Strongly gnostic, mystic, transcendent in outlook

Based on my reading Nietzsche. He was never well informed on Islam. That's not to discredit him, just to let some hot air out of that rhetoric.

I disagree and I'm also not sure how that is a defense of Nietzsche's praise I quoted. It's also weirdly imprecise, for Nietzsche's standards. From "manly Moorish Spain" we jump immediately to the German efforts in the crusades as an example of... what? Those life-affirming, manly mohammedan cultures being beaten and robbed blind by supposedly weak christians?
It's not only a weak passage but also doesn't further your point of "Islam and Sufism [being] the logical continuation of Semitic religion, in a way that is both active and life affirming."

*Nietzsche's view on anything was embarrassingly romantic and based almost completely on myth
FTFY

Western orientalism is basically the spiritual/philosophical equivalent of tiki culture

I have the gut sensation that you’re in academia, and probably know far more about either (or both) N. or Islam than I do, so I appreciate the comments. You hold this board to a higher standard and it’s people like you who make lit a better board to post on.

My point (and I believe Nietzsche’s) is that Islam promotes an active spirituality, that is, fighting Jihad in the name of God, waking up before the sun rises to clean yourself and orientate yourself towards God (then do this multiple times a day), giving to charity, and once a year spend a month fasting and abstaining from pleasures. Christianity on the other hand (at least, from my recollection of Sunday school), promotes a more passive “being with Christ”. My Christian experience is informed by an anabaptist background, which is a fairly radical theological vein within Christianity, but even then the extent that it pushes an active moving towards God is mainly concerning adult baptism and an apparently radical nonviolence.

Even in the figures of Christ and Mohamed there is a sharp contrast. Both are, of course, prophets of God, but Jesus apparently never married (debatable, nobody today can ever know for sure, but this is the mainstream Christian position). Mohamed had multiple wives. Jesus died at the hands of an Empire. Mohamed founded one. Christianity is anti-political in many senses, while Islam affirms a political and social life as necessary. Both are valid paths towards God, but very different ones.

None of this has to do with my original point which you quoted, but this is a purely informal discussion not an academic paper so I content myself with firing off ideas. If you’re mathematically inclined, then it’s immediately obvious that “Western” mathematics owe far more to the Islamic golden age than they do to the Greeks. In terms of philosophy, much of the western canon only exists today thanks to the efforts of scholars living under the Islamic caliphates. The Dark Ages only seem so if you take a purely geographical view of “western civilization”, but much of the foundation that Europe and The Americas stand on today was laid thanks to the help of Islam. A huge amount of thought and tradition, lies ignored and untranslated still, because of the political goals of certain ambitious men. On an individual level however, I think that Islam provides a way of informing Christianity that is much more appealing than what remains of modern Christendom. By getting over the prejudices of a constantly pushed narrative of West vs East, modern Western man stands to gain an entire corpus of work that’s continuous with Western culture while also providing a refreshing perspective towards a theology that can sometimes seem abstract and life denying. This is the point I was trying to make.

The western orientalism comment was a joke. That said, it did produce some great oeuvres.

Advaita Vedanta >>> Neoplatonism

bump

Supernal Triad, Deity above all essence, knowledge and goodness; Guide of Christians to Divine Wisdom; direct our path to the ultimate summit of your mystical knowledge, most incomprehensible, most luminous and most exalted, where the pure, absolute and immutable mysteries of theology are veiled in the dazzling obscurity of the secret Silence, outshining all brilliance with the intensity of their Darkness, and surcharging our blinded intellects with the utterly impalpable and invisible fairness of glories surpassing all beauty.

Let this be my prayer; but do, dear Timothy, in the diligent exercise of mystical contemplation, leave behind the senses and the operations of the intellect, and all things sensible and intellectual, and all things in the world of being and nonbeing, that you may arise by unknowing towards the union, as far as is attainable, with it that transcends all being and all knowledge. For by the unceasing and absolute renunciation of yourself and of all things you may be borne on high, through pure and entire self-abnegation, into the superessential Radiance of the Divine Darkness.

In order to arrive at having pleasure in everything,
Desire to have pleasure in nothing.
In order to arrive at possessing everything,
Desire to possess nothing.
In order to arrive at being everything,
Desire to be nothing.
In order to arrive at knowing everything,
Desire to know nothing.
In order to arrive at that wherein thou hast no pleasure,
Thou must go by a way wherein thou hast no pleasure.
In order to arrive at that which thou knowest not,
Thou must go by a way that thou knowest not.
In order to arrive at that which thou possessest not,
Thou must go by a way that thou possessest not.
In order to arrive at that which thou art not,
Thou must go through that which thou art not.

When thy mind dwells upon anything,
Thou art ceasing to cast thyself upon the All.
For, in order to pass from the all to the All,
Thou hast to deny thyself wholly in all.
And, when thou comest to possess it wholly,
Thou must possess it without desiring anything.
For, if thou wilt have anything in having all,
Thou hast not thy treasure purely in God.

It pleased the Lord that I should sometimes see the following vision. I would see beside me, on my left hand, an angel in bodily form -- a type of vision which I am not in the habit of seeing, except very rarely. Though I often see representations of angels, my visions of them are of the type which I first mentioned. It pleased the Lord that I should see this angel in the following way. He was not tall, but short, and very beautiful, his face so aflame that he appeared to be one of the highest types of angel who seem to be all afire. They must be those who are called cherubim: they do not tell me their names but I am well aware that there is a great difference between certain angels and others, and between these and others still, of a kind that I could not possibly explain. In his hands I saw a long golden spear and at the end of the iron tip I seemed to see a point of fire. With this he seemed to pierce my heart several times so that it penetrated to my entrails. When he drew it out, I thought he was drawing them out with it and he left me completely afire with a great love for God. The pain was so sharp that it made me utter several moans; and so excessive was the sweetness caused me by this intense pain that one can never wish to lose it, nor will one's soul be content with anything less than God. It is not bodily pain, but spiritual, though the body has a share in it -- indeed, a great share. So sweet are the colloquies of love which pass between the soul and God that if anyone thinks I am lying I beseech God, in His goodness, to give him the same experience.

During the days that this continued, I went about as if in a stupor. I had no wish to see or speak with anyone, but only to hug my pain, which caused me greater bliss than any that can come from the whole of creation. I was like this on several occasions, when the Lord was pleased to send me these raptures, and so deep were they that, even when I was with other people, I could not resist them; so, greatly to my distress, they began to be talked about. Since I have had them, I do not feel this pain so much, but only the pain of which I spake somewhere before -- I do not remember in what chapter. The latter is, in many respects, very different from this, and of greater worth. But, when this pain of which I am now speaking begins, the Lord seems to transport the soul and to send it into an ecstasy, so that it cannot possibly suffer or have any pain because it immediately begins to experience fruition. May He be blessed for ever, Who bestows so many favours on one who so ill requites such great benefits.

Attached: the-ecstasy-1.jpg (640x463, 112K)

I'm stuck between Orthodox and Gnostic Christianity. From a literary perspective, Gnosticism is beautiful. But if Gnosticism is wrong, then it's insulting to God to believe in it because you are suggesting that a lesser god made the world, not the Most High God. I'd rather just believe in the one Highest God above all other gods and that he made this earth and evil is in it for whichever reasons he decided (i.e. there is evil so that there can be good, pain so that we may know pleasure, etc).

When this had been accomplished and the herd of irrational animals had been driven as far from the mountain as possible, Moses then approached the ascent to lofty perceptions. That none of the irrational animals was allowed to appear on the mountain signifies, in my opinion, that in the contemplation of the intelligibles we surpass the knowledge which originates with the senses. For it is characteristic of the nature of irrational animals that they are governed by the senses alone divorced from understanding. Their sight and hearing often lead them to what stimulates their appetites. Also, all other things through which sense perception becomes active assume an important place in irrational animals.

The contemplation of God is not effected by sight and hearing, nor is it comprehended by any of the customary perceptions of the mind. For "no eye has seen, and no ear has heard," nor does it belong to those things which usually enter into the heart of man. He who would approach the knowledge of things sublime must first purify his manner of life from all sensual and irrational emotion. He must wash from his understanding every opinion derived from some preconception and withdraw himself from his customary intercourse with his own companion, that is, with his sense perceptions, which are, as it were, wedded to our nature as its companion. When he is so purified, then he assaults the mountain.

The knowledge of God is a mountain steep indeed and difficult to climb — the majority of people scarcely reach its base. If one were a Moses, he would ascend higher and hear the sound of trumpets which, as the text of the history says, becomes louder as one advances. For the preaching of the divine nature is truly a trumpet blast, which strikes the hearing, being already loud at the beginning but becoming yet louder at the end.

[...]

What does it mean that Moses entered the darkness and then saw God in it? What is now recounted seems somehow to be contradictory to the first theophany, for then the Divine was beheld in light but now he is seen in darkness. Let us not think that this is at variance with the sequence of things we have contemplated spiritually. Scripture teaches by this that religious knowledge comes at first to those who receive it as light. Therefore what is perceived to be contrary to religion is darkness, and the escape from darkness comes about when one participates in light. But as the mind progresses and, through an ever greater and more perfect diligence, comes to apprehend reality, as it approaches more nearly to contemplation, it sees more clearly what of the divine nature is uncontemplated.

For leaving behind everything that is observed, not only what sense comprehends but also what the intelligence thinks it sees, it keeps on penetrating deeper until by the intelligence's yearning for understanding it gains access to the invisible and the incomprehensible, and there it sees God. This is the true knowledge of what is sought; this is the seeing that consists in not seeing, because that which is sought transcends all knowledge, being separated on all sides by incomprehensibility as by a kind of darkness. Wherefore John the sublime, who penetrated into the luminous darkness, says, No one has ever seen God, thus asserting that knowledge of the divine essence is unattainable not only by men but also by every intelligent creature.

When, therefore, Moses grew in knowledge, he declared that he had seen God in the darkness, that is, that he had then come to know that what is divine is beyond all knowledge and comprehension, for the text says, Moses "approached the dark cloud where God was." What God? He who "made darkness his hiding place," as David says, who also was initiated into the mysteries in the same inner sanctuary.

Philimon knew that Paulinos, too, aspired to this state; and with this in mind he implanted in him teachings taken from Scripture and the fathers that emphasized, as Moses had done, how impossible it is to conform to God without complete stillness; how stillness gives birth to ascetic effort, ascetic effort to tears, tears to awe, awe to humility, humility to foresight, foresight to love; and how love restores the soul to health and makes it dispassionate, so that one then knows that one is not far from God.

He used to say to Paulinos: ‘You must purify your intellect completely through stillness and engage it ceaselessly in spiritual work. For just as the eye is attentive to sensible things and is fascinated by what it sees, so the purified intellect is attentive to intelligible realities and becomes so rapt by spiritual contemplation that it is hard to tear it away. And the more the intellect is stripped of the passions and purified through stillness, the greater the spiritual knowledge it is found worthy to receive. The intellect is perfect when it transcends knowledge of created things and is united with God: having then attained a royal dignity it no longer allows itself to be pauperized or aroused by lower desires, even if offered all the kingdoms of the world. If, therefore, you want to acquire all these virtues, be detached from every man, flee the world and sedulously follow the path of the saints. Dress shabbily, behave simply, speak unaffectedly, do not be haughty in the way you walk, live in poverty and let yourself be despised by everyone. Above all, guard the intellect and be watchful, patiently enduring indigence and hardship, and keeping intact and undisturbed the spiritual blessings that you have been granted. Pay strict attention to yourself, not allowing any sensual pleasure to infiltrate. For the soul’s passions are allayed by stillness; but when they are stimulated and aroused they grow more savage and force us into greater sin; and they become hard to cure, like the body’s wounds when they are scratched and chafed. Even an idle word can make the intellect forget God, the demons enforcing this with the compliance of the senses.

‘Great struggle and awe are needed to guard the soul. You have to divorce your self from the whole world and sunder your soul’s affection for the body. You have to become citiless, homeless, possessionless, free from avarice, from worldly concerns and society, humble, compassionate, good, gentle, still, ready to receive in your heart the stamp of divine knowledge. You cannot write on wax unless you have first expunged the letters written on it. Basil the Great teaches us these things.

ITT: LARP

Christian mysticism is great. Jesus Christ, St. Francis, St. John of the Cross, Jakob Bohme, St. Bernard, Angelus Silesius etc. The list goes on. Even mysticism's greatest critics, Kant and Schopenhauer were essentially mystics at heart.

the mystic had not the slightest recollection of the nietzsche threads on the day before, he rattled off his same old spiritualist nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.
Sometimes I stood there thunderstruck.
I didn't know what to be more amazed at: the agility of their tongues or their virtuosity at lying.
Gradually I began to hate them

Attached: FWN pepe.jpg (225x225, 10K)

Redpill me on Mohammed. I cannot but see him as a disgusting beta rat.

/Thread

You are already redpilled.

That's from Göbbels I think. He wasn't talking about Mystics though.

Someone who realized/received perennial wisdom and sought to reveal it to his people in a way that was suitable to their specific culture and time period.

Most of the flaws are traits that would be considered normal behavior for that era and culture. Islam is not for everyone but for the Arabs and more primitive peoples such as SS-Africans it's well fitting. Could have done a better job of formulating mystic doctrines that would have prevented Wahhabists from violently opposing any form of esotericism or mysticism but hindsight is 20/20.

what painter is that please? is it recent?

Not OP, but its 'The Triumph of The Cross' by Tommasi Laureti (1530-1602). Its painted on the ceiling of the Hall of Constantine in the Vatican.

Attached: Tommaso_Laureti_-_Ceiling_of_Room_of_Constantine.jpg (2560x1851, 1.58M)

But Jesus never fucked a child.

thanks a lot. it's shocking how neoclassic this looks.

my fucking guy

>Christ
>philosophical void
>muh exotic east
You need to read more. Look for the foundations of Christianity, and you will find very smart Greeks.

Attached: med.png (750x713, 360K)

yeah, its seems very out of its time.

That post has nothing to do with Jesus.

Ive had divine insight.
Im learning what I need to do with it currently.

Its strange Veeky Forums.

Clearly you've already made up a bias against him. I doubt you actually want to learn anything about him.

The Expeditions by Mamar ibn Rashid is a good biography if you are actually interested. Mohammad was a profound spiritual leader, a great literary figure, and a statesman the level of which Caesar and Napoleon would pale in comparison. If you use reason and objectivity, rather than whatever racist memes you've let shape your entire worldview, you'd realize that even regardless of the religious element he is a great historical figure worth venerating.

>A fringe religious element promoted by Zionists and various empires with ulterior motives is the entire religion

Why do people like you feel the need to comment on subjects you clearly know nothing about and take no intellectual interest in?

I can literally read source two claims right now if you would like:
>Had multiple wives
>One of whom was at the very least rather young
>Encouraged his men to rape the wives of his enemies
All three of these disqualify him as someone I'm willing to see as an example.
I actually really tried to get over my prejudices at one point, out of respect for Omar Khayyam and Hafis (though they are heretics afaik), but I simply cannot make peace with those, especially the last one.

three claims*
damn it

>Had multiple wives
Yes lots of religions did at the time.
>One of whom was at the very least rather young
This was also the norm.
>Encouraged his men to rape the wives of his enemies
This was also the norm.

>life-affirming
this is the philosophy of the middle-aged woman

Did Jesus do that? Paul? Zoroaster? Guru Nanak? Socrates? Siddhartha Gautama? Mahavira?

>comparing figures
Also bringing up Zoroaster is hilarious and proves you absolutely know nothing.

Religion isn't a contest to rule your life, grow up and learn from the experiences these men have lived.

You might be correct, but Western Orientalism (Occidental Easternism) has old roots, predates colonialism and has edified Eastern peoples about their own history. Syrians did not even care that Saladin's tomb was in Damascus until some German figurehead told them so. There are many more examples that are also specific, but you can hear it for yourself whenever Dune Coons or Streetshitters begin citing the muh heritage that Ghandi and Kemal Ataturk and others never cared about. The Chinese are an exception, but maybe they are too proud to discuss history with foreigners. The Japs are also an exception but are already known to be great. The point is this: Niestzhe and Edward Fitzgerald and Frank Herbert and the many hundreds of other Asiaphiles were not being shallow when they made their famous works.

I'm not particularly informed about Zoroaster, I admit. But as far as I know, none of his wives were little children, and he wasn't a brutal warlord who encouraged raping your spoils of war.
I don't take issue with Abraham or Jacob either, though I would not subscribe to any system of ethics that would have you try to be like them.

It is not possible to honor Muhammad without angering some uppity kebab. Every few years there comes a new controversy about showing images of the prophet. Dune is the only way to appreciate Muhammad. You can thank "whatever racist memes" for adding some depth to a great man that pious muslims otherwise disregard.

Like I said it was the norm.

Having a wife didn't imply sex, she was equal to the level of a maid.

Please actually understand the culture before you judge pieces of a religion.

>it was the norm
Justifies very little. Moral law is eternal.

Moral laws often specifically require the moral person to adjust his own behavior for the sake of conforming to local culture. This is the spirit of the famous saying that goes "when in rome...". If Muhammad was not a diddie kiddler, he would not have been a Quraysh. But any American muhammad would condemn cohabitation with the young because of the rome saying.

Oh, and the same goes for raping your enemy's wives, I guess? He had to encourage them to do so?
Reeks of bullshit. Every religious founder and prophet went against norms.
Muslims believe that Mohammed is the greatest role model you can aspire to be like, yet this is who Mohammed was.
I cannot respect this. I don't reject every Muslim by extension, I have expressed my respect for Omar Khayyam and Hafis for example, but I asked to be redpilled on Mohammed and have not been, as far as I am concerned.

I am sorry. But to becone redpilled about Muhammad you are posdibly required to learn classical Arabic and study the Koran like a devout muslim. Doing this could maybe occupy years of attention. I have not done it. But I see that being Redpilled on Jesus Christ is already difficult for Christians, so the big M is probably hard too.

I am sorry for also ignoring your question. But here goes my attempt at an answer: religion helps crearw new morals for its own followers. Religion itself has very little to do with morals. Only personal day-to-day comduct is concerned with morals, and people as a rule abandon morals when asleep or alone.

>the idea of Judeo-Christian values is a meme pushed by zionists and oil companies
Mostly true. It was also used by Jews to subvert Christianity.
>much of what we think of as "Western Civilization" was kept alive by the Islamic Empire
Meme. Many of the great scholars of the Islamic 'Golden Age' were of non-Arab, non-Islamic origin.