/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16327420]

Is he actually a good source in learning about eastern thought? I know he's a bit off the hook when he talks about western philosophy and etc. but I wouldn't know where else to go besides the source

[Anonymous No.16327428]

>>16327420
why do you need some french guy to tell you what they thought when you can just read the texts for yourself

[Anonymous No.16327437]

>>16327428
I don't think i'd be able to understand them on my own without some secondary source to be frank

[Anonymous No.16327465]

>>16327437
you should have more confidence in your own abilities, most editions have some kind of commentary or annotations now anyway

[Anonymous No.16327482]

> I know he's a bit off the hook when he talks about western philosophy
Really? Do you mind linking to examples? Do you know Guénon was a doctor of mathematics and western philosophy? Or did you build your idea of him through the distorted lens of 4chan shitposters who have either never read him or are simply too limited to grasp most of his more complex works? Guénon rarely engages deeply with philosophy anyways, the deeper analysis he gives of a western philosopher is that of Leibniz, but then he does so on more mathematical grounds. And Guénon has a few followers comprised of many reknowned intellectuals such as a bunch of mathematicians and physicists working at MIT, for example. In regard of this fact I doubt Guénon is as "off the hook" as many would like to paint him as. I have never seen anyone engage with his ideas on here, and understandably so, because mods have banned me numerous times trying to entertain serious discussion on traditionalism, while they left the deranged spammer keep soiling this board and the name of Guénon. So keep in mind that anything that will reach any semblance of coherence and interest will be terminated by jannies. Just read Guénon and leave this board.

[Anonymous No.16327483]

>>16327437
Easwaran translations of the upanishads and the gita. Good commentary and good translation.

[Anonymous No.16327526]

>>16327420
Yes he is, he mostly focuses on Vedanta but most of what he says about Hinduism is spot on, and I’ve found some important insights in his books which some other books lack. “Studies in Hinduism” is just a random collection of Hinduism-related essays and is worth reading but is not essential, Guenon’s book “Man and His Becoming According to the Vedanta” would be more important to read before proceeding deep into Hindu philosophy as the book introduces and gives overviews of a lot of the concepts and themes that reappear throughout the Upanishads and related texts. That book alone will explain enough that you could begin reading Shankara’s Upanishad commentaries afterwards and understand most of what was being talked about.

[Anonymous No.16327528]

>>16327482
How is it possible to be this based?

I did not read Studies in Hinduism yet, I'm currently in "Perspectives on initiation" but I want to get on it fast.

[Anonymous No.16327542]

>>16327526
I would be careful about reading Advaita Vedanta interpretations such as Shankara's as a commentary to the Upanishads, they are extremely reliant on Buddhist philosophy (Shankara is called a "cryptobuddhist" by most Hindus, and most scholars agree). If you want to read the Upanishads, work through them with editions and commentaries that aren't sectarian, or at least read an interpretation that is closer to the original meaning of the Upanishads, rather than Shankara's 9th century AD quasi-buddhism.

[Anonymous No.16327549]

>>16327482
>>16327526
Is this graph( >>16327528 )ok to follow through? Anything you would change?

[Anonymous No.16327560]

Yeah, it's great for learning about Traditionalism.

You'd be better off getting a text on Hinduism rather than Traditionalism, however, if you want to learn about Hinduism.

[Anonymous No.16327582]

>>16327542
This bot is incredible.
Every. Fucking. Time.

[Anonymous No.16327591]

>>16327549
> Anything you would change?
only to read Man and His Becoming first before Symbolism of the Cross and then Multiple States of the Being. These three are his main trilogy of metaphysical exposition and should be read in the above order since they build on and reference one another but the chart does not make that clear.

[Anonymous No.16327597]

>>16327542
>work through them with editions and commentaries that aren't sectarian, or at least read an interpretation that is closer to the original meaning of the Upanishads, rather than Shankara's 9th century AD quasi-buddhism.

What would you recommend

[Anonymous No.16327734]

>>16327597
That post is a bot created by some butthurt autistic buddhist, you can search it on warosu and see that it has been posted hundreds of times, inevitably always within minutes of any post with the word “Shankara”, no matter the time of day.

If you have never read the Upanishads before you may want to begin with a translation+notes by someone in the modern era, such as Olivelle’s, Radhakrishnan’s or Nikhilananda’s. The commentaries of medieval Hindu thinkers generally go into much more detail and are more inspiring than translations by modern scholars however. Out of all of the commentaries written by medieval/classical Hindu philosophers on the Upanishads, Shankara’s are by far the most comprehensive and worthwhile collection. Many of the other major Vedanta school founders and philosophers like Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Vallabha, Vijnanabhiksu, Bhaskara never wrote any Upanishad commentaries at all. The only other Vedanta philosopher to write Upanishad commentaries was Madhva, but his the writing in his works is very terse and lacking in general aesthetic value and he also takes a very fringe and unconventional interpretation of the texts.

Shankara is widely regarded as one of the most important Hindu philosophers, and Guenon (among other writers and scholars) writes in his books that Shankara is correct and that Shankara’s Advaita is the correct exegesis of the Upanishads, with the other non-dualist schools being different approaches to the same truth (in Guenon’s view). If you want to read Shankara’s Upanishad commentaries then begin with his set of 8 commentaries translated by Gambhirananda, and then read his Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya commentaries. Here are examples of Shankara’s Upanishad commentaries here.

https://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-Vol-1.pdf
https://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-vol2.pdf

[Anonymous No.16327754]

>>16327420
Memes aside I like the guy, I've read intro to Induism and I liked it, I' think I'll read Symbols of sacred science sooner or later.

[Anonymous No.16327795]

>>16327734
No, it's not a bot. Or rather, if it is, it's a sophisticated one, as it'll only post the make-guenonfag-butthurt copypasta in threads actually about the topics that Guenonfag likes to fling shit over. That is, it won't respond to random threads that some guy posted "Shankara" in, only threads about Guenon. It's also not the same copypasta, this one is a new one that only started cropping up about two months ago, people used to throw a different one at Guenonfag. But it makes you fags mad, so it's more likely that you guys just blew your load and now everyone on /lit/ hates you.

It also points out that you fags are wrong, and are intentionally misleading people. Advaita Vedanta is not "the" Hindu philosophy, it's not even the most popular. You guys always forget about Dvaitādvaita and Achintya Bheda Abheda, both of which can be lumped under Bhedabheda and actually predate Advaita Vedanta, Vishishtadvaita which is far more popular in India than Advaita Vedanta, Dvaita Vedanta, and Shuddhadvaita. This profound ignorance on your part just ends up confirming the Hindu/Buddhist/Sikh criticism of Advaita Vedanta as atheistic nihilist fedora tippers, as your rejection of any kind of practice or religious schema (so you can keep your fedora cred *tips*) is why the majority of Hindus consider Advaita Vedanta to be, y'know, atheistic nihilism.

[Anonymous No.16327808]

>>16327420

>Is he actually a good source in learning about eastern thought?
no he is crap like evola
this is why all the spineless men craving a spiritual daddy like them so much

>>16327437
>I don't think i'd be able to understand them on my own without some secondary source to be frank
you can't understand anything about asian teachings from white bourgeois clinging to spooks like making society great again

see the flies orbiting the turds >>16327482

[Anonymous No.16327809]

>>16327795
>Dvaitādvaita
>Achintya Bheda Abheda
>Bhedabheda
>Vishishtadvaita
>Dvaita Vedanta
>Shuddhadvaita
so wait, you mean that advaita vedanta isnt the only one?

[Anonymous No.16327836]

>>16327809
"Vedanta" just means "After the Vedas". In a loose sense, anything that is based off of the Upanishads can be said to be "Vedanta". The Upanishads are a codification of Indian oral philosophy and discussion, first written down in reaction to the Buddhist writing their scriptures down. The Upanishads aren't really "A text", as they're actually several groups of intellectual consensuses. These multiple consensuses form variously between 800BC to 200AD, in about four waves. The texts are then written down sometime after 200AD, but still remain in oral tradition up until the Medieval Period where the codified forms overtake the oral tradition. If you want an example, imagine if some guy made a book of /lit/'s opinion on Harry Potter. There's a hashed out consensus, made by a large number of people all giving their opinions and discussing over time. That's one of the books of the Upanishads: a written down discussion that has reached a loose consensus.

Guenonfag got these retards to believe that Shankara is the only one to actually read these, or even that he wrote them, which is an opinion that I've seen these morons voice. Advaita Vedanta is the most monistic of the various schools of thought that are generally grouped in with Vedanata ("Advaita Vedanta" literally means "non-dual after-the-vedas"), but there are other schools that are explicitly dualistic, looser forms of monism, and odd combinations between the two. There's also pluralistic schools within India, but these come from traditions that aren't really reacting to the Upanishads, although they do end up reacting to the Upanishads.

What this retard is doing is saying "lmfao just read Origen" to someone that is asking where to start with Western Philosophy. It's not just incorrect, it's wildly disingenuous.

[Anonymous No.16327848]

>>16327420
Did Guenon ever respond to the problems proposed by Heidegger?

[Anonymous No.16327991]

>>16327795
> You guys always forget about Dvaitādvaita and Achintya Bheda Abheda
nobody “forgets” about them, it’s just that people rarely have a reason to talk about them as nobody here has read their literature, and they are not studied as often and have less books published in English about them compared to the other Vedanta schools. You yourself have not even read the writings of those schools and are predictably only bringing them up so you can find things to whine about. This trite “reee why don’t you mention these semi-obscure schools which neither myself nor anyone else here has read the works of!?!?” is like the /lit/ eastern philosophy thread equivalent of pointlessly whining about muh underrepresented minorities. Do you actually have anything interesting to say about Hinduism or do you just come into these threads to complain?

[Anonymous No.16328071]

>>16327734
from here would I go to reading Guenon or? where would I go to learn more? Also, what's the difference between Easwaran and Shankara?

(respond quickly before the thread turns to shit)

[Anonymous No.16328111]

>>16327420
No, think about it. Have you ever interacted with a gueon fan? They are nonsensical idiot shit posters. Know a tree by its fruit.

[Anonymous No.16328134]

>>16328071
Easwaran is a contemporary translator, Shankara is an ancient commentator. People are advising you to read the texts thru the lens of his thinking.

I advise reading the original texts using your own intuition and only looking at these later commentators afterwards.

[Anonymous No.16328160]

>>16327808
>t. rebellious slave

[Anonymous No.16328177]

>>16328134
>I advise reading the original texts
I would if I could but I need an ENGLISH translation and I need to know the best one.

[Anonymous No.16328204]

>>16328177
sorry, i just meant [a translation of] the original texts, which one is best? idk, which exact text are you talking about. best bet generally is to research what's available and then judge (using your own intuition, i trust you!) which seems best among them... use previews on amazon or d/l the pdfs and see (first page or passage should be enough)

[Anonymous No.16328208]

>>16328204
also, judge editions based on what YOU are looking for, do you what something scholarly, or something for the general reader, do you want an adundance of footnotes or would that put you off, etc.

[Anonymous No.16328218]

>>16328208
you can also search the archive (warosu) and find in amongst the endless autism some opinions on the various translations of _________, etc.

[Anonymous No.16328232]

Do Christians freak out when you tell them they were influenced by Neo-Platonists? I don't see why there is so much extremely online autism around Mahayanist and Vedantist absolutisms having influenced each other. So what's the argument, that Shankara stole from Nagarjuna but that the oldest Upanishads predate the historical Buddha so it was really Hinduism all along? Buddhism is certainly not an orthodox reading of the Upanishads, Mahayana is not the original Buddhism, and Advaita Vedanta is not the majority view of Hindus. What conclusion is supposed to be drawn here, and why would it matter? Study what you like and draw your own conclusions about who got it right.

[Anonymous No.16328242]

>>16328071
>from here would I go to reading Guenon or? where would I go to learn more?
If you want to read Shankara’s Upanishad commentaries than all you should read first is Guenon’s first book (intro to hindu doctrines) and Man and His Becoming According to the Vedanta. Then after that you can begin reading Shankara’s commentaries, and after Shankara there is an abundance of other good Hindu literature/philosophy as well. If you want to first explore Guenon’s books on metaphysics you are best off just reading his books chronologically.

>Also, what's the difference between Easwaran and Shankara?
Shankara was an 8th century philosopher and theologian, Easwaran is a modern author whose translations of Hindu texts are aimed at a general western audience who are unfamiliar with eastern philosophy, they are accessible but also simplified.

[Anonymous No.16328273]

>>16327991
OP asked about Hinduism, not your minor cult. By your logic, you should be pointing him towards the Hare Krishnas, as they have far more stuff in English than Advaita Vedanta does.

[Anonymous No.16328353]

>>16328273
>not your minor cult
> Advaita Vedānta is one of the most studied and most influential schools of classical Indian thought.[27][28][29]

[Anonymous No.16328531]

>>16327482
Fucking based

[Anonymous No.16328546]

>perennialism

[Anonymous No.16329777]

ITT white people

[Anonymous No.16330114]

>>16327549
I recommend reading his books in chronological order. Guenon has a tendency to refer to ideas he previously discussed but not reiterating them (ex. "we have already discussed this in a previous work [footnote to the book and page number], so there is little point in dwelling on this further.") which can be annoying.

[Anonymous No.16330544]

>>16327597
avoid cryptobuddhism/advaita

its hinduism lite for western larpers

[Anonymous No.16330638]

>>16327734
>guenonfag the confirmed tranny cum lover and most notorious spammer in /lit/ history
>complaining about spam

Always amazing how slimy you are, doing such awful shit and then accusing others of it. Too bad for all your shitposting nobody even remembers you, all you accomplished was making people associate traditionalists with your childish behavior.

[Anonymous No.16330720]

>>16330544
>>16330638
I can't believe there's an infographic about guenonfag that's so m e t a

[Anonymous No.16330932]

>>16330638
It will never cease to surprise me how autistic some of the minds on 4chan are. It has never once struck my mind to post the exact same thing over and over again, day after day, or to argue with myself for the whatever sake. I just cannot understand why anyone does this out of all things, years on end, despite multiple bans and humiliations... It's so confusing. I have been - dare I say it - filtered.