/lit/ - Literature

>>13233480
Neopatonic ascent

>>13233480
Where I started. Broad, hits many notes and is good reference for when you delve Into other things.

>>13233480
You can read a book such as this
http://krishnamurti.abundanthope.org/index_htm_files/History-of-Mysticism.pdf

In general though mysticism is one of those things that is hard if not impossible to explain to anyone who hasn't had a mystical experience themselves. There is disagreement between those who see mysticism as a constant thread in human history belonging to a perennialist philosophical understanding, and those who situate it within some specific religion and discount experiences outside it.

That is such a bizarre question and so completely open ended. What do you mean by mysticism? Some will say that mysticism is a phenomenon particular to Christianity. Others will clump all religious experiences beyond the individual condition into the realm of mysticism. Define what exactly you mean by mysticism to get a good reply. Either way, Plato and Plotinus is the basis for most mystical philosophies, defined under most definitions.

>>13233501
I second this recommendation

I'd recommend starting with the Daodejing. It's not obviously mystical but it will give you a good foundation in some elements of mysticism

Evola was an autistic faggot

>>13233995
I would also say that reading the tao te king would be a good introduction but don't forget that both the nature of mysticism and reality in general are to be understand in terms of experiences and not knowledge and reflexions as this guy pointed out >>13233503

>>13233480
Start with some of the shorter and more accesible eastern stuff like the Tao Te Ching and the Bhagavad-Gita, then read a bunch of Guenon, then start to read through more of the dense and complicated eastern texts/thinkers that Guenon writes about in addition to Neoplatonism

This classic

>>13233480
Read:
Prometheus Rising
The Perennial Philosophy
The Outsider

Then do LSD

Then read The New Earth

>>13233480
You must realize there are no straight lines, only tiny segments of the infinite circle named God

>>13233480
Guide to the perplexed

>To express their respective “outward” and “inward” natures, exoterism and esoterism are often compared to the “shell” ( qishr ) and the “kernel” ( lubb ), or to the circumference and its center. The sharia comprises everything that in Western languages would be called “religious,” and especially the whole of the social and legislative side which, in Islam, is essentially integrated into the religion. It could be said that the sharia is first and foremost a rule of action, whereas the haqiqa is pure knowledge; but it must be well understood that it is this knowledge that gives even the sharia its higher and deeper meaning and its true raison d ’etre, so that even though not all those participating in the religion are aware of it, the haqiqa is nevertheless its true principle, just as the center is the principle of the circumference.

>In any case — and this ought to settle the matter for anyone not regarding things merely from the outside — tradition expressly indicates that esoterism, as well as exoterism, proceeds directly from the very teaching of the Prophet, and, in fact, every authentic and regular tanqa possesses a silsila or “chain” of initiatic transmission that ultimately goes back to him through a varying number of intermediaries.

>It is a question here of two clearly different domains [haqiqa and sharia], and this is why there can never be any contradiction or any real conflict between them; it is moreover obvious that one cannot in any way oppose exoterism and esoterism, since on the contrary the second finds its foundation and point of departure in the first, and since they are really no more than the two aspects or the two faces of one and the same doctrine.

>We should also point out that contrary to an opinion only too widespread among Westerners, Islamic esoterism has nothing in common with “mysticism.” The reasons for this are easy to understand given everything we have explained so far. First of all, mysticism seems to be unique to Christianity, and it is only through erroneous assimilations that one can pretend to find more or less exact equivalents of it elsewhere. Some outward resemblances, in the use of certain expressions for example, are undoubtedly the cause of this error, but they can in no way justify it in light of differences that bear on everything essential. Since by very definition mysticism pertains entirely to the religious domain, it arises purely and simply from exoterism; and furthermore, the end toward which it tends is assuredly far from being of the order of pure knowledge.

Just meditate until you achieve jhanas and that will validate mysticism for you.

>>13233501
Redpill me on this book

>>13237007
jhanas are just a meme and are a big reason craven and shallow materialists glom onto buddhism like flies to shit

>>13237084
What do you mean "meme"?

>>13237084
Dhyana are a part of Hinduism too though, jhana isn't exclusive to Buddhism

>>13236996
His definition of mysticism here is completely bs.

>>13237014
Roughly speaking it is a ‘believed’ point of view from the author’s research on what has been, and is, believed from the most early civilizations. Like I said before it is very broad. There is another book of the same author called The Sacred History which I just bought. Is a good read but none is it is definite, just keep an open mind

>>13233480

Gospel of John, obviously.

>>13233480
Gnosticism is the way to go, steer clear of Easterners and Muslims

>>13239058
Do this if you'd like to go to hell