/lit/ - Literature

>>18857608
No you haven't shut the fuck up

Soggy Ass Grandma Electricity

>>18857612
Yes, I have

>>18857612
I didn't, and I'll probably get to the same conclusion. I'm interested in the topic

>>18857616
You can't read any primary scripture of a religion once and claim to have understood it. People are literally still studying the Bible, Quran, Vedas, etc. You also the millions of commentaries recorded for these scriptures that are priceless and hold their own nuggets of knowledge. Islamic scholars have to ride out to the middle of nowhere to find knowledge of esoteric and occult things that explicitly not written down and only told verbally.

>>18857633
Did you even read the OP? I'm aware of all this.

>>18857608
Hegel, Feuerbach.
See the religious from another perspective, see how the transcendent was created by humanity.
I think the truth is somehow there, the divine does not precede humanity. The divine at least can't exist in a space if not a single human knows of it.
Very Christianity centric, but if you are abstracting all of the religious teachings to dig at a deeper truth then it may be applicable anyway.

>>18857650
>the divine does not precede humanity
Then why call it divine? Or rather, why not elevate humanity to the level of the divine?

>>18857608
Read The Mind Illuminated and meditate.

>>18857719
>Or rather, why not elevate humanity to the level of the divine?
Read Stirner if you want an actual answer to this question (he deals with it directly, assuming you're not asking it rhetorically). Making the "divine" solely human is basically begging the question on the grandest scale, not least because "humanity" as such is a fiction.

>>18857825
Jhanas are not the be all end all of spirituality and mystical states

>>18857817
I also did this and it worked

>>18857954
>it worked
What did

Read Gregory palamas and then go live on mt athos

>>18857608
>What can you recommend?
Adi Shankara commentaries on the Upanishads and Bhagavad-Gita

>>18857943
They are (the only valid criticism that can be levelled at them is that they are by no means exhaustive descriptions of each given state, which naturally cannot be sufficiently expressed via language).

>>18858079
Yes, yes. Every religion thinks their mystical experiences are the best among all. You're not special

>>18858136
Explain...

>>18858136
It seems you've misunderstood what the Jhanas are.

>>18858145
>my religion's mystical states don't count, they're more special, you can't lump them in with the others
Sure.

>>18858147
>>18858136
>dismissive pseud who thinks he's hot shit for generalizing or being a reductionist
I think you have a case of ligma

>>18858153
>dogmatic faggot starts seething when told his religion doesn't have a monopoly on truth
Many such cases

>>18857825
>>18858079
Not interested in nihilism.

>>18858155
lmao you're a classic pseud
what's next? you're gonna tell me that stoicism is dogmatic? fuck off and actually read a book
fyi: skimming isn't reading

>>18858147
Again, that's not what I said nor what the Jhanas imply.

>>18858160
Whatever midwit, keep seething.
>>18858163
You said they were the be all end all of mysticism, which is not true. Or rather, is only true within the frame of reference buddhism provides, which is not something I am compelled to agree with.

After extensive study I can honestly say christianity and buddhism are the best and everything else is cringe. This might be hard to accept for some people.

>>18858195
>christianity and buddhism
They have nothing to do with each other

>>18858079
Actually, the Kabbalah and Hermetic alchemy are a better mystical system. Jhanic states are the best annihilationist path though

>>18858215
Pseud.

>>18858394
You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about do you? lmao

>>18857608
most likely op, based off your self reported experience, you are a hylic (i.e, without a soul) and therefore incapable of experiencing a transformative supernatural experience

>>18858215
Christianity and buddhism have a lot in common. Some would say especially mahayana. Some also say Christ visited India — but who knows.

>>18857608
>but I think madhyamaka buddhists aren't wrong when they say the true nature of everything is impossible to describe
How did you spend all that time reading to realise baby's first philosophical point that basically everyone knows? 'description' and 'true nature' obviously cannot go together.

>>18857608
Your problem is that you read but didn't practice. Put spirituality to practice and you'll have a different tone.

>>18858215
Catholic-Christian and Buddhist rituals are so similar that Spanish thought Buddhist were Christians when they first encountered them.

>>18858577
>Put spirituality to practice
Which spirituality?

>>18858588
Whatever intrigued you the most out of everything you read.

>>18858598
Is truth not the most important factor? What if I choose something that isn't true?

>>18858598
What if no established extant system feels intriguing enough to pursue?

>>18857608
>madhyamaka buddhists aren't wrong when they say the true nature of everything is impossible to describe. None of the books I've read, be they primary sources or commentaries, have convinced me of the truth of any scripture or sect, now I'm at loss as to where to go next.
start buddhism, ie theravada, not the mahayana crap which just put back the idea of an essence in their religion, and it will give you this:

>>18857608
>I think direct experience of the transcendent is what I need, but I have never managed to have that kind of experience, not for lack of trying.

>>18858195
only because mahayana is passed as buddhism, whereas Mahayanists reject the buddhist sutras because according to them it's not the real truth, like muslims do with the jewish and christian books, lol

>>18858605
The truth is derived from direct experience with the divine. There's different aspects to the divine, personal and impersonal. What do you want to experience? Pick a religion/sect that says:
Do (A) to experience (B) and try it out.
If you do not experience what is promised, simply discard it.

>>18857608
Have you tried an ego-crushing dose of psychedelics? It might be close to what you're searching for, in the sense that, while drug may not give you transcendence in itself, they certainly allow you to peek behind the curtain

>>18857608
all words will not be able to describe it, these systems are only frameworks for the mind, eventually you have to experience it for yourself, hence why all these traditions prescribe meditation

>>18858745
The theravadin arrogance is quite impressive

>>18858745
I think anatta is bullshit so Buddhism isn't for me.

>>18857608
Start with the 'jeets

>>18859497
>not starting with the based aryans that inspired Hinduism, Buddhism and later asian religions

>>18859663
Please don't suggest it to random idiots.

>>18859663
What's the best book(s) to read to learn about the vedas? Is there a full english translation of all 4? Is there a version with well-explained footnotes?