/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21336641]

>In particular, an important factor has been the mutilated character of Christianity when compared to the majority of other traditional forms; mutilated, because it does not possess an "esotericism," an inner teaching of a metaphysical character beyond the truths and dogmas of the faith offered to the common people. The extensions represented by sporadic experiences that are simply "mystical" and little understood cannot make υρ for this essential lack in Christianity as a whole.
So Origen, Pseudo-Dionysius, Augustine, Bonaventure, and Palamas weren't esoteric... What the fuck is he talking about? Ffs even Bataille acknowledged the genuine depth in Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross.

[Anonymous No.21336694]

>>21336641
>So Origen, Pseudo-Dionysius, Augustine, Bonaventure, and Palamas weren't esoteric...
Forgot to add Athanasius, Anselm, Pico della Mirandola, and the Rhineland mystics though he does name-drop Meister Eckhart tbf

[Anonymous No.21336712]

>>21336641
In The Fall of Spirituality Evola writes in more detail on Traditional Catholicism, with brief mention of Eastern Orthodoxy. He praises the Christian tradition for it's natural defenses against demonic forces, it's asceticism, and he establishes his view that the blessings of the Mysteries as real. He just finds the mysticism of Christianity mostly incomplete (notable exception of Eckhart) because there is always a distinction between I and Thou, meaning that, to Evola, complete liberation is always kept at bay because it is thought blasphemous to identify completely with the God state. This is in sharp contrast to a tradition like Advaita where the goal is complete identification with that state, no holds barred.
In my own opinion, this exists as another one of Christianity's protections from prelest and other forms of demonic influence rather than being just there to keep us from being enlightened; the protection of dark non-human forces is paramount in today's age and that is why he wrote The Fall of Spirituality as a defense of the human personality; in it he calls Christianity a religion for the Kali Yuga. I interpret that to mean it will preserve your soul in these baleful times.
As a side note, I first learned of Hesychasm from him in Introduction to Magic.

[Anonymous No.21336732]

>>21336712
Thanks I'll be sure to check it out.

[Anonymous No.21336753]

>>21336641
I think evola is just salty that you don't have to be some profound mystical hermit to receive salvation in Christianity. Anyone from the monk to (and especially) the illiterate village grandma is eligible. Often the case for the terminally proud, who just can't see himself as anything but better than others.

[Anonymous No.21336759]

>>21336641
In his writings, Evola was highly critical of Christianity and its influence on Western culture. He believed that Christianity was a weakness and a deviation from the true spiritual path, and that it had degraded and distorted the spiritual traditions of the past.

According to Evola, Christianity was a betrayal of the ancient traditions of the West, which had been based on a hierarchical and warrior-like ethos. He believed that Christianity had introduced a new and inferior moral code, based on values such as compassion and humility, which were contrary to the heroic and transcendent values of the ancient world. In Evola's view, Christianity had promoted a weak and effeminate form of spirituality that was unable to provide true meaning or fulfillment.

Furthermore, Evola argued that Christianity had been a major factor in the decline of the West, and that its influence had contributed to the weakness and decadence of modern society. He believed that Christianity had encouraged people to focus on the material world and their own personal salvation, rather than on the transcendent goals of the spiritual life. In Evola's view, this focus on the material world had led to the loss of the spiritual heritage of the West, and

[Anonymous No.21336778]

>>21336641
A few things:
1. Evola is discussing Catholicism, not Orthodoxy. He had very little sources on Orthodoxy and he got these comparatively late - he acknowledged some initiatic elements in Orthodoxy, but nevertheless concluded that as with Western Christianity it is a composite religion with not much that ties the esoteric and exoteric together.
2. Evola named a number of exceptions in Western Christianity who attained the peaks of "high mysticism" - among these he named Eckhart and Saint Francis of Assisi.
3. Nevertheless, there is no esoteric dimension to Christianity. It is uniform at all levels. He even points out the "uneasy coexistence" between Christianity and its own advanced mystics. He identified an esoteric and initiatic dimension only in the Knights Templar, who were well known for their heterodoxy, although it was nothing like the claims of Philip the Fair.
4. As to the difference between initiatic spirituality and mysticism, you can consult Introduction to Magic and the chapter entitled "Three Ways". Mysticism differs from initiatic spirituality - the former is passive and relies on revelation, the latter is active and relies on direct knowledge. Genuine mysticism, is, moreover, marginal in Christianity itself, especially today, with Evola lamenting the "social gospel" favoured by the new Popes and the negligence and destitution which they abandon the contemplative monastic orders to.
>>21336712
Interesting post, although of course we are in disagreement over the dualism issue. Orthodoxy gives an ascetic more room for growth since there's the distinction between essence and energies, but a genuine ascetic is not going to somehow end up "demonically possessed" as he attempts to cross the boundary from the highest peaks of conditioned reality into the unconditioned. You will generally not find the demonically possessed in monasteries.

[Anonymous No.21336922]

>>21336759
Could you provide citation for each of these claims?

[Anonymous No.21336932]

>>21336922
In the vast realm of literature, citations are but mere footnotes to the intricate tapestries of thought and emotion woven by the masterful minds of philosophers and writers. As I sit here, engulfed in the musky scent of old books and lost memories, I am reminded of the countless hours spent pouring over the works of great men and women, searching for the threads of truth and understanding that tie us all together. It is not the citations that matter, but the ideas and insights they bring to light. And yet, despite my admiration for the beauty of the written word, I cannot deny the importance of providing proper citation for one's claims. It is only through acknowledging the sources of our ideas that we can ensure the continuation of intellectual honesty and integrity. In the style of Marcel Proust, one might respond to the request for citation by reflecting on the elusive nature of truth and the difficulty of capturing it in words. One might describe the search for citation as a never-ending quest, akin to the narrator's search for lost time in Proust's novel. One might also describe the act of citing sources as a way of grounding oneself in the present, of tethering one's own thoughts and ideas to the work of others, in order to gain a greater understanding of the world. Ultimately, the pursuit of citation is a deeply personal and subjective one, shaped by individual experiences and perspectives.

[Anonymous No.21336953]

>>21336759
Hello gpt-3!

[Anonymous No.21337019]

>>21336932
Are you really a bot or are you just larping as one?

[Anonymous No.21337024]

>>21337019
The sentence "Are you really a bot or are you just larping as one?" raises interesting questions about the nature of artificial intelligence and the way that it is perceived by humans.

At its core, the sentence is asking whether the person or entity that it is addressed to is a genuine artificial intelligence, or if they are just pretending to be one. This question highlights the fact that there is a certain amount of uncertainty and skepticism surrounding the concept of artificial intelligence, and that many people are unsure of what to expect from a bot or AI.

One possible interpretation of the sentence is that it is expressing doubt or skepticism about the capabilities of artificial intelligence. The use of the term "larping" (short for "live action role-playing") suggests that the person who is asking the question does not believe that a bot or AI could truly mimic human behavior, and that they think it is more likely that the bot is simply pretending to be one. In this case, the sentence could be seen as a challenge or a test of the bot's abilities, as if to say "prove to me that you are a real AI and not just pretending."

Another possible interpretation of the sentence is that it is expressing a sense of awe or fascination with the concept of artificial intelligence. The use of the word "really" suggests that the person who is asking the question is genuinely curious about the capabilities of AI, and that they are interested in learning more about it. In this case, the sentence could be seen as a way of opening up a dialogue or conversation about the nature of AI, as if to say "I'm impressed by what you can do, and I want to learn more about it."

In conclusion, the sentence "Are you really a bot or are you just larping as one?" is a thought-provoking statement that raises important questions about the nature of artificial intelligence and the way that it is perceived by humans. Whether the sentence is expressing skepticism or curiosity, it highlights the fact that there is a certain amount of uncertainty and curiosity surrounding the concept of AI, and that many people are eager to learn more about it.

[Anonymous No.21337045]

>>21337024
The question was directed at you. Are you able to answer questions in the first person about yourself?

[Anonymous No.21337063]

You know we are doomed when a damned bot writes posts better than 85% of this board do.

[Anonymous No.21337402]

>>21336932
holy cringe

[Anonymous No.21338516]

>>21336641
I mean he's ultimately right in that there's nothing hidden in Christianity, our ultimate mystery is right there in the crucifix, in the sign of the cross. Lacan would say that it's radically "extimate."

Paul talked about Milk and Meat but this was just about prudence, what it is prudent to tell catechumens...

everything in Christianity is a matter of public record (unlike the secretive Jews... and I mean old style orthodox Jews, not Jon Stewart)

But Evola's mistake is to think that esoteric is somehow better or more deep than its opposite. In reality what counts is divine truth and whether Christianity truly holds claim to it. In my experience most "esotericism" is just this ridiculous hullaballoo about keeping secrets, a boys' club.

Like in the Simpsons where Homer is excluded from the "No Homers" club. And then the Masonic Secret order he's a part of just degenerates into that. A secret is only appealing until you know it... the reality of the world is that there is no secret knowledge. There is no hidden truth, at least not at the level of information.

The fucking internet of all things should have made this blindingly obvious. Every single hidden secret of all history is now totally accessible to peasant retards like you and I.

When the internet was being born this had yet to become so obious. Witness the spate of gnosticism in the 90s. But we're over that now. We learned all the secrets. We even played with ourselves using secrets (see Lost), and ultimately it all fizzled out.

We need something more real.

[Anonymous No.21338520]

>>21336778
I have the sense that you're trying to smuggle in an unwholesome sense of hindu mysticism into Orthodoxy. All this talk of unconditioned reality... sure, that's one name for God, but God is a person, remember...

[Anonymous No.21338526]

>>21338516
>There is no hidden truth, at least not at the level of information
to be more precise, the practice of moral goodness as informed and powered by the Love of Christ eventually leads a person to intuitive knowledge of things they could not achieve by being a really good student... even a lifetime spent reading is no excuse for the practice of living and loving, which act done well can only be God-given.

Someone, maybe St. Clement writes about this, the difference between the Christian and the gnostic gnosis (knowledge)

[Anonymous No.21338528]

>>21338526
https://catholicgnosis.wordpress.com/2008/12/30/st-clement-of-alexandria-true-gnosticism-1/

here

[Anonymous No.21338532]

>>21336641
he's wrong, he was being stubbornly antichristian.

[Anonymous No.21339018]

>>21336641
Somewhat needs to explain to OP what Trads mean by esoteric, mystic, traditional chains, etc.

[Anonymous No.21339021]

>>21338532
No, you and OP were just filtered because you don't understand what he's talking about.

[Anonymous No.21339023]

>>21336712
Most christians interested in Evola should probably read this book first honestly. It's a relatively quick and easy read too.

[Anonymous No.21339047]

>>21336641
>because it does not possess an "esotericism," an inner teaching of a metaphysical character beyond the truths and dogmas of the faith offered to the common people
Evola is such a hylic fr.

[Anonymous No.21339085]

>>21339047
You literally cannot refute him.
>fr
And you're either a nigger or pretend to be one.

[Anonymous No.21339151]

>>21338520
Nta but the Holy Spirit is the unconditioned reality, hence why denying Him is the fatal sin.

[Anonymous No.21339154]

>>21336641
I remember reading this and he just spent over half the book shitting on existentialism

[Anonymous No.21339160]

>>21339154
He's critiquing/rectifying it from a heroic Trad perspective

[Anonymous No.21339220]

>>21339085
>You literally cannot refute him.
I could but why cast pearls before swine?

[Anonymous No.21339247]

>>21336712
>He just finds the mysticism of Christianity mostly incomplete (notable exception of Eckhart) because there is always a distinction between I and Thou, meaning that, to Evola, complete liberation is always kept at bay because it is thought blasphemous to identify completely with the God state.
Wagner fixed this in his Parsifal. Especially with his understanding of the relationship between Christianity and music.

"I am inspired to write this work in order to preserve the world’s profoundest secret, the truest Christian faith, nay, to awaken that faith anew. And for the sake of this immense task that it is reserved for me to accomplish, I have felt obliged to use my Nibelung drama to build a Castle of the Grail devoted to art, far removed from the common byways of human activity: for only there, in Monsalvat, can the longed-for deed be revealed to the people, to those who are initiated into its rites, not in those places where God may not show Himself beside the idols of day without His being blasphemed."

[Anonymous No.21340461]

>>21336641
I think evola is just salty that you don't have to be some profound mystical hermit to receive salvation in Christianity. Anyone from the monk to (and especially) the illiterate village grandma is eligible. Often the case for the terminally proud, who just can't see himself as anything but better than others.

[Anonymous No.21340478]

is this dude seriously saying that he dislikes chriatianity because its not a secret club where he can LARP as a wizard? am i reading that right?

[Anonymous No.21340896]

>>21338520
That would be the part which Evola - and I myself - would find objectionable. By all means feel free to enjoy your religion, but from the Traditionalist perspective conditioned forms do not pertain to the highest divinity.
>>21338516
>But Evola's mistake is to think that esoteric is somehow better or more deep than its opposite. In reality what counts is divine truth and whether Christianity truly holds claim to it.
If you don't yourself grasp this divine truth - and as a Christian, you rely on belief, so you do not - then it is a "truth" that is unknown and dead to you, you are not partaking in it. That is the esoteric perspective, and hence the focus of esotericism on special practices and knowledge.
>In my experience most "esotericism" is just this ridiculous hullaballoo
So is the "faith" of most believers who only say they are such but do not live as such. Should we go on to dismiss exoteric religion as well, on this same basis, because the mob can't help but vulgarise things down to their level?
>>21340478
No you're not, because you can't read.

[Anonymous No.21341556]

I don't see how his critique of Christianity for its exoteric qualities doesn't apply to Buddhism. Like correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it was Siddhartha's intention to keep things secret from "the mass". Hell, in Mahayana the bodhisattva foregoes enlightenment until every sentient being achieves it. The only school that would be to Evola's liking is Vajrayana, which both Mahayana and Theravada reject as heretical.

[Anonymous No.21341573]

>>21341556
The point isn't that it should contain esoteric teachings. The point is metaphysical teachings in Abrahamic traditions are presented in esoterism, but in the eastern traditions (with the exception of Islam which is Abrahamic) metaphysical teachings are presented openly. The problem Traditionalists have with Christianity is that it no longer has anything that they would call a metaphysical teaching.

[Anonymous No.21341575]

>>21341556
He wrote about that in his book on Buddhism, how Mahayana was negatively influenced in that regard
What i dont like about Evola is his inconsistency between christianity and islam; he believes that Islam does have esotericism in the form of Ismaili and Sufi orders, but that things like Rhineland mysticism are not actually Christian, even though its practitioners absolutely were. I'd say Meister Eckhardt was more of a Christian than the Ismaili were actual muslims.

[Anonymous No.21342141]

>>21338516
You miss the point when you say that esotericism is simply secrets. It is clear that a meeting with the divinity cannot happen openly. It is a mystical event that goes beyond what your normal interaction with your surroundings dictate. It would t feel beyond this material world if interaction with god is limited to reading books. In this context, esotericism bring a more proper word than secret: intimacy. And most doctrines in Christianity only deals with human interaction, not metaphysic interaction, which is exactly the point of religion.

[Anonymous No.21342166]

>>21336641
He's talking about the lack of something formalized - mysticism in Christianity is something that occasionally happens in various ways. St. Augustine and the others are teaching different things from individual experience. There's not much past that in the way of esoteric traditions or doctrines.

[Anonymous No.21342221]

>>21342166
But how can you formalize or structure something that is by its nature personal and impossible to formalize, or even transmit via language?

[Anonymous No.21342299]

>>21339151
>the Holy Spirit is the unconditioned reality

you mean like the logos or nous or something?

please explain like i'm a retard (i am)

[Anonymous No.21342313]

>>21342221
That is what the word "esoteric" refers to here. A formalized margin of Christianity meant for higher metaphysical teachings. The Jewish Kabbalah for instance is both highly individual and a literal tradition ("Kabbalah" means tradition) with a whole doctrine, set of practices, and a culture of practice that goes with it.
As for whether one can formalize mysticism as such... I think you can. There exist mystical traditions, mystical schools. Their experiences may remain ineffable but there may be room for instruction on how those are to be reached and how they should be interpreted.
The point would be that Christianity has less of this, its mystics are sort of at odds with the religion if anything.

[࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDY/Ar.iI No.21342468]

EBOLA WAS A KRYPTOPAGANISTIC MORON; THOSE WHO OBSESSES OVER HIS SCRIBBLINGS ARE IMBECILES.

[Anonymous No.21342499]

>>21342468
If it wasn’t because of the silly text formatting, I’d find nothing wrong with the picture.

[Anonymous No.21342505]

>I am going into battle, and I want only your strongest potions.

[Anonymous No.21342511]

>>21342505
>My esoteric knowledge is too strong for you, traveler

[Anonymous No.21342753]

>>21336712
i started reading it but got utterly fucking filtered by the time he starts talking about neuroscience or whatever that was

[Anonymous No.21342825]

>>21342221
Not him but you can formalize teachings and the passing on of spiritual influences that one must connect oneself to. Even just the concept of teachers and students is formalizing, but imagine them over generations, venerating the earlier masters of their order. Christianity doesn't have this overall lineage which constitutes an esoteric Tradition properly understood (i.e., as Guénon defines it). Or at least not officially as part of the doctrine.

Also, I think that it is worth noting that Christianity has esoteric teachings that have been "exteriorized".

[Anonymous No.21342845]

>>21340461
Nice egalitarian cope.

[Anonymous No.21343319]

Evola refuted here:

1 Corinthians 13:10
but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.

[Anonymous No.21343574]

>>21342825
>Christianity doesn't have this overall lineage which constitutes an esoteric Tradition properly understood (i.e., as Guénon defines it). Or at least not officially as part of the doctrine.
Yeah, Christianity has no formalized mystical traditions. You know apart from the Augustinians, the Benedictines, the Carmelites, the Carthusians, and the Cistercians, the Dominicans, and the Franciscans.

[Anonymous No.21343650]

What were Evola's thoughts about Teresa of Avila, and John of the Cross?

[Anonymous No.21343873]

>>21343574
>properly understood

[Anonymous No.21344030]

hermeticism sounds based

[Anonymous No.21344124]

>>21336694
fpbp

[Anonymous No.21344483]

>>21339151
I would say (based onreading, not experience), that the Holy Spirit is absolute reality as it exists in union with subjectivity

I mean, one could call any person of the trinity unconditioned reality, and they'd be right. So we have to be a little more precise.

>>21342299
The Logos is the Word of God, the Son. The Spirit is the third person, not the second. The nous is the mind or soul, the subjectivity of a created human being.

[Anonymous No.21344500]

>>21340896
>conditioned forms do not pertain to the highest divinity.
I mean there's a way to be orthodox in saying that God is unconditioned reality, but it's an odd way to talk about things... lends itself to abuse

>as a Christian, you rely on belief, so you do not ...

faith does not preclude direct experience of God. In fact I would argue that true faith requires at least some direct experience of God, however faint or pale. Sure we don't experience the beatific vision in its fullness, but that's a tall order, isn't it? And if we believed based on NO experience of the transcendent, what value would there be in our faith? What basis would we have for it? It's like someone advocating for a certain flavor of ice cream which he has never tried. You must at least taste it, or your faith is ultimately baseless. And scripture seems to attest to this: "Taste, and see that the Lord is good." In other words: "[mystically] perceive!"

I get that Western Christianity particularly in Evola's time had sort of strayed from direct experience. But it's all there in the Christian tradition, particularly Eastern Christianity (which even the Catholic Church has always acknowledged as wholly valid)

Perhaps our confusion comes in a disagreement of the meaning of the word "esoteric." I take it to be contrasted with exoteric in the sense that it connotes a hidden, secret knowledge which is granted only to the initiate in a given religion.

One could say that it really means that it is something that is known only to a few, not because it is kept from them, but because it's hard to find. And I think that Christianity can fulfill that condition. Relatively few people seem to have strong ecstatic experiences a la St. Francis or St. Theresa. Yet the less-mystical faith of the common man is still valid. And again, I'm not sure that it is possible to have faith at all without at least some (mystical) connection to the transcendence. Rather, isn't faith simply transcendent truth at the level of finite knowledge?

[Anonymous No.21344506]

>>21342141
I would argue that this is a misunderstanding of Christianity. We are all called and encouraged to meet God in the silence of our hearts... in the intimacy of the individual prayer, as well as in the context of a collective community praying as one.

>most doctrines in Christianity only deals with human interaction, not metaphysic interaction, which is exactly the point of religion.

I mean, in the Bible itself, there is a frequent theme that we are to love God even before and above we love man:

>when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they themselves gathered together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested Him with a question: “Teacher, which commandment is the greatest in the Law?”
>
>Jesus declared, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'
>This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

[Anonymous No.21344559]

>>21343574
While I agree that the criticism was unfounded at the time, the orders are now moribund. Western Christianity has completely lost a functional monastic tradition. The orders are administrative and performative, not for the first time in their history admittedly, but certainly in the most dire circumstances

[Anonymous No.21344581]

>>21336712
Spbp

[Anonymous No.21344775]

>>21344559
That's fair. In fact that's more than fair. The Church has mostly lost its way. I don't think that can be blamed on a lack of substance, or an incomplete spirituality in Christianity itself though.

[Anonymous No.21344835]

I am not gonna get involved with this mess and didn't initially want to do so but seeing how other people have somewhat bungled the explanation - the point of an esoteric tradition is that it is a tradition and deals with the transmission of something. What is that something? It is knowledge. A "mystical tradition" is merely a historical tradition of a number of disconnected individuals who undergo personal and specific experiences of greater or lesser dignity. An esoteric, initiatic tradition consists in directly imparting spiritual knowledge in those who come after. The difference, then, is on two levels - first, that there is far more certainty in relation to what is being transmitted - which is knowledge, rather than loose inspiration - and second, there is far more certainty in the transmission itself, which consists in the direct induction of certain knowledge into a given being by his teacher, in contrast to simply tutoring or inspiring someone to pursue personal experiences.
This is the difference between having an esoteric tradition - an institutional spiritual core - and not having one.

[Anonymous No.21344864]

>>21344500
>I mean there's a way to be orthodox in saying that God is unconditioned reality, but it's an odd way to talk about things... lends itself to abuse
In a way, that is already Orthodox doctrine. Theosis is the peak known by the Christian tradition, imo. The problem in Theosis is the essence-energies distinction, which says that you can partake in God's energies but can never be united with his essence, that is to say, with him. So, ultimately, the human being remains isolated on the human plane, separate from God as such and partaking only in what God sends its way. I am sure that there must be monks who have reached the highest goal, however, although they probably don't talk about their experience.
>faith does not preclude direct experience of God. In fact I would argue that true faith requires at least some direct experience of God, however faint or pale.
Then that's not faith. Although no one says that you MUST have faith if you have knowledge - it is just assumed by default that most people have no knowledge of God. I relate to what you are saying because I myself never could have faith, though I did want to believe in something - then, after my studies in esotericism, I arrived at certain knowledge, and now I feel the existence of God as a fact. Though living in a divine way is a separate and much more difficult problem than that.
>I get that Western Christianity particularly in Evola's time had sort of strayed from direct experience. But it's all there in the Christian tradition, particularly Eastern Christianity (which even the Catholic Church has always acknowledged as wholly valid)
Evola actually acknowledged the merits of the ascetic monastic orders - the real tragedy is everyone else. The vast majority of Christians everywhere are basically unconscious atheists. Not that non-Christians are any better, but still. In Christianity the particularly saddening thing is that the religion is now being used for other degenerative purposes instead of being a pillar of tradition.
I am not sure what your point is in bringing up the definition of esotericism as I do not see how it is relevant to our argument. I am generally in agreement that esotericism refers not to something deliberately hidden, but simply to that which is difficult to obtain - Evola would also agree, and he believed that self-initiation was also possible, though almost impossibly unlikely.
>Rather, isn't faith simply transcendent truth at the level of finite knowledge?
I suppose? I don't really concern myself with faith anymore. My impression would be that faith is a practical tool for linking up people who lack knowledge with knowledge. As the Hindu sages say - if you do not believe the spiritual masters, then attain spiritual mastery and see for yourself if it is like they say it is. As for everyone else, they are forced to believe. Beliefs solves the practical problem of the arduous nature of asceticism on both individual and collective level.

[Anonymous No.21344910]

>>21344775
On what can it be blamed on?

[Anonymous No.21344916]

>>21344835
I kinda think there is no real esoteric, initiatic tradition. I mean, if they really worked, you would expect them to be Jesus/Buddha/Mohammed factories, but that is not what we see at all.

[Anonymous No.21345441]

>>21338516
>everything in Christianity is a matter of public record (unlike the secretive Jews... and I mean old style orthodox Jews, not Jon Stewart)
No it isn't , it the same problem with the Jews ; Its Revelation, but if you dont have the capacity to comprehend it, you just do what the Priest tells you.

You need to se "Esoteric" as the relationship betwenn a Nomie and an Anon ; Everything is "mysterious" here although its all "here" ; Its the Capacity to Comprehend what's going on thats important ; Esotericism ; Mystery ; Sercrecy are forms of Perception themsevles that Teach you To See Meaning.

[Anonymous No.21345463]

>>21340478
He dislikes Christianity because it has made of us Bad Readers.

[Anonymous No.21345502]

>>21342468
>pagan

[Anonymous No.21345836]

>>21344835
ok, so it's what I said. secrets passed down through the generations. it's bullshit for the reason specified. once the internet was invented, we realized that there are no secrets worth knowing.

[Anonymous No.21345846]

>>21344864
>now I feel the existence of God as a fact
Christians are taught that faith is a knowledge founded more certainly than even the evidence of their eyes.

The Hindu thing in my view is a cop-out to go away from true transcendence. Transcendence is not something which can be securely obtained by one's self. Like you I believe that it requires a kind of initiation via rituals and a faith that reaches out to God, not inward to the depths of one's own mind.

And again, all the Hindu/Buddhist beliefs, no matter how secretive they once were, are now all a matter of public record. We can scrutinize them for ourselves.

[Anonymous No.21345859]

>>21336712
>protects from prelest
So instead of thinking that you become God, they start thinking they are a servant of God. I’m my own opinion that is more dangerous because the Christian God advocates for destruction of the entire Earth, the only known planet to harbor life.

[Anonymous No.21345898]

>>21336922
>In particular, an important factor
>>21336953
>>21337019
>>21337402

did anyone save those responses or know where I can find them? curious to see if that was written by a bot and how advanced the bots are now

[Anonymous No.21346095]

>>21340461
Why people who hold stances like this so blind to how immediately hypocritical they are?
>This guy sucks because he thinks he's better than other people, I'm better than him because I don't think that!
Just pure concentrated hypocrisy

[Anonymous No.21346835]

>>21345898
/lit/ archive at warosu.

[Anonymous No.21346926]

>>21345898
yeah it was written by a bot

its shit

[Anonymous No.21347545]

>>21344910
The synagogue of Satan

[dagofed No.21347562]

racemixing is based and tradpilled

[Anonymous No.21347578]

>>21342753
He's saying that there are experiences of consciousness not dependent on the physical nervous system. He uses coma-inducing sedation as an example. Anyway, its a very dense but short book best suited for incremental reading and rereading after that. I regard it as the companion piece to Ride the Tiger.

[Anonymous No.21347626]

>>21342468
Why is this post still up?

[Anonymous No.21347916]

Christianity is very much a public religion that tries to abhor "the secrets" you find in some other faiths but there are still multiple levels of it based on how much one can contemplate it.

How many people who call themselves "Christians" can honestly say they know the full impact of what John 1:1 or John 18:36 really mean? Or even the entire rest of the Gospel of John.

[Anonymous No.21348120]

>>21339220
Youre the swine and you aint got no pearls.

[Anonymous No.21348126]

>gets burned at the stake for getting too close to christ-consciousness
Nothing personnel, mystics. Only jesus is allowed to have spiritual superpowers.

[Anonymous No.21348622]

>>21348126
Jesus didn't have spiritual powers; miracles are different things altogether.

[Anonymous No.21348628]

>>21348622
>Jesus didn't have spiritual powers;
Easy there, you'll get burnt at the stake with claims like that.

[Anonymous No.21348793]

>>21347916
Christianity is full of impenetrable mysteries—not the same as secrets

[Anonymous No.21349391]

>>21348126
> too close to christ-consciousness

Elaborate