Brahmanical gesture: self-occultation and Nontology part Ø

[Montgomery77]

Philosophy of self-occultation

Brahmanical Gesture

ˈbrɑːmən/; Sanskrit: ब्रह्मन् bráhman)

"Imperceptible by the senses, yet the very truth. Incomprehensible, Imperishable, All-pervading hidden Essence."
-Tantra, chapter 3

The truth here is most uncanny. By moving in an anterior that was not structured to have signs or "attributes" ("to as-sign), the Brahmanical gesture clears the field so that all attributes may appear as such. The truth then would be non-reality and non-being. But to break away from the theological scheme that would place Brahman as "the Root of all the three worlds", I will refer to it as the "Brahmanical gesture" or "Brahmanicity"; Liberated from its historical inertia, Brahminicity enters into the logic of mimesis and doubling- as (it) always was- "without distinction and difference.. Above all contraries", therefore (in)different, self-occulting neutrality "producing" or rather, authorizing production from a alter-dimensional and luxated pivot.

To further clarify, a compendium on tantric mysticism is not our aim here. Neither do we wish to produce some theological discourse linking the diverse polyangles of "Eastern and Western metaphysical platforms". We can, however, utilize the Brahmanical logic to sketch a broader matrix of the "suppressed Nevent"- a Nevent (that is) like a shipwreck of dialectic reasonings, or great immutable glitch in the historical mainframe of "Epistemology". We can displace, uproot or renew this logic in the form of Brahmanicity ( gesture of Brahman), and utilize it the direction of unique configurations that carve pathways in the supposed "systems of knowledge", with all the pre-critical dualisms and closed rings implied in those systems. Finally, by approaching the subject from a certain unheard of angularity, the catastrophe of meaning is re-inscribed out of the institutional patterns of fluidly comprehensible, linear and ideal machines of truth that-as we have seen- are haunted by Alterity and "terrible ruptures" at work in its interior.


We will be working the orbit around- and twisting within- the pervasions of a strange namelessness that- by necessity- had to leave its residual smell in the air of three spheres, three realms, three regions; this Brahminical gestures allows the innumerable play of codes to linearize themselves into what is known as "western metaphysics". The west, far from being divorced from (it) renews (it) discursively in the Heideggerean "pre-comprehended question", and, closer to (its) play of dissimulation and non-presence, (it) follows the "trace-structure" of Derrida.

Tantra:

(5-6). That Which is changeless...beyond both mind and speech, Which shines as the Truth amidst the illusion of the three worlds, is the Brahman..."

The Brahmanical gesture, not simply one theological concept among others, operates on the Nile of (in)comprehension and permanent occultation.
"Thou art the sole immutable Supreme, Who art neither this nor that".

"I bow to Thee Who in His essence is One and Who grants liberation...the great, all-pervading attributeless One (59)."

A series of notable dis-junctions appears in this passage. By moving on a logic that is no longer bound to nonimality and being, Brahman divides (itself) at the very moment of (its) inscription. Without attribute, devoid of sign and assigning, neither "this or that", Brahmanicity cannot posses "oneness", "one in number", "unity", wholeness", "harmony". Rather, by opening the game of occultation, brahamicity would be as it always was, older (but it's not a question of time) than "oneness", that is, zero or cipher (šifr "zero") a hyper coding of absolute enigma, a determined "moment" of a different Temporality. A cipher that was never structured to be the reciprocal identity to the three worlds. In other words, without unit(y) and forever beyond the play of "first principles".

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



If I were to take out all the tantric mumbo-jumbo, are you saying in essence that, life is larger than us? Larger than we can ever understand?




.

[Montgomery77]

Well to oversimplify, yes.

But not only larger, but in-comprehensibly so, and devoid of "essence" (esse "be");

that is why the nature of our program (Nontology) must think what cannot be thought, and go where we cannot go.

[Ginkgo]

Well to oversimplify, yes.

But not only larger, but in-comprehensibly so, and devoid of "essence" (esse "be");

that is why the nature of our program (Nontology) must think what cannot be thought, and go where we cannot go.

I've never heard of Nontology. Does it mean there is no ontology?

[Montgomery77]

No more ontology as such, but rather a different way of apprehending the non in all its textual reservoirs or "eccentric centers" at play in philosophy and literature


Ontology as a "science of being" and its phenomenological other necessarily led to our current end time Logic.

The Heideggerean question of being and the "pre comprehended entity" (that is) anterior to it, uprooted the ontological-metaphysical foundation.

Heidegger
" what is the question of being that is necessarily pre comprehended so that thinking itself can occur? Since it's always anterior to thinking, it cannot be formulated as answer to the question 'what is..?'

"Man is the memory of being".


"The end of philosophy [ontology] is to restore the memory of that free and commanding signified, to discover Urwörter [originary words] in the language of the world by learning to by-pass the limiting logic of signification"