Books on absolute individuation

[Anonymous No.18398288]

I'm interested in esotericism and mysticism, but I get the impression that the goal of a lot of traditions is to merge into some kind of pantheistic all, to dissolve and fuse with the source. I'm interested in going the exact opposite way, to rise and achieve true individuation instead of sinking into the void.

Are there books that address this dichotomy clearly and can help me figure things out?
I'm not too familiar with esotericism, past the cursory knowledge I gleamed from this board and other online sources. I need help to figure out which path to take, there's so many information and it's very overwhelming.

[Anonymous No.18398291]

>>18398288
Jung is who you are looking for

[Anonymous No.18398294]

>>18398291
Didn't Jung systematically reduce the esoteric and the mystical to purely psychological phenomena?

[Anonymous No.18398302]

>>18398294

You're thinking of Sam Harris.

[Anonymous No.18398305]

>>18398294
Collective unconscious and synchronicity are certainly not merely psychological phenomena at least not in a kind of scientific psych sense.

[Anonymous No.18398319]

>>18398302
>>18398305
What should I read to delve into the more initiatic parts of his works from the get-go? Archetypes -> Aion -> Mysterium Coniunctionis -> Red Book?

[Anonymous No.18398542]

bump

[Anonymous No.18398661]

>>18398294
that is much more the efforts of some of his followers than himself

[Anonymous No.18398748]

In alchemy, some of the processes (fermentation) involve the destruction of the personality and ego in order to achieve mystical union. Jung was inspired by alchemy and hermeticism, wasn't he? How is his process of individuation not a dissolution into the whole, then?

[Anonymous No.18398761]

>>18398288
>I'm interested in going the exact opposite way, to rise and achieve true individuation instead of sinking into the void
Gnosticism argues for this. For them, instead of returning to the one, we go to the pleranoma, and become god-like beings, while retianing a sense of individuality

[Anonymous No.18398882]

>>18398294
You're thinking of William James

[Anonymous No.18399057]

>>18398761
>dualism

[Anonymous No.18399070]

>>18398288
>The very meaning of omnipresence is not merely that God is everywhere present at all times but also that he is totally present in his presence, present in his absoluteness in every single individual, wholly present in every one and yet in all. He is not, as it were, fragmented and partially present in everyone and totally present by addition--this is pantheism; but he is totally present in eacy and every one and yet in all--this is theism, personality, individuality.
-Kierkegaard

I'd recommend Kierkegaard and Weininger.

[Anonymous No.18399079]

>>18398288
>The very meaning of omnipresence is not merely that God is everywhere present at all times but also that he is totally present in his presence, present in his absoluteness in every single individual, wholly present in every one and yet in all. He is not, as it were, fragmented and partially present in everyone and totally present by addition--this is pantheism; but he is totally present in each and every one and yet in all--this is theism, personality, individuality.
-Kierkegaard

I'd recommend Kierkegaard and Weininger.

[Anonymous No.18399183]

>>18399079
Can you appreciate Kierkegaard if you're not Christian?

[Anonymous No.18399262]

>>18399183
>Soren Kierkegaard is easily one of the deepest thinkers in all history. The courage with which he faced the daunting realities of the spiritual path is a marvel to behold. Although he primarily used the language of Christianity to articulate his thoughts, it would be a mistake to place him in the same category as other Christians. He is no closer to the average Christian than he is to the average Buddhist or atheist. His conception of Christianity is frightening and utterly mind-blowing and should be approached with care.

-David Quinn

Are you able to handle Christian language?

[Anonymous No.18399267]

>>18399183
Yes.

[Anonymous No.18399307]

>>18398294
Read 7 Sermons of the Dead. Jung was a psychoanalytic gnostic.

Beyond that, read:

Gnostic Fragments by Nimrod de Rosario (rejects evolutionism, compliance with the Demiurge's world-program)

Nos, the Book of Resurrection by Miguel Serrano (rejects the androgynous unity of the soul, supports absolute differentiation)

>>18399057
>monism

[Anonymous No.18399397]

>>18399307
Why gnosticism when hermeticism and neoplatonism exist? Genuine question, not a troll.

[Anonymous No.18399456]

>>18398291
Based

[Anonymous No.18399629]

>>18399456
What makes him so special

[Anonymous No.18399637]

>>18398288
not esotericism but you may be interested in jose ortega y gasset, especially if you have a background in nietzsche

[Anonymous No.18399871]

>>18398288
>source = void
you sound confused

[Anonymous No.18399972]

>>18399871
I don't want to be assimilated back into the whole, for me it's the same as obliteration.
I hear the neoplatonists saw "union" with the One as a relationship that retained individuality, more like a connection than a melding, fusion or assimilation, which is something I could accept. But to just dissolve is unacceptable. I want to affirm myself, not destroy myself.

[Anonymous No.18399977]

Cure yourself of this cringe. Read Wittgenstein and Hegel to understand the inherently social nature of language and thought.

[Anonymous No.18400015]

>>18399977
Go away

[Anonymous No.18401040]

>>18399629
He reconciled Plato and Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.18401534]

>>18399972
>But to just dissolve is unacceptable. I want to affirm myself, not destroy myself.
You fundamentally misunderstand the doctrines in question if you consider what Guenon et al to talk about as a “destroying” or a “dissolving”; I’m not trying to be rude, but it is what it is. In Advaita Vedanta, which is what Guenon largely is referencing, your unchanging awareness that is at the heart of your being *right now* is itself God already, there is no ‘merger’ because whatever could be merged with God already eternally is, the ‘attainment of union with God’ in Advaita is just the waking up from false conceptions to realize the truth of what has always been true, and this realization does not destroy or dissolve you, but it reveals the plenitude and eternal freedom of yourself to yourself that you have always possessed without even realizing it. Have you ever read any of Adi Shankara’s writings?

[Anonymous No.18401613]

>>18399397
I'm not interested in uniting with the world-system, or a One that is responsible for it.

Like Jung/Lacan, there's a reason the crowd flocks to hermeticism and scoffs at gnosticism.

[Anonymous No.18401630]

>>18401613
>the crowd flocks to hermeticism and scoffs at gnosticism.
Yeah because one makes sense and the other is retarded shit that was refuted a thousand years ago
Also you're actually wrong, neo-gnosticism has been coopted by fucking youtubers at this point, it's by far more popular than hermeticism which most people don't understand nor want to understand

[Anonymous No.18401634]

>>18401630
Case in point. We all read the Corpus Hermeticum, dude, no one's impressed.

[Anonymous No.18401661]

>>18399079
>>18398288
>The most profound minds have always recognized that the essence of the concept of God, and its meaning for humans, is that God is the perfected human being, and the perfected human, like Jesus Christ, is God, and that belief in God is just the highest form of belief in oneself. Lesser minds, to be sure, have never quite grasped this. It is, however, the greatest conceivable misunderstanding of the idea of God, and applicable only to the Jewish concept of God, to say with Schopenhauer ( New Paralipomena , § 395): “As soon as God is posited, I am nothing”, or with Nietzsche ( Thus Spake Zarathustra: “ But friends, to tell you what I really think: if there were a God, how could I bear not being one? *Therefore* there is no God.” The ego is not diminished but enhanced through any true faith. – –
-Weininger

[Anonymous No.18403510]

>>18398291
I prefer Freud.

[Anonymous No.18403607]

>>18398288
>I'm interested in esotericism and mysticism, but I get the impression that the goal of a lot of traditions is to merge into some kind of pantheistic all, to dissolve and fuse with the source. I'm interested in going the exact opposite way, to rise and achieve true individuation instead of sinking into the void.
What you are looking is not individuation, but personification; individuation is a process which effect is actualization (= partial objects = differentiated beings [ontoi]).
Anyway, most people who write about what you seek are left-hand, such as Thomas Karlsson. I believe he would be the best introduction to personal realization in mysticism-magick-the occult-et al.
They are pretty interesting, just be careful since there are a lot of charlatans that write larping non-sensical stuff on that path.

[Anonymous No.18403617]

>>18401634
If you weren't impressed by it it's likely you're missing most of your brain cells.

[Anonymous No.18403624]

>>18399977
cringe

[Anonymous No.18403628]

>>18399079
Which book of his is this from?

[Anonymous No.18404113]

>>18403607
LHP and RHP aren't actual distinctions and both "paths" lead to the same result

[Anonymous No.18404155]

>>18404113
>LHP and RHP aren't actual distinctions and both "paths" lead to the same result
I believe Karlsson---and others---are pretty clear that they do not seek the same objectives as rhp, since, for them, teleology is instrumental, they support a view where they are agents and their goal is to be rulers and transcend as ego. Rhp seeks to become immanent with the world, to undo ego and become one with the cosmos/god/the one, etc. For rhp, cosmic teleology is becoming one; for lhp becoming one is what cattle desire, not what "they"---as personal ego looking for transcendence---desire. You should read a book from time to time, man, not just 4chan posts and youtube videos.

[Anonymous No.18404174]

>>18404155
>For rhp, cosmic teleology is becoming one
>You should read a book from time to time

Take your own advice.

[Anonymous No.18404268]

>>18404155
The distinction is artificial and only made by larpers

[Anonymous No.18404948]

>>18401534
Stop lying to people. Guenon and Advaita are just secret Buddhism. They teach complete annihilation of the person. What you keep saying it's "(you)" and is just flat unconsciousness, pure void.

[Anonymous No.18404965]

>>18403628
SOREN KIERKEGAARD'S JOURNALS AND PAPERS

[Anonymous No.18404970]

Jung is a pseud

[Anonymous No.18405104]

>>18398288
You cannot become less or more you bro. You can only choose, with what said "you" is aligned. Do you want Harmony or dissonance? Do you want to give or do you want to take? Most religions favour harmony and giving, which is a "you" that pours itself into the world, and enriches the world with goodness at the cost of having to cleanse what is bad and selfish. Now if you on the other hand would want to become more selfish, and develop a self which takes the world in, and takes/rips things for itself, and the cost of having to constantly try and subjugate everything to yourself - Then, I wouldn't recommend a particular book, but rather just hookers and cocaine, that and meditation maybe, so you can be more present in your self-indulgence. As for me personally; I wouldn't recommend going down that dissonant path, but the choice is yours.

[Anonymous No.18405436]

>>18399057
>>18399307
false dichotomy. Unity and multiplicity are equally real and not in opposition

[Anonymous No.18405792]

>>18404948
You are the one who is lying you neurotic clown. Advaita isn't Buddhism and in fact Advaita refuted Buddhism. The sense of personhood as understood in the west combines and conflates two completely qualitatively different things, awareness, and the observed content of awareness. You yourself and everyone else are awareness, you normally identify yourself with the contents of your awareness out of habit, the awareness and not the observed content is the essential person. All else in one's mind and being depends on the inner person consisting of pure consciousness there as the basis of it. This is the essence of the living being, the true person.

When you realize fully that you are actually just non-dual awareness, your mind that is observed by awareness does not vanish, you can still walk around and talk to people. In Advaita when someone attains moksha and their body dies, the observed content of awareness doesn't continue, but the essential person consisting of awareness enjoys eternal life, eternal freedom, eternal omnipresence, eternal omniscience, and eternal bliss. Spatial terms like "flat" don't apply to it, and it's not a void since a void has no sentience or awareness. This isn't annihilating the person since the person is the essential inner awareness, without which you wouldn't know anything and wouldn't exist.

[Anonymous No.18405800]

>>18405436
How can you ascribe mutually exclusive statuses to the same thing (reality)? That's like saying something is equally wet and dry, even though one of these excludes the other.

[Anonymous No.18405831]

>>18405800

[Anonymous No.18405848]

>>18405831
I appreciate the thought but that doesn't provide an answer to the logical quandary at hand.

[Anonymous No.18406026]

>>18405800
Things are unitary in so far they all participate in Being/God. Yet they are not reducible to what they participate in and are distinct from each other, thus unique. Your dad is in your mom doing her, they are united in love, but he still isn't her, and she isn't him, but they have sex. Makes sense, doesnt it?

[Anonymous No.18406106]

>>18406026
>Things are unitary in so far they all participate in Being/God. Yet they are not reducible to what they participate in and are distinct from each other, thus unique.
Okay, but that's elevating multiplicity and difference as ultimately more real than the unity of things and as subsuming this unity to the multiplicity/difference as a lesser category which unites the things within the already existent multiplicity which it presupposes. That's not saying both are equally real, or both are equally true of reality/ultimate nature of things.

[Anonymous No.18406138]

>>18405792
repeating buddhism is what makes it buddhism

do pajeets not understand this?

[Anonymous No.18406164]

>>18405792
awareness of nothing forever...wow it's fucking buddhism

[Anonymous No.18406184]

>>18406164
>awareness of nothing forever
As opposed to keeping your memories and identity even after you ascend to the Godhead? How is that possible?

[Anonymous No.18406209]

>>18406184
With Christ

[Anonymous No.18406218]

>>18406106
It doesn't make the unity any less real. For it is the unity(which is the creator/God) which births the multiplicity, and it is the unity to which the multiplicity is beholden to for it's continued existence.

[Anonymous No.18406221]

>>18406209
The problem with Christianity is that it's extremely hard to suspend my disbelief and believe in the NT's events, let alone the OT.

[Anonymous No.18406240]

>>18406221
There is a bit of leeway in what's literal and what's metaphorical in the bible. Tho the Gospels definitely have to be taken quite literally.

[Anonymous No.18406304]

>>18406106
Very Deleuzian lol

[Anonymous No.18406322]

>>18406138
>do pajeets not understand this?
How does Advaita repeat Buddhism?

>>18406164
Wrong, because the Atman is self-revealing, it always directly and intuitively experiences its own presence. Experiencing your own presence without being aware of anything else isn't being aware of nothing unless you believe that (you) *are* nothing, which Advaitins deny but which you seem to believe, according to the logic you are using.

[Anonymous No.18406331]

>>18406218
Do you consider "reality" to be God, the created multiplicity by God, or the combination of both God and His creation? Because depending on how you answer that changes whether or not you are ascribing mutually exclusive statuses to the same reality.

[Anonymous No.18406379]

Don't you realize it's the same thing in the end?

[Anonymous No.18406442]

>>18406331
All these things are real, as in they exist independent of our perception. God made creation, thus he is uncreated(distinct from the created) but nonetheless fully real. We who are created are likewise fully real, but are contigent beings i.e creatures. Only God is non-contigent and eternal(if that's what your definition of real is). Now you might say: but how can God participate in his attributes without being in contrast to creation and thus also codependent on it? Well, that's why God is a trinity, so that each of the 3 persons of the Godhead can enter into relation with the other ones, thus partaking in itself, through becoming other to it's self, so it can know itself and act on itself, as to be not reliant on creation but truly sovereign over it, for it already contains a multiplicity in itself which it can transcend.

[Anonymous No.18406514]

>>18406240
Why is Christianity the only tradition where there is no annihilation of memories and the ego? All other religions have esoteric branches where they teach of ego death and similar concepts, not Christianity.
Why is salvation so "easy"? I mean, there are no particular steps and milestones, you're saved and that's that, it sounds too good to be true.
It also implies that you can be saved without doing the necessary work to refine your soul and rise above the material which is something I don't understand.

[Anonymous No.18406518]

>>18406442
I'd like to add that I'm no master theologian, I'm just a dude trying to psyop himself into Christianity, so that he can lead a better life. But if you got more questions, go ahead.

[Anonymous No.18406541]

>>18406514
Bro Christianity isn't easy. You need extreme faith and remove yourself from all pride. You are only saved, if you undoubtetly believe your are, and give yourself into the hands of God. You refine your soul, you become cognizant of all the ways you defy and insult God on a daily basis, which is something you do so often as a normal person that you aren't even aware how you could do that. You need to absolutely love God, this is a transformation of your soul like no other. And there is no "just meditate long enough" copout, no you have to change the way you act, and the way you view your actions. It's quite radical.

[Anonymous No.18406589]

>>18406541
>give yourself into the hands of God.
I don't think I'm capable of just abandoning myself to a higher authority like that. I'm always doubtful and always retain a level of skepticism just in case. I guess it's not for me.

[Anonymous No.18406607]

>>18406514
>Why is there no annihilation of self and identity in Christianity
For a more metaphysical explanation:
Because in Christianity, you become in harmony to the One/God/Absolute. Instead of changing your identity from Human to absolute, you change the way the human identity relates to the absolute, so that it no longer opposes the absolute, but actively and willfully participates with it and consciously carries it's will out. Basically stop being a cancer cell in creation, serve God and creation, serve the absolute, so that the absolute will keep you going, for you aren't against it, and thus not something it will want to remove, for the absolute loves all of creation.

[Anonymous No.18406619]

>>18406442
>All these things are real, as in they exist independent of our perception. God made creation, thus he is uncreated(distinct from the created) but nonetheless fully real
In retrospect, what I should have asked was whether you consider if there is one single reality that unites everything, or multiple existing realities. If there there are multiple realities, one for creation and one for God, that's one position. If you say that the single same reality contains both God and the world, then when you say that mutually exclusive things both equally apply to this reality and are both equally true, that's where the contradiction arises because then you are attributing two mutually opposed statues to the same thing, the one reality.

[Anonymous No.18406637]

>>18406619
*mutually opposed statuses

[Anonymous No.18406681]

>>18406619
That's an interesting question. I'm not a theologian by any means, but I'll give it a try. What does constitute a reality tho? I mean we can say that this reality is derivative of God's reality, I guess. But if we speak of two different realities, we have to find a way of reconcilling both realities, as to make interaction between them possible. So that's why God had both Unity and Multiplicity in his triune nature I guess. So I find it hard to speak of different realities, seeing as one is contigent on the other, while the other isn't. Our reality rests on the bedrock which is the Godhead. Wait, now that I think about it - God the Father is not something we can encounter in reality, obviously, for he is that out of which reality came, but God, the Son and God, Holy Spirit are in this world, always interacting with us. So higher reality is partially plunging into the lower reality always. I hope that makes sense.

[Anonymous No.18407061]

>>18406607
How do Christians know that YHWH is the One?

[Anonymous No.18407100]

>>18407061
'YHWH' is just the name ancient Hebrews had for the One.

[Anonymous No.18407144]

>>18407100
Why would the One be wrathful and jealous like YHWH was in the Old Testament?

[Anonymous No.18407160]

>>18404268
read a book

[Anonymous No.18407166]

>>18407160
You're fucking stupid if you seriously think the distinction isn't a new age thing that has no bearing on actual spiritual practice.

[Anonymous No.18407295]

>>18407144
Imagine being the creator of the world and having to deal with dumbass jews. I'd be mad too.

[Anonymous No.18407365]

>>18407061
God must be triune, for him to be non-contigent origin of everything as was outlined above. Only the Christian God fullfills that claim. And only Christ promises a true reconcilliation with said God, for God becomes man in him, so that man can become (with) God in and through him. The higher plane of existence must descend into the lower one, to lift up the residents there, you can not come to God on your own, because you are a creature and he is uncreated. It makes no sense for things subject to change to participate in the changeless, without grace from the higher realm actively intervening on their behalf.

[Anonymous No.18407423]

>>18398288 (OP)
>>18404113

1) Pure individuation would mean disregarding all models of morality and culture, because they would influence your decisions and behaviour, which is a strong influence away from ones inner desires, and what they seek to escape in order to achieve pure individuation.

Also these Occultists who promote pure individuation teach (as every major religion used to) that true belief is reflected in decisions and actions, so a person can only truly disregard all models of morality and culture if they actively engage in things considered taboo or evil.

"You talk the talk, but do you walk the walk". If you can engage in evil or the taboo without feeling any guilt or shame, then you have no 'transcended' morality and culture. Hence why these Left Hand Occultists are always seen to be engaging in evil, or dressing in ways considered taboo.

2) Various studies have shown that the long term happiest and healthiest people have close positive relationships (both romantic and platonic), not people who live solitary lives. Solitary confinement is considered the worst punishment that can happen in place where you are already sent to be punished.

What that means is that our connections bring maximal happiness, not attempting to psychologically break ourselves from people, but actually building close positive relationships with others.

Although, traditional religions are generally disliked by modern people, a universal message is to form positive connections with God, other people, and nature. Not to psychologically and spiritually separate yourself from God, other people, and nature.

3) The people who teach pure individuation teach you to desire to become a God. Quite literally.

4) Christian esotericism IMO is very underrated. Although I'm not a Christian, it is my preferred form of spiritual guidance along with Sikhism. They both teach about God being the supreme intelligence whose nature is love, and the love of God being a Cosmic force which underlies, creates and sustains everything. They also both emphasize connection with God, people, nature, and your soul.

Recommended reading for esoteric Christianity; Franciscan spirituality, Emmanuel Swedenborg, Ilio Delio and Peter Denuov. I also recommend reading about Near Death Experiences e.g. God and the Afterlife: The Groundbreaking New Evidence for God and Near-Death Experience By Dr Jeffrey Lang and Paul Perry.

[Anonymous No.18407445]

>>18398288
>achieve true individuation instead of sinking into the void.
Kashmir Shaivism/Tantra

[Anonymous No.18407451]

>>18407423
This.

[Anonymous No.18407475]

>>18403510
Leave

[Anonymous No.18407523]

>>18407166
I'm not talking about the validity of the distinction, I'm talking about what the authors say themselves. And, anyway, the fact that the distinction "is" purely nominal isn't supported by everyone, even if its repeated all the time by non-reader conzoomers hung for easy and fast categorization.

[Anonymous No.18407892]

>>18407423
>form positive connections with God, other people, and nature.
What about just God and nature but not other people? I'm just not good at that.

[Anonymous No.18407920]

>>18407423
>reading about Near Death Experiences
These seem to contradict the Christian view, as do potent psychedelic experiences

[Anonymous No.18408237]

>>18407445
That's pure void though.

[Plotinus No.18408300]

>>18398288
Idiot. That dissolution into the One is also the birth from the One. The procession is revealed as the return -- there is nothing to realize, your self is the great Self.

>>18398761
Monad literally means One. Also, it's 'pleroma', and you don't become a god-like being. The spark of the divine is released back into the source, which is the divine fullness, what pleroma literally translates to.

>>18399079
Good, Kierkegaard was a negative theologian in a certain sense.

>>18399307
>Dichotomies between dualism and monism

All hierarchies inherent in mystic writing undo themselves.

[Anonymous No.18409268]

>>18401613
>there's a reason the crowd flocks to hermeticism and scoffs at gnosticism.
Yeah, Hermeticism has been an integral part of Western Esotericism since time immemorial; Gnosticism flickered into existence in antiquity only to get buried then rediscovered in the 50s to get fawned over by 21st century fedoralords in the next step of their spiritual evolution.