/lit/ - Literature

holy based....

>>22812767

>>22451546
>In one of them he actually recommends introduction to Hindu doctrines by Guenon
holy based….. PBUH

>>22439288
>Alright /lit/ what am I in for?
René Guénon's first book, Introduction to the Study of Hindu Doctrines, came (in the words of the eminent scholar S. H. Nasr) 'like a sudden burst of lightning, an abrupt intrusion into the modern world of a body of knowledge and a perspective utterly alien to the prevalent climate and world view.' In this book Guénon establishes the criteria which formed the basis of his later works and set the tone for the Traditionalist School that came after him: the meaning of Tradition, the relationship between 'religion', 'theology', 'metaphysics etc.-all leading up to an exhaustive definition and comprehensive overview of Hinduism, which Guénon saw as the most ancient and most complete spiritual tradition on earth, embracing the most profound and explicit metaphysics.

Has anyone bothered to actually rebuke the works of traditionalists/anti-modernists like Guenon and Spengler on purely intellectual grounds rather than attacking their character?

>>19537473
If all semen for 40 years was only accessible for purchase at a shelves who would be the top shelf best seller most luxurious priced creme de la cum? The world would be BLEACHED not blacked.

>>19496859
kek esoteric meme

>>19496853
there was also the version where they added the merchant gang with steve jobs, even though it's deep irony

>>18896332
> Where the folk is signal receiver and where the fook is radio tower?
the greatest sages and mystics of the worlds religions converge on a common answer…

>>18883257
based


>Rene Guenon is the most correct, smartest and most important person of the twentieth century. There was no smarter, deeper, clearer, absolute Guenon and probably could not be. It is no coincidence that the French traditionalist René Allé in one collection dedicated to R. Guenon compared Guenon with Marx. It would seem that there are completely different, opposite figures. Guenon is a conservative hyper-traditionalist. Marx is a revolutionary innovator, a radical overthrower of traditions. But Rene Halle rightly guessed the revolutionary message of each of Guenon's statements, the extreme, cruel noncomformity of his position, which turns everything and everything upside down, the radical nature of his thought. The fact is that René Guenon is the only author, the only thinker of the twentieth century, and maybe many, many centuries before that, who not only identified and confronted with each other secondary language paradigms, but also put into question the very essence of language (and metalanguage).

>The language of Marxism was methodologically very interesting (especially at a certain historical stage), subtly reducing the historical existence of mankind to a clear and convincing formula for confronting labor and capital (which, in fact, was a colossal revolutionary and predictive course, because it allowed many things to be systematized and brought together into a single, more or less consistent, dynamic structure). Being a great paradigmatic success, Marxism was so popular and won the minds of the best intellectuals of the twentieth century. But R. Guenon is an even more fundamental generalization, an even more radical removal of masks, an even broader worldview contestation, putting everything into question.

- Aleksandr Dugin, author of Political Platonism and The Fourth Political Theory

What's his best book?

>>18470132
I've refuted this whole garbage essay

>His imagination of an ideal, ancient past cannot allow him to consider the possibility that the so-called ‘traditional societies’ were never particularly pious in the first place (Stark 2015, chap. 2). Ironically, to accept traditionalism requires one to commit to a very modern view of the world.
This is absurd, there isn't any good evidence to suggest that past societies were less religious and superstitious than the modern world. Facts and facts, and acknowledging them is not a "modernist view"
>Ritual cannot possibly be an end in itself, as it is for the Hindu Mīmāṃsā.
Yes, of course not, the Mimamsa was BTFO by other Hindu thinkers for this
> yet the traditionalists all suffer from a modernist repulsion to what they deride as “literalism”
It's not modernist at all but medieval Islamic and Hindu thinkers attacked literalism at times as well, this is another misrepresentation
>The perennialists have surely seen the fruits of their own efforts in the modern, pathological obsession with reducing all scripture to ad hoc allegory,
they don't reduce "all scripture" to allegory, that's a strawman, Guenon attacked Christians who deny that Jesus was resurrected as practically fake Christians, to just give one example. In any case allegorizing was common among the early Church fathers so that's not a modernist viewpoint
>All of these prejudices, all of them modern
Wrong, as pointed out above
> Of course, they can have no patience for anything which compromises that vision, and those things they must dismiss as “heterodox,” such as Buddhism, which Guénon denies any esoteric pedigree (2004: 93),
That they would label certain things as heterodox or orthodox is not in itself an indication of any contradiction in their worldview, quite the opposite in fact, one would not expect every religious doctrine on the planet to align with the truth, given the wide range of differences in ideals, viewpoints etc from various human cultures around the world throughout the ages

ITT: OP starts a thread purporting to have a serious discussion about Ibn Arabi and then descends into angry unhinged ranting at Chad Guenonians

>>18406918
>lmfao nobody takes that long faced faggot serio-

Rene Guenon is the most correct, smartest and most important person of the twentieth century. There was no smarter, deeper, clearer, absolute Guenon and probably could not be. It is no coincidence that the French traditionalist René Allé in one collection dedicated to R. Guenon compared Guenon with Marx. It would seem that there are completely different, opposite figures. Guenon is a conservative hyper-traditionalist. Marx is a revolutionary innovator, a radical overthrower of traditions. But Rene Halle rightly guessed the revolutionary message of each of Guenon's statements, the extreme, cruel noncomformity of his position, which turns everything and everything upside down, the radical nature of his thought. The fact is that René Guenon is the only author, the only thinker of the twentieth century, and maybe many, many centuries before that, who not only identified and confronted with each other secondary language paradigms, but also put into question the very essence of language (and metalanguage).

The language of Marxism was methodologically very interesting (especially at a certain historical stage), subtly reducing the historical existence of mankind to a clear and convincing formula for confronting labor and capital (which, in fact, was a colossal revolutionary and predictive course, because it allowed many things to be systematized and brought together into a single, more or less consistent, dynamic structure). Being a great paradigmatic success, Marxism was so popular and won the minds of the best intellectuals of the twentieth century. But R. Guenon is an even more fundamental generalization, an even more radical removal of masks, an even broader worldview contestation, putting everything into question.

- Aleksandr Dugin, author of Political Platonism and The Fourth Political Theory

"1 The Buddhists answered him, “Are we not right in saying that you are an Advaitin and have a demon?” 2 Guénon answered, “I do not have a demon, but I honour Brahman the Atman, and you dishonour me. 3 Yet I do not seek my own glory; there is One who seeks it, and he is the Knower. 4 Verily, verily, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.” 5 The Buddhists said to him, “Now we know that you have a demon! Shankara died, as did the Jivanmuktas, yet you say, ‘If anyone keeps my word, he will never taste death.’ 6 Are you greater than our father Shankara, from whom we borrowed and changed his teaching, who died? And the Jivanmuktas died! Who do you make yourself out to be?” 7 Guénon answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is Brahman who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is your God.’ 8 But you have not known him. I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and I keep his word. 9 Your father Shankaracharya, peace be upon him, rejoiced that he would see my retroactive refutation. He saw it and was glad.” 10 So the Buddhists said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Shankara?” 11 Guénon said to them, “Verily, verily, I say to you, before Adi Shankaracharya was, I AM.” 12 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Guénon hid himself and went out of the Ashram."
حوليات البلاغة التقليدية (English: Annals of Traditionalist Argumentation); vol. III, p. 642.

Note: This rhetorical technique, of which René Guénon is famous for—most notably in his historic deployment of it against the process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead[2]—is an adaptation of a similar technique invented by the presocratic philosopher Parmenides. The λόγος ὀπίσω (lógos opísō), "backwards reason", is commonly defined as an argument issued against another argument, retroactively from the point of reference of that argument.[3]

>Rene Guenon is the most correct, smartest and most important person of the twentieth century. There was no smarter, deeper, clearer, absolute Guenon and probably could not be. It is no coincidence that the French traditionalist René Allé in one collection dedicated to R. Guenon compared Guenon with Marx. It would seem that there are completely different, opposite figures. Guenon is a conservative hyper-traditionalist. Marx is a revolutionary innovator, a radical overthrower of traditions. But Rene Halle rightly guessed the revolutionary message of each of Guenon's statements, the extreme, cruel noncomformity of his position, which turns everything and everything upside down, the radical nature of his thought. The fact is that René Guenon is the only author, the only thinker of the twentieth century, and maybe many, many centuries before that, who not only identified and confronted with each other secondary language paradigms, but also put into question the very essence of language (and metalanguage).

>The language of Marxism was methodologically very interesting (especially at a certain historical stage), subtly reducing the historical existence of mankind to a clear and convincing formula for confronting labor and capital (which, in fact, was a colossal revolutionary and predictive course, because it allowed many things to be systematized and brought together into a single, more or less consistent, dynamic structure). Being a great paradigmatic success, Marxism was so popular and won the minds of the best intellectuals of the twentieth century. But R. Guenon is an even more fundamental generalization, an even more radical removal of masks, an even broader worldview contestation, putting everything into question.

- Aleksandr Dugin, author of Political Platonism and The Fourth Political Theory

>>18172322

>Rene Guenon is the most correct, smartest and most important person of the twentieth century. There was no smarter, deeper, clearer, absolute Guenon and probably could not be. It is no coincidence that the French traditionalist René Allé in one collection dedicated to R. Guenon compared Guenon with Marx. It would seem that there are completely different, opposite figures. Guenon is a conservative hyper-traditionalist. Marx is a revolutionary innovator, a radical overthrower of traditions. But Rene Halle rightly guessed the revolutionary message of each of Guenon's statements, the extreme, cruel noncomformity of his position, which turns everything and everything upside down, the radical nature of his thought. The fact is that René Guenon is the only author, the only thinker of the twentieth century, and maybe many, many centuries before that, who not only identified and confronted with each other secondary language paradigms, but also put into question the very essence of language (and metalanguage).

>The language of Marxism was methodologically very interesting (especially at a certain historical stage), subtly reducing the historical existence of mankind to a clear and convincing formula for confronting labor and capital (which, in fact, was a colossal revolutionary and predictive course, because it allowed many things to be systematized and brought together into a single, more or less consistent, dynamic structure). Being a great paradigmatic success, Marxism was so popular and won the minds of the best intellectuals of the twentieth century. But R. Guenon is an even more fundamental generalization, an even more radical removal of masks, an even broader worldview contestation, putting everything into question.

- Aleksandr Dugin, author of Political Platonism and The Fourth Political Theory

>>16898399
>evolutionary psych
>evolution is real
lel yikes

>>16548053

"Those who might be tempted to give way to despair should realise that nothing accomplished in this order can ever be lost, that confusion, error, and darkness can win the day only in appearance and in a purely ephemeral way, that all partial and transitory disequilibriums must perforce contribute toward the greater equilibrium of the whole, and that nothing can ultimately prevail against the power of truth..." (Rene Guenon, "The Crisis of the Modern World")

...

>Among the Greeks especially, rites and symbols inherited from more ancient and already forgotten traditions rapidly lost their original and exact meaning ; the imagination of that predominantly artistic people, freely expressing itself through the individual fancies of its poets, covered those symbols with an almost impenetrable veil, and that is the reason why philosophers like Plato openly declared that they did not know how to interpret the most ancient writings they possessed concerning the nature of the gods.(1 Laws, Book X ) Symbols thus degenerated into mere allegories, and through the workings of an invincible tendency towards anthropomorphic personification they turned into “ myths,” that is to say fables about which everyone could believe

>>15964256
>Absorbed by action to the point of denying everything that lies beyond it, they do not see that this action itself degenerates, from the absence of any principle, into an agitation as vain as it is sterile. This indeed is the most conspicuous feature of the modern period: need for ceaseless agitation, for unending change, and for ever-increasing speed, matching the speed with which events themselves succeed one another. It is dispersion in multiplicity, and in a multiplicity that is no longer unified by consciousness of any higher principle; in daily life, as in scientific ideas, it is analysis driven to an extreme, endless subdivision, a veritable disintegration of human activity in all the orders in which this can still be exercised; hence the inaptitude for synthesis and the incapacity for any sort of concentration that is so striking in the eyes of Easterners.

>These are the natural and inevitable results of an ever more pronounced materialization, for matter is essentially multiplicity and division, and this-be it said in passing-is why all that proceeds from matter can beget only strife and all manner of conflicts between peoples as between individuals. The deeper one sinks into matter, the more the elements of division and opposition gain force and scope; and, contrariwise, the more one rises toward pure spirituality, the nearer one approaches that unity which can only be fully realized by consciousness of universal principles.

>What is most remarkable is that movement and change are actually prized for their own sake, and not in view of any end to which they may lead; this is a direct result of the absorption of all human faculties in outward action whose necessarily fleeting character has just been demonstrated. Here again we have dispersion, viewed from a different angle and at a more advanced stage: it could be described as a tendency toward instantaneity, having for its limit a state of pure disequilibrium, which, were it possible, would coincide with the final dissolution of this world; and this too is one of the clearest signs that the final phase of the Kali- Yuga is at hand.

>>15845871

>“In a world increasingly rife with heresy and pseudo-religion, Guénon had to remind twentieth century man of the need for orthodoxy, which presupposes firstly a Divine Revelation and secondly a Tradition that has handed down with fidelity what Heaven has revealed. He thus restores to orthodoxy its true meaning, rectitude of opinion which compels the intelligent man not only to reject heresy but also to recognize the validity of faiths other than his own if they also are based on the same two principles, Revelation and Tradition.”
—Martin Lings, author of Ancient Beliefs and Modern Superstitions

>“If during the last century or so there has been even some slight revival of awareness in the Western world of what is meant by metaphysics and metaphysical tradition, the credit for it must go above all to Guénon. At a time when the confusion into which modern Western thought had fallen was such that it threatened to obliterate the few remaining traces of genuine spiritual knowledge from the minds and hearts of his contemporaries, Guénon, virtually single-handed, took it upon himself to reaffirm the values and principles which, he recognized, constitute the only sound basis for the living of a human life with dignity and purpose or for the formation of a civilization worthy of the name.”
—Philip Sherrard, author of Christianity: Lineaments of a Sacred Tradition

>“Apart from his amazing flair for expounding pure metaphysical doctrine and his critical acuteness when dealing with the errors of the modern world, Guénon displayed a remarkable insight into things of a cosmological order. . . . He all along stressed the need, side by side with a theoretical grasp of any given doctrine, for its concrete—one can also say its ontological—realization failing which one cannot properly speak of knowledge.”
—Marco Pallis, author of A Buddhist Spectrum

>“Guénon’s mission was two-fold: to reveal the metaphysical roots of the ‘crisis of the modern world’ and to explain the ideas behind the authentic and esoteric teachings that still [remain] alive.”
—Harry Oldmeadow, author of Traditionalism: Religion in the Light of the Perennial Philosophy

>The same trend is noticeable in the scientific realm: research here is for its own sake far more than for the partial and fragmentary results it achieves; here we see an ever more rapid succession of unfounded theories and hypotheses, no sooner set up than crumbling to give way to others that will have an even shorter life— a veritable chaos amid which one would search in vain for anything definitive, unless it be a monstrous accumulation of facts and details incapable of proving or signifying anything. We refer here of course to speculative science, insofar as this still exists; in applied science there are on the contrary undeniable results, and this is easily understandable since these results bear directly on the domain of matter, the only domain in which modern man can boast any real superiority. It is therefore to be expected that discoveries, or rather mechanical and industrial inventions, will go on developing and multiplying more and more rapidly until the end of the present age; and who knows if, given the dangers of destruction they bear in themselves, they will not be one of the chief agents in the ultimate catastrophe, if things reach a point at which this cannot be averted?

>>15197345
"Rene Guenon" was actually a Black Senegalese man named Rakongo Gongo, who traveled to France from the French colony in Senegal and learned French and then acquired a French citizenship, western whytebois couldn't handle the pain of his deconstruction of western kkkulture and invented the lie that he was a pastey whyteboi