case though, as I (tried lol) to explain above. It's looking like Monism can still account for Setian Metaphysics.

I very much like the monistic (non-dual) schema. It seems to me that whenever Set (Satan by implication) is mentioned, then Horus (whatever Horian aspect it implies) is too. So we're talking about TWE or Hrwfy.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2018, 01:24:52 pm by pi_rameses »
Pro omnis dominos viae sinistra, sic itur ad astra
Nylfmedli14

Sutekh

Re: Process Philosophy and Process Theism
« Reply #22 on: February 26, 2018, 12:23:00 am »
Quote
Knowledge isn't a stable form, but a relationship between things that is ever changing.

I definitely agree.
"Our collective ambition is that the membership of the Order of the Serpent also serves as guardians of the Black Flame and collaborates with the Prince of Darkness in the Infernal Mandate of re-creating the Cosmos in the eternal glory of the Setian Will!"-Setamontet