/lit/ - Literature

>>13109302
Cease these aggressions and present him for once. If no one is interested, oh the fuck well

Yes, I have indeed read him

>>13109302
Am reading him and he's the real pseud. You can't just dismiss skepticism of your perennialist garbage, and dogmatically assert that we should accept it because blah blah Kali Yuga. Guenon is literally the dictionary definition of a sophist. Anti-reason, pro-dogmatism piece of shit. And he knows this perfectly well too, because he notes every objection a good philosopher can make to his system, which I'm sure his followers think proves he's "smart." But merely asserting that his opponents are wrong and that he is right, doesn't actually prove him right or his perennialist garbage any more true. Guenon would be against "proving" himself right to skeptics anyway, since the very criteria for proving himself right to them, which skeptics would accept, are according to him an illegitimate and inadequate extension of reason, "profane" philosophy as he stupidly calls it. He says you can only do good philosophy if you use reason after endorsing the perennial dogmas, limiting yourself to reason according to them. What are the perennial dogmas? Astrology, alchemy, and Pythagorean numerology, and other lost knowledge from Atlantis and Hyperborea. This is LITERALLY what Guenon believes. Appealing to intellectual intuition as he wants you to would only help you if it actually revealed such perennial dogmas, but it doesn't. You won't discover that the caste system he so loves is genuinely true through intellectual intuition. Try it. Guenon is so bad and now that I've read him you can't tell me to read him. I did my part, now go read real philosophy.

>>13109302
sorry if im skeptical of a man who ended up a muslim. traditionalism is nostalgia plain and simple.

>>13109302
Tbh his face looks like a great dane

>>13109568
yo im stupid and all that shit (im serious )
so can u tell me what is the real philosophy

Can you see these fucking posts she is making and these pictures?

Does she want my dick or something? (don't @ me bf)

:3

>>13109596
Guenon identifies it and he explicitly sets himself apart from it. When philosophy uses discursive reasoning and limits itself to sensible experience, or really to anything with the exception of Guenon's so-called intellectual intuition (a phrase aped from Kant by the way) and the perennial dogmas supposedly derived from it anciently, Guenon says this is "profane" philosophy. I have sympathy with the idea that if we chop off part of what is genuinely accessible to us, our philosophy will be injured. However Guenon appeals to a capacity (intellectual intuition) that, if it exists, cannot be demonstrated to derive the perennial dogmas he claims come from it. Like how do you go about proving that through intellectual intuition i can know that the caste system is right, or astrology/alchemy/Pythagorean numerology, it's pretty crazy really. So it's really sophism, dogmatism presented as wisdom whereas philosophy is critical and tries its best (at least in the ideal) not to advance beyond its limited resources (actual experience and reason) to make unjustified claims.

>>13109652
thanks
that is a good reply

can you recommend me some nice books doe

>>13109652
What aim (or goal) are you putting your reason and philosophy towards, if not knowledge? It's quite obvious to me that knowledge ranks higher on the hierarchy than philosophy and reason. If you are calling into question the existence of the faculty of intellectual inuition, is that not simply a proof that you have never accessed this faculty yourself? From the perspective of us who have accessed at least a small bit of such direct knowledge, you come off as a pleb.

>>13109694
If you're a beginner then start Plato's Euthyphro and Meno, and Descartes' Meditations 1 and 2. After that, you should read more Plato, probably Apology, Crito, Phaedo, and parts of the Republic (at least books 1 and 2). Also nice: selections from Berkeley's Principles, Hume's Enquiry, Kant's Groundwork. Could also read Russell's Problems of Philosophy. At some point start looking into the history of philosophy. Summaries or excerpts found in collections are handy. Then when something catches your eye you can read the original books. Also, it helps to learn formal logic at some point. I can't recommend any specific books, because I think all of philosophy is good and useful, though not a single specific philosopher happens to be right about everything, that's why philosophy progresses, people look at past reasoning and notice the flaws that weren't noticed before. Philosophers try to guard against uncritical dogmatism, which Guenon doesn't want us to do.

>>13109722
I'm not calling into question intellectual intuition. I'm calling into question that if it exists you will derive the exact perennial knowledge Guenon claims stems from it. You tell me if you've really derived the caste system from it, and just how exactly.

I'm interested in reading his works on Islam, but I have heard he's a boring writer.

>>13109652
And isn't he right about this limitation of ''common'' processes of apprehension and the negation of everything that is out of the system produced by them? Also, his ''intellectual intuition'' terminology is nothing but a mere representation of that specific element.

>>13109766
You can "derive the caste system from it", that was something i realized along the way, but calling it a "caste system" is a bit misleading, i would call it a natural division of humans into different functions. There's the very apt allegory of the man whos different bodyparts represent the different castes, but you know that already, since you've read Guenon by now, right?

>>13109792
Are you sure that was what you did though? I'm just really skeptical of it. Here's why I think this. When I was younger I thought I had access to "knowledge" through spiritual promptings. Really though, I was having regular thoughts cross my mind because of my subconscious, and having feelings attached to those by association, and then concluding that was some sort of confirmation. I was mistaken though. I think at the very least, to distinguish between supposed intellectual intuition and what issues from it, and something like interpreting your own thoughts as revelations from beyond yourself, you need a very, very trained capacity for discernment. Philosophy helps you develop that well. If I'm skeptic it's because of that. I'm mainly unsure that Guenonists have developed that, because in my experience it takes years of practice to develop that through careful philosophical training.

>>13109753
Thanks again
i bought second hand Kierkegaard on some sale i know that it isnt my level but is there something that i should read before him apart from these book you have just mentioned

How to spot Guenonfag

>walls of texts replying to multiple quotes
>freaks out when he's directly refuted
>saying 'based' or 'this' to his own posts
>uses words like 'BTFO' frequently
>posts cringe memes in an attempt to dog pile his critics
>conflates criticism of him with attacks on his author
>'just read him bro, read his works, why aren't you reading him, only pseuds don't read him'
>tries to reverse accusations, 'b-but the one who made that infographic is actually the real schizo lmao' etc
>often makes logical fallacies/brain farts trying to shill his cult author but continues shitposting to avert attention
>praises pajeets and condemns 'pol-tier racism' (ironic considering he promotes a white man as the central authority of indian philosophy)

Who is Guenonfag?

Once upon a time there was a little anon who stumbled upon a book from an obscure French Muslim author (Abdul Al-Wahid Yahya, formerly known as Rene Guenon). He had never read any substantial works of any author, never started with the Greeks, and was never really introspective into metaphysical matters.

But on that day, his life was transformed. So enamored with his first and only foray into the esoteric arts, he took it upon himself to spread the word of Guenon and preach perennialism (which is basically just advaita for incels) to the four channels of the net. In an effort to unite trad minded folk, he created 'Traditionalism general' for peeps to discuss authors such as Guenon, Evola, Coomaraswamy, Schuon etc.

The discussion was initially fruitful and healthy. That was until he was *gasp* -criticized- by a supposed 'theosophy/kantian shill'. He couldn't understand this feeling for which he had never felt before. He thought to himself 'could Guenon's infinite wisdom be imperfect? Could he really have derived his framework from the German idealists?'. 'No', he uttered. It's the others who are wrong (of course). He lashed out and attacked the 'Theosophy shill' relentlessly. Several shitposters then went in to bait him. Each consecutive thread resulted in constant sperg outs, alienating the casual traditionalists that partook in those threads (including evolists, sufiists and neoplatonists). Soon he turned on the Evolists and basically anyone who looked at him funny. His momentary freak outs were so common it spilled out into other threads. The moderators eventually decided to delete traditionalism general threads, which resulted in the so called 'Trad Exodus'.

He would later try to revive trad generals by disguising it as 'eastern general', only to resort to samefagging once he realized the old trad posters had gone. He has since continued the shill job in virtually every thread to do with eastern philosophy and eastern religious discussion often making a fool of himself. His random freakouts still happen from time to time, often culminating in multi-thread shitposting.

This is the story of Guenonfag, the one responsible for the destruction of traditionalism in this board.

>>13109840
You might be able to do fine with Kierkegaard without needing much prior reading, though I think it might help to know that some of his thought is a reaction to Hegel. You may not need to know Hegel deeply (especially given how complicated that is) to read Kierkegaard though.

>>13109849
>destruction of traditionalism
Good, "traditionalism" is a misinterpretation of Guenon's works.

>>13109568
looks like the pleb filter is still working

>>13110121
>read guenon or youre a pleb
>what's that you read guenon and DISAGREE wow youre a pleb
Literally no way of winning unless one uncritically endorses the perennial dogmatism, huh?

>>13109849
You are an asshole quite frankly, man.

Fuck you. No one respects you for this :3

>>13110157
It's either that or accept some other dogma desu. If this system doesn't work for you then find another one.

>>13110182
I'm not against accepting dogmas really. If there's one place I agree with Guenon is that, to the extent that we can access things through intuition-like faculties, that's the most certain stuff we can know, and it precedes discursive reasoning so acceptance looks dogmatic, although it's the proper thing to do. But when I criticize Guenon for dogmatism it's not for that reason. In his case the issue is presenting claims that I can't see derive from any actual intuitive faculty at all. Dogmatism is bad when unverifiable claims are asserted, and the very possibility of doubting said claims is dismissed off hand. And Guenon does that. I don't like that.

>>13110239
What sort of claims that he makes are you talking about?

I've read his Introductions to the Study of Hindu Doctrine and I don't think he's worth any serious study. Part of it is because I'm not very interested in eastern philosophy but it's also because there's a lot of bad history. He acts as if there's nothing original in Greek thought and whatever good came from Greece was actually stolen from the east. It's very reductionist and there's no argument. It's just something he asserts.

I'm also not very impressed with perennialism in general. These things are very subjective and inconsistent. There's no way to really know what traditions are authentic and he genuinely does just go with his feelings. He'll pick out things that appear in various religions around the world and call that authentic while ignoring other things which appear as often.

>>13110262
See >>13109568

>>13110278
Basically. He also embraces the inconsistency by saying it's par for the course for the perennial truths to take on external forms subjective to the culture and time, but that radically underdetermines the perennial truths doesn't it? I don't think he really cares though.

>>13110278

>>13110305
Not that anon, but do you Guenonists really want to claim the big brain supremacy when Guenon endorses astrology, alchemy, numerology, the caste system, and belief in Atlantis and Hyperborea, and then says it's bad to rely on logic and experience and be skeptic of his uncritical dogmatism? Honestly.

>>13110319
>Guenonists
You really love to turn everything into "ists" and "isms", don't you?
>"astrology, alchemy, numerology, the caste system........Atlantis and Hyperborea"
All things you seem to have no understanding of, which is fine. Most people are destined to remain plebs.

>>13110329
Yeah keep thinking that. It's not like someone could engage Guenon and come to disagreement on the basis of good principles. What would it take for Guenon to be wrong on your account? Like what would convince you "Guenon is wrong after all"? Tell me. His dogmatism and anti-rationalism, if endorsed, sets him up for radical unfalsifiability.

>>13110341
It's not anti-rationalism, it is super-rationalism.

>>13110161
i do immensely. your persona is boring :3 poster.

>>13110364
Call it what you want.

>>13110157
The best way to see if his argument holds water is to read the all the world's scriptures to see if it's valid. From my reading so far, he's right.

>reading the works of a ragheadboo

>>13110161
t. Guenonfag

>>13110319
For some reason you're presuming that none of these things are real. Is it because your favourite philosopher said that they were fake? And you actually believed him? All throughout history we see people who have claimed to receive special knowledge through revelation, or mysticism, or whatever. Just because big daddy philosopher is incapable of receiving this knowledge does not necessarily mean that this knowledge is unattainable.

>>13110413
If the Hyperborea myth is even slightly true then the entire modern worldview would have to be thrown out

>>13110413
not accepting Guenon's perennial reductionism is not the same as denying mysticism, spirituality and religion altogether

>>13110413
Sigh. Most of what you say here can be turned back at you and your big daddy perennialist.

>>13110419
Why is that? Humans have been intelligent for about 50,000 years now and our historical record only goes back a few thousand years. That's a lot of time for civilizations to rise, fall, and disappear. It's a real possibility that prehistorical civilizations existed. Suppose we found proof, how would that "throw out" the modern worldview?

>>13110445
I'm not opposed entirely to the idea of civilizations older than we know of. I have to admit it's mostly because I find the idea so fascinating that I want it to be true, because there really is not any evidence, or very small fragments of potential evidence.

>>13110399
Guenon aside, I used to consider perennialism very possible because yes there's things in common across world religions. For example a lot of people around the world meditate and come to a radically monist conclusion about the nature of reality. I'm past that stage, at least that specific example anyway. I realized that thanks to similar human capacities, mankind can come to the same conclusions given similar experiences regardless of where. The important thing is to develop a very deep sense of discernment. It requires to untangle a lot of connections to see if we humans make quick leaps or mistaken identifications in given cases or not. Some who meditate, and did even anciently, didn't conclude monism because the conclusion of monism really isn't the only conclusion available after all, it's just a particularly easy one to make if you go too quickly and uncritically. The Jains concluded something completely different for example, and the Jain conclusion stands quite opposite the Buddhist nihilist conclusion.

>>13110413
See >>13110487 it ends up being relevant to you as well.

>>13110487
>Buddhist nihilist conclusion
I spotted the Western secular colonialist pseud!

>>13110487
>the Buddhist nihilist conclusion
you mean the Theravada nihilist conclusion?

>To say “it is” is to grasp for permanence.
>To say “it is not” is to adopt the view of nihilism.
>Therefore a wise person
>Does not say “exists” or “does not exist.”

>”Whatever exists through its essence
>Cannot be nonexistent” is eternalism.
>”It existed before but doesn’t now”
>Entails the error of nihilism.
- Nagarjuna, MMK

Guenon is fun but just stick to his critiques of modernity. East and West, The Crisis of the Modern World and The Reign of Quantity are all fantastic an d no one can say otherwise.

>>13110607
Also, I'd like to point out that Guenonfag is mistaken by advocating people read Introduction to the Hindu Doctrines first.

I don't think anyone should start Guenon with his metaphysics. The whole point of Guenon is that you need to be initiated into this metaphysical knowledge. Start with his critiques of modernity and then, if you want, tackle his metaphysics.

>>13110589
Just as easy as we can spot the Guenonist pseud from this response. Is there a soul? Jains say yes, and that it is separate from the body or experiences, and eternal. Some Hindus might accept this view (dvaita) but others (advaita) are monists. But the Buddhist view of the soul was considered nihilist even by Jains and Hindus, not just westerners. I'm pretty sure some Buddhists would say the same. If >>13110602 counts as an admission of this fact (that some Buddhists would say the soul doesn't exist), then that's all I care about. It isn't crucial to my previous post's content that Buddhists be nihilists or not, just that people (and the Jains and advaita Hindus work for my example) not always derived monism from their meditative experiences. You guys are missing the forest for the trees if you get hung upon the Buddhism point.

>>13110801
needs more shit in the background
otherwise good meme

>>13110651
There is evidence to suggest Buddha never denied the existence of the atman, but that is a whole other can of worms that I am not educated to elaborate on and argue.

>>13110864
Nirvana is canonically not-self anyways, so he definitely didn't teach the path to the atman

Do not comment on Guenon until you've read at least Intro to Hindu Doctrines, Crisis of the Modern World, Reign of Quantity, and Man and his Becoming According to the Vedanta.
There are some painfully bad interpretations of Guenon in this thread from both people who support him and people who are against him.

>>13110984
Care to point some out? Cite some passages if possible to support your claims, that would help also.

>>13109302
what do you mean he's in the holy trinity of edgy /lit/ frenchmen, the other two being deleuze and debord.

>>13109568
>now go read real philosophy.
this so much

Revealed monism is explained by ego loss from decoupling of the default mode network in non-ordinary states of consciousness, such as psychosis, psychedelic use, temporal lobe epilepsy and deep meditation.

https://youtu.be/07Ien1qo_qI

>>13111092
based spiritual materialism

>>13110617
i'd also suggest to actually read first hand sources (upanishads, sutras, commentaries, etc) before delving into his metaphysics despite the claim by tradposters that 'he references them directly anyway'. It's quite difficult to discern prejudice from fact when one starts out with no background knowledge and I suspect it's why trads blindly accept his premise and pretend he is just a messenger, they simply seek to prove him right. Presenting him as the sole arbiter of eastern philosophy is genuinely dishonest.

>>13110825

>>13111429
pretty good, but pic related is more appropriate

>>13109568
this so hard

>>13109849
>>13111429
>>13111692
what is this

>>13109849
>tfw I think I was the "kantian shill"
>tfw I hate guenonfag but actually like guenon/advaita quite a bit

Can't tell you how much I appreciated this post anon. This is genuinely a good history of the guenonfag phenomenon. The best part in my opinion is still when that guy who was clearly a grad student of some kind in Indian religion/philosophy started talking to him about some nitty gritty aspects of the Hindu canon, and he acted like a complete asshole to the guy in return. In another thread some time later, he then claimed that the grad student guy had "agreed" with him.. and then the guy himself showed up an said "No I didn't."

>>13111758
And so am I

>>13112704
Guenon fags personified in a satirical manner, which can be explained in a series of "muh..." statements

Persian rug & shahada = muh sufism
Ganesha = muh hinduism
Shankara = muh monism
Anti-Blavatsky sign = not muh theosophy

*teleports behind you*

>>13109652
I agree with this critique and this is my biggest problem with the perennialist people. The problem is that their definition of philosophy is determined by an unphilosophical, unmetaphysical conception of "the philosopher." They see the philosopher as an oriental sage, living in small elite circles with other sages, and not as a promethean expander of knowledge.

This also determines their conception of the object of knowledge, because it entails that the truth is something static and atemporal that has always existed in the same way, and whose only relation to history is that, at any given time, there will be teeming stupid masses and there will be small circles of elite sages. The only thing you can do in such a world is decide whether you would like to be among the masses or the sages. The truth is the truth, and you can either be a sage who lives close to it, by ascending to higher understanding of it and intellectually intuiting it once in a while, or you can be an animal basically.

I agree with a lot of the elitism of this view, and I even agree with the initiatic tropes of the trads. I consider myself a neoplatonist in various respects. I also think that intellectual intuition is possible and is the object of true knowledge. But like you're saying, it's not as simple as "bro if you see the forms properly you'll see how the only thing to do is accept the caste system, be a sage, meditate with me in a bathrobe, and stop caring about that natural philosophy shit." Philosophical truth can't be purely discursive, like modern academic "linguistic" philosophy bullshit, or it negates its own premises, it leads logically to "why bother?" But it also can't be as simple as the whole correct world-system being written immutable in the sky for every generation's worth of pretentious sufis to glimpse and be smug about. Both are too quietist, too "therapeutic." I think the oriental trad vision of the sage is fundamentally un-Western and un-Faustian too, but that's a different issue.

>>13112759
Well said. I appreciate what post-linguistic turn philosophers (analytic and continental) did, mainly because it helps with discerning things a little better, but I strongly disagree with how anti-metaphysical and anti-access/anti-intuition/anti-acquaintance they both became. They became so anti-access that they even said sensation itself was so theoretically loaded that "sense data" and "qualia" can be safely rejected (!), so intuition of anything that isn't sensible was tossed by them even harder. Shame really. Fortunately things are looking better on both sides of the divide. Analytics began taking metaphysics and access more seriously in the 70s and 80s forward, and continentals in the 90s and 2000s (speculative realism). It's a start. I think 20th century anti-realism will look really outdated in due time. But Guenon and his followers are really bad too, for reasons you said.

I read the short "Crisis of the Modern World". He constantly redefines words to mean something else entirely (muh TRUE intellectual reasoning) and goes "but we won't go into detail about this right now" so he never really defines what the fuck he is actually talking about. It all seems to hinge upon the kali yuga, too. If you don't believe in the kali yuga, the whole ting falls apart.

Guenon's works are largely just an indirect commentary on the works of Ibn Arabi and Adi Shankara, in a similar way to how Evola is largely just an indirect commentary on and a response to Guenon. You'll never fully understand what exactly Guenon means and why he writes all the stuff that he does unless you do a deep dive through the prolific writings of one or both of these two figures, but doing this presupposes having a very in-depth knowledge of either Hindu or Islamic philosophy and related terminology, and having the willingness to read through thousands of pages of pretty dense writing on metaphysics; the vast majority of people who read Guenon don't so this which IMO is why so many people seem to become befuddled or angry after reading Guenon's writings.

I laugh everytime I see people write stuff like "well uh he never fully explained intellectual intuition or he never solidly proved his ideas using logic"; that's besides the point you doofus, Guenon was not writing to convince people who didn't agree with him, he couldn't care less about those people, Guenon's works are really only directed at people with a mystic disposition who would already be willing to take his points at face value. He didn't care about proselytizing to people who don't already sympathize with Neoplatonism, esoterism, eastern metaphysics etc on some level already. If you do actually read a lot of the primary eastern texts he references it becomes very clear why he wrote the things he did and all the stuff he writes about intellectual intuition, initiation, metaphysical realization etc is usually explained in way more depth in the works of people that Guenon references often like Shankara, Ibn Arabi and some others (some of whom are very heavily based in logic). If you approach his writings with the expectation that he will lay out a case that will convert a devoted reader of western philosophy into a fan of eastern metaphysics you are mistaken, that's not what he was trying to do at all. This is not to say that there are no legitimate criticisms to be made of his ideas, but much of the points I see made here and elsewhere seems to stem from a misunderstanding of what his intentions were and who his writing was directed towards.

>>13111692
this picture makes me want to read him more lol

>>13114297
LOL

>>13114297
t. Guenonfag

>>13114297

>>13111092
cringe and blue-pilled

>>13109302
Sorry but Guenon is a snoozefest

>>13116289
>I knoww!! where's all the dragons and laser guns man, what a joke!! I need action!

>>13116325
>>13114421

Finally people are catching up and realizing Guenon is just being posted for Pseud cred, because Evola has problematic associations with /pol/ and /pol/ is dumb, thus hurting his pseud cred potential.

>>13109302
Monsieur René is the ultimate pseud.

>>13113809
What would you consider to be legitimate criticisms of Guenon's ideas?

>>13117507
some reading just for you:
https://evolaasheis.wordpress.com/2016/04/14/letter-from-rene-guenon/
https://evolaasheis.wordpress.com/2018/03/01/a-controversy-about-the-vedanta/
https://evolaasheis.wordpress.com/2016/04/14/action-contemplation-and-the-western-tradition/
https://evolaasheis.wordpress.com/2016/04/14/the-concept-of-initiation/
https://evolaasheis.wordpress.com/2016/04/14/the-limits-of-initiatory-regularity/

also this: https://evolaasheis.wordpress.com/2016/04/14/spiritual-authority-and-temporal-power/

>>13117507
He make some initial mistakes about Buddhism, he was at times overly harsh to western philosophy and seemed to only rarely admit where it aligned with eastern thought, he seemed kinda dismissive or largely ignorant of currents of western esoterism/mysticism that did the same (i.e. eckhart, bohme etc); he barely wrote anything about eastern orthodoxy despite all his musings on Christianity, he downplayed the obvious Indo-Euro connection to India at times; I consider these to be pretty minor issues or moreso flaws of style though, and he wasn't wrong in his main thesis that there is a current of generally non-dualistic thinking which permeates all throughout Vedanta, Tantra, Daoism, Sufism, Neoplatonism, even select areas of Mahayana and so on.

>>13117553
he understood nothing of Western Antiquity either, and admitted as much.
all in all, a typical 19th century occultist convert to Islam who had a strong appetite for Hindu scripture.

Is he a meme or actually worth reading?

>>13117607
read the Crisis of the Modern World and see what you make of that.

>>13117607
meme
you don't need to read a 20th century Frenchman to understand ancient Eastern religion/philosophy.
Unless you want to read him for reasons other than his perennial approach to the East, in which case, why not?

>>13117607
Complete meme. Just skip him 2bh.

>>13117527
>https://evolaasheis.wordpress.com/2018/03/01/a-controversy-about-the-vedanta/
I like Evola, but most of the points Evola raises there stem from either a misunderstanding of Vedanta or because he didn't read enough of the the primary texts themselves and realize that the objections he raises are already mostly anticipated and refuted in them. That's okay, he already adopted so much from Guenon it's hardly surprising that he would seek to distinguish himself in some way such as by not taking such a Vedanta-centric outlook as Guenon did

>>13117600
>he understood nothing of Western Antiquity either, and admitted as much.
What do you mean? He constantly references the Greeks in his writings

>>13117607
he has both ardent supporters and opponents on /lit/, you just have read about him or try one of his books and decide for youself

>>13117650
not talking about Aristotle, my man. get off of /lit/ an read more, for instance Fustel de Coulanges' Ancient City.

>>13117644
not exactly. He takes a Eurocentric view which Monsieur Rene does not even comprehend.

>>13117673
Maybe in the other articles you listed, but in that one specific series of articles/letters about Vedanta contained in that one link he makes a bunch of basic mistakes about Vedanta which have nothing to do with Europe or a 'Eurocentric view'

>>13117629
>>13117636
and Evola?

>>13117716
well worth reading.

>>13117716
the same applies: >>13117629

>>13109568
destroyed, how will OP ever recover?

>>13109753
>Russell's Problems of Philosophy
and you were doing so well

>>13110954
>self
>non self
Both the Hindu and the Buddhist reach enlightenment, and both are disappointed to discover the other side was right all along.

>>13109309
Had no idea Guenon was such a player.

>>13117742
he got around, he did, for a beta orbiter.

>>13117742
not only that, but a man of intrigues and dangerous escapades as well

>>13117756
where's Guenonfag when you need him to throw a hissy fit?
I wonder what Rene was up to in Cairo?

>>13117756

>>13110954
In actuality the PC uses Atma in a completely different sense than the Upanishads, so there's actually no way of knowing. In every single instance of Buddha referring to things as anatta in the PC, it's all stuff that the Upanishads/Vedanta would not consider to be Atma. It's only people who have studied both schools who are aware of this though, and Buddhists and people into it have a bigger aversion to Hinduism than Hindus do to Buddhism, which is why it's always the Buddhists who make elementary misakes like that because most of them actually know very little about Hindu thought aside from wikipedia or the strawman presentation of it in the PC

>>13117738
>>13117771
hate to be the guy that posts PC passages, but:
>He recognises Nibbāna[30] as Nibbāna;
>having recognised Nibbāna as Nibbāna,
>he thinks of Nibbāna,[31]
>he thinks (of the self) in (regard to) Nibbāna,
>he thinks (of self as) Nibbāna,
>he thinks, 'Nibbāna is mine.'
>He rejoices in Nibbāna.

>What is the reason for this?

>I say that it is not thoroughly understood by him.
- MN 1
It says right there that Nirvana is not-self
also
>To one who does not pay wise attention in these ways,
>one of six (wrong) views arises:
>'There is for me a self'-
>the view arises to him as though it were true,
>as though it were real.
>Or, 'There is not for me a self. - the view arises to him as though it were true, as though it were real.
>Or, 'Simply by self am I aware of self.' - the view arises to him as though it were true, as though it were real.
>Or, 'Simply by self am I aware of not-self.' - the view arises to him as though it were true, as though it were real.
>Or, 'Simply by not-self am I aware of self' - the view arises to him as though it were true, as though it were real.
>Or a wrong view occurs to him thus:
>'Whatever is this self for me that speaks,
>that experiences and knows, that experiences now here,
>now there,
>the fruition of deeds
>that are lovely and that are depraved,
>it is this self for me that is permanent,
>stable,
>eternal,
>not subject to change,
>that will stand firm like unto the eternal.'
- MN 2
I'm aware I'm just begging to be dogpiled by posting this in a Guenon thread though lol

>>13117811
You didn't read what I wrote close enough, just because Buddha says self is not Nirvana is not the same as him refuting or explicitly disagreeing with Atma = Brahman because the Upanishadic Atma is completely different from everything Buddha describes as self, do you understand that basic premise? Atma or self does not mean the same thing in different schools, there are over a half-dozen completely different understandings and definitions of what the 'self' or 'Atma' is between Buddhism, Vedanta, Samkhya, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Mimansa, Jainism etc. Absent any explicit and accurate descriptions in the PC of the Upanishadic idea of the Atma (which doesn't occur once in the entire PC), there is no reason to think Buddha is specifically referring to the Upanishadic idea of the self, which is completely different from the views of the Brahmins he is described as debating with. So, with that point in mind, none of the passages you posted disproves my point, because he never specifies what kind of self he is referring to. You seem to have the misimpression that everyone in all the schools back then understood 'self' or 'atma' as being the same thing and that because of this we can deduce that Buddha was stating his disagreement with the Upanishads, when in reality this isn't the case at all.

for example:
>he thinks (of the self) in (regard to) Nibbāna,
>he thinks (of self as) Nibbāna,
>I say that it is not thoroughly understood by him.
Because he does't specify what kind of self he is talking about here this is completely meaningless with regard to the current discussion. The second passage is equally as inapplicable, maybe even moreso since Buddha describes something which explicitly conflicts with the Upanishadic teaching of what Atma is, when he says

>'Whatever is this self for me that speaks,
>that experiences and knows, that experiences now here,
>now there, >the fruition of deeds

The Upanishads/Vedanta specify that the Self is neither the actor, nor the experiencer and knower, but that these are the workings of the intellect and manas, and that they are falsely mistaken to be the Atma because they are illumined by it

>>13117892
Here's the original text:
Nibbānaɱ nibbānato sañjānāti,||
nibbānaɱ nibbānato maññāti,||
nibbānaɱ maññāti nibbānasmiɱ maññāti,||
nibbānato maññāti,||
nibbānaɱ-me ti maññāti,||
nibbānaɱ abhinandati.|

I guess you think atta in Pali is not equivalent to the Sanskrit Atman. I'll go with that if you like.
If you want to argue that because the Buddha never explicitly said "Nirvana is not the Atman as described by the Upanishads and those who follow them," but instead that "Nirvana is not the atta," that this means he never refuted the Upanishadic Atman - that's fair. However, that is no reason to make the massive leap to say that the Buddha definitely taught the Atman and that anatta was just his version of "neti, neti."

>>13117735
It's useful as an introduction, but you can skip it. The point is to eventually know basic history of philosophy. There are other paths to doing that, Russell's Problems of Philosophy is beginner level, it's just one ladder among many, what matters more is getting to the other side eventually.

>>13117811
>people believe in this unironically

>>13117892
>>13117934
*But again, this is assuming that you are right that Atta is not the same as Atman.
The line
>Or, 'Simply by not-self am I aware of self' - the view arises to him as though it were true, as though it were real.
Seems to me to be clearly contradictory to the claim that anatta is the same as "neti, neti," ie, "by means of pointing out what is not-self I am aware of what IS self." I don't know what other interpretation you could get from this. What other sort of self could he be referring to, when he says "by not-self am I aware of self?" By recognizing the impersonal/not-self nature of phenomena, he recognizes the self in phenomena? That is the only way I can imagine interpreting it if we are accepting that Atta is not Atman or does not apply to Atman, but in that case, that passage would make no sense.

>>13117934
>I guess you think atta in Pali is not equivalent to the Sanskrit Atman. I'll go with that if you like.
It's not just that but also that Atman in Sanskrit itself can have such widely varying meanings according to each school of thought that it would be perfectly appropriate in many cases for different schools to use a different word other than 'self' or 'Atma' in each case, hence if people don't specify what type of Atma they are referring to it's equivalent to them using a completely separate word which might not necessarily have any connotations of conventional selfhood
>because the Buddha never explicitly said "Nirvana is not the Atman as described by the Upanishads and those who follow them," but instead that "Nirvana is not the atta," that this means he never refuted the Upanishadic Atman - that's fair.
Yes, that's all I was saying, merely that it's impossible to know what his thoughts were on that specific doctrine/idea because there is no record of him explicitly saying so
>However, that is no reason to make the massive leap to say that the Buddha definitely taught the Atman and that anatta was just his version of "neti, neti."
I never made that claim in my original post, that is a whole other topic; there are indeed some scholars who have made some suggestions along those lines but it's not a widespread view and I have not read extensively on it and have no desire to argue in favor of it right now.

>>13117892
And one last thing
While it is true that Nirvana is described as unconditioned, unborn...etc the similarities to Brahman end there. Not once in the entire PC are the words "eternal," "permanent," "infinite," "timeless," or "unity" applied to Nirvana, nor is any sort of cosmic creative force applied to it either. Nagarjuna (if you trust him as a source for Buddhist doctrine) even said that Nirvana was no different from Samsara in its emptiness - that both Nirvana and Samsara are empty.

>>13118013
>I never made that claim in my original post, that is a whole other topic
I saw that you didn't make that claim but I mentioned it anyways just to make sure, since that is the common view around here.