/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14544187]

>Millions of threads about Guenon
>Not a single one about Frithjof Schuon
This really talks about us as a society

[Anonymous No.14544199]

make a discord group and start shilling him

[Anonymous No.14544217]

>A single thread about Schuon
>not a single post on the entire board about Jakob Fries

[Anonymous No.14544235]

Be the change you wish to see and tell us about him and his works.

[Anonymous No.14545114]

>>14544187

Tell us about him

>>14544217

Tell us about him too

[Anonymous No.14545144]

Im too much of a metaphysical brainlet to follow schuons arguments

[Anonymous No.14545276]

>>14545144
Being>Becoming. Thas it.

[Anonymous No.14545293]

>most prominent follower of guenon
>direct teacher of hossein nasr, the current unofficial head of guenonian perennialism
>slept with his cowboys-and-indian themed cult members' wives, called the practice "vertical wives"
>fondled their underage daughters too
>was taken to court for it
>bribed his way out of prosecution

Perennialism sure is the light and the way.

[Anonymous No.14545319]

>>14545293
>Source: blog posts

[Anonymous No.14545390]

>>14545319
>most prominent follower of guenon
>literally started an amerindian-themed sun cult in BLOOMINGTON INDIANA
>literally said that dancing naked with his follower's wives and underage daughters was "like the dance of maya around atman" while fondling them

Hahahaha this is you, this is actually you: "Yes, I'm a Hindu-Muslim hybrid and one of my most respected intellectual father figures is a dancing pedophile in Bloomington Indiana wearing a plastic Indian feather hat he bought from a truck stop"

Could you be any more disconnected from your ancestral traditions hahahaha you fucking expat poo, better make a holy pilgrimage to BLOOMINGTON INDIANA

[Anonymous No.14545406]

>>14545390
There is no proof whatsoever that he fondeled underage people, only unsubstantiated blog posts

[Anonymous No.14545422]

>>14545406
>How do we know you are telling the truth about Atman?
>"My guru tells me so, always follow your guru's instructions"
>A whole bunch of gurus have repudiated Schuon for FONDLING UNDERAGE GIRLS in BLOOMINGTON INDIANA after multiple cult members reported it and confirmed one another's testimonies, the police and court prosecutor said that it was a slam dunk case, and several peer reviewed books have been written about it in major university presses
>"p-proof where's the proof"

Hurry! You can still catch the Greyhound bus to BLOOMINGTON INDIANA for your perennialist pedophile cult!

Daily reminder the chief follower of Guenon was a Joe Biden precursor who founded an Amerindian LARPing cult in Bloomington Indiana.

[Anonymous No.14545432]

>>14545422
>the police and court prosecutor said that it was a slam dunk case, and several peer reviewed books have been written about it in major university presses
do you have sources for this or are you just pulling it out of your ass?

[Anonymous No.14545438]

>>14545276
he's a pseud then

[Anonymous No.14545462]

>>14545276
Wrong, Brahman is beyond being and non-being and It's not becoming either

[Anonymous No.14545475]

>>14545462
>non-being
How can it be beyond something that does not exist? This is meaningless.

[Anonymous No.14545476]

>>14545462
What is it then?

[Anonymous No.14545532]

>>14545476
Atman

[Anonymous No.14545535]

>>14545114
Friesian website google it

[Anonymous No.14545544]

>>14545532
>Atman
Which is what in relation to being?

[Anonymous No.14545620]

>>14545475
When Shankara writes that Brahman is beyond non-being he is talking about the unmanifest which is not nothingness. Brahman never actually undergoes manifestation and is in that sense unmanifested but the unmanifest is contained within Brahman, while Brahman as it really is in itself is beyond/prior to the distinctions of manifest and unmanifest
>>14545544
One could say the transcendental ground of being, but it's important not to get hung up on definitions

[Anonymous No.14545645]

>>14545620
>shankara

You mean nagarjuna

[Anonymous No.14545725]

>>14545645
wrong

[Anonymous No.14545740]

>>14545725
>MOTILAL BANARSIDASS PUBLISHERS
>PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Lmao, I'll see your random brown religious adherent of Advaita and raise you nearly every modern mainstream scholar, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, and Swami Vivekananda who all disagree with you

[Anonymous No.14545762]

>>14545725
wrong

[Anonymous No.14545775]

>>14545740
plenty of scholars disagree with your view in addition to Sharma

According to Murti (1955, pp. 114–115), Gaudapada's doctrines are unlike Buddhism. Gaudapada's influential text consists of four chapters; Chapter One, Two and Three of which are entirely Vedantin and founded on the Upanishads, with little Buddhist flavor. Chapter Four uses Buddhist terminology and incorporates Buddhist doctrines but Vedanta scholars who followed Gaudapada through the 17th century, state both Murti and Richard King, never referenced nor used Chapter Four, they only quote from the first three. While there is shared terminology, the doctrines of Gaudapada and Buddhism are fundamentally different, states Murti (1955, pp. 114–115).[33] Nikhilananda (2008, pp. 203–206) refutes the argument for Buddhist influence on Gaudapada's philosophy by arguing that the whole purpose of Gaudapada was to demonstrate the ultimate reality of the birth-less and non-dual Atman, a concept foreign to Buddhism. Scholars such as Murti state that, while there is shared terminology, the doctrines of Gaudapada and Buddhism are fundamentally different.[34][35]

Michael Comans states Gaudapada, an early Vedantin, utilised some arguments and reasoning from Madhyamaka Buddhist texts by quoting them almost verbatim. However, Comans adds there is a fundamental difference between Buddhist thought and that of Gaudapada, in that Buddhism has as its philosophical basis the doctrine of Dependent Origination according to which "everything is without an essential nature (nissvabhava), and everything is empty of essential nature (svabhava-sunya)", while Gaudapada does not rely on this principle at all. Gaudapada's Ajativada is an outcome of reasoning applied to an unchanging nondual reality according to which "there exists a Reality (sat) that is unborn (aja)" that has essential nature (svabhava) and this is the "eternal, fearless, undecaying Self (Atman) and Brahman".[17] Thus, Gaudapada differs from Buddhist scholars such as Nagarjuna, states Comans, by accepting the premises and relying on the fundamental teaching of the Upanishads.[17]

[Anonymous No.14545782]

>>14545762
OH NO NO NO NO

[Anonymous No.14545789]

>every single thread is now guenonfag and antiguenonfag counter-copypasting buddhism/advaita memes

[Anonymous No.14545792]

>>14545620
>transcendental ground of being
I see. What is the difference between Brahman and Atman? I was confused because I asked about Brahman and Being and your response was Atman. But are these not different things?

[Anonymous No.14545799]

>>14545792
inb4 Guenonfag's patented "I'm so glad you asked that, my friend" response to his own samefagging question

>guenonfag believes shitting on the floor is dharma

[Anonymous No.14545803]

>>14545782
BFF-BWWAHAAHAHHAAHAHAHA LOOK AT HIS RED DOT

[Anonymous No.14545808]

non-dualism is false >>14545777

[Anonymous No.14545811]

>>14545792
>What is the difference between Brahman and Atman?
According to Advaita Vedanta there is no difference, they are the same thing.

[Anonymous No.14545814]

>>14545775
Your first paragraph is Hindu neovedantists flatly stating with bias that they "refuted" their opponents, and the second paragraph agrees that Gaudapada uses Buddhist dialectic and simply adds Atman to the end. You just agreed with the arguments that Gaudapada is a plagiarist of Buddhist texts. Nice job, Patel.

[Anonymous No.14545826]

>>14545789
Its always guenonfag that starts this shit. Why can't we just have normal trad threads these days without that schizo rearing his ugly head with off-topic talking points and prepared pastas.

[Anonymous No.14545887]

>>14545814
Gaudapada uses similar reasoning because that reasoning and thought is already found in pre-Buddhist and pre-Madhyamaka Hindu writings. The earliest Upanishads state that Brahman is unborn, the Chandogya denies both that creation/modifications are real and denies that something can emerge out of nothing, Gaudapada cites these lines in his karika to show how the Upanishads right from the beginning teach non-origination. Gaudapada implies that certain Buddhists are right about this only because it's an Upanishadic idea which they picked up from the Upanishads and he also explains that the Buddhist model still doesn't make sense and that it's only the Vedantic/Upanishadic model which incorporates the Self which is really a complete and correct understanding of non-origination.

4545826
Nice projection you stupid schizo, it was clearly the anti-Shankara troll, most likely you who started the argument by accusing Shankara of stealing from Nagarjuna here >>14545645, do you think we can't scroll up and see where it started or something?

[Anonymous No.14545913]

>>14545887
guenonfag's arguments so far
>1. the two possibly prebuddhist upanishads contain everything if you interpret them hard enough, therefore anything that comes after them is just ripping them off
>2. some random poos agree with me even though nearly all poos don't agree with me and even though professionals who study this for a living all 100% don't agree with me
>3. also for some reason let me post something that disagrees with me and agrees with my opponents that gaudapada uses buddhist logic and simply adds atman at the end (??????)

you are the biggest laughingstock on this board, all you have accomplished is making your favorite authors and topics into jokes and embarrassing yourself. how are you enjoying your shitty spam threads being banned or moved to /his/ lately?

you lose, rajesh

>>14545826
it's because he's insane, just look at his reaction to getting frustrated here >>14545803

[Anonymous No.14545980]

>>14545913
> two prebuddhist upanishads contain everything if you interpret them hard enough, therefore anything that comes after them is just ripping them off
This is unironically true, maya, avidya, unborn/non-origination and absolute vs lower knowledge are all Hindu doctrines predating Buddhism and are clearly taught in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads that Shankara and Gaudapada get those ideas from. That 'random poo' knew Sanskrit, taught at universities amd cites the relevant lines from those texts and his book was well-reviewed. Being snobby about publishers or him not having the chance to work at Cambridge or whatever doesn't mean he is wrong about anything. It shows what a vicious twisted worm you are that when some academic comes up who debunks your partisan smear that you have to resort to character assassination instead of addressing any of his points.

[Anonymous No.14545993]

>>14545620
What you have presented is a special category of being. It would make more sense not to mention non-being at all and constrain discussion toward your manifest/nonmanifest example then.

[Anonymous No.14546012]

>>14545980
nice religious perspective rajesh, thanks for repeating your dogma again even though 100% of all modern scholars disagree with it and even most religious hindus disagree with it

you'll be a great guru some day, keep posting copypasted wikipedia paragraphs on the internet for another three years hahaha

[Anonymous No.14546020]

this is the average non dualist

[Anonymous No.14546025]

>>14546020
>why yes I do keep a shrine to a Swiss pedophile from Indiana when I worship Nagarjunatman, how could you tell?

[Anonymous No.14546032]

>>14545980
>It shows what a vicious twisted worm you are that when some academic comes up who debunks your partisan smear that you have to resort to character assassination instead of addressing any of his points.

[Anonymous No.14546050]

>>14546020
2bh even if Shankara was as legit as neovedantists say, I'd rather be a buddhist in east asia rather than a hindu in India.

[Anonymous No.14546069]

>>14546050
Why do you say that? What's wrong with India?

[Anonymous No.14546078]

>>14546050
theres one better alternative

[Anonymous No.14546137]

>>14546050
Hindu one is more authentic, Buddhist one is sanitzed imo.

[Anonymous No.14547448]

How do perennial tradition larper handle the fact that based Dumezil proved the vedic religion had nothing to do with the posterior 'perennial traditions'?

[Anonymous No.14547455]

>>14544187
who's got his n00dz? his cult had them scrubbed a few years back. one of his ex "wifies" is spilling her guts out online. what a mad lad.

[Anonymous No.14547509]

>>14547448
They don't know who Dumezil is.

[Anonymous No.14547514]

>>14547448
gonna need a sauce on that lad.

[Anonymous No.14547596]

>>14547455
Yeah I saw that, crazy stuff

[Anonymous No.14547731]

>>14546078
Even better alternative. As Schuon (pbuh) himself said,

>"Nobody will deny the unity of Islamic art, either in time or space; it is far too evident: whther one contemplates the mosque of Cordova or the great madrasah of Samarkand, whether it be the tomb of a saint in the Maghreb or one in Chinese Turkestan, it is as if one and the same light shone forth from all these works of art."

[Anonymous No.14547770]

>>14547731
Is this now, dare I say, an Islamic architeture thread? Utterly unsurpassable. Look at this
otherworldly beauty, brothers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzigJfnrlU0

[Anonymous No.14547782]

>>14547731
>>14547731 (You)
Is this now, dare I say, an Islamic architecture thread?
Utterly unsurpassable. Gaze at this otherworldly beauty, brothers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzigJfnrlU0

[Anonymous No.14547791]

>>14546078
Or an even better alternative, as Schuon (pbuh) himself said,

>"Nobody will deny the unity of Islamic art, either in time or space; it is far too evident: whther one contemplates the mosque of Cordova or the great madrasah of Samarkand, whether it be the tomb of a saint in the Maghreb or one in Chinese Turkestan, it is as if one and the same light shone forth from all these works of art."

[Anonymous No.14547794]

>>14547791
Is this now, dare I say, an Islamic architecture thread? Utterly unsurpassable. Gaze at this otherworldly beauty, brothers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzigJfnrlU0

[Anonymous No.14547796]

>>14547770
>>14547731
I feel like we should make a distinction between medieval Islam and today's Islam. There is a reason that Islam has not produced great literature, philosophy, or theology for going on a thousand years. Culture plays a role but biology and public health have to be taken in account too.

>According to Nicolai Sennels, a Danish psychologist who has done extensive research into Muslim inbreeding, close to half of all Muslims in the world are inbred:
>70% of Pakistanis are inbred.
>67% of Saudi Arabians are inbred.
>64% of those living in Jordan and Kuwait are inbred.
>63% of Sudanese are inbred.
>60% of Iraqis are inbred.
>54% of Muslims in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar are inbred.
>25-30% of those in Turkey are inbred.
>In England, at least 55% of Pakistani immigrants are married to their first cousins.
>In Denmark the number of inbred Pakistani immigrants is around 40%.

>Cousin marriages in Muslim majority countries are often preferred and even encouraged in some regions, and the prophet Muhammad himself had married cousins.

>Nearly 70% of Pakistanis are the product of inbreeding in Islam, mostly due to the Muslim tradition of marrying cousins via choice or arrangement. BBC also released a study, revealing that approximately 55% of Pakistani immigrants in Britain were married to a first cousin and that Pakistani-British were “at least 13 times likely to than the general population to have children with recessive genetic disorders.

>“If you go into a paediatric ward in Bradford or Keighley you will find more than half of the kids there are from the Asian community. Since Asians only represent 20 per cent-30 per cent of the population, you can see that they are over represented. I have encountered cases of blindness and deafness. There was one poor girl who had to have an oxygen tank on her back and breathe from a hole in the front of her neck. The parents were warned they should not have any more children. But when the husband returned again from Pakistan, within months they had another child with exactly the same condition.”

[Anonymous No.14547817]

>>14547796
Hasn't produced great literature, philosophy, or theology for a thousand of years? You must be trolling.
Islam is still producing great literature and theology, and therefore philosophy, to this day.

[Mutt No.14547819]

>>14547796
Wow, really puts things into perspective.

[Anonymous No.14547852]

>>14547794
ٱلْحَمْدُ لِلّٰ

[Anonymous No.14547866]

>>14547852
Glory be to God, exalted beyond what they describe.

[Anonymous No.14547880]

>>14547866
لَهُ مُلْكُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَإِلَى اللَّهِ تُرْجَعُ الأمُورُ
57.5

[Anonymous No.14547916]

>>14547880
Whatsoever is on it (the earth) will perish. And The Face of your Lord Full of Majesty and Bounty will remain forever.

[Anonymous No.14547925]

>>14547448
>proved
>imying Dumzeil had any understanding of or access to the Indo-European esoterism that was active then or that he could disprove its existence by analyzing language and social structure

[Anonymous No.14547970]

>>14547916
Al-Ghazali's commentary on this verse.

>"It is from this starting-point that Allâh's gnostics rise from metaphors to realities, as one climbs from the lowlands to the mountains; and at the end of their Ascent see, as with the direct sight of eye-witnesses, that there is nothing in existence save Allâh alone, and that "everything perisheth except His Countenance, His Aspect" (wajh); not that it perisheth at some particular moment, but rather it is sempiternally a perishing thing, since it cannot be conceived except as perishing. For each several thing other than Allâh is, when considered in and by itself, pure not-being; and if considered from the "aspect" (wajh) to which existence flows from the Prime Reality, it is viewed as existing, but not in itself, solely from the "aspect" which accompanies Him Who gives it existence. Therefore, the Godaspect is the sole thing in existence. For everything has two aspects, an aspect to itself and an aspect to its Lord: in respect of the first, it is Not-being; but in respect of the God-aspect, it is Being. Therefore there is no Existent except God and the God-aspect, and therefore all things are perishing except the God-aspect from and to all eternity. These gnostics, therefore, have no need await the arising of the Last Uprising in order to hear the Creator proclaim, "To whom is the power this day? To ALLAH! the One, the Not-to-be-withstood; for that summons is.. pealing in their ears always and for ever. Neither do they understand by the cry "Allah is most great" (Allâhu akbar) that He is only "greater" than others. God forbid! For in all existence there is beside Him none for Him to exceed in greatness. No other attains so much as to the degree of co-existence, or of sequent existence, nay of existence at all, except from the Aspect that accompanies Him. All existence is, exclusively, His Aspect."

[Anonymous No.14547971]

>>14547796
Modern Muslims have as much to do with Golden Age Islam as modern residents of New Orleans have to do with Renaissance France. Barely anything.

[Anonymous No.14547972]

>>14547448
>Dumezil
>French
opinion discarded...

[Anonymous No.14547992]

>>14547970
based, where to start with al-Ghazali?

[Anonymous No.14547995]

>>14547970
“These gnostics, on their return from their Ascent into the heaven of Reality, confess with one voice that they saw nought existent there save the One Real. Some of them, however, arrived at this scientifically, and others experimentally and subjectively. From these last the plurality of things fell away in its entirety. They were drowned in the absolute Unitude, and their intelligences were lost in Its abyss. Therein became they as dumbfounded things. No capacity remained within them save to recall ALLAH; yea, not so much as the capacity to recall their own selves. So there remained nothing with them save ALLAH. They became drunken with a drunkenness wherein the sway of their own intelligence disappeared; so that one exclaimed, "I am The ONE REAL!" and another, "Glory be to ME! How great is MY glory!" and another, "Within this robe is nought but Allâh!" ... But the words of Lovers Passionate in their intoxication and ecstasy must be hidden away and not spoken of . . . Then when that drunkenness abated and they came again under the sway of the intelligence, which is Allâh's balance-scale upon earth, they knew that that had not been actual Identity, but only something resembling Identity; as in those words of the Lover at the height of his passion:--

>”I am He whom I love and He whom I love is I; We are two spirits immanent in one body."

[Anonymous No.14548028]

How can the notion of ideias or archetypes work with the reality of evolution?
Plato accepted that the material world was flux, but he thought there were fixed species. An individual horse is born and passes away, but the species of horse is eternal and modeled after the platonic idea of the horse.
But now we know that even species are in constant flux. The the domestic horse came from a prehistoric ancestor, there are many breeds of horses, etc. furthermore all mammals came from one species.
So when a new species is born there is a new platonic ideia for that species? But the Platonic ideas are supposedly eternal. How does that work?

[Anonymous No.14548030]

>>14547992
I quoted from the Mishkat al-Anwar, which, as far as I know, is Ghazali's most "ecstatic" work. On Knowing Yourself and God, perhaps.

[Anonymous No.14548035]

>>14548028
If a new species is born on earth, it was before in the Divine Intellect. Everything on manifestation is a copy.

[Anonymous No.14548053]

>>14548035
That's dumb, why would god create only the illusion of novel creation instead of just allowing authentic creation

[Anonymous No.14548056]

>>14548028
Furthermore, I'd refrain from calling a scientific theory that contradicts all revealed knowledge as a "reality"; the only Reality is God.

[Anonymous No.14548085]

>>14548053
>>14548053
Why do you presuppose that the Forms are created? I can't answer for God, but that's the Platonic answer.

Only God is Real, Gregory of Nyssa:

>"In my view the definition of truth is this: not to have a mistaken apprehension of Being (tes tou ontos katanoeseos). Falsehood is a kind of impression (phantasia) which arises in the understanding about nonbeing: as though what does not exist does, in fact, exist. But truth is the sure apprehension of real Being. So, whoever applies himself in quietness to higher philosophical matters over a long period of time will barely apprehend what true Being is, that is, what possesses existence in its own nature, and what nonbeing is, that is, what is existence only in appearance (en toi dokein), with no self-subsisting nature (anypostaton echon oph’ heautou ten physin). It seems to me that at the time the great Moses was instructed in the theophany he came to know that none of those things which are apprehended by sense perception (te tei aisthesei katalambanetai) and contemplated by the understanding really subsists (hyphesteke), but that the transcendent essence and cause of the universe, on which everything depends, alone subsists."

[Anonymous No.14548095]

reject non-dualism and embrace the God-creature dialectic and seek our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

>>14548028
as this anon said >>14548035
there's nothing new which hasn't been preconceived by God. there's absolutely no novelty. God can't be caught by surprise of a mutation. Everything that exists therefore was already thought by God and exists in it's ideal form in His mind.

[Anonymous No.14548159]

one alternative to the question of speciation and forms that i thought was this: the only way to reconcile this might be through the reduction of the form to something more essential than that which gives the material form. we might have to admit that it is the soul, the thing that animates, and not the spirit that is the idea.

one way to imagine is to think of a cloud that can assume different forms in space and time. The platonic ideas would have to be reduced to something like a cloud. im sincerely all ears to objections

[Anonymous No.14548172]

>>14548159
can you elaborate on this

[Anonymous No.14548200]

>>14548172
all creatures might have originated from that primordial idea that assumes different forms in space and time, as a cloud does. God already knows all the possible forms a cloud can assume and they are only variations of the primordial 'creature, animate being' cloud like idea.

[Anonymous No.14548451]

>>14545620
I get this sense of Non-Being. But isn’t Being already unmanifested in relation to manifested realm (that is, ours, conditioned by time and space)?

[Anonymous No.14548486]

>>14548451
As far as I understand- and someone please correct me if I'm wrong- Being is manifested in a supraformal way. The cosmos, conditioned by time and space, is Being's formal manifestation.

[Anonymous No.14548541]

>>14548035
>>14548095
Yes, but God knows everything to the level of the individual. No need to posit species at all. Then species can be a human invention to try to classify individuals according to their characteristics. This leaves the path open to nominalism.

>>14548085
If God is the only being that can be known then everything that is not God is non-being or illusion. All knowledge knowledge that is not of God is illusory and conventional. Again leaves the path open to nominalism.

[Anonymous No.14548643]

>>14547992
Deliverance from Error

[Anonymous No.14549163]

>>14548028
>"""reality"""" of evolution

[Anonymous No.14549200]

>>14548095
>reject non-dualism
No.

[Anonymous No.14550268]

>>14549163
This. One can't serve two masters.

[Anonymous No.14550704]

>>14549200
why not though?

[Anonymous No.14550722]

>>14550268
Of course you can

[Anonymous No.14550786]

Schuon thought Protestantism was valid.

Y I K E

At least Guenon had taste.

[Anonymous No.14550950]

>>14550786
>Schuon thought Protestantism was valid.
Source? That would explain my reservations about him just from sensing his 'aura'.

[Anonymous No.14551079]

>>14550950
He grew up as a protestant, and that's probably why he considered it valid. I can't remember exactly which book, but just google "Schuon" and "Protestantism" that you'll find it. As far as I remember, he only considers germanic Protestantism valid, the one that quickened the spirit of Boheme, Swedenberg, etc.

[Anonymous No.14551130]

>>14550950
>>14551079
In Christianity/Islam: Essays on Esoteric Ecumenicism IIRC he compares Lutheranism with Pure Land Buddhism, specifically Shin Buddhism, which teaches a similar doctrine as Sola Fide.

>Shinran, like others in Hōnen's community, felt that in the age of Dharma Decline, it was no longer possible to achieve enlightenment through traditional monastic practices, and thus one could only rely on the vows of Amitabha Buddha, particular the 18th or "Primal Vow" and seek rebirth in the Pure Land
>Shinran explains that he not only gave up traditional monastic practices to focus on rebirth in the Pure Land, but that in time he eventually gave up on practices related to rebirth in the Pure Land, instead relying solely on faith in the vow of Amitabha Buddha.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinran#Primacy_of_faith

>Faith Alone in Buddhism
https://feileadhmor.wordpress.com/2017/10/19/faith-alone-in-buddhism/

[Anonymous No.14551185]

We do live in the age of Dharma Decline, Kali Yuga, The Last Days. According to some sects the traditional priestly and monastic practices - the so-called Right Hand Path - are out the window. In Tantra, only worshipping of Kali, Shiva and practicing the Left Hand Path (otherwise forbidden) can jump start you into salvation. Now according to this guy Shinran, only placing all your faith in the Bodhisattva can get you to be reborn in the Pure Land, and then achieve Nirvana from there. In a similar vein, Vaishnava Bhaktas believe that in the Kali Yuga all rituals of the Vedas are powerless and only chanting the name of Krishna can you achieve moksha.

[Anonymous No.14551195]

>>14551185
>Bodhisattva
I meant Amitabha Buddha

[Anonymous No.14551210]

>>14544187
>>14544217
>A single thread about Schuon
>not a single post on the entire board about Tage Lindbom

[Anonymous No.14551265]

>>14551210
>Tage Lindbom
No books on libgen.is no read

[Anonymous No.14551368]

>>14551265
here is an essay by him

http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/Public/articles/Virtue_and_Morality-by_Tage_Lindbom.aspx

[Anonymous No.14551453]

>>14550950
only sacramental protestantism not liberal protestantism that rejects the real presence. Besides how else could you explain mystics of the stature of Jakob boehme who reached heights on nondual realization?

[Anonymous No.14551487]

>>14551368
>Equilibrium in the created order comes neither from outward rules and standards nor from moralistic and social activity; it is attained through man’s inward state, through his certainty that his earthly mandate is a limited one subjected to the will of the Almighty.
>Man must recognize this cosmic totality and equilibrium. Constantly upsetting this equilibrium, he has nevertheless opportunities to re-instate primordial equilibrium in his own heart, and virtue is the means.
How much this constrasts with New Age ideas that state that we must revolutinize everything in order
>OMG WE'RE ASCENDING TO THE 4D!!1 HERE COMES THE PLEIADIANS! YOU NEED TO REVOLUTIONIZE EVERYTHING! QUESTION LIMITING BELIEFS! DO WHATEVER YOU LIKE YOU ARE A BEING OF LIGHT!!!!11
PS: yeah I participate in New Age and Neopagan gatherings, mainly to meet qt "spiritual" women. These are always packed with females. I'll convert to my ideas later. Imagine a Traditionalist meeting with old guys like pic related >>14551210

[Anonymous No.14551514]

>>14551453
>Besides how else could you explain mystics of the stature of Jakob boehme who reached heights on nondual realization?
I would guess it was that he probably studied Neoplatonic and Hermetic texts rather than him receiving anything through Protestantism

[Anonymous No.14551563]

dump his noodz already, gibs some Fritzcock Hardon.

[Anonymous No.14551604]

>>14551514
>I would guess it was that he probably studied Neoplatonic and Hermetic texts
He read Paracelsus, but his non-dual realization came to him in visions.
>rather than him receiving anything through Protestantism
That's the main thing. There's nothing to receive from Protestantism. There is no esoteric tradition. Guenon and Evola say that the relation between the esoteric and the exoteric is problematic already in Catholicism, what to say of Protestantism. All Protestant mystics were branded heretics by Protestant authorities. Those who escaped persecution founded their own sects. Boehme was persecuted by the Lutheran Church. Sects that had some kind of contemplative practice, without the guidance of a traditional doctrine and a regular priesthood, inevitably went the way of liberal universalism (see Quakers).

[Anonymous No.14551824]

>>14551514
>>14551604
He received initiation, and that is all that matters, otherwise his learning would be ineffectual.

[Anonymous No.14551967]

>>14551824
>He received initiation
initiation into what lmfao
protestantism is not a valid body of traditional knowledge and can not innitiate one into it
he was probably quite advanced himself by nature and was living in better times, so he could have discovered the truth without his protestantism hindering him

[Anonymous No.14551985]

He was a chomo and a cult leader, as I recall. As annoying as Guenonposting is, Guenon was just an intellectual with a weird face and some idiosyncratic ideas. Schuon was a monster.

[Anonymous No.14551997]

>>14548451
>>14548486

http://traditionalhikma.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/The-Logic-of-the-Absolute-the-Metaphysical-Writings-of-Rene-Guenon-by-Peter-Samsel-.pdf

[Anonymous No.14552044]

Where does the hate for Schuon come from? All his criticism comes from dubious sources at best.

[Anonymous No.14552049]

>>14544235

[Anonymous No.14552077]

>>14552044
Schizofag perceives it as one of his best "smear by association" tactics when he is rooting through his bag of tactics that he uses when he wants to derail Traditionalism/Eastern philosophy threads. Even though people have replied to him countless times saying "that was never proved, the one guy who alleged it was shown in court to have been an unreliable witness with a history of false accusations etc etc", it's just too controversial and attention-grabbing for him to just stop using it as a tactic. You can see even in this thread
>>14545390
>>14545422
>>14545432
he tried to harp on it really hard at the beginning of the thread but gave up when people cornered him and simply asked for sources without replying to anything else he said. Expect to see him again repeating the same accusations without sources in every single Schuon thread ever posted on this board.

Aside from that some of his takes are a little questionable but he is still an interesting read if you like Guenon etc.

[Anonymous No.14552198]

>>14544187

The conceptions of Ramanuja are contained in those of Shankara and are transcended by them. When Shankara sees in the localization and duration of sensory objects a direct and tangible manifestation of their unreality, he does not say, as Ramanuja seems to have believed, that they do not exist as objects, but he says that as existing objects they are unreal. Ramanuja affirms against Shankaracharya truths which the latter never denied on their own level. Ramanuja shows a tendency to put everything in a concrete form as a function of the created world, and this indeed corresponds both with the Vishnuite point of view and with the Western outlook which shares the same perspective. The antagonism between Shankara and Nagarjuna is of the same order as that which opposes Ramanuja to Shankara, with this difference, however, that, if Shankara rejects the doctrine of Nagarjuna, it is because the form of the latter corresponds – independently of its real content and of the spiritual virtuality it represents – to a more restricted perspective than that of the Vedanta. When, on the other hand, Ramanuja rejects the doctrine of Shankara it is for the opposite reason. The perspective of Shankara goes beyond that of Ramanuja, not merely in respect of its form, but in respect of its very basis.

In order really to understand Nagarjuna, or the Mahayana in general, one must before everything else take account of two facts, first that Buddhism presents itself essentially as a spiritual method and so subordinates everything to the point of view of method and, secondly, that this method is essentially one of negation. From this it follows, on the one hand, that metaphysical reality is considered with reference to method, that is as "state" and not as "principle," and, on the other hand, that it is conceived in negative terms: Nirvāna, Extinction, or Shūnya, the Void. In Buddhist wisdom, affirmation has the same meaning and function as subjectivism, and hence ignorance, in Hindu wisdom. To describe Nirvāna or Shūnya in positive terms would amount, in Vedantine language, to wishing to know the pure Subject, the Divine Consciousness, Ātmā, on the plane of objectification itself, hence on the plane of ignorance.

[Anonymous No.14552205]

>>14552198

When Westerners refer to something as being "positive" they almost always think of manifestation, of the created; hence their preference for the perspective of Ramanuja and their mistake in attributing "abstractions" to Shankara – or to Plato. God is abstraction for the world because the world is abstraction in relation to God. Now it is God who is real, not the world. People often believe that the content of a statement is false to the extent that the enunciation can be attacked by dialectics. Now every statement the is every transcendent truth, can be contradicted by arguments drawn from experience. Shankara never said that the inevitably human formulation of truth, bearing for instance on absolute Consciousness, could not be attacked; he said that such formulations were intrinsically true and something that the reason alone could not verify. When the Advaitins say that Consciousness has such and such a nature and that the example of deep sleep shows it, that does not at all mean that they themselves had need of this example or that they could be discomfited by a demonstration of the gaps it necessarily contains. Clearly it is not because of a contrary aspect but because of an analogy that one has recourse to an example. Contrary aspects do exist but they are not relevant here. If we say that, compared to an opaque body, any light is like the sun, the fact that this light has neither the form, nor the dimensions, nor the matter of the sun is absolutely without significance in this connection; moreover, if the example differed in no way from the thing to be demonstrated, it would be, not an example, but the thing itself.

Intellectual intuition communicates a priori the reality of the Absolute. Reasoning thought infers the Absolute by starting from the relative; thus it does not proceed by intellectual intuition, though it does not inevitably exclude it. For philosophy, arguments have an absolute value; for intellectual intuition their value is symbolical and provisional. Shankara did not "construct a system"; he did not "seek a solution" of such and such a "problem." He did not suffer from what he himself calls the disease of doubt. Shankara is like a colorless glass which allows the rays of light to pass through it intact whereas Ramanuja might be compared to a colored glass which also transmits light, but imparts to it a certain tint; this is to say that Ramanuja's doctrine also is inspired and not invented. Sages are instruments for the crystallizing of the pure Light; they are anything but inventors of systems. It is intellection that determines everything; the mode of expression is dictated by the requirements of the particular traditional form. With philosophers in the ordinary meaning of the word the initiative comes from the human side, from mental restlessness, from doubt, from lack of contemplative quality; their attitude is Promethean, not prophetic.

- Schuon, 'Language of the Self'

[Naiveté No.14552346]

Attributing a naive outlook to everyone who lived in the past is the simplest way of exalting oneself, and it is all the easier and more tempting because it is founded in part on accurate though fragmen- tary observations, which can be made the most of—with the help of mistaken generalizations and arbitrary interpretations—when linked to a progressivist evolutionism. It is necessary first of all to come to some agreement as to what naiveté means. If to be naive is to be direct and spontaneous, to know nothing of dissimulation and subterfuge and doubtless also nothing of certain experiences, then unmodernized peoples certainly possess—or possessed—that kind of naiveté; but if it is merely to be without intelligence or critical sense and to be open to all kinds of deception, then there is certainly no reason to suppose that our contemporaries are any less naive than our ancestors.

[Naiveté No.14552352]

>>14552346
However that may be, there are few things that the “insulated” being who calls himself “a man of our times” endures less read- ily than the risk of appearing naive; everything else can go by the board so long as the feeling of not being duped by anything is safe- guarded. In reality the acme of naiveté is to believe that man can escape from naiveté on every plane and that it is possible for him to be integrally intelligent by his own efforts; whoever seeks to gain all things by cleverness ends by losing all in blindness and ineffectual- ity. Those who reproach our ancestors with having been stupidly credulous forget in the first place that one can also be stupidly incredulous, and in the second place that the self-styled destroy- ers of illusion live on illusions that exemplify a credulity second to none; for a simple credulity can be replaced by a complicated one, adorned with the arabesques of a studied doubt that forms part of the style, but it is still credulity: complication does not make error less false, nor stupidity less stupid.

[Naiveté No.14552358]

Contrary to the popular image of a hopelessly naive Middle Ages and a breathtakingly intelligent twentieth century must be set the fact that history does not abolish simplicity of outlook, but merely displaces it, together with the fact that the most flagrant form of naiveté is to fail to see naiveté where it exists; moreover there is nothing more simplistic than a pretension to “begin from scratch” on every plane, nor than the systematic—and unbelievably insolent—self-uprooting that characterizes certain tendencies of the contemporary world. It is fashionable to regard not only the people of the Middle Ages but even those of fairly recent generations as having been duped in every possible way, so that to resemble them would be a matter for shame; in this respect the nineteenth century seems almost as remote as the Merovingian age. Opinions now current prove that people think themselves incomparably more “realistic” than anyone has ever been, even in the recent past; “our time” or “the twentieth century” or “the atomic age” seems to hover, like an uprooted island or a fabulously “clearheaded” monad, above millennia of childishness and blundering. The contemporary world is like a man ashamed of having had parents and wanting to create himself, and to recreate space, time, and all the physical laws, or seeking to extract from nothingness a world objectively perfect and subjectively comfortable, and all this by means of a creative activity independent of God or opposed to God; the unfortunate thing is that attempts to create a new order of Being can only end in self- destruction.

[Naiveté No.14552367]

>>14552358
The average young person of today tends, it seems, to hold our fathers responsible for all ills; that is a completely absurd atti- tude, for not only could our fathers reproach their fathers in the same way, and so on for ever, but there is also nothing to prove that children of the present-day youth will not one day have solid reasons to level the same reproach at their elders. If these young people make themselves out to be innocent in principle because they have no ideology and are not interested in politics, they forget that a world can go adrift precisely for that reason; a misfortune can come about because someone does something, but it can also come about because no one does anything, all the more so in that no one is alone in the world and others take on the job of thinking and acting for those who wish to do neither. Contemporary man has collected a great mass of experiences and is therefore rather disillusioned, but the conclusions he draws from it are so false that they virtually reduce to nothing all that has been gained, or ought to have been gained.

[Naiveté No.14552376]

A fact that can lead to error, and one that is not left unexploited, is the analogy between the childhood of individuals and that of peo- ples; the analogy is only partial, however, and in a certain respect it is even inverse, the collectivity being in this respect the oppo- site—or the inverted image—of the individual. In fact, whereas in individuals it is age that normally represents wisdom, in a tra- ditional collectivity, as well as in humanity considered as a whole, wisdom coincides with the origin, that is to say, with the “apostolic period” in a civilization and with the “golden age” in humanity as a whole; but just as every civilization declines, like humanity itself, as it gets farther from its origins and nearer to the “end times”, so does the individual decline, at least physically, with age; and just as the period of Revelation or the “golden age” is a time when Heaven and earth are in contact and when Angels speak with men, so the childhood of the individual is in some respects a time of innocence, of happiness, and of nearness to Heaven; there is therefore a direct analogy between individual life and the cycles of the collectivity, and this is in parallel with an inverse analogy that situates wisdom at the origin of the life of the collectivity and at the end of the life of the individual. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that an old society has gathered experiences and developed arts—though this is merely an outward expression—and it is precisely this fact that leads to error when the postulates of evolutionism are accepted a priori.

[Naiveté No.14552381]

>>14552376
There is clearly an important distinction between a naiveté that is intrinsic and one that is extrinsic; an extrinsic naiveté exists only accidentally and in relation to a world that is the product of certain experiences, but it is full of hypocrisy, useless cleverness, and dissim- ulation; how could a man who is unaware of the existence of false- hood, or who knows it only as a deadly and exceptional sin, appear as otherwise than ingenuous to a mean-spirited and artful society? To a pathologically crafty person every normal man seems naive; for the swindlers it is the honest fellows who are artless. Even where a certain critical sense exists, it is far from constituting a superiority in itself, being merely an excrescence produced by an environment in which everything is falsified: it is thus that nature produces self- defensive reflexes and adaptations that can be explained only by a particular environment or prevailing circumstances; there is no difficulty in admitting that the physical particularities of an Eskimo or Bushman do not in themselves constitute a superiority.

[Naiveté No.14552390]

If the men of old sometimes appear ingenuous, it is often because they are considered from a distorted point of view, which is the result of a more or less generalized corruption; to accuse them of being naive amounts to applying a law to them retroactively, to express ourselves in legal terms. Likewise, if an ancient writer can give the impression of simplemindedness, this is largely because he did not have to take account of a thousand errors still unknown nor of a thousand possibilities of misinterpretation, and also because there was no need for his dialectic to be like the Scottish dance between the eggs, seeing that such an author could in a large mea- sure dispense with nuances; words still possessed a freshness and a fullness—or a magic—which it is difficult for us to imagine, living as we do in a climate of verbal inflation. Naiveté occurring merely from a lack of experience is of course a purely relative affair: men in general, and collectivities in any case, cannot help being unsophisticated about experiences which they have not had and which concern possibilities they are not able to foresee, and it is easy for those who have had such experi- ences to judge the inexperience of others and believe themselves superior; the worth of men is not decided by their accumulation of experience, but by their capacity to profit from it. We may be more perspicacious than others with regard to what we have experienced, but at the same time more naive than they with regard to what we have yet to experience—or what we are incapable of experiencing, while others may have done so in our place; for it is one thing to have lived through an event and another to have drawn the right conclusions from it. Playing with fire because one does not know that it burns is no doubt a kind of naiveté, but jumping into a river because one has burnt a finger is certainly no better, for to be unaware that fire burns is no more naive than to be unaware that one can escape from fire otherwise than by drowning. The great, the classic, error is that of curing abuses by other abuses—appar- ently of less significance but really more fundamental inasmuch as they compromise principles; in other words it is the error of getting rid of the disease by killing the patient.

[Naiveté No.14552399]

>>14552390
There is a kind of naiveté with which our ancestors could be reproached on the plane of the physical sciences and which takes the form of a certain confusion between domains: because of a lack of experience or observation—although in itself this is cer- tainly nothing to worry about—they were sometimes inclined to overestimate the scope of cosmic correspondences; for this reason they tended imprudently to apply to one order laws applicable to another and hence to believe, for instance, that salamanders can resist fire, and even put it out, owing to certain properties of these batrachians and even more to a confusion between them and the “fiery spirits” of the same name; the men of old were all the more liable to such mistakes because they still knew from experience the protean character of the subtle substance that envelops and penetrates the material world—in other words, because the barrier between the corporeal and psychic states was less solidified than in later periods. In return, the men of today are themselves relatively excusable on this same plane, but in a contrary sense, in that their total lack of experience of perceptible psychic manifestations seems to confirm them in their materialism; nonetheless, whatever the inexperience of modern man in things belonging to the psychic or subtle order, there are still phenomena of this kind, which are by no means inaccessible to him in principle, but he labels them a priori as “superstitions” and abandons them to occultists.

[Naiveté No.14552409]

Acceptance of the psychic dimension is in any case a part of religion: one cannot deny magic without straying from faith; so far as miracles are concerned, their cause surpasses the psychic plane, though their effects come by way of it. In the language of theologians the term “superstition” tends to be confusing because it expresses two entirely different ideas, namely, a wrong application of religious sentiment, on the one hand, and a belief in unreal or ineffectual things, on the other; thus spiritualism is called “super- stition”, but rightly so only with respect to its interpretations of phenomena and its cult, and not with respect to the phenomena themselves; on the other hand sciences like astrology are perfectly real and effectual and imply no deviation of a pseudo-religious kind. The term “superstition” should really not be applied to sci- ences or facts that people ignore and ridicule without understand- ing them at all, but to practices which are either intrinsically useless or totally misunderstood and which are called upon to make up for the absence of spiritual attitudes or effectual rites; no less super- stitious is a false or improper interpretation of a symbol or some coincidence, often in conjunction with fantastic fears or scruples, and so on. In these days the word “superstition” no longer means anything; when theologians use it—the point bears repetition—one never knows whether they are censuring a concrete diabolism or a mere illusion; for them a magical act and a pretence at magic look like the same thing, and they do not notice the contradiction inher- ent in declaring in the same breath that sorcery is a great sin and that it is nothing but superstition.

[Naiveté No.14552469]

>>14552409
But let us return to the scientific naiveté of the men of old: according to Saint Thomas Aquinas, “an error concerning the creation engenders a false science of God”; this does not mean that knowledge of God demands a total knowledge of cosmic phe- nomena—a completely unrealizable condition in any case—but that our knowledge must be either symbolically true or physically adequate; in the second case it must retain for us a symbolic intelli- gibility, for without this all science is vain and harmful. For example, human science has the right to stop short at, or restrict itself to, the view that the earth is flat and that the heavens revolve, since the spiritual symbolism reflects adequately a real situation; but the evolutionary hypothesis is a proposition at once false and perni- cious, since—besides being contrary to the nature of things—it deprives man of his essential significance and at the same stroke ruins the intelligibility of the world.

[Naiveté No.14552479]

In any human science dealing with phenomena, there is always an element of error; we cannot attain to more than a relative knowledge in this domain, but taken as a whole this can be sufficient in the context of our spiritual sci- ence. The ancients knew the laws of a nature that can be perceived directly: their astronomy was founded more or less on appearances, and though it included errors in the material field—but not in the spiritual field, since appearances are providential and have a meaning for us—this deficiency is largely compensated for by the comprehensiveness of traditional knowledge, which in fact takes account of Angels, Paradises, demons, hells, and the non-evolu- tionary spontaneity of the creation—that is, the crystallization of celestial Ideas in the cosmic substance—as well as the apocalyptic end of the world and many other such facts; these facts, whatever their mythical vesture, are essential to human beings.

[Naiveté No.14552493]

>>14552479
On the other hand, a science that denies them, prodigious though it may be in the material observation of sensible phenomena, could never claim the principle enunciated by Saint Thomas, first because a know- ledge of essential things takes precedence over a knowledge of secondary things, and second because a knowledge that excludes the essentials of creation, both in fact and in principle, is incomparably more remote from an exact and complete adequation to truth than a science that is apparently “naive” but whole. If it is “naive” to believe—because one sees it that way—that the earth is flat and that the sky and stars revolve around it, it is no less “naive” to take the world of the senses to be the only world, or the whole world, and to believe that matter—or energy if one prefers— is Existence as such; such errors are indeed incomparably greater than that of the geocentric system. Furthermore, the materialist and evolutionary error is, it must be insisted, immeasurably harmful, whereas a primitive and “natural” cosmology is nothing of the kind; this shows that there is no common measure at all between the insufficiency of the ancient cosmography and the overall—we do not say “partial”—falsity of a Promethean and titanic science, whose principle was bequeathed to us from the decadence of Greece.

[Naiveté No.14552500]

And this is characteristic of the ravages of scientism and its spe- cial psychology: if one remarks to a convinced believer in progress that man could not possibly endure psychologically the conditions on another planet—and there is talk of colonizing other planets to relieve terrestrial over-population—he will answer without batting an eyelid that a new kind of man with the necessary qualities will be produced; such unawareness and insensibility are not far from the inhuman and monstrous, for to deny what is total and inalien- able in man is to scoff at the divine intention that makes us what we are and that has consecrated our nature through the “Word made flesh”. Tacitus laughed at the Germans who tried to stop a torrent with their shields, but it is no less naive to believe in plan- etary migration or to believe in the establishment by purely human means of a society fully satisfied and perfectly inoffensive, and con- tinuing to progress indefinitely. All this proves that man, though he has inevitably become less naive in some things, has nevertheless learned nothing as far as essentials are concerned, to say the least; the only thing that man left to himself is capable of is to “commit the oldest sins the newest kind of ways”, as Shakespeare would say. And the world being what it is, one is doubtless not guilty of a truism in adding that it is better to go to Heaven naively than to go intel- ligently to hell.

[Naiveté No.14552507]

>>14552500
When one tries to reconstruct the psychology of the men of old, one nearly always makes the serious mistake of failing to take into account the inward repercussions of the corresponding outward manifestations: what matters is not a superficial improvement but the effectiveness of our attitudes toward the Invisible and the Abso- lute. Ways of thinking and acting that may sometimes surprise us by their appearance of ingenuousness—especially in the lives of the saints—often conceal an efficacy that is for that very reason all the more profound; despite the fact that in more recent times man has accumulated a mass of experience and much cleverness, he is certainly less “authentic” and less “effectual”, or less sensitive to the influx of the supernatural, than were his distant ancestors; though he may smile—he the “civilized” man who has become “adult”—at some apparently artless piece of reasoning or at an attitude that is a priori childish or “pre-logical”, the inward effectiveness of these points of reference eludes him. It never seems to occur to historians and psychologists that the surface components of human behavior are always relative and that a plus or a minus on that plane alone is never decisive, since only the internal mechanism of our contact with higher states or celestial prolongations is of real importance; the mental distance between a living “primitive” and a “civilized” person is regarded as equivalent to thousands of years, but experi- ence proves that this distance, where it exists, is equivalent to no more than a few days, for man is everywhere and always man.

[Naiveté No.14552527]

It is not naiveté and superstition alone that shift their position; intel- ligence does so as well, and they all move together; it is possible to satisfy oneself of this by reading philosophical texts or art criticism, where an obstinate individualism strides upon the stilts of a preten- tious pseudo-psychology; it is as if one wished to borrow the subtlety of a Scholastic and the sensitivity of a troubadour in order to say whether the temperature is hot or cold. A monstrous expenditure of mental ability is incurred in setting out opinions that have no relation to intelligence; those who are not well endowed intellectu- ally by nature learn how to play at thinking and cannot even manage without this imposture, whereas those who are well endowed are in danger of losing their ability to think by falling in with the trend. What looks like an ascent is really a descent: ignorance and lack of intelligence are at ease in a wholly superficial refinement, and the result is a climate in which wisdom takes on the appearance of naiveté, uncouthness, and reverie. In our day everyone wants to appear intelligent; one would prefer to be accused of crime than of naiveté if the accompanying risks could be avoided. But since intelligence cannot be drawn from the void, subterfuges are resorted to, one of the most prevalent being the mania for “demystification”, which allows an air of intelli- gence to be conveyed at small cost, for all one need do is assert that the normal response to a particular phenomenon is “prejudiced” and that it is high time it was cleared of the “legends” surrounding it; if the ocean could be made out to be a pond or the Himalayas a hill, it would be done.

[Naiveté No.14552533]

>>14552527
Certain writers find it impossible to be con- tent with taking note of the fact that a particular thing or person has a particular character or destiny, as everyone had done before them; they must always begin by remarking that “it has too often been said”, and go on to declare that the reality is something quite different and has at last been discovered, and that up till now all the world has been “living a lie”. This strategy is applied above all to things that are evident and universally known; it would doubtless be too naive to acknowledge in so many words that a lion is a carnivore and that he is not quite safe to meet. However that may be, there is naiveté everywhere and there always has been, and man cannot escape from it, unless he can surpass his humanity; in this truth lie the key and solution to the problem. For what matters is not the question of knowing whether the dialectic or demeanor of a Plato is naive or not, or whether they are so to a certain extent and no further—and one would like to know where the absolute standards of all this could be found—but exclusively the fact that the sage or the saint has an inward access to concrete Truth; the simplest formulation—doubtless the most “naive” for some tastes—can be the threshold of a Knowledge as complete and profound as possible.[“Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven” (Matt. 5:3); ”But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil” (Matt. 5:37); “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven” (Matt. 18:3); “Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed” (John 20:29).]

[Naiveté No.14552539]

>>14552533
If the Bible is naive, it is an honor to be naive; if the philoso- phies that deny the Spirit are intelligent, there is no such thing as intelligence. Behind a humble belief in a Paradise situated among the clouds there is at least a foundation of inalienable truth, but more than that—and this is something priceless—there is a mer- ciful reality that never disappoints.

[Anonymous No.14552588]

>>14544187
Wasn't he the guy who liked running around nked, emulating a 'return to a child-like state' because he allegedly saw a dream where the Buddha had indecent relations with Our Lady The Virgin Mary (peace be upon her)?

[Anonymous No.14553011]

even Big Daddy G gave up on the guy when he lost the plot.

[Anonymous No.14553088]

>>14552588
Oh shit
Abandon ship
Abandon ship

[Anonymous No.14553096]

>>14552588
>>14553011
I wonder why Guenon could not sense his heresy and perversion from the outset. To me it seemed obvious with both schueon, ebola and some other elements before even knowing anything about them. Guenon seemed to be very aware of magic and other perversive forces, so I wonder if he believed that these guys were rotten but still could be saved.

[Anonymous No.14553165]

>>14545645
>>14545725
>>14545740
>>14545762
>MY KIND SIR I AM GANEESH SHINKAR I AM VAISHYA I AM DUING DUE DILIGANCE PLEASE LISTEN TO MY VEDA INTERPATESHEN GOOD SIR!
>NO, MY POO INTERPETATION OF MY POO RELIGION IS BETTER BECAUSE I POO IN LOO! I AM BRAHMIN CASTE I AM ARJUNA-VISHNA MAHEESH! ॐ

[Anonymous No.14553214]

>>14553165
>you need to actually commit to pooing in loo to attain metaphysical knowledge
What a deep religious tradition... It's truly a shame they do not initiate westerners. I would drop my current life immediately and move to some comfy Traditionalist shitting street.

[Anonymous No.14553256]

>>14553088
>Oh shit
Speaking of shit... Does anyone know the best street to read Shankaracharya's Upanishad commentaries on? I'm staying in Delhi right now.

[Anonymous No.14553453]

>>14553165
Holy fuck that image

[Anonymous No.14553459]

>>14552588
Yup

"That said, in 1980 Schuon, his family, entourage and disciples moved from Switzerland to Bloomington, Indiana, and henceforth made it the Maryamiyyah's headquarters. A series of scandals and public defections rocked the cult throughout the 1980s, and in the early 1990s Schuon was even briefly indicted by an Indiana Grand Jury. These scandals stemmed from Schuon's "Primordial Gatherings" in Bloomington were scantily clad members of the Maryamiyyah --- with Schuon sometimes appearing completely naked donning only a Native American Lakota head-dress -- would publicly engage in activities resembling something between a Native American pow-wow, a Sufi majlis and a Tantric maithuna ceremony. However, the scandals were very swiftly covered up and the public prosecutors and attorneys involved against the Maryamiyyah were eventually intimidated and browbeaten by unknown, behind-the-scenes actors to drop the case against Schuon: a case, I might add, involving allegations by ex-members of criminal sexual impropriety in the presence of minors (including paedophilia and related felonies). Schuon was also accused of forcing some of his leading disciples to divorce their wives, which he would then promptly re-marry as his "vertical" or 'spiritual' wives [6]."

>On October 11th 1991, Frithjof Schuon, the leader of an international religious order, was indicted on the felony charge of child molestation. committed under "cult pressure and influence". The indictment, passed down by a five member Grand Jury, headed by Lucy Cherbas, stated: "that Frithjof Schuon... did perform fondling or touching [on three girls] 15 years of age, 14 years of age and 13 years of age, respectively, with the intent to arouse or satisfy sexual desires of Frithjof Schuon, in violation of I.C. 35-42 43. [And that] said persons were compelled to submit to touching by force or imminent threat of force, to wit: by undue cult influences and cult pressures, in violation of 35-42-4-8."

[Anonymous No.14553752]

>>14544187
desu, out of all of the "traditionalists" I care for Schuon prolly the least; same boring dogmatic non-dualism, literally incapable of conceiving anything above this, I mean just look at the guy, self-stylized guru

[Anonymous No.14554118]

>>14553459
>no source

[Anonymous No.14554131]

>>14553459
he was acquitted, the guy who accused him was of a dubious character himself, now hes eternally butthurt and write 1000page rants against traditionalism on the internet, clearly mentally stable.

[Anonymous No.14554231]

>>14554131
>now hes eternally butthurt and write 1000page rants against traditionalism on the internet, clearly mentally stable.
>yfw he is the notoriously mentally unstable antiguenonfag

[Anonymous No.14554328]

>>14554231
the anti-guenonfag

[Anonymous No.14554409]

>>14554328
ok guenonfag

[Anonymous No.14554414]

>>14554409
oh hi mark.

[Anonymous No.14554422]

the virgin Guenon, who only got to diddle his niece until social services took her away, versus the Chad Schuon, with his harem of willing women and his friends' wives.

[Anonymous No.14555011]

>>14553256
Shankara says always be sure to do it on a street that has been recently manually scavenged

https://youtube.com/watch?v=4MK5o9Vhiqk

[Anonymous No.14555198]

>>14555011
Any good literature on india's failure to eliminate the caste system? Or generally on why the country is such a shithole like this?

[Anonymous No.14555240]

>Millions of threads about Guenon
>Not a single one about Idries Shah
What the fuck?

[Anonymous No.14555254]

>>14555011
>lowest rung of the caste system
>sometimes vendors will tell them away
>sometimes someone will sell them a cup of tea, provided they stand outside
How can you tell if someone is low cast? By the surname? Is there a physica marker? I can't tell the difference...

[Anonymous No.14555292]

>>14555254
>How can you tell if someone is low cast?
when they say "i'm from india, the land conquered and bullied by every one of its neighbors for two thousand years"

[Anonymous No.14555319]

Mysticism/Esoterism has just been one big cope for me. I'm not saying it is for everyone, but personally, I say that everything is temporal not because it truly is, but because I'm lonely and can't change it. It is pathetic and I had something of a Dionysian relapse yesterday, horribly indulging in everything one could imagine.

If you have not experienced the pleasures of the world, you can't renounce them since you don't even know what you are renouncing. You are casting off a cloak that you never had to begin with. You will notice how almost all spiritually advanced men and women are of a beautiful disposition. Pic related. They are the ones who truly know what it means to renounce the world. I feel as if I will never progress anywhere because of this horrid isolation and ugliness of spirit that strikes me to the core.

[Anonymous No.14555323]

>>14555319
>If you have not experienced the pleasures of the world, you can't renounce them since you don't even know what you are renouncing.

Is that why Schuon started a weirdo sex cult and was brought up on charges of pedophilia?

[Anonymous No.14555333]

>>14555323
I have no idea about Schuon's life. Too much he said she said for me to comment

[Anonymous No.14555335]

>>14555319
>They are the ones who truly know what it means to renounce the world.
Makes sense.

[Anonymous No.14555369]

>>14554118
>no source
Actually, that comes from interviews from former members of Schoun larping cult. Againt the Modern World have the whole list, with you are interested.

[Anonymous No.14555371]

>>14544187
aren't they simillar or at lest not opposed?

[Anonymous No.14555628]

>>14555371
>aren't they simillar or at lest not opposed?
Guenon was a schizo, while Schuon was a legit charlatan that use his cult to get some pussy.

[Anonymous No.14555823]

>>14555369
Yeah Against the Modern World is one of the few places you can read the full story in print, there is also an article up on Academia.edu which is a mirror of a print essay. Also Sedgwick has said he received legal threats and maybe even other sorts of threats from Schuonians and had to cut a lot of shit from his book. Cultists are scary niggas.

But it is interesting that more of the Schuon crowd have started coming out online and talking about it. They have done nothing but confirm all the sordid things. Schuon was a fucked up individual.

[Anonymous No.14555941]

>>14555823
from Sedgwicks book:

A police investigation was started, and after some months it led to
Schuon’s indictment by a grand jury for child molesting and sexual battery.
The basis of the first charge was that women under 16 had allegedly been
present at the alleged “gatherings” and had allegedly been embraced by Schuon
along with the other women, and the basis of the second charge was that the
women who had allegedly allowed Schuon to press himself against their bodies
did so as a result of “undue cult influences and cult pressures.”87
These charges were later dropped by the prosecutor because there was
“insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution on these charges.”

The prosecutor told the press, “Insofar as [Schuon] has been labeled, a miscarriage
has occurred.”88 Most of the Inverness Farms community had been solid in
Schuon’s defense.89 The existence of secret “primordial gatherings” was denied,
as were sexual embraces by Schuon in general and embraces of minors
in particular.90 According to an Inverness Farms spokesperson, some of the
under-age girls who had allegedly been embraced were in fact elsewhere on
the dates in question.91 Even had the embraces occurred and been admitted,
Schuon would arguably not have been guilty of any offense under the laws of
Indiana, since both offenses require “the intent to arouse or satisfy . . . sexual
desires”;92 there is no suggestion that this was the case. Even Koslow now
accepts that Schuon’s intentions “were not primarily about sex, but about . . .
[Schuon’s] pursuit of absurd delusions of power.”93

So the charges were dropped, the existence of the "primordial gatherings" that the unreliable witness Mark alleged was denied as was the embrace of minors, some of the girls were shown to be elsewhere on the dates in question. There is no evidence to support that Schuon ever embraced underage girls while naked, the sole proof for this is Mark's allegation which the police found to be uncorroborated by the evidence. So in other words there is no evidence that Schuon fondled anyone aside from blog posts.

[Anonymous No.14556125]

>>14555941
Schuon infamous "vertical marriage" is backed up by evidence, however.

[Anonymous No.14556309]

>>14554422
>harem
>willing women
It's called "whores".

[Anonymous No.14556340]

>>14556309
Believe it or not, anon, in a harem the women willingly love the man and the man willingly loves the women. 99% of the time the man is not full of himself or overconfident either, like so many flirtatious chads these days are. Then the harem would be over immediately.

In a good harem, the man knows his place and is governed somewhat by the women and somewhat by himself. The women also know their place and every happily tries to advance forward in life with each other. Just like a traditional marriage. :3

[Anonymous No.14556368]

>>14556309
I honestly wouldn't call them "willing" in the normal sense of the word. The whole thing about cults is isolating its members from anything outside it so the top dog can make all kind of absurd demands that no one within the cult is willingly to challenge out of fear of being kick out and finding himself or herself penniless and friendless in the outside world.
In a sense cults are very infantilizing by making their members psychologically depended on the leader, which gains a paternal status and control of the cult and dictates its routine in detail.

[Anonymous No.14556428]

>>14555941
>a cult denied accusations of wrongdoing therefore there were no wrongdoing
Wow, they DENIED the accusations???

>According to an Inverness Farms spokesperson, some of the under-age girls who had allegedly been embraced were in fact elsewhere on the dates in question
Wait, wait, wait, let me get this straight. Schuon's cult community, Inverness Farms, when Schuon's cult was accused of weird sex rituals, had a SPOKESPERSON issue a STATEMENT that DENIED THE ACCUSATION?

Fucking slam dunk case right there!

[Anonymous No.14556434]

>>14556340
>floridan indian virgin expat larping that he supports harems and caste systems while living off parental money

Your LARP may be the strongest the world has ever seen.

[Anonymous No.14557368]

bumping with reminder that schuon was indicted for running a pedophile sex cult

[Anonymous No.14557475]

>>14557368
based

[Anonymous No.14557521]

Was Schuon's paedophilia integral to his esoteric beliefs? It seems like paedophilia is built right into Islam.

>e documentary on the Dancing Boys of Afghanistan. It exposed an ancient custom called "bacha bazi" (boy for play), where rich men buy boys as young as 11 from impoverished families for sexual slavery. The boys are dressed in women's clothes and made to dance and sing at parties, before being carted away by the men for sex. Owning boys is considered a symbol of status and one former warlord boasted of having up to 3,000 boys over a 20-year period, even though he was married, with two sons. The involvement of the police and inaction of the government means this form of child prostitution is widespread.

>However, men who sodomise young boys are not considered homosexuals or paedophiles. The love of young boys is not a phenomenon restricted to Afghanistan; homosexual pederasty is common in neighbouring Pakistan, too.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/apr/25/middle-east-child-abuse-pederasty

[Anonymous No.14557527]

>>14557521
pederasty in the world is as common as the apple pie

[Anonymous No.14557534]

>>14557527
Tell us more about the function of paedophilia in your religion please. Why is it so common in Islam in particular? Did Schuon do it incorrectly because he fondled young girls instead of young boys?

[Anonymous No.14557553]

>>14557534
you have to stimulate the first chakra, which is the anus. The semen ejaculated rises through the kundalini towards the brain. It's actually quite based.

[Anonymous No.14557581]

>>14557553
Interesting, thanks. I know Guenon promotes the consumption of the semen out of the woman's vagina after sex for retention purposes, but does this only count if it's one's own semen? Does Guenon believe in tantric cuckoldry as well?

[Anonymous No.14558214]

>>14544187
Name anything that Schuon actively contributed to perennial traditionalism. Everything is aped from Guenon or the Buddhists, and he fails to apprehend many of the concepts which Evola synthesised via Nietzsche and the modernists.

[Anonymous No.14558689]

>>14558214
schuon is the weakest one of them, he's also a massive embarrassment to the movement

[Anonymous No.14558854]

>>14548486
>>14551997
agreed; and very interesting and direct exposition in the article.
but then what is the sense of nothingness, of non-being (in another sense) that all that is in flux, time and space, is subject to? like, the existence here is different from the existence of Being. Being Is, things in flux was and will be; so our existence is closer to non-existence than to existence; as if we possess being in non-being (non-being not in the absolute sense).
it is as if this were the reflection (and an inversion) of the Absolute/Non-Being; That Unknowable/Ineffable being translated as an inconceivable nothingness, void, in this realm, for in the point of view of things of this realm (matter, individuality, ego) they are indeed nothing, absolute devoid of essence, existence in themselves, but they have a glimpse of existence engendered by the Eternal Light of Non-Being.

[Anonymous No.14558872]

>>14557534
The muslim world has different definitions of pedophilia from the west. It is perfectly normal in Islamic countries to use young boys for simple sexual release, more like masturbation than sex.

[Anonymous No.14559947]

Bump

[Anonymous No.14560874]

>>14557527
>>14558872
>muslims justifying pedophilia

nice

[Anonymous No.14560897]

>>14560874
>those are definitely muslims and not larpers

[Anonymous No.14562032]

>>14560897
if they're not muslims then why the fuck is pedophilia so common in islam

[Anonymous No.14562775]

bump

[Anonymous No.14562813]

>>14562032
because it's based

[Anonymous No.14563804]

bump

[Anonymous No.14564052]

Bump.