/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.1719143]

I wanna get into Mysticism. I know nothing. How do I start? I know this is pretty broad but any advice/ reading recommendations would be helpful. Thank you.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1719145]

>I wanna get into Mysticism. I know nothing.
That's a given

[Anonymous No.1719153]

1. Disregard sanity, reason and logic
2. Truly believe that everything has some divine cause
3. Apply your fucktarded backwards world view to life
4. See hidden meaning in meaningless randomness
5. ???????
6. Profit!

[☿ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1719155]

>>1719145
could you possibly be saying that only by naturalising mysticism can one truly explore the mystical cause that'd be a smart thing to say ja

[Anonymous No.1719154]

>>1719145
Am I just asking a completely retarded question?

[Anonymous No.1719159]

>>1719153
I think you're on the wrong board.

[Fabulous !!GXZe+d0RTva No.1719180]

this thread is pretty funny

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1719182]

>>1719155
>only by naturalising mysticism can one truly explore the mystical
Not only. Not sure whether ideally, feels like that would contradict what's at the heart of mysticism, could just be dogma though. Mysticism and enlightenment are for me the logical extremes of what can be shown but not said.

Try something like the Tao Te Ching OP, I wouldn't class it as hard mysticism or anything but it might be a good gateway drug.

[Anonymous No.1719187]

>>1719182
Oh, well I guess I have read that.

[☿ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1719191]

>>1719182
would a concept like "trance" suffice here. naturalism as in, the key to draw you back from teh trance. cause being all mystical all the time isn't healthy.

[Anonymous No.1719197]

>>1719182

>could just be dogma though
think hard about this one

[☿ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1719198]

btw you silly, mysticism, materialism, any metaphysical hues are applied to the second order description of the thought system.

this is to say once you think of it as "MYSTICISM!!!" when asked what you are doing, you've already lost the game. all such reflections should be clear as to the real world target of their reflection.

[Anonymous No.1719200]

>>1719182

i just realized
you are one delusional fuck

[Anonymous No.1719205]

"Mysticism" is kind of a broad term, OP. Can you be more specific?

[Fabulous !!GXZe+d0RTva No.1719203]

>>1719198
not if you think under a hegelian dialectic

bored, please talk to me, what does this mean ^ its in the book i have

[Anonymous No.1719202]

OP here

Throw me a bone?

[Anonymous No.1719208]

>>1719202
Here you go, moonbat. More batshit nonsense than you can comfortably read in a life time. Don't get lost and remember, there's no place like home.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/

[Fabulous !!GXZe+d0RTva No.1719210]

>>1719205
no actually

relations are external

please talk with me, i hate my parents and im sad, i just want to go home

[Anonymous No.1719220]

Fourteenth century for Christian mysticism. Tons of super crazy writers: on the girls team you have Julian of Norwich, Angela of Foligno, Margery of Kempe, Catherine of Sienna. For the boys there's Meister Eckhart, Bonaventura, Jan Van Ruusbroec, etc. Secularly the period birthed the Canterbury Tales, the Divine Comedy and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, so you know it was a sweet artistic climate.

[Anonymous No.1719225]

>>1719208
OP here

I've actually downloaded that and read some of the lives of the saints, cloud of unknowing, and this other text where the guy hung out with st. Germain and explored some lost civilizations.

I just want to hear want you fine folk would recommend.

>>1719205
Knowledge that isn't scientific? Shared beliefs that determine how people think/live. I don't know. The more I say the dumber I sound.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1719228]

>>1719191
>would a concept like "trance" suffice here
I prefer the more general term of 'detachment', which exists on the spectrum of attachment -- nonattachment -- detachment. It represents things like "trance" where the individual or mystic rejects a naturalistic ontology and seeks refuge completely in the ascetic, metaphysical ideal e.g. mountain yogis or whatever they're called. You detach yourself from the world, in other words.

On the other hand, you've got nonattachment, which is the sort of ideal for stuff like Zen, where you function in the naturalistic world but you also have this metaphysical doctrine at work at the same time. So you will have a Zen master who is capable of functioning perfectly well in day-to-day society.

Now, as far as I am concerned Zen and other non-attachment belief systems seem to answer your concern
>naturalism as in, the key to draw you back from teh trance

But taken one step further, I think it's fair to ask whether we can achieve the "have your cake and not eat it yet eat it" of Zen under a wholly naturalistic ontology, without metaphysical stilts. This is a pretty interesting question, and I don't have an answer for it yet.

[Fabulous !!GXZe+d0RTva No.1719229]

if all of you keep ignoring me will i eventually just like, stop existing

i don't want that to happen

[Anonymous No.1719233]

>>1719220
Thanks, I've heard of a few, will check out.

polite sage

[Anonymous No.1719236]

>>1719225
Morals and Dogma - Albert Pike
The Secret Doctrine - Madame Blavatsky
The Divine Pymander - Hermes Tsimegistus
Principia Discordia - Malacylpse the Younger
Code of the Illuminati - Abbé Barreul

These are a good start and fairly well-rounded towards western education.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1719243]

>>1719239
are you like banned from the chat again or what

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1719240]

how about julius evola

[Fabulous !!GXZe+d0RTva No.1719239]

>>1719228
pretty monistic of you cutie

i will talk about anything just please i will wikipedia every other fucking word

[☿ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1719246]

>>1719228
>You detach yourself from the world
but mystics have an ontology. it is just diluted and unformed.

all of this is put much more clearly in neuropsychological terms when that study develops further.

ontology != that which is. ontology is the categories with which the world is divided.

but you see, that very description of ontology is itself not ontological or metaphysical. it is rather, a knowledge of the body by its movements.

[☿ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1719250]

>>1719246
metaphysical multiplicity => different circuits of attachment to reality
ontological multiplicity => different analytics

[Anonymous No.1719256]

>>1719246
Deep as a saucer, that is. Did you read special books to become a cryptic long-winded asshat, or were you born that way?

[Fabulous !!GXZe+d0RTva No.1719257]

>>1719243
i don't even go there anymore but yeah im b&

i still hang around after the day crowd clears out but dont tell the master

[Anonymous No.1719262]

>>1719228

>use Buddhism to justify sedentary existence

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1719271]

>>1719246
okay dude try not to fixate on the one word there and maybe engage with what's being said although I will watch my use of 'ontology' in future thank you

[☿ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1719269]

>>1719250
and i guess naturalism is just metaphysical transparency. it is the world, naively.

the different circuits should be obvious in this way

the world
i look at the world
at this point i diverges into a spirit (product of evolutionary dealings with other complex organisms, possibly natural events too, but at this point LOL the distinction should be obviously silly)
or an organism, produced by the science of the body.

[Fabulous !!GXZe+d0RTva No.1719277]

>>1719256
>i cant understand T.T!!!! WAA SHE MAKES ME FEEL INTELLECTUALLY INFERIOR!!111!!!

[☿ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1719280]

>>1719256
if it's deep as a saucer then i've succeeded. because, as you know, the moon in the water etc

[Fabulous !!GXZe+d0RTva No.1719289]

>>1719271
so you lose this one?

[☿ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1719292]

>>1719269
the 2nd line is the indexical i btw. just shows that how the expression CAN be read as naive naturalism.

[☿ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1719297]

no candy for you.

[Fabulous !!GXZe+d0RTva No.1719299]

>>1719297
who?

[☿ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1719301]

>>1719299
i have some jolly ranchers fab, want some

[☿ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1719303]

look, even my belief attributions are passive as fk. this is the ultimate zen guys.

[Anonymous No.1719308]

>>1719246

your ontology is overly charged bitch.
there is only one category

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1719309]

>>1719289
I doubt it. I am trying to get some points across without the bother and time of writing them in 1, 1.001, 1.010, 1.1, 2, 2.0202020200222011 propositions but apparently this joker wants to be a hardass on every point I make for convenience in between taking the time to point out that, holy shit the map of the territory is itself a map, and the ego is an evolutionary product. Truly revelatory stuff.

[Anonymous No.1719312]

>>1719303

>delete retarded comment
>flood with new posts

[☿ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1719319]

>>1719308
in the performance of that ontology, a world is disclosed
metaphysics...i'll have to look into that one. but basically it is a 2nd order reflection. ontology is first order structure.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1719320]

>>1719309
>the map of the territory is itself a map
herp derp at night idiot's delight. I meant *is itself territory

[☿ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1719325]

>>1719309
>the ego
no you silly. looks like you'll never make it out of the forest.

[☿ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1719329]

>>1719312
peanut gallery need not comment.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1719334]

>>1719325
the cartesian subject, the 'I', the soul, call it whatever you want