/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17620282]

Can somebody explain this thing to me unironically? I've only seen memes, is this an actual phylosophical movement?

[Anonymous No.17620323]

>>17620282
Just look at the demiurge/yaldabaoth and Gnosticism on Wikipedia, dipshit. You don’t need to ask inane questions for literally every vaguely /lit/ related topic fuck off

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17620367]

Tldr, modern neo-gnostic meme interpretation of the doctrine of a demiurge which Gnostics themselves get from Platonism.

In Gnosticism the basic idea is that the various aeons who are concepts/eternal portions of reality come forth from the one-thing, monad, true god, however you wish to call it. Then Sophia comes forth, who is wisdom. She tries to intellectually grasp the One-thing/all through reason, creating reason. Reason then cannot contain the entirety of the divine whole, as such it becomes a monad-shaped-void, an emptiness, and reason by rationalizing, entraps the aeons and divides them into particular ideas as divided from the monad/one thing. This demiurge is technically the material world but is more our perception of the material world (depending on the type of Gnosticism.) our Reason is the actual/material existent demiurge. In this belief, the archons exist as the servants of the demiurge, these archons are the names of the Hebrew God. This is because in Judaism and syncretic Platonism of the time, the names of God were corresponded to particular spheres which encompassed entire ranges of phenomenal perception and being. As such the divine names encompass entire clusters/patterns of thought and particular divisions of the world. By this logic if you destroy the spheres/god-names, you slowly unravel reason until you arrive at unknowing/a-conceptual pure thought of God. This is actually an edgy intensification (and not always edgy, Gnosticism isn’t a monolith) of the same apophatic theology used by the likes of Dionysus, who also argues for the moving past of particular divine names so that you may begin to contemplate the pure Godhead. And this is the basis of much of Greek Orthodox mystical thought, the the ought of Maximus the confessor, cloud of unknowing, molinos spiritual guide and various other methods and writers who are more or less non-gnostic and sometimes accepted as orthodox.

Of course it’s easier to go for the overly simplified highly material version where there’s a literal serpent headed being flying around materially. Funny people who reject the “hylic” would often have such a hylic interpretation.

The best source/introduction to gnostic thought is Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism by Kurt Rudolph

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17620393]

Note, gnostic literature isn’t even universal in identifying the lion-headed serpent with the demiurge and so many different forms exist. Of course this isn’t as fun to meme about nor does it spread as easily. I personally disagree with Gnosticism entirely but you didn’t ask for personal opinions. If you want more information from primary sources, check out the nag hammadi, other than these, our other major source is all of the critique/complaints/arguments against it by various authors both Christian and platonist, this and some magical artifacts such as amulets and carved stones are what we have. However the magical lit and artifacts we have are much less strictly gnostic and are more akin to the syncretic sorcery we see common to the period in the area, the likes of the PGM.

[Anonymous No.17620396]

>>17620367
tldr: just follow the dao and live with duh

[Anonymous No.17620412]

>>17620367
>>17620393
I'm happy you're here, frater.

[Anonymous No.17620422]

>>17620282
theres a giant evil Spurdo who is a jerk so the point of life is to be kind and smart so you can escape his evilness.

[Anonymous No.17620436]

>>17620393
why don't you agree with it?

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17620494]

>>17620436
I disagree with the idea that reason is bad, I agree with the traditional Jewish and Christian interpretation that the image of God within man is itself Reason, that the only problem with reason is the flaws within it caused by sin, reason being like a mirror of Christ reflecting the invisible light of the father, which is purified by reflecting this self-same light. I could get into the nature of sin and why I believe it is necessary but that is far off topic to the thread, in any case my view on reason is identical to that of St athanasius, read his on the incarnation.

Furthermore I do not believe this material world or the senses are inherently evil, I believe nature was formed by God as a mirror of his mind, that beauty is nothing less than the perception of harmony/unity in the logic of the mind of God. I agree with the corpus hermeticum that contemplation of the spheres/portions of thought can be used to induce knowledge of godhead and my own experiences mystical demonstrate that the apophatic way is not the only way. But rather through the study of scripture and their contemplation, the contemplation of the worlds religious and secular philosophies and the application of these in worship of Christ have demonstrated to me time and time again that genuine powerful mystical experiences can be induced and knowledge of god attained by this active and fiery approach instead of the “watery way” of unknowing. I believe you may use both the fiery or the water or a mixture of both methods. I simply find active devotion superior.

add to this that many forms of Gnosticism utterly reject the Old Testament and place words I find contrary to the character and personality of Christ within their literature, I simply cannot accept such. But this is not the point of the thread and I apologize for being so off topic as it is.

[Anonymous No.17620519]

Read the Enneads

[Anonymous No.17620525]

>>17620494
it's more ignorance, the misuse of reason, reason as a principle of occlusion, than reason itself. but beyond that I don't really have anything to say, and I know you're the last person on this board not to give gnosticism a fair shake

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17620533]

>>17620519
This. Oh I forgot to mention, in Platonism the demiurge isn’t considered evil but Good because nature is fundamentally Good. Iamblichus even considered his work of theurgy to be identical to demiurgy, since his entire practice was centered around ensouling divinity into the material world. (Chiefly through talisman and idol creation.)

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17620558]

>>17620525
Yeah but it’s also case dependent on the form of Gnosticism. And of course, I’ve definitely studied it and (like all traditions I’ve study) tried to interpret it according to how it interprets itself. Apologies if my words come off more acidic than usual, it’s just that whenever Gnosticism comes up it’s usually completely praise of it, complete denial of it without a proper knowledge of what it is and really nothing between. Except when neoplatonists argue against it.

My two favorite pieces of gnostic out are without a doubt, thunder perfect mind and Trimorphic Protennoia, the borborites/barbeloites were effectively Christian Aghori which makes them incredibly fascinating.

[Anonymous No.17620569]

>>17620533
what do you think about idolatry proper? Were the jews wrong to reject it?

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17620599]

>>17620569
I’m against the worship of images but I am fine with the creation/construction of sacred images and the ensoulment of these. Effectively my stance is the same one that was used by the Temple historically, considering they had the Nehushtan, which only became a problem when people began to worship it, the images of the bulls, the cherubim upon the ark and so forth. By this I mean to say, you are free to create images and beautiful works which remind one of divinity and allow for depth of contemplation and production of passion. But worship of the idol as the thing itself would be forbidden. Note, the majority of cultures dictate that if you worship an idol which is not ensouled, a demon will soon enter into that idol and haunt the location, and this is why abandoned temples are culturally depicted as haunted, evil and demonic globally, however in the Christian faith we do not truly believe you can ensoul the Godhead into an image nor do we believe saints can be ensouled nor angels, as such the ensoulment process being impossible and only the godhead being the possible object of worship, logically worship of any idol will result in the ensoulment of it by a kakodaimon.

So I am fine with the production of images but I am against the worship of such as idols.

[Anonymous No.17620609]

>>17620558
I find the "demiurge is your reason/demiurge is your ego" interpretation is always a bit puerile, though I know it's not coming from you. I see the Demiurge manifested in Malthusian system dynamics as much as I do the human brain, as the human brain.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17620672]

>>17620609
Eh, it’s not JUST your reason and I despise how commonly moderns speak against ego because that’s really not as common as people pretend it is.

It’s under the doctrine of correspondences, there would exist the material rational laws(of which we cannot do much) the mental rational laws (and this is not some, simplistic it’s all in your head psychology argument as that doesn’t really exist isolated in the ancients) and on a spiritual/numinous level but these are all interconnected, the material world is purified as the human reason is purified, which purifies the spiritual reality of this imperfect reason. However another problem would be that this is fundamentally a temporal and human-centric view of time, if we consider eternity and the divine view, even then, the entirety of the reason would have been purified. The soteriological problem of Gnosticism becoming rather non-existent due to necessity. And I admit, certain strains of Gnosticism such as mandaeanism speak openly about this arbitrary nature of it and eventuality, to the point they call this universe a great stomach with the sun and moon as orifices from which the good may leave this material world while the demons and filth are stuck in the material world and cannot pass through the luminaries (both greeter and lesser.)

But again, I see nature as reflection of the divine mind, reason and sensation as means towards God. I see god as necessarily perfect and my contemplations(though I’ll risk sounding pretentious) focus on god as he is in eternity and not on how man perceives him in-time.

It’s simply not reconcilable.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17620685]

>>17620672
Sorry, spellcheck turned Manicheanism into mandaeanism. Here’s a citation.

> those repugnant acts of cannibalism and sexual practices with which they are studded, as well as the self-destructiveness and autophagia of matter—one must keep in mind two basic concepts: the Indo-Iranian idea of the equivalence of spirit, light, and seed (Eliade, 1971, pp. 1–30) and that of the distillation of light through the "gastric machine" of the elect, an act that corresponds to the great purification of the luminous elements (Syr., zīwānē ), which was carried out by the demiurge and his children at the beginning of time (Tardieu, 1981). The premise of the first concept is that light resides in the seed and through procreation is decanted from one body into another, undergoing the painful cycles of births and deaths (Skt., saṃsāra ). This follows the related doctrine of metempsychosis (Syr., tashpīkā; Lat., revolutio; Gr., metangismos ), an idea that originally came from India and that Mani adopted as pivotal to his system. The premise of the second is that just as the universe is the place in which all luminous bodies are healed, so the stomach is like a great alchemist's alembic, in which the elect, thanks to the high degree of purification he has attained, is able to separate the light present in food from all impurities, through a double cycle of filtering and return. This cycle is a microcosm, whose corresponding macrocosm is the distillation of the zīwānē into the moon and the sun (Tardieu, 1981).

[Anonymous No.17620722]

>>17620685
where's this from again I know I've read it

[Anonymous No.17620734]

>>17620685
Nevermind, I'm pretty sure that's Rudolph. I don't see gnostic soteriology as arbitrary or imprecise. I see it as expressing a logic of temporality that it took until Hegel to understand, the idea that the savior is I, myself, and that I save myself for always having been saved, or rather, I confirm my salvation just as the movement toward it. I urge you to read Sloterdijk's work on gnosticism in his new book, After God. It's ch. 3, not the whole book. I'm sure you'll find plenty of food for thought there. He's an admirer of the tradition that understands truly what a revolution it is, not simply as a pastiche of Platonic and Judeo-Christian elements

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17620739]

>>17620722
https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/manichaeism-overview

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17620781]

>>17620734
>Nevermind, I'm pretty sure that's Rudolph. I don't see gnostic soteriology as arbitrary or imprecise. I see it as expressing a logic of temporality that it took until Hegel to understand,

But anon, a ton of Hegel is just boehme, a ton of boehme is just Dionysius and Paracelsus. I realty don’t find it anywhere near as sophisticated (on average) As boehme or Hegel.

>the idea that the savior is I, myself,

I radically disagree with this belief entirely. I won’t go hammering into you but again, I fundamentally believe Christ is the means to salvation and this Nonduality is not a static nirguna unity but rather a perichoresis of egos.

>and that I save myself for always having been saved, or rather, I confirm my salvation just as the movement toward it.

Nor do I believe in any real form of Apocatastasis.

>I urge you to read Sloterdijk's work on gnosticism in his new book, After God. It's ch. 3, not the whole book. I'm sure you'll find plenty of food for thought there.

Eh, Hes been on my radar I’ll eventually get to him, but I honestly doubt I’ll be much swayed. I have never been one whom pathos appeals to, nor even freedom as a concept.

>He's an admirer of the tradition that understands truly what a revolution it is,

Even referring to it as a revolution leaves a bad taste in my mouth, I am not a spirit of Los, I am a spirit of Urizen, if you’ve ever read Blake.

>not simply as a pastiche of Platonic and Judeo-Christian elements

Pastiche no, there’s certainly fascinating developments and idiosyncrasies, but it’s foundation is still Greek and Christian and (for some) Asian.

[Anonymous No.17620805]

>>17620781
And all of philosophy is ramified/amplified Heraclitus and Parmenides.

Gnosticism isn't about dissolving into a static unity. Marcion proves you can have a faith-based "gnosticism" (gnosticism insofar as it retains strongly dualistic elements, true god soteriology) without any of the perceived luggage. Gnostic salvation is individuationistic, not a sinking into a monistic ungrund. Leave that to the poos.

It is a revolution because it completely turned the classical optimism about the cosmos on its head.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17620823]

>>17620805
Again, some of it certainly is static unity based and others are marriage based and it is not really a monolith, I honestly find the hate of the material world to be abhorrent. The spirit of culture? Sure deny that, the material cosmos? Its order? I am of the cult of Order completely. Even as a kid I worshiped the lord most fiercely as great judge and creator of Law. Structure, law, order and so forth are to me as divine can be.

I understand your point anon, it simply doesn’t satisfy my axioms, my reason, my experiences and so forth.

[Anonymous No.17620838]

spurdo is autist and he made autist creations (us) to try and be comfy but hes still autistic and sophia (mom) just wants spurdo to comfy and not autistic
she drank in the womb thats why demiurge is autistic

[Anonymous No.17620840]

Ok yeah so it’s schizo nonsense, why is it so popular?

[Anonymous No.17620844]

>>17620823
it's not supposed to, I consider the Demiurge/Jehovah a negentropic demon, everything around me today I see as a symptom of an excess of order, why do you think chaos magicians like Deleuze are still making the rounds, in their writings and in their successors? transgression, escape, immanentist revolt, all attempts to crack open a window on Urizen.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17620861]

>>17620840
It’s a religious faith which can, partially accept the New Testament while rejecting the Old, gives an easy answer to the problem of evil (but kinda not since it just moves the question of evil down the ladder ) it has a high popularity in media, stuff like the matrix, Truman show and others kinda shill it.

It also supports (often anyways not universally) ideas of human freedom, individualism, often, rebellion and other such. So it has aesthetic arms, gives people faith, gives them a target towards their complaints for suffering, it has a strong aesthetic component, it isn’t centralized so there’s no big church of Gnosticism which many find appealing and so on and so forth. The reason it’s growing in popularity isn’t really that shocking.

[Anonymous No.17620875]

>>17620861
>(but kinda not since it just moves the question of evil down the ladder )
it doesn't, once you accept the True God is not omnipotent, everything else falls neatly into place.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17620907]

>>17620844
>it's not supposed to, I consider the Demiurge/Jehovah a negentropic demon,

And I consider him the goal and love of my life and the burning flame of my soul.

>everything around me today I see as a symptom of an excess of order,

As I’ve said elsewhere, I am a baudrillardian fascist. I fully support the social order and want it intensified. Something like China and in many ways modern day USA are doing a pretty good job of establishing control, crushing individuality and absorbing man into a mono-entity within the cyber-culture.

>why do you think chaos magicians like Deleuze are still making the rounds, in their writings and in their successors?

Mostly aesthetics if we’re talking about popularity, and I am quite a fan of deleuze and turn his work upon its head in many ways to sharpen the harsh order I desire in my system of metaphysics.

>transgression
No appeal to me.

>escape,
I see nothing to escape. I consider creation to be filled to the brim with God and good and evil are both the will of my God.

>immanentist revolt
God is both transcendent and immanent.

>all attempts to crack open a window on Urizen.

Urizen triumphant in man, conjoint in harmony with the other three by chaining them as slaves utterly to himself, that is the method and belief I hold to for man.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17620922]

>>17620875
Kinda except (depending on system) the One-God is also the entirety of the aeons and their results, Yaldabaoth being just the mask of Abrasax, which is why you’ll find stones with the lion serpent, IAO(which is a Greek transliteration of YHVH) and the image of abrasax and his name upon it.

But yeah it’s really dependent on the form of Gnosticism.

[Anonymous No.17620928]

>>17620907
>I see nothing to escape. I consider creation to be filled to the brim with God and good and evil are both the will of my God.
this is repellent to me. I see predation and death everywhere, there's no aestheticizing it. this world should be destroyed, not groomed to completion. everything that is beautiful and noble in it exists in spite of it, not because of it.

>God is both transcendent and immanent.
oh he's immanent all right, as the light in every body that greases the evolutionary meat grinder.

[Anonymous No.17620942]

>>17620922
I'm not a Valentinian, it was always a half-measure gnosticism to me, full-on, hardcore arch-dualism, or bust.

[Anonymous No.17620955]

>>17620494
>Furthermore I do not believe this material world or the senses are inherently evil, I believe nature was formed by God as a mirror of his mind, that beauty is nothing less than the perception of harmony/unity in the logic of the mind of God. I agree with the corpus hermeticum that contemplation of the spheres/portions of thought can be used to induce knowledge of godhead and my own experiences mystical demonstrate that the apophatic way is not the only way. But rather through the study of scripture and their contemplation, the contemplation of the worlds religious and secular philosophies and the application of these in worship of Christ have demonstrated to me time and time again that genuine powerful mystical experiences can be induced and knowledge of god attained by this active and fiery approach instead of the “watery way” of unknowing. I believe you may use both the fiery or the water or a mixture of both methods. I simply find active devotion superior.
Kindred spirits, you and I. Tell me, how do you envision the fall of the soul?

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17620964]

>>17620928
>this is repellent to me. I see predation and death everywhere,

These do not need to be made aesthetic, I see holiness within them in itself, which is why I so easily integrate hermeticism and Vamachara tantra.

But yeah, without being argumentative I’m sure you understand why I do not go for Gnosticism, every reason you say is a benefit I see as a negative.


>there's no aestheticizing it. this world should be destroyed, not groomed to completion. everything that is beautiful and noble in it exists in spite of it, not because of it.

I disagree, it only exists because of the rational order and inherent potential that nature has, and if I look at any part of the natural world, immediately I am filled with bliss, and if I look at the artifice of Man’s hands, I also experience the sublime, if I go inwards I see God, if I look outwards I see God, when I have seen the horror of death both of my own family and in my practice of shava sadhana, I have seen God, I have seen God in the worship of the trees towards heaven and the declarations of the sky and the stars. I have seen divinity while practicing my formulaic rituals and inducing visions. I have seen god in all of these and more.

> oh he's immanent all right, as the light in every body that greases the evolutionary meat grinder.

I simply Am not so pessimistic, i fundamentally on an axiomatic level think being=Good; and even Evil I see as nothing but a movement towards God in is Raw universality/nirguna.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17620985]

>>17620942
Yeah, that’s fair enough, I’m really trying not to pigeon hole all of you into one basket as much as possible.

> Kindred spirits, you and I. Tell me, how do you envision the fall of the soul?

I go a bit into it In my sperging here, concerning the tree of the knowledge of Good and evil (bad translation but it’s the common name.)

>>/lit/thread/S17484796#p17484872

[Anonymous No.17621037]

>>17620964
I see nature as a mass of suffering things, caught in the gears of a vast cosmic machine. I don't get why people think their own contemplative experiences can speak for the rest of creation. In fact, I see the closure of which these sorts of experiences are an effect, as a flight of Being into beings. As in: if all at once you could experience the suffering your subjective horizon represses to be the horizon that it is, you'd pop like a balloon.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17621077]

>>17621037
>I see nature as a mass of suffering things, caught in the gears of a vast cosmic machine. I don't get why people think their own contemplative experiences can speak for the rest of creation. In fact, I see the closure of which these sorts of experiences are an effect, as a flight of Being into beings. As in: if all at once you could experience the suffering your subjective horizon represses to be the horizon that it is, you'd pop like a balloon.


I agree it is a Vast cosmic machine, but I see man as a part of that machine, I see creation as calculatory, the wills towards particularity and universality (good and evil) as nothing but a 1010 calculation process. I have studied and practiced and have been initiated into Buddhism, I know the doctrine of suffering, but I do not reject the suffering, suffering is the death of joy which leads to the resurrection of Joy. Years and years of pure suffering are forgotten at the singular touch of a moment of bliss and pleasure, of joy and happiness. And suffering itself I see as an aspect of Godhead. Simply put, our beliefs cannot be reconciled, I accept and embrace this world and the totality of Godhead. In the moment of the cross I see all Good, all Evil, all perfection and all sin, all man, All God. In the suffering of the cross I see an endless bliss which marries absolute distance from God with absolute closeness with God. In the cross I see All harmonized.

I understand we cannot and shall not move each other, we disagree at the level of axioms and mystical experiences.

[Anonymous No.17621117]

>>17621077
On the cross I see an image of the universal light/world-soul suffering under the yoke of the body, everywhere and anywhere. I don't embrace the totality of the Godhead, I embrace only what should be embraced in that totality, the proximity Good and Evil share in this world is a mixture, not a flowering. I read you and think you're ontologically constipated, someone who wants to retain even evil because it is of God. you read me and think gnosticism is a kind of dysentery, I want to shit out everything that needs to be shit out, until I shit out my own vital fluids, too. I don't see it that way. I just think a God who is Love shouldn't muddy the waters like he has.

[Anonymous No.17621130]

Saw this a few days back..
A quick google rabbit hole made me realize Gnosticism is all about huge graphics that look smart and don’t mean anything...this one looks dumb and may actually contain info.

[Anonymous No.17621139]

>>17621130
>a quick google rabbit hole
maybe you should just read the many books on the topic instead of spouting off

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17621176]

>>17621117
>On the cross I see an image of the universal light/world-soul suffering under the yoke of the body, everywhere and anywhere.

And matters of our perception won’t really be argued away, I could say something snotty like, “heh, knowledge makes everything pure” but that’s pretty larpy, the truth is, you have your experiences, perceptions and axioms and ive my own, if we traded spiritual experiences and reason faculties, it’s likely we’d flip positions. Not that one is better or worse than the other.

>I don't embrace the totality of the Godhead, I embrace only what should be embraced in that totality,

In love, there is a blurring of identity, an association with self, a sweetening and enrichening.

God feeleth pain for sin in thee
As in His son,
But in His Self of Deity
He feeleth none.

And this is the mirror my soul.


>the proximity Good and Evil share in this world is a mixture, not a flowering. I read you and think you're ontologically constipated, someone who wants to retain even evil because it is of God.

I prefer to think I’m a maximalist in all things, excessive in all things.

>you read me and think gnosticism is a kind of dysentery, I want to shit out everything that needs to be shit out, until I shit out my own vital fluids, too. I don't see it that way. I just think a God who is Love shouldn't muddy the waters like he has.

Nah, I see you as one who, seeing the sin and filth of the world, cleaves to the things of spirit, and in doing so rejects the world. And that is not a bad thing, but it is a question of application, direction and nuances. If you deny all you will surely have all, but if you deny the hand of God, that simply cannot be to me.

[Anonymous No.17621190]

>>17621176
Yeah, I didn't write any of this to change your mind. You're individuated enough. I don't deny the hand of God, I deny that the hand of God had any hand in this. My God is far away from this place.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17621243]

>>17621190
Fair enough, if you do not mind, I will end our conversation with a song of constipation.

I, Abhinavagupta, with one pointed devotion, am praying to that supreme all pervading Lord Siva, who is himself present in each and everything that exists, and who through realization reveáls himself as the one limitless Bhairavanatha, the protector of the helpless.

By the energy of your grace it has been revealed to me that this vibrating universe is your own existence. Thus, O Lord Siva, this realization has come to me that you are my own soul and as such this universe is my own expression and existence.

O possessor of everything, though your devotees, bound by karma and conditioning of mind, are caught in the net of destiny that arouses troubles and bondage, still they are not afraid of the fret and fever of this world. Having realized this universe as your own existente, they are not afraid of worldly dif-ficulties, because fear exists only when there is some one else to inflict it. But when there is none other than you, how can fear arise.


O Lord Bhairava, I offer salutations to you, who has awakened me to the realization that everything in existence is you alone. As a result of this awakening, the darkness of my mind has been destroyed and I am neither frightened of the evil family of demons, nor am I afraid of Yama, the fearful Lord of death.

O Lord Shiva, it is through your existence, revealed to me by real knowledge, that I realize all attachments and all that exists in this universe is activated by you. It is by this awakening, that my mind becomes saturated with immortal devotion and I experience supreme bliss.

O Lord, sometimes I feel misery which arouses torment in my mind, but at that same moment, blessed by a shower of your grace, a clean and clear visión of my oneness with you arises, the impact of which my mind feels appeased.

O Lord Siva, it is said that through charity, ritual bath and the practices of penance the troubles of worldly existence subside, but even more than this, by remembrance of the sacred shastras and your words alone the current of immortality like a stream of peace enters my heart.

O Lord Bhairava, through my utmost faith I have perceived you in the unique sacrifíce of oneness, which otherwise is not possible though performing mountains of rituals. Being filled with your presence my consciousness intensely dances and sings, enjoying its own ecstacy.

O compassionate Lord, under the influence of your glory and for the benefit of your worshipers, I Abhinavagupta have composed this hymn. By meditation and recitation of this hymn within a moment that merciful Lord Bhairava destroys the torments and sufferings, springing from this wilderness of saMsara.

[Anonymous No.17621448]

>>17620494
wow, a good tripfag, thank you man

[Anonymous No.17621450]

>>17620494
>>17620367
But isn't reason a middle stage to be sublimated? As if it were a middle point between Gnosis/Faith and Empirical Knowledge. I think it is relevant that there is a relative emphasis on its function as DIA-noetic in platonism. There is a gradual order, much like the ontological degrees of beings.

>Fiery and watery
I oscillate a lot between them. There are times I feel an operation within me, a synergy, which prompts me to an active will of comprehension, as if I were able to absorb every pure knowledge revealed to me. But at the same time I am overpowered by my own void, but not passive void, a meonic void with love that dissolves everything into it, this numinous love.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17621547]

>>17621450
>But isn't reason a middle stage to be sublimated? As if it were a middle point between Gnosis/Faith and Empirical Knowledge.

Only in the Wet models is reason transcended, in Hebrew (as opposed to hermetic Kabbalah) the tree doesn’t collapse into itself, but rather tiphereth (which encompasses reason, ego, beauty , harmony and so forth) gobbles up all of the lower sephiroth into the hexagram, returning to its pre-fallen state as the messiah, Da’ath unfallen. And this, Da’ath which is literally gnosis is identical to purified Reason. Da’ath being the mirror of Kether, the perfect marriage of the partzufim of Aba and ima. Similarly, in the non-apophatic Christian mystical stuff, you do not ever abandon reason, you simply purity it. And if I look towards Vedanta, a good chunk of it is purification of the intellect and what is Arjuna but a case of purification of intellect and reason resolving in identification with Vishnu-Krishna-Indra? And if I look to Taoism, there is again, a yin-ful way of dissolution and a yangful way of coagulation filled with astrological magic and alchemical contemplations.

> I oscillate a lot between them.

That’s fine, you just have to increase both to their greatest extreme in my opinion. From my experience most people use either the wet way or a mix of the wet and dry/fiery. I don’t believe any of the methods have superiority, they’re just different ways of producing the stone, which is to say, a proper experiential relationship with God.

[Anonymous No.17621572]

>>17621243

you're alright for a tripfiend. how old are you? i want to be as well read as you eventually

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17621607]

>>17621572
I’ll just say I’m married and have children, and I’m sure if you put some daily effort you’d be able to quickly outpace me.

[Anonymous No.17621609]

>>17620781
>a perichoresis of egos.
isn't bhedabheda or vishishtadvaita closer to it than kashmir shaivism?