bhagavad gita

[Anonymous No.11120042]

1/2

Appreciate any help here. From Guenon’s reading of the Bhagavad Gita (taken from Man and His Becoming):

>No distinction [bearing upon contingent modifications, such as the distinction between the agent, the act, and the end or the result of that act] invalidates the essential unity and identity of Brahmaas cause lkaranal and effect lkaryal. The sea is the same as its waters, and does not differ (in nature) in any way from them, although the waves, the foam, the spray, the drops, and other accidental modifications which these waters undergo exist apart or conjointly as different from one another [when considered distinctively, either under the aspect of succession or of simultaneity but without their nature ceasing on that account to be the same] effect is not other [in essence] than its cause [although the cause, on the contrary, is more than the effect]; Brahma is one [as Being] and without duality [as Supreme Principle]; Itself, It is not separated [by any limitations] from Its modifications [formal as well as formless]; It is Atma [in every possible state], and Atma in itself, in the unconditioned state] is It [and not other than It]. The same earth yields diamonds and other precious minerals, crystal rocks and common worthless stones; the same soil produces a diversity of plants offering the greatest variety of leaves, flowers, and fruits; the same nutriment is converted in the organism into blood, flesh, and various excrescences, such as hair and nails. As milk is spontaneously changed into curds and water into ice [but without this conversion from one state into another implying any change of nature], so Brahma modifies Itself in diverse ways [in the indefinite multiplicity of universal manifestation], without the aid of instruments or external means of any kind whatever [and without Its unity and identity being affected thereby, without it being possible to sap therefore, that It is modified in reality, although all things only exist in effect as Its modifications].

[Anonymous No.11120044]

>>11120042

2/2
>Thus the spider spins its web out of its own substance, subtle beings take diverse [incorporeal] forms, and the lotus grows from marsh to marsh without organs of locomotion. That Brahma is indivisible and without parts [as It is], is no objection [to this conception of universal multiplicity in Its unity, or rather in Its 'nonduality']; it is not Its totality [eternally immutable] which is modified in the appearances of the world [nor any of Its parts, since It has none], but it is Itself viewed under the special aspect of distinction or of differentiation, that is, as saguna or savishesha: and, if It can be viewed thus, that is because It comprises all possibilities within Itself, without their being in any sense parts of Itself. Diverse changes [of condition and modes of existence] are presented to the same [individual] soul while dreaming [and in this state perceiving internal objects which belong to the domain of subtle manifestation]; diverse illusory forms [corresponding to different modalities of formal manifestation, other than the corporeal modality] are assumed by this same subtle being without in any respect altering its unity [such illusory forms, maydvirilpa being considered as purely accidental and not belonging, of themselves, to the being who assumes them, so that the latter must be regarded as unaffected by this merely apparent modification]. Brahma is almighty [since It contains all things in principle], capable of every activity [although 'actionless', or rather on that very account], without organ or instrument of action of any sort; therefore no motive or special end [such as pertains to an individual act] other than Its own will [which is indistinguishable from Its omnipotence] must be assigned to the determination of the Universe. No accidental differentiation must be imputed to It [as in the case of a particular cause], because each individual being is modified [while developing its possibilities] in conformity with its own nature; thus the raincloud distributes rain with impartiality [without regard to the special results which arise from secondary circumstances], and this same fertilizing rain causes different seeds to grow in various ways, producing a variety of plants according to their species [by reason of the different potentialities proper to these seeds respectively]. Every attribute of a first cause is (in principle) in Brohma, which [in Itself] is nevertheless devoid of every [distinct] quality. That which was, that which is and that which will be, truly all is Omkara [the Universe principially identified with Brahma, and, as such, symbolized by the sacred monosyllable Om]; and all else which is not subjected to threefold time [trikala,that is to say the temporal condition viewed under its three modalities of past, present, and future] is also truly Omkara.

[Anonymous No.11120047]

>>11120042
>>11120044

whoops, 3/3:
>Assuredly, this Atma [of which all things are but the manifestation] is Brahma, and this Atma [relatively to the various states of the being] has four conditions lpadas, a word signifring literally'feet']; in truth, all this is Brahma.

In this metaphysics what (or who) is aware of the waves as waves?

[Anonymous No.11120064]

did the mods prune the tradition generals and pull them from the archive? why

[Anonymous No.11120140]

>>11120047
mind and body+atma

[Anonymous No.11120145]

>>11120042
>From Guenon’s reading of the Bhagavad Gita
there's your problem

[Anonymous No.11120164]

>>11120145
its a quote

>>11120140
that is what is aware?

[Anonymous No.11120182]

>>11120164
I suggest you stay away from perennial garbage, guenon was a hack who cucked to islam thats why you're having problems interpreting his word salad.

[Anonymous No.11120189]

>>11120047
>In this metaphysics what (or who) is aware of the waves as waves?

Brahman (Guenon uses Brahma) is the highest metaphysical reality and escapes all definitions and words, constituting the truly inexpressible. Nevertheless we can attempt to describe it within the bounds that language present. Brahma is described throughout advaitic literature as being pure awareness or pure consciousness. Not a consciousness that has discursive thoughts and goes from the contemplation and consideration of one subject to another, but pure undifferentiated awareness. The point Guenon makes in his books about the highest metaphysical understanding occupying a realm where there is no distinction between knowledge and being it itself used in the Advaitic texts to describe Brahma; truly understanding the nature of Brahma is to reveal all that is (including the self) to be Brahma, there no longer being any perception of difference or separateness.

Advaita teaches that the being is divided into the non-Atma (mind, memory, emotions, cognition etc) and the Atma, which is the witness behind all of these but which does not participate in them, remaining unchanged by them or anything else, remaining forever stainless, at peace and unconditioned. Atma alone gives meaning to the being. Atma is the witness of everything in the being, without Atma there be nothing real left, and no witness to anything pertaining to the being. When you read Advaitic texts or Guenon your mind processes the idea of non-duality and you consider it from various angles; deep down though at the heart of the being, behind the mind, logic, urges, memory and the rest is the one witness Atman, which is pure awareness observing these. So in a way it is Brahma being aware of itself, through the filtered and relative viewpoint of the conditioned and manifested being; although since that at the core of that being is Atma, it can be considered in a way as a manifest state of Brahma coming closer to awareness of the truth of its non-duality.

I really recommend reading Advaita texts. They and Guenon's writings complement each other.

>>11120064
It was fine at first but the last thread turned into shitposting and arguing so I imagine that's why they pruned it

[Anonymous No.11120191]

>>11120182
you sound angey. just ignore the part that says ‘guenon,’ it’s not his translation

[Anonymous No.11120198]

>>11120182
I had one of those perennialist traditionalists tell me I should read Guenon instead of actual academic books on Hinduism and books written by Hindus.

>Brahman (Guenon uses Brahma)
Was he a dumbass?

[Anonymous No.11120201]

>>11120189
this unironically answered my question. thanks anon

[Anonymous No.11120214]

>>11120201
no problem

[Anonymous No.11120380]

>>11120198
>I had one of those perennialist traditionalists tell me I should read Guenon instead of actual academic books on Hinduism and books written by Hindus.

Guenon just writes from the Advaitist perspective and also holds that Ramanuja's views were orthodox too, the difference between him and Shankara being a matter of emphasis. Most Indian Hindus who have studied the texts and doctrines under a qualified teacher would agree with almost everything Guenon says; all of his most important points he backs up with citations to the Vedas, the works of Shankara or other centrally important texts.

What makes him especially worth reading is that he was someone who understood and had lived both the eastern and western mentalities well and so he was uniquely qualified to understand how to properly explain the eastern doctrines to a western audience. There are Hindu authors who write books about Hinduism that are sold in the west but most of them do not fully understand how to overcome all the obstacles to understanding eastern doctrines that being raised and educated in the west presents; Guenon is one of the few that does this well. There is also that he is good at drawing parallels to other traditions which can help in understanding. Most academic works on Hinduism are overly concerned with the historical method, textual criticism, dating etc, are heavily influenced by the anthropological perspective and treat the metaphysical/spiritual realizations taught in the texts as a specialized sub-compartment of Hinduism, to be analyzed from the outside, which is the complete opposite of how they should be understood.

>Brahman (Guenon uses Brahma)
>Was he a dumbass?

The substitution of one of the names of the Hindu gods for Brahman occurs regularly throughout Hindu texts and is just a way of emphasizing a different aspect of the one reality.

[Anonymous No.11120491]

>>11120064

People who were so sick from modernity that they have contempt for people who are healthy started shitposting.

I can make another /trad/ if there is interest.

[Anonymous No.11120510]

>>11120042
stop fucking referencing Guenon every time we bring up Hinduism its aggravating seeing you ants incapable of drawing your own conclusions, read the god damned Upanishads, Brahma Sutras, Vedas and Puranas and come to your own conclusions before you let someone else who wasn’t Hindu, wasn’t a Sanskritist, wasn’t an orientalist, teach you everything about the faith

[Anonymous No.11120558]

>>11120491
It would be better to make an eastern thought general which includes western thinkers who have engaged with it, that would likely attract less shitposters or people with a bone to pick.

>>11120510
Chill out dude. There is nothing wrong with liking Guenon or appreciating his insight into Hinduism. Nobody treats him as the ultimate authority on Hinduism, which is in reality the texts themselves and their earliest commentators. I have yet to see a good critique of his writings on Hinduism other than that he makes Advaita his focus which is hardly a problem considering that it's the oldest and most influential school of Vedanta.

[Anonymous No.11120606]

>>11120558
a critique would be: he is not a modern sanskritist or orientalist, he focuses exclusively on advaita, he has no background in studies on Hinduism he picked it up as an adult, he interpolates and focuses on aspects that pleased him personally, he wasn’t a Hindu he was a Sufi who abandoned his native faith. You’re a fucking retarded fanboy so of course you’ve never heard a critique of him and see nothing wrong
>chill out dude
lol i would snap your wrist in pieces if you talked to me like a girl in public

[Anonymous No.11120677]

>>11120606
>lol i would snap your wrist in pieces if you talked to me like a girl in public

[Anonymous No.11120724]

>>11120606
>snaps someones wrists for saying to chill out dude
take a chill pill brah

[Anonymous No.11120809]

>>11120606
>he is not a modern sanskritist
He could read Sanskrit

>or orientalist
this is a good thing

>he focuses exclusively on advaita
Not exclusively, he also writes about all of the Darshanas, Tantra, Kundalini, and also Vishishtadvaita among other things. He has a good reason for mostly focusing on Advaita though, it's one of the most influential developments in Hinduism after the formation of the Vedas, with it and the closely related Vishishtadvaita forming the main orthodox understanding of Hindu doctrine. Almost all of the major post-Vedic Hindu texts exhibit significant Advaitic or Vishishtadvaitic influence. It can reasonably be said that studying Advaita provides a key to understanding most of the other areas of Hinduism.

>he has no background in studies on Hinduism he picked it up as an adult,
This is sounding like assumptions on your behalf, you have no idea how much time or effort he devoted to studying Hinduism, the accuracy of his writings is attested to by a large number of qualified people including Ramana Maharshi.

>he interpolates and focuses on aspects that pleased him personally,
This is the opposite of what he does, he instead focuses on what he considers important to understanding Hinduism, one of the central features of his writing is a total disregard for aesthetic and sentimental values.

>he wasn’t a Hindu he was a Sufi who abandoned his native faith.
It's generally thought that he was initiated into Hinduism while living in Paris but it's actually totally irrelevant, you don't need to be a card-carrying member of a religion in order to write accurate books about it. Also, there is nothing wrong with converting to or joining a religion. Are you attacking all the Dravidians who ended up converting to the Vedic form of Sanatana Dharma after the Aryan invasions into India? The truth is the truth and cultural contingencies are irrelevant. It's also silly you would attack him for this while also attacking him for not being an orientalist, many of whom did not profess to be Hindu or Buddhist.

[Anonymous No.11120897]

If someone wants a non Trad perspective on Hinduism you go to /his/ or /x/(watch out for larpers and ThoTh)

[Anonymous No.11120976]

>>11120897
Or maybe we want a perspective on Hinduism that isn't just Rene Guenon's.

[Anonymous No.11121263]

>>11120976
Yeah I'm telling you where to go. Traditionalist school was literally made by Guenon.
lowercase t in trad is different, if you want that from a western convert go with acharya, if you want actual indians go with his teachers.
If you want heterodox that's everywhere

[Anonymous No.11121295]

>>11121263
interesting syllogism

question: are there academics in India who speak fluent English and Anglos who speak and write fluent sanskrit who can interpret and expound on the scriptures or is it only Guenon?

Second quesion: if he’s the only one, WHY?

>>11120809
all obfuscating that he was a perrenialist sufi christian who wasn’t Indian and who interpolated his own beliefs into Hinduism. You presuppose his approach is correct, you think everything he “got rid of” is extraneous and you assume everything he derived is the whole truth. Pathetic

and dravidians are insects with significantly lower standards of culture than aryans, Hinduism is a degeneration of Aryan religion to begin with, the varnas are the old substrate with the fire worship and ghee sacrifices.

[Anonymous No.11121335]

>>11121263
Which Acharya? That's a common name.

>Traditionalist school was literally made by Guenon.
A western school of philosophy was made by Guenon, gee thanks. Hinduism has been studied by thousands of people who aren't Guenon, he isn't the beginning or end of the discussion. Your rejection of learning historical context is especially grating.

[Anonymous No.11121393]

>>11121335
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsyzklLnV4k
and I was just mentioning the Traditionalist School was made by Guenon. Why you get so pissy about that i don't know. traditionalism is a different thing, notice the use of the the capital T to the lowercase t.
The video i linked, he would be a lowecase traditionalist.
>>11121295
there are tons, dead and alive. It's just all a matter of which perspective and what school you take within that. Hell i bet if you are learning sanskrit in college you will most likely have to learn about hindu and vedic religions.