/lit/ - Literature

>>19491396
I don't understand how Evola was influenced by this guy. Everything I read from him just seems so vague like some esoteric horseshit that was popular around the time, while Evola seems much more erudite and measured.

>>19491408
>while Evola seems much more erudite and measured.
lol
>>19491396
cope

>>19491408
What is so hard to believe that a bourg trad retard who literally believed in Italian Magic would be influenced by a colonialist mystic

>>19491408
Kek
Pseud

>>19491396
>Filtered by Guénon
Ngmi

Every author that /lit/ likes is a pseud fraud

>>19491396
let me guess, he refuted your favourite philosophers?
u mad bro?

>>19491443
>colonialist mystic
Guénon retroactively refuted colonialism, along with philosophy, science, atheists, secularism, utilitarianism, pragmatism, egalitarianism, psychoanalysis, marxism, atomism and forms of materialism, Leibniz, Kant, Bergson, Whitehead, Deleuze, anglos cultural mores, process philosophy, hylics, unprincipled modern “math”, consumerism, new-age syncretism, Protestantism, “Academia”, Orientalism, modern media culture, and theosophy

Gueniggers is the ultimate x-tier cope

>Gueniggers is the ultimate x-tier cope

>>19491396
What do you call this phenotype?

>>19491396
He sucks so much bros

>>19492594
Pseudo intellectual ratface.

>>19492594
arcane knowledge and sacrosanct wisdom

>>19492629
>He sucks so muc

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. The language of Marxism was methodologically very interesting, subtly reducing the historical existence of mankind to a clear and convincing formula for confronting labor and capital. 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

Guénon undermined and then; with uncompromising intellectual rigour, demolished all the assumptions taken for granted by modern man, that is to say Western or westernised man. Many others had been critical of the direction taken by European civilization since the so-called 'Renaissance', but none had dared to be as radical as he was or to re-assert with such force the principles and values which Western culture had consigned to the rubbish tip of history. His theme was the 'primordial tradition' or Sofia perennis, expressed-so he maintained-both in ancient mythologies and in the metaphysical doctrine at the root of the great religions. The language of this Tradition was the language of symbolism, and he had no equal in his interpretation of this symbolism. Moreover he turned the idea of human progress upside down, replacing it with the belief almost universal before the modern age, that humanity declines in spiritual excellence with the passage of time and that we are now in the Dark Age which precedes the End, an age in which all the possibilities rejected by earlier cultures have been spewed out into the world, quantity replaces quality and decadence approaches its final limit. No one who read him and understood him could ever be quite the same again.

- Gai Eaton

>>19492644
So where do I start with his work?

>>19492791
You can start with 'Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines' to begin with his first book where he precisely defines many of the terms his uses later on at length. Or you can start with 'Crisis of the Modern World' if you want to get a TLDR of his worldview and understanding of modernity. Either way its best to read his books more or less chronologically

>>19491408

>>19493165
based! Joe redpilling the masses

>>19492594
frankish royality

>>19491396

I get it OP. You hear something talked about so much by people you don't respect you ignorantly conclude that it's pseudo-intellectual.

I propose you drop that mindset and be more open-minded to these ideas.

>>19492644
>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.
everything except for his fairy tale dogmas he had absolutely no justification of
bravo guenon

>>19491396
All traditionalist LARPers are. Fundamentally it’s just syncretism

>>19494236
>Fundamentally it’s just syncretism
Not at all, traditionalists acknowledge that reaching any sort of "enlightenment" is only possible within the frames of a single tradition, and their synthesis just corrupts and aberrates them. That's why they were critical of theosophy, for example.

>>19494257
So it’s just relativism

>>19494257
They are retro-actively syncretic as opposed to the progressive-syncretism of theosophy. They both seek ways to ground the legitimacy a religious plurality within modernity, after Europe's colonial adventures resulted in the translations of sacred texts from across the globe to become easily accessible, by positing a transcendental meta-faith that acts as an umbrella for all 'legitimate' doctrine.

The Traditionalist school follows the structure of linguistic reconstructionism, which was birthed from the above mentioned colonial phenomenon, where as the Theosophical kind is born of Hegelian/Whig History.

Ultimately they are both two flavours of the same project. One celebratory of the Global village project, the other romantically defeatist. This is why it is so easy for people to flip between the two tendencies depending on if their interactions with black/brown people on twitter has been mostly positive or negative recently.

>>19491408
what? Guénon is by far the LEAST vague esotericist i have ever read. he is remarkably precise, perhaps even to a fault

ok seriously someone please for the love of god redpill me on this guy. i cant tell if its an inside joke around here. WHAT is guenons take home message?

>>19492644
>humanity declines in spiritual excellence with the passage of time and that we are now in the Dark Age which precedes the End, an age in which all the possibilities rejected by earlier cultures have been spewed out into the world, quantity replaces quality and decadence approaches its final limit

i dont understand a word this horse faced nigger is talking about but this seems so legit.

>>19494423
all the valid traditional religions are externally different but at their core they are concerned with the same thing and derive from universally true metaphysics. spiritual realization is possible because knowing and being is identified. by knowing god you can be god

>>19494321
Good post

>>19491396
pbuh

>>19492644
Why the long face?

>>19494321
>They both seek ways to ground the legitimacy a religious plurality within modernity
No? Guenon consistently emphasised that he wasn't in any way original in regards to what you call "religious plurality", as the same sentiments make up the basis of works of Iamblichus, Ibn Arabi, Laozi etc., and can be observed even in paganism, where different gods may have been perceived as a manifestation of the same one. If anything Guenon is probably guilty of expounding this concept too shallowly, as he seems to be too amateur in his understanding of what he's talking about. And to be begin with, there's no point in "legitimising" religious pluralism, as most religions throughout history have naturally co-existed with each other. It's mostly just Abrahamic religions that claim their unique character, but as soon as you go beyond the bounds of the worldview they have been cultivating for centuries, their pretense seems laughable.

>>19491396
Guenon admitted that he stole everything from Heidegger
His philosophy is a watered down version of Being and Time with LE ESOTERIC added so that he can sell it as original to uneducated fools that want to feel special

>>19494685
and heidegger ripped his works off zen
now go figure

>>19494685
>Guenon
>'his philosophy'

>>19494423
http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/Public/articles/Oriental_Metaphysics-by_Rene_Guenon.aspx

>>19494685
Heidegger is exactly the sort of anti-Traditional pseudo-metaphysics that Guenon denounced

>>19494321
>linguistic reconstructionism
you're already trapped in a system and there's no such thing as a 'Traditionalist school'

>>19494678
My claim isn't that Guenon produced something new, or more precisely unprecedented. My claim is, and this should be uncontroversial, that Guenon's influence is his immediate cultural milieu and history. There is no point in legitimizing religious pluralism 2500 years ago and half the world away to a culture that already possessed it. Why create something you already have? But that wasn't modern France and Europe was it. Bronze Age China, or whoever else, isn't 1920's Western civilization. To pretend the two are interchangeable is retarded.
It is also worth noting that the way these antecedents to Guenon's articulation of perennialism are not always in strict accordance with said articulation. Especially the Pagan variety, which would often be considered unequivocally syncretic by traditionalists in how rites and rituals were mixed, often as a result of trade and conquest. Guenon's perennialism is purely idealist, abstract, and Transcendental. It is first and foremost theory, which sees the majority of its historical predecessors as incomplete instantiations of the doctrine, or happenstance. It is arrived at not through contemplation of a singular doctrine but from the post-enlightenment era position of having to account for multiple doctrines, using what can be found within this plurality to construct its own explanation within modernity.

>>19494798
Substitute traditionalist school for whatever you like then. Or just keep trying to define your way out of addressing what I wrote. Idc.

>>19492644
didnt read lol

>>19494795
That's what you do after you steal something, create distance from the scene of the crime.

>>19492644
stupid bullshit for tradlarper who are uneducated in everything but mysticism. the archetype of the bored, uninspired, untalented occidental trying to seek a justification to his malaise with muh progress is LE BAD. the fact that he is even known at all is embarrassing when the entirety of is """"philosophy"""" is literally baby's first thoughts about mysticism and tradition.
>woaaaah dude but can we like, really know anything through scieeeence and rationality dude??
>what if like, there was some ancient mystical knowledge, only accessible through religious experience, dude?
his whole shit is literally your-local-white-guy-with-dreads tier

>>19494924
It appears to me as if you're criticising Guenon in particular and to a smaller extent traditionalism as a whole and its implications in the context of modernity though rather than the concept of "perennial truth" per se. If that's the case it's perfectly reasonable I suppose, but I think you're walking a thin line between implying people like Guenon simply summarised different analogies in their search for spirituality and the possibility that they simply could announce the same thing people had ages before them. In either case its aberrated by various implications of historical context they lived in, but it is only in the former that their doctrine can be criticised directly.

Guénon is not concerned with 'religions', rites for the common people, history and profane science, etc, what he's concerned is with metaphysical realization, the universal doctrine of non-duality that is found throughout the world and in the present cycle was best 'formulated' by Shankara. All proceeds from it.

He's not a 'syncretist', he made that very clear; read his article on the difference between syncretism and synthesis.
He's not a 'philosopher', he didn't write anything new, he just used the terminology of modern European languages to convey this universal doctrine to modern people ignorant of traditional metaphysics.
It's not something purely theoretical, he wrote extensively about how to proceed in this path and achieve final liberation (see his works on Initiation).
He worked using the science of traditional symbolism to perceive this unity.

If you can't think beyond mere systems, historical reasons, and all these contingencies, you'll never gonna comprehend his writings.

>>19492351
>retroactively

>>19494924
>not through contemplation of a singular doctrine but from the post-enlightenment era position of having to account for multiple doctrines, using what can be found within this plurality to construct its own explanation within modernity
So do we agree he is a theosophist, and his own reason for seething about theosophy was because he was of the opinion that REAL theosophy had never been tried?

>>19495063
You can't be a Islamo-brahmin. It's not possible. He ultimately chose desert fables over jungle books, which blows a hole in your version of him as this neutral conveyor of a universal doctrine.

>>19495063
>Guénon is not concerned with 'religions', rites for the common people
And he should have been, for religious texts suggest that 'religions', 'rites' and myths played a crucial role for ancient people. They all were vividly experienced by the said people as definite reality, indistinguishable from the external one, even though they realised their 'profane' incompatiability. What is it if not the realisation of non-duality? What is it if not metaphysical ascend at its purest? And unlike the case with traditions Guenon considers, it wasn't a goal but a starting point. His lack of knowledge in history also results in contradictory postulates in his metaphysical interpretations of various unclear points in transmission of Tradition. E.g. in CotMW he correctly points out that Axial Time was defined by the loss of a conventionally more 'traditional' mindset and discards Buddhism, Zoroastrianism and Platonism as less bright doctrines, but at the same time completely ignores the Orphic cult, Pythagoreanism, the fact that Taoism which he considered valid arose at approximately the same time, and despite reconsidering his views on Buddhism in particular later in his life he doesn't bother with studying the period further. Same way he is at a loss to metaphysically explain what makes Christianity and Islam supposedly valid despite their relative youth and originating from a tradition which almost entirely dwelled on distorting knowledge of the nations it was conquered by, other than bringing up the ever so convinient "herp derp new cycle" argument. Everything he elaborates on beyond this point (Freemasonry, Templars etc.) is just plain ridiculous. His perception of symbolism is also in fact more primitive than that of then-contemprorary academia, as evident by him implying it's just an analogy between profane and metaphysical reality, not an iseparatable entity of the two. The list goes on. All in all he definitely was first and foremost a theorist building his own metaphysical systems on the fundament of the past. Still, his credit shouldn't be neglected.

>>19495472
>lack of knowledge in history also results in contradictory postulates in his metaphysical interpretations of various unclear points in transmission of Tradition
/lit/ WILL become a Bataillean board. Cope, guenonshitters

>>19495424
that's not even remotely close to what Guénon believed. you clearly haven't read much of him

>>19491396
Threadly reminder that New Age began in the 19 century when Occultism became mainstream entertainment from the normies of the elite elite.

Adam Driver is not

>>19492027
Best Splinter impersonator ever

>>19495063
So he’s just an elitist, crypto-gnostic and a syncretist, gotcha

>>19492351
>le epic shill

Someone mentioned that Guenon believed that reincarnation was not really a traditional belief, but rather a later invention. But how can this be when it's at the very core of many pagan and dharmic religions? Or is it just a difference between 'rebirth' and 'reincarnation'?

>>19495808
reincarnation is a modern occultist distortion of the ancient beliefs of transmigration and metempsychosis

"In reality, however, the ancients never envisaged such a transmigration, nor that of men into other men, such as reincarnation might be defined. Undoubtedly, certain more or less symbolic expressions may give some scope to these misunderstandings, but only when one does not know what they really intend to say, which is precisely this: that there are in man psychic elements which, after death, are dissipated or scattered, and which may then enter other living beings, whether men or animals (and it is not so very important which) from the fact that after the dissolution of the body of this same man the elements which composed him may then serve to form other bodies. In the two cases it is the mortal elements of the man that are in question and not his imperishable part, which is his real being and which is in no way affected by posthumous mutations."

"Having explained what metempsychosis really is, we must now state the real nature of transmigration. In this case, it is definitely the real being that is involved; but it is not a question of a return to the same state of existence, a return which—if it could take place— would rather be a ‘migration’ than a ‘transmigration’. It is, on the contrary, a question of the passage of the being to other states of existence, states that are defined, as we have said, by entirely different conditions than those to which the human individual is subject (though with the one reservation that as long as individual states are in question the being is always clad in a form, but a form that cannot occasion any spatial or other depiction more or less modeled on bodily form). To say transmigration is in essence to say change of state. That is what all the traditional doctrines of the East teach, and we have many reasons to think that this was also the teaching of the ‘mysteries’ of antiquity."

from The Spiritist Fallacy by René Guénon

>>19495566
>smear all the religions together until they all look the same
>not what horseface believed

>>19495838
>smear all the religions together until they all look the same
Guenon differentiated between metaphysical traditions and religious tradition, the former being superior. That is why he considered western scholasticism to be incomplete. His point of view was that of oriental metaphysics. Also, he never used the word "perennialism" which was imposed by Schuon and his followers on Guenon. Schuon was the one who put all traditions on the same level.

>>19495834
So parts of what makes a person 'you' will be stripped away, but the immortal soul will remain to transmigrate?

>>19495964
your "immortal soul" can't transmigrate
>that there are in man psychic elements which, after death, are dissipated or scattered, and which may then enter other living beings
the mortal psychic parts are transmigrating, therefore some people may experience memories of past lives but they aren't really theirs, they are from other human beings(or animals) which had nothing to do with them

>>19491396

>pseud

The Call of the Midwit

>>19496008
Isnt that just a syncretism of the abrahamic concept of the eternal soul and the eastern concept of not-self or am i imagining thing?

>>19491408
That should have been apparent by the fact that the most idiotic anons on /lit/ have always been the Guenon enthusiasts.

>>19496061
You are just using the term syncretism with bad faith. Is God also a syncretic concept because different religions believe in it? The eternal self and the ego are to be found in all metaphysical traditions, including in abrahamic authors such as Rumi for example.

>>19494423
Lurk more you faggot. This is not easy material to spoonfeed some /pol/ fucktard like you.

pbuh

>>19494423
Clean your room poltard

>>19495834
>there are in man psychic elements which, after death, are dissipated or scattered, and which may then enter other living beings, whether men or animals (and it is not so very important which) from the fact that after the dissolution of the body of this same man the elements which composed him may then serve to form other bodies.
This is basically what Buddha taught. Was under the impression horseface didn't like Buddhism. Perhaps his loudest supporters haven't read him.
>>19495887
So he's the saint paul to guenon this situation? I think some of that nuance must be getting lost in a lot of these threads then, and by his supporters no less

>>19491408
It's obv the other way around. You're pretending to have read.

>>19496175
Guenon didn't like the indian buddhism which was refuted by Shankara. Not mahayana or the original one (which Guenon assumed that was probably very close to Advaita)
> I think some of that nuance must be getting lost in a lot of these threads then, and by his supporters no less
Well, people should read Guenon, instead of others who talk about him. What I said is from one of his most important books, 'Introduction to the study of the hindu doctrines', that book can even be seen as "offensive" to westerners as a whole(including pre-modern), I really don't get how anons with eurocentric beliefs can like Guenon.

Guenon is daddy.

>>19496175
>This is basically what Buddha taught.
Guenon’s position was rooted in Advaita Vedanta, which says that the subtle body transmigrates but that the Atman never transmigrates
>>19496229
>Guenon didn't like the indian buddhism which was refuted by Shankara. Not mahayana
Shankara refuted some of the non-Mahayana Abhidharma schools, as well as the Yogachara school of Mahayana, and he considered the Madhyamaka school of Mahayana as being below criticism, but they are still refuted anyways by some of his arguments against other types of Buddhism which also apply to Madhyamaka too. Guenon seems to have been of the opinion that the latter Mahayana which was influenced by and which assimilated things from Shaivism and Taoism was the really ‘traditional’ Mahayana as opposed to the earlier Indian Mahayana that was roundly criticized by Hindu thinkers.

>>19496355
>Guenon seems to have been of the opinion that the latter Mahayana which was influenced by and which assimilated things from Shaivism and Taoism was the really ‘traditional’ Mahayana
So he felt that sects such Vajrayana, Chan, Zen etc were probably the best?

>>19496355
>Guenon seems to have been of the opinion that the latter Mahayana which was influenced by and which assimilated things from Shaivism and Taoism was the really ‘traditional’ Mahayana
That is why I said so, he considered it to be influenced by other legitimate traditions. I remember him to mention Shaivism but not Taoism.

>>19496399
>>19496425
Doesn't Buddhism becoming more "traditional" as time went on refute Guenon's own thesis? If the mahavairocana tantra is more in line with "Tradition" than the Brahmajala Sutta it seems like there is an obvious problem with his entire framework of metaphysical degeneration

>>19496399
Yes
>>19496425
>I remember him to mention Shaivism but not Taoism
he has one sentence mentioning a connection to both in his chapter on buddhism in his first book

>>19496453
>his entire framework of metaphysical degeneration
Read Guenon and than come back. The degeneration is based on cycles, there were within those cycles events of rectification, like Christianity for the greco-roman decadent polytheism. If you would read Guenon, you would know this things...

>>19496453
>Doesn't Buddhism becoming more "traditional" as time went on refute Guenon's own thesis?
No, because that development was after around a thousand years of buddhists coming up with every sort of atomist, subjective idealist etc interpretation of buddhism, all arguing with other about the lost, secret meaning of ‘real buddhism’ before finally arriving at a buddhist form of Absolutism. It wasn’t a linear progress that gradually led up to Shaivist-style buddhist tantra but Buddhists went in the opposite direction for centuries. Lastly, if that ‘traditional’ influence came from Shaivism and/or Taoism, then that was a case of a good or non-degenerated tradition salvaging a damaged one and not a damaged one improving itself via “progress” or “innovating”.

>If the mahavairocana tantra is more in line with "Tradition" than the Brahmajala Sutta it seems like there is an obvious problem with his entire framework of metaphysical degeneration
Not if Buddhism’s real meaning was soon lost (degenerated) after Buddhas death and then had to be reinserted into Buddhism centuries later by Buddhists copying Shaivist Tantric literature and techniques.

>>19496503
This same process could be said of the Hindus and their bewildering number of schools, some of which are only known to us because of Buddhist polemics against them

>>19495887
this
it's very important to note that Guénon is very different from Schuon and his followers, this whole 'traditionalism', 'perennialism', 'religio perennis' shit came from Schuon, it's undeniable that he made many intellectual contributions, but his view of esoterism as a kind of 'superreligion' is very dangerous and created many problems and confusions.
Guénon made very clear the difference between esoterism and exoterism

>>19496920
https://oeuvre-de-rene-guenon.blogspot.com/2019/02/la-fonction-de-frithjof-schuon.html

>>19496453
https://oeuvre-de-rene-guenon.blogspot.com/2020/12/la-question-du-bouddhisme.html

>>19496936
Not going to learn French just to get his opinion on Buddhism

>>19496916
>This same process could be said of the Hindus and their bewildering number of schools
No, because the Mahavairocano Tantra doesn’t resemble the Pali Canon and its teachings very much whereas the main motifs and teachings of latter Hindu schools like Vedanta and Tantrists are replete throughout the Upanishads and Agamas; there is a much stronger continuity than what occurs between the Pali Canon and Buddhist Tantra or Zen texts. With the case of latter Tantric/Mahayana Buddhism its very clearly alien material that has little connection to Buddha in the 6th century BC, whereas e.g. Vedanta writings are not alien to the Upanishads in any sense.

>>19492791
there's a good /lit/ chart

>>19496959
There are references to a dharmakaya in the nikayas; the sunyata concept is directly based on refuting the abhidharmika reading of the nikayas and following dependent origination more closely etc. These feature in Mahayana as well as its offshoots in Vajrayana and Chan/Zen. Tantra in the form of mandalas and dharanis and the like is ultimately something irregular which confronted both Hinduism and Buddhism and was digested in various ways. If Tantrism was so orthodox to the Vedas it would not have taken so long to manifest!

>>19492791
>>19497003
Theres this one. Theres another one as well thats a bit older I think

>>19495483
>l'histoire de l'erotisme
>story of eroticism
Kek bataille the coomer who makes a book about his passion in life, what a cuck
Stay on the side bataillecucks

>>19497015
Oh nice one thanks

>>19497026
You can't unironically call people coomers if you post here. You are addicted to sexually attractive images yourself

>>19491396
>literally New Age
>He doesn't believe but refute the coming of a new age
Kek, what a lame OP

>>19497026
ironically many conclusions he comes to may be found in evola's metaphysics of sex

>>19497073
>4channel
No coomers here
>History of esotericism
Proud coomers would still be worst

peace to Bataille but it's a fair banter

>>19496934
>>19496936
Very nice guy, I discussed with him through email.

>>19497387
>Guenon never died and has email

>>19491396
you have to be very spiritually blind to think this

>>19494685
Source

>>19497400
What did I miss?!?!?!

>>19491443
Guénon can be dismantled easily yet all the takes I see on /lit/ are so far removed from reality I cannot help but wonder what kind of braindead moron types them out. for real.

>>19500479
>what kind of braindead moron types them out
This.
Is just low effort posting.
>muh Genon was a theosophist
He literally has a book where he refuted Theosophy, based on THEIR own writings, with various examples which prove that they are the opposite of Guenon
>muh orientalist
Again, he refuted the orientalists because they only wrote about those traditions for outside, without being initiated.
>muh mystic
He considered mysticism to be apart from the initiatic path, none of the metaphysical traditions which he wrote about were mystical

I think that this sort of people who throw such inaccurate labels were also influenced by Sedgwick since he does exactly the same thing, ironically proving the point of Guenon, that academics are pseuds

>>19500479
Dismantle him then.

>>19492351
how did guenon refute kant?

>>19492644
>- Gai Eaton
a complete nobody

>>19501446
He wont

>>19496274
why the guys who like to show their bodies always skip leg day?

>>19501501
>>19501501
>some philosophers - such as Kant - have gone so far as to declare 'inconceivable' or 'unthinkable' everything that is not susceptible of representation. Likewise, what is called (spiritualism' or <idealism' is usually only a sort of transposed materialism; and this is true not only of what we have termed (neo-spiritualism', but also of philosophical spiritualism itself, even though this holds itself to be the opposite of materialism. Indeed spiritualism and materialism, in the philosophical sense of these words, cannot be understood apart from each other, being merely the two halves of the Cartesian dualism, whose radical separation has been transformed into a sort of antagonism; since that time, the whole of philosophy has oscillated between these two terms, without being able to get beyond them.

>Before passing on to consider time, however, it may be pointed out that the inexistence of an 'empty space' is enough to expose the absurdity of one of Kant's too famous cosmological antinomies: to ask 'whether the world is infinite or whether it is limited within space' is a question that has absolutely no meaning. Space cannot possibly extend beyond the world in order to contain it, because an empty space would then be in question, and emptiness cannot contain anything: on the contrary, it is space that is in the world, that is to say, in manifestation, and if consideration be confined to the domain of corporeal manifestation alone, it can be said that space is coextensive with this world, because it is one of its conditions; but this world is no more infinite than is space itself, for, like space, it does not contain every possibility, but only represents a certain particular order of possibilities, and it is limited by the determinations that constitute its very nature.

>One of the great errors of modern philosophers consists in confusing the conceivable and the imaginable, an error particularly conspicuous with Kant, although it is not unique to him. It is even characteristic of the Western mentality, at least ever since the Western mind turned almost exclusively toward objects of sense. Obviously whoever confuses things in this way is incapable of metaphysical understanding.

>>19501561
>>Before passing on to consider time, however, it may be pointed out that the inexistence of an 'empty space' is enough to expose the absurdity of one of Kant's too famous cosmological antinomies: to ask 'whether the world is infinite or whether it is limited within space' is a question that has absolutely no meaning. Space cannot possibly extend beyond the world in order to contain it, because an empty space would then be in question, and emptiness cannot contain anything: on the contrary, it is space that is in the world, that is to say, in manifestation, and if consideration be confined to the domain of corporeal manifestation alone, it can be said that space is coextensive with this world, because it is one of its conditions; but this world is no more infinite than is space itself, for, like space, it does not contain every possibility, but only represents a certain particular order of possibilities, and it is limited by the determinations that constitute its very nature.
this just shows guenon didn't udnerstood kant, kant never said that space and "the world" are two separate things and that one can contain another
>it is space that is in the world, that is to say, in manifestation
thisis exactly what kant is saying, space canonly be in the world as a manifestation, a category, this don't resolve the problem that to the mind the space need a finite/inifnite dichotomy to be conceived
>; but this world is no more infinite than is space itself, for, like space, it does not contain every possibility, but only represents a certain particular order of possibilities, and it is limited by the determinations that constitute its very nature.

this is just a metaphysical cop out, saying that the space is the world, just ignores the problem that for our minds space is a contradictory category, you can't just resolve the paradox of extension saying:"well extension is the world you know, just don't think so hard about it"

>>19492594
Ratface

>>19493939
I look Nordic as fuck
Pvre Frankish phenotype

>>19495483
>Written in a book called "L'Histoire de l'érotisme"
>Just "he's wrong because he just is okay?"
Uhh Guenonbros, I think we won this one.

>>19501446
bitch you could just call him logocentric - or, even better, retroactively refuted by Heraclitus - and that would be the end of it
on a more detailed note though the absolution of intellectually intuitive cognition of shankaran 'brahmin' he implies doesn't necessarily expand onto the metaphysical order of lesser levels, and by implying this order exists objectively from the matter he also baselessly assumes that the character of relation between these two layers of reality - essence and substance - is linear, 'projectory', even though it isn't necessarily so, because this relation can also be objectified, as well as its objectification, objectification of objectification and so forth ad infinitum. ergo the very premise of essence - substance duality is in question. saying they're one as brahmin also doesn't really solve the contradiction, because all it does is reduce it to immanence which can only exist as long as brahmin is either wider and hence at least partially beyond the substance or is identical to it, which makes him as illusory from the down - up standpoint as it makes the substance otherwise

>>19497344
>>19495483
bataillefags btfo

>>19501854
Nothing you said was a real critique of Guenon or Advaita but you just repeated your own misconceptions about those things and then attacked the confusions that were of your own making

>and by implying this order exists objectively from the matter
He doesn’t, that’s *your* misreading of his presentation of Advaita, only the absolute reality exists truly and ‘objectively’ in Advaita and not the lower orders; hence the two are not essence and substance and nor are they two layers of reality; your whole post follows from this misunderstanding of a very basic point. Instead of “dismantling” anything you’ve just shown that you don’t even know what you are talking about.

>>19502324
>He doesn’t, that’s *your* misreading of his presentation of Advaita, only the absolute reality exists truly and ‘objectively’ in Advaita and not the lower orders
And? Just insert in 'metaphysical order' whatever you deem highest and the point still stands.
>Instead of “dismantling” anything you’ve just shown that you don’t even know what you are talking about.
I'm not the same guy who initially claimed that

>>19497006
>There are references to a dharmakaya in the nikayas
such as?.
>Tantra in the form of mandalas and dharanis and the like is ultimately something irregular which confronted both Hinduism and Buddhism and was digested in various ways.
This is a major cope and fantasy; Tantrism started out as exclusively Hindu and its doctrines and practices come from the Shaivist and Shaktist Agamas. The Agamas present themselves as the “part 2” version of the Upanishads and purport to reveal the nature of the same supramundane Being that the Upanishads do, just as the Vaishnavite Agamas (Pancharatra) which Vaishnavas hold in high regard also present themselves as continuing to explicate the Lord of the Upanishads. It didn’t “confront” Hinduism as something different from it but emerged as one of many Hindu currents of thought all claiming to be following the teachings of the Vedas and Upanishads and post-Vedic scriptures seen as aligned with the Upanishads like Agamas. After emerging from Shaivism, Hindu Tantrism spread to Buddhism as well and was taken up by Buddhists but was reinterpreted towards Buddhist metaphysical views and then retconned as having been teaching that all along. The earliest Buddhist Tantric texts contain large portions literally copied from earlier Shaivite texts, in some cases even reproducing the exact grammatical error of some passages in the earlier Shaivite works. There is a reason that Hindu Tantrists and Yogis like Matsyendra are worshipped by Buddhists too but Hindus dont worship Buddhist Tantrists, its because these Hindu figures are part of the chain of Hindu Tantrism that subsequently spread to Buddhism and not vice versa.
>If Tantrism was so orthodox to the Vedas it would not have taken so long to manifest!
I never said Tantrism was fully orthodox, Tantrism is a broad field with multiple schools, thinkers, teachings, some can be viewed as more or less orthodox or heterodox and the same can be said about the varying Tantric scriptural sources. According to Appaya Dikshita there are higher Agamas that are orthodox and in agreement with the Sruti while other Agamic texts are heterodox and meant for women and low-caste people. I don’t know if people were practicing Tantra during the time of the earliest Upanishads, I dont care one way or another, it did emerge out of HINDU Shaivism long before it ever spread into Buddhism though.

>>19502376
>And? Just insert in 'metaphysical order' whatever you deem highest and the point still stands.
No, it doesn’t, because what you describe is only a point of confusion if you are trying to frame the relation between two substantially real entities or principles; but when one is illusory and false i.e. not ‘objectively real’ then there is no question of getting tripped up trying to objectify it, or the relation it has with the Real; because there is no actual real relationship occurring, there only seems to be one from the perspective of falsity. Outside of Brahman and maya, there is no 3rd “thing” that relates them which isn’t Brahman or maya, if you wrongly assume this and then try to derive some contradictory implication from it then you are just attacking your own made up notions and not anything taught by Advaita, which is pretty typical.

>>19502475
dude not even shankara says maya is absolutely false, because the moment you do you instantly proclaim absolute transcendence of brahmin and therefore the impossibility of it being cognised even intuitively or mystically

>Is this not the tragedy of René Guénon who, being gifted with a developed metaphysical sense and yet lacking the Hermetic-philosophical sense, sought, always and everywhere, the concrete spiritual. And finally, tired of the world of abstractions, he hoped to find liberation from intellectualism by plunging himself into the element of fervour of the Moslem masses at prayer in a Cairo mosque. The last hope of a soul thirsty for mystical experience and languishing in the captivity of the intellect? If so, may divine mercy grant him what he sought so much.

>>19502605
Tomberg talks like intellectuality is to be found in some obscure parisian occultist circles. Reminds me of this:

Grousset: Intellectual vitality, intellectual vitality! But there is no philosophical activity in Mongolian Buddhism.

Guenon: What do you know about it? Don’t you know that true wisdom is silence? The virtue of the Buddha is something entirely interior.

>>19502558
oh and forgot to mention that in case you perceive it as neither illusory nor real (as shankara does) the problem of relation arises once again, though I guess that should be obvious. iirc even damascius wrote about it a whole lot

>>19502403
>The Agamas present themselves as the “part 2” version of the Upanishads and purport to reveal the nature of the same supramundane Being that the Upanishads do,
>It didn’t “confront” Hinduism as something different from it but emerged as one of many Hindu currents of thought all claiming to be following the teachings of the Vedas and Upanishads and post-Vedic scriptures seen as aligned with the Upanishads like Agamas
You're taking a very ahistorical view of this, so I have to assume you're a true believer and letting it fog the obvious sequence of events. People don't just come up with new interpretations of things, or part-twos or sequels, and claim they are authentic for no good reason. It is an obvious sign of a religiously competitive environment that later schools show up claiming to be more orthodox than their preexistent rivals. Hindus and Buddhists both have done this especially in relation to Tantra

>>19502558
>dude not even shankara says maya is absolutely false
Again, you clearly dont know what you’re talking about, there is no “absolutely false” or “relatively false” in Advaita, just falsity. The 3 divisions are
1) Absolutely real - Brahman alone
2) falsity (mithya) - maya alone
3) unreality/nothingness

Maya belongs to the 2nd category, which
doesn’t assign to it any “substantial reality” or “true being” whatsoever because these belong to the first category alone.

>because the moment you do you instantly proclaim absolute transcendence of brahmin and therefore the impossibility of it being cognised even intuitively or mystically
You tried to frame this as:

Question: How can us (A) know Brahman (B) if B is completely transcendent and hence removed from A?
The answer is: A is really B (Atman = Brahman) and the A “knowing” B is really just talking about A being self-knowing, self-disclosing, the transcendent reality of Brahman is aware, with this awareness being disclosed to itself as the immediate fact of awareness, without Brahman’s transcendence being compromised in any way.

>>19502706
>oh and forgot to mention that in case you perceive it as neither illusory nor real (as shankara does)
Wrong, for Shankara the illusory or maya (category 2) is neither real (category 1) nor unreality (category 2)
>the problem of relation arises once again, though I guess that should be obvious
There is only a problem of relation when positing two things that have real or substantial existence.

>>19502861
*nor unreality (category 3)

>>19501854
once again guenon was btfo, this is what happens when you don't read hume and keep thinking cause and effect can be articulated with a theological system, you end up with two worlds one divine and one terrestial, frpm, which no bridge can be made or you end up qit a divne world that must conect witha terrestial worl trought a bridde, but that bridge need a bridge itself and so on and so on, creating an infite loop of bridges, that's it if you'r ehonest with your ssytem, but most like advaita, just create a random number of bridges or steps between absolute reality and human reality, withoit realise taht each one of thse bridges need also a bridge that connects them
>>19502324
>hence the two are not essence and substance and nor are they two layers of reality
then how can be experience htis layer of reality?

>>19502861
>doesn’t assign to it any “substantial reality” or “true being” whatsoever because these belong to the first category alone.
again if maya doesn't have any substancial reality it can't connect with brahman

>>19502861
>for Shankara the illusory or maya (category 2) is neither real (category 1) nor unreality (category 2)
if somehting can violates the principle of non contradiction like that, then you enter a world where the buddhist idea of nothingess being also creation and anatta being capable of create reality is possible, so the whole critic of shankara just crumbles on itself
>There is only a problem of relation when positing two things that have real or substantial existence.
exactly, something without substance can't have a relation with something insubstancial, thus the advaita model to explain reality becomes useless, since there's no effective way to explain the dinamics of maya/brahman, just a vague they're the same thing when is useful to my doctrine and they're different when i need to solve of the contradictions of my system
kashmir shivaism at least tries to create a functional explanation the dinamics between brhaman and maya that can actually work logically and empirically

>>19494321
Now tell us about Evola’s Theosophy time, meth head

>>19495483
>Bataille
Ok Coomer

>>19502861
>Wrong, for Shankara the illusory or maya (category 2) is neither real (category 1) nor unreality (category 2)
'anirvacaniya' in shankara's own definition of maya - sad asad anirvacaniya -translates as 'illusion', not 'unreal'. even if it didn't though it still would impose the essence - substance relation because maya definitely is substantial, as it is identical to brahmin yet an illusion at the same time, and without being substance it would be required to transcend this duality without getting encompassed in brahmin.

>>19502977
You got a problem with coomers? The only reason you exist is because your ancestors liked having sex.

>>19502921
> you end up with two worlds one divine and one terrestial, frpm, which no bridge can be made or you end up qit a divne world that must conect witha terrestial worl trought a bridde, but that bridge need a bridge itself and so on and so on, creating an infite loop of bridges
Again, this is only a problem if you posit a relation between two real entities with real, substantial existence, which Advaita doesn't do. Why bother repeating this incorrect assertion when I've already pointed out that it's inapplicable? Brahman projects maya *as* falsity, out of Brahman's own inherent unborn self-nature, while remaining as Brahman alone in absolute reality. There is no 3rd term required, because Brahman's self-nature directly projects maya and all that is included within maya *as* the category of falsity.
>then how can be experience htis layer of reality?
try rephrasing your question in English and I'll answer it

>>19502976
>again if maya doesn't have any substancial reality it can't connect with brahman
What is false has no physical connection with what is real

>>for Shankara the illusory or maya (category 2) is neither real (category 1) nor unreality (category 2)
>if somehting can violates the principle of non contradiction like that,
That doesn't violate the principle of non-contradiction, because it's not affirming two mutually-exclusive claims about anything. Please read about what the law of non-contradiction means and then explain how Advaita violates it by affirming two mutually exclusive claims about the same thing (they don't) before replying.
>then you enter a world where the buddhist idea of nothingess being also creation and anatta being capable of create reality is possible
This isn't possible and it's actually really silly and illogical and I can't take buddhists seriously when they propound such things
>There is only a problem of relation when positing two things that have real or substantial existence.
>exactly, something without substance can't have a relation with something insubstancial,
There are no real relations in Advaita and no real substantial things or entities aside from Brahman, Brahman's self-nature which projects maya isn't a "relation"
> thus the advaita model to explain reality becomes useless
It's the most logically refined of all the Indian schools, Hindu and non-Hindu
>kashmir shivaism at least tries to create a functional explanation the dinamics between brhaman and maya that can actually work logically and empirically
Kashmir Shaivism attempts to pass off 'unity in difference' (which is itself a logical contradiction like "up in down" or "heat in cold") as true non-duality, but this is really just yet another variation of Bhebabheda, and Kashmir Shaivism actually is the school that violates the LNC by trying to affirm both difference and unity as both true at once.

>>19502995
>'anirvacaniya' in shankara's own definition of maya - sad asad anirvacaniya -translates as 'illusion', not 'unreal'.
That's wrong, the word anirvacaniya just means 'unutterable' or 'indescribable'
>even if it didn't though it still would impose the essence - substance relation because maya definitely is substantial, as it is identical to brahmin yet an illusion at the same time,
No, it's not, this is totally rejected by Advaita. You do this often, where after your arguments are refuted you just go back to making random bullshit up which isn't taught by Advaita at all and then you proceed to attribute that bullshit to Advaita and criticize them for your own made-up idea. Maya is not identical to Brahman and nor is it a 2nd real entity with substantial existence. Read a book for once before trying to debate this stuff please.

>>19503132
>Brahman's self-nature which projects maya isn't a "relation"
I don't suppose you have any relation to your dandruff either

>>19503174
>I don't suppose you have any relation to your dandruff either
dandruff on the human body isn't my self-nature for I am not the body but formless and non-physical awareness, I don't have a relation with what is my own self-nature, I simply *am* that, Brahman *is* Its self-nature

>>19503168
>That's wrong
it isn't, I don't know sanskrit but I've seen sources say it does translate as 'illusion'. like I said not that it matters anyway.
>Read a book
I have, wouldn't be arguing otherwise
>Maya is not identical to Brahman
yes it is, shankara teaches that maya exists as brahmin's potency and it's only avidya which prevents one from seeing this and becoming disillusioned. otherwise you end up in absolute transcendence once again. it also appears to me as though you don't understand what substance is in its opposition to objective essence - plato's shadow. and correct me if I'm wrong but by saying that brahman projects maya you come exactly to this relation, which was the basis of my critique, and just say there's no relation.
>you just go back to making random bullshit up which isn't taught by Advaita at all
lmfao bro this is called drawing conclusions from the statement. I didn't take anything which wasn't said in advaita (from my understanding) for basis, and every time you disagreed with my interpretation I either dropped it by acknowledging yours was superior or insisted on mine otherwise. there's nothing dishonest about this.

>>19491396
also might have the single worst composition style ever executed, absolute trash writer

>>19503203
>I don't have a relation with what is my own self-nature
How is it your own self-nature if you have no relation with it? Incredible that this is what finally won the wars of veda scholasticism—pure crypto-buddhism

>>19503393
>t. the guy who types like a nigger in high school

>>19503368
>yes it is, shankara teaches that maya exists as brahmin's potency and it's only avidya which prevents one from seeing this and becoming disillusioned. otherwise you end up in absolute transcendence once again.

No, I have read most of Shankara and he instead rejects it, he says that Brahman alone exists in absolute reality without maya in complete non-duality, maya is not present there too as a separately or non-separately existing potency, maya is the very ontological category of falsity itself, which is entirely contingent upon the first and separate ontological category of unconditioned, non-dual, transcendental, existence, (Brahman); maya isn't present there because then maya would be included within the first category and then you'd be saying the same thing is contingent upon itself. This category of Brahman is the only thing that can truly(!) can be said to 'exist'. Maya or falsity is different from complete nothingness (non-being) because falsity can present itself in experience (to a real awareness) whereas we never encounter nothingness as an object of our experience and the very notion of doing so involves a contradiction.

The answer to "if maya has no 'real existence' how do we experience it is because in every moment of the experience of maya that embodied beings have there is A: the immediate, non-discursive, self-disclosing reality of awareness and B: all the thoughts, sense-perceptions etc which are all alike revealed by the constant presence of awareness, and this A is the ontological category of non-dual unconditioned pure-existence which is already present in every single moment and experience as the foundation of all conceptual and sensory knowledge (and as what maya is contingent upon) without most people realizing it. And the B is maya, i.e. falsity, everything that is other than immediate, formless, partless, unchanging self-revealing awareness all belongs to the 'B' of maya, including all thoughts, sense-perceptions etc.

Hence, when is Brahman or awareness is appearing or seemingly experienced as "within" maya, the cognitive structure of the perceived characterization of It as such consists of mental states inhering in the intellect which are intentional (object-directed) and insentient, flashing forward as if they were seemingly sentient or self-aware, when awareness itself is actually non-intentional (not directed at objects), and it only seems to be the seer of sight and the hearer of sound and knower of thoughts incidentally to embodied beings who receive the light of awareness in association with a body. Both in the absence and presence of a mind under maya-delusions that attributes certain characteristics to awareness, awareness really exists independently as immediate, unaffected, uninterrupted, partless, timeless presence. There is no change in awareness before and after liberation but liberation itself pertains to the insentient cognitive structure which is illuminated and enlivened by awareness.

>>19503368
>it also appears to me as though you don't understand what substance is in its opposition to objective essence - plato's shadow. and correct me if I'm wrong but by saying that brahman projects maya you come exactly to this relation, which was the basis of my critique, and just say there's no relation.
I wasn't trying to say that Brahman was a "substance" that was somehow less than an objective essence, but when I said Brahman has substantial reality I meant it more in an 'ultimate foundation of everything" sense. I'm not saying that maya is the substance of which Brahman is the essence either, I'm saying that in absolute reality (which alone is truly 'existence') where there is Brahman alone there is no simultaneous existence of time, space etc and dualistic categories like "sameness vs difference", "substance vs essence" is one of these distinctions which break down and aren't present there, it belongs to the categories which are a part of maya. There is no "third man problem" in the Advaita teaching because what projects or provides for maya/falsity to take place as falsity (i.e. Brahman's nature projects or provides this) is not different from Brahman itself, so, there is no other 3rd thing needed to relate that maya to Brahman but Brahman is self-sufficient.

>lmfao bro this is called drawing conclusions from the statement. I didn't take anything which wasn't said in advaita (from my understanding) for basis, and every time you disagreed with my interpretation I either dropped it by acknowledging yours was superior or insisted on mine otherwise.
Okay, I may have confused you for someone else than. It is dishonest to knowingly attempt to pigeon-hole the position of the opponent into a contrived duality of two false options, neither of which are the opponents actual positions, while claiming to demonstrate a contradiction in their actual position. I was under the assumption that you were someone who I have seen doing this before, my mistake if you weren't.

what is it about Guenon that triggers trannies so much? just ignore him since you don't believe in spirituality anyway

>>19492594
Aryan aristocrat

>>19503474
>How is it your own self-nature if you have no relation with it?
Because "relation" as a category presupposes a difference of things to be related, but there is no difference between me and myself.

>>19492594

>>19492644
>But R. Guenon is an even more fundamental generalization, an even more radical removal of masks, an even broader worldview contestation

which is what exactly? lol

>>19504023
>which is what exactly? lol

>René Guénon defies classification. . . . Were he anything less than a consummate master of lucid argument and forceful expression, his work would certainly be unknown to all but a small, private circle of admirers.”
—Gai Eaton, author of The Richest Vein

>“Guénon established the language of sacred metaphysics with a rigor, a breadth, and an intrinsic certainty such that he compels recognition as a standard of comparison for the twentieth century.”
—Jean Borella, author of Guénonian Esoterism and Christian Mystery

>“To a materialistic society enthralled with the phenomenal universe exclusively, Guénon, taking the Vedanta as point of departure, revealed a metaphysical and cosmological teaching both macrocosmic and microcosmic about the hierarchized degrees of being or states of existence, starting with the Absolute . . . and terminating with our sphere of gross manifestation.”
—Whitall N. Perry, editor of A Treasury of Traditional Wisdom

>“René Guénon was the chief influence in the formation of my own intellectual outlook (quite apart from the question of Orthodox Christianity). . . . It was René Guénon who taught me to seek and love the truth above all else, and to be unsatisfied with anything else.”
—Fr. Seraphim Rose, author of The Soul After Death

>“His mixture of arcane learning, metaphysics, and scathing cultural commentary is a continent in itself, untouched by the polluted tides of modernity. . . . Guénon’s work will not save the world—it is too late for that—but it leaves no reader unchanged.”
—Jocelyn Godwin, author of Mystery Religions in the Ancient World

>“René Guénon is one of the few writers of our time whose work is really of importance. . . . He stands for the primacy of pure metaphysics over all other forms of knowledge, and presents himself as the exponent of a major tradition of thought, predominantly Eastern, but shared in the Middle Ages by the . . . West.”
—Walter Shewring, translator of Homer’s Odyssey

>>19504045

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

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

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

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

>>19504045
Quoting 10 Guenonians sitting on Guenon's dick just makes it look like you can only scrounge up quotes from literal whos

Guenon is better than this

>>19504061
Keep the good teachers name out of your homoerotic fantasies and have some shame!

>>19504085
>He is the greatest man I've ever met, perhaps the greatest man of all time.
—My friend

>He is the smartest person who ever lived.
—My mom

>Everything he has ever said has been correct and he is so tall.
—My other friend

>I can't believe how good he is at everything. He's the hero of our time.
—Grandpa

>>19504045
i just want to know what his secret is anon

whats the "fundamental generalization"

how does he choose which religions are traditional and which ones are counter-initiation?

>>19504098
Clever, but are your friends and family prolific writers on spirituality and religion? if not fuck you and bow down, nigger.

>>19504113
Let me explain it for you without using jokes since you have autism. If you want to impress people who aren't already traditionalists with traditionalism, try quoting the positive assessments of people who aren't traditionalists talking about how good traditionalism is.

>>19504107
i don't think religion can be "counter-initiatic" since they are already in a different domain (exoteric). initiation properly understood is man's reintegration into the primordial, divine state. this is the same as ascending to heaven. counter-initiation does the opposite. although i am sure some guenon autist will be able to find something wrong with my explanation, which is fine and i welcome clarifications.

>>19504118
>If you want to impress people
I don't. If you don't "get" Guenon just stick to profane philosophy or delude yourself into thinking that exoteric christianity will provide you with all the answers of the higher laws of the universe. He definitely is not for everyone.

>>19494321
>Hegelian
What is the difference between Hegel and Guenon? I think if you read him properly you will find that he is retroactively teleological in a way that is not compatible with Whig History. Its a common misreading(intentional obfuscation) similar to the synthesis-antithesis junk. Hegel was also a nondualist and people have only recently finally begun to study the similarities between him and the eastern traditions.

>>19504146
I've read more Guenon than you ever will, probably Schuon and Seraphim Rose too, and Godwin's history of theosophy. Way to prove my point that the less you know, the more interested you are in showing off, and the less effective you are at it too.

>>19504107
>how does he choose which religions are traditional and which ones are counter-initiation?
By demonstrating (in his main books on metaphysics) how the traditional ones have a pattern of converging in their scripture or in some of their schools of esoteric metaphysics to something approximating non-duality. But there are other elements as well, like believing in a supramundane or divine origin of their scripture, and also the continuity of previous teachings and initiatic links going back the scriptural origin are emphasized, because without these you can have ruptures which are to the detriment of the transmission of spiritual knowledge, which in some cases has to be passed from one generation to the next like a torch and which can't be acquired except through being personally instructed by someone who has already acquired complete spiritual illumination.

>Prisca theologia is distinguishable from the related concept of the perennial philosophy, although some inadvertently use the two terms interchangeably. An essential difference is that the prisca theologia is understood as existing in pure form only in ancient times and has undergone a process of continuous decline and dilution throughout modern times.[citation needed] In other words, the oldest religious principles and practices are held to be, in some sense, the purest. The perennial philosophy theory does not make this stipulation and merely asserts that the "true religion" periodically manifests itself in different times, places, and forms. Both concepts, however, do suppose that there is such a thing as a true religion and tend to agree on the basic characteristics associated about this.

Is this Guénon?

>>19504175
I already said I'm not interested in showing off, and I'm not the guy you were originally arguing with. Now you are trying to "show off" all these authors/books you've read, which doesn't impress me; nor do I feel the desire to relay a list of authors/books I've read to you, since I am above such petty squabbles. Also, just because you've read something, doesn't mean you understand it...

>>19504180

How do you know that the original teachings are the right ones even if there is an unbroken chain? Is there like a checklist I can use for churches around me?

>>19504175
>and Godwin's history of theosophy
woah...

>>19504146
Are there any authors that combine Guenon with psychology? I'm interested in how initiation effects in-group and out-group tribal dynamics but from a more scientific perspective.

>>19503858
You will never be a kşatriya

>>19503910
Is this the Live Laugh Love tier of metaphysics?

>>19504191
no

Is this Guénon?

bump

>>19503787
>A: the immediate, non-discursive, self-disclosing reality of awareness and B: all the thoughts, sense-perceptions etc which are all alike revealed by the constant presence of awareness, and this A is the ontological category of non-dual unconditioned pure-existence which is already present in every single moment and experience as the foundation of all conceptual and sensory knowledge (and as what maya is contingent upon)
which means brahman is immanent yet not identical to maya, or, in other words, there is a relation - at best, that of the sun and the light, to quote plotinus. you acknowledge this yourself when you say maya is contingent upon brahman; and you do the first step towards infinite objectification when you say brahman isn't experienced within maya. your saying
>where there is Brahman alone there is no simultaneous existence of time, space etc and dualistic categories like "sameness vs difference", "substance vs essence" is one of these distinctions which break down and aren't present there
doesn't really solve this problem as you consider it within brahman, not within brahman - maya system. in order to overcome this duality this system must also be considered within brahman, which from what I understand implies the inability to tell the difference between the two and makes the 'absolute world' - 'illusory world' dichotomy meaningless. and saying
>what projects or provides for maya/falsity to take place as falsity (i.e. Brahman's nature projects or provides this) is not different from Brahman itself
doesn't describe how exactly maya as something distinct from brahman is projected by it, because you're basically saying both the brahman and its projection take place only within brahman.
>I may have confused you for someone else than
most likely, I've never argued in guenon threads before

>>19503858
>"Aryan race" is merely an invention of the over-fertile imagination of the orientalists. The Sanskrit term "arya", which gave its name to this hypothetical race, was never really anything more than an epithet applied exclusively to the members of the first three casters, independently of their membership of this or that race, which is not in any way material here. It is true that the principles of caste, like many other things, have been consistently misunderstood in the West, so that it is not at all surprising to come across a confusion of this kind.

>>19503132
>What is false has no physical connection with what is real
if maya is just false, then we shouldn't be able to experience it, if samsara can amnifest then that empirically dneotes a substance, that yuouneed to explain, just saying, "it's false" doesn't resolve the problem of why there's an experience of maya

>That doesn't violate the principle of non-contradiction
saying that something is and i tisn't at the same time by deffinition violates the prinicple of non-contradiction

>>19503132
>Again, this is only a problem if you posit a relation between two real entities with real, substantial existence, which Advaita doesn't do. Why bother repeating this incorrect assertion when I've already pointed out that it's inapplicable? Brahman projects maya *as* falsity, out of Brahman's own inherent unborn self-nature, while remaining as Brahman alone in absolute reality. There is no 3rd term required, because Brahman's self-nature directly projects maya and all that is included within maya *as* the category of falsity.
the only way this can be possible is if maya is part of brahman, but then again the principle of non contradiction is borken, since someting can't be produced from the unproduced/unborn, that which creates no cause(unborn) can't create a cause, since if brahman is also part of causality then a bigger caus ethat created him can be articulated creating a inifnite set of casuations