/lit/ - Literature

Spirituality is garbage and doesn't exist, if it existed then it would no longer be spiritual, it would just be another thing that exists. That's how you know it doesn't.

>>17550984
Books are garbage that don't have anything to teach you, if they had anything to teach you they would no longer be books, they would just be another thing with something to teach you. That's how you know they have nothing.

>>17550984
>Books about exploring spirituality on your own without subscribing to a specific religion?
Can someone tell me wtf spirituality means without some kind of dogmatic religious revelation. Unless you're conjuring spirits and shit I don't know what kind of tangible access you have to anything 'spiritual'.

>>17551096
/x/ schizos frequently come to their own "realizations" by meditating

>>17550984

Sorry to say this, but, spirituality is shallow and superficial. It has no basis and foundation to a tradition nor any established roots apart from obscurantist occult nonsense. Religions like Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, etc. have millennia of history and scripture behind them along with philosophical and historical basis to their beliefs.

Suppose your "spirituality" has you believing in God or a pantheon of gods, how are you going to say that you know these gods? What proof of their existence can you show to others that is valid and authoritative?

Hippie statements like "Oh I see God in nature, man. Y'know the trees, birds, rivers, plants, and stuff like that" hold no proper basis and can be easily dismissed. It's the equivalent of some medium rubbing a glass ball to asspull your future and whatnot.

Do yourself a favor anon and find yourself a creed that teaches you how to develop a proper spiritual life.

>>17551191
The only things religions have that individual realizations don't have is that they have their scriptures. Scripture isn't proof and can be dismissed just as easily as another person's experience, there is nothing authoritative about them unless you're already part of the religion and proselityzing. If books written thousands of years ago and detailing arbitrary takes on reality constitute a "proper basis" to you then that's fine, but they don't for me.
>find yourself a creed
I'm done with that.

>>17551226

Then start reading Carl Jung's "Modern Man in Search of a soul". That's the best I could give to a lost soul like yerself.

>>17551233
>if you don't agree with my dogma you're lost
Take your condescension elsewhere.

>>17551259

>Never said you should agree with my dogma. It's just my opinion.

Anyone can be a lost soul with or without a religion bruh.

>>17551329
What is a "lost soul"?

>>17550984
100:2.4.
Spirituality becomes at once the indicator of one's nearness to God and the measure of one's usefulness to fellow beings. Spirituality enhances the ability to discover beauty in things, recognize truth in meanings, and discover goodness in values. Spiritual development is determined by capacity therefor and is directly proportional to the elimination of the selfish qualities of love.
100:2.5.
Actual spiritual status is the measure of Deity attainment, Adjuster attunement. The achievement of finality of spirituality is equivalent to the attainment of the maximum of reality, the maximum of Godlikeness. Eternal life is the endless quest for infinite values.

>>17551166
Can you attain meaningful realizations by meditating alone?

Bardon, Franz - Initiation into Hermetics
Atkinson, William Walker - The Kybalion
Booth, Mark - The secret history of the world
Fortune, Dion - Esoteric Orders and Their Work
Hall, Manly - The Secret Teachings of All Ages
Hanegraaff, Wouter - Western Esotericism
Regardie, Israel - The one year manual

>>17550984
Evola unironically

>>17551656
Traditionalists are about finding the tradition that's right for you, not rejecting all of them

>>17551696
Evola thinks you can find Tradition without initiating an existing one, thats why I mention it

>>17551735
In which books does he write about this?

They spent their entire lives searching for meaning and purpose and in their afterlives eternities grieving and mourning for paths not taken and prayers not answered. - Book of Sorrows 5:56

>>17551740
From memory Ride the Tiger, sorry I cant give a better snswer than that

>>17551747
Thanks
>>17551743
Fuck off

>>17551191
> "Oh I see God in nature, man. Y'know the trees, birds, rivers, plants, and stuff like that" hold no proper basis and can be easily dismissed

Has no proper basis? There is some sort of 'deductive logic' at the base of the evolutionary process. Was Spinoza a hippie?

>>17551457
> control and free will are myths
> you're insane
thats wat i learned

>>17551071
>>17551096
>>17551166
>>17551191
I don't mean to be rude, but why do the Hylic posts always appear during European posting hours?

>>17551166
>>17552261
What do you think of the claim that enlightenment is an inherently personal journey?

>>17552274
Nothing is a personal journey.

>>17552292
So enlightenment cannot be reached by solitary practice?

>>17552316
Solitary sure, just not personal.

>>17552340
Meaning what exactly? You need to choose a tradition? Why?

>>17550984
Mircea Eliade - The Sacred and the Profane
I was an atheist/agnostic my entire life, this book was the final step necessary for me to understand religious thinking.
It explains how a religious person in the ancient times thought about the world and how they sought meaning in their lives. It does a really good job selling the sacred/religious point of view as a frame for reality, don't expect arguments for God existence or something, it compares a lot of different religions pointing out the common features and beliefs and how that relates to the inherent human necessity of seeking something "higher"

>>17550984

1 Spirits exist
2 You were a spirit before you were born and will revert back into your spirit state when your physical mortal body dies

Such general beliefs unattached to any religion

>>17552372
That's just new age without the crystals
The point of religion is that it gives a reason for the spirit, not just the assertion that there is one

>>17550984
Bob Monroe's books

>>17552349
Your thread is pertaining to your quest to explore spirituality on your own, yet even now you ask for wisdom from those you perceive as learned. This is not to condemn you, but I just want you to see that deep down you know the answer to your own thread.

>>17552396
This guy pretty much "proved" gnostics right. Spooky shit.

>>17552403
I like the idea of "seeking nothing outside of yourself" but you're right.
What I mean is that I don't want to belong to anything, I want to walk my own path.

>>17552377

You become physical whenever you sin as a spirit or "fall"

Don't do that

New Age is a broad term

Perhaps it's a contemporary term for gnosticism.

>>17552428
>You become physical whenever you sin as a spirit or "fall"
How do you know that's what happens and not something else? It's an interesting idea but how did you come to realize it?

>>17552418
Then create your own path. It's not hard.

>>17552441
>It's not hard.
It's not?
I haven't had any mystical experiences or anything of the sort.

>>17552418
You belong to everything and all paths connect to the same road. Meditate on this.

>>17552451
I'm acquainted with perennialism but I find a lot of religions are clearly incompatible with each other unless you completely gut them of all their metaphysical substance. If everything is true, then nothing is.

>>17552451
All rivers lead to the ocean
But not the ones that turn dry

>>17552448

You will eventually. Trust me.

>>17552466
I'll take your word for it, thanks friend.

>>17552466
If he doesn't pray, or meditate, or practice some form of yoga, he won't

>>17552459
>>17552460
There is nothing more I can contribute to this thread if you do not accept that saying yet.

>>17552472
No prob.

>>17552492
It'd be good to know what you mean exactly when you say all paths lead to the same road anyway, since it can be interpreted in various ways.

>>17551166
Sounds like how most religions came about

>>17552488
He has to yearn or seek or search

>>17552506
Not enough without genuine practice
You have to feel it, not know it

>>17552500
"As they approach me, so I receive them. All paths, Arjuna, lead to me."

>>17552517
I haven't read the Gita yet. I'm not even sure I believe in a God (as a deity or being) even though I believe in death not being the end.

>>17552517
This thread was about nonreligious spirituality

You made it hinduism specific

>>17552529
You should read it, even if you don't believe in God. It's short enough with enough spiritual insight that there is no reason not to.

>>17552545
Not everyone worships Krishna within hinduism itself

>>17550984

The answers in this thread are overwhelmingly vague, useless gibberish offering platitudes and pseudowise aphorisms they cribbed from Lao Tzu and Guenon.

OP, I've been in the same boat for a while now, having become disillusioned with the ability of the religious institution I was formerly a part of to really offer effective help. But there's a reason those institutions and organizations exist, a reason preexistent structures are there - the wisest men of entire nations and continents have spent century after century refining the system of belief and practice to a level no individual could conceivably come up with alone. They can also vouch for their practices being effective since they can point to a list of people who have achieved success with them. Wandering outside of this poses a huge risk of bankrupting yourself philosophically and hijacking your progress in terms of practice. This isn't even getting into the problem of potentially convincing yourself you've made progress when all you've done is inflated your ego.

As far as I can tell, then, the best way to explore spirituality on your own without a religion to provide structure is to try and replicate, as close as possible, that structure. Avoid personal speculation, steer clear of too much innovation, and continue to surround yourself with sober and humble people who can check your sense of self importance.

As far as books, another anon mentioned Evola, and he's pretty good for getting a strong sense of independent self direction without collapsing into neohippy self indulgence.

>>17552545
Why not. Is the Easwaran translation okay?

>>17552555
Yes, his translation has a great introduction too.

>>17552554
>they can point to a list of people who have achieved success with them.
I'm not very convinced by this because there's really no way to know if the experiences those people had were genuine transcendence, or only an attainment that was tainted and biased because of their involvement with their tradition, or even because of their own ideas of what transcendence should be.
Really, why shouldn't realization be attainable by anyone, without a spiritual authority to guide and direct them? I assume every path has its own idiosyncrasies, too.
Which is not to say religious institutions are completely useless, but you get my point.

>>17552404
Interesting, really? I've read his first book and I'm working my way through the gateway cds, but I don't know anything about gnosticism. Can you give a qrd of the connection/parallels?

>>17552554

Whatever you do OP, do not believe this bs.

Jesus Christ founded Christianity by warding off such elitist traditionalistic rabbis who were smug with power and authority and religious control over the masses.

Free yourself and be as free as the birds are.

Jesus. Buddha. Etc

All of them broke the established traditions and were free thinkers

>>17552592
http://blog.hasslberger.com/docs/Far_Journeys.pdf
His concept of loosh and his whole experience with the astral world or whatever you want to call it points towards Earth being a kind of farm harvested for energy (loosh), and you don't get to leave whenever you want. Apparently strong emotions of negative attachment like loneliness or protection instincts emanate more "loosh".
But I'd take it with a grain of salt, the experiences people have during OBEs tend to vary quite a lot.
By the way, the gateway CDs are placebo if you just use headphones, I think what induces OBEs are electromagnetic waves that they use in the actual Monroe Institute's equipment but just headphones or earbuds won't do shit. They didn't for me at least.

>>17552579

>Really, why shouldn't realization be attainable by anyone, without a spiritual authority to guide and direct them?

Why shouldn't a space shuttle be designable by anyone, without a professor to teach them engineering?
Spiritual attainment requires breaking through an entire lifetime (if not millions and millions of lifetimes) conditioning and utterly overhauling your entire perception of reality and the way your mind works. You have to go entirely outside of any experience the human mind was even built to handle. This is why relatively few people have actually done it.

>I'm not very convinced by this because there's really no way to know if the experiences those people had were genuine transcendence, or only an attainment that was tainted and biased because of their involvement with their tradition, or even because of their own ideas of what transcendence should be.

This is why (good) esoteric teachers encourage trying the practices yourself to see if they have positive effect. If they do, that's evidence that they're onto something. It's not foolproof, but you're more likely to get something out of a practice that can at least claim a lineage, rather than one without even that much.

>>17552592
>>17552607
Either way the main parallel is that this world doesn't matter all that much and you need to be relatively unattached to it otherwise you'll come back. I don't know if unattached means to be okay with letting things go, or if it's to be understood in the extreme ascetic sense.

>>17552616

Most of us are stuck here. We just can't leave unless suicide which is hard otherwise everyone would have done it already

>>17552611
>Why shouldn't a space shuttle be designable by anyone, without a professor to teach them engineering?
I don't see spirituality as something you get from elsewhere, the yearning for something higher is innate. And it's not a material thing either, so the comparison falls short.
The things religions have in common is that they use practices like prayer and meditation and direct them towards their specific idea of the divine, and this leads to mystical experiences.
Why couldn't I just direct my own meditative practice towards my own idea of transcendence?

>>17552631

Wherever you are, whatever you're doing, you're praying.

Let your every moment be a prayer to God. Let your every breath, every action, every movement, every moment of your life be a natural unforced prayer - Book of Peter 5:35-

>>17552646
>>17552529

>>17552631

>I don't see spirituality as something you get from elsewhere, the yearning for something higher is innate. And it's not a material thing either, so the comparison falls short.

Yes, spirituality is innate, but we are talking about practices, which are technical means and processes that have been in development for centuries and rest on an enormous body of equally technical philosophical literature. People spend entire lifetimes in monasteries training at this and still make marginal progress.
Spirituality may be innate, but the practices are no less technical, complex, and demanding than building a space shuttle.

>Why couldn't I just direct my own meditative practice towards my own idea of transcendence?

Like I said, you need to make sure you have a proper philosophical base to ground it in, are practicing something there is reason to believe is successful rather than trying to reinvent the wheel, and are making sure you aren't deceiving yourself into a false notion of success.

We aren't talking about a relationship with the Gods or a specific God here, we are talking about an entire system of belief and practice with the aim of transcendence. Other systems have been in the works for thousands of years and have put minds no less staggering than Aquinas and Shankara in their service; you have about 80 years to get yours down, and are relying mostly on your own background, which - I hate to break it to you - probably falls short of Aquinas and Shankara.

I'm not discouraging your independence, I'm saying that you (and I!) are on an extremely steep, difficult ascent, and we need to be extremely careful if we don't want to wind up spinning our wheels because we tried to reinvent them and fucked up some arcane minor detail that Nagarjuna worked out 1,000 years ago.

>>17552656
This thread is not just about you. Others are also reading.

>>17551071
Paradoxicalist in denial

>>17551166
Afraid of his own mind

>>17551191
Never heard of hermeticism

>>17551559
Based

>>17551823
Based for meditating, cringe for taking the slave-pill

>>17552274
Substitute personal for individual. Same thing pretty much

>>17552292
Everything is a personal journey

>>17552377
Reincarnation is not a new age concept

>>17552693
You replied to me. Don't (you) me if you're making a general statement.

What you seek is just another type of solipsism, where your "intuition" and feefees can never be wrong; if it doesn't sit right with you, who are so high in understanding beyond everyone else, then it must be wrong.
Following tradition, in doubt and sin, is an act of humility and self-awareness that you might be wrong, both in understanding and in your morals.
>Read Plato; Plotinus Enneads; Egyptian Wisdom Books; Epic of Gilgamesh; Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature; ; Book of the Dead; Corpus Hermeticum and Asclepius: The Perfect Discourse of Hermes Trismegistus; Iamblichus' De Mysteriis; 'Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and the Many' (then) 'The Search for God in Ancient Egypt', Bhagavad Gita as It Is.

>>17552672
I don't know if spirituality really is this mechanistic and procedural. Since no religion has presented to me a concept of "the beyond" that felt genuinely compelling, there's no reason to adopt any of their practices, since they would presumably serve only to get me closer to their own concepts.
I'm not against acquiring a philosophical basis and that's what I'm doing. But philosophy probably won't get you closer to realizing something, only seeing things for yourself will, and as elegant as any philosophy may be, it's not the same as getting an actual experience of the transcendent.
I'm not a fan of this extremely technical approach that claims somehow the truth beyond all existence is an object you can grasp through rigorous reasoning and elaborate systematisation of a belief system.

>>17552698
Maybe solipsism isn't that bad.

>>17552717
If you can make manifest the power that would come with it being true, then yes. Otherwise you'll just live in constant terror and impotence.

>>17552729
>If you can make manifest the power that would come with it being true
What is there to manifest for a solipsist?

>>17552737
Power. Then again it depends on desire. If the solipsist is content being fat, bald, ugly, and stupid, then that's ok I guess.

>>17552745
Has anyone ever bothered writing in depth on the subject of solipsism, even though it's an idea that doesn't lend itself to much philosophizing by definition?

>>17552706

Isn't the point of spirituality that it is at least somewhat mechanistic, though? "Do X (correctly), get transcendence." If it wasn't mechanistic this way, there'd be no point in striving, since there's no reason to believe it will work.

The question then is to figure out what X is; you can do this on your own, or you can rely on the geniuses who have gone before and who have spent thousands of years building on each others' works and developments.

Its no different than a space shuttle; "Put X together (correctly) and you can go to the moon." The question is what X is, how to put it together correctly, and while maybe some people could in theory figure that out from scratch, you're more likely to make progress if you spend at least a little bit of time collaborating with an engineer.

>>17552717
It's arbitrary. Which makes none of your thoughts superior than any past or future thought you might have. Solipsism makes all things equal, there is no basis for truth or falsity. Everything and nothing is true.

>>17552764
>"Do X (correctly), get transcendence."
I don't know, that's the usual assumption, but it could be wrong. Hopefully it's not something like "do whatever you want, get no transcendence" at least.
>if you spend at least a little bit of time collaborating with an engineer.
Finding the right engineer and not getting too attached to him so you don't end up mistaking the shuttle for the moon is the hardest part about all this.

>>17552784
If it's all in the mind, why is that bad?

>>17552754
I don't know of any authors on the topic, but I think it lends itself mostly to schizo-mysticism and acquiring mental illness. Imagine if you created all that ever was and then you stub your toe. Why did you make yourself stub your toe? Now imagine if you also believed in the concept of absolute self-love. Why did you hurt yourself out of love? Are you retarded?
If the first hermetic principle is true, then solipsism is the ultimate gambit. >>17552784
Not necessarily. If were the creator of everything then I would have created the concepts of truth and falsehood, of technique and measurement.

>>17552820
All of this can he handwaved if you just say that what you're experiencing right now is a dream or illusion of your own making.

>>17552807
Bad and Good are neutralized, every path is right and every path is wrong, including *not* picking anything; presupposing choice exists. Whenever you affirm something as true from moment to moment you are no-longer a solipsist, but rather a proto-tradionalist, you've established a faith and in the process make each subsequent future 'you' follow something other than yourself (that being the past self that no longer is, and therefore is not "you").

>>17552828
Yes, hence the mental illness and it being a massive gambit. If you live in poverty, even as an illusion, and you actually control everything then you have to accept that you *want* to live in poverty despite what you may believe on the topic

>>17552833
>Whenever you affirm something as true
You can establish provisional truths for convenience while still doubting everything, this isn't exclusive to solipsism but skeptics do it too.
>>17552843
You don't control your nightmares unless you acquire full lucidity. Sometimes even knowing it's not real doesn't make the nightmare end.
Not arguing for the dream hypothesis necessarily here, I'm just saying that the assumption that our reason is sufficient is a huge gambit too.

>>17552579
Why can't anyone re-invent the wheel if they want to? Across all traditions there are the base conditions of life everyone has to deal with like suffering, family, war, labor, social relations, etc. Then you have more fundamental things like linguistics, math, logic, psychology, etc. that every major religion has developed on and had to contend with. I find it really hard to believe there is nothing out there you might personally connect with or draw something from, or that there's nothing out there exploring the same problems you have, that however million people have tried walking the same path and never tripped over the same rock or found the same shortcut.

>>17552859
>full lucidity
Yes but assuming that you technically control everything means you already acquired some degree of lucidity. You don't have to wave your wretchedness away as being just an illusion, you have to wave it away as being good and deliberate.

>>17552867
Well, I don't know what to tell you. I've looked into all the major traditions of the world and I couldn't get into any of them.

>>17552859
>but skeptics do it too
not the true ones
Also, hypotheticals aren't beliefs.

Not OP, but I have been wondering the same thing.
It seems self-evident to me that there is more to life than what can be empirically proven, but I also doubt that we can gain any meaningful knowledge of the "spiritual" from our limited perspective.
Don't get me wrong; studying history has demonstrated to me the importance of religion, and I'm all for it, but I am personally skeptical of anyone or thing that claims to have complete cosmic understanding, or that knows The Truth (tm). I find it fun to study religions as the intricate and often brilliant systems they are, but none have ever really grabbed me in the way that ardent followers describe. It's the same with philosophy; it feels like a clever mental exercise. Perhaps I just haven't learned enough.

Any advice from other anons who have been in this situation?

>>17552883
Figure out what drives you, what ideals and goals both personal and collective you wish to see achieved in this world. Meditate on that. Meditation is absolutely essential for any kind of sustained spiritual insight.

>>17552871
Why?
Also, if we're going to continue with the dream argument, it is very frequent for lucidity in a dream to not encompass the full scope of mental awareness. Just last night I was "lucid" as in, I knew I was dreaming, and yet my cognition was still impaired to an extent that I reacted to the dream's events instead of observing it from afar, fully abiding in the knowledge that it was unreal.
I'm inclined to agree with the argument that if dreams can deceive us to the extent that we are incapable of knowing we're being deceived, there is no reason to think this waking life couldn't.

>>17552883
I feel exactly the same. I have no answer but often I feel that committing to a religion of philosophy would be a mistake for that reason: I'll never be able to know if it's actually true and I'm not completely off the mark.

>>17552883

I think the problem is that you're looking at it from an abstract, philosophical perspective. Religions and spiritualities are meant to be lived, communal experiences. You need to make as much of an emotional and social investment as an intellectual one, if not more.

>>17552898
Not him, but I'm basically only driven by my desire to continue experiencing existence. I'm never bored, and pretty much just thankful of being able to be.

>>17552899
I tentatively agree with the dream argument. My point is that (in my opinion) everyone needs some kind of meaning and purpose to the actions and reactions in their life. A person suffering from poverty will be much more likely to push through it if they believe that their poverty serves a purpose. Whether that purpose is to build character or serve as a warning is a different question, but by the principles of cause and effect everything needs an origin and an intended effect. And if you're a solipsist then every origin and effect is yours and yours alone.

>>17552925
Based and absolutely valid my friend. Know that you can train yourself to feel any emotion on a whim. You can heighten any joy, you can deepen any sorrow, you can solidify and even create out of nothing any anger you desire to experience.

>>17552927
So you're against solipsism because it doesn't provide meaning but dismisses the meaningfulness of everything instead?

>>17552943
Oh I'm not against solipsism, people are free to believe as they please. I just think it's a terribly dangerous way of looking at the world.
>doesn't provide meaning but dismisses the meaningfulness of everything instead
Mmhhh depends. By design it makes everything meaningful because the meaning of it is (you) yourself. However the danger is that a random knock on a wall or the numbers on a license plate can be as meaningful if not more so than your own friends trying to bring you back to earth.

>>17550984
read jung

>>17552943
>>17552956
What I mean to say is that if you're the dreamer of the reality dream then everything exists at your behest and continues to exist only at your leave. Not only does it lead to ego-complexes like narcissism or psychopathy, but it may inevitably lead to deep-seated self-hatred if you're not capable of dreaming into reality what you truly desire. If you're god but you can't shoot fireballs and instantly crown yourself emperor of mankind, are you *really* god in the flesh?

>>17552936
Sometimes I question whether living like this is really sufficient but what else is there? Is there anything worth grasping at in this life aside from the act of living itself?
>train yourself
I think I've been doing something like that, yeah.

Thanks for the serious replies!
>>17552898
Well, that's the funny thing—I know exactly what I want to accomplish in life and I'm actively taking all the steps to get there. That part's simple, or at least it has been for me. But in building/adopting a spiritual worldview off of what I already believe in or care about, wouldn't I be doing exactly what neopagans and new age followers do—creating a self-serving spirituality? Additionally, what precisely do you mean by meditation, and do you have any advice on how one might go about it?
>>17552908
Yes, you described it very well. I take my word very seriously, and I could never convert to a religion without fully believing in all of its tenets... and when I'm not even fully convinced of its premise, that's unlikely to happen.
>>17552921
That's an excellent point, Anon. I fully get the social aspects of religion, and quite frankly, if I had been born into a country and a community with a state religion, I would have no problem following it. But the area I was raised in had no unifying religion, and that's where my troubles are. I have the ability to choose which community and which practice to follow, and I know that if I chose any of them and committed fully to it, I'd find something—but then it feels like I could make myself believe anything with enough time and social pressure. And of that's the case, then my decision-making process comes down to which path will bring the greatest benefits, and not that which I think is true. It makes the whole process feel rather arbitrary.

>>17552996
>what else is there
More more more is man's calling. More emotion, more ecstasy, more knowledge. More appreciation for things grand and small. What is worth grasping at is up to you. Me personally I desire to carve my name into the mountains of history. If you're not afraid of being called a schizo you can try to start contacting spirits.

>>17553016
Hedonism is pure cope

>>17553012
>self-serving spirituality
Is being self-serving bad? You are to some extent always serving yourself even when you give money to the homeless or pay someone an earnest compliment. Nothing wrong with wanting to survive, let alone thrive.
>what precisely do you mean by meditation
Taking time to pay attention to and use your mind. There's the classic mindfulness meditation where you just observe your thought patterns, that alone is already very useful in trying to figure yourself out. Then there's void meditation where you actively shut off any thought whatsoever to experience "nothingness" which is a great way to hone your focus and will. But there's so many more types of meditation you can do that all have their usefulness. Look through the link and pick something and stick to it for a while. https://8kun DOT top/fringe/res/106266.html

>>17553051
Name one thing that isn't cope, dipshit. Terror Management Theory mocks you.

>>17552956
>>17552979
Well, you're assuming that everything in the solipsist's world is equally illusory, or rather, that it's all just one big emanated substance in his mind. There are hundreds of possibilities as to why this may not be the case and some events might be more meaningful than others, but we're getting into the aimless speculation territory.

>>17553012
>when I'm not even fully convinced of its premise, that's unlikely to happen.
That's the biggest issue for me personally. There's really no reason to believe in any "core tenets" of anything at all.

>>17553063
>equally illusory or all just one big emanated substance in his mind
But that's what solipsism is. I am all that is and ever was and ever will be. All that exists is mine in origin and ownership.

>>17553075
Not even the value of power, knowledge, advantage?

>>17553016
On one hand, telling myself that the meaning of existence is just to exist is not unsatisfying. But what if there's something more? I guess that's the issue, not that I feel profoundly unfulfilled.

>>17553055
Not him, which form of meditation yields the best results while not being sectarian? I'd rather not try stuff like specific yogas or buddhist practices because I'm neither of those.

>>17553081
Yeah but again the dream argument definitively answers why you can't exercise control over "your" world.

>>17553012
Vanity of vanities, said Ecclesiastes vanity of vanities, and all is vanity. What hath a man more of all his labour, that he taketh under the sun? One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth standeth for ever. The sun riseth, and goeth down, and returneth to his place: and there rising again, Maketh his round by the south, and turneth again to the north: the spirit goeth forward surveying all places round about, and returneth to his circuits. All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea doth not overflow: unto the place from whence the rivers come, they return, to flow again. All things are hard: man cannot explain them by word. The eye is not filled with seeing, neither is the ear filled with hearing. What is it that hath been? the same thing that shall be. What is it that hath been done? the same that shall be done. Nothing under the sun is new, neither is any man able to say: Behold this is new: for it hath already gone before in the ages that were before us. There is no remembrance of former things: nor indeed of those things which hereafter are to come, shall there be any remembrance with them that shall be in the latter end. I Ecclesiastes was king over Israel in Jerusalem, And I proposed in my mind to seek and search out wisely concerning all things that are done under the sun. This painful occupation hath God given to the children of men, to be exercised therein. I have seen all things that are done under the sun, and behold all is vanity, and vexation of spirit. The perverse are hard to be corrected, and the number of fools is infinite.

>>17553086
By core tenets I mean the principles of a belief system. That so and so happened or that existence is such and such.
Concepts like knowledge and advantage are useful insofar as they allow me to navigate life but they're not absolute truths.

>>17553093
No man wills himself to exist. The meaning of existence cannot be to exist, for man has no choice in his existence. It is not an act belonging to men, but a gift given to him. The meaning of a gift is not merely to have it, but that it be put toward some good end.

>>17553104
For starters mindfulness is always good because understanding how you think and react to any given situation is a powerful way of changing said patterns. However it highly depends on what you mean by results. Most meditations that aren't mantra or yoga-based are not sectarian. I suggest visual meditation. Imagine a colour, any colour. *see* the colour in your mind. Apply it to an object like a sphere or a square. Etc.
Also do breathwork. The 4-fold breath may have originated in some tradition or other but it's not any more sectarian than say pushups are sectarian. Look through the link I posted, you will find many techniques you can use.

>>17550984
Spirituality tends to be sancioned and institutionalized by religions but some canons have valuable insights which you can try to explore from a more or less objective point of view. Other than that, try some european philosophers or just take a "scientific" point of view and analyze this shit in a straight way, I can't see how you can avoid spiritual traditions completely

>>17553140
These are all assumptions you're making. As far as I can tell, I didn't exist, and then I existed, and there's nothing to indicate there's any meaning to things other than pure experience.

>>17553055
When it exists to reinforce negative behaviors, yes, I would say it is. To clarify, by self-serving I mean a belief system that is constructed to justify whatever a person already believes in, often in a lazy way so it's all pleasant and provides no incentives to improve. Shouldn't our actions be informed and shaped by our faith, rather than the other way around?
Regardless, thank you for the information on meditation, it's much appreciated. I've tried it many times before with no success, but maybe there's something here that will make it click.
>void meditation
Oh, that's easy, I do that all the time. I can go hours without any thoughts, but it's dreadfully boring. I'm not sure what spiritual benefit I could get out of it.
>>17553120
I've read this before, but thank you. Maybe I should read some commentary to better understand it?

>>17553149
Thanks.

>>17553155
If you did not exist, you could not have caused yourself to exist. You do not cause yourself to exist now, either.

>>17553170
I have no way to know what caused me to exist, if I existed before but just forgot, etc.

>>17551096
Belief in spirits and god(s), but without any dogma. Everyone is his own shaman and priest, everyone can have their own truth, but also no view/doctrine/teaching can be THE truth.

>>17553160
No commentary is necessary to understand it. Abandon yourself for a moment, and simply consider what it teaches.

>>17553176
How do you know anything?

>>17553185
I don't. I just have to trust my senses and thoughts, but I know they can't be trusted.

>>17551735
>>17551747
>>17551770
>Evola thinks you can find Tradition without initiating an existing one
He says this "spontaneous initiation" is possible only in the Kali Yuga we live in due to the disappearance of (access to) genuine traditions. He considers it inferior to joining a genuine tradition but if it's the only thing you've got, then it's better than nothing. Guenon disagrees on this issue (and this is one of the reasons why he became a sufi).
Also not sure if it's in Ride the Tiger, like other anon said, might actually be in Revolt. If you haven't read Evola before, don't start with Ride the Tiger.

>>17553178
What is it teaching? I'm not sure what to take away from this that couldn't be better explained by a theologian.

>>17553176
>>17553177
For they have said, reasoning with themselves, but not right: The time of our life is short and tedious, and in the end of a man there is no remedy, and no man hath been known to have returned from hell: For we are born of nothing, and after this we shall be as if we had not been: for the breath in our nostrils is smoke: and speech a spark to move our heart, Which being put out, our body shall be ashes, and our spirit shall be poured abroad as soft air, and our life shall pass away as the trace of a cloud, and shall be dispersed as a mist, which is driven away by the beams of the sun, and overpowered with the heat thereof: And our name in time shall be forgotten, and no man shall have any remembrance of our works. For our time is as the passing of a shadow, and there is no going back of our end: for it is fast sealed, and no man returneth. Come therefore, and let us enjoy the good things that are present, and let us speedily use the creatures as in youth. Let us fill ourselves with costly wine, and ointments: and let not the flower of the time pass by us. Let us crown ourselves with roses, before they be withered: let no meadow escape our riot. Let none of us go without his part in luxury: let us everywhere leave tokens of joy: for this is our portion, and this our lot. Let us oppress the poor just man, and not spare the widow, nor honour the ancient grey hairs of the aged. But let our strength be the law of justice: for that which is feeble, is found to be nothing worth. Let us therefore lie in wait for the just, because he is not for our turn, and he is contrary to our doings, and upbraideth us with transgressions of the law, and divulgeth against us the sins of our way of life. He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and calleth himself the son of God. He is become a censurer of our thoughts. He is grievous unto us, even to behold: for his life is not like other men's, and his ways are very different. We are esteemed by him as triflers, and he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness, and he preferreth the latter end of the just, and glorieth that he hath God for his father. Let us see then if his words be true, and let us prove what shall happen to him, and we shall know what his end shall be. For if he be the true son of God, he will defend him, and will deliver him from the hands of his enemies. Let us examine him by outrages and tortures, that we may know his meekness and try his patience. Let us condemn him to a most shameful death: for there shall be respect had unto him by his words. These things they thought, and were deceived: for their own malice blinded them. And they knew not the secrets of God, nor hoped for the wages of justice, nor esteemed the honour of holy souls. For God created man incorruptible, and to the image of his own likeness he made him. But by the envy of the devil, death came into the world: And they follow him that are of his side.

>>17553201
If you cannot understand this, then how do you think to yourself that you have understood anything? It is written plainly.

>>17553212
Stop spamming Bible quotes in a thread that is explicitly non-sectarian.

>>17553191
Why do you trust what cannot be trusted?

>>17553231
Because it's the bare minimum in order to live. I don't need to believe anything else though.

>>17553222
Perhaps you should try reading it, before you illustrate it.

>>17553220
Yes, yes, you're very clever. The explicit meaning of the text is clear, but it doesn't tell me anything I don't already know. I already agree. What is it that you want me to take away from this beyond what it says?

>>17553237
Very poor reasoning. Perhaps you should trust yourself less.

>>17553241
Perhaps you should avoid posting off-topic replies in a thread that explicitly rejects your shit. What is so hard to understand about
>Don't recommend scripture

>>17550984
i can't say im really interested at all by the material prospects of the occult, though i am interested in contacted my daemon/holy guardian angel. how should one prepare in terms of magickal expertise to undergo related rituals if they lack the general material drive?

>>17553247
How is it poor reasoning?
>you should trust yourself less.
Okay, what then? I don't know anything. What comes after?

>>17553244
How am I clever? All I've given you is someone else's words.

>>17553254
Ultimately your mind is the only tool you need. Hone it, master it. Whatever guide you have will come

>>17553251
>Let us therefore lie in wait for the just, because he is not for our turn, and he is contrary to our doings, and upbraideth us with transgressions of the law, and divulgeth against us the sins of our way of life. He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and calleth himself the son of God. He is become a censurer of our thoughts.

>>17553283
What a bunch of trite, boring garbage.

>>17553260
>I can't trust my thoughts or my senses
>therefore I don't need to believe anything else
Non sequitur.

>>17553160
>oh that's easy
Then you're probably well on the way already. Try sound meditation or painting meditation or something like that (where you just imagine doing some activity for a while)

>>17553291
Alright, so what should I be doing?

>>17553290
>For our time is as the passing of a shadow, and there is no going back of our end: for it is fast sealed, and no man returneth. Come therefore, and let us enjoy the good things that are present, and let us speedily use the creatures as in youth. Let us fill ourselves with costly wine, and ointments: and let not the flower of the time pass by us. Let us crown ourselves with roses, before they be withered: let no meadow escape our riot. Let none of us go without his part in luxury: let us everywhere leave tokens of joy: for this is our portion, and this our lot. Let us oppress the poor just man, and not spare the widow, nor honour the ancient grey hairs of the aged. But let our strength be the law of justice: for that which is feeble, is found to be nothing worth.

>>17553300
Not trusting yourself.

Why are christucks the most obnoxious religious posters by far? What is it with cucktianity that compels people to act like this?

>>17553314
The ego that comes with holier-than-thou cannot fathom not being correct.

>>17553314
>But by the envy of the devil, death came into the world: And they follow him that are of his side.

>>17553310
What then?

>>17553292
Hm, I see. The trouble with a lot of these meditations is that they rely on imagery—and I have aphantasia, so I am physically incapable of visualization. Hm, well, I guess I'll keep reading down the list and see if I can find some that don't involve a visual element.

>>17553314
That's all religion threads. If you want to talk about religion you're just inviting most obnoxious people to the thread.

>>17553317
>the ego that comes with holier-than-thou cannot fathom not being correct

>>17553314
because it's one of the most common and long-lived religions? would you rather read new-age garbage written at a 5th grade level? don't answer that, I know the answer is yes.

>>17553324
>>17553333
Only this thread is explicitly anti-sectarian according to the OP. I don't see any muslim, hindu or buddhist posters here. Only the eternal christnigger and his proselityzing retardation.

>>17553319
First things first.

>>17553323
You can overcome aphantasia anon. I know because I've done it. You know those visual hallucination gifs where afterwards you stare at a wall and it keeps moving? You can use that. You can also just stare at some symbol for a while because eventually it will burn itself into your mind. Weed can help greatly too.

>>17553335
you see those quads? God wins. REPENT

>>17553329
Let alone being unwanted

>>17553345
Stop shitting up threads where you aren't welcome, retard. Go worship your dead jew elsewhere.

>>17553340
Hah, okay, thanks. I think I'll keep away from the drugs, though.

>>17553335
For the spirit of the Lord hath filled the whole world: and that, which containeth all things, hath knowledge of the voice. Therefore he that speaketh unjust things cannot be hid, neither shall the chastising judgment pass him by. For inquisition shall be made into the thoughts of the ungodly: and the hearing of his words shall come to God, to the chastising of his iniquities. For the ear of jealousy heareth all things, and the tumult of murmuring shall not be hid. Keep yourselves therefore from murmuring, which profiteth nothing, and refrain your tongue from detraction, for an obscure speech shall not go for nought: and the mouth that belieth, killeth the soul. Seek not death in the error of your life, neither procure ye destruction by the works of your hands. For God made not death, neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living.

>>17553345
I've seen gets praising satan. I'll take my chances.

>>17553352
What kind of fool thinks he can reach God without God's own revelation? New age horse-twaddle is so ridiculous.

>>17553357
>>17553363
What can't you understand about your jew stories not being wanted ITT you absolute faggots?
>if you don't believe my dead kike died for muh sins you're a new ager
The average christranny

>i-it's a metaphor dude

>interesting thread about spirituality from a non-dogmatist standpoint
>discussion gets ruined by christians
Like clockwork.

>>17553336
You're not helping me much here.

>>17553363
>>17553345
>>17553333
Brother,
>Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou be made like him

>>17553383
How do you know? Have you tried?

>>17553393
Not trusting myself? I can easily just question everything but it doesn't bring me anywhere.

>>17553398
He's telling you to go by first principles. Do you exist? Do you experience? Do you have a name, dreams, fears, likes? Are you sure?

>>17553421
If I break all of this down, it doesn't bring me to any particular realization. I can doubt my very existence and experience, but is that supposed to lead anywhere?

>>17553398
>it doesn't bring me anywhere
Where are you trying to go?
>All things are hard: man cannot explain them by word. The eye is not filled with seeing, neither is the ear filled with hearing. What is it that hath been? the same thing that shall be. What is it that hath been done? the same that shall be done. Nothing under the sun is new, neither is any man able to say: Behold this is new: for it hath already gone before in the ages that were before us. There is no remembrance of former things: nor indeed of those things which hereafter are to come, shall there be any remembrance with them that shall be in the latter end.

>>17553150
Which philosophers do you recommend that aren't too dogmatic and provide a new way of looking at things?

>>17553376
Truth is an organizing principle. What is true is compatible with what is true, and incompatible with what is false. Truth is dogmatic.

>>17553426
There's some thing you cannot reasonably wave away, yes? Like the fact that you reasonably must assume that your post is part of my experience.

>>17553436
I assume that, yes.

>>17553421
>>17553426
That's not what I'm saying.

>>17553435
Doesn't change anything to the fact that the thread is explicitly nonsectarian. There are dozens of threads for you to preach your "truth" and yet you choose to do it in a thread that explicitly rejects it. Really shows how conceited and smug you are about your beliefs.

>>17553444
So then reasonably speaking I exist. And if I exist and we communicate then I exist within your experience. So either the explanation is Descartes' evil demon (aka the matrix) or there is no need to question existence itself, only components of it.

>>17553446
What are you saying?

>>17553436
>>17553444
You say to yourself, "I distrust my reasoning an my senses." But yet, as you live, you act only according to your senses and your own reasoning. You say you distrust yourself, but your life proves that you trust only yourself. Before you are able to find the Truth, you need to have more faith in the Truth than yourself.

>>17553456
>Descartes' evil demon (aka the matrix)
Is that an unreasonable explanation?

>>17553467
It's impotent solipsism. If it serves you, cool. But if not then not cool

>>17553459
>you need to have more faith in the Truth than yourself.
Can't do that if I don't know what the truth is about. I'm not diving blindly into anything.

>>17553476
>If it serves you
I mean, it's a belief like any other. It neither serves me nor doesn't, if I assume I'm in a matrix, I'll only know the truth after I die.
Scratch that, no matter what I do, I'll only know the truth after I die and even that is not guaranteed.

>>17553452
You attack me, and I am not injured. I give you good words, and yet you are wounded. You ask for the Truth, and yet you are angry when it is spoken.

>>17553459
I'm not the anon who distrusts his reasoning and senses. I wholeheartedly agree that everyone lives by their own senses and reasoning. However concerning
>Before you are able to find the Truth, you need to have more faith in the Truth than yourself.
I disagree, because to find any truth and accept it you need to have faith that truth exists and that you are simultaneously capable of finding it. Observer and observed go hand in hand.

>>17553487
More conceit and smugness. Fuck off, retard. I don't give a shit about your "good words" (read: jewish garbage) and "truth" (read: lies).

>>17553478
>I can't trust myself, not my senses, nor my reasoning; I am blind
>I'm not diving blindly into anything.
He hath opened a pit and dug it; and he is fallen into the hole he made.

>>17553487
>what do you mean you don't like it when I'm being an obnoxious retard? stop being wounded by my good words
lmfao

>>17553485
Nonsense. Every belief you hold either serves you or doesn't serve you anymore. The question is what do you consider the truth and where do you draw the line between relevang and irrelevant? Do you need to know what janny dreamed about last night, or what stacy who lives two blocks away who you've never even seen writes in her diary? No, you only need the truth as it pertains to yourself

>>17553497
Speaking with you is a waste of time, it seems. I'll stop replying now.

>>17553492
The observed is not dependent on the observer. Truth need not be known; it will remain true. The less faith one has in oneself to find and know the truth, the more capable one becomes of recognizing what is true.

>>17553514
This doesn't contradict what I said. If there is a higher truth to existence, it's not like it's accessible to me. What is the truth as it pertains to myself?

Threads about finding truth and the afterlife and all that always devolve into pointless philosophical debates on metaphysics and arguing over the nature of truth itself. Literally focusing on the finger and not the moon. /x/ is unironically better than /lit/ in that regard.

>>17553519
How can it seem so, so soon? If you distrust your own reasoning, why do you trust this reasoning? Will you listen to what is easy, or will you do what is hard?
>For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears

>>17550984
try Mircea Eliade and history of religion. Religion aren't bad per say, it's just that NPCs criticize the Church without reading the doctrine. The doctrine Is good, the Church isn't.
>>17551233
I loved that one, Jung is daddy. OP should look the collective unconscious up.

>>17553541
What are you, as it relates to the truth?

>>17553592
The one that apprehends it. Or would like to, at least.

>>17553510
I don't think I'm quite so interesting or funny as you've pictured me in your head.

>>17553579
Why is the doctrine good? Why one doctrine over another? Why believe in any doctrine at all?

>>17553531
I could answer that quantum mechanics prove that the observed is dependent on the observer. Instead I will say that observation pervades everything. The tree that falls without any human witness is still witnessed by its surroundings.
Truth needs to be "stored" somewhere (for lack of a better word) and it takes a kind of intelligence to store knowledge.
If one does not have faith in oneself of being capable of finding truth one will not find truth simply because it will be unrecognizable as truth.
>I know that I know nothing
Is nonsensical because it presupposes that one can know in the first place. A bullet without a trigger mechanism to fire it will not fly.

>>17553600
How do you apprehend it? Would you even accept it? How do you know you have not already come across it and rejected it, because you did not like what it would require of you?

>>17553635
Oh, I know where this is going. Never mind.

>>17553541
>not like it's accessible to me
Why would that be so?
>what is the truth as it pertains to myself
That which was relevant, that which is now relevant, and that which will be relevant in the future. I suggest you start keeping a journal.

>>17553626
I don't think you know anything about quantum mechanics.

>>17553646
>Why would that be so?
I won't know what happens after death until I die. Seems pretty straightforward. Anything else is conjecture at best, delusion at worst.

>>17553637
I hope one day you can recognize the terrible knot of contradictions with which you have bound yourself.

>>17553663
I know about the double-slit experiment which is the basis of it. Why do you think I don't know anything about it?

>>17553665
>For they have said, reasoning with themselves, but not right: The time of our life is short and tedious, and in the end of a man there is no remedy, and no man hath been known to have returned from hell:

>>17553688
I hope one day you can realize some people just don't feel moved by christianity and leave it at that.

>>17553665
The afterlife is the only thing worth knowing you reckon?

>>17553715
Pretty much. Everything in existence moves towards death, so the truth about death is the most important one.

>>17550984
you will never find a satisfying answer.
i believe you are looking for an easy way to give your life meaning.
you can do so by obsessing over the job of the observer.
now go read whatever books you like and have fun.
also as many have said, go read hermetic texts.

>>17553556
Blame the christcucks, discussion was comfy and informative before they came in copypasting their retarded jew book

>>17553744
>you can do so by obsessing over the job of the observer.
What do you mean by that?

>>17553696
>quantum mechanics prove that the observed is dependent on the observer
This opinion is exclusively held by people who don't actually understand quantum mechanics. Whatever light is, it is, however we measure it. It does not change based on how we measure it, and no quantum physicist has ever suggested this. Rather, we are limited in our understanding of light by the limitations of our methods of observation. If we observe light in one manner, we get one result. If we observe light in another manner, we get another result. It is not light that has changed, but our manner of observation. The issue of quantum mechanics is not one of a chameleon universe, but of blind men arguing over an elephant.

>>17553711
>feel moved
Are you searching after reason, or emotion? Do you want the Truth, or do you merely want to feel good?

>>17553787
I want the truth, which is why I disregard christianity. Period.

>>17553746
>comfy
Why should the truth be comfortable?

>>17553795
Because it doesn't "feel" right? Because it "doesn't move" you? The Truth is not a feeling.

>>17553796
>>17553807
Fuck off, I'm done talking to you.

>>17553810
Why are you letting your emotion guide your reasoning?

>>17552624
Even suicide would fuck you over.
If you like Monroe, watch this: archive.org/details/mokshafromearth.freedomfromarchonsreincarnationtrapssoultrapsandfalselightheavens/mode/2up

>>17553149
What's your opinion on the "observing your own thoughts" meditation, or on transcendental meditation? There are many types of practices, all of them seem interesting.

>>17553756
make your life about consumption.
become a 'character collector'.
obsessing over creation is stressful.

>>17553866
>make your life about consumption.
Sounds like a good way to become a mindless NPC. If you don't retain a level of yearning for the ineffable, you're fucking yourself over by becoming an actor in the world and losing your capacity to take a step back from it.

>>17553866
>For they have said, reasoning with themselves, but not right: The time of our life is short and tedious, and in the end of a man there is no remedy, and no man hath been known to have returned from hell: For we are born of nothing, and after this we shall be as if we had not been: for the breath in our nostrils is smoke: and speech a spark to move our heart, Which being put out, our body shall be ashes, and our spirit shall be poured abroad as soft air, and our life shall pass away as the trace of a cloud, and shall be dispersed as a mist, which is driven away by the beams of the sun, and overpowered with the heat thereof: And our name in time shall be forgotten, and no man shall have any remembrance of our works. For our time is as the passing of a shadow, and there is no going back of our end: for it is fast sealed, and no man returneth. Come therefore, and let us enjoy the good things that are present, and let us speedily use the creatures as in youth. Let us fill ourselves with costly wine, and ointments: and let not the flower of the time pass by us. Let us crown ourselves with roses, before they be withered: let no meadow escape our riot. Let none of us go without his part in luxury: let us everywhere leave tokens of joy: for this is our portion, and this our lot. Let us oppress the poor just man, and not spare the widow, nor honour the ancient grey hairs of the aged. But let our strength be the law of justice: for that which is feeble, is found to be nothing worth. Let us therefore lie in wait for the just, because he is not for our turn, and he is contrary to our doings, and upbraideth us with transgressions of the law, and divulgeth against us the sins of our way of life.

another thread ruined

>>17553871
>>17553883
'taking a step back from it' is just another form of consumption.
also the ineffable is still subject to consumption you moron. there's millennia of obscurantist literature on that very subject :^).
as much as
>CONSUUUUUME
is a meme, we are all shitty consumers for consuming literature. especially if it's a novel.
hedonism isn't just a 'divergent way of life', it's the only way of life.
even asceticism and general 'denial of pleasures' is a form of pleasure.
take it easy and take it slow.

>>17553904
It was an evil thread.

>>17553929
You're an evil retard
Retard

>>17553926
What kind of literature?
>it's the only way of life
Hedonism is specifically about immediate pleasure, you don't have to pursue immediate pleasure. Everything is about satisfaction, but not everything is about immediate gratification.

>>17553938
all obscurantist literature is the author attempting to romantically convey a niche 'near ineffable' thought, or just romantically convey a simple thought to the point of needless complexity.
>Everything is about satisfaction, but not everything is about immediate gratification.
there is immediate gratification in thinking about future gratification.
you become content with yourself when you make a subjectively 'good and healthy decision'.
there is hedonism in investing.

>>17553966
You're stretching the definition of hedonism
There was a thread about this exact subject a few days ago, hedonism is specifically being obsessed with immediate pleasures no matter how harmful

>>17553933
You are right, I am a wicked and deplorable man, and I ought to be despised in the sight of all. But, in this, I am like all men. Who shall we find that is just?

>>17553971
if hedonism is objectively harmful then there is no need to describe it except in terms of pure evil.
hedonism is purely about restructuring your living framework to realize everything is an extension of base pleasures.

>>17553979
fuck off

>>17553986
This brings you nowhere. Ok, everyone is a hedonist, everything is for pleasure. What then? It says nothing about meaning.

>>17553966
>>17553971
Knowledge puffeth up; but charity edifieth. And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he hath not yet known as he ought to know.

>>17554005
fuck off

>>17553988
Why?

>>17554020
fuck off

>>17554022
Why?

>>17553996
it says everything about meaning when pleasure is meaning.
it's merely a critique of subjective enjoyment.
in a pathetic way: who cares, do what you want because a pirate is free.
>>17554005
is quoting the bible not 'puffething up'?

>Why?

>>17554045
How do you know you're not deluding yourself?

>>17554057
no one does, you lie in your grave because experience and prior thoughts won't let you do otherwise.

>>17554100
Fair enough

>>17553774
Hilarious.
>observation doesn't depend on the observer
>but also
>If we observe light in one manner, we get one result. If we observe light in another manner, we get another result
Almost as if what is observed (i.e. the result) depends on the observer (i.e. the manner of observation) you absolute clown you

>>17554045
They're not my words. How can I take any glory in them? At the end of time, they will show the abysmal wretchedness of my life. If I will have conformed to any of its teachings, it will not be any credit to me, who have so often abused the gifts of God and made a mockery of his love. I am a fool, and to me, scripture is an Iron rod of reproof.

>>17554116
I know fuck all about physics but I'm pretty sure what causes the different behavior of light waves in the double slit experiment is that our instruments of observation are so unsubtle that they actually affect the particles physically in order to observe them. So it's not that observation itself affects the particles, it's that our tools fuck up the observation

>>17553853
Observing your own thoughts is usually held to be the most basic form of observation. In a sense that is what therapy does, because you're trying to get at the root of detrimental thought-patterns. As for transcendental meditation, I have never tried it because it seems to be a trademarked enterprise. However the techniques are almost always the same.

>>17553929
>everything that isn't Christianity™ is evil
Pathetic

>>17554132
Have you ever reached higher states with meditation?

>>17554127
It may very well be that our instruments are not subtle enough but the double-slit experiment clearly proves superposition to be true and dependent on manner of observation. Just because two contradicting things being accurate makes you uncomfortable doesn't mean it's not true

>>17554155
>proves superposition to be true and dependent on manner of observation.
What are the implications of this?

>>17554116
I'm sorry Anon, but I'm afraid you've made a terrible conflation. The observed is not the same as the observation. Obviously the observation depends on the observer. But the observed remained unchanged by mere observation. Now, in quantum mechanics, there are two related issues which complicate matters. Given the nature of the material that is being observed, it is both beyond our ordinary means of observation, and then also there may not be a way to observe without interacting. The interaction is what causes change, not observation. It does not introduce fundamental epistemological challenges, but rather just methodological challenges. The fundamental challenges it makes to classical mechanics is not related.

>>17554047
>What hath a man more of all his labour, that he taketh under the sun? One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth standeth for ever. The sun riseth, and goeth down, and returneth to his place: and there rising again, Maketh his round by the south, and turneth again to the north: the spirit goeth forward surveying all places round about, and returneth to his circuits. All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea doth not overflow: unto the place from whence the rivers come, they return, to flow again. All things are hard: man cannot explain them by word. The eye is not filled with seeing, neither is the ear filled with hearing. What is it that hath been? the same thing that shall be. What is it that hath been done? the same that shall be done. Nothing under the sun is new, neither is any man able to say: Behold this is new: for it hath already gone before in the ages that were before us. There is no remembrance of former things: nor indeed of those things which hereafter are to come, shall there be any remembrance with them that shall be in the latter end.

>>17554146
Define higher states, but yes I have. My memory, dream lucidity, joie-de-vivre have all improved. Contact between this world and the spirit world has deepened. I have had visions of what may be, and my so-called precognition is getting stronger too. At some point achieving flow-state becomes easier, you can also hone your mental discipline and carry that over into the physical. For example, I have done more pushups in the last 3 months than in the 2 years before that.

>What hath a man more of all his labour, that he taketh under the sun? One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth standeth for ever. The sun riseth, and goeth down, and returneth to his place: and there rising again, Maketh his round by the south, and turneth again to the north: the spirit goeth forward surveying all places round about, and returneth to his circuits. All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea doth not overflow: unto the place from whence the rivers come, they return, to flow again. All things are hard: man cannot explain them by word. The eye is not filled with seeing, neither is the ear filled with hearing. What is it that hath been? the same thing that shall be. What is it that hath been done? the same that shall be done. Nothing under the sun is new, neither is any man able to say: Behold this is new: for it hath already gone before in the ages that were before us. There is no remembrance of former things: nor indeed of those things which hereafter are to come, shall there be any remembrance with them that shall be in the latter end.

>>17554184
>Define higher states
What religions describe. I guess buddhism with jhanas for example, but others have their own equivalents.
What methods do you mainly use?

>>17554161
Subjectivism and dualism are fundamentally true.

>>17554168
The observation IS the interaction.

>>17554205
>Subjectivism
This one I get
>dualism
Why?

>>17554200
Breathwork, symbol-staring, visualization, and I guess what one could call mindfulness where I listen to what goes through my head and try to detach myself from it.
>buddhism
Despite the fact that I have no real interest in buddhism I have seen its symbols in meditation. I have seen the starving buddha more often than the fat one.

>>17554126
you take glory in them by repeating them as if they were words of your own.
you may not officially take credit, but you honor them because you've taken them personally and infused it with your 'being'.
worship is a form of blaspheme as you are interpreting a god's word as your own.
you are 'puffeting' by only repeating those words and not giving a tempered critique influenced by them.

>>17554222
Have you seen symbols from other traditions, or symbols unattached to any religion in particular?

>>17554222
Also so-called energywork where I focus on specific points in the body and try to release tension or heighten sensation. I know it sounds kinda gay but you wouldn't believe how often my asshole and the surrounding area vibrates on any given day.

>>17554243
I struggle to remain in a meditative state for longer than 15 minutes, do you have tips on improving or is it just about bearing with it?

>>17554205
>the observation is the interaction
Yes, as I said. But the object of observation is not the observation. Consider, if I look at a rose. The light enters my eye and my mind receives the information, and I know there is a rose before me; but this process does not interact with the rose at all. The thing observed is not interacted with by the mere observation. The difficulty of quantum mechanics is that we want to observe the light itself. But how can we observe the light itself by light alone? Whatever receives the light must also interact with the light. So now, because of the thing we are trying to observe, there is no way to observe it without interacting with it. This is not a fundamental or general problem of observation, but a special problem of trying observing the medium of observation.

>>17554234
Yes. I have seen the hindu ohm symbol, norse runes, hebrew letters, swastikas, different animals (mostly lions, tigers and elephants for whatever reason) different gods, demons, and spirits. The norse runes I find most interesting because of their meaning. Othila is one I see often.
As for symbols unattached to any particular religion I guess the animals count for that. Although one time I saw a multi-armed blue-skinned lady in lotus position with a bison head. Dunno what to make of it yet.

>>17554267
And you had no exposure to eastern or nordic religion at all beforehand?
Were these visions extremely realistic, as in almost tangible, or dreamlike and vague?

>>17554231
>you are puffening by not offering your own opinion over and above the word of God
I am not sure you understand the meaning of what's quoted. What is my opinion worth? What knowledge or insight can I offer? I know less than nothing. By my nature, I incline toward selfishness and error. It could be nothing but pride if I offered a commentary on the word of God that contradicted it, for then I would be offering not what God has said, but what I would rather he said.

>>17554252
15 minutes is good already. Do it daily and you will improve. Aim for consistency above sporadic bursts. Better to do it 10 minutes a day for 3 days each than 30 minutes every 3 days. Keeping a journal is a good tool, as is physical exercise. Physical exercise is extremely helpful.

>>17554185
Is not irony a mask of despair?

>Is not irony a mask of despair?

>>17554272
Depends. The lady I described was extremely tangible, as in she said something to me and I felt her energy. But generally speaking it varies. Many symbols are rather simple so don't take that much effort of perception. But if you're asking about how clear-cut they are, they become more visible by the day.
>no exposure to eastern or nordic religion
Not particularly. Personally I'm more interested in greek polytheism.

>>17554322
>she said something to me
What was it, if you don't mind sharing?
This is all quite interesting. Could be a product of the mind, could be something else, but either way I wonder what it means.

>>17554259
>yes as I said
>The interaction is what causes change, not observation
You're contradicting yourself

>>17554328
Heh. She said something along the lines of
>You will only last decades if you go after their families
Which in its meaning is intimately personal to me, but I can tell you that it was a scolding/warning type message. I'm telling you to demonstrate that, whether an archetype of the mind or an extant being, there is real wisdom and insight that can come through unprompted via the subconscious and altered states.

>>17554359
Indeed. This motivates me to pursue my meditation practice more seriously, thank you anon.

>>17554362
All in a day's work, friend. I'm very glad to have motivated you

>>17554338
So it is worse, you've conflated more than just words, but the material and immaterial.

>>17554308
Can you only think by way of other people's cartoons?

>>17554391
>I unironically contradict myself and it's your fault for not getting it
Uhuh

>>17550984
>I've spent a lot of time learning about traditions but I always came away feeling unsatisfied.
You mind giving more context? All I hear is "I read some wikipedia articles." What traditions in particular have you learned about, and why were they unsatisfying?

>>17554581
Not him but see >>17552883

>>17554414
Don't take my word for it. Talk to a physicist.

>>17554212
>Why?
Because of the entanglement of two particles that are opposite in nature when observed.

>>17555212
eh

>>17551071
Brainlet take.

>>17553194
>He says this "spontaneous initiation" is possible only in the Kali Yuga we live in due to the disappearance of (access to) genuine traditions. He considers it inferior to joining a genuine tradition but if it's the only thing you've got, then it's better than nothing.
Yes, and I more or less agree with him, and the OP might feel that all traditions are deficent in this age (to this I do not agree, but OP's path is his own), so it is something I felt the OP might benefit from. You are probably right that its Revolt, its been a while

>>17550984
all of them really
whatever the hell you want

>>17550984
chaos magic is what your looking for

>>17553796
>>17553818
>>17553807
why should the truth be uncomfortable?
are you a masochist and that's how you determine the truth?
you should fuck off

>>17558433
>are you a masochist
Yes, he's a chr*stian