/lit/ - Literature

Scripture

>>18334240
Based...

>When Zarathustra was thirty years old, he left his home and the lake of his home, and went into the mountains. There he enjoyed his spirit and his solitude, and for ten years did not weary of it. But at last his heart changed,—and rising one morning with the rosy dawn, he went before the sun, and spake thus unto it:
>Thou great star! What would be thy happiness if thou hadst not those for whom thou shinest!
>For ten years hast thou climbed hither unto my cave: thou wouldst have wearied of thy light and of the journey, had it not been for me, mine eagle, and my serpent.
>But we awaited thee every morning, took from thee thine overflow, and blessed thee for it.
>Lo! I am weary of my wisdom, like the bee that hath gathered too much honey; I need hands outstretched to take it.
>I would fain bestow and distribute, until the wise have once more become joyous in their folly, and the poor happy in their riches.
>Therefore must I descend into the deep: as thou doest in the evening, when thou goest behind the sea, and givest light also to the nether-world, thou exuberant star!
>Like thee must I go down, as men say, to whom I shall descend.

>>18334333
digits of destiny

>>18334307
too based apparently

>>18334193
Words are analogous to shadows in that metaphor so they could only ever imply their inadequacy, never be anything else. Hamlet is the closest thing I can think of

>>18334193
Unironically this

>>18335211
Has this or any author expanded on the power of scent?

>>18335266
He expanded his brains all over the wall of his room after he wrote that

>>18335299
seems based

>>18334307
i guess it was so based that mods deemed no mortal eyes should see.

>>18334333
Can’t like with those trips.

>>18335266

>>18334193
Jakob Böhme books. A shoemaker by profession, described his mystic visions in his books. I recommend Aurora to begin with, or the Confessions maybe.
Hegel considered him to be the first German philosopher. His works are at the edge of philosophy/theology, and has been both highly influential to both German idealism and later mystics (Gurdjieff, for example).

>>18336629
>undirectly caused both hegelianism and traditionalism
truly the spawn of the devil

bump

>>18336629
Based
>>18336646
Faggot

>>18334307
>>18335375
I guess it’s true. You really can’t talk about em here. Why??

sorry, no I don't understand your parlance, must be some kind of obscure reference that flew over my head

>>18334193
any book that's outside your field of expertise.

>>18338415
WHy?

>>18339014
Because if it goes mainstream 4chan will stop getting paid for the ads.

All visionary poetry. Start with Hart Crane.

>>18334193
ANY OF Henry Corbin.

>>18335211

>>18339212
Postmodern interpretations of Buddhism are utter cancerous

>>18339276
??

>>18339189
> With his wife, Lindsay opened a boarding house in Brighton, but they did not prosper and their marriage came under considerable strain. The house was damaged by the first bomb to fall on Brighton in the Second World War, and Lindsay, who was in his bath at the time, never recovered from the shock.

Honestly with the types of books he wrote he should have expected such a thing to happen.

get fucked

>>18334333
The smug anime girl is right.

>>18334333
I thought Nietzsche hated Plato? Why does he start TSZ with a reference to the Republic?

>>18341547
The Demiurge was gunning for him, undoubtedly

>>18339233
What the fuck, cunt I'm not paying that much for a book so I pirated it

>>18344159
>he thinks I purchased it

Literally every single book of the New Testament was written by an individual more enlightened than the Buddha. They expound the ultimate divine dharma not based on sectarian squabbling, but by revelation directly from the Holy Spirit, and recording the utterances of the incarnate Logos - Jesus, the Christ, who is Himself the dao, the dharma, the דֶּרֶךְ.

>>18345416
what do u think of advaita vedanta

>>18345763
In my opinion, it is closer to the truth than Buddhist, Jainism, and most forms of sectarian Hinduism, but still very far off from the Truth. The primary aspect which I find misleading is the worship of multiple deities in the pancayatana style of worship - to accept that Brahman (which would be cognate with God the Father) has varying aspects about Him (His wisdom, His power, etc.) is fine - but to personify those aspects into a pantheon of actually existing and distinct beings, such as Ganesha and Surya, passes from a mere allegorical description and veneration, to an explicit worshipping of these aspects as beings, rather than the sole worship of Brahman in His incorporeal, non-physical and undepictable majesty, as it were. I have many other critiques that led me to not accepting the doctrine as Truth, but they would be too lengthy to discuss here. Beyond the doctrinal critiques, there is also the issue of the failure of Shankaran (and general Hindu) cosmologies to accurately explain the case of Jesus of Nazareth, and the events surrounding His resurrection. The Hindu lenses used to analyze Brahman's divine interventions in the material world have been corrupted almost irreparably by their over-emphasis of the belief in lesser divinities becoming incarnate. It's problematic because they are implying that these lesser-divinities (as compared to the highest reality and sole unmoved mover, Brahman) have individual lives and are not just personifications of aspects of Brahman's majesty. The idea that Jesus Christ was yet another incarnation of Vishnu, or simply a human who achieved moksha, are all inadequate theories which fail to hold upon scrutiny. Hopefully this helped. I love my Hindu brothers, and am happy to expound further on any topics, if you found this useful.

>>18342981
To dab on Plato

>>18345763
In my opinion, it is closer to the truth than Jainism, all forms of Buddhism, and most forms of sectarian Hinduism, but still very far off from the True dharma. The primary aspect which I find incongruent with divine dharma is the worship of multiple deities in the pancayatana style of worship - to accept that Brahman (which would be cognate with God the Father) has varying aspects about Him (His wisdom, His power, etc.) is fine - but to personify those aspects into a pantheon of actually existing and distinct beings, such as Ganesha and Surya, passes from a mere allegorical description and veneration, to an explicit worshipping of these aspects as beings, rather than the sole worship of Brahman in His incorporeal, non-physical and undepictable majesty, as it were. I have many other critiques that led me to not accepting the doctrine as Truth, but they would be too lengthy to discuss here. Beyond the doctrinal critiques, there is also the issue of the failure of Shankaran (and general Hindu) cosmologies to accurately explain the case of Jesus of Nazareth, and the events surrounding His resurrection. The Hindu lenses used to analyze Brahman's divine interventions in the material world have been corrupted almost irreparably by their over-emphasis of the belief in lesser divinities becoming incarnate. It's problematic because they are implying that these lesser-divinities (as compared to the highest reality and sole unmoved mover, Brahman) have individual lives and are not just personifications of aspects of Brahman's majesty. The idea that Jesus Christ was yet another incarnation of Vishnu, or simply a human who achieved moksha, are all inadequate theories which fail to hold upon scrutiny. In the end, most of the trouble results from vestigial polytheistic cosmologies which must be abandoned and transcended to come to a further discovery of divine dharma. Hopefully this helped. I love my Hindu brothers, and am happy to expound further on any topics, if you found this useful.

>>18345928
>I have many other critiques that led me to not accepting the doctrine as Truth, but they would be too lengthy to discuss here
how do you reconcile the vedantic non-dualism and the atman=brahman identification with christianity ? thoses are the two things that vedanta convinced me of
pic rel

>Beyond the doctrinal critiques, there is also the issue of the failure of Shankaran (and general Hindu) cosmologies to accurately explain the case of Jesus of Nazareth, and the events surrounding His resurrection
the buddhists have an interesting theory
see https://www.amazon.fr/Rainbow-Body-Resurrection-Attainment-Dissolution/dp/1583947957

i have problem with the amorality of brahman (and of adi shankara https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/15900/was-adi-shankaracharya-s-parakaya-pravesha-to-learn-kamashastra-dharmic ) tho

>The idea that Jesus Christ was yet another incarnation of Vishnu, or simply a human who achieved moksha, are all inadequate theories which fail to hold upon scrutiny.
please elaborate

>In the end, most of the trouble results from vestigial polytheistic cosmologies which must be abandoned and transcended to come to a further discovery of divine dharma
this is the thesis of jean vaquié, who, in response to guénon, opposes the babelian tradition and the apostolic tradition

How can we understand that Hindu and Advaitin mystics reach what seems to be the beatific vision? And how can we understand the exclusiveness of salvation with that?

their methods (raja yoga for example) seem to be even more effective than the Christian methods, where the saint waits more for grace to fall on him

>Hopefully this helped
yes very much ty anon

>>18345928
>>18346397
p.-s. : are u french?

>>18346397
>how do you reconcile the vedantic non-dualism and the atman=brahman identification with christianity?
I believe that the individual atman is an instantiation of the divine consciousness in the likeness of the spirit of brahman - yet atman is not brahman itself, but only a gift from Him. All things are within Him and of Him, as He is that that is, and nothing which is is not of Him. Yet, while atman is not that brahman itself, but only an instantiation of His sat-cit in us, we can conform our atman to become like brahman, through contemplation, asceticism, and love. We can know and experience brahman, and eventually perfectly conform our atman and sat-cit to the likeness of brahman in the process of theosis, while not being of an identical essence to brahman - this leads to ananda, and moksha.
>pic rel
That is a beautiful exposition of the interrelatedness of the most blessed Trinity. Thank you for sharing.
>the buddhists have an interesting theory
I will definitely check it out. Perhaps you can summarize the author's main thesis, for the sake of discussion?
>i have problem with the amorality of brahman
I believe that brahman is not amoral. Morality is an inherent characteristic of the True and Good, and as such is a divine pattern within the mind of brahman, which is without potentiality.
>please elaborate
What would you like me to elaborate on? The theory that Jesus was an incarnation of Vishnu fails, because the henotheistic theological basis of Vishnu-as-brahman having multiple incarnations, including Jesus most recently, is incompatible with the theology taught by Jesus Himself, and His apostles after Him, whom He guided with the sending of the Holy Spirit. The dharma of Christ and the Holy Spirit on this issue is the lordship of brahman over all creation, with the physical Jesus as the sole and final incarnation of the cit and om, the logos of brahman. There is no room for other gods, or other incarnations, in the ultimate reality described by Christ and His apostles. The human-achieving-moksha explanation fails even more spectacularly, and I can go into that if you'd like.
>How can we understand that Hindu and Advaitin mystics reach the beatific vision [...] the exclusiveness of salvation
Brahman communicates His graces through means which He chooses, and which can be outside of the church created by Christ - but only for those who have plausible deniability in that, with inmost honesty, they have not known the Truth of this institution made by Christ - invincible ignorance. If one were to acknowledge the truth and divine origin of the church created by Christ, and yet choose to operate within an alternative system for reasons of aesthetics or social-pressures, they would be excluded from the beatific vision, and condemn themselves through their rejection of the commands of the Logos.
>(raja yoga for example) seem to be even more effective
It is all relative. Christian methods are most safe, and do not require a guru.

>>18346658
>I believe that the individual atman is an instantiation of the divine consciousness in the likeness of the spirit of brahman - yet atman is not brahman itself
you make me think of the idea that the Hindu atman would be the primordial esse of each existing being (if we start from the principle that being and consciousness are two facets of the same piece), "identical" to the esse of God and at the same time different, because received and participated from the ipsum esse.
Bernard Kelly talks about it here:

> (...) In order to realize that primordial Being as the Self it is necessary to turn away from accidental determination and from every particular intellection of the mind—to what? Maritain appears to be on the right lines when he suggests that the Hindu approach to God is by way of recession into the substantial esse of the soul. For that would satisfy the turning away from particular actualizations to a central abiding "act." In the nature of the case I do not think this suggestion goes or can go far enough. It is Thomists with the boldness and padadox of Eckhart who could set these lines in a dimension in which they really arrive where Indian metaphysics are situated. Nevertheless we may note a possibility of transcendence in the very immediacy of God's presence imparting being—esse---to the soul. (...) Pure and self-subsistent Being—esse in the illimitable and absolute sense in which it is applied by St. Thomas to the Divine Essence—transcends distinction, as we know, in that each divine perfection, known to us analogously by the distinct perfections of creatures is, in God, nothing else than the Divine Essence. But with regard to the transcendence of distinction there is this consideration too: difference between things is relative to their being components, if you like, of the same world. Without a common ground in which they participate things cannot be said to differ. All things are intrinsically related to God, but God is not related to his creation. If God then is said to be distinct from the creature this distinction is of another order than any distinction of creatures among themselves. To content oneself with expressions which are admittedly little more than babbling, God's transcendence is infinitely more than any difference and because it is infinitely more it is also in some sense infinitely less. The creature is distinct from God, yes. But God is not another.

>That is a beautiful exposition of the interrelatedness of the most blessed Trinity. Thank you for sharing.
if you want the full article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23582565

(1/2)

>>18346658
>Perhaps you can summarize the author's main thesis, for the sake of discussion?
the phenomenon at work in the disappearance of the body of Jesus would be the same as the "rainbow body" of which the Buddhists speak: https://www.gaia.com/article/rainbow-body-101-everything-you-didnt-know

>(...) Further on, Choga Rinpoche described the “Medium Rainbow Body,” saying, “The Dzogchen master’s body dissolves as rainbow light of many different shapes, colors, and different sizes of rainbow spheres, rainbow rays, and rainbow ribbons until the physical body has totally dissolved into rainbow light, leaving nothing besides hair and nails.” Rinpoche cites the examples of Master Nyaklha Rangrik Dorje (“His body is still preserved and is the size of a hand”) and Tasha Lamo, a woman practitioner whose body shrank to about four inches in 1982. (...)

he would have then remanifested himself supernaturally

>because the henotheistic theological basis of Vishnu-as-brahman having multiple incarnations, including Jesus most recently, is incompatible with the theology taught by Jesus Himself, and His apostles after Him, whom He guided with the sending of the Holy Spirit.
I understand and I think the same thing, but one could answer that Jesus only reinterpreted his experience, identical to those of the other mystical saints, with his theological-cultural background

>The human-achieving-moksha explanation fails even more spectacularly, and I can go into that if you'd like.
yes please

>Brahman communicates His graces through means which He chooses
this migh interest you: http://salve-regina.com/index.php?title=Pr%C3%A9mystique_naturelle_et_mystique_surnaturelle

>but only for those who have plausible deniability in that, with inmost honesty, they have not known the Truth of this institution made by Christ - invincible ignorance.
pic rel

>they would be excluded from the beatific vision
are you sure? It seems to me that anyone can achieve it with the right methods
Aleister Crowley seems to have achieved it for example (and united with Kether)

(2/2)

>>18346658
Also, this may sound silly, but I can't believe at all in eternal hell based on your beliefs
the dharmic view seems much more credible to me (temporary rebirth in heavenly or hellish places depending on the state of your soul)

>>18346750
>the idea that Hindu atman would be the primordial esse of each existing being
I think this is a valid way of looking at it. We do believe that the atman is created at the moment of conception, and that to be endowed with atman is synonymous to becoming a human being.
>he phenomenon at work in the disappearance of the body of Jesus would be the same as the "rainbow body" of which the Buddhists speak
I see. While this very well might be the case, I think one might run into the issue of potentially positing that Jesus was just another esoteric master, rather than the incarnate divine Logos. I'll definitely have to give it a read, so again, I appreciate that recommendation.
>one could answer that Jesus only reinterpreted his experience [...] with his theological-cultural background
Yet, this view would be challenged by the fact that as the incarnate divine Logos, His divine intelligence would not have been limited by such socio-cultural constructs to have an objectively incorrect interpretation of His existence - rather, it is much more likely that others are misinterpreting His words and life through their own socio-cultural lenses, because they are fallible humans
>yes please
While I could expound on this for a long while, the basis argument is that He posits Himself as equal to God, by doing things that only God can do, like forgiving sins by His own authority, and as such could not be simply an enlightened human being, but must be either God, or a liar and charlatan. There is no logical way to posit Him as some sort of Siddhartha figure.
>this migh interest you:
Thank you, I will check it out.
>pic rel
Summarizing point i), it seems to be saying that because other doctrines lead to a faster experience of mystical states, that this challenges the claim of the Church to containing the totality of the truth. I would say this argument is flawed, because the metrics used to rank doctrines like Raja Yoga above the methods taught by Christ and the saints are based upon purely subjective standards, such as "average time to mystical experience". I believe that it is not a race, and that the Christian path to mystical union is superior in that it is both safer, emphasizes love and help for others rather than ones own effort, and does not require a guru to prevent one from making a mistake. An exercise can be extremely powerful, but can be more dangerous due to its increased speed - Vivekananda says as much when warning his reader in Raja Yoga to not attempt the exercises without constant supervision and guidance by a guru. That's not even mentioning the possibility of demonic activity targeting those attempting to reach mystical states, which is a contentious topic, but important nonetheless.

(1/2)

>>18346759
>are you sure? [...] Aleister Crowley seems to have achieved it
First, we need to distinguish between glancing the beatific vision while alive, and the experience of a positive afterlife eternally after death. One can perform horrible crimes unrepentantly, take 5-MeO-DMT, and experience what seems to be the beatific vision.
This does not mean that they would experience the positive eternal afterlife if they were to die immediately after. One can attain mystic states through Dionysiac orgiastic ritual degeneracy, but I think you and I would both agree that just because one experiences such a mystical event, they are not guaranteeing themselves to permanently experience the beatific vision after death - if anything, they are less likely to do so, having given in to their base passions.
>I can't believe at all in eternal hell based on your beliefs
It doesn't sound silly, I held the same belief, especially after having mystical experiences myself. It comes down to placing ones self above the authority of Jesus Christ. If we believe that He was the divine Logos incarnate, His words and teachings infinitely surpass the dharma taught by any other teacher who ever lived. He says quite clearly in Matthew 25 that there is a judgment and categorization of souls, and there is no indication to suggest that this categorization is temporary. The Eastern perspective of dharmic reincarnation was ultimately an inherited idea from ancient oral traditions, and not one that was reached through any sort of first-hand experience in ever having received confirmation of the idea. Eastern mystics like Siddhartha and Shankara incorporated that concept into their cosmologies only because they were raised with exposure to it, not because they themselves independently arrived at that viewpoint. I believe that the case for eternal salvation or damnation is much stronger than reincarnation - plus, if it was a doctrine taught by the divine Logos, even if we consider it to be implausible, who are we to judge what the ultimate order of the universe is as ordained by the supreme intelligence which created it? The negative and positive afterlife is probably not what we popularly conceive it to be, but the divine Logos stating that this judgment is eternal is an extremely compelling argument suggesting it is the way things are.

Also, no, I'm not French. :)

(2/2)

Damn, my long answer was lost. I'm writing it again quickly and from memory:

>I think this is a valid way of looking at it. We do believe that the atman is created at the moment of conception, and that to be endowed with atman is synonymous to becoming a human being.
So if I understand correctly, for you the atman is the substantial esse that God gives to the human/rational soul, and it is by virtue of this "heart" of being within the existing being that it can identify and unite (without merging) with God?

>I think one might run into the issue of potentially positing that Jesus was just another esoteric master, rather than the incarnate divine Logos
yes, this is one of the positions that makes me doubt

>Yet, this view would be challenged by the fact that as the incarnate divine Logos, His divine intelligence would not have been limited by such socio-cultural constructs to have an objectively incorrect interpretation of His existence
the argument is circular, since in order to believe that he is the incarnate Logos one must believe his words which are loaded with theological and cultural context
I agree with you that if he is indeed the Incarnate Logos it is different
but I don't know how to respond to those who argue, rightly seen from the outside, that Jesus was just one of many realisations, given the uniqueness of the mystical state in question across traditions (union and identification with the Absolute), and that like all of them he then reinterpreted it with his theological-cultural background

>rather, it is much more likely that others are misinterpreting His words and life through their own socio-cultural lenses, because they are fallible humans
I agree with this, everyone sees in Jesus what they want to see: hence the myriad of contradictory interpretations of his life. Jesus as socialist, rabbi, anti-Semite, revolutionary, myth, etc.

>While I could expound on this for a long while, the basis argument is that He posits Himself as equal to God, by doing things that only God can do, like forgiving sins by His own authority, and as such could not be simply an enlightened human being
but a jivanmukti also identifies fully with God, it's just that as he doesn't have a theistic view of him he obviously doesn't talk about forgiving sins etc

>but must be either God, or a liar and charlatan
or be sincerely mistaken, like many people who come back from this experience and try to explain it with their frame of reference

>>18346993
>I believe that it is not a race, and that the Christian path to mystical union is superior in that it is both safer, emphasizes love and help for others rather than ones own effort
I agree with you on this, it is a point original to Christianity that I have noticed: its emphasis on charity
where all other traditional mystics seem almost Luciferian (the mystic achieves, by his own efforts alone - even if he needs God's help) the absolute, the Christian saint helps others, disappears into charity and becomes humble enough to receive, without doing anything, grace, as if falling from heaven
because for him, it is the heart and not the reason that saves, charity and not knowledge (gnosis, jnana)
even Buddhism, which could be said to emphasise compassion (via the brahmaviharas), is not really charitable: the meditator emanates compassionate intentions, but there is no effective and actual tradition of charity, of caring for the poor, of associative work, etc

>One can perform horrible crimes unrepentantly, take 5-MeO-DMT, and experience what seems to be the beatific vision.
I'm glad you brought this up, because personally it makes me doubt the objectivity of mystical states more than anything else
how to explain it? that taking drugs or entheogens leads to the same states? this seems to be a very strong argument in favour of the idea that these states are only psychological/subjective, and only then reified
in the same way that in Buddhism, states of meditation are reified into realms of heaven (dying in such and such a jhana makes you reborn in such and such an ontological sphere, such and such a paradise, etc.)

>The Eastern perspective of dharmic reincarnation was ultimately an inherited idea from ancient oral traditions, and not one that was reached through any sort of first-hand experience in ever having received confirmation of the idea
I don't necessarily agree. are you familiar with the work of ian stevenson?
it remains to be explained: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson

>their cosmologies only because they were raised with exposure to it, not because they themselves independently arrived at that viewpoint. I believe that the case for eternal salvation or damnation is much stronger than reincarnation
I feel like we could turn this criticism around
who arrives at the idea of eternal salvation and damnation, based on belief, by reason alone?

>Also, no, I'm not French. :)
I love to discuss this with a colleague, I myself have been hesitating for years between several paths (notably Advaita Vedanta) and Catholicism
if you have a contact, discord or other, do not hesitate!
Thanks again for your answers

>>18347147
>gives to the human/rational soul
when he created it*.

>and it is by virtue of this "heart"
or "core"*

>that Jesus was just one of many realisations
that Jesus was just one of many realized masters*

Vedaitaniggers shitting up a good thread again. Sigh.

>>18347152
>I don't necessarily agree. are you familiar with the work of ian stevenson?
>it remains to be explained: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson
I'm putting this down here:
https://wisedisciple.org/blogs/thought-snack-evidence-for-reincarnation-or-possession
https://reformedperspective.ca/christianity-explains-everythingeven-reincarnation/
https://www.evidenceunseen.com/world-religions/reincarnation/
https://probe.org/the-mystery-of-reincarnation/
i had found a christian response book to ian stevenson's work but i can't find it... too bad
here are some initial thoughts in any case, and some books provided in the sources

>>18347230
btw I have a Catholic Thomist-Kabbalist friend (yes, there is such a thing, haha) who explains this with the theory of the Guilgoul haNeshamot
Basically, memories of past lives would be psychic "remains" that would cling to the newborns, not a real reincarnation

>>18347147
>for you the atman is the substantial esse that God gives to the human/rational soul,
I would offer a slight correction and say that, rather, I believe that the atman IS that rational soul, which is the substantial esse endowed at the moment of conception which makes a human to be what it is.

>and it is by virtue of this "heart" of being within the existing being that it can identify and unite (without merging) with God?
Yes, I would agree with this.

>yes, this is one of the positions that makes me doubt
I think the historical basis for the resurrection is the strongest argument against Jesus' being just another ascended master.
>the argument is circular, since in order to believe that he is the incarnate Logos one must believe his words
I disagree. The strongest claim to Jesus' divinity, which lends the credence to His words in the first place (most importantly His eternal existence, and His declaration of the sending of the Holy Spirit to the apostles) is His fulfilled prophesying of His own resurrection, for which the historical case is built not around the text itself, but the actual historical events surrounding it.
>I don't know how to respond to those who argue [...] that Jesus was just one of many
It comes down to (most importantly) the resurrection, the divine claims, and successful prophecies. None of the individuals who attained moksha resurrected, and the resurrection was sort of stamp of divine approval on His words and claims, including those of divine authority, and accepting worship and obeisance explicitly as God, by Thomas (John 20:28).
>but a jivanmukti also identifies fully with God
Yes, but He was not identifying as God in a way that could also be applied to any others - He was identifying as THE God, and accepted worship as such. It was not a proclamation that He is God as we are all God, as is said in some Hindu traditions, but a unique case of incarnation of brahman whereby it is He alone that is worthy of this obeisance - if it were not so, He would have taught that we could all be God. This is all apparent in His teachings, where it is recorded that He states that, of His believers: "whoever believes in Me will also do the works that I am doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in My name" - it is always clear that the one who reaches this status is never doing something of their own power, like He is, but only doing it through Christ's divine power: "For without me ye can do nothing".
>or be sincerely mistaken
If he was sincerely mistaken, I doubt His prophecy of foretelling His own resurrection would have come true. The resurrection, like I said, is that stamp of approval on His words, unique to Him.

(1/2)

>>18347152
>where all other traditional mystics seem almost Luciferian
Absolutely agreed. It is all about one's effort, one's disciple, and one's own works. The same is not true of Christ's teachings, and I think this is the number one reason why the Christian mystical path is both the safest, and the most effective, in terms of avoiding pitfalls of pride, and the undesirable entities & psychological dangers associated with egotistical spiritual practice
>this seems to be a very strong argument in favour of the idea that these states are only psychological/subjective
That the states are gifts from God when attained through the proper teleological manner, as any pleasurable faculty - but are not themselves the end of mystical practice or spiritual life, and yet point to that ultimate end. They are only stepping stones along the way that we experience as a gift from God. Similarly, the male orgasm is an experience which leads to the miracle of childbirth, but it can also be elicited in teleologically improper manners - such as masturbation. Yes, the pleasure experienced from orgasm is psychological, but it also points to a very real phenomenon of that intended experience - namely, conception of life, as the mystical experience points to the intended experience of union with God, even if elicited improperly. If that doesn't make sense, I can try explaining it in another way.

>I don't necessarily agree. are you familiar with the work of ian stevenson?
There are many methodological problems with his work, such as the vast majority of the cases involving prior contact between the families of those involved in the supposed reincarnation experience. This greatly diminishes the reliability of those testimonies, and such unreliability causes me to suspend judgment until further, more methodologically sound studied can be conducted. It is definitely interesting work, however, but I am not convinced of the evidence he presents.

>who arrives at the idea of eternal salvation and damnation, based on belief, by reason alone?
I'm not suggesting that reincarnation is implausible because they did not arrive at it by reason, but only that there is no logical reason why one should believe the oral traditions of the Indian subcontinent over the oral traditions of another continent - there is no logical process by which reincarnation was elaborated as being a metaphysical necessity, leading to there being no reason I should accept it - whereas the teachings of Jesus Christ on the issue do have logically convincing power, due to His unique nature of successfully prophesying His own resurrection as a stamp of divine approval of His teachings (of course, I believe that He is God the Son, but I'm sure you get what I mean by the analogy).

>>18347230
>>18347248
I believe that the case for reincarnation, empirically and theologically, is incredibly flawed, but I will definitely check it out!

You can email me at weakestlynx@gmail.com .
(2/2)

>>18347416
I'm going to sleep, thanks for this discussion!
I'll mail you in the next few days