/lit/ - Literature

>>14736266

>>11393366
>>11396267

>Kant repeatedly argues against this notion. He says that appearance is not mere illusion but in actuality a real appearance which implies a "thing in itself", that is to say, that neither the appearance of the thing nor the thing itself can rightly be called illusions or phantoms. It is, however, important not to mistake the appearance for the absolute identity of a thing,

This is actually basically in agreement with Vedanta. Manifestation and its objects are things that we perceive but these are not the absolute Thing itself.

>but to assert that there is nothing behind the appearance is to commit that heresy of absolute idealism which Kant famously criticized

Vedanta doesn't assert this as I have just explained. Also, Advaita Vedanta is not idealism, it treats of mind and matter as being one and the same but this One does not belong to either category.

It's actually really ironic that you would bring up Kant. Guenon and the other Traditionalists rightfully single out Kant as one of the major areas where modern western philosophy took a turn for the worse (pic related is Guenon talking about him). The quote you cited perfectly demonstrates why they criticize him. His thought despite being considered as a revolutionary development in western philosophy is in fact a major narrowing and blinkering of intellect. His ideas are largely shown to be worthless (aside from a few conventional applications) by eastern metaphysics and Vedanta in particular. I've come to find that one of the most reliable tests for predicting when people fundamentally don't have a clue about the deeper truths of eastern doctrines is if they bring up Kant as if he in any way debunked or superseded them, I'm not trying to attack you personally for thinking that though, Kant is taught exponentially more at Western universities than 'eastern philosophy' so most people don't study it enough to know any better.

continued

>>11376379
>How deeply did Guenon look into Eastern Orthodox theology and metaphysics i.e. the actual Christian tradition? Why does it seem like he doesn't acknowledge it's stark difference from the eastern flavoured monism?

From what I understand he did study it a bit although it was never a large focus of his. Just because he never wrote a book on it though does not mean he was oblivious to it. For example he was known to own books on Native American religion despite never writing about them.

>Why does it seem like he doesn't acknowledge it's stark difference from the eastern flavoured monism?

Because the esoteric and mystical side of Christiantiy almost always comes close to some kind of non-dualism or qualified non-dualism. He didn't focus on the exterior and exoteric side because he didn't consider that interesting or worth his time write about. He explicitly says in his books those that those who deny non-dualism are basically clueless about metaphysics, in his and the other traditionalists view bar Evola non-dualism is the eternal truth expressed either more or less esoterically in the various traditions.

>>11376462
>does guenon just ignore kant as someone not worth engaging?

No, he explicitly explains why Kant was wrong, see pic related. Schuon later wrote a whole book about this subject which largely btfos Kant called 'Logic and Transcendence'. Kantian thinking is completely retarded from the perspective of eastern metaphysics. Kant got it wrong in that he didn't come close to realizing that there is a transcendental reality which is directly knowable, to know this reality is to participate in it and to become it. To know Brahman is to be Brahman. Logic is just an accessory and applied form of intellect, true intellect and true knowledge transcend logic.

If you just don't agree with eastern doctrines that's your choice although it's not for no reason that Guenon thinks Kant was a moron. I won't hold your hand and explain every tiny area where they disagree and why but if you are in any way interested in eastern doctrines they provide a coherent and logical mode of thinking that goes way deeper and beyond Kantian thought, especially Advaita (not taking logic as an end in themselves but remaining a logical concept as a whole)

>>11342510
>Guenon and Evola believe that you can escape the limitation of human reason through rituals?

Not that guy you replied to but I can explain it a bit. In Guenon's view (Evola's being largely cribbed from his) human reason is only an accessory to pure intellect, which transcends logic and reason. Pic related is from one of Guenon's books arguing that Kant got it wrong.

In Guenon's views the various eastern traditions and their respective esoteric inner teachings all point towards a common reality, which transcends logic. Guenon thought the purest and most direct exposition of this was Advaita Vedanta although he thought (arguably correctly) that it's also taught more or less cryptically in sufism, tantra, daoism, certain strains of Mahayana/Zen etc. To know this transcendental reality is to participate in it directly, where it is at once revealed as the grounds of everything.

>>11081141
>Do any of his books deal with Kant explicitly, and if so which?

His book 'Logic and Transcendence' does, pdf link below, I haven't read it but have seen other anons talk about how he BTFO's Kant in it.

http://traditionalhikma.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Logic-and-Transcendence-by-Frithjof-Schuon.pdf

from a review of the above book:

>The chapter “Rationalism, Real and Apparent” shows us the philosophical roots of these
above-mentioned errors through a shattering analysis—in the true sense—of sensationalism and
criticism that should be required reading in all university philosophy courses. Reason functions
by the light of the Intellect, but Kantian critical philosophy in striving to reach an integral
relativism—which is “a contradiction in itself and thus a pure absurdity”—becomes a play of
mirrors that throws everything into subjective doubt and leads inevitably to existentialism. These
philosophers in their “arrogant unconsciousness” would “kill with their petty vitriolic thoughts”
the “great spokesmen of metaphysics”. It totally escapes their atrophied imagination that logic
“is perfectly consistent only when exceeding itself”. Integral rationalism in its turn is a
consequence of the tendency in Aristotelian metaphysics—unlike that of Plato and Plotinus—
towards exteriorization; “the Aristotelian Pandora’s box is scientism coupled with
sensationalism”. The mischief comes from the Church’s having lent an interested ear—a factor
favoring the development of the Renaissance mentality.

http://www.frithjofschuon.info/uploads/pdfs/articles/88.pdf

also pic related is Guenon shitting on Kant in 'Intro to Hindu Doctrines'

>>11054055
I don't want these threads to end up an endless series of pictures of his writing, but it's fun to post them because he so perfectly encapsulates the ideas he discussing. I honestly really enjoy his style of writing. He was a genuinely good author in the sense of having a way with words.

As an aside, here yet again one finds direct connections with most of the points Guenon makes in his writings with the early Vedantic literature and some earlier texts. Pic related is expounded in at length in Ashtavakra Gita, but in particularly in the line 'Knowledge, what is to be known, and the knower — these three do not exist in reality. I am the spotless reality in which they appear because of ignorance. 2.15'.

Many of the key ideas of the 'Traditionalist School' (discounting the ones this school holds about the West as this did not really exist then) were themselves expounded and commented on in the Vedas and earliest Vedanta writings, to say nothing of early Islamic and Chinese thought; the more you read both Guenon and primary sources (e.g. the various eastern texts) the more this becomes apparent.

(e.g. you can forget about that one periodic Theosophy who its attracted to these threads and likes to argue (albeit through deception and sleight-of-hand) that Guenon stole all it's ideas to found the Traditionalist school)