Why are Sufi mystical texts so banal? Rumi is such a hack.
>we all have a piece of God in us
>we must escape the body
The most hackneyed dime-a-dozen brand of mysticism. The Ladder of Divine Ascent is so much fresher and serious. Plus unlike Rumi, John Climacus didn't have a homosexual lover
There's a reason most Islamic philosophy came about as a direct result of their encountering Aristotle.
uh
People eat that shit up, the same way people eat up neo-Christain rock music as “inspirational” worship music despite recycling the most vapid musical tropes.
Wow a mustache how deep
Rumi is not homosexual, you retard.
:p, this made me giggle
Do you guys personally think mystical texts should be more esoteric than exoteric, or more straightforward and explanatory? Asking questions and leaving them to be pondered, or lucidly presenting your personal answers to questions already pondered on?
(a-asking for a fren, t-totally not currently writing one myself haha)
It's trash, because you're reading a translation made by a retarded Anglo. Learn Persian then read Rumi.
g-guys pls gib advice
Mystical texts should be clear or explain themselves
I am reading a book in him by an imam and academic which explains his Sufi background, his allegory, his understanding of the Koran, etc. Rumi is trash
I didn't say he was, the identity didn't exist then. But he had a male lover
Still reading an English translation. Rumi's poems lose all beauty once you translate them.
I am talking about his spiritual teachings, not whether his rhymes are doggerel. Although most poetry which is very good will hold some merit even if translated into prose
John Climacus is playing an entirely different game than Rumi. Christian mystics are unparalleled
That is true too, although Protestant ones don't impress me. But Climacus is actually profound, not just Zen platitudes. Kierkegaard was very influenced by him
>Protestant ones don't impress me.
Check out Boehme. Him and Kierkegaard redeem all of Protestantism as far as I'm concerned
>Christian mystics are unparalleled
Definitely esotier. Normies won't get it anyway.
The former is repulsive. The latter is alright apart of his individualism although in his environment I understand it. He was called to be a hermit
>Whoa zen
Read Isaac the Syrian some time
There are some writers (Rilke and Neruda being the others I can think of right now) that seem to appear to a shallow crowd in translation, but I suspect the real depth and beauty comes from the way they used their language.
But what if you want normies to get it, so that it's messages (regarding oneness, love, etc) could have a larger impact on the world that reads it?
Hindu non-dual mysticism is incredible though.
That's not mysticism
How
As straightforward as can be, even to the point of resembling analytic philosophy. Only psueds feel the need to make a difficult to comprehend subject even more complex
Expositions on consciousness done millenia ago which are only now being grasped by the prevailing intellectual bodies of the Western world.
That's because it's unironically true and the most accurate depiction of reality made by humans, even past inductive empiricism
What are your favorite texts, mystics, or concepts?
No, that's Heidegger
>Isaac the Syrian
>unparalleled
This is more of my own personal, unrefined beliefs more than anything else:
God or the Godhead is an eternal, uncaused being that constitutes the whole of reality. Nothing exists outside of it, and nothing came before or after it. God is not static however, God can be thought of as an infinite coruscating process of self-creation and dissolution. All of reality condensing into a singularity, which then explodes and changes form into all of the matter that we recognize and everything else we that can't yet recognize, and whcih finally condenses back into a single point. This point is the sum of all consciousness and is the closest mode of God to something resembling a classical theos (the point in the cycle where God is the most unified and self-conscious, though only occupying one perspective, the self looking into itself). The singularity God is the most ordered and easiest to understand and can be thought of the masculine aspect. At the other end of the polarity is the dissolved God, the chaotic, unorganized, feminine pole occupying the perspective of the self seeing itself from outside. We currently occupy the chaotic pole as individual beings. From our view, God (which is us in aggregate) has begun a process of exponential self-rediscovery that will end with the death of the universe and the reunification of God to itself. This cycle is infinite and eternal and has happened countless times before and will happen countless times again.
This is a very rough view of my beliefs and is woefully undeveloped
Sounds very much like the Hindu cyclical model of the cosmos. Nice, dude. You should expand on your thoughts of this, then write it in a book and let others read it :)
>mystical
>esoteric
>love
>wine
>infinity
The author of Dilbert apparently wrote a novel that is extremely similar to this and i'm scared of being accused of plagiarism ;)
Nah don't worry dude, it's by nature that, given how long civilization has been around, your philosophy might align with some offered previous. But just individuate it enough that you're not merely repeating something already said previous, and release it through some medium and I'm sure it'll be great :)
>>we all have a piece of God in us
>>we must escape the body
Do Sufis think we are made of something more than our bodies?
>implying you have enough of an understanding of Islamic belief, hadith, Qur'an, Tasawwuf etc. to understand the subtleties of mystical Islamic texts
Also of course Rumi was not homosexual. Its really weird when people translate Rumi. They don't translate poems like the one where he says he is the dust on the path of Muhammad, but they translate unclear, mystical ones that only initiated disciples can fully grasp.
>he doesn't know
but what about singularities within the universe? where are those pieces of God going?
...
It's the clearest sign that you don't really have something to say
What is funny is that Nietzsche says this, then presents his philosophy like it is an esoteric doctrine only for a special few, which of course people eat up
>He doesn't know that Heidegger works best in an Eastern Christian worldview
They combine together at the end of time. Black holes merge when they get too close to each other
Never read this work but I have read Heidegger and I did come to the conclusion that he can be fully harmonized with Christianity through the Areopagite, and indeed after reading Building Dwelling Thinking I was sure Heidegger is best read through an Orthodox lens
>2019
>people still trying to claim Heidegger
Heidegger is concerned with understanding truth, he isn't an exercise in aesthetic rhetoric, like Nietzsche
Yeah but there's a problem with assuming that frame of reference. The diction and phrasing used in 'concrete'/'straight-forward' style writing insinuates a sort of self-importance. Thats why many mystical texts are so loosey goosey in terms of explicit meaning, . . you can't get to far into defining objective parameters of your spiritual world view without seeming like you're categorizing the higher reality in an abusive way. Because isn't part of mystic philosophy stepping back and realizing you don't have all the answers?