/lit/ - Literature

>>21471295
This phrase never made much sense to me.
How can you separate the art from the artist when they're the ones who made it? The art wouldn't exist without them. Fundamentally they ARE the art. If you apply this logic to anything else it pretty much instantly falls apart, becomes nonsense.
It comes across as a coping mechanism to me. Like you just don't want to admit someone you hate made something you like so you just conveniently rationalize them out of the whole situation. Because if not then you're faced with the difficult question of "Maybe I'm more like this person than I think. Maybe this shatters my whole identity and worldview". And of course you can't deal with that can you. Not here. Not now. After all I know who I am. Nothing can change that. Nothing!

>>20450545
le divine madness

>>20170251
AAAAAAAAAHH JNBSDJFB HGGGGGG HHAF HFTHBPATHH HSADH BG FROOPPPPPOTASDOFK

FKSDOIJKM KNGHJU"
AS:SF LJGFDS
GH FDKGH:FG
"SDFG
FSDG

KFMOISDG

A few years ago I started asking myself questions about the nature of reality. Discovering /lit/ made me grow dissatisfied with my lukewarm, optimistic and carefree agnosticism-leaning-towards-idealism, and I sought something more.

I started reading the basics; the books that were most frequently recommended to people seeking answers, mostly religious texts both western and eastern. I also branched out into more "fringe" authors the likes of which you'd find recommended on /x/ rather than here, as I had no real prejudices, and thus I read about everything from platonism to kooky new age.
I was told to complement my reading with an actual practice, so I did. I explored what there was to explore, but I eventually grew disillusioned with the belief systems I had looked into when my earnest attempts were met with nothing but silence.

At that point, as I kept going, I increasingly felt a sense of meaninglessness from what I was reading. I realized the arbitrariness of the metaphysical models I had studied or built over time, and started asking myself what I should do, or if there was anything to do. My previous, simple beliefs, which I had previously thought of as a naive and uninformed take on idealism, started seeming somewhat more reasonable than all I had read about.

I went through everything, learned about everything, some things more deeply than others. Platonism, Christianity, Gnosticism, Kabbalah, Hermetic alchemy, Traditionalism, Taoism, Advaita, Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism, New Age... None of it provided me with any answers. None of it made me feel as if I had touched upon any kind of superior truth when I attempted to put those teachings into practice with sincerity and in earnest.

Maybe I'm a hylic, icchantika, or what have you. Maybe I'm right and there are simply no answers to be found in those things, for me at least.
What now?

>>19318989
Nope, the price is roughly the same.

>>19232679
Arguable. Those either last long somehow or they perish and degrade as quick as you. Highly brittle and I wouldn't see myself as a good father so I instead choose to cut the wire early on in life.

>>19232691
You call that effort? That should be the bare minimum length of any post on /lit/. Where do you think we are? Don't bump the thread.

>>19232705
I've given you my mark of appreciation before so no need for a second time. I see you there, standing. Best of luck, I also want to be speaking genuinely and say that you rid yourself of any harm that obstructs you from progressing into the lighter side of life. Pessimism is a mind parasite, I don't want it inside of me but it got in either way.

>>19232721
Truthful comment. It's a phase and I'll likely get over it, but it doesn't help when you're in a sad state already. Godspeed.

>>19232773
Yeah, there has to be another path somewhere and not just a direct plunge into oblivion.

>>19232763
Not bad.

This has been tiresome enough as is.

Is there such a thing as gnostic scripture, commentaries or secondary sources that are exempt from the conceptual trappings of Christianity?
By that I mean a gnostic philosophy that doesn't rely on neotestamentary or apocryphal sources, but is its own standalone thing. I've read most of the Nag Hammadi texts but they are too close to Christian dogma to seem plausible to me. Even though I think the gnostic conclusions on reality are the closest thing to the truth any religion has touched upon, I'm way less convinced about everything pertaining to its abrahamic influences.
Have any authors written about a "non abrahamic gnosticism"? Is Cioran the closest we ever got to a gnostic mindset divorced from Christian influence?