/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20545485]

Came across this chart on the /lit/ wiki and I really dig the bottom note.

I kinda wanna have a personal reading list of esoterica and philosophy. This is kinda in that realm but it's kinda vague.

Like, a list of books that work up and influence or compliment each other. So Hegel is the Father, but what compliments him? Then what's the pathway between him and D&G? Stuff like that.

[Anonymous No.20545487]

>>20545485
Add Sartre and Freud to your reading roster.

[Anonymous No.20545523]

>>20545487
anything specific?

for jung i'm thinking the portable reader to get a bit of everything, but flying saucers for the aesthetics as well

[Anonymous No.20545528]

Both Hegel and Deleuze are riffing on Spinoza so add his Ethics.
Getting a grasp on Kabbalah is going to be helpful too, Hegel was influenced by it and Spinoza grew up in that kind of environment. So check out Gershom Scholem's books on Kabbalah.

[Anonymous No.20545535]

>>20545523
You would like Aion a lot in terms of Jung. That and the red book if you want a description of his psychological journey to individuation

[Anonymous No.20545572]

>>20545485
Do ppl actually think Eva is deep? The only reason there’s Christian symbolism is because he thought it looked cool.

[Anonymous No.20545582]

Gravity's Rainbow

[Anonymous No.20545623]

>>20545572
filtered

[Anonymous No.20545692]

>>20545572
This. There’s nothing deep about Eva, or any anime for that matter.

[Anonymous No.20545713]

>>20545572
I wish It went full dark mecha instead of "muh rappresentation of my otaku childhood but hey at least I got pussy so everything is fine :) let's milk this franchise"

[Anonymous No.20545725]

Only chart I have but here you go

[Anonymous No.20545745]

>>20545572
>depth = Christian symbolism
What did anon mean by this

[Anonymous No.20545767]

>>20545572
Recs I’m looking for have nothing to do with Evangelion. I think the OP image just means the creator of that chart had a breakthrough (or breakdown) while watching the anime and helped him formulate his thoughts. Not that it has anything to do explicitly with those themes regardless of intent.

I just want to expand on that because it’s what I’m interested in.

I want to have a chart that just full on breaks down esoterica/occultism with Christian mysticism, the supernatural/paranormal, and philosophy.

[Anonymous No.20545789]

>>20545485
Hegel refuted Guenon's whole body of work in the preface of the phenomenology of spirit,Guenon system is a perfect example of a metaphysic of the absolute that lead you to a shapeless (dead) trascendental, or how he call it "the night in which all cats are black"

in a religious sense the literature that best fit Hegel is Buddhism, since their notion of anatta mirrors pretty well the change Hegel makes from an ontology of substance to an ontology of relationships, Meister ckhart or Jacob Boehme, which actually influence both Hegl and Schelling, Boehme posed a God that needed to evovle and find himself, a god that was in fact a beast on the beggining, satan in Boehme's philosophy is just an angel trying to copy the primal state of god as the supreme force of evil/chaos/destruction and humankind is created to function as a synthesis of both forces, the self conciouss God and the regressive force of lucifer, so you can clearly see the dialectical system in a mystical philosophy there
then as a praxis you can read the madhyamaka system which practice forms of meditations really close to the phenomenological practice Hegel created, or the existencial system of Sartre, another route is of course Heidegger

[Anonymous No.20545844]

[Anonymous No.20545881]

For the key Hegel and Fichte influence vis-á-vis mysticism, check out Jacob Boehme. The Signature of All Things is where I'd start. Very difficult work though.

For a more straight forward intro to German idealism that doesn't try to denude it of its religious elements, Gray's Kantian Reason and Hegelian Spirit.

For actually tackling the Phenomenology, Hackett's Hegel's Ladder. If you enjoy Hegel, check out Bradley and Whitehead.

Magee's book on Western esoterica is really good (he's just editor) for that stuff. I would stay away from Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition until you've read more mainline Hegel scholarship though, but it is a good book.

Meditations on the Tarot is a classic too.

With Jung, Psychology and Alchemy was my favorite. I actually preferred the work of his student Robert A. Johnson. He and Transformation in particular. Sanford The Man Who Walked With God too. These are all Jungian analysis of particular myths.

[Anonymous No.20545898]

>>20545881
Oh and someone already mentioned Schloem, but a second for that.

I've been very underwhelmed by Guanon but haven't read much. Man and His Symbols was underwhelming too. Jung's autobiography (ghost written when he was old) is a very accessible starting point too.

Not related so much, but also great, and from a similar era, is Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning.

[Anonymous No.20545921]

>>20545898
The Great Courses course on Gnosticism is surprisingly good too. The one in Abrahamic mysticism isn't great, but an ok primer. Same for the history of theology one, which covers Gnosticism poorly, but it solid on more mainstream trends.

They tie in in that understanding the patristics, Logos, Philo, Origen, diefication, Neo-Platonism, etc. is useful for understanding later esoterica.

[Anonymous No.20545926]

>>20545572
The Christian symbolism was mostly for cover, but the Freudian and existentialist symbolisms are central to the narrative

[Anonymous No.20546261]

>>20545582
I didn't see this one but I do think Gravity's Rainbow could fit in here.

I think this Nick Land chart seems kinda what I'm trying to build.

>>20545789
>>20545881
>>20545898
>>20545921
This is good stuff. I don't know anything about Guenon but seeing the contradiction might be cool. A kinda dialectic I guess?

[Anonymous No.20546406]

>>20545485
>evangelion
>muh esoterica and le deep knowledge
>reddit spacing
>needs charts to get interested in reading
Yep, it's pseud zoomin' time.

[Anonymous No.20546645]

>>20546406
> Yep, it's pseud zoomin' time.
Yep, it's pseud zoomin' time.

[Anonymous No.20547069]

>>20546645
>> Yep, it's pseud zoomin' time.
>Yep, it's pseud zoomin' time.
Yep, it's pseud zoomin' time.

[Anonymous No.20547380]

>>20546261
This is a pretty good introduction on Jacob Boehme.
https://youtu.be/93TrDJv8-_I

[Anonymous No.20548073]

>>20545487
>>20545523
Don't. Sartre is trash. I read the Roads to Freedom trilogy and found it wholly unimpressive. All psychiatry is garbage. Guenon is the master of symbolism and esoterica. If you want Kabbalah just get the penguin book on it, called something like the Kabbalistic tradition. Its a fine cross section of different texts that gives you a good overview to jump into primary texts. Personally I think understanding the vedic systems are more important, so again Guenon.

[Anonymous No.20548103]

>>20545789
Whats ironic about this post is that, as far as I've experienced, most forms of buddhist practice lead exactly to "the night in which all cats are black". As much as people want to deny it, it is a nihilistic system, at least when divorced of a traditional, cultural context. It can only function as a dissenting force away from more stable forms of tradition like sanatana dharma. At least thats my experience.

[Anonymous No.20548289]

Do you all think William Blake fits in here somewhere with the whole annihilation of god (or something like that)?

[Anonymous No.20548542]

cringe

[Anonymous No.20548567]

>>20545623
The author literally said that tho

[Anonymous No.20548585]

>>20548567
yeah and you're still filtered

[Anonymous No.20548743]

>>20548567
>>20548585
Kek. I don't remember saying that xD

[Anonymous No.20548793]

omg evangleion so deep
book are like, literally kino????
i am like a total skitzo for reading deep books xD

[Anonymous No.20548824]

>>20548103
>most forms of buddhist practice lead exactly to "the night in which all cats are black".
not really, because buddhism don't think the absolute is a shapeless thing, but something witha shapeless quality, but the nature of reality is to move and change, in that sense has the type of dalectical quality Heraclitus(which was another huge influence on Hegel) philosophy had, specially in the mahayana tradiiton in which history, society and culture are all improtant aspect of the practice

[Anonymous No.20549091]

>>20548103
>>20548824
Hegel and Buddha both thought that describing the absolute was a contradiciton in terms
they differed in their approach, to budha the absolute must be know throught personal practice, for Hegel the absolute must be know throught the historical development of the dialectic, one is more focused on the individual and the other in the collective, but in both cases the absolute is presented to the human mind as an articulation, a net of interdependent phenomena, beyond any particular construct but the dynamic itself that allows any construction

[Anonymous No.20549792]

>>20548793
>I don’t read for lulz

It was already said Eva has nothing to do with this list >>20545767

[Anonymous No.20549997]

>>20545535
Stop telling to people to read higher level Jung that will just confound them without the prerequisite schemas.
>>20545485 if you’re actually interested in parapsychology/phenomenonology/esoterica, read Jung’s Psychology and Alchemy so you aren’t blinded by a glimmer of light.

[Anonymous No.20550781]

>>20548289
William Blake's Self-Annihilation of God seems something interesting to look into. I believe it's first covered in America.

[Anonymous No.20550845]

>>20545572
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TISVubPMeM

>"The main image of dharmadhatu is that of space—the ‘space of all things’ within which all phenomena manifest, abide and dissolve back into. […] Dharmadhatu is the basic environment of all phenomena, whether they belong to samsara or nirvana. It encompasses whatever appears and exists, including the worlds and all beings.[…] The relationship between dharmadhatu, dharmakaya and [the wisdom of dharmadhatu is like the relationship between a place, a person and the person’s mind. If there is no place, there is no environment for the person to exist in; and there is no person unless that person also has a mind dwelling in the body. In the same way, the main field or realm called dharmadhatu has the nature of dharmakaya. Dharmakaya has the quality of [the wisdom of dharmadhatu], which is like the mind aspect. […] "Dharmadhatu is adorned with dharmakaya, which is endowed with [the wisdom of dharmadhatu]." This is a brief but very profound statement, because ‘dharmadhatu’ also refers to sugatagarbha or buddha nature." - Tulku Urgyen RInpoche

>The Self alone can comprehend the Self
>One can assuredly prove every truth; but every proof does not enter into all minds.
>The need of causality increases, not in proportion to knowledge, but in proportion to ignorance. For the sage, each star, each flower, metaphysically proves the Infinite.
>Once the ‘Flight of the Alone to the Alone’ has been accomplished, the Self will know its own Identity as clearly and infallibly as a river ‘knows’ its element upon merging with the sea.
>All know that the drop merges into the ocean but few know that the ocean merges into the drop.
>If you cleave the heart of one drop of water, there will issue from it a hundred oceans.

[Anonymous No.20550883]

>>20550845
Shinji was a high-level initiate, and the essence of metaphysics can be extrapolated from Neon Genesis Evangelion, it is an acosmic gnostic symphony, a transcendent narrative sketching the human state, traversing from ego and individuality to the absolute freedom of the divine personality - self.

Shinji followed the path to moksha, dealing with the ephemeral and phenomenal illusory conditions of adolescence, emotions all encompassed in not merely an indefinite spatio-temporal expanse, but infinity beyond.

[Anonymous No.20550893]

>>20550845
Shinji and Rei in Union is Bliss, Great completion.

[Anonymous No.20550924]

>>20550845
The creation of the universe is in this scene.

[Anonymous No.20550970]

>>20545789
Wouldn't Hegel be the opposite of Buddhism? Anatman is the idea that the perceiving self is an illusion. Hegel's philosophy is that self perceiving spirit is the basis for all existence. The idea of self positing spirit comes down from Boehme. Reality is the process of the Absolute becoming. So, our lives are then part of the reification and definition of "what is," that defines and generates the Absolute.

But in Buddhism our experience is an illusion that causes pain. I feel like the idea of nirvana touches Hegel in a horseshoe kind of way, but that they're very different.

>>20549091
But I suppose in this sense I can see the similarities more clearly.


>>20548103
I'm not really sure how this makes sense, except in the context of "tradition = good," parroted by Evola fanboys (which is ironic given he was selling a New Age style synchretic blend of traditions simply marketed with appeals to 'ancient authority.')

[Anonymous No.20550972]

>>20545485
Cringe. Madoka and the New Testament is a far better pairing.

[Anonymous No.20551072]

>>20545789
>Hegel refuted Guenon's whole body of work in the preface of the phenomenology of spirit,Guenon system is a perfect example of a metaphysic of the absolute that lead you to a shapeless (dead) trascendental, or how he call it "the night in which all cats are black"

Guenon never postulated anything new,
>madhyamaka
what about Yogachara, you misunderstand the the upanishadic (apophatic) atman,

>Hegel and Guénon are without a doubt among the greatest of gnostics of modern times, although in many ways they represent two fundamentally opposing paths or ‘pillars’ of the spiritual traditions of mankind. Hegel, with his undeniable tendency towards pantheism and his focus on history, could be said to represent the pillar of the (post-Christian) West, the ‘Heraclitian’ pole of immanence and movement, whereas Guénon (although he himself in many ways an apostate) sets out to propound a wisdom that is properly speaking pre-Christian, i.e. the ‘Parmenedian’ gnosis of the East, which remains firmly fixed in the ahistoricity of absolute transcendence. Having said this, it might be interesting to relate both of these thinkers to the theosophia of Jakob Böhme, who could in a certain sense be considered (in true Hegelian fashion) as a kind of means or ‘synthesis’ between both of these poles.

good read on a comparison between all three
https://sensuscatholicus.jimdofree.com/2020/12/05/theo-logic-hegel-and-gu%C3%A9non-in-light-of-b%C3%B6hmian-dialectics/

But since you think you Know that Hegel has refuted Guenon you must have some pretty convincing arguments which are not simply a matter of opinion, so go ahead.

[Anonymous No.20552455]

>>20550972
>cringe

[Anonymous No.20553031]

>>20550972
ngl I would be a christian if god was as cute as madoka

[Anonymous No.20553106]

>>20548567
>The author literally said that tho
After the fact. When the show first came out, he was actually serious. Then he decided to fuck with the fans. It's like how the title of the show went from him saying "I'll let you guys figure it out" to "lol just deep-sounding bs" even though the ending to EoE is the least subtle use of the Adam and Eve trope ever put to film.

[Anonymous No.20553116]

>>20550972
>be Anglicanism
>let priests marry
>they kill their families
Accurate show ngl.

[Anonymous No.20553418]

>>20545485
Add Sartre and Freud to your reading roster.

[Anonymous No.20554336]

>>20551072
>you must have some pretty convincing arguments which are not simply a matter of opinion, so go ahead.
i already told them they're in the preface of the phenomenology of spirits, from paragraph 13 to 18, the Hegelian concept of "the night in which all cats are black" is a refutation on the knowledge by intuition and lack of articulation Guenon and Shankara promoted everyone who read some Hegel knows the intense hate Hegel had to the "mystics" that pose an intuitive knowledge that you can't prove or articulate
and no, Hegel is the opposite of a gnostic, the real world is this one, that's the whole point of the phenomenology(a form of ontology that doesn't need a noumenic world, just aphenomenologial one) there's no tarscendental world, he think all "trascendental" worlds are a trick of the spirit, he calls it the inverted world in the third chapter of the phenomenology "force and understanding", a world made of logical conclutions and no real determination, when the necessity of logic goes against the determination of reality
and the parmenidean absolute being is already refuted in the first chapter of the phenomenology "sense certainty"

[Anonymous No.20554386]

>>20550970
>Anatman is the idea that the perceiving self is an illusion.
you can think the anatman as negation in hegelian terms, determinated negation to be more precise, things have an identity not because they have something trascendental in them, but because the way they can be negated is determinated,a chair can become(negate) a bunch of ashes or wood, but not a gnome or a piece of steel, even if it's destroyed completly, the way in which is destroyed and what remains is still coherent with the notion of a chair, and the ashes that remains can be dissipated in the air but not become a pancake, what gives entity to themind is not an eternal soul but the specific kamric configuration that will in turn decide the new karmic confugurations it will develop, in a fire the mind of a firefighter will react differently than the mind of a little girl
the need of a self posting spirit, of an articulation can be seen in buddhism in the need of following a path of liberation, which is an articulation of self positing too, you're overlaping your individuality over the samsaric pulsion, but you're not putting a trascendental being over samsara, you're reating it in the moment, desire in the most strict sense, is any thing you do without you realising it that you do t, without you being aware and saying in a existencial manner "i'm dong this thing" that's why the notion of choice or responsability in buddhism is so important https://youtu.be/rpbqwGDpUR8
in the end the phenomenological notion of a self positioning is still present, even if it's not called self, or even non-self
also both buddha and hegel both pose as the most pure form of the absolute the notion of freedom, the absolute sprit realize itself when menis free from the ignorance of a less complete gestalt of cognition and in buddhism the men is realized when is free from suffering, which is the functional aspect of ignorance, you suffer because you remain ignorant of the laws of the world(dharma)

[Anonymous No.20554394]

>>20554336
>read some Hegel knows the intense hate Hegel had to the "mystics" that pose an intuitive knowledge that you can't prove or articulate
This is false. Intuitive knowledge which you can't prove or articulate in essence is precisely what guénon was talking about.
>Hegel is the opposite of a gnostic, the real world is this one, that's the whole point of the phenomenology(a form of ontology that doesn't need a noumenic world, just aphenomenologial one) there's no tarscendental world, he think all "trascendental" worlds are a trick of the spirit, he calls it the inverted world in the third chapter of the phenomenology "force and understanding", a world made of logical conclutions and no real determination, when the necessity of logic goes against the determination of reality
This is because of the negative approach of Hegel, which is entirely consistent with Guénon, and there is no necessity of logic postulated by guénon etc. The necessity of logic goes against the indeterminable nature of reality, which is in now way reducible to determination.
>and the parmenidean absolute being is already refuted in the first chapter of the phenomenology "sense certainty"
False it is not a certainty founded in senses, but precisely in the apophatic negative method, which Hegel himself employs.

The Nothing is the absolute being, that which is neither Being nor Non-Being, something Beyond being, is both supra-rational and therefore not confined to reason or logic as something primordially unproduced - without linguistic and conceptual elaborations or discriminations, unenframed by any sort of lesser objectification including "Heraclitean Flux" which is merely a phenomenal mode of that which is produced being.

You have refuted nothing, and don't realise that the Transcendental reality is infact that reality you describe by the same negative denials, but Manifestation itself is only a reflection of or say spatio-temporal objectified extension, of that primoridally pure Being.

To assert no there is No transcendental reality But this reality! (Which is The reality according to your own subjective ideality - and therefore the Transcendental reality) is sophistry, and your failure to recognise the unground is also a mistake.

[Anonymous No.20554410]

>>20545485
why is there so much fucking /x/ crossover on /lit/ these days?

[Anonymous No.20554430]

>>20554386
>things have an identity not because they have something trascendental in them, but because the way they can be negated is determinated,a chair can become(negate) a bunch of ashes or wood
That to say that way is the all and nothing that is transcendental in them sophist.
"Karmic configuration" as if that there were anything other than name and form, or the lack thereof.

You're soulless buffoon, and obviously are not capable of seeing through the human modality, or of an ascent to higher state of being, you reduce spirit to merely the ego, and the mind.
But once you negate these - or rather liberate them, then the primoridal unborn, immortal, immutable, impervious, pure, free, beginningless and endless spirit is unveiled.

[Anonymous No.20554434]

>>20545485
You will never be a schizophrenic.

[Anonymous No.20554435]

>>20554410
What is /x/ about this thread philosophy has always been discussed on /lit/

[Anonymous No.20554486]

>>20554394
I have not read much Guenon, but what I have read seemed like it was pretty much repeating Sankara, although in Western terms, while also shitting on a lot of Western philosophy in fairly hubristic terms (which is sadly sort of par for the course for a certain type of post-Nietzsche philosopher).

I don't see how this jives with Hegel because he explicity rejects anything approaching a Maya / reality dichotomy. Maybe there are other major similarities, but that seems like a pretty big gulf, unless later Guenon works get further from Adaveta orthodoxy (but people in Guenon threads have told me this isn't the case).

Particularly, I think Hegel's fast hold on the logical would preclude the sort of "truly instantiated falsehood" of Maya, as falling into an excluded middle.

[Anonymous No.20554785]

>>20550781
Kinda looks like bro is giving dude top from this angle.

[Anonymous No.20554841]

>>20554394
>This is false
no is not, read th e preface paragraphs 13 to 18
>Intuitive knowledge which you can't prove or articulate in essence is precisely what guénon was talking about.
exactly, and hegel refuted it as a contradictory form of epistemology, again read the preface and the firts chapter of the phenomenology
>The necessity of logic goes against the indeterminable nature of reality, which is in now way reducible to determination.
reality is reason and reason is reality, that the main idea of Hegel's phenomenology, if something can't be articulated then it has no value, it's just an edifyig idea, the product of the substantiallity of a particular cultural moment
>False it is not a certainty founded in senses
you didn't read the chapter, hegel is refuting the idea that you can derive any absolute certainty from using the apophatic method in the senses, like parmenides or shankara did, since any "being" you find will end up leading to multiplisity, you can only find being by a contrast with multiplisity, thus creating two substances one of unity and another one of multiplicity, thus a duality that end up being multiple in nature, and then the dialectic starts, since the form of conciousness that seems to bring thrut end up in contradiction,
>- without linguistic and conceptual elaborations
you're using linguistics and conceptual elaborations right now, the idea that something can exist outside ideas is in the end: an idea
>nd therefore not confined to reason or logic
this again goies against th eHegelian system, the absolute is rational and each attempt to find something beyond reason will fail, since you're using reason to find it and articulate it, so it's self defeating

>and don't realise that the Transcendental reality is infact that reality you describe by the same negative denials, but Manifestation itself is only a reflection of or say spatio-temporal objectified extension, of that primoridally pure Being.
this is really cute, but you can't prove it, you can just tell yourself that how reality really works, but that's what Hegel called "edifying ideas" make you feel good about existence but they have no real fundament or backbone

[Anonymous No.20554860]

>>20545713
>otaku childhood but hey at least I got pussy so everything is fine
books for this feel?

[Anonymous No.20554957]

>>20554841
Reason and Rationalism is absolute, kek.
>this is really cute, but you can't prove it
Its not about "proof"or "reason" as such, and given your exposition here that hegel defaults to the merely rational, and not intuitive, i find entertaining.

>you're using linguistics and conceptual elaborations right now, the idea that something can exist outside ideas is in the end: an idea
Everything I am talking about is primarily Experiential, and it not abour debate, proof or anything of that nature. It's not discursive or rational, and it does not even require logic, all those things are nothing in comparison to the whole.
>reality is reason and reason is reality
What do you even mean by reason in this usage here?
I'm sorry but my respect for Hegel has now plummeted, at least in the way you have presented him, and it seems to just be sterile intellectualism with no grounding in experience, limited.

[Anonymous No.20554984]

> main character rejects instrumentality and all pseudo-religious vaguely philosophical occultism and psychologizing
> dude, the message is like pursue esoteric gnosis

[Anonymous No.20554995]

>>20545572
It’s much deeper than most anime and indeed most television series and movies, so yes.

[Anonymous No.20554996]

>>20554841
I will ask you one question, what makes you think there is an equivalence between this imagined "Reason" Absolute, and the Absolute conceived as such?

[Anonymous No.20555003]

>>20554957
>Everything I am talking about is primarily Experiential
that's an argument, an articulation, something mediated bewteen experience and conceptualisation, so you can't use it to prove there's something outisde logic, since you can only use logic to prove it
>I'm sorry but my respect for Hegel has now plummeted,
go read Guenon if you find he gives something to you, if you wanna read german idealism that goe a little more in line with Guenon try Schelling

[Anonymous No.20555031]

>>20555003
>that's an argument, an articulation,
It's not an argument, I am not citing it for evidence, I can only point it out, since it requires a modification in your conciousness, which is not merely phenomenal, or even a modification, there is no discursive activity in this state, and there is no reason as such beyond what is, and all reason is in this case is at most a contingent extension of the essential principle, and when taken independently as an absolute in itself it is strictly nill.
I can tell you are here to debate, but that is meaningless.

[Anonymous No.20555038]

>>20555031
So when you say "reason" is absolute, intuitively given that this is to condition the absolute with the limitation and constraint of concept, I infact know it to be false and just truly void remark, if you don't see where I am coming from, then that's fine, and you can go ahead and deconstruct my position which is not in any way philosophical.

[Anonymous No.20555047]

>>20555003
>that's an argument, an articulation, something mediated bewteen experience and conceptualisation
No that is false i am not referring to a concept, or some sort of conceptualisation, but to the spontaneous presence of experience unbound by any unreal conceptual discrimination.

[Anonymous No.20555255]

>>20554996
>this imagined "Reason" Absolute, and the Absolute conceived as such?
there's no division, in Hegel's system the substance is equal to the subject, that is the absolute as a thing and the absolute as a concept are the same thing

[Anonymous No.20555298]

>>20555031
>It's not an argument,
it is, you can think is not, but you're arguing that "everything you talked about is experiential"
>, I am not citing it for evidence,
you don't need to cite evidence to make an argument

>since it requires a modification in your conciousness
you don't know that, you're taking for granted a what conciousness is, and how it work
>which is not merely phenomenal
how do you know that?
>>there is no discursive activity in this state
again, you don't know that and in fact you can't prove it, since if you prove it you would be proving that conciousness has a logical system, you just blindly believe that conciousness is some kind of void or substratum in which all things happen as an illusion, but you have no proof of that, just blind faith
>and all reason is in this case is at most a contingent extension of the essential principle
an essential principle that you can't prove it exist
>>20555038
>I infact know it to be false and just truly void remark,
yo u can't "know" it, because reason is the act of knowing itself, that's the whole point, you don't "know" that's false, you "want to believe" it's false because it goes against edifying ideas that makes reality less scary for you
>>20555047
>i am not referring to a concept,
>but to the spontaneous presence of experience unbound by any unreal conceptual discrimination.
that's a concept right there bro, in tibetan buddhism is called alaya

[Anonymous No.20555575]

>>20555031
>It's not an argument, I am not citing it for evidence, I can only point it out, since it requires a modification in your conciousness, which is not merely phenomenal, or even a modification, there is no discursive activity in this state, and there is no reason as such beyond what is, and all reason is in this case is at most a contingent extension of the essential principle, and when taken independently as an absolute in itself it is strictly nill.
all of this is an argument, and what's more important, is not only anargument to your interlocutor, but an argument that you tell yourself, if conciousness really is a thing outside of conceptualisation, then you shouldn't even be able to think, let alone say it's beyond conceptualization, the fact that you do in fact argue for a conciousness beyond reason, means that this "conciousness beyond reason" is mediated by the concept of a conciousness beyond reason, you're contradicting yourself
>>20555038
>with the limitation and constraint of concept
there's no real limitation in concept, since a concept can always create another concept, the concept has determination, not limitation, everything can be conceptualized given enough time for the articulaion to develop, if you can think there's "something beyond conceptualisation" then you already started the process of conceptualisation

[Anonymous No.20555619]

>>20555298
You don't seem to understand really, I know this because I have experienced the voidness of reality, and the impermanence and interdependence of reality tangibly, this has nothing to to with an intellectual understanding, it is apparent, if you enter a state where time ceases and space no longer exists, you to will come to understand, the unrealnesss of reality which is indeed phenomenal,

The essential principle is observable, not expressible,
All this is observable not expressible or provable, I can't give you my eyes or these states.
>that's a concept right there bro hurr Dur
The concept or name, or whatever doesn't matter, it can be left unexpressed,
>because reason is the act of knowing itself, that's the whole point, you don't "know" that's false,
No it's not knowing in that ordinary sense,

I'm not continuing this discussion,


It cannot be proved, or measured, something which is beyond time and space is so small it is immeasurable, what sort of "proof" are you talking about, what I am talking about cannot be rationally deduced. So there's no point continuing
I've already explained how I know that, and I cannot reveal it all to you,

It's Not a matter of belief. It's a matter of experience, if someone cuts your arm off, is being armless a matter of belief?

That all things are illusory, in the sense that they are mutable, impermanent, interdependent, and so on, is self-evident, eat something nice and watch the sensation come and go, or observe the coming and going of thoughts,

[Anonymous No.20555656]

>>20555575
None of it is an argument I am recounting my own experiences. Reality is nothing without its essential unity, reason is nothing too.

[Anonymous No.20555689]

>>20555575
What is the criteria for proof? That's all you need to answer, be specific.

[Anonymous No.20555705]

>>20555619
It can only be pointed to with reason, but that reason is in itself Limited, it can only serve as an initial symbol, and so on. There's not much else to it, I don't see the point of what you are trying to get at by "refuted" and so on. It's nonsensical, and assumes that this limited criteria of reason is absolutely everything.

[Anonymous No.20555752]

>>20555619
>I know this because I have experienced the voidness of reality,
that's fine bro, but that doesn't make it less subjective, you can't back your points with subjective experiences if you want to provide any type of objectivity to you position

[Anonymous No.20555769]

>>20545487
Why?

[Anonymous No.20555885]

>>20555619
>The essential principle is observable, not expressible,
the problem with that is that you're posing this principle throught reason, any fundament that you try to posit will be inevitable a concept, so saying that there's something beyond concept is self defeating, becaus "there's something beyond concepts"is on itself a concept
and what's even worstm how can you "know" what did you observe if you don't rely on cocnepts to make that which was observed something articulated, something for knowledge, saying that something can be experienced but not know is a contradiction in terms, experience is knowledge, and knowledge is exprience, you can go to a mountain, but without any concept of the mountain you couldn't even remember what that mountain was, since your memorie s and fellings are ordered with concepts(the concept of a semll, of a color, of a sensation),you can't understand what a mountain is, let alone tell other about it, you may as well stay at home
but how can you aquire knowledge without conceptualisation?
if this is something that can only be know throught contradictions and inarticulation, then why are you wasting your time trying to articulate it here?

[Anonymous No.20556085]

>>20545789
.

[Anonymous No.20557556]

bump

[Anonymous No.20558090]

Im not getting anything out of the reign of quantity bro's, really interesting books but am i just too retarded or should i read something before these ?

[Anonymous No.20558453]

>>20558090
Maybe check out this list?

[Anonymous No.20558462]

It fucked up. Try this one.

[Anonymous No.20558691]

>>20555885
Having fully relinquished all reference points
Of apprehended objects and apprehending subjects,
Since the nature of mind is inconceivable,
One should not think of anything whatsoever.
When the nature of mind is submerged within the empty,
And the empty is well-submerged within the mind,
Concepts of empty, not empty, and so forth,
Are destroyed, leaving the mind like the sky.

[Anonymous No.20558822]

>>20547069
c c c c c c combo breaker

[Anonymous No.20558883]

>>20558462
thank you ! looks good

[Anonymous No.20559974]

>>20555769
evangelion

[Anonymous No.20560012]

>>20553106
This, once you get what he's referencing it becomes pretty clear that it was intentional.

[Anonymous No.20560059]

>>20560012
So the ending of EoE leads into the rebuilds in a way?