/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16465792]

Memeing aside, im interested in two things on Guenon:
1. Why he didnt think christianity had any genuine esotericism left, even though it emphasizes metaphysical secrets more than other religions
2. Why he didnt like Buddhism

[Lon𝖊 Int𝖊ll𝖊ctu𝖆l !xVZee/J6YQ No.16465799]

>>16465792
1. Because he was totally unaware of Eastern Orthodoxy.
2. Because it's Hinduism but gay.

[Anonymous No.16465802]

>>16465799
Sorry but i dont listen to tripfags

[Anonymous No.16465810]

He did like buddhism, he was advaita which is just buddhism with the word brahman added on. Everyone in India has been calling advaita crypto-buddhism for 1000 years and as soon as westerners began studying it they went oh yeah this is just heavily buddhist influenced vedanta.

[Lon𝖊 Int𝖊ll𝖊ctu𝖆l !xVZee/J6YQ No.16465812]

>>16465802
>haha le stoopid tripfags fug off tribfagg xD
Was funny in 2015, you're beating a dead horse bud.

[Anonymous No.16465817]

>>16465792
Man, I haven’t read him but he’s on my list. I think those are excellent questions and you might even want to narrow down what you mean by Christianity (ie orthodoxy is extremely mystical). Since I haven’t read guenon, you mind summarizing his words on the subject?

[Anonymous No.16465835]

>>16465799
Btw prots and cats still have esotericism preserved via the alchemists

[Lon𝖊 Int𝖊ll𝖊ctu𝖆l !xVZee/J6YQ No.16465863]

>>16465835
>prots
>alchemy
Dude, you don't know what you're talking about. Shut up.

[Anonymous No.16465912]

>>16465792
>1. Why he didnt think christianity had any genuine esotericism left, even though it emphasizes metaphysical secrets more than other religions
He wanted to feel exotic
>2. Why he didnt like Buddhism
But not too exotic

[Anonymous No.16466006]

>>16465912
Horrible post

[Anonymous No.16466390]

>>16465792
What are you talking about? He wrote two books solely dealing with Christianity, or three if you count the Symbolism of the Cross.

[Anonymous No.16467468]

>>16465863
Martin luther literally has a quote condoning alchemy saying he likes it and ‘tis the philosophy of the ancients’
Ik that most of it occurred before the reformation, but i believe ive seen certain documents dated as past , only about a hundred years or so, but obviously the Muh enlightenment ended all that
Also tripfag lives dont matter an hero

[Anonymous No.16467477]

>>16465812

i hope your mother dies in her sleep tripfag

[Anonymous No.16468773]

>>16465792
>even though it emphasizes metaphysical secrets more than other religions
source?

[Anonymous No.16468790]

>>16468773
The divine mysteries? also you have plenty of apocryphal christian texts I guess

[Anonymous No.16469032]

>>16468773
Divine mysteries senpai

[Anonymous No.16469047]

>>16465792
>Why he didnt think christianity had any genuine esotericism left, even though it emphasizes metaphysical secrets more than other religions
he wanted that brown poon
>Why he didnt like Buddhism
he was too stupid to understand it

[Anonymous No.16469259]

Esotericism besides being a funny meme and interesting subject to converse about has no value beyond being able to look at things from a radically different point of view and the small bits of wisdom you could get from that. So it is said "a broken clock is right twice a day"

[Anonymous No.16469282]

>>16465799
>>1. Because he was totally unaware of Eastern Orthodoxy.
>He's never read the Cloud of Unknowing
The absolute state of tripfag intellectuals.

[Anonymous No.16469413]

>>16465792
1. Because these are not living traditions in the Catholic west
2. Even to this day there are huge disagreements and bitter fights over what Buddhism is. The version of Buddhism he rejected turns out to be mostly a meme version, and he later accepted Buddhism as it was presented to him by Coomaraswamy and Pallis.
In any case, however, he saw no added value over Vedanta and did not consider it a particularly important development

>>16465799
>muh (heretical) essence/energies

[Anonymous No.16469417]

>>16469413
I agree with this dude.
Also I'm just writing the word Shankara so it triggers the autistic bot:

[Anonymous No.16469639]

>>16469417
Whats wrong with shankara?

[Anonymous No.16469653]

>>16469639
Nothing but for a while, whenever you mentioned shankara or advaita vedanta on this board, a bot would come and spam an image saying "I would be careful with shankara...". It has been shut down, it seems.

[Anonymous No.16469694]

>>16465792
>emphasizes metaphysical secrets more than other religions
Islam was way more sophisticated with its mysticism at the time. He probably prefers mystical writings which is the star child of Islamic intellectual scholarship, instead of Christianity with its intellectual emphasis on theology.

[Anonymous No.16469784]

>>16469653
nope, that's already been debunked, it was just you reposting it pushing the idea that there's a bot (I actually tried it on a separate thread the first time you mentioned it without the so called bot response popping up). I'm surprised you're still persisting on this forced meme though.

[Anonymous No.16469790]

>>16469694
>He probably prefers mystical writings which is the star child of Islamic intellectual scholarship
Really? I thought it was considered borderline heretical by most Sunni authors.

[Anonymous No.16469903]

>>16469784
Then I simply fell for the meme as well, no need to be that paranoid anon, chill.

[Anonymous No.16469912]

>>16469790
No, not "really". Guénon makes a clear difference between Mysticism and Initiation, the former being obviously inferior to the latter.

[Anonymous No.16470871]

>>16469790
>I thought it was considered borderline heretical by most Sunni authors.
not really. Rumi and Ghazali are praised to this day and are embodiment of true piety, both have done great works on mystical literature and poetry.

[Anonymous No.16471844]

>>16470871
>Rumi
>True piety
he's far too heterodox

[Anonymous No.16471873]

>>16465863
>>16465812
>>16465799
>tripfag
You should just kill yourself

[Anonymous No.16472129]

>>16465812
>Ironic posting
Seems like you're the one stuck in the past.

[Anonymous No.16472257]

>>16465799
fpbp, this is actually the answer. Although even as an Orthodox Christian, the Church does extend outside of Orthodoxy purely by the flickering ashes of apostolic succession left in other denominations.
>>16465792
>even though it emphasizes metaphysical secrets more than other religions
Not really, the Church is pretty exoteric. Hence Saint Iranaeus said:
>One should not seek among others the truth that can be easily gotten from the Church. For in her, as in a rich treasury, the Apostles have placed all that pertains to truth, so that everyone can drink this beverage of life. She is the door of life.
Not the Church's fault people don't show up for homily or catechism. One could argue that catechesis is a process of initiation, but that information is open to everyone. Beyond the technical aspects of liturgical theology, the ability to recieve Communion, and the boundless volumes of information, the Church isn't as esoteric as it is made out to be.

[Anonymous No.16472271]

>>16465792
>2) Why didnt he like Buddhism

Because the man whose works form the end-game of all philosophy and theology and whose ideas form the lynchpin of Guénon’s metaphysics had this to say about it:

>From whatever new points of view the Buddha's system is tested with reference to its probability, it gives way on all sides, like the walls of a well, dug in sandy soil. It has, in fact, no foundation whatever to rest upon and hence the attempts to use it as a guide in the practical concerns of life are mere folly. Moreover Buddha, by propounding the three mutually contradicting systems, teaching respectively the reality of the external world, the reality of ideas only and general nothingness, has himself made it clear that he was a man given to make incoherent assertions or else that hatred of all beings induced him to propound absurd doctrines by accepting which they would become thoroughly confused…Buddha’s doctrine has to be entirely disregarded by all those who have a regard for their own happiness."

Śaṅkarācārya - Brahma Sutra Bhasya 2.2.32.

[Anonymous No.16472359]

Guenon didn't like anatman, which he held as a rejection of Tradition. Ironically, he does the COMPLETE opposite of Evola. Whereas Evola takes the Protestant view that only Theravada Buddhism is legitimate (from a Traditionalist perspective) because the Pali Canon is basically-the-Buddhist-Bible and the Mahayana are just making things up as they go along (this is incorrect, the Mahayana use like 99% of the non-Abhidharma texts in the Pali Canon, they just don't call it "The Pali Canon" because it's not in Pali), Guenon instead takes the Catholic view that that only the Mahayana was legitimate as they have more flashy aesthetics; he believed that the Theravada tradition had been corrupted by smelly jungle monkeys and worthless Pajeets who were perverting the Buddha's original doctrine, and that the Chinese had it all figured out.

Looking at his comments on Emptiness, he makes the same mistake that Advaita Vedanta does, in assuming that "Emptiness" must be a material, so there's an Emptiness, and Emptiness of Emptiness, an Emptiness of the Emptiness of Emptiness, and... etc, all the way down to God. "Al-fana of fana al-fana" he calls it. This is completely wrong, as any Buddhist could tell you: Emptiness is Empty, as all conditioned phenomena are. It's an adjective, not a noun. Indeed, in the MMK where Nagarjuna essentially comes up with Emptiness as we know it (the Buddha taught Emptiness, but Mahayana Buddhism uses Nagarjuna because blah blah blah history), he actually takes a huge shit on this idea as being wildly nihilistic. This is why Advaita Vedanta is considered a nihilistic heresy by the majority of Hindus, all Buddhists, and part of why Sufism is considered a wicked nihilistic heresy by orthodox Muslims, because of this right here.

[Anonymous No.16472472]

>>16472359
Why is that concept of Emptiness nihilistic, and why is it that Sufis are considered heretics because of that very concept?

[Anonymous No.16472519]

>>16472359
You are that hare Krishna idiot who always shows up in guenon threads claiming all hindus are hostile to Vedanta. Aren't you tired of this yet?

[Anonymous No.16472598]

>>16472359
> Looking at his comments on Emptiness, he makes the same mistake that Advaita Vedanta does, in assuming that "Emptiness" must be a material, so there's an Emptiness, and Emptiness of Emptiness, an Emptiness of the Emptiness of Emptiness, and... etc, all the way down to God.
How about post his actual words where he comments on emptiness instead of strawmanning his words? Buddhists have become notorious on this board for gaslighting and other duplicitous behavior, so until I see some quoted passages from Guenon’s books I’m calling BS

[Anonymous No.16472607]

>>16472472
Emptiness is not nihilism. Something that is "Empty" is something that has no intrinsic essence. That is to say, it exists because other things made it exist. You wouldn't be here if not for your parents; a building wouldn't exist without the bricks that make it up. This was accepted by all Buddhists, and still is. Nagarjuna is responding to the Abhidharmins, who tl;dr say that there are REALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLY tiny things called "dharmas" (no relation to "Dharma" in the sense of "Way") that actually do have intrinsic essence. Nagarjuna is saying no, you're wrong, they can't. The MMK deals with the implications of this. The school that comes from this, the Madhyamaka, comes to dominate Mahayana Buddhism. The Theravada is, meanwhile, reacting similarly, and agrees with Nagarjuna.

But Emptiness is itself Empty, as Emptiness is just a concept to describe reality. Emptiness has no intrinsic essence. For Buddhists, Emptiness is just an adjective meaning "is dependent upon other things". To postulate that Emptiness is a "thing", a substance, is to postulate that it has the intrinsic property of "being Empty", which is just reifying that "Nothing" exists. But if everything is Empty, and Emptiness is Nothingness, then you're saying that everything is actually Nothing, in an ultimate sense or a conventional sense. The Buddhists disagree with this, as again, things are real, just only conventionally so. Nagarjuna raises some other problems that come about if you say that "Nothing" can exist, so remember, Buddhist thought outright rejects the idea of "nothing" as a concept. Advaita Vedanta postulates that if you dig through the sea of Emptiness=Nothingness, you ultimately find God (Brahman) that all things are made up of.

Sufism, meanwhile, develops out of the Gandhara region by essentially absorbing Buddhist and Hindu thought into Islam. Whereas Advaita Vedanta says that God MAKES UP all things, Sufism says that God is constantly singing all things into existence. They're without essence, as the only thing that is, in any real sense, is God. This throws up major redflags in orthodox Islamic jurisprudence, as it means God doesn't have hands, and that people don't have souls. Thus, by saying this, you're directly contradicting the Quran, which... Y'know...

>>16472519
Not sure what you're talking about. It's clear you aren't, either. Most Hindus adhere to some form of Dualististic philosophy. Advaita isn't the only form of Vedanta, there's several.

[Anonymous No.16472618]

>>16472598
>>16472519
Could you get a trip so we can just filter you? We're getting sick of retroactively refuting you.

[Anonymous No.16472662]

>>16472607
>Sufism says that God is constantly singing all things into existence. They're without essence, as the only thing that is, in any real sense, is God. This throws up major redflags in orthodox Islamic jurisprudence, as it means God doesn't have hands, and that people don't have souls. Thus, by saying this, you're directly contradicting the Quran, which... Y'know...
I thought the Islamic stance was that the world is a reflection of God anyway, and that the world is constantly brought into being by God. How does Sufi monism contradict this? What is the dualistic other then?

[Anonymous No.16472677]

>>16472607
>Emptiness is not nihili-

Nagarjuna's claim that emptiness does not entail nihilism, because emptiness means simply that entities lack independent existence, is untenable. Nagarjuna's superficially convincing argument completely fails to address the real criticism which his opponents are making of his philosophy. Nagarjuna does not in fact deny only that there are independently existing entities. Nagarjuna denies also that there are any entities which arise independently of conceptual construction. Nagarjuna's opponents do not think that the universal dependent origination of entities would result in nihilism. But they do consider that, if all entities were to have, as Nagarjuna contends, conceptually constructed existence, then nihilism would indeed be entailed.

...

But it is not just that the notion that all entities are conceptual constructs precludes the possibility of a public world, and hence of compassionate activity. In addition, it would appear that Nagarjuna's opponents are right, after all, to accuse Nagarjuna of nihilism. For Nagarjuna is not merely saying- despite his apparent claims to the contrary- that entities are dependently originating, but further that all entities are entirely conceptually constructed. But if all entities are entirely conceptually constructed, then there can be nothing unconstructed out of which conceptually constructed entities can be constructed. And if there is nothing unconstructed out of which the conceptually constructed entities are constructed, then these conceptually constructed entities cannot exist. Conceptually constructed entity z might be constructed on the basis of y. Y might also be constructed on the basis of x. And so on. But at some point this regress must stop. Not everything can be a product of conceptual construction, because 'conceptual construction' requires a basis or material which is not itself conceptually constructed. To claim otherwise would be to advocate that the entire world is created ex nihilo!

[Anonymous No.16472683]

>>16472677
One can see here, perhaps, the cause of the Abhidharma (and the Yogacara) objection to Madhyamaka philosophy. Also, the notion of conceptual construction would appear to entail - not only something foundational on the basis of which constructed entities can be constructed, but also - someone or something foundational who or what is doing the constructing. If it is contended that all entities are conceptually constructed, this would seem to necessitate an answer to the question, conceptually constructed by whom? If it is then said, as a consistent Madhyamika presumably must say, that whoever conceptually constructs is himself conceptually constructed, an infinite regress results.

I don't think that I can make sense of the idea that even the agent (be it the self, the mind, or the flow of impermanent cittas) which conceptually constructs entities is itself a conceptual construction. The explanation that the agent is itself a conceptual construction begs the question, for such a conceptual construction would itself require an agent to do the constructing. The meaning of 'conceptual construction' presupposes an agent which is a perpetrator of, and is logically prior to, the conceptual construction.

This in no way contradicts the important psychological spiritual point that, in many respects, one's views about one's self and the world are conceptual constructs (e.g. as a result of upbringing, habit, education, and, arguably, karma). I am simply making the compatible philosophical point that in order to have conceptually constructed views about who one is and how the world is, there must be someone/something itself unconstructed which has the views, or is doing the viewing. The very idea of conceptual construction seems to imply, then, both some material, itself unconstructed, which is the basis of construction, and also some agent who is the constructor of what is constructed. Yet, according to the interpretation which I have presented, in his assertion that all entities are conventions, i.e. prajnaptisat, Nagarjuna precludes the possibility of either of these necessary requirements for conceptual construction~ If, therefore, as Nagarjuna seems to say, the ultimate truth is that all entities are conventional truths in the Abhidharma sense, then it seems to follow that - unwelcome -as the conclusion might be to Nagarjuna himself - in fact nothing whatsoever exists at all. Nagarjuna is, as his opponents contend, a nihilist.

[Anonymous No.16472797]

>>16472677
>>16472683
Yes, you've quoted Emptiness Appraised before. You've also had it explained to you that rejecting the Two Truths Doctrine is stupid.

[Anonymous No.16472889]

monke

[Anonymous No.16472907]

>>16472797
>Yes, you've quoted Emptiness Appraised before. You've also had it explained to you that rejecting the Two Truths Doctrine is stupid.
Notice how he explains how Nagarjuna is a nihilist and points out the internal contradictions in his ideas in those paragraphs *without rejecting* the Two Truths doctrine in them. Amazing

[Anonymous No.16472928]

>>16472359
>Guenon instead takes the Catholic view that that only the Mahayana was legitimate as they have more flashy aesthetics;
Not exactly, he still agreed with Shankara's criticisms of the Indian Mahayana schools like Yogachara, Madhyamaka and Sarvastivada and he regarded those schools as a muddled degeneration of Buddha's teaching, in Guenon's view it was only when Mahayana Buddhists were taught by Hindu Shaivists (giving rise to Tantric/Vajrayana Buddhism) and by Chinese Daoists (giving rise to Ch'an Buddhism) that they began to get back into the vein of what had been taught by Buddha.

[Anonymous No.16472995]

>>16472797
The problems with Nagarjuna's ideas being talked about in those posts have nothing to do with rejecting the Two Truths, that argument is a red herring. By your inability to provide a straight-forward response that addresses the criticisms head-on it's showing that Burton is right.

[Anonymous No.16473002]

>>16469413
>1. Because these are not living traditions in the Catholic west
the faith is a living tradition, and that was especially true in his own lifetime. >>16466390
is correct btw.

[Anonymous No.16473039]

> 2. Why he didnt like Buddhism
If u read french: https://zone-critique.com/2017/11/15/rene-guenon/

[Anonymous No.16473044]

>>16473002
There can be metaphysical content found in the bible and in the works of Christian mystics, that's not the problem. The problem is that there is no institutionalized tradition of Christians being initiated into this knowledge and passing it down which are available to (or even known to) everyday Christians in the same way that joining Sufi brotherhoods is a relatively accessible option for people all over the Muslim world regardless of their wealth or resources.

[Anonymous No.16473052]

>>16472928
He didn't understand either and neither do you. Guenon is such a good pseudtrap. Hit the books, pleb.

[Anonymous No.16473077]

>>16473052
>He didn't understand either and neither do you
cope

[Anonymous No.16473094]

>Why he didnt think christianity had any genuine esotericism left, even though it emphasizes metaphysical secrets more than other religions
because it really doesn't, except for gnosticism, and the only gnosticism around during his time was gay larp groups (Nag Hammadi hadn't been discovered yet)

[Anonymous No.16473244]

>>16469784
>it was just you reposting it pushing the idea that there's a bot
You're right, it wasn't a bot. It was even worse. It was someone who was actually autistic enough to keep it saved in a document and spend countless hours monitoring /lit/, posting it countless times in countless thread related to eastern religion always within a few minutes of that thread being created, the punctuality being the clue as to the depth of autism involved.

[Anonymous No.16473352]

Im against trip fags now... Not because of what you said, but because I am swine.

[Anonymous No.16473456]

>>16472907
>>16472995
>t. hasn't read the book
Go read the book. Your opinion doesn't matter until you do.

>>16473244
Realistically all you have to do is go on warosu and type "Shankara" or "Vedanta" or "poopoo peepee" or whatever else, see if there's any active threads with posts using that term, and then go shitpost in them. You can also setup bots to ping you when such a post is made, and then do the shitposting yourself. It upsets guenonfag however, so whatever means the autist uses are fine by me.

>>16472928
I was running out of characters and had to simplify. Yes, it's obviously not just an aesthetic judgement just as Evola's views of the supremacy of Theravada (for Traditionalist purposes) was not just because the Pali Canon is more Trad because have one The Book is Trad.

[Anonymous No.16473981]

The lack of any mention of Eastern Orthodoxy in Guenons writings is curious to me. As a scholar of comparative religion, it is simply ridiculous to think he had no knowledge of the Orthodox Christianity and the differences between it and Western Christianity. I am reminded of an anon who told me some years ago that it is well known in certain circles that Guenon once travelled to the Holy Mountain to be initiated in to Hesychast mysticism but once the monks discovered that he was a perennialist (perhaps this was divinely revealed to them?) they promptly told him to cease being a retarded Hindu faggot and simply become Orthodox. Offended by the monk's prescience and their simple but blunt rejection of perennialist philosophy, Guenon omitted mentions of Orthodoxy from his future works despite knowing that it was the best chance for a return of West to Tradition because it would compromise Guenon's project of East-West reconciliation on basis on Vedic nondualism. Could just be a rumor but it makes sense

[Anonymous No.16474117]

>>16471844
Still widely respected by Sunnis.

[Anonymous No.16474150]

>>16472271
>liking secondary sources from a poo intellectual

This is why your life is shit.

[Anonymous No.16474157]

>>16465792
>>2. Why he didnt like Buddhism

Why an intellectual prefer perennialism over a teaching shitting on intellectuals

[Anonymous No.16474677]

>>16472359
mainstream muslim view, 4 major muslim school accept sufism.

only saudi arabian/wahabbi/orthodox scholar which are minority in Islamic world that bluntly rejected sufism

t. a muslim lurker

[Anonymous No.16475003]

>>16465792
1. We've lost the secrets to the gospels. Modern man is literally incapable of understanding the full depth of the mysteries of Christ. This doesn't mean its not worth contemplating- it certainly is- its just that the traditions that have sprung up therefrom no longer transmit transcendental Truth- unlike say sufism. This is precisely because, metaphysically, the mysteries of Christ are such that they were always designed to generate an elite by the very depth mystery. The elite died out- and with it the capacity to transmit the Truth- in the west probably as a result of protestantism or probably even before that in my opinion, when it became the imperial dogma of rome.
2. Because its just a reactionary strain of Hindusim. I don't mean reactionary in any way politically. Reactionary in the way that a teenage rebel is reactionary.
>>16469259
Ironic.

[Anonymous No.16475046]

>>16465792
Guenon is motivated by the same thing that motivates university leftists, which is resentment.

He resents Christianity and the West for being superior, so he desperately created a new world of signs in order to make the orient the superior one.

[Anonymous No.16475070]

>>16473044
I dont get this, why become initiated, when I can go to the library and read?

Blows my mind.

[Anonymous No.16475085]

>>16465810
>oh yeah this is just heavily buddhist influenced vedanta.
Advaita Vedanta influenced Buddhism as well as vice versa. I would more say similarities between the two are an inevitable consequence of similarities in the non-dualistic doctrine of Advaita Vedanta to Buddhism, as well as the fact that Buddhism itself began as a sect and divergence from Hinduism (of which Vedanta is a part) as opposed to saying that Advaita Vedanta is simply Vedanta with more Buddhist influences. This statement isn't wrong, it just doesn't account for the nuances in either systems. (and their myriad forms.)

[Anonymous No.16475205]

>>16475085
>Advaita Vedanta influenced Buddhism as well as vice versa.

Advaita vedanta was created as a fusion of Mahayana Buddhism and older Vedanta philosophies around 850 AD by Adi Shankara. Buddhism goes back to around 500 BC.

>Buddhism itself began as a sect and divergence from Hinduism
Not remotely true, came from the eastern gangetic plain which was not part of the brahmanic cultural complex, which was in decline and experienced a renaissance because of the developments in the east (like Buddhism and probably Jainism).

[Anonymous No.16475226]

>>16475205
>Advaita Vedanta influenced Buddhism as well as vice versa.
I'm aware Advaita Vedanta is older. But they still both existed concurrently for over 2,000 years. Hence, they influenced each other in practice and thought during that span of time due to how close many practitioners were in the world.

>Not remotely true, came from the eastern gangetic plain which was not part of the brahmanic cultural complex, which was in decline and experienced a renaissance because of the developments in the east (like Buddhism and probably Jainism).

The Buddha came from a religious background inseperable from the modern definition of the umbrella-term Hindu belief system. In the beliefs detailed in the Pali Sutta that is the basis for all subsequent Buddhist schools, it is immediately clear that Buddhism was derived from and owes its thought and beliefs to Hinduism. Of course it's different and was intended to start a new religion, but no one denies its origins in Hinduism, so I don't really know what you mean by emphasizing its geographical origin. (modern day Nepal.)

[Anonymous No.16475334]

>>16475226
Do you mean younger? Advaita came more than a thousand years after Buddhism had been around.

>it is immediately clear that Buddhism was derived from and owes its thought and beliefs to Hinduism.
To neovedantists with a loose understanding of Hinduism and India maybe, or if you're reading a history of Indian thought from about a hundred years ago. But this is not the position of any people who study it. Modern scholarship identifies the sramana movements with a different cultural, geographical, linguistic, and probably ethnic (this one is controversial) complex in the east, more in Bengal.

The vedic complex, identified with brahmanical ideas, seems to have had two major renaissances or at least redaction periods. The first was when it collated the oral-ritual vedas into written versions (the traditional four divisions of the vedas), and the second was after centuries of sramana influence crept into the brahmanic ritual culture dominated by priests.

In other words, whatever the general trend was that produced movements like jainism and buddhism, it started in the east and spread everywhere over a few centuries, and acquired so much prestige that it got into everything. Even people within the brahmanic complex became accustomed to it, and they reopened the brahmanical canon through commentaries to the old texts, reinterpreting them along sramanic lines.

Shankara is in some ways just the last and most radical representative of this tendency, a thousand years later. Later buddhism, Mahayana, is so renunciatory and anti-sruti, anti-ritual in its epistemology that vedantists were horrified by it. Shankara's whole philosophy is just Mahayana with some names changed, and he has long been criticized for all but rejecting the necessity of ritual and the authority of sruti over reason. That's why he is called "crypto-buddhist." The accusation is that he "saved" the Vedas from Buddhism by turning Hinduism into Buddhism.

Shankara's monasticism is modeled on Mahayana monasticism, his epistemology is buddhist to the point that it receives the same criticisms of being nihilistic from other Hindus, his stance on sruti is either anti-revelation and anti-ritual to the point that it is offensive to many Hindus.

[Anonymous No.16475879]

>tfw know very little about buddhism and hinduism and cant follow this thread
where to begin?

[Anonymous No.16475903]

>>16465792
I loved his retroactive refutation of process philosophy

[Anonymous No.16476295]

>>16475879
>Buddhism
What the Buddha Taught or In the Buddha's Words. Pick one, discard the other. Then, read Red Pine's Heart Sutra. This is a basic intro to the Theravada Tradition, and the Mahayana Tradition (respectively). Do NOT think of these two as "Protestant and Catholic", the split between the two is fundamentally different from anything in the West. But, in doing this, you get the really basics simple highly applied nature of the Theravada, and the galaxy brain navel gazing nature of the Mahayana.

With Hinduism, you need to start more broadly. Hinduism is actually many, many, many religious and philosophical traditions. Most Hindus adhere to various dualistic schools of philosophy. What anons in this thread are advocating is Advaita Vedanta, which is a minor monistic school. So, there's really three things here: Hinduism in general, and Hindu philosophy in general, where you're essentially asking "where do I begin with the entirety of Western philosophy?", and Advaita Vedanta, which is like saying "Where do I get started with Epicureanism?". In all instances, I recommend getting yourself a broad introduction to Hinduism as you're going in blind to a totally foreign intellectual tradition. There's plenty on libgen, pick one, it'll suffice, as you only really need it to familiarize yourself with the territory.

Some anons will recommend you just dive head first into the Vedas or the Upanishad or this commentary or that commentary, but that's a poor idea if you don't even know what an Atman or a Puja is.

[Anonymous No.16476826]

>>16475003
>metaphysically, the mysteries of Christ are such that they were always designed to generate an elite by the very depth mystery. The elite died out- and with it the capacity to transmit the Truth- in the west probably as a result of protestantism or probably even before that in my opinion, when it became the imperial dogma of rome.
Please explain how your slave revolt religion is generative of an elite.

[Anonymous No.16476844]

>>16475879
Lurk long enough and you'll memorize Shankara and Nagarjuna without having read either

[Anonymous No.16476866]

>>16475070
I don't think any of these 'trad' types anticipated the autodidactism that would be afforded by advances in communication. It's crazy to think, for instance, that a thousand years ago monks had to sneak out of China and wander through India for a decade to get more Buddhist texts. Today, meanwhile, scholarly translations of all major Buddhist texts are available in English, French, German, etc. with two-day delivery.

[Anonymous No.16476877]

>>16465792
>Why he didnt think christianity had any genuine esotericism left, even though it emphasizes metaphysical secrets more than other religions

You moron, read king of the world, he thought every abrahamic religion had geninue esotericism and tradition thru the Melchizedek.

[Anonymous No.16476882]

>>16476866
Its true, but I think even this holds its own dangers, that there is so much material that one can get easily lost without proper guidance.

[Anonymous No.16476913]

>>16476882
I do think that is a bit of a problem, but if you are going to go full woo, you go all the way. Think about what the origination of an initiation giver's initiation is supposed to be. Why shouldn't you be able to reach that with the proper discipline and orientation, which is all another person can really give you, in the event you cannot guide yourself there in the first place? If you cannot access it "directly" and it must be through a social, human hierarchy, something nearly as removed as you are in terms of duration, relying on a fiction of base material continuity to assert otherwise, that layer of mediation offers no gurantee. If the dharma is a raft then lineages are boat rentals.

[Anonymous No.16476930]

>>16476913
Well I dont think its impossible to find such wisdom alone with the amount of material out there, but just, in my experience at least, it is much more helpful, and productive, to be instructed by someone who has been in your position. It will give you focus in your studies, but that's all, since ultimately you are the one must conduct those studies

[Anonymous No.16476969]

>>16473981
Just speculation, but in Guenon's time bulk of the Orthodox world had been suppressed by communism, which would have perhaps reflected poorly on it as being some sort of robust tradition. A good counter example is India or even Sri Lanka, where the local beliefs successfully hardened themselves against the incursions of foreign ideologies, and today India is run by Hindu nationalists and Sri Lanka by Buddhist nationalists. I suppose a neo-Guenonist analysis of contemporary Orthodoxy and its place in Russian society is wanting among trads. Certainly it has seen a revival and growing interest especially among reactionary Western Christians, who in a 'War on Terror' cinematic universe are not going to consider Islam the way Guenon did.

[Anonymous No.16476980]

>>16476930
I think for either Hinduism or Buddhism you would need to travel to Asia for initiation. At a glance I don't trust anything that has been placed in the hands of Westerners as received wisdom. So if initiation is your thing you have to go all the way for it, not to California.

[Anonymous No.16477030]

>>16476980
I absolutely agree with you, you should always go to the source as close as possible, and stay away from new age nonsense. That being said, such places (the ones at the sources) should be available for those who feel they would benefit from them, however if others, such as yourself, feel they can walk towards enlightenment on their own, then I wish nothing but good luck for you.

[Anonymous No.16477067]

>>16475879
I would also add Buddhism in a nutshell by Thera Narada, its a surprisingly good summary for a religion the size of Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.16477112]

>>16473039
The author of that article seems to have misunderstood Guenon’s position, the Indian Buddhist thinkers who he namedrops in the article and tries to bring into the Trad fold actually had their ideas criticized by Shankara and their metaphysics are incompatible with the metaphysics Guenon accepted, he regarded them as being degenerations of Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.16477183]

>>16475070
Because then you are not being instructed by someone who knows exactly how to do the various day to day mediative etc practices which you learn while initiated, and even more to importantly than that, they are supposed to guide you to higher states, closing observing you and fine-tuning what they are teaching in a way that suits the disciple etc. You get none lf this from self-study, as valuable and spiritually-transforming as self-study can be it’s still substantially inferior to genuine initation into something. There is a very real transmission of spiritual influence in a way which is not captured by writing.

[Anonymous No.16477193]

>>16475879

https://realization.org/p/ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita.html

[Anonymous No.16477196]

>Guénon's initial evaluation of Buddhism was plagued by an astonishing lack of understanding. This evaluation was suppressed in the English edition of Orient et Occident(Paris, 1924); Guénon later modified it in part, by making some concessions to a "Brahmanic" version of Buddhism, which is truly a Buddhism evirated of the specific and valid elements it possessed at its inception. These specific elements concerned an autonomous way of realization. In this realization, the action of a qualified individual who strives to attain the Unconditioned, even by means of violent efforts is the necessary counterpart of the descent of a force from above, which does not need "initiatory bureaucracies." What Guénon had to say in an unfortunate essay concerning "The Need for a Traditional Exotericism," must also be rejected, since it offers dangerous incentives and alibis to a reactionary and petty-bourgeois conformism. The pedantic representatives of Guénonian scholasticism should rather strive to reach a deeper understanding of the true meaning of the Way of the Left Hand, which is not any less traditional than the Way of Right Hand, and which has the advantage of emphasizing the transcendent dimension proper of every truly initiatory realization and aspiration.

[Anonymous No.16477237]

Gautama, Siddhārtha. Dislike him. A cheap nihilist, insipid and foolhardy. A pied piper, pathological narcissist and a cloying moralist. Some of his modern disciples are extraordinarily amusing. Nobody takes his claims about remembering past lives seriously.
Majjhima Nikāya. His best work, though an obvious and shameless imitation of Yājñavalkya's "Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad"
Dīgha Nikāya. Dislike it intensely.
Dhammapada. Dislike it intensely. Ghastly rigmarole.

[Anonymous No.16477266]

>>16477237
Who and why?

[Anonymous No.16477481]

>>16476866
I also think its hilariously how occultists try to present their worldview as somehow secret and hidden, when there are several very large online libraries dedicated towards bringing these so called hidden and occult gems to the view of millions.

I have the feeling that a lot of this initiation bullcrap exists, because the ideas of these people are just cooky and can be easily debunked.

For example, its kinda difficult to belief in a traditional society, when modern science gives you the awareness that humanity has existed for millions of years in the past and could very well continue to exist for millions of years more.

Makes you wonder, why even stay traditional when everything changes and evolves?

>>16477183
Thats just a university education, thats clearly not what your kind calls initiation. Again, the concept of initiation is bullshit, either teach what you know in the open and allow people to critique it, or hide in the darkness in shame.

[Anonymous No.16477486]

>>16477481
Huh?

[Anonymous No.16477493]

>>16477486
>Huh?
What dont you understand?

[Anonymous No.16477506]

>>16475334
> Shankara's whole philosophy is just Mahayana with some names changed,
Wrong, his ‘philosophy’ comes straight from the Upanishads
>and he has long been criticized for all but rejecting the necessity of ritual
The Upanishads themselves negate the importance of ritual, in any case Shankara approved of rituals but just wrote that once you become an ascetic monk as the Upanishads say you should then at that point rituals become pointless, but not before.
> and the authority of sruti over reason.
False, Shankara wrote that the sruti is an infallible source of truth and he condemned independent reasoning without scriptures as a doomed venture. It is the later Vedantists like Madhva who actually do this and who rejects certain claims by the sruti when they seem to conflict with bodily perception, but Shankara accepts those claims and adduces why it doesn’t actually contradict perception
>That's why he is called "crypto-buddhist."
Other Hindus who dont have as rigourous of an exegesis and philosophy call him that as cope, and Buddhists call him that as cope to distract from the fact that he utterly demolished Buddhism and explained how it’s all nonsensical.
>Shankara’s monasticism is modeled on Mahayana monasticism
False, it is modeled on monasticism as taught in the Upanishads, which promote monasticism as an ideal even in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad which predated Buddha by centuries, plus in the Pali Canon are described instances of ascetic Brahmin monks who already existed when Buddha was alive.
>his epistemology is buddhist to the point
False, his epistemology is rooted in the Upanishads and in the earlier Mimansa and Nyaya Hindu schools, whose methods of reasoning he at times uses and comments on. Buddhist epistemology is sophistic and without logical justification, and Shankara elucidates this in his writings.

tldr: more NPCddhist cope

[Anonymous No.16477601]

>>16477506
Unfathomably based

[Anonymous No.16477663]

>>16477481
A good reason for tradition (little t) is that even though anatomically modern humans have been around for about 200,000 years, we're still subject to the constraints of our own humanity. A human must, for example, breath oxygen and take up a minimum amount of space, you literally cannot change that. You can get around it, but you cannot change it. These similar constraints apply to the mind, as well as the body. We could argue that people of races with average IQs less than 100 aren't actually human, but even then we're left with the fact that Europeans and North East Asians have had average IQ's around 100 for over 3,000 years. So, while change is the only constant, and evolution is ongoing, we can't be sure what is changing, how, and on what time scale. A human lifetime is 100 years if you're lucky, and we do not have the pleasure of living in a world where information is perfectly transferred. We NEED rules of thumb (traditions are just rules of thumb with fancier aesthetics) to help convey simple truths, ESPECIALLY in instances where we know that things work, but not how at any level. The making of fire is a simple example, where anatomically modern humans have only know "how" fire works for 0.15% of our existence.

As for your point about initiation, I would agree IF you're only viewing this from the point of view of knowledge. If you're actually forming an organization (which, historically, most initiatory societies were) then initiation is a necessary tool, if just to bond men together. Again, we're bound by our "mere humanity", so the fact that initiatory rituals bind men together may be totally irrational, but it's what we're stuck with.

[Anonymous No.16477668]

>>16465799
>Because it's Hinduism but gay.
B-based?

[Anonymous No.16477672]

>>16477506
>the buddha time traveled to the future to steal his doctrines from shankara
yeah, sorry, i gotta go with the timetraveling thief over your osho knockoff.

[Anonymous No.16477685]

>>16477506
>Wrong, his ‘philosophy’ comes straight from the Upanishads
This means as much as a Calvinist saying "Calvinism is simply what the Bible says, just read it bro I'm the one who is right and not any other interpretation." Except you are more like a minor cult than a major branch, since most Hindus disagree with you too. They're the ones who invented the term crypto-buddhist (prachanna buddha, literally hidden buddhist).

Simply repeating "my scripture says I'm right that my scripture is right about how I'm right when I say my scripture is right" is meaningless. Why do you always do it? It's doubly weird considering that Shankara is so anti-scripture that most Hindus find him heretical and disrespectful of the actual religious parts of Hinduism. You know, all those Vedas that the word Vedanta refers to, the ones Shankara says are optional once you've mastered his Buddhis.. I mean, "Advaita" philosophy.

>Shankara wrote that the sruti is an infallible source of truth and he condemned independent reasoning
Nobody agrees with you on this. Academics don't, philosophers don't, Hindus don't. Shankara plagiarized Buddhist rationalist idealist arguments against revelation.


>it is modeled on monasticism as taught in the Upanishads
Let me try your style of argument out for a change. "False, it is what I said, not what you say." Nah, that's retarded, so let me repeat: this is not what any scholar, western or Hindu, thinks. His followers adopted the institutions of Mahayana monasticism. Why did he know these so well that he could implement him? Hmm, it's almost as if he and his followers knew contemporary Buddhist institutions intimately...

I don't care about convincing you, I am just letting you know as always that Hindus find your westernized neo-vedantism heretical. Keep being mad that nobody wants to follow your Wikipedia understanding of a French Sufi LARPer's understanding of a tiny sect of Hinduism that almost no Hindus recognize.

[Anonymous No.16477690]

>>16477481
>For example, its kinda difficult to belief in a traditional society, when modern science gives you the awareness that humanity has existed for millions of years in the past and could very well continue to exist for millions of years more.
>Makes you wonder, why even stay traditional when everything changes and evolves?
If humanity is anatomically modern humans then no we are not millions of years-old. If humanity is the collective self-conception we have of ourselves as a species in time, as formed by our languages and histories, then it is even younger. Tradition is natural only insofar as the way our perception works: we take a snapshot of matter with our senses, our mind subtracts from it that which disinterests us, and our memory tells us this is image is real. Traditionalists are doing the same process of slicing from the carcass of the universe what they think is important and saying it has always been that way. Unfortunately past results do not necessitate future outcomes, so it is really just a highly conservative outlook that will get thrashed by any severe changes to the environment we live in, be they social, technological, economic, climate, whatever, since there is that reliance on an afterimage. But those are all exoteric points of "tradition." The perennialists think there is some metaphysical core at the bottom of all these systems but that really isn't true. The sects that realize the absolute, the non-dual, and so forth are all accidentally related, as discovered by those raceless, nationless, religionless sages who appear from time to time and have to contend with the culture they live in, with the signs that rule. How else could you link Sufism with Vedanta? Traditional Islam would genocide traditional Hinduism if it could.

[Anonymous No.16477768]

>>16477266
Newfag leave.

[Anonymous No.16477779]

>>16477768

[Anonymous No.16477780]

>>16477196
>What Guénon had to say in an unfortunate essay concerning "The Need for a Traditional Exotericism," must also be rejected, since it offers dangerous incentives and alibis to a reactionary and petty-bourgeois conformism.
Not. an. argument.

[Anonymous No.16477789]

>>16477481
>I also think its hilariously how occultists try to present their worldview as somehow secret and hidden, when there are several very large online libraries dedicated towards bringing these so called hidden and occult gems to the view of millions.
Uh fucking idiot do you think the average Redditor looks into that sort of thing?

[Anonymous No.16477864]

>>16477789
Yes. There are many subreddits involving occultism. It took me far longer than it should have because plebbit's entire design is fucking GARBAGE holy SHIT, but just typing "occult" into the search bar brings up like ten subreddits all with reading lists of actual books. Reddit actually has several subreddits dedicated to traditionalism, and one dedicated to Rene Guenon.

>>16477780
No, it is. Traditionalism argues that hierarchy good, and offers reasons why. That's bad, for retards who believe that hierarchy bad. The fact that hierarchy is actually good is irrelevant, because the retard believes that it isn't, and wants to stop people from disagreeing with him.

[Anonymous No.16477948]

>>16477672
Buddha didn’t have to time-travel to base his teachings on Upanishadic Advaita, because by the time Buddha was alive the early Upanishads containing those Advaita doctrines like the Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya Upanishads had already been circulating throughout northern India

[Anonymous No.16478114]

>>16477948
>Upanishadic Advaita

Lmao this is like saying "the Calvinism of Moses"

[Anonymous No.16478595]

>>16477237
lmao

[Lon𝖊 Int𝖊ll𝖊ctu𝖆l !xVZee/J6YQ No.16478986]

>>16469282
Cloud of Unknowing was a Catholic work, not an Orthodox work, and it was written in the 1300s. In case you didn't know Guenon lived in the 18-1900s and Catholics had stopped writing like that for hundreds of years.

[Anonymous No.16478990]

>>16478114
>The Upanishads dont teach Advai-

salila eko draṣṭādvaito bhavati, eṣa brahmalokaḥ samrāḍiti hainamanuśaśāsa yājñavalkyaḥ, eṣāsya paramā gatiḥ, eṣāsya paramā saṃpat, eṣo'sya paramo lokaḥ, eṣo'sya parama ānandaḥ; etasyaivānandasyānyāni bhūtāni mātrāmupajīvanti || 32 ||

32. It becomes (transparent) like water, one, the witness, and without a second. This is the world (state) of Brahman, O Emperor. Thus did Yājñavalkya instruct Janaka: This is its supreme attainment, this is its supreme glory, this is its highest world, this is its supreme bliss. On a particle of this very bliss other beings live.

- Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.3.32.

“That Self is indeed Brahman"

- Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5.

>the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad states that the Self is Brahman, and when it talks about Brahman as the non-dual infinite witness the text of the scripture itself uses the word ‘advaita’ (draṣṭādvaito), but this is not Advaita because..... uhhh......

[Anonymous No.16479072]

>>16478990
>The Upanishads dont teach Advaita

Correct. Or at least nobody thinks they do except you, a French guy who became a Muslim Sufi, and the less than 0.5% of Hindus who think so. Even most Advaitins don't claim that their philosophical advaita is the sole true interpretation of the Upanishads which contradict it constantly.

Not to even mention the Vedas, the majority of ritual and devotional aspects of Hinduism in which all Hindus believe, which your stereotyped version of Advaita is an insult to.

At least when the Christians claim DUDE JUST READ THE BIBLE, FAITH ALONE IS/ISN'T ENOUGH IT'S RIGHT THERE IN PAUL they are arguing about real interpretative difficulties. Internet Advaitins cherry pick one quote, translate it badly into English (because none of them learn Sanskrit), and spend 50 years repeating quoting eachother in neovedanta manuals written for guys like you. You are more a theosophist than a Hindu.

[Anonymous No.16479120]

>>16479072
> nobody thinks they do except you, a French guy who became a Muslim Sufi, and the less than 0.5% of Hindus who think so
False, the Smarts sect follows Advaita and is one of the 4 major denominations of Hinduism. In any case the truth of something is not determined via a popular vote you idiot.

> Even most Advaitins don't claim that their philosophical advaita is the sole true interpretation of the Upanishads which contradict it constantly.
Incorrect, traditional Advaitins often do say that Advaita is the sole completely true interpretation of the Upanishads. However, just because one interpretation is the completely correct one doesn’t mean that there cannot also be alternative interpretations held by others which are incorrect or which partake of the truth in a lesser degree.

> the majority of ritual and devotional aspects of Hinduism in which all Hindus believe, which your stereotyped version of Advaita is an insult to.
No it’s not lol

[Anonymous No.16479142]

>>16479120
>Smarts sect follows Advaita
You mean Smarta. Don't phonepost while you're sperging out. Calm down, then post.

They're a tiny minority.

>In any case the truth of something is not determined via a popular vote
Absolutely true. Thank you for admitting that Advaita is unpopular and would lose the vote if Hindus, scholars, and just about anyone who has studied Indian thought in any way were all called to vote.

You know where Shankara's advaita is the majority view? Among theosophists, which you are.

>No it’s not lol
Ask some. Oh wait, you can't. You've spent 5 years being a cryptobuddhist on /lit/ and haven't learned Sanskrit. In fact you haven't learned anything more than you knew when you started. I think you may even be getting dumber.

Sputter out another asspained reply now, cryptobuddhist.

[Anonymous No.16479144]

>>16473981
Guenon almost surely disapproved of essence/energies

[Anonymous No.16479154]

>>16479120
*Smarta sect

[Anonymous No.16479160]

>it's devolved into an autism thread
Who could have seen it coming?

Asking the non-autists: When do I read the Brahma Surra commentary? After the principal upanishads or before?

[Anonymous No.16479191]

>the absolute state of this discussion

[Anonymous No.16479252]

>>16465799
hey faggot it appears you accidentally left your tripcode on please only use tripcodes on posts where your identity is relevant

[Anonymous No.16479321]

>>16479142

> Thank you for admitting that Advaita is unpopular
The Upanishads contain various quotes saying that only the rare man who possesses discrimination and insight understand them, e.g.

> The Hereafter never reveals itself to a person devoid of discrimination, heedless and perplexed by the delusion of wealth. "This world alone exists," he thinks, "and there is no other." Again and again he comes under my sway.

And there are many other verses of this sort as well. As most people do not fit this description in any society. It is to be expected that less than the majority of peoples in any given place would discern the truth of Advaita. In the same way in any random gathering of a large crowd, statistically speaking there are inevitably only going to be a small amount of people in that crowd who possess genius-level IQ’s

>and would lose the vote if Hindus, scholars,
Actually, Hindu pandits and sannyasin are typically overrepresented among Advaita followers, but either way this is irrelevant since the truth is the truth regardless of how many people follow it.

>You know where Shankara's advaita is the majority view? Among theosophists
Okay, why should I care?

>Ask some
I don’t need to, I’ve read Shankara’s works and know his position on them. Unless you are dumb enough to think that rituals lead to moksha, which isn’t taught in the Vedas or Upanishads, then Shankara’s position should not be upsetting.

[Anonymous No.16479355]

>>16479160
I recommend reading the Brahma Sutra commentary only after reading all of the primary Upanishads, either with or without Shankara’s commentaries, although with would be better as that way you will have a more extensive understanding of the topics broached in the Brahma Sutras. Both the text of the Brahma Sutras themselves plus every single classical commentary written on it all reference the Upanishads constantly.

[Anonymous No.16479376]

>>16479160
After, and then alongside. The best way to go is always layered readings. You'll learn more with each pass.

>>16479321
We've said all we can say to eachother, theosophist. You should learn more about Hinduism instead of regurgitating the same few second rate English language books for years on end. You are the teenage girl who claims she's a marxist of Guenonians.

[Anonymous No.16479392]

>>16479355
Thank you. I heard the Brahma Sutra was written as a sort of synthesis of the Upanishadic teaching, but I was unsure if it was a synthesis meant to lead upwards to the source or meant to solidify understanding once the sources have been read

[Anonymous No.16479426]

>>16479376
> We've said all we can say to eachother, theosophist
Okay, I’ll see you in the next Hinduism or Guenon thread which you can never resist going into and throwing tantrums in, whether that’s later today or tomorrow. That is, if you can resist the temptation to continue shitflinging and bitching about ‘muh theosophists’ in this thread.

> You are the teenage girl who claims she's a marxist of Guenonians.
what does that even mean?

[Anonymous No.16479496]

>>16479392
They are definitely the latter, with the Bhagavad-Gita being an example of the former

[Anonymous No.16479809]

>>16479144
Can I ask you what your reasons are for believing that? I’m curious

[Anonymous No.16479941]

>>16473981
same for oriental orthodoxy. why didn't he simply go join an isolated ethiopian monastery?

[Anonymous No.16480019]

>>16465799
>Because it's Hinduism but gay.
Exactly. Buddhism is cringe and a perversion of True Dharma.

[Anonymous No.16480058]

>>16473981
>The lack of any mention of Eastern Orthodoxy in Guenons writings is curious to me.
I have not read it yet, but I have seen others write that in 'Insights into Christian Esoterism" he writes a brief comment about EO Hesychasm teachings being in agreement with what he regarded as traditional metaphysics

[Anonymous No.16481851]

Bump

[Anonymous No.16482060]

Bump to answer later.

[Anonymous No.16482067]

>>16465912
Based

[Anonymous No.16482168]

1. Because there are no (traditional) initiatic christian orders since the end of the Knights Templar and the Chruch became very hostile towards esoterism in general. Think about it, what is the christian equivalent to Sufism nowadays? All that is left is mysticism, which is about passive experiences, and not and initiatic path.
2. Initially he tought Buddhism had anti-traditional elements and was the embodiment of a revolt of the warrior caste (Buddha himself was a Kshatriya) against the brahmana caste. Probably, he was also influenced by distorted views of it propagated in the West, like the idea that Buddhism was against the caste system.
He changed his mind on the subject after being conviced by other authors, like Marco Pallis and Ananda Coomaraswamy that Buddhism was a fully orthodox traditional doctrine.

[Anonymous No.16482176]

>>16482067
cope

t. buddhistlet

[Anonymous No.16482229]

>>16472359
>Whereas Evola takes the Protestant view that only Theravada Buddhism is legitimate
Absolutely wrong. In The Doctrine of Awakening he recognizes the fact that Mahayana has superior metaphysics and praises Zen, a mahayanist branch, as a restoration of early Buddhism's straightforwardness. The fact that he uses the Pali Canon as the main source for his book does not mean favoring Theravada, which westerners usually think is "purer" only beacuse of their protestant mentality.

[Anonymous No.16482304]

>>16482168
Pallis and Coom's Buddhist revisionism lacks any support outside of trad circles, buddhism isn't a hindu offshoot since it openly rejects the vedas and decries most of its principle ideas and practices. You can apply the most stringent syntactical argument from a few suttas as Coomaraswamy does, in the end it simply isn't traditional.

[Anonymous No.16482370]

>>16482304
I admit my knowledge on the subject (the actual relationship between buddhism and hinduism) is very limited. I just exposing Guénon view.
>it openly rejects the vedas and decries most of its principle ideas
Which ones, for example? Iam actually curious.

[Anonymous No.16482475]

>>16476295
Very good advice. Going straight into a heavy commentary on difficult primary texts will simply discourage a lot of interested people. The theological commentaries were never written for lay practicioners, they were for fellow theologians. They are in no way introductory.

For a book on Hinduism as it is actually practiced, I would strongly recommend "What Is Hinduism" published by the Himalayan Academy. You can get it free as a PDF or ebook here: https://www.himalayanacademy.com/view/what-is-hinduism

[Anonymous No.16483025]

>>16477506
>the virgin buddha has a wife and son
>the chad adi shankara was celibate and died a virgin
cringe attempt at a meme...

[Anonymous No.16483056]

If one religion is true, then how come people of all religions have experiences of people going to heaven or hell?

[Anonymous No.16483073]

>>16482370
The principle of sruti (authoritative revelation) and yajna-pasu (animal sacrifice) come to mind.

>Suppose there were a row of blind men, each holding on to the one in front of him: the first one doesn't see, the middle one doesn't see, the last one doesn't see. In the same way, the statement of the brahmans turns out to be a row of blind men, as it were: the first one doesn't see, the middle one doesn't see, the last one doesn't see. So what do you think, Bharadvaja: this being the case, doesn't the conviction of the brahmans turn out to be groundless?" (MN 95)

[Anonymous No.16483254]

>>16476826
No.

[Anonymous No.16483346]

>>16465792
1. Because christianity has been weakened by modernity, but christianity still holds traditional elements.
2. He later said that mahayana is ok
>>16465835
According to Guenon alchemy has degenerated from sacred science to profane science

[Anonymous No.16484302]

>>16480058
I just checked and Guenon does in fact mention Hesychasm as a totally legitimate initiatic transmission of Tradition. This doesn't alleviate the issue very much though because elsewhere, he clearly regards Christianity as having lost true initiatic power and the potential for being the basis of a return to Western Tradition. There is a contradiction here. Either Orthodoxy via its Hesychastic tradition is able or unable to facilitate the West's return to Tradition. If it is, then why did Guenon become a Sufi Muslim with the reason being it's supposed closeness and relative familiarity to his native Roman Catholicism? Orthodoxy is obviously far more familiar to Westerners. If it is unable to be the basis for the West's return to Tradition, then why does he offer no criticism whatsoever on his brief mention of it?

I suspect that he dislikes Orthodoxy's particular resistance to syncretism and legitimizing of other traditions and/or his personal experiences being told by monks of the Holy Mountain that his philosophical project was impossible while being faithful to Eastern Orthodoxy.

The short mention of Hesychasm in Insights into Christian Esoterism also seems to make mention of Imiaslavie which was very popular among the Russian Athonites at the time of its publication. I wonder if what Guenon saw as pure Hesychasm was in fact Imiaslavie which certainly bears more resemblance to Hindu Mantras (though it is very far from Hindu practices in my opinion and has the sympathies, if not outright support of a few recent saints)

[Anonymous No.16484398]

>In conclusion, we can say that despite its initiatic origins Christianity in its present state is certainly nothing more than a religion, that is, an exclusively exoteric tradition, and that it contains no possibilities other than those possessed by any other exoterism. Moreover, it makes no claim to more, because there is never a question of anything else but gaining ‘salvation’. An initiation can naturally be superimposed upon it, and normally would even have to be, in order for the tradition to be truly complete, possessing effectively both esoteric and exoteric aspects; but this initiation does not currently exist in Christianity, at least in its Western form. It is in any case clear that observance of exoteric rites is fully sufficient for attaining ‘salvation’, and today more than ever that is all to which the great majority of human beings can legitimately aspire. But in such conditions, what are those individuals to do for whom, according to certain mutaṣawwufin, ‘Paradise is still nothing but a prison’?
>>16484302
I think he preferred islam over orthodoxy because sufism is still a more complete initiatic tradition than hesychasm, and because muslim societies were (and still are) less secularized and modern in "spirit" than Eastern Europe. Also, he saw islam as purer manifestation of the Primordial Tradition since it is the last one in our present cycle.

[Anonymous No.16484867]

Bump.