/lit/ - Literature

>>18402146
>he mentions other types of mysticism as a refutation of it.
>>and again in each of these traditions this mistake will be refuted by mystics who have had the two experiences
Alleging that someone else has refuted Advaita, but without actually reproducing or summarizing their arguments, is not actually refuting Advaita. It's simply just more empty rhetoric. I am familiar with Ramanuja's and Madhva's arguments against Advaita and I have explained why they are wrong on this very board before btw.
>what makes the advaita experience truer than that of another mystic?
In the sense Guenon uses the word, its not mysticism. If we take it in the generally used wider sense, then my person opinion is that I view Advaita as true because I find their arguments about metaphysics more compelling than other schools, and because I have yet to find anyone east or west, religious or secular, who does a better job of describing the nature of consciousness.

>admit it you are just larping with a self-service crypto buddhism you found on the internet.
I'm not larping because I'm not pretending to be an Advaita monk. I'm simply someone who enjoys reading about it and I view it as true, even if I'm not a formal member of it. It would only be role-playing if I was role-playing as an official member and saying I was a monk etc. And Advaita is not Buddhism but it's very much opposed to Buddhism.
>the theosophists have been doing this for way longer than you (they also read shankara and not madhva or ramanuja).
So? Why should I care? Something isn't tainted because of who reads it. What a silly way of thinking about things.

>>18319324

>>18303238

>The case of Freud himself, founder of ‘psychoanalysis’, is quite typical in this respect, for he never ceased to declare himself a materialist. One further remark: why is it that the principal representatives of the new tendencies, like Einstein in physics, Marx in economics, Bergson in philosophy, Freud in psychology, and many others of less importance, are almost all of Jewish origin, unless it he because there is something involved that is closely hound up with the ‘malefic’ and dissolving aspect of nomadism when it is deviated, and because that aspect must inevitably predominate in Jews detached from their tradition?

>>17848938


>In passing from philosophy to psychology it will be found that identical tendencies appear once again in the latter, and in the most recent schools of psychology they assume a far more dangerous aspect, for instead of taking the form of mere theoretical postulates they are given practical applications of a very disturbing character; the most ‘representative’ of these new methods, from the point of view of the present study, are those grouped under the general heading of ‘psychoanalysis’. It may be noted that, by a curious inconsistency, their handling of elements indubitably belonging to the subtle order continues to be accompanied in many psychologists by a materialistic attitude, no doubt because of their earlier training, as well as because of their present ignorance of the true nature of the elements they are bringing into play (1);

>(1) The case of Freud himself, founder of ‘psychoanalysis’, is quite typical in this respect, for he never ceased to declare himself a materialist. One further remark: why is it that the principal representatives of the new tendencies, like Einstein in physics, Marx in economics, Bergson in philosophy, Freud in psychology, and many others of less importance, are almost all of Jewish origin, unless it he because there is something involved that is closely hound up with the ‘malefic’ and dissolving aspect of nomadism when it is deviated, and because that aspect must inevitably predominate in Jews detached from their tradition?

>>17777777

>>17752803

>In passing from philosophy to psychology it will be found that identical tendencies appear once again in the latter, and in the most recent schools of psychology they assume a far more dangerous aspect, for instead of taking the form of mere theoretical postulates they are given practical applications of a very disturbing character; the most ‘representative’ of these new methods, from the point of view of the present study, are those grouped under the general heading of ‘psychoanalysis’. It may be noted that, by a curious inconsistency, their handling of elements indubitably belonging to the subtle order continues to be accompanied in many psychologists by a materialistic attitude, no doubt because of their earlier training, as well as because of their present ignorance of the true nature of the elements they are bringing into play (1);

>(1) The case of Freud himself, founder of ‘psychoanalysis’, is quite typical in this respect, for he never ceased to declare himself a materialist. One further remark: why is it that the principal representatives of the new tendencies, like Einstein in physics, Marx in economics, Bergson in philosophy, Freud in psychology, and many others of less importance, are almost all of Jewish origin, unless it he because there is something involved that is closely hound up with the ‘malefic’ and dissolving aspect of nomadism when it is deviated, and because that aspect must inevitably predominate in Jews detached from their tradition?

Where should I start when looking into him?

>In passing from philosophy to psychology it will be found that identical tendencies appear once again in the latter, and in the most recent schools of psychology they assume a far more dangerous aspect, for instead of taking the form of mere theoretical postulates they are given practical applications of a very disturbing character; the most ‘representative’ of these new methods, from the point of view of the present study, are those grouped under the general heading of ‘psychoanalysis’. It may be noted that, by a curious inconsistency, their handling of elements indubitably belonging to the subtle order continues to be accompanied in many psychologists by a materialistic attitude, no doubt because of their earlier training, as well as because of their present ignorance of the true nature of the elements they are bringing into play (1);

>(1) The case of Freud himself, founder of ‘psychoanalysis’, is quite typical in this respect, for he never ceased to declare himself a materialist. One further remark: why is it that the principal representatives of the new tendencies, like Einstein in physics, Bergson in philosophy, Freud in psychology, and many others of less importance, are almost all of Jewish origin, unless it he because there is something involved that is closely hound up with the ‘malefic’ and dissolving aspect of nomadism when it is deviated, and because that aspect must inevitably predominate in
Jews detached from their tradition?


- عبد الواحد يحيى

>>14900711

Have you read /lit/'s' patron saint? What did you think of his books? Do you agree or disagree with his ideas?

>>14719565
>>14718529
>>14718513

>"The case of Freud himself, founder of ‘psychoanalysis’, is quite typical in this respect, for he never ceased to declare himself a materialist. One further remark: why is it that the principal representatives of the new tendencies, like Einstein in physics, Bergson in philosophy, Freud in psychology, and many others of less importance, are almost all of Jewish origin, unless it be because there is something involved that is closely hound up with the ‘malefic’ and dissolving aspect of nomadism when it is deviated, and because that aspect must inevitably predominate in Jews detached from their tradition?"

- Rene Guenon (pbuh)

>>14474034
no, by me.

179

More than this: individualism inevitably implies naturalism, since all that lies beyond nature is, for that very reason, out of reach of the individual as such; naturalism and the negation of metaphysics are indeed but one and the same thing, and once intellectual intuition is no longer recognized, no metaphysics is any longer possible; but whereas some persist in inventing a ‘pseudo-metaphysics’ of one kind or another, others— with greater frankness— assert its impossibility; from this has arisen ‘relativism’ in all its forms, whether it be the ‘criticism’ of Kant or the ‘positivism’ of Auguste Comte; and since reason itself is quite relative, and can deal validly only with a domain that is equally relative, it is true to say that ‘relativism’ is the only logical outcome of rationalism.

By this means, however, rationalism was to bring about its own destruction: ‘nature’ and ‘becoming’, as we said above, are in reality synonymous; a consistent naturalism can therefore only be one of the ‘philosophies of becoming’, already mentioned, of which the specifically modern type is evolutionism; it was precisely this that finally turned against rationalism, by accusing reason of being unable to deal adequately, on the one hand, with what is solely change and multiplicity, and, on the other, with the indefinite complexity of sensible phenomena. This is in fact the position taken up by one form of evolutionism, namely Bergsonian intuitionism, which in fact is not less individualistic and anti-metaphysical than rationalism itself; indeed, although it is just in its criticism of the latter, it sinks even lower, by appealing to a faculty that is really infra-rational, to a vaguely defined sensory intuition more or less mixed up with imagination, instinct, and sentiment. It is highly significant that there is no longer any question here of ‘truth’, but only of a ‘reality’ that is reduced exclusively to the sensible order and conceived as something essentially changing and unstable; with such theories, intelligence is reduced to its lowest part, and reason itself is no longer admitted except insofar as it is applied to fashioning matter for industrial uses. After this there remained but one step: the total denial of intelligence and knowledge altogether and the substitution of ‘utility’ for ‘truth’.

Guenon was smarter then virtually every poster ever on /lit/, was a auto-didact genius, phenomenal with languages, knew his western philosophy extremely well not to mention esoteric primordial metaphysics. If you even for a moment make the mistake of thinking there is anything that one could possibly critique him for it's only because you didn't read or understand him. Guenon is the most important European writer in the entire 300 years of the 18th-21st centuries, you're talking about a literal God. Fucking pseuds

>>13478357
im right there with you baby

Did Anglos ever recover from being btfo by Guénon?

can someone fill me in

>>13404709
Whiteheads idea amount to a pretended intuition modeled on the ceaseless flux of the things of the senses, which far from being able to serve as an instrument for obtaining true knowledge, represents in reality the dissolution of all possible knowledge.

>>13375077

>>13371913
read the complete works of Guenon and you can wow the pants off of basic bitches by ranting to them about metaphysics and esoterism