/lit/ - Literature

>>22208687
Rather then jumping into the texts, you should really start with an introductory book. If Nothing else, it will show you what texts belong to what schools. The Gnostic Religion (Jonas) or Gnostic Religion in Antiquity (Broek) are great and you should really read one first, ideally both.
If you really want to get right into Gnostic texts, then the Gospel of Thomas or the Apocryphon of John are the two most approachable texts. The Apocryphon in particular details basically the entire Sethian cosmos for you.
>>22208701
Don't follow this guide. It is awful.

>>16493914
>since the original post was only within that scope
Yeah, I was just explaining there are better ways to conceptualize God. I think a lot of Gnostics were influenced influenced by the Zoroastrian dualism moreso. For example, here's a diagram explaining Manichaean beliefs, which influenced Catharism.

>>15560768
Yes, trees and plants have experience. Read about "mother trees" and their complex mycorrhizal networks.
>>15560656
I recommend buying a used copy of Religions of Late Antiquity in Practice, Edited by Ricard Valanstasis. It has a partial translation of Cologne Mani Codex and other Manichee scriptures. There are five chapters covering Manichaeism that describe the theology, ascetism, biography of Mani, and hymns. It's not well-organized, but it serves as a good introduction.
https://www.amazon.com/Religions-Antiquity-Practice-Richard-Valantasis/dp/0691057516/

>>15231159
Note, Manichaean cosmology was ripped off from Zoroastrianism with some differences (e.g., more pessimistic and fatalist view). Regardless, this diagram conveys the gist of what I'm saying.

Nondualists and monists are disgusting. They believe the sewer and beautiful river to be initially one, making no distinction between their distinct qualities on a mystical or ontological level. " The Great Way is not difficult for those who have no preferences." I suppose one shouldn't have preferences when being tortured. This is an insipid way of thinking. In fact, I would go a step further by arguing all nondualists and monists have a secret urge for cannibalism or to be cannibalized because of their obsession with the One. They desire oneness with the "world" or "humanity", losing the "fake" individual self in the process, because the idea of independent and isolated aspects to individuality and personal responsibility scares them. It's much more easier being antinomianists to justify one's depravity or blame external causes on it.
Monotheists are just rationalizing their daddy problems. I wouldn't be surprised if most of them have bad memories of being mocked or abused by their fathers. Monotheism is just a projection of their infantile daddy complexes. Monotheist conceptions of God always come down to being sick because an omnipotent, omniscient God is responsible for cruelty. It is like a God that rapes you but because morality is hinged on his commandments, then it doesn't matter. God could come down and start whipping them and they wouldn't care. He is basically an abusive and controlling amoral cowboy father. Not surprised such ideas came from effeminate and abused dirty Jews. Sorry, but your conception of God is corrupted.
Dualistic Cosmologists are the best (e.g., ditheism). Good and evil are absolutely divided and never unite, and this world is their battleground/conflict. All good things come from Ahura Mazda's Spenta Mainyu (i.e., the good God's spirit/mentality) and all bad things from Ahriman's Angra Mainyu (i.e., the bad God's spirit/mentality). It's simple really, but I know it's really hard for demented nondualists, monists, and monotheists to understand the full implications of. I can elaborate more if you need help. Pic related is more accurate. Sadly, the minds of monists, nondualists, and monotheists largely descend from the Prince of Darkness' realm.
What is needed is a process of purification for the daevas. God offers no redemption. It is only through purification you can be graced by him. You must remove the impurities of darkness from your souls.

>>14821113
A truly all-good God would not create the conditions of evil in the world. All he would intend is for the peace of every sentient being. Thus, the world would be crafted for pure order and tranquility if his intentions were truly all Good. However, we see much disorder, greed, and malice in this world, which an all good God would not create the conditions for. Instead, that was due to the Prince of Darkness / Ahriman's attack, largely due to avarice, which God was not responsible for the creation of.
The whole idea of Original Sin was made by St. Augustine due to resentment towards not becoming an Elect in Manichaeism. The Manichee conception of Jesus makes more sense.

>>14812371
While I admire Schopenhauer greatly, I do not agree with his monist metaphysics. In fact, there may be dual conflicting wills, which are in irreconcilable tension, and perhaps, you are either experiencing one at the expense of the other or having theory influencing your perception (i.e., perception is theory-laden)? I do not see how one can derive certain metaphysical "knowledge" from infrequent, anomalous meditative experiences even with the absence of abstract or conceptual thought forming a "barrier between subject and object". One feels single-pointed concentration or absorption, yet this does not say anything in regards to there being a "One Will". What if you felt this union with pure love vs. pure hatred? Would not their characters be of an entirely different nature? Why assume love and hatred exist in a complementary dynamic rather a conflicting one? Why assume they have a common source rather than entirely different ones such as pic related? Perhaps, it is possible to become one with hatred at the expense of love or one with love at the expense of hatred?
Again, why does henosis have to indicate monism? Could not the source be a duality or plurality rather than an all-inclusive or preternatural "infinite potential"? Why not a duality or even a plurality of Wills, which are monomial to themselves? Are the best moments of Moominvalley one with the hell of Maldoror's chamber?
Regardless, I do think Schopenhauer is a great philosopher, and he was one of the few engaging writers too.