[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

Search:


View post   

>> No.21311280 [View]
File: 85 KB, 1080x1266, 1669588759792476.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21311280

>An artist respects the silence that serves as the foundation of creativity.

>> No.17465201 [View]
File: 85 KB, 1080x1266, tumblr_pvbj659O4c1wxy4xzo1_1280.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17465201

>>17465157


No. By buying this book I want to trigger a larger conversation


>>17465173


Already did 3 years ago , he doesn't wear the watch

>> No.16695298 [View]
File: 85 KB, 1080x1266, C2F72DB5-19F1-45C0-8A3A-7394ADA90B80.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16695298

Aristotle>Plato

>> No.15911315 [View]
File: 85 KB, 1080x1266, 1585367577192.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15911315

>>15911307

If the difference be itself said to be identical with the nature of the consciousness, and if there is nothing to apprehend this difference, then the nonappearance of the difference implies the non-appearance of the consciousness itself; for by hypothesis the difference has been held to be identical with the consciousness itself. The non-appearance of difference, implying the non-appearance of consciousness, would mean utter blindness. The difference between the awareness of one moment and another cannot thus either be logically proved, or realized in experience, which always testifies to the unity of awareness through all moments of its appearance.

It may be held that the appearance of unity is erroneous, and that, as such, it presumes that the awarenesses are similar; for without such a similarity there could not have been the erroneous appearance of unity. But, unless the difference of the awarenesses and their similarity be previously proved, there is nothing which can even suggest that the appearance of unity is erroneous. It cannot be urged that, if the existence of difference and similarity between the awarenesses of two different moments can be proved to be false, then only can the appearance of unity be proved to be true; for the appearance of unity is primary and directly proved by experience. Its evidence can be challenged only if the existence of difference between the awarenesses and their similarity be otherwise proved. The unity of awareness is a recognition of the identity of the awarenesses, which is self-evident.

>> No.15703820 [View]
File: 85 KB, 1080x1266, D2B6664E-5FE4-4784-9CC4-92F22022BBD4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15703820

>>15703807
Your tiddies are big and juicy lemmie suck them mommy I don’t care about books

>> No.15246878 [View]
File: 85 KB, 1080x1266, 1585367577192.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15246878

>>15245106

The fact of consciousness is entirely different from everything else. So long as the assemblage of the physical or physiological conditions antecedent to the rise of any cognition, as for instance, the presence of illumination, sense-object contact, etc., is being prepared, there is no knowledge, and it is only at a particular moment that the cognition of an object arises. This cognition is in its nature so much different from each and all the elements constituting the so-called assemblage of conditions, that it cannot in any sense be regarded as the product of any collocation of conditions. Consciousness thus, not being a product of anything and not being further analysable into any constituents, cannot also be regarded as a momentary flashing. Uncaused and unproduced, it is eternal, infinite and unlimited. The main point in which consciousness differs from everything else is the fact of its self-revelation. There is no complexity in consciousness. It is extremely simple, and its only essence or characteristic is pure self-revelation.

The so-called momentary flashing of consciousness is not due to the fact that it is momentary, that it rises into being and is then destroyed the next moment, but to the fact that the objects that are revealed by it are reflected through it from time to time. But the consciousness is always steady and unchangeable in itself. The immediacy of this consciousness is proved by the fact that, though everything else is manifested by coming in touch with it, it itself is never expressed, indicated or manifested by inference or by any other process, but is always self-manifested and self-revealed. All objects become directly revealed to us as soon as they come in touch with it.

Consciousness is one. It is neither identical with its objects nor on the same plane with them as a constituent element in a collocation of them and consciousness. The objects of consciousness or all that is manifested in consciousness come in touch with consciousness and themselves appear as consciousness. This appearance is such that, when they come in touch with consciousness, they themselves flash forth as consciousness, though that operation is nothing but a false appearance of the non-conscious objects and mental states in the light of consciousness, as being identical with it. But the intrinsic difference between consciousness and its objects is that the former is universal and constant, while the latter are particular and alternating. The awarenesses of a book, a table, etc. appear to be different not because these are different flashings of knowledge, but because of the changing association of consciousness with these objects. The objects do not come into being with the flashings of their awareness, but they have their separate existence and spheres of operation.

>> No.15157586 [View]
File: 85 KB, 1080x1266, giga.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15157586

>I was the shadow of the waxwing slain
>By the false azure in the windowpane

>> No.15018053 [View]
File: 85 KB, 1080x1266, 1585367577192.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15018053

>>15017961
>Guénon thinks you are absolutely worthless, and counter-traditional
wrong, he appeared to me in a dream to say he approves of what I'm doing

>> No.14967028 [View]
File: 85 KB, 1080x1266, 1280.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14967028

>>14967019

If the difference be itself said to be identical with the nature of the consciousness, and if there is nothing to apprehend this difference, then the nonappearance of the difference implies the non-appearance of the consciousness itself; for by hypothesis the difference has been held to be identical with the consciousness itself. The non-appearance of difference, implying the non-appearance of consciousness, would mean utter blindness. The difference between the awareness of one moment and another cannot thus either be logically proved, or realized in experience, which always testifies to the unity of awareness through all moments of its appearance.

It may be held that the appearance of unity is erroneous, and that, as such, it presumes that the awarenesses are similar; for without such a similarity there could not have been the erroneous appearance of unity. But, unless the difference of the awarenesses and their similarity be previously proved, there is nothing which can even suggest that the appearance of unity is erroneous. It cannot be urged that, if the existence of difference and similarity between the awarenesses of two different moments can be proved to be false, then only can the appearance of unity be proved to be true; for the appearance of unity is primary and directly proved by experience. Its evidence can be challenged only if the existence of difference between the awarenesses and their similarity be otherwise proved. The unity of awareness is a recognition of the identity of the awarenesses, which is self-evident.

>> No.14937370 [View]
File: 85 KB, 1080x1266, pvbj659O4c1wxy4xzo1_1280.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14937370

>>14937319
Just because there is a quantum foam or waves instead of particles doesn't mean they are somehow empty of existence, it's not like something isn't real or doesn't have existence unless it's an object with mass and form. Typical Buddhist moving the goal-posts. Sunyata is nonsense, emptiness cannot be the cause of anything else, including samsara. Illusions cannot have emptiness as their basis but only arise where there is an existing basis for them in which they can inhere. Illusions and emptiness are not self-aware like we are. Our self-evident existence as conscious entities disproves the fallacious thesis of everything being empty of inherent existence.

>> No.14691743 [View]
File: 85 KB, 1080x1266, gigachad.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14691743

One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]