Proclus

If Proclus is to be taken seriously, one might speak and write this way 1) to do justice to the ideas being communicated (something difficult and allusive to understanding might not be communicable clearly), and 2) to preserve the dignity or respect due to the things being communicated (too "open" an attitude might mean the vulgarisation of what's being discussed).

There are more reasons than those; to protect oneself from persecution, to protect a populace from truths that result in political or social instability, to train careful students by making them work it out for themselves instead of feeding it to them, to subtly change certain social and political attitudes, etc. Quite a bit of this also depends on what you conclude about human nature, namely, whether everyone is truly equal in a capacity to understand or not.

A very good book on this is Arthur Melzer's Philosophy Between the Lines, detailing the history of exoteric writings and esoteric teachings in philosophy.

Some great examples of philosophers talking about themselves and others were collected by Melzer into a very convenient pdf:

press.uchicago.edu/sites/melzer/index.html

you could barely teach a class of people chosen at random mid-level physics, let alone the deepest metaphysical principles of the universe

the general idea is if you gave it away for free people who are evil take advantage of it and try to exploit others. being patient and being forced to do some work will stop most evil, unserious people in their tracks.

It means hymns and poetry and allegory.
To truly capture the meaning of you say you must use the tools of art. Since above, there in the eternal life is beauty.
It's opposite of writing a textbook. 12 page hymn saying everything a 796 paged tome.

Thanks for your feedback. If I were a mystic myself, who has developed his own personal philosophy that attempts to explain the nature of reality and our species through a monism-of-consciousness angle, and is presently writing a book on it, what do I recommend I do? Imagine that I could see auras and other psychic phenomena too, and were going to describe the nature of these phenomena. Imagine that I had some personal experience with the nature of the self/ego and how it functions and affects our perception of things, and of the experience of "ego death" and related concepts. Pretend that I actually "know" a few things, and don't merely think I do. My desire is to help people understand these topics, and nothing else. I want it to be as accessible as possible, and something that the public will discuss among themselves after reading. What is your advice on how I should proceed? Because my desire was to explain everything clearly and straightforwardly, in both text and media (showing photoshopped photographs of what auras and other clairvoyant phenomena look like, for example). I am not a fan of the concept of esotericism, and have idealistic notions of "enlightening the populace". But am I doing something wrong? Should I change my direction with the project? I just want to help people (to remind them there's more to this world than what they might have thought it was, for example), and help mysticism become less mysterious. I'd appreciate your guys advice on the matter.

the masses will convert your writings to pap, the more you kowtow to their standards of accessibility, the more you compromise your vision. plato himself couldn't succeed in communicating the divine, what makes you think you can? the best you can do is strive for quality, reach out to less, but who understand, than to everyone, who'll just paste your lines on to a picture of a sunset, post it on their pinterest, experience only the most fleeting sensation of the numinous, and call it a day

Well I don't intend to "dumb it down" in a way that would make for pretty instagram quotations like you said (certainly not like a Deepak Chopra novel or one of those types of authors), but simply to explain things in a manner that tries its best to help the reader understand (assuming I myself have actual wisdom to share), rather than something which they labor to and may not in the end. Plato was clearly trying to present his readers something to ponder over, to open boxes and leave his readers to explore them for themselves. But if he wanted to explain things more straightforwardly, what would have stopped him? Why would it have been difficult? For example, Plato cared greatly for Beauty, and incorporated it into his primary philosophy. In my own text, I'll be attempting to explain Beauty in its entirety, namely, all the realms which invoke of it, and a single coherent narrative explaining what this means (but one that fits into the monism-philosophy the overall book is about). Nothing new, I'm sure many other books already exist on the subject, but that's an example of something which Plato spoke of in a slightly esoteric fashion which I intend to speak of in an exoteric and direct manner. Similarly, things like auras, are something which only a person who can see them can speak of. And many people don't believe these things are real. But I can see them, and want people to know they exist and ideally believe in them (or at least ponder whether they are). Hence why I'll make it as simple as possible, and show photoshopped images of what exactly they appear as, alongside discussing their nature.

I haven't astral travelled before, but I want to, and if I do, I want to similarly understand it and elaborate it clearly for a laymen audience. I want this text to be a spiritual bible of a kind, explaining as many of these kinds of topics as I personally can understand through my own experience of them.

Does that clarify anything? Esotericism turns me off for many reasons, namely that it exalts oneself and one's information to a higher value than it may have, with yourself believing it to be much loftier than it really is. In reality, it's only a belief of yours, though you believe it to be knowledge, and you're now presenting it to others as the latter category. It also turns me off because, as I said, I have idealistic notions of waking people up, of making them believe in more than what their world shows to them, and by extension to question their authorities and dominant paradigms. And also because I just want to reach out to people and help them as best I can.

Does this clarify anything? Any new thoughts after reading these words?

That's a really well-written passage. I wish I could write like that.

Bump.

Do you guys agree with Proclus's assertions?

bump pls

bump

brevity is the soul of wit after all

You've lost me friend. How does this tie into Platonism? Do you see the theories of Platonism similar to your own notions?

Yes, but that's not really relevant to what I was saying there specifically. I was just responding to your remark regarding "Plato couldn't communicate the Divine", with the question of why such a realm couldn't be straightforwardly communicated, either by him or anyone else. I gave the example of Beauty, and how, while he himself poetically waxed on its nature, I would (attempting to) be straightforwardly explaining it's mechanisms. My question tot his whole thread is basically why mysticism needs a veneer of mystique to it, and couldn't be elaborated more explicitly and straightforwardly? Isn't esotericism a step in the direction of obscurantism, and the latter one of the major platforms of sophistry? Which people like Hegel are lambasted for, and himself criticized of other philosophies? Isn't it pretentious to speak mystically, in the sense that it assumes I "know more" than who I'm speaking to, myself in the higher position and them in the lower?

can you guys pls just give me advice on the direction for what i'm writing. i've never been certain of what my project is, but when i read of sentiments like yours, it makes me think i should stop altogether and completely reconsider my approach. i just have very high empathy for the world and feel very much in pain all the time and therefore hate esoteric communication but want to write something that will help as many people as it can and help reduce the suffering in our world

also can you help me heal from my pain, it's too much to bare some of these days

would you rather genuinely help maybe a few people or "raise awareness" and contribute to noise that microscopically "reduces suffering" for people who don't want or need what you are trying to give them? the fact that you are asking the questions you are about being obscure or "straightforward" and explicit means you should reconsider what you're doing. why do you want to write a "spiritual bible"? perhaps "esotericism" is less haughty than you have thought or than you are being. does your authority come from your earnest desire to help people?

because i think spirituality is a very misunderstood realm, and that today especially people are mired in scientism and materialism and when looking into spirituality see an airy and empty show of new-age elements (crystals, tarot, shallow platitudes spouted by well-meaning but intellectual types, etc), which naturally only makes them less likely to see anything substantial to it. and i see people on this site that talk about wanting to kill themselves, how life is meaningless, about death being the end, and other doctrines of misery. i look at the spiritual literature of the world - the bible, the gita, and so on - and while they all contain many pearls of wisdom, they are only presented in a poetic manner, there's no straightforward exposition on realities like the subtle bodies and other scientifically real areas like that. my intention is to put all of the latter into a single book, that anyone could read and absorb. subtle bodies, astral travel, ghosts, ego death, beauty, and many other realms - all contained in a single resource, that aims to order them and explains them under a single worldview/philosophy. and i want anyone to be able to read this text, spiritual people or modern athiests or so on, and to know that they don't have to fear things like death, i want them to know that their life is meaningful, and that killing themselves won't help them. to remind them and explain to them that they are in reality pure consciousness and that this body and identity are illusory. and that they should live this life with meaning and never again worry about death and other things which can't hurt them. i don't know what you mean by the last question, i don't have any authority in the first place. i'm just a nobody who wants to write a book with my own experiences and philosophies in it.

also, my thought was that if i write it to be accessible, than anyone, both laymen and more discerning individuals like you mentioned, could read and penetrate it. but if i wrote it more cryptically, only the latter could. i see it as a win-win to write it accessibly

bump plox

It is also the case that the better it is explained, the more cryptic it becomes to troglodytes, as cryptic as "mystical" explanation, if not more so; see Hegel.

bump

all right, what is the soul?

i don't think a soul could properly answer that question, it's too fundamental to it

instead of quizzing me, can you please answer my mentioned questions

Not only that, but this is speaking of philosophical truths, in which people can completely misunderstand what is being told to them while thinking they understand. When their misunderstanding ruins their life, then they will try to tell as many people as possible that you are a sham. If it never really changes their life, they will tell people the false interpretation. Poor Nietzsche.

>also, my thought was that if i write it to be accessible, than anyone, both laymen and more discerning individuals like you mentioned, could read and penetrate it
Nietzsche already tried doing this, and it's effects were devastating to his post-humous legacy.

That was the answer to your question. You cannot dissect an idea like the soul without being esoteric to an extent.

it doesn't matter, I'm gauging how well you think you can communicate these ideas, I promise you if you say something like simple and straightforward, it might feel like the satisfying concentration of years of study into one phrase, but for anyone who hasn't made the same movements on you, the best you'll get is a polite nod as it goes in one ear and out the other.

anything, anything, even nirvana, can be communicated with simple phrases, but they're so unable to exhaust the depths and subtleties of the idea and the movements it entails you'd honestly be wasting your time.

Oh I see, I understand. For me I'm not trying to write anything giving definitions for things, but to simply explain objectively whatever I can objectively explain. For example, our external bodies have physical eyes, but we have internal subtle bodies that are the same design as the external body (think of ghost sightings and how the ghosts have all retained ordinary human appearance), which houses subtler organs, like the "inner eye" or "third eye". it's literally the eye, but it vibrates at a faster rate than the physical eye does. if it can "come online" in a person, they become able to see psychic phenomena. and the same for the ear, and other sense-organs. this is how the phenomena of "psychics" can be partly explained, as people who have awakened these inner spiritual sensory organs. i would discuss how we all intake the world through our ego, and how, as this ego dissolves, the world itself that we thought was "objectively" as it was, was really only seeing our own sense of person-identity overlaid onto it. we think we see a world but we only see ourselves, in reality. these are examples of what i'd be discussing and how. i guess it would be esoteric in the sense that some areas really just can't be spoken of, but can be broached and the reader can ponder them for themselves after that (like what you said about the soul). but my purpose is to directly explain as much as I can. it doesn't take much of a genius or writer to simply be able to open boxes and let the reader read into them on their own, if the boxes have already been long-opened by all the thinkers of previous (ex. Plato). hence explanation is my aim. as i said, i desire to demystify mysticism, and make more people both interested in and aware of it

i appreciate your answers a lot. i really don't know what to do anymore, i want to write something of quality but i still want to help/reach as many people as possible so if what u say is true regarding the inability to do both at once, that appeasing one sacrifices the other, then i'm at an impasse. i'll have to spend a much longer time pondering this before i write anything again (previously i'd been writing away, but now have to stop and question my direction) :(

focus on your path first, the best material never comes when you're looking for it

you literally can't talk about the suprarrational, you can only point at it

Oh cool its Lysias

can you elaborate on the first part pls, "focus on your path first"

achieve the heights you want others to achieve in yourself first, that should be your top priority, if it isn't then you're not being honest with yourself and more interested in the image of spirituality than spirituality itself

well that was my interest but the explanation of it in writing was simultaneously one as well, and while the former is a given, the latter is what you guys have now made me reconsider. my project was dual: experiencing realities, and providing explanation of them. both are equally important to me, there is nothing that should be in the former category that doesn't enter the latter. this isn't bc i'm disingenuous, but bc i'm not doing this solely for myself. think of it like some journalist who goes to some place of the world to report on something found there. they are doing it partially to learn about the issue itself, and partially to spread awareness of it to the audience that they are reporting to, namely the rest of the world. that's how i see myself anyways, not merely a mystic but a mystic-journalist/communicator

It’s Eratosthenes

if you have a salvific draught for our postmodern malaise then write a PhD on it, surreptitiously couching it in academic style to get past the censors, get it published through an academic press and steer the culture from above with lots of footnotes.

i'm sorry, i really didn't understand that

I'm saying whatever you write, by virtue of how conventionally fringe things like subtle bodies are, should be done in a rigorous style with footnotes, otherwise your book, no matter how good, will be lumped together with the mountain of low effort syncretic appologetics that inhabits the new age and metaphysical sections of bookstores. Have you ever considered going for a PhD? There are departments out there that are interested in the things you are interested in.

thanks for the elaboration. personally i'm not a fan of academia at all, i was finishing up my bachelors in economics when all this spiritual phenomena started happening to me, and i had to take a break from my degree. i'm still trying to get better. but i don't want to do any Masters or PhD, no. just want to get my bachelors and then leave formal education forever, and this spiritual stuff will be what i pursue on the side when i'm not at my day job

There are some surviving fragments tho. The scraps of the Chaldean Oracles give us some clues and then there's the Greek Magical Papyri, which is mostly goetia, but there are some theurgical formulas within it.

No, you can't lift anyone up the heights that these philosphers are speaking of. It has to come from within your own motivation and abilities. Most are lacking those.

>you will never understand Proclus’ Commentary on Euclid’s Elements

Sure is nice knowing how Aristotleian Metaphysics and Euclidean geometry are linked.

Plens

If you acheieved all those things you wouldn't have a desire to "enlighten the populace"

why do you say this

There's several reasons relating to the nature of desire itself, but the most significant is simply the fact that the universe is not egalitarian. There is a divine heirarchy and it extends into our realm. You're not going to change that nor should you want to. Everyone has their place for a reason.

But even if not egalitarian, isn't improvement possible for all? Everyone is here to learn and grow, without exception. Isn't the purpose of life to help others? And if we uplift ourselves spiritually, what value is there in it if we do not document it and share it with others, to help them do the same? Else the knowledge will simply leave with us when we leave this world. What's the point in you reaching enlightenment, if you never made any motions to help others do the same? It's like the difference between simply eating an apple yourself, and planting an apple tree for others.

Improvement may be possible for most, but that usually doesn't require any mystical teaching. I'll speak from experience a bit here. I spent quite a bit of time with esoterica and began working with practices like evocation. I won't claim to be a powerful mage or anything because the biggest insight I got was that I was here in this body for for a reason, and to surpass my place I have to master it. That meant putting away my esoterica in order to get involved in my community, advance my career and education, and unironically get /fit/. I'm being totally serious. Yes, I also got a bit of metaphysical insight into the grand nature of the divine, but it only underscored how much I needed to focus on myself and mastering my current place in the universe. Maybe you're beyond me, and your desire to elevate others is truly wise (there are rare people like Jesus and Plato), but from where I'm at it seems very pie-in-the-sky.

what if his commentaries are only scratching the surface?

Evocation sounds cool, care to explain it more to me? Or should I just google it? I've never heard of that.

I'm not claiming to be wise, I merely have the experiences and philosophies/perspectives that I do, which I am desire to, and am trying to, compile together into a single written work. I also don't understand why the desire to elevate others is considered "wise", and the mention of Jesus and Plato? Are we not, all of us, by working in a society, necessarily helping eachother by doing so? And all I'm describing here, then, is doing that specifically in the spiritual realm instead of all the other occupations we otherwise work as. Why do you consider Plato wise for writing his dialogues? The dialogues themselves are very wise, but why is it wise on his part to have written them? Isn't it merely another occupation? Sorry, I'm just struggling here, in this whole thread, with grasping why it's considered hopelessly idealistic to want to spread enlightening teachings (presuming I have any amount of such) onto others. Everyone tells me what you guys do - that most people can't or won't grasp it, save it for the few who will, and I just can't tell whether you guys are the ones being pessimistic, or me being optimistic. I don't even know what I'm saying here, anymore, really. I don't have any real talents in life, spirituality kind of came into it only recently but it's been fruitful thus far, and I see it as normal to want to apply myself toward it, and towards helping others at the end of it, in the same way that anything a person does goes towards the world's benefit, for that specific occupation. The businessman, the baker, the musician, the journalist, the mystic. I don't see any of these as different, beyond the field in question. I just perceive this life as worthless if not to better as much of the world around me as possible, and, given my lack of talents and interests in life, see no other realm in which I could but the spiritual one. There's so many places of worship in our world, for all the different religions. But I am not in favor of these tribal institutions, preferring instead to simply speak of universal spiritual conceptions that any of any background could read and benefit from, such as the nature of "identification" and how it creates the illusion of personhood, for example.

tl;dr I don't see my quest as anything noble, but really quite normal. Spirituality already fills our world, though it's divided into religious factions, which I include "New Age" stuff under. There's already so many spiritual resources out there, but as said earlier there don't seem to be any which are as comprehensive and complete as they could be, or as objective and rationally-explained as they could. They also possibly divide themselves into tribal divisions, which taint their teachings and somewhat remove them of the universality that is really their nature.

bump

bump

also sorry to call it a "quest", that was pretentious. should've said "endeavour"

listen bud why dont u go ahead and explain these things u believe WITHOUT using mystical concepts. Until u do that, ur just chuckin stones.

Sorry bud, someone already wrote the Bible.

yes and the bible is beautifully-written, but also highly cryptic and impenetrable in many areas (some of jesus's words go over all of our heads to this day) which is the opposite of what I've stated my intention is to write...

i'll just give up at this point, i've clogged up this thread with my comments. it's just that mystic threads are rare on Yea Forums, and i don't really have any people in my life i could receive advice from...

bump

>the bible is beautifully-written, but also highly cryptic and impenetrable in many areas (some of jesus's words go over all of our heads to this day)

can you give some examples?

Hello fellow bodhisattva, I've been thinking about something similar but originally aimed at my future kids. I hope you find a way to accomplish this goal in your lifetime.

I can't recall passages well, but one of them would be:
"The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.23But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great [is] that darkness!"

thank you, same to you my fren. also i made an error in that post, i meant to say "well-meaning but underdeveloped in intellect types" referring to New-Agers who are well-intentioned people, but not rational enough to understand what they are dealing with, and misrepresent spirituality to the rest of the world

Because the masses are too dumb for their own that they will either 1) misinterpret the truth and bastardize it forever, thus destroying it or 2) find it so provocative that they will protest against it and kill you.

But at least if it's written out neatly, any future eye can come and see what it's about for themself, even if the masses do misconstrue it? Meaning, as long as the words are there, can't anyone of any background read it and come to their own opinions? Both the less awakened ordinary public, and the more discerning, lonesome individuals?

The bottom-question is this: how do we wake up the world? what could ever be done (not relating to me specifically here, but in general) to help much of the modern mass start to wake up from the sleep of today's society, and everything within it that's keeping us this way (ex. capitalism, idpol, social media, materialist narratives, etc)

Have you even read Plato? He clearly explains why just giving away knowledge is a bad idea.
>The bottom-question is this: how do we wake up the world?
You can't. These events must run their course. Everyone will wake up when we finally hit rock bottom in the Kali Yuga, but by then, it'll be too late. The best you can hope to do is to ask those who are willing to listen subtle, yet thought provoking questions for them to chew on, instead of dropping redpills everywhere like Alex Jones or a /pol/ doomsayer standing outside Times Square.

Can you explain where Plato says that, or what he says? I'd be interested to hear, I haven't finished all his works.

But what's the point, then? There are people who dedicate their whole lives to spiritual endeavours, such as Christian priests or Hindu swamis or even Hare Krishna organizers. There are many spiritual teachers on Youtube, for example, who give talks and have large audiences. Yet most of them are just going through formal motions and have little true grasp of spiritual realities like the kind discussed here above, and ultimately are just contributing to an institution which is not serving to really change much within society - the public's attitude, the status quo, and everything else all remain the same. If these people can dedicate their lives to what is ultimately formality, why should I not be doing the same to a more substantial aim? I'm not saying it would work, and that change would be made, only that I find it so utterly pointless to see spirituality exist in our world, but be nothing more than dry religious formalism that is entirely part of the existing status quo of society, and not in any way altering it. And if these people can spend their whole lives to that, why shouldn't I at least spend my off-hours after work for a more impactful project?

I do agree about the Kali Yuga though, but I don't know what to do about that either. What the heck do we do? I've become something of a crypto-Christian recently, wherein I originally believed in Advaita and Neoplatonism's conceptions of the Divine but now think there might be a Heavenly Father too, and that there's a spiritual war being fought right now, hidden from the eyes of those who are uninformed to these realities. I just don't know how, if this is true, I'm supposed to live my life knowing it to be so.

In the Phaedrus of Plato, Socrates discusses the faults of writing. The jist of it is, when you are talking to a living person and discussing his ideas, you can question him and ask him to clarify and elaborate his points so you can understand thoroughly, but when reading text, you can't do any of that. All the text can do is say the same thing over and over again. The New Testament has existed for 1800 years, but no matter how much we discuss the text, we are still nowhere closer to knowing what Jesus really meant when he gave all of those sermons and allegories, and why he did the things he did. The advantage oral traditions have over their literary counterparts is there is a distillation of the truth in myths that have been passed down through generations. Whereas literacy societies will have commentaries with multiple interpretations with nobody knowing which interpretation is more sound. Rene Guenon has pointed out the former method is how the truly secret inititiatic groups have survived for so long, because they have left no trace of evidence of their existence to the public, while preserving and transmitting their traditions for hundreds if not thousands of years.

I'm not the user you're responding to, but I have had similar experiences to both of you so I will try and weigh in.

Basically, the other user is correct in pointing out that as helpful and profound as metaphysical insights are, they're only one part of the picture. For a few years I was actually a bit like you, feeling this intense desire to speak about deep, profound truths about the nature of reality and how much better life could be if we all just woke up and read Plotinus and Parmenides and so fourth. I felt it so strongly in fact that I actually found myself feeling very frustrated that no one seemed interested in this, funnily enough.

But slowly, overtime, I began to realise this was just the universe's way of saying people simply weren't ready, myself included. If the state of the world as it is today is one in which virtually no one (save for a few scattered mystics) has true interest in metaphysical ideas, then that's just how it is. That's not to say that talking about these things isn't productive, but trying to create some "great awakening" will only leave one feeling frustrated and cynical.

Also, user is correct in pointing out that you really, REALLY need to sort your own life out before you're in any position to be a teacher to others. If you are like is I was, you might feel angry at the authority money holds over modern society, or that most people work spiritually bankrupt jobs, and so on, but trying to fight the grain in this case is actually just a way to keep yourself blocked and unproductive. Finding work (wholesome work, of course), getting involved in your community, maintaining good relationships with your friends/family, etc. are something I realised are all incredibly crucial steps in becoming a human leader. Sometimes the best way to teach someone a deep truth is simply to help them move the furniture. I don't know what your current life situation is, but if you're still mostly focusing on metaphysical pursuits at the expense of being independent in satisfying your physical needs, then I'd suggest changing that, to whichever degree you're capable of. It can be hard work, trust me, I've been through it, but actually you'll find yourself learning MORE about the cosmos by engaging with the mundane world.

I hope all of this helps user. Not sure if this was what you were looking for but I'm posting it anyway.

Oh, I'm actually aware of that. Plato's stance on the inferiority of the written medium to that of speech. And I agree with him very much. But overall, I still really don't understand...maybe I'm genuinely too immature to grasp what you guys are telling me. I don't see mysticism as something mystical, meaning, I see all of life as intrinsically a spiritual/mystical experience and don't perceive mysticism to be merely one dimension to it, and I perceive spirituality to already be all around us, in a worldly, mass-friendly format. I perceive our world to have so many shades of error to itself, from the way people treat others, to the way our species sees itself, or plenty else. I believe I have high-level mystical truths that I can articulate-well into language, and desire to do so in a manner that ultimately benefits the world which reads it. That it uplifts people's spirits (making them less nihilistic, for example), gives them something insightful to ponder over, drives them to be more living and moral to their fellow beings, and ultimately helps them to live their present life. I genuinely don't need this text, nor do I desire money for it. I just want to give the world something that will benefit it, both during my life and after I die. Many have written mystic expositions before, from all sorts of sects. Christianity, Vedanta, etc. But none that I have seen so far have been as comprehensive as what I'm trying to compile at present, which would essentially be an entire philosophy wrapped into one exposition. Meaning, it'd have epistomology, morality, psychology, language, aesthetics, politics, spirituality and more all wrapped into a single system. Hope this doesn't sound pretentious, I'm just trying to elaborate on my intentions so I can get better feedback from you for it. And basically, a person could read this philosophy no different than they read Hegel, Kant, Schopenhauer, Adi Sankara, etc, the only difference being the greater scope of topics found in it, and the practical aspect as well, involving exercises that the reader can follow in the spiritual domain. I'm rambling, sorry. My overall point is that I really don't think there's anything special about spirituality and high-level metaphysical expositions, and rather, I see it as absolutely necessary that these concepts be out there in the world as clearly presented and explained as they can be. For the sake of the world. The concept of oneness, for example, is one that many are inevitably to misunderstand - reducing it to some feel-good but ultimately shallow and naive platitude, when in reality monism is the highest and deepest of truths one can understand, and which I believe my experience with ego-loss has enabled me to firsthand experience and therefore explain well-enough to a reader that it becomes properly understood by any who read of it. (1/2)

>But none that I have seen so far have been as comprehensive as what I'm trying to compile at present, which would essentially be an entire philosophy wrapped into one exposition.
Alright, I had my suspicions, but I'm just going to outright say it.

You are a LARPer. You are full of yourself. You think a few mystic insights, as powerful as they are, have made you into the second coming of Jesus.

You're not that, and you will never be so long as you cling to the idea that you are. As I said in my previous comment, it's one thing to have insights and to elaborate on them, its another to know how to live a good life and uplift others in a world that doesnt recognise insights at all. THIS is what you need to work on. Not sitting down trying to scribble out the "most profound mystic text ever."

Watch this video to get an idea of the need to integrate mystic experiences with practical reality.

youtube.com/watch?v=z2B_e24UJi8

I just see so much chaos in our world, so many people suffering from complexes born of their own misunderstandings on their own nature and the nature of reality itself (nihilism, for example), and I want to give society something both philosophically edifying and morally beneficial, that people could base much of their own life's philosophy around, if they agreed with whatever I had written. Ultimately, I am to die one day, and I don't want to do so without leaving as much as I can to the world, which at present consists of this project I'm telling you about. I'm rambling, I know. Sorry. I don't even know what I'm saying anymore. I guess I'm just trying to grasp the last strands of advice I can from this thread, since I've pestered you guys enough and at this point have to work this stuff out myself.

My main point is that I still don't understand why lofty mystical truths can't be brought down to a level of accessibility without corrupting their integrity, or what the harm is in trying to positively impact a larger pocket of society all at once. As we speak, there are bestseller books on the shelves of bookstores. Customers are buying them, reading them, rating them, discussing them, the authors are doing interviews, and so on. Or on this board alone, you guys are discussing newly released books among yourselves, be them fiction or non-fiction, and the ideas within them. Apply this to anything really - films, etc. Would it not be possible for another book, revolving around spirituality, to occupy the same position in a culture? Not that I believe mine would ever become big, or anything like that. But if someone out there wrote such a text, one that would cover all the above areas and be written in such a way that society as a whole would benefit, why would it not be able to occupy a similar position as the ones which already fill those spots? I'm not saying this as if it were my own book, and I have no fantasies of fame or money or anything like that. I'm just speaking in principle here, namely, why a text aiming to provide gnosis couldn't occupy the popularity that other more ordinary works tend to. I can't really write more, I've harassed you guys enough. I'll sort this out on my own. Can you explain the initiatic thing for me please, though? This is again part of my confusion - I don't understand what all these spirituak groups do, and I personally feel so much pain in life and that most of life consists of people hurting others and making eachother's lives worse, that I get saddened to hear of these spiritual clubs that I wonder whether are more just shows of ego or if they're doing anything good for the world. I just want people to be more moral, and if I could help them understand nondualism/monism and properly experience it personally, then they'd be more likely to do that. That's literally my main goal: to make people lead better lives for themselves, and to be more loving to eachother. (2/2)

Why do you say this? I'm not claiming myself to have anything profound, or more profound than those philosophers, I'm merely describing the breadth of the work I'm aiming after here. Meaning, while philosophers tend to concentrate on one or few areas, and while mystics similarly write of what they write of, I'm trying to combine everything I know of into a single resource. As I mentioned above, the subtle bodies are a large part of what I'm after. Philosophers will speak of sensory-data and it's nature, for example, but if they know nothing about the pineal gland or subtle bodies, then they'll say nothing on the subject. They might muse on the immortality of the soul after the death of the body, but if they haven't astral travelled, or even heard of it, then they'll again have nothing to say on that front. Meanwhile, mystics (people like Paramahansa Yogananda, or Christian mystics for example) typically won't write on subjects like epistomology or the nature of logic, which are relegated to the realm of "philosophy", while they themselves focus primarily on the Divine. My point was simply that I'm trying to combine as much of these areas into a single coherent worldview, and that's why I said it'd be more "comprehensive" than what these philosophers or mystics have so far done. And I'm saying that after having actually read them, and making the observation directly. To reconcile previously distinct realms. There is no ego here, I'm not Jesus Christ and don't think I am, nor am I trying to do anything except organize as much of spirituality as I can (which for me includes everything in reality) into a single resource. That's all.

What makes you think your insights are great enough to be able to write a book that not only successfully reconciles thousands of disparate ideas and subjects (in a way that hasn't been achieved by the countless previous author who've attempted the same thing), but is also accessible enough and profound enough to truly shift the psychological paradigm we find ourselves?

I am not trying to be mean, truly, and I recognise your noble intentions, but I am wary of you falling for the trap of thinking that the best way you can help people is to "tell them things they've never heard before." I get the feeling you could do a lot of genuinely good work, but only if you look honestly at what's compelling you to write this book, and assess whether your intentions are entirely altruistic or if there's still ego there.

>and is presently writing a book on it, what do I recommend I do?
Someone else has already undertook this monumental task and has produced pic related with decades of research, but without all the auras, astral traveling, and other /x/ shit. But only that, he didn't dumb anything down and directly puts each source text side-by-side each other in their respective topics. Aldous Huxley did the same thing with The Perennial Philosophy, but he gets a second place trophy. Wrap it up and go home.

Attached: spiritual ascent.jpg (282x400, 23K)

I don't think the insights are great enough, that's for others to decide. I'm merely describing my intended aim for the project. And believe me, there's nothing here that hasn't been said before. I mentioned above that I'm writing about Beauty, for example, and how it works, which I know already exist in other books, but I haven't seen any philosophers integrate it into a complete worldview that incorporates the many other dimensions of ourselves into it as well. The fractal nature of Beauty, for example, and how this syncs up with the oneness expounded on by doctrines like Advaita. I hope this is clear, that I'm not here speaking about my actual profundity (which I can't judge for myself), only about intended-depth (deeper metaphysical truths, and whether or not it harms me to explain these accessibly versus more esoterically) and also scope, in that I'm trying to put together many previously disjointed realms into a single one. This is the aim, whether or not it's achievable. Forget about the paradigm shift then, because I'm aware that such notions are idealistic. I was only mentioning that earlier because, well, if ordinary books, some containing negative consequences for society (ex. think of certain modern political ones), can come out and be successful in our society, I was hoping and wondering why a positive one could not do the same. Our culture needs such positive stuff now more than ever, given how steeped we are in conflict and decay. But I was also saying all that stuff regarding changing society as the tail-end to my earlier questions regarding the way it should all be written, seen in our earlier conversations. Just forget about that - I agree it's really too idealistic/optimistic and not something I should have spent time thinking about.

I know you're not being mean, don't worry. And I know I might sound a bit megalomaniacal here, I'm aware of that, but I assure you that I don't think too much of myself, or have desires for this project save that of benefiting others. I'm a personal mystic and will always be one, and this book therefore wouldn't really be made for my own sake, since whatever I do understand about spirituality, I carry with me by nature. Just as a civilian bodybuilder might write a treatise of his knowledge on gymgoing and put it onto /fit/, not for his benefit but for others to benefit from. If I truly had an understanding of how to intentionally bring oneself into higher states of consciousness, or the nature of our body's chakra-system, or so on, then what I'm writing right now could be thought of similarly.

But I appreciate your advice, and all the other anons here too. I think, after I respond to , I'll be done with leaving further comments here. I'm still a bit lost, but I'll mull over everything you guys have said to me, and sleep on it quite a bit. Thanks again, user. If you have more remarks to make then you can do so, but if not, take care and I wish you well in your endeavours. :)

>dunning kruger pseud projecting
Write it then.

This is really good advice, and very relevant to me. My life is presently in shambles, and I'm completely inept in my attempts to bring myself back to a state of order. I'm jobless, friendless, educationless, and uncertain of any future direction for myself. I will try and work on these things before I work on this personal project, though I'm in quite a bog at the moment and it'll be difficult to bring myself out of it. Could you just tell me what you mean by "getting involved in your community"? I always see people say this, but I don't know what it means. Do you mean volunteer work?

Diamond Sutra harder.

You can’t fully convey an idea through words. To use an example from Bergson, even if you took pictures all over Paris, if you show them to someone who has never been to Paris they will never be able to imagine what being in Paris is like unless they’ve already gone.

It’s the same. When writing, you will never be able to fully convey an experience, so you have to explain around the experience in order to get your audience to use their experience to fill in the remaining gaps (and even then, it remains imperfect.

By showing you massive awesome shit, you can get a sense of awe, which gets you closer to the feeling of God, and is another possibility of explaining around the thing you’re trying to convey.

TLDR: stemlords btfo

How do you explain beauty in a straightforward way? Plato wasn't trying to be purposefully obscure, the nature of what he discussed defies straightforward explanation. So instead of simplifying his ideas and trying to explain it everyone, he wrote them so that the people capable of understanding will understand

I'm still in the process of figuring that out, but for me "getting involved" at the bottom level just means having an attitude of always taking opportunities to better your community, in whatever way that is, as they come to you. For instance, I come from a large-ish extended family, and there's always work they need help with, so if they need assistance and someone mentions it to me, I will make the effort to go and help them, even if just for an hour or so. I'm not getting kids off the street, but I am being a pro-active part of my wider social network, and from there you can build up a more solid idea of how you want to serve your community.

Also don't forget that you can ask your community to benefit YOU - if you think you'd like to spend some time learning about, I dunno, geology, and you see that your local museum is having a free talk one night by a geologist, you have absolutely every right to go there and just check it out. Even if you just hang around the back and leave as soon its done, you're still taking out what you need from your community, and only good things can come of that.

Lastly, I'd have to say this sort of attitude will take time to cultivate, and it will require you to go out of your comfort zone, but in the long run it will be immensely beneficial to you. It can help to visualise yourself as a warrior or a soldier on a mission, since you're putting yourself out there and "going into battle" against the things holding you back, so to speak. Also don't be cruel to yourself too, just do what you can, take the opportunities as they arise, and you'll begin to see things shift.