Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

If you can see this message, the SSL certificate expiration has been fixed.
Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 156 KB, 301x402, average.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14812371 No.14812371 [Reply] [Original]

I think reading Schop has made me enlightened. When I hear people speak I only think of their individuality as a vessel. What is actually speaking is the One WIll, as this or that person, here in this particular place and this particular time. It is easy to notice that most people say the same things, that difference is a local illusion. In other words there are far less people in the world than there are bodies. Unique individuals which speak from their true nature, i.e. geniuses, are rare, but even they are manifestations of the One Will. An identity in space and time, the possession of a consciousness, what are these but phenomena? If there are true individuals in the world, they are its geniuses--but these are in fact the ones who see past the illusion of individuality, who hear the One Will speaking, who feel its freedom as their freedom, noticing that there is really nothing singularly unique about the utterances, which is to say the willing, of the great majority of individuals. It is not an inhumane feeling, this enlightenment--it is not the thought that persons are mere matter; the critical philosophy knows that matter is transcendental, like space and time. It is the thought that egotism thrives only by the illusion of alienation. The ego is truly alone, because it does not know the One Will. But the genius is a friend to all, and understands all, and sees all living and breathing and willing in the same world--and true alienation is impossible, it is the only illusion. It is an illusion that we can annihilate anything. It is an illusion that we came from nothing and are threatened by death. I am the One Will and I see myself in all things. I recognize all things as myself--nothing is unfamiliar to me, nothing is outrageous to me, and therefore I never act with spite. I have no ignorance to hide, I know that all deception affords only an illusory haven. The same Will which I might deceive is the Will that sees what I have done and knows the truth through me. There is no hiding, because I cannot conceal anything from myself. Everything is exposed, everything is brought to light, everything is revealed. There is no darkness left. There is no hatred, dread, ambition, anxious desire, no will to deceive. There is no will to lie, no reason to lie.

>> No.14813225

>>14812371
Based, I'm right here with you.

>> No.14813232

>>14812371
>There is no hatred, dread, ambition, anxious desire, no will to deceive. There is no will to lie, no reason to lie.
sounds like you are in ignorance of your will

>> No.14814833

>>14812371
Based

>> No.14814868

No will but the will of God.

>> No.14814921

Based, sounds a lot like Ashtavakra Gita:

https://realization.org/p/ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita.html

>> No.14815171

>>14812371
It'll wear off in a few weeks

>> No.14815234

enjoyed reading that. have a good one anon <3
also, >>14815171, but that's ok. on to the next task

>> No.14815242

>>14815171
Not if OP actively meditates on it. Don't let it go to waste, OP. Take time to think about it and reread Schopenhauer every now and then.

>> No.14815244

>>14814921
That's literally because it is. Hindu philosophy was a driving influence on Schopenhauer's thinking.

>> No.14815249

>>14814868
Actually no sweetie. Only the raw urge for consciousness to wriggle its way painfully into existence.

>> No.14815259

>>14815244
The translations of Hindu texts appeared only after he had written his book, so he was even more impressed that his thought and theirs converged independently.

>> No.14815304

>>14815259
He quotes from the Upanishads in world as will and representation. He read the Latin translation. It could have been that this was added in the later editions of the book.

>> No.14815319

>>14812371
You can read the fifth chapter of part X of Thomas Mann's Buddenbrooks for a literary rendering of a guy who reads Schopenhauer, feels enlightened and thinks he has figured everything out, and then later falls back into depression.

>> No.14815326

>>14815259
>>14815304
Also the first translation of the upanishads was the Latin translation of the by Anquetil du Perron was published in 1801. He published WAWAR in 1818

>> No.14815329

>>14815326
>Also the first translation of the upanishads was the Latin translation of the by Anquetil du Perron was published in 1801.
Butchered this sentence lol but the salient fact is somewhere in the mess.

>> No.14815395

>>14815249
You're not very intelligent.

>> No.14815423

>>14815319
Sounds like dude got close, but didn't realize enlightenment doesn't mean constant bliss, it just means indifference to all your emotions, good and bad, neither accepting, nor rejecting them.

>> No.14815432 [DELETED] 

>>14815329
To this day Schopenhauer remains the only great Western philosopher to have been genuinely well versed in Eastern thought and to have related it to his own work. However, the nature of the relationship have been commonly minsunderstood: his philosophy is often said to have been *influenced* by the Eastern thought, and that is not correct in the sense in which it is usually meant. He did not begin to make acquiantance of Eastern thought until the end of 1813, when he met Majer, and by this time "The Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason" had been written and published. As he was later to write (in a marginal note dated 1849): " already in 1814 (my twienty-seventh year) all the dogmas of my system, even the subordinate ones, were established." And this is true, as can be verified from the notebooks. What happened is that, working entirely within the central tradition of Western philosophy -- before all else continuing and completing, as he believed, the work of Kant-- He arrived at positions which *he then almoost immediately discovered* were similar to some of the doctrines central to Hinduism and Buddhism. The discovery came to him as a revelation, and throughout his subsequent writings he made play with the parallels. But the relationship is not one of Influence. Indeed, in his mind the most important point lay in the fact that there was no influence: the profoundest thinkers of East and West, working unknown to each other in virtualy unrelated traditions and languages -- evolved quite seperately over huge stretches of time, indeed in different historical epochs and completely different kinds of soceity -- had been led to the same fundamental conclusions about the nature of the world. (Bryan Magee's The Philosophy of Schopenhauer page 15)
>>14815329
"To this day Schopenhauer remains the only great Western philosopher to have been genuinely well versed in Eastern thought and to have related it to his own work. However, the nature of the relationship have been commonly misunderstood: his philosophy is often said to have been *influenced* by the Eastern thought, and that is not correct in the sense in which it is usually meant.

He did not begin to make acquaintance of Eastern thought until the end of 1813, when he met Majer, and by this time "The Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason" had been written and published. As he was later to write (in a marginal note dated 1849): " already in 1814 (my twenty-seventh year) all the dogmas of my system, even the subordinate ones, were established." And this is true, as can be verified from the notebooks.

(1/2)

>> No.14815446

>>14815326
>>14815329
"To this day Schopenhauer remains the only great Western philosopher to have been genuinely well versed in Eastern thought and to have related it to his own work. However, the nature of the relationship have been commonly misunderstood: his philosophy is often said to have been *influenced* by the Eastern thought, and that is not correct in the sense in which it is usually meant.

He did not begin to make acquaintance of Eastern thought until the end of 1813, when he met Majer, and by this time "The Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason" had been written and published. As he was later to write (in a marginal note dated 1849): " already in 1814 (my twenty-seventh year) all the dogmas of my system, even the subordinate ones, were established." And this is true, as can be verified from the notebooks.

What happened is that, working entirely within the central tradition of Western philosophy -- before all else continuing and completing, as he believed, the work of Kant-- he arrived at positions which *he then almost immediately discovered* were similar to some of the doctrines central to Hinduism and Buddhism. The discovery came to him as a revelation, and throughout his subsequent writings he made play with the parallels.

But the relationship is not one of Influence. Indeed, in his mind the most important point lay in the fact that there was no influence: the profoundest thinkers of East and West, working unknown to each other in virtually unrelated traditions and languages -- evolved quite separately over huge stretches of time, indeed in different historical epochs and completely different kinds of society -- had been led to the same fundamental conclusions about the nature of the world." (Bryan Magee's The Philosophy of Schopenhauer page 15)

>> No.14815536
File: 145 KB, 1080x718, 1581954654782.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14815536

>>14812371
Schopenhauer had a bad Westernized reading of the Upnishads. Read René Guénon (pbuh) instead.

>> No.14815565

>>14815536
Sure! Just let me get my copy

>> No.14815583
File: 53 KB, 1000x1050, manichaean_cosmology.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14815583

>>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.

>> No.14815613

>>14815583
>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.
profane philosophy detected. we on /lit/ prefer to rely on revelation instead of mindless pseudery.

>> No.14815617

>>14815613
OP's post isn't about revelation either. It's about an anomalous experience of immanence.

>> No.14815625

>>14815617
His post would be considered pseudery too by the High Priests of /lit/.

>> No.14815630

>>14815625
>pseudery
While I don't agree with Schopenhauer's metaphysics, it's not pseudery.

>> No.14815632
File: 516 KB, 687x459, 1582149248654.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14815632

>>14815583
>there may be dual conflicting wills, which are in irreconcilable tension

>> No.14815633

>>14815583
I once felt something like that union. It was the union of the suffering of a murder victim and the suffering of their murderer. It was in that union that I felt God.

>> No.14815641

>>14815630
His metaphysics are just a bad reading of revelation. That's only natural, for he was detached from the living tradition of that revelation and didn't even read Sanskrit. >>14815583 on the other hand is just vain philosophy and pseudery.

>> No.14815647

>>14815641
And whose philosophy is based on revelation and therefore not psuedery? Pbuh (guenon) perhaps? Could it be...

>> No.14815650

>>14815632
>>14815641
Dualism is absolute.
>>14815633
I see. Well, I don't believe your experience meant much. It was more of a delusion.

>> No.14815655

>>14815647
Shankaracharya (pbuh) and his avatar in this fallen world Guénon (pbuh).

>> No.14815662

>>14815655
Go back to your containment thread and call yourself based hundred times.

>> No.14815665

>>14815650
>dual conflicting wills, which are in irreconcilable tension
>absolute
A low-IQ heretical reading of Christianity cannot be "absolute".

>> No.14815668

If you like Hinduism so much, why are you sympathetic to Islam? It doesn't make sense. Muhammad was kind of a barbaric warlord, which both Hume and Schopenhauer were right to bring up. Just jump to the source material like Upanishads and Adi Shankara's commentaries if you like Advaita so much. Bringing up Guenon doesn't make sense.

>> No.14815673

>>14815665
I'm not Christian. I actually think Gnosticism, such as Manichaeism, is more Zoroastrian rather than Christian. I don't like monotheism due to problem of evil, which Schopenhauer talked at length about in one of his essays.

>> No.14815675
File: 176 KB, 602x516, 1581557491596.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14815675

>>14815662
>Go back to your containment thread and call yourself based hundred times.
Cringe. The brother is right. Vain philosophy has been retroactively refuted by Shaykh Rene Guenon (pbuh).
>>14815655
Holy based...

>> No.14815684

>>14815673
>I don't like monotheism due to problem of evil
We know. That's a common delusion among various types of onions-boys.
>>14815668
>why are you sympathetic to Islam?
t. has never read Guénon

>> No.14815692
File: 3.97 MB, 200x200, 1582068613954.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14815692

>>14815673
>I'm not Christian.
>muh ""problem of evil""

>> No.14815706

And there we have it. Another high quality thread (much better than all of /lit/ recently), where OP talked about genuine experiences reading of a philosopher (genuine philosopher) had on him is ruined by deranged derailing spams of /lit/'s resident delusional. Is there really no way to ban this unhinged ape? Why are the mods not taking action?

>> No.14815707

>>14815673
>I don't like monotheism due to problem of evil, which Schopenhauer talked at length about in one of his essays.
So this is the power of Schopenhauer... At last, I truly see...

>> No.14815709

>>14815692
Well, you can't really have both an omnipotent and all-good god. Given how much of our reality is impermanent, I choose to believe god is not omnipotent but all-good. The world as a battleground of good and evil was created via a cosmic accident.
>>14815684
Well, the thing about being dualist, rather than a nondualist or monist, is I can say certain people are pure evil without any possibility of redemption, which means I am more likely to pick up the sword and slay them without any regrets. I am pro-execution unlike basedboys. I do not believe God's presence is in everyone; some peoples' divine fragments have vanished, leaving only darkness. Your own mysticism does not permit for this perspective.

>> No.14815714

>>14815706
I'm not even a Guenonfag. My blessings go out to him though for derailing vain philosophy threads.

>> No.14815723

>>14815709
>you can't really have both an omnipotent and all-good god
Only if you hold to the materialist heresy (no afterlife or Day of Judgement) or to the "mummy i want to feell good all the time" heresy. It's amusing how this single issue is sufficient to detect heretical hylics without failure.

>> No.14815733

>>14815709
>Well, the thing about being dualist, rather than a nondualist or monist, is I can say certain people are pure evil without any possibility of redemption, which means I am more likely to pick up the sword and slay them without any regrets. I am pro-execution unlike basedboys. I do not believe God's presence is in everyone; some peoples' divine fragments have vanished, leaving only darkness. Your own mysticism does not permit for this perspective.
And on the basis of which revelation do you hold this?

>> No.14815735

>>14815723
You are acting quite haughty. If your Abrahamic God and kike Jesus were real, I would have already been dead, for I wrote the most sinful story in existence.
While I am not sadistic and hate cannibals, I would make a special exception for your beloved kike on a stick. I would send you its preserved eyes as a gesture of kindness.
If it were up to me, all of Jerusalem and Mecca would be leveled to the ground and replaced with fire temples. The Sassanian-Byzantine wars never ended. Many of us still exist and are ready to slaughter every last adherent of Abrahamic filth.

>> No.14815739

>>14815723
>materialist heresy
It's the truth though. There are two material wills fighting over control. One is Evil, One is Good but weak, as >>14815583 explained so eloquently.
>>14815733
I came to this by pondering the questions by myself. I require no tradition to tell me the truth.

>> No.14815746

>>14815423
shit anhedonia means enlightenment?

>> No.14815751

>>14815735
>I would have already been dead
Where does the incarnate second person of the Holy Trinity promise anything like this? He only tells us that you shall be resurrected after your death and judged for your deeds like the rest of humanity.
>the rest of your hylic ramblings
Repent, brother. It is not proper for a man to write such things.

>> No.14815761
File: 488 KB, 2079x1041, 1555766227277.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14815761

>>14815739
>I came to this by pondering the questions by myself. I require no tradition to tell me the truth.

>> No.14815764

>guenonfag vs zoroasterfag
Wow this is quite a thread

>> No.14815766
File: 341 KB, 450x450, 1577004521710.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14815766

>>14815675
>>14815714
>>14815761
Holy based...
(pbuh)

>> No.14815773
File: 261 KB, 1200x750, 1580390364404.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14815773

>>14815709
>>14815735
>While I am not sadistic and hate cannibals, I would make a special exception for your beloved kike on a stick. I would send you its preserved eyes as a gesture of kindness.
>If it were up to me, all of Jerusalem and Mecca would be leveled to the ground and replaced with fire temples. The Sassanian-Byzantine wars never ended. Many of us still exist and are ready to slaughter every last adherent of Abrahamic filth.

>> No.14815784
File: 1007 KB, 1064x1513, 1580215765216.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14815784

>>14815673
>problem of evil

>> No.14815790

>>14815764
We only need to add the Albanian khomeinifag to make the cycle complete.

>> No.14815806
File: 101 KB, 608x712, 1581821495541.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14815806

>>14815761
>>14815773
>>14815784
Holy based...
Even Guenon's two books completely refute most (if not all) of modernity.

>> No.14815816
File: 269 KB, 379x379, 1558328943787.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14815816

>>14815709
>you can't really have both an omnipotent and all-good god
>I choose to believe god is not omnipotent but all-good. The world as a battleground of good and evil was created via a cosmic accident.
Is there a view more cringe than this?

>> No.14815821

>>14815816
If you acknowledge experiences of union can occur with diametrically opposed valences, intentions, events, or whatever, then it is a logical conclusion.

>> No.14815836
File: 8 KB, 190x258, ﷺ.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14815836

>>14815821
>diametrically opposed valences, intentions, events
>logic
Retroactively refuted by René Guénon (ﷺ).

>> No.14815841

>>14815650
The blind man telling the sighted colors are a delusion.

>> No.14815858
File: 232 KB, 702x869, 1581654026965.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14815858

>>14815709
>>14815673
>>14815583
That's just what someone living in Kali Yuga would think (as opposed to someone in contact with the primordial nondual initiatory tradition of the ancients).

>> No.14815860

>>14815836
I was not using logic in a strict and precise sense in that regard. The issue is that I feel all formal and paraconsistent forms of logic have many layers of assumptions, and they cannot reasonably be used to determine ontological matters. What we are stuck with is inductive reasoning based on experience. Therefore, it becomes a matter of interpreting the anomalous mystical experiences and their relationship to the nature of reality, rather than trying to uncover some kind of rationalist argument. The fact of the matter is, one can create countless rational arguments in favor of one theory or the other, but without experience or evidence, it becomes hard to verify which is true.
Regardless, from my own mystical experiences, oneness is typically directed to diametrically opposed opposites. It is a union with "what is", and "what is" is not one. Why does your theological system have negative or positive karma? Think about it.
The base of reality is a rudimentary dualism, not a rudimentary unity.

>> No.14815873

>>14815858
Okay, listen, the reason I am able to maintain a degree of respect for you is due to your immersion in Vedanta. Even though I do not personally agree with the religion, I can respect it. However, this worship of Guenon is getting out of hand. You are taking it too far. I almost think you have some kind of homoerotic obsession with this man. It reminds me of how Sri Ramana Maharshi was crying when people tried to drink the water he used to wash his feet.

>> No.14815875
File: 56 KB, 509x339, 1579061242025.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14815875

>>14815860
>diametrically opposed opposites
OH NO NO NO NO NO

>> No.14815884

>>14815875
diametrically opposed valences, intentions, events, or whatever*

>> No.14815886

>>14812371
You're manic. You're horizons have opened. If you do not press on, they can recede, and you'll be left on the shore.

>> No.14815890

>>14815875
based brother...

>> No.14815961
File: 255 KB, 740x531, 327444.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14815961

>>14815673
>I'm not Christian. I actually think Gnosticism, such as Manichaeism, is more Zoroastrian rather than Christian. I don't like monotheism due to problem of evil, which Schopenhauer talked at length about in one of his essays.
I wonder who could be behind this post...

>> No.14815976

>>14815961
Cyrus the Idiot should have slaughtered all of the Jews. It would have saved this world a lot of misery. If I could travel back to any point of time, I would ensure the utter destruction of every last Semite.

>> No.14815989

>>14815976
Whoa! Truly based

>> No.14815993

>>14815976
>this intense self-hatred
I wonder who could be behind this post...

>> No.14816008

>>14815993
I mean, Jewish views of monotheism are closer to your own. Jews don't really believe in a good and evil.

>> No.14816023

>>14816008
>Jewish views of monotheism are closer to your own
Jews believe in a good Jewish god and in a lesser evil Christian God. They literally claim that they created Christ to divert the gentiles and collect their souls, that's how delusional they are.

>> No.14816035

>>14816008
>Jewish views of monotheism are closer to your own
>absolute divine simplicity
>Christianity
OH NO NO NO NO

>> No.14816038

>>14816023
In Judaism, in higher levels of realization, one sees good and evil as false perceptions of duality. God is beyond good and evil in Judaism. The same applies to Christianity to a large extent. I had compiled quotes from both the Old and New Testament kind of indicating this stuff.
I was criticizing monotheism as a whole.

>> No.14817101

>>14815976
absolutely based

>> No.14817351
File: 113 KB, 609x462, vargtardy1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14817351

>>14815446
>profoundest thinkers of East and West, working unknown to each other in virtually unrelated traditions and languages -- evolved quite separately over huge stretches of time, indeed in different historical epochs and completely different kinds of society
Indeed

>> No.14817361

>>14815746
Kinda. My impression is anhedonics don't feel at all, and yearn for happy/exciting fee-fees. Whereas in the established state you still feel everything, but you never desire something different than you're currently feeling.

>> No.14817371

>>14815886
But it's ultimately ok. There's no need to accomplish anything in particular.

>> No.14817403

>>14812371
Based, bravo, well put.

>> No.14817428

>>14812371
When I realized I could stop pretending to be separate I was content. I hope meditation better allows me to maintain that. It sometimes feels like awareness slips away.

>> No.14817474

>>14817428
Yearning for that awareness to always be there is a fetter.

>> No.14817633

>>14817474
That seems true. If I seek awareness when I am unaware, is that different from eating when I'm hungry and sleeping when I'm tired?

>> No.14818221

>>14817633
Yes, because you already are always in that state, unlike hunger and thirst. Moments when it seems the state is no longer there is just you 'blinking'.

https://realization.org/p/ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita.html

>> No.14818977

>>14817351
>our oral traditions
what oral traditions? does he think there's an unbroken chain of tradition to his neo-pagan larping?

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action