The Occult

[Anonymous No.14167307]

Has reading the Occult given you any spiritual experiences or has it simply advanced your own philosophical understanding?

Serious question, since it seems as if most of you would not practice it, and I've recently had a spiritual experience and am wishing to further explore that. No doubt the Occult has a great philosophical value but surely it is not purely just that.

[Anonymous No.14167327]

>>14167307
The occult helped me realized just how based the Bible is

[Anonymous No.14167377]

5+ years of being "open" to the occult has made me far more open to mysticism and spiritual experiences, in subtle and systemic ways. It's like changing your diet, or breathing a different sort of air in a new climate. You won't notice any instant effects, but after some time you may notice little things that are different, that your health is better in some general way that is hard to quantify, and then you may make the connection that it stemmed from that subtle change earlier on.

After years of being open and curious about these things, constantly but incredulously probing into weird stuff, giving myself license to wonder whether it could be true or partly true, whether some kernel of truth might be in it despite always being garbled and diluted by hucksters and credulous people, I strongly suspect my consciousness is different from when I started. If I'm being scientific and assuming that occult forces aren't real, then I'd guess I've simply become more "gentle" in considering fringe phenomena or "Forteana." If I'm speculating about the occult side of things, then I do have to wonder whether I've opened myself up to esoteric or spiritual things in subtle ways simply by being open to their presence.

I remember being much younger and assuming that the prosaic, materialist, reductivist vision of the world was the "default." Even when I wanted spiritual things to be true, and studied them, I knew in some reflexive way deep down that the default view simply has to be the standard secular scientistic narrative: the universe is a container of material contents with no purpose, and all emergent phenomena in it (like life) are just second-order illusions, for example organisms are just complex mechanisms that appear to us to be special. But nothing is special. Proving the metaphysical reality of specialness requires very special proof, and failing such proof, we must default to the bog-standard materialist atheistic worldview.

It's not so much that I now reject this materialist worldview, because as I said, even then I didn't want it to be true, I effectively rejected it and was looking for answers beyond it. What has changed is that sense that it's the default. If someone defends that view to me now, my innate, default response is now that they are being just as dogmatic as someone who believes in occult or metaphysical forces, mysticism, intelligences other than our own, etc. I'm still just as incredulous when someone tries to convince me that their book trivially proves that their metaphysical framework is correct, but I'm now also equally incredulous about the "default" secular scientistic view, and I can't go back to it. I can still consider it, but it seems just as bizarre as some random Muslim or Christian telling me that their little particular sub-sect of a sub-sect is the only correct one. My mind reflexively replies, "I don't know what reality is, but I know it's not that simple, and I'm open to anything." That's the subtle change.

[Anonymous No.14167390]

>>14167377
I want to add though, I'm also inclined toward crazy thoughts, I have definitely noticed pre-schizophrenic spirals and delusional cul-de-sacs in my thinking (which I only ever recognize as such in hindsight, which is very scary), and I've definitely become more prone to schizo things as a result of all this. I deliberately don't allow myself to speculate too much along the lines of communicating with intelligences other than my own, I don't let those thoughts gestate and develop, because I somehow feel that they could develop into complexes, gain inertia and momentum of their own in my thinking, and if they gained too much they could become self-fulfilling, at which point I'm on a one-way train to mental illness. Even small things, like speculating too much about whether ghosts or similar presences might exist, or whether my mind could make contact with other beings.

Occult schizos are not glamorous. There is nothing sadder than going to the bookstore to talk about these things with someone else who is willing to explore the fringes of weird phenomena, and running into ten burnouts who took one step too many into it and passed a point of no return. Usually drugs are involved too. LSD really fucks up a lot of spiritual seekers.

I always say, keep one foot in prosaic reality. Again, not because prosaic materialism is the default or somehow superior, but because any occult science will eventually account for "prosaic" reality as well, and there will be real distinction between the two. Jumping feet-first or head-first into the occult is a good way to burn out and become a babbling schizo or semi-schizo. Then you can't explore anything or do anything useful.

[Anonymous No.14167398]

>>14167390
>and there will be real distinction between the two.

Meant to say, there will then be NO real distinction between the two. I said the opposite of what I meant.

This may sound silly but I also recommend focusing on positive forces. Mystics are trying to commune with God and the highest Good, which is beautiful. Relatively few mystics go batshit insane. But joining some guy's stupid cult or otherwise dabbling in ugly, evil things will either expose you to subtly twisted broken psychology that will eventually twist up your own mind as well (if we're being prosaic and secular), or it will expose you to evil things that prey on a humanity not yet ready to confront them (if we're speculating about the occult dimension being true).

[Anonymous No.14167399]

>>14167327
What did you read? And where should I start if I want to understand and appreciate the Bible?

[Anonymous No.14167420]

>>14167377
Could you call it the growth of Faith? And I don't think that necessitates the literal.

However in regards to myself it has been as you described but also fairly happening spiritual experiences such as when trying meditative the sudden feeling of energy pulsating down, yet simultaneously upwards out of my body like a lightning bolt to awake me from my calmness.

I was going to reply further to this post but you cross off most of the questions left within it.

>>14167390
Very true anon, I'd like to try to lsd and magic mushrooms but I'm aware of the utterly debilitating effects they can have though not long term the effect on the character and thoughts of them can be. Such as suddenly becoming a spiritualist without much founding other than this profound experience. Even though I disagree with someone like Hume, his strict rationalism and cynicism is something in itself to be admired of the Enlightenment.

I think I will try Magic Mushrooms at the least but I want to only after reading my fair share; of philosophy, religion, the occult and literature in general. As well as achieving some state of ideal being (which includes the physical, so physiological healthiness and morphological fitness, the mental which includes a self sturdiness and strength in character and faith, the spiritual in which gives me reason to pursue these pleasures, the will, and the lived experience of life, a spark you know which I wish to regain). Only once I have achieved all of these given at what age it may but predictively at around the age of 25 or 26 shall I take any such drugs. As I don't wish to rely entirely on my unconscious, my ego must stand strong in its experience.

[Anonymous No.14167432]

>>14167398
Very true anon, found this video interesting and coherent with what you say: https://youtu.be/vRVQD4FKPrY?t=71

Though in life I would disagree with many of his actions and beliefs, but to be true in death I sympathise with the man.

[Anonymous No.14168118]

>>14167398
>genuine mystics don't go crazy, occultists do
Hard disagree. A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum reveals just as many, if not more, mainstream religious folks as it does occultists. Have you ever heard of scrupulosity?

[Anonymous No.14169709]

.

[Anonymous No.14169899]

>>14167307
The afterlife literally exists.

[Anonymous No.14169907]

>>14169899
Existence is outside of the afterlife

[Anonymous No.14170769]

bumo

[Anonymous No.14170961]

>>14167420
You're on the right path anon. Mushrooms and hemp will help you catalize the ideas you get from philosophy and religion. Remember to always use them as tools, don't jump on the hippie overdose lifestyle.
Sobreity is prescious

[Anonymous No.14170976]

>>14167307
both. reading is not the same as a lived esoteric praxis though. but its also not bad being strictly refined in letters. you will always hit on truths, the discipline then is to map them out. a crazy person will only be wrong insofar as he neglects the order needed for his conjured chaos, manifesting on the lowest level possible in material. it does require dedication and sacrifice no doubt. its not for everyone. perhaps thats the reason it is 'hidden' in the first place. knowledge can only conceal itself for so long and each relative position of a speaker and a listener is intricate enough to last you a lifetime.

[Anonymous No.14171082]

I've been dedicating myself to spiritual rectification a lot. Reading has helped, dragged me out of a superficial view of things. I'm preparing myself to lead a pristine way of life in order to attain the higher part of myself. Is any of you aware of some practices that could help with this kind of life? I used to meditate a few minutes but now I just pray before sleeping. I want to live a practical life more intensely concerning these matters.

[Anonymous No.14171107]

I was just about to post a thread on the topic. Which books should I read to understand alchemy, demonology, Kabbalah and Tarot?

[Anonymous No.14171126]

>>14171107
start with pic related and go from there. Hanegraaff also has tons of essays he has published on his academia.edu account, accessible for free. There is so much obfuscation and so many dead ends in this stuff that it's good, in my opinion, to begin with a rigorous academic take that addresses historical context and doxographical issues. So you could jump right into Eliphas Levi or Blavatsky, but I think that would do more harm than good. Hanegraaff contextualizes everything. In this book, his rundown of the history of alchemy is particularly useful. On alchemy see also Lawrence Principe, but perhaps most immediately useful would be the Gale Encyclopedia of Religion entries on alchemy. It's on Libgen.

[Anonymous No.14171152]

>>14171126
Thanks, have a (You)