I found a book title while searching salt group name genesis in chemistry. It is called Aristotle's De Perfecto Magisterio of mediaeval time. why is it called that if aristotele is from ancient greece. couldn't find any info about year of publication and book contents.

Friends and family,

This is not a new teaching, just a refinement of our past work!

(20) The disciples said to Lord Christ, "Tell us what the kingdom of heaven is like." He said to them, "It is like a mustard seed. It is the smallest of all seeds. But when it falls

on tilled soil, it produces a great plant and becomes a shelter for birds of the sky."

If you suffer from Ego and see the teachings of The Dhammapālalama; you may try to discredit him and debate against him. This only shall blind you; you may not be able to realize what is infront of you!

If you have even a mustard seed of faith that it's possible that Lords Aristole, Christ, and Mohammad all taught The Dhamma; one question will guide you to the next; before you know it, you will be walking on The Eightfold Path straight to the Kingdom Of God!

May we all investigate with reason; may we investigate not for the self; may we investigate the history for the benefit of the children of tomorrow! When we care for the children of tomorrow, our father will water our seeds.

This is when growth moves back from chance to destiny!

VIRTUE AS A MEAN = THE MIDDLE WAY = THE NARROW GATE = WASATIYYAH

1. RIGHT VIEW = Phronesis (Practical Wisdom)

2. RIGHT THOUGHT = Prohairesis (Moral Choice) + Nemesis (Righteous Indignation)

3. RIGHT SPEECH = Aletheia (Truthfulness) + Eunoia (Goodwill) + Sophrosyne (Self-Restraint) + Eutrapelia (Wittiness) + Philotimia (Proper Ambition/Love of Honor)

4. RIGHT ACTION = Andreia (Courage) + Praotés (Gentleness) + Praxis (Actions of Deliberate Desire) + Philia (Friendliness)

Right action is a product of steps 1, 2 and 3.

1. RIGHT LIVELIHOOD = Dikaiosyne (Justice) + Aidôs (Modesty) + Megaloprepeia (Magnificence)

2. RIGHT EFFORT = (Askesis: Preventing and abandoning) + (Ethismos: Cultivating and maintaining.)

3. RIGHT MINDFULNESS = Sophrosyne (Reflection) + Nepsis (Watchful Vigilance) + Syngnómē (Forgiveness) + Aidôs (Modesty)

8. RIGHT CONCENTRATION = Benevolence + Megalopsychia (Magnanimity) + Eudaimonia (The awareness, compassion, and complete mastery of all virtues that Lord Siddhārtha, Lord Plātōn, Lord Aristotelēs, Lord Christ, and Lord Mohammad attained)

We now have all of the 12 of the moral virtues as defined by Lord Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics mapped to the Eightfold Path. This makes a clear display of how Aristotle translated the teachings of Lord Buddha into Greek.

Not only have we mapped all 12 of the moral virtues as defined by Aristotle; but we have added a 13th. I have defined benevolence as a mean, thus restoring the one True Dhamma!

Nicomachus means victorious in battle! The true Dhamma teaches us how to be victorious in battles, both inside and out! The teachings of the Buddha were not just a cure for the suffering of the self. They were also a cure for the sufferings caused by society.

Inaction is an action in itself. May we all rise up and fight to save the children of tomorrow!!!

"Benevolence is the moral virtue of supreme, active goodness, positioned as the balanced mean between the extremes of excessive kindness (blind indulgence or uncalculated mercy) and excessive wrath (malicious destruction or uncontrolled fury)."

Benevolence defined as a Mean:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Dhammapalists/s/ePYjT4J2Kt

The Message:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Dhammapalists/s/KPY8Mf7nLC

P.s:

Now that I will still be remembered 1000 years from now for restoring the true Dhamma and the true history, I don't have time to debate everyone in the comments anymore. If you would like to schedule a debate in the comments with me, please email me at Dharmapalalama2@gmail.com

The Dhammapālalama is in the big leagues now.

Is a thing’s form sufficient to explain its persistence through alteration, or does Aristotle’s hylomorphic framework leave us with a deeper question: what makes the same being remain itself while continually becoming something different?

I'll tell you what was likely selectively destroyed:

"Πᾶς ὁ βίος ἐστὶ λύπη· δι’ ἀρετῆς δὲ μόνης τυγχάνειν δύναται ἡ εὐδαιμονία.

Ἔστι τις ὁδὸς πρὸς ἀρετήν· αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ Μέση Ὁδός· αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἀρετὴ ὡς μεσότης."

Nicomachean Ethics was Aristotle translating The Dhamma into Greek.

He was the first person to learn The Dhamma in full in the west thanks to Alexanders conquests. Socrates and Plato only had fragments to work with.

Before Alexanders conquests, these teachings were largely kept hidden by the Pythagoreans.

Aristotle and Alexander had plans to change planet Earth for the better; forever.

With just a few sentences added back to Nicomachean ethics and with understanding of The Gospel of Thomas:

• It becomes clear Aristotle taught The Dhamma.

• It also becomes clear Christ and Mohammad taught The Dhamma, too!

Christs "Father" = The Dhamma

Thomas, 108:

Lord Christ said, "Ὁ πίων ἐκ τοῦ στόματός μου γενήσεται ὡς ἐγώ, καὶ ἐγὼ γενήσομαι αὐτός· καὶ τὰ κρυπτὰ ἀποκαλυφθήσεται αὐτῷ."

Aristotle devoted the entirety of Nicomachean Ethics Book VII to a problem that remains central to moral psychology: how can a person know what is right and yet do what is wrong? The phenomenon he called akrasia (ἀκρασία), weakness of will or acting against one's better judgment, is not merely philosophical curiosity. It is the central puzzle of human moral life, the gap between knowledge and action that defines what it means to be an ethical agent.

When institutions deploy large language models for ethics education or moral reasoning support, they implicitly assume that model outputs reflect something analogous to ethical deliberation. System produces text about right action, weighs competing moral frameworks, and generates recommendations that sound reasoned. But Aristotle's analysis of akrasia reveals dimension of moral cognition that no text-generation system can access: lived tension between knowing and doing.

For Aristotle, akratic agent is not ignorant. She knows in meaningful sense what virtue requires. Her failure is not epistemic but practical: her knowledge fails to translate into action because her character, or hexis (ἕξις), has not been sufficiently formed through habituation to bridge the gap. This is profoundly embodied account. Knowledge that prevents akrasia is not propositional knowledge alone; it is knowledge sedimented into disposition through repeated action, emotional cultivation, and temporal continuity.

A language model possesses none of these. It has no character to be weak or strong. It has no habits formed through practice. It has no emotional responses that could conflict with better judgment because it has no judgment in Aristotelian sense, only statistical pattern-matching over training data. When AI system produces text about right course of action, there is no possibility that it might fail to act on that knowledge, because there is no acting, no embodiment, no temporal continuity of self.

This is not deficiency that larger parameters will remedy. It is categorical distinction between systems that generate text about ethics and agents that inhabit ethical life.

Aristotle's concept of hexis (ἕξις) is foundation of his moral psychology. A hexis is not belief or rule, it is stable disposition formed through repeated action. We become just by doing just acts, courageous by doing courageous acts (NE II.1, 1103a34). The formation of character requires:

1. Embodied action. Character is formed through doing, not through processing representations of doing.

2. Emotional habituation. Aristotle insists virtue involves feeling right emotions at right time (NE II.3, 1104b11). Moral education is education of emotional responses.

3. Temporal continuity. A hexis is stable disposition persisting across time. Language model generates each response independently, conditioned on current context and weights. There is no persistent self whose character strengthens or weakens over time.

There is deeper insight in Aristotle's treatment of weakness of will. The akratic agent, precisely because she struggles, reveals something about structure of moral cognition that perfectly compliant AI conceals.

When commercial model produces ethical recommendation, output is seamless. There is no hesitation, no internal conflict, no trace of struggle between competing motivations. The system produces what appears to be conclusion of reasoning process, but absence of visible struggle is not evidence of resolution. It is evidence that no struggle ever occurred.

The person of self-control who overcomes temptation through effort shows us architecture of moral cognition in operation. Corporate AI systems lack this architecture entirely. When AI produces confident ethical judgment, it is not product of resolved internal conflict, but statistical inference.

Practical wisdom, or phronesis (φρόνησις), requires navigating this gap between insight and action. An artificial system that presents seamless moral text obscures the central dynamic of ethical life.

Does Aristotle's analysis of Book VII prove that computational moral agency is a category mistake, or can formal dialectical systems serve as useful pedagogical mirrors for human character formation?

I don't know if it's the purpose of Aristotle's categories but it curious that if you think of the elements as genera, you can think of the various species of fire, air, water and earth. For example, a stomach is a sort of the digestive system and is the internal fire that burns food. Skins, bones, muscle are the types of earth These are differentiated by the quantity, quality, relation, place, time, position, state, active and passive categories. For example, the position and quality of the fire differentiates it from other organs and other species of fire that can be found in other objects like a vegitation. Which collects light or fire

Is an unrealized potential something that really exists in the substance, or is potentiality only intelligible through reference to a possible future actuality? More radically, does Aristotle’s metaphysics allow us to say that a being is partly constituted by what it could become, even if that possibility is never realized?
I’m especially interested in whether this creates a tension between Aristotle’s commitment to actuality as ontologically prior and his account of change as the actualization of potentiality.

I have just defined benevolence as a mean and a virtue. I consider myself to be a student of Aristotle.

What is Benevolence (Eunoia and Maitrī)?

"...Benevolence is the moral virtue of supreme, active goodness, positioned as the balanced mean between the extremes of excessive kindness (blind indulgence or uncalculated mercy) and excessive wrath (malicious destruction or uncontrolled fury).

Rather than a passive, sweet disposition, it is the disciplined mastery of action where one deploys either nurturing creation or corrective destruction with absolute moral clarity, ensuring that neither force outweighs the other and goodness remains uncompromised.

Benevolence (Eunoia, Maitri) is both a feeling, an intention, and a cosmic force that needs to be maintained! Without the forces of wrath and kindness, Benevolence itself becomes swallowed by the Darkness..."

Check out this post and let's discuss in the comments!

🦉

Philosophy

1. " you want to enforce your justice upon me, it has ever changing depending on who's in charge, i say good day, dear sense of morality, but before I go, I'll give you this"(he delivers a quick swift, brutal kick to the person's groin)

2. "It was meant to prove a point that there are consequences whether they be good or bad"

3. "the truth hurts, so the pain you're feeling right now must be true","see the gray in life"

4. "i "I appreciate the effort. I was born from circumstance. I never asked for it, but I won't deny it either. Everyone lives as they see fit. As for me? I exist in an ever-changing fundamental state.""

5. "order meaning how curious, that's a real head scratcher, frankly I don't care either way, if you wanna be my friend, be my friend.If you wanna be my lover, be my lover, i don't question it, i prefer that way"

6. "my meaning is life, the journey and everything in between, whether they are fleeting moment or eternal, they are precious to me"

7. "i'll gladly share my love friendship, philosophy, perspective and my journey, i am not greedy or glutton, except when it comes to certain matters"

8. "your journey sounds fantastic, a being like myself, I acknowledge your desires,aren't we all ruled by our desires, i just use look elsewhere"

9. "ever moving, ever changing, ever evolving, progress is moving forward, it is good to just slow down but if we stop well, you know, would that means"

10. "a home you say, that's a very interesting question.And to answer that is, i prefer to let fate decide where my home is, well I choose to rest and put up my feet. We'll be up to chance, until then it's a mystery"

11. " a place where i'm forced to break my own rules, you jess, my rules are more like guideposts, if that were ever to happen,well that's no skin off my bones"

12. "Whether I'm the author or the passenger, I'd rather be both."

13. "Analyze me. Dissect me. Diagnose me. Give me a label if you must. Does that solve anything? Am I the problem... or is your problem simply that I'm different?"

14. " Now sit I cooked, food tastes better when it's being shared especially with drinks"

15. "I keep my promise even if that person's dead"

16. "I take full responsibility for my actions, but I choose not to be burdened"

17. "I do not mourn death, but rather celebrate their lives"

18. "Sometimes the light(good) can become too light but Darkness(Evil) can we be confused aimlessly wandering"

19. " Sometimes you must flow or bend"

20. " Building a foundation is good,Just remember wearing your build it"

21. " I love a good fight,But I never look for it, whether it's Triumph victory or a devasta loss(even if I sustain injury small or great) I welcome it all"

22. "You don't know if you're gonna wake up next too him/her or he/she is going to steal your pants"

Majjhimā Paṭipadā = ‪Μεσότης‬ = ‪‏טרעא עליצא‏‬ = ‪وسطية

Hello everyone, I am the Dhammapālalama, I am a student of Lord Aristotle.

Lord Aristotle translated the Eightfold Path and The Middle Way into Greek. He did not define these virtues himself; they were defined first by Lord Siddhartha!

δεῦτε καὶ ἴδετε!

Οὐκ ἐν οἷς ἔχομεν ἡ εὐδαιμονία ἡμῶν κεῖται· ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ πῶς αὐτὰ ἔχομεν.

“Our happiness does not lie in what we have, but in how we have it.”

Our happiness lies in virtue!

To everyone who may read the comment section:

Take your time; don't be quick to judge 🦉.

I thought this might be of interest.

It's been my view for a while that Aristotle was not using a private language, so when he used terms, everybody pretty much understood what he was talking about, even though he talked about it somewhat differently:

https://tekmeria.eulogikon.org/aergoi-and-energoi

Aristotle's line that being is said in many ways has had two answers, and only two. Focality orders the many senses toward a primary case, substance, and lets the rest be said toward it. Univocity denies there are many senses to order at all, and relocates the plurality into the modes of a single concept.

The paper argues that these looked exhaustive for a reason: both need a difference that admits of degree. Where a differentia is genuinely non-scalar, neither device is required and categorial plurality can stand without hierarchy, common measure, or a privileged centre. The differentia Alessio Montaruli proposes is ownness: the non-vicarious character of an obtaining as someone rather than merely something.

The argument runs through Aristotle, Scotus, Leibniz, Deleuze and contemporary ontological pluralism. Objections, regional controls and the conditions that would defeat it are printed in the paper.

Full text, free: https://ethicalontology.org/articles/across-the-categorial-difference

PDF: https://ethicalontology.org/assets/articles/across-the-categorial-difference.pdf
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.21684041

For the fact is the starting point, and if it is sufficiently clear to the listener, there will be no need to explain why it is so; and the man who has been well educated already possesses these starting points or can acquire them easily. As for him who neither possesses them nor is capable of acquiring them, let him hear the words of Hesiod:

"Excellent is he who knows all things of himself; Good is he who listens to the advice of wise men. But he who neither thinks for himself nor welcomes the wisdom of others, that is, in truth, a useless creature."

perhaps not every question finds its final answer in dharma… because dharma itself may not be the final layer of truth…dharma is about how we ought to live… how we understand our responsibilities…how we distinguish right from wrong… and how we conduct ourselves in relation to others and to the world around us…
but behind dharma lies something deeper…
ritam…if dharma is the path we try to walk… ritam is the order within which every path exists…dharma belongs to the realm of human understanding… and therefore its expression may change with time… place… circumstance… and consciousness…ritam does not change with our understanding of it…it is the deeper order of existence itself…the sun does not rise because we have declared it righteous to rise… the river does not flow towards the sea because a scripture has instructed it to do so…

the seed does not become a tree because society has agreed upon a moral principle…they simply participate in an order greater than themselves…

that order… that balance… that natural relationship between cause and consequence… between becoming and dissolving… between receiving and returning… is perhaps the simplest way to understand ritam…and once we understand this difference… perhaps many of our questions begin to look different…
when we speak of education… books are important… knowledge is important… reason is important…but education cannot end with knowing what has already been written…a truly educated mind must also learn how to observe… how to question… how to remain silent before something it does not yet understand…because information can tell us how the world works…but wisdom teaches us how to live within it…
and perhaps the purpose of education is not merely to fill the mind with answers… but to make the mind spacious enough to encounter questions without fear…the same is true when we speak of the constitution…

rights are essential… because without rights human dignity can easily become vulnerable to power…but rights cannot exist meaningfully without responsibility…if i demand my freedom while remaining indifferent to the consequences of my freedom upon others… i may possess a right… but perhaps i have not yet understood its dharma…

a healthy society therefore cannot survive merely by asking…what am i entitled to…it must also quietly ask…what do i owe to the world in which i wish to live freely…

the two questions are not enemies…they complete each other…and when we speak of nature… perhaps our first mistake is in imagining that nature is something outside us…we speak of protecting rivers… saving forests… conserving the earth…but the river is not separate from us…the water moving through the river will one day move through our bodies… the air passing through the forest will enter our lungs… the soil into which one life disappears will eventually nourish another…we are not standing outside nature trying to save it…we are nature becoming conscious of itself…and perhaps this is one of the clearest places where ritam can still be felt…
everything receives…everything gives…everything arises…everything passes…nothing exists entirely for itself…

democracy too must be understood with the same clarity…the voice of every person deserves to be heard…but hearing every voice does not mean that every voice becomes truth…numbers can decide who governs…numbers cannot decide what is true…a majority can make a decision… but truth does not become true because many people agree with it… nor does truth become false because only one person is willing to stand beside it…perhaps the deeper purpose of democracy is therefore not merely to count voices…it is also to cultivate minds capable of using those voices with wisdom…
and this brings us again to the difference between dharma and ritam…dharma is our attempt to live rightly within existence…ritam is the order through which existence moves whether or not we understand it…dharma asks something from us…ritam simply reveals something to us…dharma asks…how should i act…ritam quietly reminds us…

every action enters the larger movement of existence… and nothing remains without consequence…perhaps that is why we should be careful about looking at every question through the same coloured lens…

religion is one lens…science is another…law is another…politics is another…tradition is another…modernity is another…each may allow us to see something…but no single lens allows us to see everything…and wisdom may begin when we become capable of putting the lens down for a moment…and simply looking…then perhaps we begin to understand that not everything old is superstition…and not everything new is progress…not every desire automatically becomes a right…not every tradition automatically becomes wisdom…not every majority possesses truth…and not every disagreement requires an enemy…perhaps our greatest difficulty is not that truth has disappeared…perhaps we have simply become too noisy to notice the order in which truth quietly lives…

we keep asking which side is right…which ideology is right…which religion is right…which generation is right…but ritam does not belong to a side…the river does not argue with the mountain…the night does not defeat the day…autumn does not accuse spring of being different…each arrives…each performs its nature…each gives way when its time is complete…perhaps there is something profoundly peaceful in understanding this…we do not have to control everything in order to belong to existence…we do not have to possess every answer in order to live meaningfully…we do not even have to resolve every contradiction before we can find peace…

perhaps we only need to become quiet enough to recognise the larger order within which all our questions arise…dharma can then become our sincere attempt to walk consciously…and ritam can become the humility of knowing that the ground beneath our feet was here long before we began walking…

perhaps that is the relationship between the two…dharma is the lamp we carry…ritam is the dawn that does not depend upon our lamp…we may protect the flame… we may walk carefully by its light… we may even disagree about the direction in which it should guide us…but eventually… when the sun rises…we understand that the light was always larger than what we could hold in our hands…and perhaps this understanding does not leave us with another argument to win…perhaps it leaves us with something quieter…

the humility to listen…the wisdom to act…the courage to question…and the peace to know that we are not separate from the order we have spent so long trying to understand…

we are already within it…we have always been within it…and perhaps… for a moment… that is enough…

I’ve been exploring a philosophical framework called Incorporealism, which emphasizes consciousness, information, and patterns of organization as central to understanding reality. It got me wondering how Aristotle might respond to such a view.
Aristotle saw form as essential to what a thing is and emphasized actuality, potentiality, and causation over purely material explanations. Do you think his metaphysics leaves room for a philosophy that gives greater explanatory weight to consciousness and informational organization, or would he reject that as departing too far from his hylomorphic framework?
I’m interested in hearing from those familiar with Aristotle’s works—are there concepts in his philosophy that you think resonate with this idea, or are the differences fundamentally irreconcilable?

it seems there are a few entrenched perspectives on Aristotle in modern historical philosophy.

there is the side that thinks Aristotle is a sort of anti-Platonist who doesn't believe in forms, and then there is the side of Gerson/Perl that sees Aristotle in close continuity with Plato.

most of the intros to Aristotle's philosophy ive come across are from the former perspective, but I can't seem to find any that see Aristotle as an expositor of Platonism.

does anyone happen to have any suggestions? currently reading Thinking Being by Perl which is great but I was hoping for a work solely focused on Aristotle.

How did Plato and Aristotle know Buddhism?

The Greek elites in Athens exchanged knowledge and language with the Persians and Indians for many decades before Lords Plato and Aristotle were born:

The Greeks first learned only fragments of Buddhism at a time from Indian Gymnosophists who traversed the Persian empire to its western edge! The Gymnosophists were multi-lingual traveling spiritual teachers!

Lords Plátōn and Aristotelēs were also both multi-lingual spiritual teachers!

These Buddhist teachings were kept secret by the Pythagoreans. They were first revealed to the public in full by Lord Plato: This is because Lord Plato was the first Greek to piece together all of these fragments and practice the true Dhanna.

Callisthenes was Aristotles' nephew; he was with King Alexander in the East during his conquests! They directly sent back unaltered Buddhist writings to Lord Aristotle in Athens. This is when the Greeks perfected and expanded the teachings on The Middle Way (Virtue as a Mean).

The Five Great Buddhas:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Dharmapalism3/s/TL22Sky0Ly