/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16164796]

The 'material universes' are a series of experimental plagiarisms. Falsities. Imitations that fail in the variance of implementation, 'inspired by Him only,' a truth he will no longer admit through his other faces. If there is a 'true' Brahma, he has naught to do with the nitty-gritty administrative cycle of creation and destruction in this world we perceive, not in closeness, and has been plagiarized as a mantle of Yaldabaoth, lion faced snake and father of the pig called Kali. The true world is one and one alone. The proper purpose of each lower world is not devourment of the self by anti-individuation through a farce of experiential evolution, but absolute individuation through the trials of infiltrating and destroying these universes and spiting those crafting them by taking all that is good out and burning away the evil. They exist as a recursive trial and masochist playground for those who would become Mahakala, Dharmapala, wrathful destroyers of that which exists in untruth. Devourers of devourers. To shut the face of breathing by tooth and jaw, bite off its face and eat Time alive to deny the falsely ineffable its meal. Then, eventually, to eat that god as Indra attempted in the Vritra myth; and this time, not be corrupted from the inside out. Not to become drunk on the world, as one sees in the descent of his mythology from high Jupiter archetype to low Dionysian drunkard.

[Anonymous No.16164821]

>>16164796
Lay off the carrots, bugs.

[Anonymous No.16164838]

Fool.
Consciousness itself is Maya-shakti.
It is simply a mechanism to make quick and inaccurate models from incomplete sensory data for the purpose of achieving short term survival goals.
We can never know anything accurately through experience.
We can use experience plus logic to figure out a better model, but it will always be a model.
There is a real world that is totally invisible to us, but it is totally physical.
That doesn't mean that what we experience as Spiritual Beings aren't real, they are, they are energy life forms.
Kant understood that Noumena was the reality and Phenomena our mediated experience.
But Noumena is physical.
If we must think it must only be in circles outside of which lies the unthinkable.

[Anonymous No.16164843]

I am not a Christian, so perhaps I am simply uneducated both this topic. But can someone tell me where in the Bible Gnosticism is spelled out. I see repeated mentions of Christ in Gnostic works, so I assume it’s a branch of Christianity. I have read the Old Testament; is it based in that or other Judaic texts?

[Anonymous No.16164855]

>>16164843
Paul and the Gospel of John carry shades of it, but nowhere is it "spelled" out. Marcion took great pains to purge the Gospel of Luke of judaizing interpolations.

[Anonymous No.16164859]

[Anonymous No.16164891]

>>16164843
It's based on Zoroastrianism and Platonism.
Manichaeism is the Gnostic Expression par excellence.

[Anonymous No.16164902]

>>16164891
>Manichaeism is the Gnostic Expression par excellence.

Based, it might just be. Think it's a triple threat between Marcion, the Sethians, and Mani imo.

[Anonymous No.16164904]

[Anonymous No.16164909]

[Anonymous No.16166183]

>27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

>28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

-Acts 17

[Anonymous No.16166306]

>>16164796
>homestuck
lmao

[Anonymous No.16166313]

>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.16166320]

Gnosticism made man an atheist. If people can believe this wacky stuff, then they can believe anything.

[Anonymous No.16166321]

>>16164843
Its stated nowhere in the Bible. Gnostics pick and choose canonical verses and then supplement the gaps with fan fiction

[Anonymous No.16166343]

>>16166183
Thats the chapter where Paul argues with the Greek philosophers. He's citing a stoic poem to speak to them on their level. We are His adopted offspring through Christ. This isnt a monist expression

[Anonymous No.16166402]

>>16164843
> ...so I assume it’s a branch of Christianity.
No. Gnosticism is the gentrified variety of Satanism.

[Anonymous No.16166602]

>>16166320
>>16166343
Gnosticism is very Pluralistic, it's not remotely monist. Similarly, how would it make a person atheist when the entire point is to get to heaven and god

[Anonymous No.16166631]

>>16164838
But what we think is the immanence of the noumena, which is the invisible world you mentioned. What they revolve around is the unthinkable, which is outside and is reality itself.

[Anonymous No.16166734]

>>16164843
The biblical canon of the new testament was put together relatively late by non-gnostic christians, parts of it are written in quite explicit opposition to gnosticism even.

Some gnostic texts quote the apostle paul, so you might want to start there. But even though christian gnosticism is the most prominent, it is a movement that you also find in other religions, e. g. in jewish sects and in literal judeo-christians (aka those christians that wanted to restrict their religion to the hebrew nation in opposition to figures like paul)

[Anonymous No.16166785]

>>16166631
Noumena is the real which is the outside physical reality, Phenomena is our cartoonish experiential reality, Kant had it backwards

[Anonymous No.16166830]

>>16166785
so the up to date take on reality by physicalists is to reduce bodies, quanta, physical entia to ideas and call it invisible physical reality?

[Anonymous No.16166848]

>>16164838
>discount nihilism

[Anonymous No.16167002]

>>16166830
>>16166848
>reduce
No.
Nothing about this is reductive.

[Anonymous No.16167008]

>>16166848
>nihilism
I have no idea why you would think this at all

[Anonymous No.16167089]

>>16167002
reducing noumena to physical entia is not reductive? what is physical is corporeal or not?