/pbuh/ - Guenon and Traditionalism General

[Anonymous No.17832640]

We had a good thread last time so let's keep it going

Reading Crisis of the Modern World atm because his intro to hinduism isn't on Kindle, it's pretty interesting so far

[Anonymous No.17832656]

>>17832640
Did he ever write much about Islam? What did he see in it that was lacking in Christianity or Hinduism?

[Anonymous No.17832669]

>>17832656
He just wanted Egyptian puss and wanted to LARP

[Anonymous No.17832724]

What forms of initiation did the Traditionalists actually approve of? From the sound of it Guenon didn't like the occult orders that popped up in the 19th century and didn't think they were valid, so presumably OTO doesn't fit the criteria

[Anonymous No.17832769]

>>17832656
I read that he wanted to become a Hindu but the requirements and the whole paradigm led him to a conviction that Hinduism was not fit for Western white race. Christianity was soulless and empty, with the cord connecting it with the perennial wisdom cut, which never happened in Islam. Islam, being rooted in the same tradition as Christianity and Judaism, while not being corrupted and emptied like Christianity, was also not ethno-exclusive like Judaism. So it was a no-brainer for him.
>>17832724
I was reading that he still believed that the Occult were engaging in an attempt to hurt him, so he was very careful with contacting strangers closer to the end of his life. Guenon and Schuon seem to have believed in Sufi initiation, which needs to be done by a master of an existing order which traces itself to Muhammad or one of his companions.

[Anonymous No.17832823]

>>17832724
Evola thought that Aleister Crowley, G.I. Gurdjieff, Giuliano Kremmerz, Eliphas Levi, and Maria de Naglowska were legit. They all did operative, magical ritual work that had transformative results.

[Anonymous No.17832830]

>>17832769
>him to a conviction that Hinduism was not fit for Western white race.
He never said in any of his writings or letters that Europeans cant authentically be initiated into and participate in Hinduism, and he associated in his personal life with certain ones who did like John Levy, and in one letter in response to Evola, Guenon can be seen recommending that Evola seek out a Shaivist teacher if he wanted an initiation into Hinduism. If you search through all of the Evola-Guenon letter exchanges you’ll find it. Certain other authors and figures including Schuon put words into Guenon’s mouth about the possibility of westerners becoming Hindu which not only Guenon never said but which he actually made statements to the contrary.

[Anonymous No.17832849]

Is there a Guenon chart?

[Anonymous No.17833296]

>>17832849

[Anonymous No.17833450]

What other Traditionalists are worth reading besides Guenon and Evola?

[Anonymous No.17833854]

>>17832640
>a man dressed as a woman is degenerate, but a western man dressed as a muslim is actually based
Guenon is a tranny

[Anonymous No.17833937]

>>17832640
>btfos you

[Anonymous No.17833975]

>>17832830
>Guenon can be seen recommending Evola seek out a Shaivist teacher...

This is very interesting to me. I was always under the impression that Hinduism was off limits for westerners or anyone not born in the caste system but it seems like Tantric Traditions are open to those born with no caste (I wonder if it's because it's subverted in Tantra) according to this interview : http://wildyogi.info/en/issue/gauri-interview-shri-chandrashekhar-mahaswamiji-spiritual-teacher-shivaite-tradition

Guenon must have known this as well. Do you have a source or link for that particular letter? I would be very interested in reading it.

[Anonymous No.17833984]

>>17832830
ISKCON is basically "westerners becoming hindu". Because I know what you mean when you say that. But I personally denounce the practice of referring the Vedic tradition as "Hindu".

[Anonymous No.17834450]

>tfw no legit initiation exists in the West by Guenons standards

[Anonymous No.17834486]

why did Guenon stop criticizing democracy and jewish republicanism in the early 40s?

[Anonymous No.17834536]

>>17832640
thread theme
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XcBSdtgT0Y

[Anonymous No.17834552]

Do traditionalists think everyone is going to heaven?

[Anonymous No.17834606]

>>17832640
The final redpill for traditionalists is that the modern world is all of history, from the time the first man-ape became conscious and that the traditional world lies in the distant future as a goal we need to reach.

[Anonymous No.17834616]

>>17833975
>I wonder if it's because it's subverted in Tantra)
The Agama-derived initiations in Shaivism and Shaktism don’t subvert caste or the Vedic system, they just exist alongside it as a parallel set of initiations within the same religion.

>>17833984
Sri Vaishnavism doesn’t attach any caste or gotra requirements to taking the samasrayana initiation, it’s not just ISKCON who offers initation to westerners, but westerners can also join Sri Vaishnavism etc, the British academic
James Mallinson was initiated into the Ramanandi Sampradaya.

[Anonymous No.17834732]

>>17833975
>Do you have a source or link for that particular letter? I would be very interested in reading it.
I realized that I actually confused two separate things and that Guenon didn’t say that to Evola

One is a letter from Evola to Eliade in which in which Evola says an unnamed correspondence told Evola if he wanted an initiation into Tantra he should travel to Kashmir or Tibet

https://www.gornahoor.net/?p=4808

the second item as in Evola’s and Guenon’s back and forth debate about Vedanta, wherein Guenon says Evola does’t understand it, in the exchange Guenon makes some vague comment about Shaivite Tantra “opening horizens” for Evola. I had confused the two in my memory

> As far as Tantra is concerned, we would have to distinguish : there is a multitude of Tantric schools, of which some are in fact heterodox, at least partially, while others are strictly orthodox. Until now, we have never had the opportunity to explain ourselves on this issue of the Tantra ; but Evola, which, let us say in passing, grasps only imperfectly the meaning of the ‘Shakti’, has certainly not observed that we very often assert the superiority of the Shivaite point of view over the Vishnuite point of view ; this could have opened to him other horizons.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/evolaasheis.wordpress.com/2018/03/01/a-controversy-about-the-vedanta/amp/

So I was mistaken in my memory but Guenon himself was certainly aware of the fact that there are initiations in Vaishnavism, Shaivism and Shaktism which are available to westerners, and he was friends with John Levy who was initiated into Hinduism, and who also purchased Guenon’s Cairo home for him.

[Anonymous No.17834739]

>>17833937
Plato’s Parmenides does not BTFO Guenon, you must not know very much about the metaphysics he writes about

[Anonymous No.17834749]

>>17834739
Guenon didn't even bother to understand Plato and just dismissed him, however considering what he says about Parmenides, it seems to me pretty obvious that Plato's Parmenides btfos Guenon.

[Anonymous No.17834762]

>>17834749
Can you elaborate instead of posturing? Cite his statements and explain why he is wrong if you want your claim to be taken seriously

[Anonymous No.17835302]

>>17832640

René Guénon is a servant of Iblis. I like Heydar Jemal better

[Anonymous No.17835305]

>>17835302
>I like Jamal
cuck

[Anonymous No.17835349]

>>17835302
>Heydar Jemal
>nooooo not muh heckin putinrinos
>muh anti imperialism
>muh based nelson mandela
>rejected Ibn Arabi because he fell for the pantheism meme
>so cowardly he wouldnt even state if he was a sunni or shia
I think I know which one is the servant of Iblis

[Anonymous No.17835611]

>>17832640
I am myself critical of Guenon, but I am willing to discuss.

Isn't the obvious problem with traditionalism and its hate for modernism, that traditionalism itself is a product of modernism? Guenon himself critiques the modern world and what not, but doesn't he himself realize that his interpretation of religion and culture is merely as modernist as anything else that was happening at that time?

A clear example of this is how he has to make up a new definition of metaphysics to make his ideas work. This is a (painfully obvious) modernist thing to do; Making up a new narrative to make sense of the past. If Guenon was a ""genuine"" traditionalist and his claims about there being a "perennial wisdom" out there was true, couldn't he just simply join that tradition instead of having to make up a theory from scratch?

[Anonymous No.17835619]

>>17832769
I thought he was an arab

[Anonymous No.17835626]

>>17832769
>Western white race
That's an American worldview. An early 20th century Frenchie wouldn't think like this.

[Anonymous No.17835633]

>>17832823
Gurdjieff wanted immortality for the jiva though, instead of its dissolution and reunion with Atman. He was going in the exact opposite direction as the legit spiritual traditions.

[Anonymous No.17835645]

>>17833450
>>17833450
The primary ones are Guenon, Schuon, and Coomaraswamy. Evola is secondary.

[Anonymous No.17835653]

>>17834552
I imagine they agree with Meister Eckhart when he said that at death, angels will come to take away your mortal fetters, but if you are attached to these fetters, you will see them as demons tearing you apart.

[Anonymous No.17835664]

Who is your favorite from The Iuzhinskii Circle?
For me its Golovin.

[Anonymous No.17835672]

>>17833984
It’s too bad ISCKON is Gaudiya Vaishnava though. Prabhupada seemed fairly solid despite that

[Anonymous No.17835681]

>>17835664
>The Iuzhinskii Circle
Tell me more about them

>>17835672
whats wrong with Gaudiya Vaishnava?

[Anonymous No.17835739]

>>17835611
His point is that the legitimate traditions are the perennial wisdom, but as presented to different peoples at different times in a way they could understand.

Also you seem to have an overly greedy definition of modernism, like if someone comes up with anything new, they are a modern. The sensible world is constant flux, and no one ever denied that. The difference between a traditionalist and a modern is not that the modern comes up with things never heard before, it's that the modern does so pell mell, while the traditionalist does so in accordance with an established order. Basically, it is the difference between playing music in a jazz ensemble and playing in an orchestra with a conductor. When an orchestra plays music, you will only know what motifs may emerge and where the music will take you if you have heard that exact symphony before. Which we have not.

[Anonymous No.17835879]

>>17835611
I were asking myself the same question.

He avoided modernism as much as possible but of course he adapted his way of explaining the eternal truth to some people of his time with his own vocabulary in a situation where there were no installed spiritual tradition in the western world.
He existed because of modernity, but as a remedy from it, at least for some.
He said he is the only one to blame if there are mistakes in his defense of traditions.

Metaphysics means what is beyond the physical realm. Guénon said he used the most useful word for a reality that is not what some moderns means by "metaphysics", which word they use with a limited meaning. This reality is clearly stated by all spiritual traditions : it is God, the infinite.

You join the "perenial wisdom" by getting initiated into a sacred order of a traditional spiritual tradition, working on yourself,... which he did. Then your progress is only limited by yourself... You don't need to join anything else.

[Anonymous No.17836613]

>>17835611
I think its obvious that, yes, guenon’s ideas and Traditionalism are only afforded by modernity and the aggregation of knowledge and history up until that point. I don’t think however that this prevents such a movement from being anti-modern, because really what is meant by modern in the traditional circle is secular modernism.

I think the best question to open critique on Traditionalism is, is perennial wisdom a completely modern notion with no valid historical precedent? Because it is true that a Traditionalist only becomes an initiate *after* their hermetical, perennial, information-based observations, which for some like Evola seem to trump the initiate’s religion itself. This seems to be ironic and inverted compared to the past. You can imagine how someone a millennia ago would join an order more organically and with the belief that there religion contains the entirety of the truth, which is certainly not the perspective of a Traditionalist. Such an novel understanding seems to be explicitly a product of modernity where religion and spirituality has been made overly intellectual and hyper rational.

Now of course a traditionalist might argue that perennial notions have always existed either consciously or unconsciously in the various religious orders of the world. They might say that a sufi initiate whether they realize it or not, subscribes to the idea of a universal spiritual metaphysics. It becomes a historical debate from here, requiring the comparison of evidence versus proof. Its also prone to retroactive projection.

Overall, I wouldn’t say traditionalism is entirely off the mark, but I continue to bear it with salt for some skepticism by the same seed of doubt you noted

[Anonymous No.17836625]

>>17836613
*, not proof

[Anonymous No.17837089]

>>17836613
Perennialism is pretty much an elaboration on the parable of the blind men and the elephant, which is ancient. So at least the Indians had this view since ancient times.

[Anonymous No.17837843]

>>17834732
Thanks , I will take a look at these.

[Anonymous No.17838087]

>>17835633
>instead of its dissolution and reunion with Atman
Misunderstanding of moksha. There is no 'melding' and there can't be reunion as the union was never broken, can't be broken.

[Anonymous No.17838117]

>>17838087
What happens to us individually when we reach moksha then?

[Anonymous No.17838225]

>>17838117
Not that poster but moksha is the eternal nature of the Atman, the attainment of moksha is not the production of a non-pre-existing result, it’s the removal of the non-perception or ignorance of the pre-existing eternal reality, misidentification with the jiva that appears within consciousness is part of this ignorance. Atman is non-individual, when moksha is ‘attained’ the superimposition of the illusory individuality or jiva is removed from the underlying non-dual Self which then reveals Itself without any additional action being required.

[Anonymous No.17838268]

>>17838225
>when moksha is ‘attained’ the superimposition of the illusory individuality or jiva is removed from the underlying non-dual Self which then reveals Itself without any additional action being required
Sure, I understand that, but I mean what happens practially or mechanically. What is the effect of the illusion of jiva disappearing?

[Anonymous No.17838342]

>>17838268
>What is the effect of the illusion of jiva disappearing?
One is freed from all sorrow when the omnipresent Self reveals Itself, forever ending any misidentification of the Self with other things and that of other things with the Self.

[Anonymous No.17838356]

>>17838342
Do you retain any sense of indivduality, like in theosis?

[Anonymous No.17838405]

Guys can you explain something to me?

I was reading Serrano and he states he wishes his ego to essentially refuse reunion with the One (he's a gnostic). He says his ego is the dyad, that was separated from the One by hatred (orphic myth), and he seeks rather to have his ego reach the antipode of the One by following its Non-Existence to the bottom of the abyss. I'm guessing because the One is Beyond Being, by embracing Non-Existence there is a feedback loop (which is embodied in the myth of the grail where treasure is discovered in a tomb) from whence the Ego achieves full differentiation and individuation from the One and the Dyad becomes its own Monad.

Is this "LHP"? Is this oppositional to the saintly way of seeking full knowledge of the union with the One? Or is it new age tier? Evola seems to similar to this also with his fixation on magic and trying to wield the illusion of the cosmos to a perceived end. Not only that, but in his writings he expresses a very prideful and haughty attitude, rather than a beatific or more humble attitude that Guenon expresses.

[Anonymous No.17838428]

>>17834762
Mind your business you pseud. I've said perfectly enough, but now I may put it in your cartoonish memey way: Plato unifies both Heraclitus and Parmenides, this is by nature against Guenon's beliefs. Whether or not he truly understood any ancient philosophy whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.17838454]

I heard people saying Guenonfags have good discussion. Can someone point me to an example anywhere in the archive?

[Anonymous No.17838548]

>>17838356
The Self is non-individual, or if you prefer supra-individual. When the Self reveals itself, you as the Self realize your own non-individuality as you are the same infinite Self in everyone, individuality doesn't just mean ‘one’ but it has to do with something existing as separate from and distinct from other entities. As the Self is the only sentient Entity, there are no other entities which the Self can be considered as being individual in relation to. Guenon has a chapter in ‘Man and His Becoming According to the Vedanta’ called ‘The fundamental distinction between the Self and ego’ which you may find helpful in explaining this. The body and mind of the liberated man can still walk around, think, engage in debates, write texts etc even after the non-individual nature of their Self is realized, because the mind and intellect etc were already different from the Self to begin with, so the mind etc continue on existing within conditional reality as long as the subtle body does, but without any more mutual indiscrimination between them and the Self.

[Anonymous No.17838829]

>>17835349

your fantasies have nothing to do with reality

[Anonymous No.17838868]

>>17832769
You just made all of this up. He supports medieval catholicism e.g. grail mythology, but thinks modern christianity totally abandoned this. He was interested in Islam because Islam still had it's medieval nature in modern times.

[Anonymous No.17838874]

>>17838454
Nope.
It's literally a forced meme.

[Anonymous No.17838891]

>>17838874
t. seething materialist bugman

[Anonymous No.17838968]

>>17838428
>Mind your business.
I am minding my business, this is a Guenon/Traditionalism thread, it’s not a Platonism thread you autist. If you come into the thread and make unsubstantiated claims about Guenon being refuted by something then it is incumbent upon you to substantiate that claim.
>I've said perfectly enough,
No you didn’t, all you did was whine about Guenon not paying more attention to Plato and you incorrectly tried to portray this as being a refutation of what Guenon writes, which it isn’t. You actually have to explain which specific idea that someone said was wrong in order to refute them.
>but now I may put it in your cartoonish memey way: Plato unifies both Heraclitus and Parmenides, this is by nature against Guenon's beliefs.
So? Why should Guenon care that Plato unified Heraclitus and Parmenides? Do you even have a source for this where Guenon says Plato failed to reconcile them or is this just your superficial assumption about what Guenon thought about the pre-socratics which may not even be true? Guenon not caring about or not attributing much importance to what Plato thought of the pre-socratics is not in any sense a ‘refutation’ of anything that Guenon wrote. It’s entirely your subjective opinion and that Guenon should have attributed more importance to them. Subjective opinions are not refutations.

[Anonymous No.17839016]

>>17838405
I don't know this author but it's pretty cringe, or pitiful. So yes, new-age or fanciful but it could be pretty dreadful since it could be simply diabolical. But any demons or demonic attitude is just "participating" in the same spirit of negation that is Satan.
You may want to see what Guénon says about counter-initiation, Serrano was talking about something that seems close to it.

Does acheiving Satan brings you to God ? Satan is a being that is not, he has no being but think he is, he is outside of God, so he doesn't exist, but he think he exist, and outside of God, that's his sin of pride. He is the illusion of the ego itself, of the I outside of God. To negate everything and not the I, just means becoming satanic. "I will negate", "I will go to", "my ego", you keep the I, that is the cause of limitation and reject the good lesser being. That's why pride is the worst sin, since it is the ego for itself.

It may come from a false understanding of tantrism and similar things : to go through obscurity to see the light can mean two things : First it is that you used some lesser stuff to continue and support your spiritual journey (for example you used some attachment you have to support or motivate you sometimes), or it can mean that you made your own discovery that false goods are false goods. So it can mean using your desires for the good or using them against themself or your ego, but I don't think tantrism means glorification of the ego in itself, vision that is suggested in what I read from you.

Also it may help to remember that limitation does not mean individuation, since individuation can mean determination in a positive ontological way. Limitation is just satanic, determination can mean being. So God is the all determinate without confusion and division, the evil is the all-confusing limitation, it's the impossibility of the confusion of opposites, so the limitation by confusion of the possibilities or by indefinite division. The devil is the impossibility itself.

You need to follow a legitimate spiritual path with a real legitimate spiritual father, not your own ego-made fanciful stuff.
If there is a negation that works it's ascetism and purification from the ego. Don't forget the last part, since demons are great ascetics too, it is known, but they make it for themself. The death of the ego, and not the death of the beings for the ego may have been the meaning being this symbol in the myth of the grail.

Sorry for writing so much, I slipped a little, let me still know if I where of any help.
If an anon knows a little about it, I would be interested.

[Anonymous No.17839096]

>>17838405
>He says his ego is the dyad, that was separated from the One by hatred (orphic myth), and he seeks rather to have his ego reach the antipode of the One by following its Non-Existence to the bottom of the abyss. I'm guessing because the One is Beyond Being, by embracing Non-Existence there is a feedback loop (which is embodied in the myth of the grail where treasure is discovered in a tomb) from whence the Ego achieves full differentiation and individuation from the One and the Dyad becomes its own Monad.
>Is this "LHP"?
No, as far as I’m aware there is no genuine/traditional LHP which says that you can achieve spiritual realization through pursuing non-existence/annihilation and by fleeing from God. The ego is already different from the One/God by default, there is no further differentiation of the ego from God that can occur. “Absolute individuation” is a meme made up by Evola which stems from his reading of German Idealism (profane philosophy), it has no traditional basis to it, Tantric doctrine does not teach it, even in Hindu Tantra one is taught to regard everything as one’s Self, to the extent of even accepting as one’s Self what the RHP calls non-Self like physical matter and sensory perceptions; you don’t become a more special individual self that is separate from others. I haven’t read Serrano but it sounds like a weird jumble of Gnosticism and what Evola gets wrong about traditional metaphysics.

>Is this oppositional to the saintly way of seeking full knowledge of the union with the One? Or is it new age tier?
the latter

>Not only that, but in his writings he expresses a very prideful and haughty attitude, rather than a beatific or more humble attitude that Guenon expresses.
I agree, that’s one of the reasons I don’t care for him as much although I think he is still worth reading, not with a grain but with a large heaping of salt though. Bataille once wrote that Guenon is haughty, maybe its true to a small extent but I dont think so to any large degree, I suspect Bataille said so because he was a leftist who bought into modern spooks like muh individualism, progress and equality and so its more offensive to people like that when they read Guenon calmly explain why that stuff is garbage.

[Anonymous No.17839540]

>>17834486
Do you mean stop as in no longer releasing books attacking it? He already critiqued it pretty extensively in Crisis of the Modern World, as well as the attitudes and assumptions underlying those things in East and West. To release more books retreading the same ground would be like beating a dead horse.

[Anonymous No.17839585]

>>17838968
If you knew more about Guenon, you wouldn't be so hostile.

Guenon completely agrees with Parmenides and rejects Heraclitus. He also disliked Plato and referred to him as a corruptor of tradition. Plato's Parmenides dialogues goes much further than Parmenides "One".

If you knew anything about Plato also, or really any of the thinkers that we are talking about, you wouldn't say stupid things like "so? so? why is that of any importance?" It's like a supporter of Hume replying to Kant by saying "so what? Why should Hume care about any of this?" When if he understood it, he would actually be taking the argument to hand and making a reply.

>Let this therefore be said, and let us also say the following, as it seems appropriate. Whether or not there is a unity, the unity itself and the manifold otherness, both in relation to themselves as well as to each other—all this, in every way, both is and is not, appears [phainetai] and does not appear. —This is most true [alēthestata].
- Final passage of the Parmenides

[Anonymous No.17839596]

>>17839585
>He also disliked Plato and referred to him as a corruptor of tradition
Why did Guenon think that? How did Plato corrupt tradition? Not same poster just curious

[Anonymous No.17839619]

Christ is King, you are all homosexual

[Anonymous No.17839648]

>>17839596
Guenon thought Plato reduced the mysteries and tradition from Egypt, Orphism and Pythagoras, to "muh logic, reasoning and comprehension," and always believed philosophy since him to be arrogant.

However these critiques could not be further from Plato. I think most of Guenon's followers disagree with him on this part as well.

[Anonymous No.17839650]

>>17832823
He wrote about all of those guys about the quality of the initiations in ascending order starting from Crowley to Levi. He said that Crowley was spiritually balanced but his followers were not, and Gurdjieff was onto something when he said people were NPC's but Evola couldn't make heads or tails on his practices because they were too mystified. I don't know about the others though, but later in the Sufi of Rome, he confided that Crowley was a quack and an MI6 agent.

[Anonymous No.17839676]

>>17839585
>Guenon completely agrees with Parmenides and rejects Heraclitus.
The Advaita metaphysics which Guenon writes about is not the same thing as Parmenidean monism. As far as I remember Guenon never says anywhere that the monism of Parmenides was completely correct, in fact Guenon trashes monism in his writings. If the reason you think Guenon fully agrees with Parmenides is because Guenon agrees with Advaita, then you would be very incorrect.
>He also disliked Plato and referred to him as a corruptor of tradition.
Im aware that he didn’t refer to Plato with the same esteem as some other figures, do you have a citation like a page number though for the phrase “corrupter of tradition”, that seems way too heavy-handed a phrase for him to label Plato with, is this just you twisting his words?
>Plato's Parmenides dialogues goes much further than Parmenides "One".
So does every eastern metaphysics which Guenon writes about, none of this that you are talking about is a refutation of Guenon. If this whole thing of yours is centering around the false belief that Guenon was just recapitulating Parmenidean monism then you played yourself anon
>If you knew anything about Plato also, or really any of the thinkers that we are talking about, you wouldn't say stupid things like "so? so? why is that of any importance?"
I’m asking questions because I’m challenging you on your inane bullshit by requiring you to do more than brainless posturing. You still haven’t provided an example of a refutation of anything that Guenon wrote by the way.

[Anonymous No.17839686]

>>17834606
>the traditional world lies in the distant future as a goal we need to reach.
That's not a final redpill, that's what all of the traditionalists unanimously agree upon throughout their work, because history works in repeating cycles. The past will be the future and the present will be the past.

[Anonymous No.17839703]

>>17839648
>Guenon thought Plato reduced the mysteries and tradition from Egypt, Orphism and Pythagoras, to "muh logic, reasoning and comprehension,"
No he didn’t that’s wrong, you seem like you have not even read Guenon. I have seen another anon that you periodically argue with here on /lit/ make that same argument, but I don’t believe that Guenon did and I think you are falsely conflating some 4chan anons views with Guenon’s. Guenon in fact cites Plato on occasion in some of his books on metaphysics. Do you have a source for your statement in his writings that you can provide that would support your claim?

[Anonymous No.17839993]

bump

[Anonymous No.17840412]

>>17832640
>kindle
You can download nearly all his works here: https://archive.org/details/reneguenon/1921%20-%20Introduction%20to%20the%20Study%20of%20the%20Hindu%20Doctrines%20

I'm thinking he was wrong about Christianity and he was a fetishising orientalist.

Dominus vobiscum.

[Anonymous No.17840560]

>>17833296
thx

[Anonymous No.17840625]

>>17839676
which writings does he specifically trash monism in? (I've only read his book on Islam and Daoism so far)

[Anonymous No.17841214]

>Martinist orders still advertise the fact that Guenon was a martinist at one point

Didn't he argue that Martinism was trash because it didn't have legitimate lineage? Or was that Papus' gnostic group

[Anonymous No.17841259]

>>17832640
What's the point of this thread?

[Anonymous No.17841266]

>>17839619
Is this book worth reading bros?

[Anonymous No.17841571]

>>17840625
in his very first book when explaining the difference between philosophy and traditional metaphysics

[Anonymous No.17841682]

>>17841259
to talk about the books and by extension the ideas of the most important thinker of the 20th century

[Anonymous No.17841743]

>>17838117
Look up the true meaning of the word "individual".

[Anonymous No.17841951]

>>17841571
As I recall he, only does that because monism in his time only meant either a materialist monism or an idealist monism. He didn't have the concept of neutral monism. I hear non-dualism is still different from neutral monism, but I don't understand how.

[Anonymous No.17842602]

>>17841951
>I hear non-dualism is still different from neutral monism, but I don't understand how

Like how the infinite is the negation of finiteness, non-duality is the complete negation or absence of duality and multiplicity, this separates it from neutral monism, which admits the existence/reality of varying degrees of multiplicity and duality insofar as they all try to come up with a theory of a substance which unites and constitutes the various objects and our conscious experience, whether material, mental or neither. In saying that there is a substance that differentiates itself in various modes a multiplicity is admitted which is not accepted in the classic non-dualism of Advaita Vedanta. In Advaita, the absolute reality or Brahman doesn’t constitute the substance of form of physical objects or thoughts or qualia, these are all held to be superimposed out of ignorance upon the absolute reality of pure and immutable undifferentiated infinite consciousness. Any theory of monism would say there is something that forms the substance of objects etc instead of saying they are unreal appearances within consciousness that are qualitatively different from that consciousness (them being insentient and having form and consciousness being sentient and formless).

[Anonymous No.17843197]

>>17841266
If you are interested in the Eastern Orthodox perspective than yes