/lit/ - Literature

They didn't.

>>18881859

Plato retroactively admired him

>>18882082
In Heaven, Hell or?

>>18881977
This.
His local imams didn’t even know he existed.
He’s the Darger of phil— theology

>>18881859
they were star-struck by him

>>18881859
What's wrong with his face

>>18881859
According to Guenon, EVERYTHING(with the exception of what was preserved) which came after the destruction of the Templars(that is the point where the Middle Ages ended for him) was bad. ALL post-medieval philosophy, ALL post-medieval art, ALL post-medieval revolutionary ideas, ALL of this is bad. How can any philosopher like such a man?

>>18881977
Bataille wrote a seething footnote about him, also Prince Charles gave a 30 minute interview about him and his ideas.

>>18882401
>ALL of this is bad. How can any philosopher like such a man?
because he’s right

>>18881977
"If only I had known Guénon is my youth! Now it is too late; the die is cast. My sclerosed mind has as much difficulty conforming to the precepts of that ancestral wisdom as my body has to the so-called "comfortable" position recommended by the Yogis. To tell the truth, I cannot even manage really to desire resorption of the individual into the Eternal Being they seek, I cling desperately to my limits and feel a repugnance for the disappearance of those contours that my whole education made a point of defining. I am and remain on the side of Descartes and of Bacon. None the less, those books of Guénon are remarkable."

- André Gide; a French author and winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature.

>>18881977
ywnbaw

>>18882401
>How can any philosopher like such a man?
Because I too share the same exact sentiment.

Wasn't there a french doctoral thesis, claiming every French intellectual between 1920-1970 was influenced by Guenon? An anon posted it here

>>18882733
Would love to see source

>>18882454
>it's real

>>18882733
>>18882838
René Guénon’s influence on the literary and intellectual life of his time has been recently documented in an impressive 1,200-page book by Xavier Accart, Guénon ou le renversement des clartés, which spans fifty years of French history and demonstrates the pervasive, if sometimes subterranean and implicit, impact of the works of the French metaphysician on personalities as diverse as André Gide, Simone Weil, Pierre Drieu la Rochelle, and Henri Bosco. Upon going through the pages of Accart’s impressive volume, one is literally astounded by the breadth, and sometimes the depth, of Guénon’s presence in the intellectual landscape of France between 1920 and 1970, a presence that a cursory, conventional consideration of the French intellectual history of the time would not betray. Who would suspect prima facie that Guénon’s works have been known and appreciated by personalities as diverse as André Breton and Charles de Gaulle?

>>18883257
Merci

>>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

>>18882082
most of the buddha's teachings are based off of the works of guenon

>>18882401
>EVERYTHING
>(with the exception of what was preserved)
also with the exception of his own philosophy :^)

>>18883276
Dugin is a joke

>>18882454
>resorption of the individual into the Eternal Being
Rejecting annihilationism is a good thing. Fuck monist trannies

>>18883681
i think people just fall for guenon's novel pretentiousness.
they don't get it, but they feel like they should get it.
>I cannot even manage really to desire resorption of the individual into the Eternal Being they seek
he has no desire for this merging, yet somehow he has been convinced that he *should* desire it.
this is an impressive trick by guenon, but it's nothing more than a trick.

>>18883681
there is no annihilation involved. your human mind is not "annihilated", rather your entire being achieves the full extent of its potential. the exact opposite of annihilation

>>18883257
Here it is

>>18884478
It's on libgen too

>>18883970
>losing your identity and merging into a homogenized mass that is devoid of form.
>it's not annihilation though
you're just taking what is practically annihiliationism and then using nice-sounding words to describe it.

>>18882454
I love Gide so much

>>18884579
there is no merger, you dont even know what you are talking about

>>18884734
yeah, because we're already merged, right? but you can't explain why it doesn't appear to be so
>our vision is just obstructed, bro
except according to you the vision of the absolute cannot be obstructed because the eternal being is eternally all-knowing

>>18883970
Yeah people don't really understand the subtlety in that generally

>>18884790
>yeah, because we're already merged, right?
yes
>but you can't explain why it doesn't appear to be so
Is that indeed true that it doesn’t appear to be so? Tell, me, how do you know that you aren’t already merged? Because of the presence or absence of thoughts and sensory perceptions? That doesn’t reliably inform you about the merger or non-merged status of the consciousness which is different from them. That only tells you about the presence or absence of something which you are not even trying to determine the status of.

>>18885454
It's very clear that eg. I cant see what you're seeing right now. Seems pretty non merged

>>18882082
lmao

>>18881977
True, his a footnote in a work by Bataille and that's about it.

To anyone who thinks Bataille was seething remember Guenon is nothing else than a footnote. If Bataille was seething he would have written a book, a chapter or at least a subchapter, but he wrote only a footnote.

>>18885513
he's*
My SL skills, or lack thereof, is shining through.

>>18882615
But you haven't read or appreciated any of it, instead you've just slimed the sausage to anime tits. Most big imams come from the middle ages ffs.

>>18882454
Gide was a pedophile

>>18881859
This guy is entirely unknown outside of /lit/, Anon.

>>18882448
>>18882615
>implying you are philosophers

Please stop converting to Buddhism if you are a westerner. Catholicism, Orthodoxy or Islam is a much better choice.

>>18885469
any time you point out a blatant inconsistency with that philosophy it's always "no you just don't understand. when i said X i actually meant Y" and then you just have to keep chasing them around in a circle

>>18885685
he's sometimes posted on /pol/, but moreso because of his le traditionalist stuff. "modernism is bad" is only one or two steps away from "jews are bad" if you're willing to take the string in that direction, so it fits in with many /pol/-tier worldviews.
i imagine that's why a lot of people get into his philosophy in the first place. they come from a place political and materialistic yearning rather than spiritual and philosophical yearning.

>>18885625
Gide was a basedophile

>>18885785
>he's not a neognostic
ngmi

>>18886277
i'm an alt-paleognostic

>>18883248
>Rent

>>18886290
>neognostics seething

>>18886395
Huh?

>>18881859
rashay daquan is the best

>>18886398
what? gnostic? like a nonstick frying pan?

>>18886463
Yes, the gnostic an oily grain of rice on the kenomic teflon frying pan

>>18885469
> It's very clear that eg. I cant see what you're seeing right now. Seems pretty non merged
So? What we each see isn’t consciousness but insentient phenomena presenting itself as observed contents to awareness, if you subtract these insentient phenomena, there is nothing left indicating any difference between your awareness and my awareness. In order to point to difference the only examples you have to draw upon are things other than awareness, which themselves dont actually establish a difference between two awarenesses; instead they just show differences in other things.

>>18886050
oy vey!

>>18886518
likewise, many advaitins on here use the fact that jews don't like guenon as evidence of the superiority of his philosophy. if jews don't like a thing then that thing must be good, right?
but jews also don't like christianity, and they dislike fox news at an even higher rate than they dislike christianity, so this argument of "you only dislike guenon because you're jewish" is really worthless.

>>18886497
That still means our contents arent merged

>>18886580
>That still means our contents arent merged
The observed insentient contents aren't consciousness themselves, so their merger or non-merger doesn't demonstrate the merger or non-merge of consciousness, just as demonstrable differences in the types of object illuminated by the sun don't establish or demonstrate that the light illuminating those objects is coming from two different suns.

What do i read by him and why do people shill him over schuon or evola?

>>18886611
if the absolute is all knowing and also undifferentiable, homogenized, and formless, then that means you can't have one part conscious of one thing while another part is conscious of another thing, because that fundamentally necessitates the presence of parts. you also can't say that it's simultaneously conscious of everything but then have the fact that i myself (nor you) are conscious of everything. our consciousness is not conscious of everything, which that leaves two options: 1; there is differentiation among different pieces of consciousness, or 2; the total consciousness is blocked and separated somehow. call it shadows or refractions or whatever but that still demonstrates manipulation of consciousness.
>The observed insentient contents aren't consciousness themselves
>implying there are "contents" separate from the consciousness itself
but i though there was nothing outside or inside the conscious absolute truth. so how can these insentient contents exist if they aren't supposed to exist in the first place?
>their merger or non-merger doesn't demonstrate the merger or non-merge of consciousness
surely you would say that some people have merged in the past (and by that i mean their consciousness). that cannot be true though, because then all of our consciousness would have to be merged simultaneously the moment the first person managed to do it. you can't have one part of the consciousness doing one thing (merging or being merged) while another part is doing something else (being un-merged), because that requires the total consciousness to be differentiated.
>demonstrable differences in the types of object illuminated by the sun don't establish or demonstrate that the light illuminating those objects is coming from two different suns
yeah but the fact that there's an object plus a lightsource does demonstrate that there are multiple things (light and the object that it's illuminating).
if consciousness were just illuminating its formless self then you would have basically a singularity type of thing with no viewable form. it would practically negate itself, like a snake that has fully eaten its tail all the way until it's nothing.
the fact that i can see form with my own eyes and be consciously aware of it demonstrates the existence of form in some way. even if it's a dream you still have the existence of that dream, which is in fact a thing. an illusion is still a thing. two different illusions means two different things.

>>18886780
he's like evola but for people who like to spend more time smelling their own farts and ultimately merging with the One True Fart which is actually all that there is. you and me are both part the Ultimate Fart. we just don't fully realize it.
two people can smell the same fart but the fart is still One. there is only the One Fart and nothing else. it is all pervasive and eternally undifferentiated.

>>18886780
Start with his first book "Intro to the study of Hindu Doctrines (and Traditionalism)", and then read "Crisis of the Modern World, people prefer various traditionalists for different reasons. Both schuon and evola only become fully traditionalist after encountering and being changed by Guenon's writings, he was really the father of the whole school.

>>18881859
most of them ignored him completly, he's as irrelevant as an author can be
which isn't strange at all, since his understanding of philosophy was pretty basic, so there's no merit in engaging with his ideas, whic hare out dated and logically incongruent for a modern philosopher, while at the same time they're all that inetersting form a classical point of view, so medievalist and classical philosophers don't win much engaging with his ideas

>>18882454
>winner of the Nobel Prize

that means next to nothing

>>18882733
>doctoral thesis,
there's a doctoral thesis about howthe study of icebergs is mysoginist

>>18886867
To add to your list point, the beams of light are distinct from each other and from the sun in that analogy

>>18887495
Which is more like the Christian God, who creates evrythign but is not reducible to his creation

>>18886369
>free

>>18881977
/thread

>>18886867
All of your objections can easily be answered briefly with even the most elementary understanding of Advaita

>if the absolute is all knowing and also undifferentiable, homogenized, and formless, then that means you can't have one part conscious of one thing while another part is conscious of another thing, because that fundamentally necessitates the presence of parts.
Until you've identified a demonstrable difference between your awareness and someone else's, then you don't even have a basis for making judgments like that which are presupposing separate conscious parts. The mere fact of us have different objects appearing only demonstrates differences in objects and not in our awareness. If they were completely removed, and there was just the self-intuiting presence of awareness, then you would no longer have any basis through which you could attempt to infer the difference of your awareness from anyone else's.

Brahman/Awareness is partless, you and me as awareness are not both "parts" of Brahman that are conscious of different things, there is just THE supra-individual Awareness, which projects through its power maya the false seeming existence of duality, time, causation etc. It leads to contradictions when you even say God is comprised by parts.

When explaining how the sense of differentiation is contingent on a transcendent non-duality, it's helpful to begin with or mention early that Advaita distinguishes between sākṣī (witness) or sākṣī-chaitanya (witness-consciousness); The Atman-Brahman that is already forever liberated is non-dual infinite awareness who has no awareness of maya, instead of maya being the object of His inner gaze He simply freely abounds in the plenitude of His own self-revealing infinite presence. Sākṣī is when this Atman-Brahman presence is seemingly existing in association with maya/duality. The ever-liberated Atman-Brahman does not experience itself as sākṣī, only the beings within maya have their foundational consciousness present itself as sākṣī. The sākṣī is how the Atman presents itself for beings within maya, the sākṣī is supra-individual and is the same light that shines in all beings.

>>18887961

A sense of differentiation among the conscious beings happens when all the all-pervasive light of awareness shines forth on different inert and insentient intellects, which catch its light and falsely seem to become sentient and self-aware itself, some call this the 'reflected-consciousness' or chidabhasa. When this happens these inert objects of the mind-functions when appearing in a relation with sākṣī falsely seem to be endowed with consciousness like how a glass container of juice or wine can catch the light and appear brightly illuminated from within by a colored light. Consciousness itself is impartite and non-intentional, but when it presents itself as sākṣī in association with the intellect or mind the insentient actions of the mind falsely appear as states of intentional (object-directed) consciousness.

Or as one scholar explains "Pure consciousness illuminates the material thought-forms of the buddhi (the non-conscious intellect), thereby yielding the appearance of sentient states that are directed towards particular objects and cognitive contents. But from the perspective of pure consciousness this directedness is merely an appearance. Consciousness as such is not directed towards these objects, it has no intention to illuminate the limited material structures in question, and it is completely independent of the mental phenomena upon which its light happens to fall."

The Atman-Brahman, the sākṣī, and all the beings with maya share the same undivided consciousness, only beings within maya perceive, through maya, there to be any division. Until the physical body of the enlightened man dies, his sākṣī that was actually the Atman-Brahman doesn't actually present itself as such (that is, as not even having the appearance of maya that has been sublated through right knowledge). There is no annihilation or dissolution or any merger anywhere here, because the undivided Atman-Brahman was the real nature of sākṣī all along, and so on of the inner consciousness of all beings. In the progression from jiva or jivatman to sākṣī to the liberated Brahman in absolute reality without any relation with maya, it's just the continued "unveiling" of the same Entity to Himself without that infinite Being ever being erased or dissolved. And from the top of the metaphysical pyramid there is no "veiling" or "unveiling", there is only seems to be the occurring as such in the ascent upwards.

>>18887964

The jivatman-complexes sustained by Brahman's maya confuse the insentient mind-objects illuminated by light-awareness as being individualized centers of consciousness, but the sākṣī providing the illuminating non-intentional light-awareness which lets those mind-objects be known is itself unaffected by anything the jiva does or conceives of. The difference between the Supreme Brahman-Atman, and the sākṣī and Jiva/Jivatmas within maya the chidabhasa of each jiva accounts in a consistent way for the apparent differences of particularized consciousnesses from the all-pervasive awareness. Thus, what are seemingly different parts of pure awareness having different object-displays are actually the same awareness, the very notion of witnessing a unique display of changing objects it itself part of the non-aware phenomena, absent any and all trace of objects, there remains nothing left separating any awareness of one being from the awareness of another.

All jivas have at once knowledge of the unchanging undecaying reality, and the knowledge of the changing and (ultimately) false world of empirical experience. There is an element of the unchanging and undying glimmering through in each instance of knowledge of anything. This knowledge of the jiva is the self-revealing or self-disclosing knowledge of its own foundational consciousness. This knowledge of the unchanging which the jiva has in each moment is each moment is also the sākṣī and the Atman. The point of differentiation arises not when different parts of awareness see different objects, but when the inert states of the mind falsely seem to be intentional conscious states. the awareness which allows this to happen by its presence is the same presence inside all intellects though.

The different "centers of witnessing" seeming to encounter different objects are not different centers of awareness in actuality, but consist of a complex or a relationship, between the insentient mind-state and the undivided and all-pervasive awareness which happens to coincide and exist in relation with that particular intellect projected by maya. The same awareness which is the One alone without a second in absolute reality, without maya; when it presents itself within maya as the Sakshi is the same undivided center of awareness which lends itself to the relationship present in every jiva. That self-same center of awareness of all beings does really not 'observe' the minds or samsaric experience of any of them, but the false semblance that it is observing any of their minds is part of the very relation or chain that constitutes their jivahood, it is a false relation that the mind constructs between itself and the awareness-light which is illumining it, the awareness is unaffected by this mental-construction.

>>18887967
Hence, the apparent differenes between your and my observed objects is due to maya making different insentient maya-objects seem to flash forth as intentional states of awareness, but the unwavering and immediate presence by which this takes place cannot be delimited in exclusive terms between you and me, because the inner presence which knows your thoughts, when considered indecently of those thoughts which are incidental to it, possesses no features that distinguish it from the inner presence which knows my thoughts when considered independently of them. The same self-revealing knowlege of unchanging reality, when it seemingly exists in associations an array of false 'existence', seems like divided centers of knowledge or awareness but only from the perspective of those maya beings who don't fully realize their own awareness.

>you also can't say that it's simultaneously conscious of everything but then have the fact that i myself (nor you) are conscious of everything. our consciousness is not conscious of everything, which that leaves two options: 1; there is differentiation among different pieces of consciousness, or 2; the total consciousness is blocked and separated somehow. call it shadows or refractions or whatever but that still demonstrates manipulation of consciousness.
The Atman-Brahman in and as absolute reality is immediately conscious of all that truly exists, namely, Himself alone and nothing else; hence He is omniscient (all-knowing), since He has unlimited and complete knowledge of all truth, of the real. The knowledge of the unchanging constant fact of our present awareness, by virtue of being the Atman-Brahman presenting itself as the sākṣī, is itself the self-revealing knowledge of all that truly exists (itself) appearing to exist in association with finitude. Insofar as us both having this knowledge of the unchanging, we both are conscious of everything that truly exists, so we both actually are both conscious of everything. All the false knowledge that can be known within maya can only be known by connection with the sākṣī, and so only the sākṣī can be said in a sense to know all the false maya-particulars.

>>18887974

1) There is differentiation among the maya-objects appearing as intentional states, but not in the supra-individual non-intentional consciousness. The subject experience of differentiations are not occurring to separate awarenesses, but arise when the same undivided and infinite awareness projects by its own power false maya and then those particular maya-objects wrongly relate the same awareness projecting all the maya objects and take it as uniquely related that maya-object, to the exclusion of others.
2) The total consciousness of the Atman-Brahman doesn't observe maya and isnt blocked, so its not mutually exclusive to have the unblocked omniscient Atman-Brahman exist as such at the same time as chidabhasa, at the same times as jivas having the semblance of an individualized and finite center of consciousness. That semblance of individualization is not "observed" by a non-individual consciousness, (which is what you are assuming), which is a contradiction, the sense of "observation" is a false association or relation that the mind/false understanding casts the Unchanging and the maya objects into.

>>The observed insentient contents aren't consciousness themselves
>>implying there are "contents" separate from the consciousness itself
Yes, the awareness inside which colors and sound appear is not known by those colors or known by those sounds, it's the reverse.
>but i though there was nothing outside or inside the conscious absolute truth. so how can these insentient contents exist if they aren't supposed to exist in the first place?
Maya does not inhabit the categories of (A) existent and real or (B) non-existent and unreal. It is false, unlike the non-existent the false appears in experience when it seemingly appears as the real. Brahman is transcendent to dualities and categories like existence and non-existence, being and non-being, difference and sameness, division and unity. All these belong to maya, which itself neither exists as not-Brahman, and nor is maya identical with Brahman. Brahman remains alone as the only thing in absolute reality, and difference/sameness and being/non-being don't even exist as real categories, but while in absolute reality Brahman provides for these categories and multiplicty to seemingly come about while transcending and not being delimited by them in any way, either in His nature independent of maya or in how He provides for maya to happen. This position doesn't make any contradictory claims, it doesn't violate the law of non-contradiction or of excluded middle, nor is it the same as saying that something exists and doesn't exist at the same time.

>>18887979

>>their merger or non-merger doesn't demonstrate the merger or non-merge of consciousness
>surely you would say that some people have merged in the past (and by that i mean their consciousness). that cannot be true though, because then all of our consciousness would have to be merged simultaneously the moment the first person managed to do it.
The absolute Atman-Brahman consciousness in absolute reality, the sākṣī, the present awareness by which I am typing this and the awareness by which you are reading it, and the awareness of humans in the past who have attained moksha is all fundamentally the same undivided awareness, presenting itself as different and divided to our understanding through the lenses or cloak of maya. It's not true that an earlier merger would require us all to emerge, because that merger was not a change in the underlying shared awareness itself, but a 'falling away' of insentient and unconscious phenomena and ending of the false assumption that linked it to the omnipresent awareness. Since the underlying awareness is unchanged and only the maya objects are changing, it doesn't necessitate that the maya-objects associated with other jivas needs to change in the same way.

>you can't have one part of the consciousness doing one thing (merging or being merged) while another part is doing something else (being un-merged), because that requires the total consciousness to be differentiated.
The total consciousness remains undifferentiated and totally unchanging, and the "mergers" are only changes in non-conscious phenomena, the total consciousness is unaffected and undivided by them, like how space remains partless, undivided, unaffected and omnipresent even though different objects inhabit it.

>>18887983

>>demonstrable differences in the types of object illuminated by the sun don't establish or demonstrate that the light illuminating those objects is coming from two different suns
>yeah but the fact that there's an object plus a lightsource does demonstrate that there are multiple things (light and the object that it's illuminating).
The Awareness which is Brahman acts as the light while through maya acting as the basis for the false apparent reality of difference/duality, which provides for the object which is illumined to seemingly exist as a second thing, despite the Awareness alone existing in absolute reality.

>if consciousness were just illuminating its formless self then you would have basically a singularity type of thing with no viewable form. it would practically negate itself, like a snake that has fully eaten its tail all the way until it's nothing.
It's only not viewable in a visual sense, consciousness is not visual. Infinite self-revealing presence that is Bliss doesn't need visually-perceived forms to enjoy eternal happiness.
>the fact that i can see form with my own eyes and be consciously aware of it demonstrates the existence of form in some way.
It only demonstrates that you are have awareness in some sense of forms, but it reveals nothing about the ultimate reality of those forms. That only thing you can be sure is that you are conscious, and that in the immediate fact of you being conscious there are particular details which manifest themselves
>even if it's a dream you still have the existence of that dream, which is in fact a thing. an illusion is still a thing. two different illusions means two different things.
I don't disagree, maya is not nothingness or non-existence. But the actual "thing" in your example is the undeniable fact of consciousness, which was associated with the content called dream. The true status of non-conscious content like dream and waking isn't undeniable like how it cannot be reasonably denied that whatever else, one is at least aware or conscious of things happening or of being present. The real "thing" has the power to appear as the non-conscious content, without that content fully coming into existence as an existent entity or 2nd real principle.

>>18887961
>the self-intuiting presence of awareness
you're alreadytaking for granted that something like that exist, which is worng, since aeareness by deifinition needs an object
there's no such thing as pure awarness, only a sensation of a self awarness , which in turn creates the ilusion of a pre existent awarness, which is just a contradiction in terms since the sole purpose of awarness is to be aware of objects
the rest of your arguments you falls entirely since it's founded in this fundamental flaw

>>18887961
this is nihilismin it's purest form, everything is the same, there's no difference with anything, we're already enlightened while at the same time ignorant etc etc

>>18888275
>you're alreadytaking for granted that something like that exist, which is worng, since aeareness by deifinition needs an object
That’s wrong, and you didn’t offer any logical arguments or proof for your claim. The truth is that only the sense of subject or subjectness needs objects because ‘subject’ here is the opposite of the object. Awareness is prior to and more fundamental than subject-object distinctions, which come and go within the intellect. The subject is bound up with changing circumstances, and is quiescent in deep sleep, awareness remains ever the same and is always awake, even when the mind and memory are asleep and there are no object-displays for it to be the subject of
>there's no such thing as pure awarness, only a sensation of a self awarness ,
Do you have any evidence for this? there is no reason to think our self of awareness is fake when every thought and intuition and sensation relies on it being there so they can be known. Pure awareness has been reported to occur sometimes in deep meditation, yoga, samadhi, sensory deprivation etc. If the sense of self is fake, who senses it? It cant be the illusion (they are not aware) so what senses the sense of “””self”””?That which knows it becomes the real conscious presence. Illusions and unreal things cannot be self-aware.

>which in turn creates the ilusion of a pre existent awarness, which is just a contradiction in terms since the sole purpose of awarness is to be aware of objects
Wrong, that’s the meaning of to be an observer, the subject. Awareness just means to have awareness, to have the quality of being aware. Awareness that has immediate intuitive and constant disclosure of its own awareness *is* awareness, full stop. Awareness has to have a separate meaning independent of the objects or it becomes meaningless. Preexistent awareness is not an illusion, it accounts for the continuity of conscious experience, without it our live would be a disorganized jumble of having our awareness on which our thoughts etc rely being interrupted and recreated anew constantly.

>the rest of your arguments you falls entirely since it's founded in this fundamental flaw
you are just sophistically redefining awareness as subject, but I see through it with the power of detecting sophistry that Shankara’s writings bestow on those who read them carefully.

>>18888284
>this is nihilismin it's purest form, everything is the same,
Brahman isnt maya
>there's no difference with anything,
what is perceived as difference isnt non-different with other expressions of differences, but in their perceived status as differences they dont exist and reality itself is beyond difference/non-difference and hence nothing about it can be said to be different or non-different in relation to something else, because in itself it is free of all the contrasts that differences are based on.
>we're already enlightened while at the same time ignorant etc etc
not nihilism

>>18888275
>>18888374
But what happens if the subject becomes the object?

>>18888395
It cant, for those terms are mutually opposed and defined in contrast to one another, it’s like ‘what if heat became cold’

>>18889357
It's not that simple though, because heat itself is a relative term. An object can be considered both hot and cold relative to other objects, and so the object can simultaneously possess opposites. Likewise, when a subject is taken as the object of a subject, there is no contradiction, because there is no reason the object cannot possess both object-ness and subject-ness.

>>18889380
>>18889357
You might notice that this formulation is recursive, which it is. This is one of the many important roles of infinity in Hindu metaphysics.

>>18887961
>Until you've identified a demonstrable difference between your awareness and someone else's, then you don't even have a basis for making judgments like that which are presupposing separate conscious parts
>a demonstrable difference between your awareness and someone else's
what you're doing here is basically arguing a kind of solipsism. with this statement you're denying that i have my own conscious experience and you have yours. except it's almost like you're being cheaper than that and denying that i have my own conscious experience at all. this is 1984-tier argumentation. you're not denying a person's experience of their own logic and sight; you go so far as to deny their very own observable consciousness reality itself.
>your consciousness is a lie. what you experience is not true
>you think you're conscious of a person sitting at a computer typing away, but really you're conscious of everything simultaneously.
there is no way you can deny that my conscious experience is different from yours, and therefore demonstrably separated. we already have solipsism which is considered a moot bore because of how there's nothing to really talk about since there's no way to even begin confirmation of it, and yet here you manage to take it a step further.
>you and me as awareness are not both "parts" of Brahman that are conscious of different things
except you and me are clearly both conscious of different things. are you retarded?
>The Atman-Brahman that is already forever liberated is non-dual infinite awareness who has no awareness of maya
and yet i myself have awareness of maya, and so do you. this cannot be denied. that clearly demonstrates that there is consciousness that is 'liberated' (unaware of maya) and consciousness that is not liberated (aware of maya), which indicates differentiation.
>only the beings within maya have their foundational consciousness present itself as sākṣī
see, you even confirmed it here, you absolute nigger.
you paint a picture of a sort of layered egg. you use a different color to explain each different layer of the egg, but then you conclude with "there are no layers and the egg is all just one color".
except here you didn't even get the order right. you started by saying "there are no colors or layers", and then you immediately go on to describe the various colors and layers, you moron.

will reading guenon help me woo muslim qts?

>>18889839
You don't woo them, you woo their fathers

>>18887961
> false seeming existence of duality, time, causation etc
What causes this illusion exactly

>>18889885
he has no real answer for this. his best attempt is to just try to deny that the illusion even exists at all. even though it clearly exists he still tries to convince you that it doesn't; that your perception of it is just an illusion in itself (but then what about *that* illusion? same thing - it doesn't exist etc).
all he really has is that little french toast on a stick.

>>18881977
FBBP

>>18886572
>jews don't like Guenon
His house in Cairo was bought by a jewish fan who read his books.

>>18890892
what the heck?? delete this post please Guenon pbuh

>>18890920
retard, Guenon wasn't an anti-semite and neither were the muslims

>>18890920
>>18890892
Guenon redpilled him on judiasm so hard that the man went to india and converted to hinduism and never looked back.
>>18891169
Some say that he wasn't a fan of the jews and their tradition.
See: René Guénon et le judaïsme

>>18885513
this was also a comment to >>18882426

>>18891634
He wrote articles on the jewish tradition, especially Kabbalah. Stop projecting your anti-semitism into Guenon.

>>18886572
>but jews also don't like christianity, and they dislike fox news
What a massive retard.
Jews hate Guenon because he exposed their empty elitism and dehumanization of so called "gentiles". They lost their status as having the primordial revelation and some of them just couldn't accept it. Not a single jew who truly read Guenon and understood his books remained a jew, they either went for islam or hinduism.

>>18888374

>Awareness is prior to and more fundamental
you don't know that, you just think that by a process of comparassion of different instances of awarness, and develop this idea of an a priori awarness
>Do you have any evidence for this?
do you have any evidence of pure awarness existing, beyond you "thinking" it does?
>self of awareness is fake
i'mnot saying self awarnes sis fake, i'm saying pure awarness is fake, self awarness is a moment a posteriori from awarness, since awarness need san object to exist it will sooner or later develop a movement of self identification, that's doesn't mean it existed prior to phenomena, you're trying to offer as absolute proof the idea of self awarness as the same as pure awarness, which is a petitio principii fallacy, you're trying to usea your argument as an irrefutable axiom, and that's atcually sophism

>>18891694
>not a single jew who read guenon and understood his works remained a jew
Lmao and you call me a retard?
>implying Jewishness isn’t an ethnicity irate and foremost
You don’t stop being Jewish just because you convert to a different religion, idiot. It’s an ethnicity.

>>18892333
are ashkenazi and sephardic jews the same ethnicity?

>>18892459
Existence of subgroups doesn't invalidate the superset. Fucking obfuscators man.

>>18889380

>It's not that simple though, because heat itself is a relative term. An object can be considered both hot and cold relative to other objects, and so the object can simultaneously possess opposites.
What you are describing is not the same entity actually possessing mutually exclusive attributes as its inherent/inalienable nature, but rather we are superimposing our own conceptions onto some entity that is just being considered in relation to various other entities. Us superimposing our conceptions onto this entity is not the unchanging actual nature of that entity. Things can never possess opposites as their inalienable nature at the same time, they can only be considered as being temporarily characterized by them in relation to other things.

It is more accurate to define fire’s nature as being that of combustion instead of heat. Combustion is not relative. Either its taking place or its not. Consisting of combustion and having a lack of combustion are two mutually exclusive things which cannot be true of the same entity. Combustion always involves heat and cannot take place without it so fire *as combustion* invariably involves the production and presence of heat. Heat is inalienable from fire, fire can never have ‘absence of heat’ be its property or nature. Being “less hot” than something like the sun is not equivalent to being cold or having an absence of heat. That fire can be considered as relatively cooler than the sun doesn’t change the fact that fire cannot have an absence of heat without ceasing to be fire anymore. Hence, your example fails to demonstrate that entities can possess mutually-exclusive attributes as their actual nature at the same time.

>Likewise, when a subject is taken as the object of a subject, there is no contradiction, because there is no reason the object cannot possess both object-ness and subject-ness.
There is a contradiction, since ‘objective’’ means ‘different from the subject’. And ‘subjective’ means ‘different from the object’. Applying both terms to the same thing cancels each and leaves us with a meaningless negation. You are saying in effect “that subject which is different from the object has as its object (which by nature is different from the subject) the subject which is different from the object”; but this is contradictory. Something cannot be itself as well as the negation/absence/opposite of itself at the same time. Something cannot possess its nature as well as the negation, absence or opposite of that nature at the same time, because this violates the law of non-contradiction.

>>18889380
>>18892482

Moreover, when we try to analyze what this would consist of in practice it reveals itself to be illogical. I don’t regard awareness as being the subject of subject-object distinctions, but let us consider for a moment your position that awareness is or can be both the subject and the object of its own subjectness. We are not speaking about the intellect or mind knowing themselves as subject and object using thought and sense-organs, but rather pure awareness, which according to you can be the subject knowing itself as the object of its own subjectness. One of the first issues that presents itself is that pure awareness is partless, it is completely uniform and devoid of any internal distinctions that would differentiate one part of it from another. If there are no parts or portions, one part of awareness cannot behold another part of awareness as its object because there are no distinguishing features that can be grasped. In the absence of parts and internal distinctions, there is nothing else that can be the object except that very indeterminate presence of pure awareness itself which is supposed to be the subject and hence non-objective.

How would this pure awareness even know itself as the object? Pure awareness in itself has no organs or accessories which it can use as a tool to know something else, like how we use the mind and sense organs, so it’s knowledge must involve direct and immediate apprehension. So, you have awareness aware of awareness, where do you draw the line between the subject and the object? Where does one end and the other begins? Awareness the subject has no definite borders distinguishing it from the awareness or apprehension that is the means by which the object of awareness is known, nor does this awareness which is the method of knowing have any boundaries that distinguish it from the awareness that is the object, nor does the subject have any boundaries distinguishing it from the object. All 3 are the same awareness and the distinctions imposed in-between them are only verbal and not actual. When they have no identifiable boundaries or borders distinguishing them, what is even the purpose of saying there is a subject-objection distinction, or claiming that it exists? If you can’t distinguish their boundaries, you are left with a situation where you have uniform pure awareness that you are trying in vain to impose divisions onto in order to separate it into the subject and the object but without being able to explain where one begins and the other ends. There is no discernible distinction of object and subject left intact after analysis, it all just blends together into undifferentiated awareness.

>>18889380
>>18892487

Moreover, the awareness-subject having awareness as its known object would require that it be absolutely identical with that object. Awareness cannot be seen, smelled, heard, measured, etc, you can only “know” awareness by directly experiencing it through being that awareness itself, by being sentient. So, in order to know that known awareness as the object, awareness the subject would have to already *be* that awareness which is the object, but if it already is that awareness then which one is the subject and which one is the object? Where are they and how are they identified? Things only participate in relationships with other things, but not with themselves. There is no real distinction left such as subject and object between two completely identical things, and if in order to make it fit you say they are non-identical because the latter (object-awareness) is only known and not the knower, then its not actually awareness which is the known object but something else. So the knowing pure awareness cannot even know the known pure awareness without being completely identical with it, which leaves no room within which to find the proper place for assigning the separate roles of subject and object to awareness. You can see how it doesn’t make sense.

>And since there is no split in one's Self, cognition is impossible (in It). Moreover, if the Self be a knowable, there will remain no one else (as a knower) to know It, since the Self is already postulated as the knowable.
>OBJECTION: The same self can exist both as the knower and the known.
>ANSWER: No, this cannot be simultaneously, since the Self is without parts. A featureless (indivisible) thing cannot simultaneously be both the knower and the known. Moreover, if the Self can be cognized in the sense that a pot is, (scriptural) instruction about Its knowledge becomes useless. For if an object is already familiar, just as a pot for instance is, the (Vedic) instruction about knowing it can have no meaning. Hence if the Self be a knower, It cannot reasonably be infinite. Besides, if It has such distinctive attributes as becoming the agent of knowing, It cannot logically be pure existence. And pure existence is truth, according to another Vedic text , "That is Truth" (Ch.VI.viii.7).

- Śaṅkarācārya,Taittirīyopaniṣadbhāṣya 2.1.1.

>>18892482
>>18892487
>>18892501
>If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough
-Albert Einstein

This guy thought Guenon was vulgar and profane. He liked Evola better.

>>18893229
who cares?

>>18881859
Guénon wasn't a philosopher. He based his work not on a problem to address with a system of concepts, but on a stupid unverified dogma that he called the primordial tradition, for which exist absolutely zero evidence.

Raymond Abellio, a French phenomenologist and novellist of the 20th century, said that Guénon was the Kindergarten of esotericism.

>>18889830
>what you're doing here is basically arguing a kind of solipsism. with this statement you're denying that i have my own conscious experience and you have yours.
That's incorrect, solipsism means that only my consciousness or mind is real and nobody's else's is. Advaita is saying that everyone's consciousness is completely real and in each case underlying appearances is actually unconnected with the particular physical body housing it because it's all the same undivided conscious Entity falsely appearing as a multitude.

My position is not saying your conscious experience isn't happening, it's just pointing out the fact that everything which you can use to distinguish it from the consciousness of mine, God's, or anyone else's, is actually non-conscious phenomena and hence it provides you with no reliable way of establishing the non-difference of your consciousness from another persons or universal consciousness. I fully acknowledge your conscious experience, it's just that the only thing which can be shown to differ between each consciousness is unconscious phenomena, which itself doesn't show that each 'conscious experience' of every living creature is not really an unconscious object taking place within the same immortal partless undivided consciousness.

If the "observing" of individual experiences only seems to be the nature of Consciousness by way of its incidental relation to false maya-objects and if it's nature is not actually observing but rather immediate, formless, undifferentiated self-revealing non-dual awareness without any sense of observership, and if the sense of observership of objects inheres in the mind when it occurs in seeming association with all-pervasive consciousness that provides the awareness which the mind regards as being its observer, then it doesn't necessarily follow that the observation of empirical experience via the mind etc has to be observed by a separate consciousness or a part of consciousness for each individual mind instead of all of it taking place through the same partless consciousness, because each mind can falsely regard the same partless presence as being the observer of them all even though this all-encompassing supreme presence has none of the contents of any creatures mind as its objects of knowledge, being independent of maya and beyond subject and object.

>>18889830

Subject and object distinctions come and go within non-dual awareness, which doesn't observe them, non-dual awareness can seem to be the observer of experience when the mind takes place in association with it, and when that mind identifies this awareness as the observing subject of its subject-object distinctions. Innumerable minds can identify that very same undivided conscious presence as the subject of all of their subject-object distinctions without requiring additional centers or parts of consciousness, without any contradiction. The sensation of being conscious of the mind involves the non-observing, non-dual, immutable, self-intuiting presence of Brahman (who is unaware of that mind) occurring in seeming association with the maya/ignorance that the jiva has. The feeling that consciousness is witnessing the mind inheres in the mind itself and not in consciousness itself, which is just the unaffected non-observing basis of this conception.

>except it's almost like you're being cheaper than that and denying that i have my own conscious experience at all. this is 1984-tier argumentation. you're not denying a person's experience of their own logic and sight; you go so far as to deny their very own observable consciousness reality itself.
Not I'm not
>>your consciousness is a lie. what you experience is not true
The former is patently false, since a completely false thing not rooted in some reality would have no experience of itself as unreal, this experience has a positive enough nature that something would be required it to produce it out of nothingness (For the unreal experiences of the jivas minds, Brahman's unaffected consciousness is this real basis that provides for it to take place). The latter is not true in an empirical sense, since the physical world is a consistent world of shared experience that is independent of the perceptions of one person/jiva, it's only true in an ultimate sense that it's not the same as the supreme reality. For Advaita the world is empirically real as a shared world of experience but this shared world is metaphysically false by being a contingent appearance or image of the Absolute which doesn't clearly reveal It. Saying that what your consciousness seems to be experiencing isn't ultimately true is not the same as denying your consciousness or calling it a lie because everyone's unchanging consciousness in its essential nature is fundamentally independent of the changing experiences that we are habituated to think of as being inextricably linked with it.

>>18889830

>>you think you're conscious of a person sitting at a computer typing away, but really you're conscious of everything simultaneously.
Wrong, that's not what I'm saying. A certain amount of what I'm writing may require making subtle connections and reading between the lines in order to be understood by people who read it. I'm saying that

1) being conscious of the sensation of a person on a computer is the combination of (a) and (b)

(a) the consciousness which reveals itself without observing or being aware of 1) the feeling of being conscious of the sensation of the person on a computer

(b) the unconscious mental configurations, which are all contingent on (a), falsely flashing forward as an object-directed and self-conscious state of mind, this mind-complex involves an illusion where the mind assumes that the (a) it is in association with is the observer of thoughts and actions, the subject of its subject-object distinctions, instead of that consciousness being characterized by self-revealing presence alone, which only incidentally and falsely seems to be caught up in and related to the mind and its states. When awareness is apparently associated with phenomena, the sensation that awareness is observing that phenomena, is itself part of the (subtle extension of) the material structure of that phenomena. The awareness existing everything is not subject to and does not experience that sensation. When people ask "But why do I still seem to experience it then", the answer is that without training and great discrimination people cannot overcome their habitual mistaking of intentional mental states for consciousness itself, the "I" they refer to as the witness of their sense of embodiment "which must be real even if the illusion of embodiment is unreal" is not itself consciousness, consciousness is what remains when even the state of being aware of embodiment is absent.

2) the (a) is the Infinite, the true everything. The "everything" comprising the particulars within maya like knowledge of the location of all stars is only the false and indefinite appearance of the true Infinite.

3) I'm not saying you and humans actually know all particular knowledge within maya, I'm saying that the (a)(b) complex of the Jivatman means that all living beings have an all-knowing immortal Being as the foundation of their minds experience, even when they don't realize it, even when they don't understand it. That all-knowing Being knows all that truly exists in the Absolute, but it doesn't have unreal phenomena as its objects of knowledge.

4) Saying that people have this as the basis of their minds experience isn't mutually exclusive with the seeming empirical experience of limited knowledge by the mind.

>>18889830

>>you and me as awareness are not both "parts" of Brahman that are conscious of different things
>except you and me are clearly both conscious of different things. are you retarded?
This point has been addressed above already in the reply to this same post. You are not that which is conscious of the different thing, you are that which immutably remains when the cognition of the different thing is both present and absent, such as in deep dreamless, its presence is irrespective of the sense of being conscious of a different thing. We both have this presence, and this presence doesn't differ in how it occurs in every living being, only the phenomena that are associated with it change.

>>The Atman-Brahman that is already forever liberated is non-dual infinite awareness who has no awareness of maya
>and yet i myself have awareness of maya, and so do you. this cannot be denied. that clearly demonstrates that there is consciousness that is 'liberated' (unaware of maya) and consciousness that is not liberated (aware of maya), which indicates differentiation.
Wrong, because as explained above, that which is "awareness of maya" is not consciousness itself but it is itself part of the maya object that people confuse for being consciousness. All consciousness is timelessly and immutably liberated, undivided and undifferentiated, beyond any connection with change. What you are calling "awareness of maya" is an unconscious maya-object. Remove it and the true awareness remains.
>>only the beings within maya have their foundational consciousness present itself as sākṣī
>see, you even confirmed it here, you absolute nigger.
I also wrote in that series of posts that in absolute reality there is just the Atman-Brahman itself without sākṣī, sometimes you have to read between the lines and think a little, anything that is within maya or in an association with maya like sākṣī is ultimately incidental and not the true nature of the Atman-Brahman who is consciousness, or a part of that consciousness. The sākṣī and how it takes place in association with maya isn't identical to or a part of consciousness unqualified, which is found in Absolute reality alone, beyond maya.

>>18890011
>he has no real answer for this.
cope
>>18889885
>What causes this illusion exactly
According to Advaita it's Brahman's timeless inherent nature to effortlessly provide for the apparent taking place of the illusion, without being consciously aware of or involved in it. You are in effect asking about the reason for the creation of the cosmos, of the emergence of everything, "why did God create?" etc. For Advaita, it's not logically acceptable to think that the Supreme Lord who is the transcendent basis of causal relations, time, duality etc would be impelled, do things or be induced to provide for anything because of something that was exterior to His own nature like some motivating desire or external causative factor, because then you are already presupposing multiplicity prior to there first being Brahman alone as the basis of it, a multiplicity which wouldn't be reliant on Him. But if He is the basis of multiplicity, change, differentiation, all binaries etc, then there is nothing aside from His timeless nature which could be the reason for it being contingent upon Him.

>>18892532
he didn't say this quote. There is no citation supporting this claim.

Another unsourced variants:
>You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.
>If you can't explain something to a six-year-old, you really don't understand it yourself.

But if you open page 418 of Einstein: His Life and Times (1972) by Ronald W. Clark, it says that Louis de Broglie did attribute a similar statement to Einstein:

>To de Broglie, Einstein revealed an instinctive reason for his inability to accept the purely statistical interpretation of wave mechanics. It was a reason which linked him with Rutherford, who used to state that "it should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid." Einstein, having a final discussion with de Broglie on the platform of the Gare du Nord in Paris, whence they had traveled from Brussels to attend the Fresnel centenary celebrations, said "that all physical theories, their mathematical expressions apart ought to lend themselves to so simple a description 'that even a child could understand them.' "

See all misattributed Einstein quotes here: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Misattributed..

In fact, if you love your jewish profane scientists so much Richard Feynman said that this:

>If I could explain it to the average person, I wouldn't have been worth the Nobel Prize. "Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled. [on identifying the reason for the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger by showing that O-rings grow brittle when immersed in water, Life magazine, January 1987]

>>18887961
I would be careful about reading Advaita Vedanta interpretations such as Shankara's as a commentary to the Upanishads, they are extremely reliant on Buddhist philosophy (Shankara is called a "cryptobuddhist" by most Hindus, and most scholars agree). If you want to read the Upanishads, work through them with editions and commentaries that aren't sectarian, or at least read an interpretation that is closer to the original meaning of the Upanishads, rather than Shankara's 9th century AD quasi-buddhism.

>>18892459
Yes.