/lit/ - Literature

bump

>>17138959
It's not by reading some esoteric books that your mind will somewhat become enlightened.
You'll find that some diverge from others and that some are quite similar.

>>17139359
But once I put the things I read about into practice, shouldn't I be cautious? I often read things about people who fucked themselves over with reckless practices (like kundalini for example) but I don't know how much of it is true.

>>17138959
So what happens after you finish this list? Do you become a chad hermit? No! You will only realize that you wasted your fucking time reading shitty esoteric books, you still have bills to pay, you still have to study for finals at college, you still have to do shit, reading esoteric books won't make you find some grand truth about life, it won't give you a purpose, it will only add a filter of mysterious and esotericism to reality that really isn't there.

>>17139376
You'll realize what ought to be done and what ought not to.
Unless you think going down the path of demonology is the most benevolent path or some shit, you'll be fine.
You won't know unless you start.

>>17139380
>you still have bills to pay, you still have to study for finals at college, you still have to do shit
Or, you realize the pointlessness of all these things, renounce them all, and become a chad hermit.

So if i wanted to read one (1) book on this list to get the gist of Esotericism what would it be?

>>17139380
Joke's on you I'm already practically a hermit and live off neetbux. Miss me with your normalfaggot lifestyle

>>17139380
This. Only go down this road if you have family money; it's not meant for plebs who must toil to earn their bread.

>>17139410
>The Secret Teachings of All Ages
It doesn't focus on one tradition and is quite researched.
May be your cup of tea, may not.

>>17139394
So things will reveal themselves on their own as I undertake a serious practice? Thanks, that's reassuring

if you engage in certain practices you risk getting possessed; and yeah it's actually happened

>>17139449
As other anons said, you need resources to really get down to it, so that might be first.
I've got multiple passive income streams so I don't need to worry about money, plus I've recently bought a multi-acre property-- very far away from the globohomo cities-- to become a hermit.
The serious practice aspect is very important; good luck.

>>17138959
Read "Introduction to Magic" by the Ur Group. I can't recommend it enough.

>>17139491
I wonder if I should just learn Italian since the Third Book is yet to be translated.

>>17139485
I live in a country with easy neetbux and UBI will probably be implemented soon, so as far as resources go I'm fine. Living in the middle of nowhere is difficult though, small towns are probably better for convenience.
Good luck to you too.

>>17138959
This list is pretty funny

Instead of spending a year on thirty largely unrelated books you would be much better off studying a couple of particular religious or philosophical schools, or gauntlet of such related schools, before deciding you want 'esotericism.' What makes you worthy of more difficult doctrines if you are at a survey level knowledge of the information at hand? I've lost track of how many instances of "this doctrine is not for stupid people" I've come across in Buddhist and also Platonist literature. Plato says it about the demiurge, Asanga says it about the alayavijñana. And I assume other religions say similiar.

>>17139525
It was the first one in my folder, I don't really plan on following it to the letter.

>>17139526
Right now I'm studying eastern philosophy because it appeals to me more. But eventually I'll branch off into other schools of thought. Don't you think it's good to be acquainted with different philosophies, even if you do end up focusing on a particular one?
>this doctrine is not for stupid people
They never are.

>>17139506
Same lol, I've been wondering if I should try to learn Italian just for Evola.

>>17139506
Third book is coming out in July.

>>17139526
Religions have always been two parts.
One exoteric for the masses, and another esoteric for the sages.

As a physicist I'll bounce off these because they are fake right?

>>17138959
Sure u can, it's called visiting b/

>>17139597
Of course they're fake anon! It's all a larp, don't concern yourself with it at all >:)

>>17139597
Don't worry about it

>>17139597
Of course!
No need to concern yourself with it!

>>17139526
>Asanga says it about the alayavijñana.
I'm really skeptical of the idea that there are hidden truths in buddhism revealed only in yogacara, dzogchen or whatever. Isn't the dharma supposed to be sufficient by design? Didn't Gotama say there were no secret teachings reserved for an elite?

>>17138959
>Can I fuck myself up by learning about esotericism without knowing what I'm doing?
Yes. It is seriously not a game.

>>17139402
How would someone even achieve that without wealth? You can’t just drop out on a whim and it increasingly feels like you can’t even just sort of work a job you don’t care about to make end’s meet. I don’t know about you but I feel like my choice is chase the carrot or die.

>>17138959
>Can I fuck myself up by learning about esotericism without knowing what I'm doing?
yes

>>17139751
Which precautions should be taken?

>>17139760
There were people who lived as solitary monks in the wilderness. You don't need to be dependent on civilization to live, but you would have to give up the niceties of the modern life to live as such.

>>17139760
Or if that's too difficult, you could merely join a monastery.

>>17139727
Yes the dharma is sufficient but you are not. The problem is how to enlighten you personally, which means sending one message is impossible because not everyone will get it. If you take a sort of originalist or hyperprotestantized view of Buddhism you will of course reject the Mahayana schools as additive inpurities but the simple fact of the matter is that what was revealed in the sutta pitaka is just as conditioned as anything else, and that if you follow Buddhism to the letter, it is the teachings of the Buddha which are skillful and not the recitations, which always required explanation or commentary from a teacher, having the right disposition, etc. This alignment of sender and receiver is what necessitates multiple paths.

>>17139823
Then is theravada incomplete, or unfruitful?
The problem of personal enlightenment, and reaching nibbana for yourself and as efficiently as possible is what theravada exists for. I just don't understand why it should be necessary to be initiated into esoteric buddhism. I'm not implying mahayana is false.

>>17139544
>Don't you think it's good to be acquainted with different philosophies, even if you do end up focusing on a particular one?
Yes but if you are too unfocused you will just nod along with everything you read and be confused at the end. Esotericism tends to be highly specific to whatever it is nested inside. It is in dialectic with a particular system, not with a broad overview of the history of human thought. If you were just studying philosophy or religion broadly it would be fine to read broadly unrelated core texts of different systems because what you are trying to do is understand the generic through the specific. But esotericism is not about religion in general but interpreting a very specific religion.

>>17139892
I thought the point of esoteric doctrine was that at its core there was no real difference in the substance of the teachings from one religion to the other, only the methods change. Or did I get memed by the perennialists

>>17139869
It's not that Theravada is false or that Vajra/Tantra/Mantra vehicles are necessary. They are all trying to solve the same problem of interpreting the buddha dharma to be effective for the aspirant, who is many.

You need to really understand the basics and foundations before trying to go deeper. There's a reason why a lot of groups wouldn't accept you until you were a certain age and knew the scriptures like the back of your hand.

>>17139903
No that's moderns doing the grab bag thing of reading a few books they didn't understand. The actual fraternity is among the sages, not among the doctrines they were forced to reconcile with their accomplishments.

>>17139916
Right, so we do agree. Then in the end, choosing between all of those branches does not seem to be a matter of determining which is superior, but simply a matter of personal taste and affinity to however they present their teachings.
My impression being that theravada appeals to those who simply wish to work towards enlightenment and nothing more, while mahayana will be prefered by those who place much more importance on being provided an actual metaphysical backbone (which theravada tends to handwave or dismiss as unnecessary/unimportant).

>>17139949
To give a practical example you can look at the global situation of extant Buddhism and find that the Chinese and Japanese lineages for instance are routed through Gandhara and Central Asia more than the Theravada lineages were, and I would think these cultures were in need of a different metaphysics than the more classically Indian ones were. Roughly speaking the Theravadin view is more personalized in scope, following the awakening of the historical Buddha, while Mahayana, travelling as it did on the roads of imperial commerce adopted a more cosmic view.

>>17139997
>these cultures were in need of a different metaphysics
Buddhism tends to assimilate local religions into itself, it did so in Japan, China and more obviously in Tibet, but to me that seems to be a testament to the fact that the core buddhist doctrine is unhindered by any specific metaphysical framework save for some very basic statements about reality.
Are you a mahayanist, or just interested in the philosophy?

>>17139597
>implying modern physics aren't fake

Lmao. The results of the eclipse in 1915 were completely distorted to fit with relativity, in fact they results completely fit with Newton's theories. This is how physics has been run right up to the discovery of the Higgs boson, hint the results were also completely distorted so throwing away billions upon billions of dollars was justified

>>17140182
About the Higgs boson
https://www.amazon.com/Higgs-Fake-Particle-Physicists-Committee-ebook/dp/B00FOU0CXG

>>17140048
I don't consider myself aligned with any particular historical doxographies. For myself the problem I am trying to solve is how do you introduce Buddhism into western contexts without arriving at corporate mindfulness, moralistic therapeutic deism, and yoga-pants-and-tchotchkes Buddhism, because all of these jettison actual enlightenment for the sake of propagation. I think there are potentially some bridges in Western philosophy (beyond the obvious ones like Sextus Empiricus, many pre or post Christian-scholastics for lack of a better term, have some of the parts but not the whole); though the living culture is quite hostile to any belief system that relies on renunciation, askesis, self-restraint, contemplation, etc., not just Buddhism but most religions or philosophies really.

>>17140259
The fact that Buddhism has been coopted by causes that are unrelated or even antithetic to its message seems like a consequence of the doctrine not actually being understood, or being heavily modified in order to appear less alien to western societies. I'm not even talking about the emphasis on equanimity and renouncing worldly pleasures, but about the anti-platonist implications some buddhist concepts have. Pyrrhonism isn't exactly popular in the west, and linking Buddhism to western schools of thought to make it more accessible only works if those schools are somewhat popular in the first place.
Can a true western Buddhism exist? Or is the better option to import Buddhism "as is" from the countries where it thrives, adapting only its most superficial (aesthetic, liturgical) components while leaving the rest intact, as off-putting as it may be for some?

>>17139441
Really? Is there no point in striving for that kind of knowledge when you're not a NEET?

>>17140345
I think there's a sense in which Buddhism could be taken as the esoteric form of postmodernism, but it would be very hostile to the exoteric, necessarily so, wrathfully guarded even. Buddhism doesn't seem to work being hawked as another option for church shoppers, and the postmoderns didn't even understand the consequences of semiotics and cybernetics, they merely described them and then became nihilists because it meant they weren't getting marxism to happen so there was nothing to live for. Buddhism already agrees with the falseness of mental constructs but also dispenses with privileging some supposed reality of material relations which should trump the ones we made up. Postmoderns don't like that because it is technically an idealist narrative, but they were never actually against all narratives, just the ones they didn't believe in. As long as there is consciousness there is narrative; they couldn't or wouldn't solve this problem of everything as superimposed fiction, it had to be due to false consciousness that people weren't engaging with the real. They could not transcend this particular view.

how could u fuck urself up?

>>17140650
>I think there's a sense in which Buddhism could be taken as the esoteric form of postmodernism
That's somewhat my take on postmodernism too. Whether the postmodernists realized it or not, they were actually mapping out the phenomenology of maya. If only the postmodernists acknowledged the existence of the Transcendent, the West would've had its own religion similar to Buddhism that would get us of this era of nihilism, which Nietzsche prophesized as the Death of God.

>>17140868
Have any authors ever tried to reconcile or link together the postmodernist view with Buddhist philosophy?

>>17138959
>is it harmful to learn without knowing something beforehand

Stop being a bitch and read it if you want

>>17140899
I know of one such book, but I haven't read it to see if it's good. I'm sure there are other books like this that exist.

>>17140868
Nietzsche is another popular misunderstanding. In the average Western mind, if there is no creator god then is nothing to believe in; this is a false dichotomy and wholly foreign to Buddhism (but also to Nietzsche). It is only a problem for the apostate of monotheism. This is not the appropriate mindset with which to approach Buddhism, which was not written for apostates of monotheism who had themselves burned out in a secular, aggressively empiricist culture. Many texts warn against giving certain teachings to persons who aren't ready and stress the importance of skillful means. Hence to postmodernism, Buddhism is necessarily esoteric because it presents a holdout supra-metanarrative that even postmodernism is conditioned.
>>17140899
I'm not sure anyone has brought it all together but there are scattered remnants of their reconciliation strewn about the wasteland. Norbert Wiener mentions Buddhism twice in The Human Use of Human Beings, and notes it, along with other Indian philosophies, is anti-progress. That is to say it believes in entropy as normative rather than there being some endlessly ascending order (Wiener believes entropy is normative but there are temporary islands of anti-entropy or order within it). Anyone who deals heavily in semiotics or symbolic constructions of 'reality' as a process of consciousness is also likely to have unwittingly written a Mahayana sutra.

>>17140936
Haven't you ever read something you weren't prepared for and felt you were wasting your time?

>>17141042
That's a different thing to it fucking you up though, that's just a waste of time

>>17141018
>holdout supra-metanarrative that even postmodernism is conditioned.
I don't understand what you mean exactly. How can systematic deconstruction be conditioned?

>>17141224
>I don't understand what you mean exactly. How can systematic deconstruction be conditioned?
Because it's a response to fascism or Freudian psychology or some union of the two. It's all and well to say everything is imagined so you shouldn't be a fascist but these same writers are often mournful that people haven't realized they should be marxists instead. Buddhism, as an esoteric postmodernism, would say that you must even deconstruct deconstruction if you are to realize any truth. And indeed some of the postmoderns threw away most of their marxist baggage and really started to think about what a universe of signs really meant. Whether it was even possible to have that universe at all, let alone signs of it. But then they get lost or frightened by this prospect.

>>17138959
Make sure you vibrate on a higher plane. Once you start vibrating on the lower plane. That’s when “/x/ becomes life” there is a great post by somone on x talking about all these books and says it’s mostly full of shit except a few go ask on x

>>17139526
>"this doctrine is not for stupid people"
Also add "nor is this doctrine for the morally impure, the unchaste, the dishonest, the proud, or materialists. If you fall into any of these categories, and don't heed this warning by reading further and putting what's written in these pages into praxis anyway, you WILL fuck your shit up."

>>17142671
That's good.

>>17138959
Yes, but what's the alternative, stay ignorant?

>>17138959
>>17139531
I read the Kybalion. I was so hyped up by others around here and other folks on other boards, but seriously it came out pretty frippling flat tbqh senpaitachi. Like it all is common sense: like oooh magnetic here is important: positive and negative attraction ouuuhhh.
Seriously is it all that dumb? Like I seriously feel that this book is fraud. The only thing the book has right is its name. Sounds dope but the rest is really disapointing.

>>17143467
>Starting with McHermeticism instead of the Corpus Hermeticum