Just admit you can't refute him honestly.

[Anonymous No.19560768]

Nobody knows how to "refute" him. Every refutation I had the displeasure of reading about him has to do with

1) Conflating the modern definition of "Tradition" as "old" vs what he clearly describes (semantics of people who already have an ill thing to say.
2) Something about him being a Mason (non argument)
3) Conflating him with New Age and Theosophy (despite his brutal take downs of this shit in his Spiritist Fallacy and Theosophy).
4) Tradcath seething (non argument)

Instead we could discuss that his adoption of Advaita has errors of its own. We could discuss the shortcomings of certain aspects of his thoughts insofar their implications. But instead of discussing this reasonably, every discussion of him turns into shitflinging, and it is almost always one sided.

I am yet to read a proper refutation of this man. And he does have some shortcomings and weaknesses in thought, but nobody has ever discussed them thoroughly and honestly because it always devolves into stupidity. It's like there is a deliberate psyop against this man.

[Anonymous No.19560843]

>>19560768
he has a shitty pencil mustache

[Anonymous No.19560918]

I recently read Crisis and Reign.
Either I didn't understand or find his arguments against science very compelling. (tbf I have a very heavy science background).
I understand that profane science is no longer linked via symbols to "sacred science" where it could be helpful for initiation whilst also being materially useful. That profane science's predominance has also led to the erosion of any suprahuman in favour of the solely human.
However, when I was speaking about these things with a friend (where we commonly talk about philosophy), I find that these arguments make sense if you already have a belief in something suprahuman but if you don't (as in the case of my friend who appeals to rationalism etc.) then there is a massive gap that cannot be crossed and all these postulations fall down as something that is "subjective" etc. It doesn't help that the secret of initiation is "inexpressible".
How does Guenon answer these issues? Perhaps in his words, my friend has a higher level of "rajas" in him and I "sattva", which makes it more accessible for me. Though again, this doesn't feel very convincing.
I guess the other answer is: because of the Kali Yuga and reign of quantity, connection with essence being slowly lost makes it difficult for normal people to understand. Though again, this relies on the person to understand the concepts rather than the concepts themselves being understandable. Idk if my ramblings even make sense, but this I feel is the main problems with Guenon. Despite this, I still like reading him.

[Anonymous No.19560934]

>Conflating him with New Age and Theosophy

because he was a literal convert to a religion for tradlarp purposes and on the same level of cringe as those things, how do you not get this.

[Anonymous No.19561037]

There's no such thing as brahman

[Anonymous No.19561106]

>>19560768
Can someone give me a QRD on Guenon?

[Anonymous No.19561109]

>>19560918
That's correct. To be initiated into something, you have to be in a particular state of mind, and Guénon was written for only Initiates. It is not a work about confirming your biases as true, rather it is about how, without the necessary Initiation, you will be unable to comprehend the language he is describing.

I do not know how Guénon tackled this, but there are things outside of just text that get you to communicate something. Initiation is not about "wow look at me I'm enlightened" but about instruction and discipline, a set of instructions prior to understanding the esoteric. This is why Guénon speaks about you following the exoteric before you go on to the esoteric. Certain cultures have certain realities for specific traditions, as a consequence of their rituals of their time. Guénon's conversion to Islam, for instance, facilitated for him a means to understand the underlying realities of Islam because it's exoteric reality is more strictly laid out than it's esoteric.

Initiation in a Philosophy like Stoicism I can describe like this: Stoicism(as layed out by Epictetus) is not comprehensible to a non-Stoic because the mechanisms employed in Stoicism presuppose a trauma or a special kind of discomfort of some sort. This solidifies character. For someone who is well off and in pleasure, there is no need, and it is consequently confusing.

[Anonymous No.19561119]

>>19560918
>>19561109
Is this samefagging?

[Anonymous No.19561122]

>>19560918
I find it all terribly pretentious LARP. Essentially the doctrine is that you are a higher being for intoxicating yourself into believing things that can't possibly be justified by reason.

[Anonymous No.19561127]

>>19561119
No. And he didn't really answer my question. Though that may be my fault for being inarticulate.

[Anonymous No.19561131]

>>19560768

[Anonymous No.19561161]

>>19561109
>guenon was written for only initiates
No, it's not? The very vast majority of his readers will be uninitiated as will be his devoted fanboys. He would have known this.
>initiation is about instruction and discipline
Partly, but the central idea of initiation is the transmission of the spiritual aspect attached to the esoteric organisation.

You did not answer my main concern about bridging the gap between those who believe in the suprahuman and the human. Instead you relied upon an answer I already gave (understanding of guenon requires certain characteristics) that I said wasn't very convincing. Some of what you have said makes me think you have not read much Guenon.

[Anonymous No.19561166]

>>19561122
>Essentially the doctrine is that you are a higher being for intoxicating yourself into believing things that can't possibly be justified by reason

you don't even know what you're talking about;
it's not the doctrine's fault that you're an egoist, thinking that 'reason' is all that matters and there's nothing beyond it; actually, a metaphysical doctrine like adwaita is extremely rational and methodical; you find it 'terribly pretentious LARP' either by ignorance and lack of understanding or just by self-denial

[Anonymous No.19561181]

>>19561166
I already wasted several years on the religious self-delusion gauntlet. I have no problem with metaphysical systems like Advaita as plausible models, but they do not compel belief, nor do I think there is any way a person who dabbles in them can seriously consider themselves to be accessing the essential truth about reality. I think that is really a kind of rash idolatry.

[Anonymous No.19561214]

>>19561161
in the esoteric path there's no such thing as believing or not believing in it (there's an element of faith, of course), you either experience it or not, if you have doubts go see it with your own eyes. The theoretical path is all laid out, 'modern' doctrines like materialism, rationalism are unsustainable ('profane' doctrines like those that appeared in the modern west were already present in India a long time ago, and were, of course, discarded)

[Anonymous No.19561216]

>>19561166
You're being an egoist - you are proliferating your views for indoctrination. The traditionalist holier-than-attitude is just a cover for it. A poor one at that because it reveals your narcissism. You suck off to Guenon's pseudo-intellectual quagmire for all I fucking care. Nobody ever did anything with his ideas that mattered and no one ever will.

[Anonymous No.19561230]

>>19561181
then in your case, just a practical insight would help, go to India, japan, morocco, idk

[Anonymous No.19561260]

>>19561216
>his ideas
>indoctrination
it doesn't make any sense to continue this discussion, you don't have any idea of what you're writing

[Anonymous No.19561452]

>>19560768
lets say one accepts the thesis of Traditionalism and wishes to live out this philosophy, which religious tradition should adhere to? it seems like for a Westerner Catholicism is the only real option.

[Anonymous No.19561493]

>>19560768
I don't want to be a muslim.

[Anonymous No.19561599]

>>19561452
>pretend to be Catholic for political reasons
The last time enough people did this the Roman empire collapsed and we lost most of all the previous age's literature. Is this the true power of tardlarpers?

[Anonymous No.19562260]

>>19560918
>I find that these arguments make sense if you already have a belief in something suprahuman
Guenon considered debates to be profane and useless, you don't have to prove anything, just state the truth and those who get it will actualize this truth in their lives.

[Anonymous No.19562338]

>>19560768
>Instead we could discuss that his adoption of Advaita has errors of its own

What about all those threads which focus on the maya non dualism issue and the crypto Buddhism ?

[Anonymous No.19562351]

>>19560768

[Anonymous No.19562353]

>>19560768
he was refuted countless times in here, the most basic points against him are that he can't resolve the problem of extension, he just dogmatically assumes there's a higher realm in which reality exist and that phenomena is just an illusion
he can't resolve the problem of the third man, that refute his claim that we can be connected to a higher realm
and his notion of awarness as being the true trascendental aspect of being makes no sense since awarness needs an object to be aware of, making awarness interdependent and changing
guenon always failed to prove how awarness could exit on itself outside of phenomena, just take for granted that there's a higher reality in which pure awarness "must" exist

[Anonymous No.19562466]

>>19562353
"But an objection will undoubtedly be raised here: Is it possible to go beyond nature? We do not hesitate to answer plainly: Not only is it possible, but it is a fact. Again it might be said, is this not merely an assertion; what proofs thereof can be adduced? It is truly strange that proof is demanded concerning the possibility of a kind of knowledge instead of searching for it and verify ing it for one’s self by undertaking the work necessary for its acquisition. For those who possess this knowledge, what interest can there be in all this discussion?"

[Anonymous No.19562507]

>>19562466
"Moreover, all certitude contains something incommunicable. Nobody can truly attain to any knowledge other than by a strictly personal effort; all that one can do for another is to offer him the opportunity and indicate the means by which to attain the same knowledge. That is why it would be vain to attempt to impose any belief in the purely intellectual realm; the best argu ment in the world could not in this respect replace direct and effective knowledge."

this is one of his best texts
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.gornahoor.net/library/OrientalMetaphysics.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi80KbUm-D0AhUXiP0HHUuWD7IQFnoECAcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3GvAm3hbKqFQ94PkmmBv2H

[Anonymous No.19562521]

the more often I see him being refuted the more hysterically guenonfags spam
pure damage control

[Anonymous No.19562669]

>>19562466
>>19562507
So am I a bugman if I side with the vast majority of Western thinkers from antiquity to the present (which includes many mystics and religious) and assume that communicable reasoning is a more reliable guide to reality (even if barely reliable at all) than incommunicable intuitions? Rationality appears to be where all the hard work is done. I mean it seems like the typical Guenonposter doesn't do anything except will himself to assent to one particular man's set of propositions (and, thereafter, cease to question what he has assented to). It doesn't seem like a very impressive feat.

[Anonymous No.19562673]

>>19562669
>where all the hard work is done
This is your own plebeian spirit filtering you from the beginning.

[Anonymous No.19562695]

Nobody can refute anybody here, because nobody reads, and if they do, they read so badly as to systematically misunderstand every aspect of the author's thought.
t. has been in a philosophy thread

[Anonymous No.19562704]

The quintessentially powerful thing about Guénon and why he will be perpetually relevant are these two, simple facts:

A) If one clings to the assertion that academic, intellectual metaphysics is meaningful and must have some genuine basis despite being a product purely of abstract and mundane intellectuality, then Guénon provides the only possible underlying basis for it which cannot be undermined without undermining philosophy in its entirety.

B) If one decides to take the path of undermining philosophy in its entirety (à la Nietzsche), the philosophy of Tradition remains as the most cogent and generally widest-encompassing system of our supposed non-reality to date, even though it cannot be "justified" according to any purely rational system.

[Anonymous No.19562714]

>>19560768
>Instead we could discuss that his adoption of Advaita has errors of its own. We could discuss the shortcomings of certain aspects of his thoughts insofar their implications.

It is worse that you are aware of this yet choose to make inflammatory bait threads instead. It is almost like you enjoy the current state of the discourse and would like to see it continue unchanged.

[Anonymous No.19562723]

>>19562704
>even though it cannot be "justified" according to any purely rational system
Then what's the fucking point at all? Any attempts to articulate one's supra-rational experience essentially become attempts to rationalise it, and since they're doomed to fail any metaphysical assertions seem inherently contradictory and, above all, meaningless. The best you can do is embrace something like Mahayana Buddhism which is the only religion completely honest with itself when it refuses to talk about these things.

[Anonymous No.19562786]

>>19560768
>his adoption of Advaita has errors of its own.
Like?

[Anonymous No.19562848]

>>19562669
>vast majority of Western thinkers from antiquity to the present (which includes many mystics and religious) and assume that communicable reasoning is a more reliable guide to reality
>communicable reasoning is a more reliable guide to reality
Orthodox christian ascetics are westerners and they don't believe this. Actually, I don't know who believed this in the west, apart from maybe some greek philosophers and catholic theologians (which nevertheless used expressions which are purely metaphysical but they didn't fully understood them).

[Anonymous No.19562860]

>>19560768
>Instead we could discuss that his adoption of Advaita has errors of its own.
Wrong. Truth is unique and therefore perfect.

[Anonymous No.19562910]

>>19560768
My refutation is this man's physiognomy. Just look at this reduced cranial volume, vacant eyes, and mongoloid cheekbones. You can't ever convince me that worthwhile ideas could be spawned within this tragedy of a head.

[Anonymous No.19562936]

>>19562910
>mongoloid cheekbones
he considered chinese to be racially purer than whites

[Anonymous No.19562965]

He gets basic stuff wrong and fights strawmen. His whole thesis on Hinduism is that advaita is the only true orthodoxy and every other school is an aberration. This is just an assertion made because he prefers advaita philosophy, there is no evidence it was ever the single philosophy of all Hindus. He attacks indology by claiming that scholars date Hindu texts according to the age of manuscripts, which they didn't, for example Max Müller (before Guenon) dated the Rig Veda to 1500-1200 BC although he knew the oldest manuscripts were medieval. Guenon didn't bother to have the minimum of understanding about the positions he attacked.

[Anonymous No.19563002]

>>19562965
>His whole thesis on Hinduism is that advaita is the only true orthodoxy and every other school is an aberration.
FALSE
He stated that all hindu "schools" are different points of view of the same doctrine. Read Introduction to the study of the hindu doctrines.

[Anonymous No.19563103]

>>19563002
Then where do these "points of views" come from in the first place, given that all masters of these schools saw the same ultimate truth?

[Anonymous No.19563113]

>>19563002
Lolno, he says the atomist view of Kanāda is unorthodox despite Kanāda's school, Vaisheshika, being one of the six orthodox darshanas.

[Anonymous No.19563122]

>>19561230
>bro it's perfectly rational and methodical bro you just have to go to india bro I swear

[Anonymous No.19563133]

>>19563113
Kanāda isn't the only one belonging to Vaisheshika.

[Anonymous No.19563140]

>>19561119
nah that looks like this

[Anonymous No.19563141]

>>19563133
Kanāda's school means Vaisheshika, they're synonyms.

[Anonymous No.19563147]

>>19563141
nope, it was rectified by traditional elements from other schools

[Anonymous No.19563155]

>>19560768
>1) Conflating the modern definition of "Tradition" as "old" vs what he clearly describes (semantics of people who already have an ill thing to say.)

Isn't that literally what they believe? I thought the whole reason was because muh oldest religion. Guenon says that the only legitimate religions are the ones with unbroken chains of tradition passed from master to master.

Idk why they believe this but I thought it was because they think true knowledge was accessible before or right after "the fall" but lost since babylon or that the hyperborean atlanteans taught the aryans how to science, which would be the same kind of archetypical event around the same time period and that later revisions of this true knowledge are impure or corrupted.

That doesn't make any sense and theres no reasonable justification for the truth not being accessible later, as in normal Perrenialism, or even today by the uninitiated.

tl;dr Its just working backwards from the conclusions to justify racism, which is why its popular.

[Anonymous No.19563161]

[Anonymous No.19563170]

>>19560768
>Instead we could discuss that his adoption of Advaita has errors of its own

[Anonymous No.19563175]

[Anonymous No.19563176]

>>19563155
>to justify racism
Yeah, Guenon was a yellow supremacist...
>Isn't that literally what they believe?
not fully, he claimed that the classical world was degenerate and that the Middle Ages were superior.

[Anonymous No.19563181]

>>19560768
>I am yet to read a proper refutation of this man. And he does have some shortcomings and weaknesses in thought

[Anonymous No.19563190]

>>19563176
its esoteric hitler shit

Hes the crypto evola because people found out that evola was super fascist and it stopped being cool to say in public. Thats why spammers won't talk about Perennialism or even most other types of traditionalism and insist on Guenon, because his metaphysics are compatible with nazi cults.

[Anonymous No.19563191]

>>19563147
According to Guenon, because otherwise his thesis fails. Kanāda's school was considered orthodox.

[Anonymous No.19563193]

>>19563190
bait, get out faggot

[Anonymous No.19563195]

>>19563190
>>19563193

[Anonymous No.19563212]

>>19563176
>not fully, he claimed that the classical world was degenerate and that the Middle Ages were superior.
That doesn't really address my point

Theres no reasonable justification for the truth not being accessible later, as in normal Perrenialism, or even today by the uninitiated. Guenon is just making shit up that sounded good to him because he was high.

[Anonymous No.19563232]

He was just a Occultist (Theosophist) who wrote negative things about other Theosophists.

[Anonymous No.19563244]

[Anonymous No.19563253]

[Anonymous No.19563255]

>>19563244
It always bothers me when I read people having such active lives at say, 26.

[Anonymous No.19563261]

[Anonymous No.19563284]

>>19563212
>reasonable justification
Do you care about what traditions teach or your personal opinion? The hindu/greek/ roman cycles are a descent from the Golden Age to the Iron Age. The Bible speaks about the fall of man. The truth is still accesible in this age but belongs only to a few, not everyone attains moksha.

[Anonymous No.19563288]

>>19563284
Your still not actually saying anything your just being cryptic and saying only some people know the truth.
Which people? How do you know? Why are they correct and not others?

[Anonymous No.19563313]

>>19563288
if it were just nondualism you could go to a lot of people but the reason its guenon is because of race spirits

[Anonymous No.19563316]

>>19563288
>Which people?
All people which aren't westernized or modern westerners.
>How do you know?
They have authority, I have not. If you doubt them, go and find yourself by practice and not seetheing online, they don't care about your complains.
>Why are they correct and not others?
Why would a small group of people from a very very recent time in history (modern western europeans) who colonized the whole world and imposed their modern ideas on everyone, be right and 99%+ historical humanity wrong?

[Anonymous No.19563344]

>>19563316
It doesn't sound like you have read actually Guenon you just want to LARP

[Anonymous No.19563498]

>>19563344
explain

[Anonymous No.19563557]

>>19562338
>non-dualism issue
A sophist argument advanced by people trying to posit 'unity in difference' (a contradictory category) as being true non-dualism despite this being false. Maya isn't truly existing or real and hence cannot exist in any real duality with That which does
>the crypto Buddhism
A stupid argument since Shankara disagrees with Buddhism on basically everything

[Anonymous No.19563601]

>>19560768
No one cares about your homolust for the horse faced French larper.

[Anonymous No.19563865]

>>19560768
He’s a syncretist LARPer with a boner for the East. Debunked, refuted, btfo

[Anonymous No.19564782]

>>19563601
projecting hylic

>>19563865
he fought against syncretism

[Anonymous No.19564816]

>>19564782
and yet his beliefs were nothing like the average muslim's. curious.

[Anonymous No.19564839]

>>19564782
You are obsessed with a MAN, so much that you are willing to write long paragraphs to defend his honor from anonymous posters on a forum for Asian cartoons. You definitely have some homosexual tendencies, possibly due to an absent father figure.

[Anonymous No.19564873]

>>19560768
*Improves and completes Guenon's project in your path*

[Anonymous No.19564886]

>>19562965
To be clear, not even his Sufism is traditional or orthodox in the Arab world. Ultimately, everything Guenon suggests relies on 4 arguments or presuppositions:
1) Divine knowledge originates from a primordial (literally Hyperborean source)
2) Classicism (older necessarily = better because it’s closest to primordial source)
2) The older has been retained in an “esoteric” circle of secret initiates, of which he alone is an authority
3) It’s identifiable because these old religions overlap, indicating they illustrate a truth (consensus = truth, because they happen to agree on something, that means it must be true)
4) If you still don’t find any of that convincing, you’re still wrong because he just “intuitively knows” it to be true

By the way, most of these are central to Theosophy. Why do you think Guenon was so concerned with condemning Theosophy? It’s because his thinking is so similar. It’s literally just Theosophy, but trying to find it in religions and if you can’t, you just assert it’s there but esoteric. He’s an occultist. That’s all.

Is that preferable to staunch atheism? Probably. Guenon sure sounds legitimate and appealing, especially to people with any sort of religious inclination, even more so if they’re interested in the occult because he gives you your cake and let’s you eat it too. Maybe he’s good for re-orienting you away from atheism, away from the worst pseudo-religions (Theosophy), but not genuine religiosity imo.

[Anonymous No.19564893]

>>19564782
> he fought against syncretism
But not against relativism or what I call “common denominator spirituality”.

[Anonymous No.19564897]

>>19564886
older is better is an islamic presupp, they think the friends of muhammad were the best generation and everything afterwards degenerates

[Anonymous No.19564899]

>>19564897
> older is better is an Islamic presupp
Then why are they Muslims?

[Anonymous No.19564948]

>>19564839
You're confusing Guenon poster for marxists and quite possibly seething and projecting

[Anonymous No.19564969]

>I demand strangers on the internet do things for me
how about no
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HJxya0CWco

[Anonymous No.19564970]

>>19564948
>Guenon poster for marxists
It's the same kind of mental illness, really.

[Anonymous No.19564980]

>refute
you fucking anti-dialectical joe six packs need to go back to being homophobic and watching rainbow clad cheerleaders at football games

[Anonymous No.19564990]

>tfw OP still doesn't understand that /lit/ is the gay pickup line factory

[Anonymous No.19565032]

>>19560768
As usual this entire thread was exactly as I predicted.

>>19561109
And this is the only way you can understand Guénon. If you get filtered by this then go figure yourself out or something.

>>19562521
The only justifiable refutation I found was a couple anons refuting his idea of Advaita being Orthodoxy and his unfair attack on Vaisheshika and Buddhism. Otherwise I see no other criticisms. His ideas of Hinduism's history wasn't the best, but I am yet to see a refutation of his Metaphysics, or even his Crisis and Reign of Quantity.

>>19562695
/lit/ it wasn't always like that. Some low quality people came here.

>>19563170
>>19563175
I don't fucking care

>>19563190
Here's your (you)

This thread fucking sucks.

[Anonymous No.19565042]

>>19564980
Nigger see >>19565032

>>19564990
Based.

[Anonymous No.19565067]

>>19561109
>>19565032
> “Some theories which he may meet in modern Christian circles may prove helpful here; theories, I mean, that place the hope of society in some inner ring of 'clerks,' some trained minority of theocrats. It is no affair of yours whether those theories are true or false; the great thing is to make Christianity a mystery religion in which he feels himself one of the initiates.”

[Anonymous No.19565216]

What's there to refute? What is he even saying?

[Anonymous No.19565235]

>>19565032
This. Embarrassing thread

[Anonymous No.19565236]

>>19565067
That's how it was for millennia. And that's how it is with something like Shinto and with Islam. There is Orthopraxy, something that rarely ever occurs in Christianity, Protestantism in particular.

[Anonymous No.19565247]

>>19561106
See >>19561109

[Anonymous No.19565387]

>>19565032
>Otherwise I see no other criticisms. His ideas of Hinduism's history wasn't the best, but I am yet to see a refutation of his Metaphysics, or even his Crisis and Reign of Quantity.
Sounds like a massive cope and you straight up lying.
You haven't read Guenon you are just trying to trick people into purchasing his books.

[Anonymous No.19565419]

>>19565236
Guenon’s esoteric Sufism is not even orthodox nor is it common let alone uniform through other so-called esoteric Sufi circles.

[Anonymous No.19565526]

The end of the Kali Yuga is near. I can feel it.

[Anonymous No.19565535]

>>19565419
I know. That doesn't refute his Metaphysics.
>>19565526
400,000 years to go.

[Anonymous No.19565645]

>>19565419
>Guenon’s esoteric Sufism is not even orthodox nor is it common let alone uniform through other so-called esoteric Sufi circles.
Oh yeah? How was it then approved by Al-Azhar (largest sunni authority in the muslim world) and his books are even thought in their university courses? It's enough to search for Guenon's name in Arabic and use google translate and see the results that you will get.
https://journals.openedition.org/mideo/6856
https://empslocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/mrwatkin/isoc/guenon.htm
You don't know what you are talking about, he's considered to be almost a saint by Sufis in Al-Azhar.

[Anonymous No.19565856]

>>19565535
What metaphysics? His philosophy is a relativistic compilation of vaguely Hindu, vaguely Islamic, vaguely Platonic philosophy which in the end is just asserted on the basis of “it’s true, just trust me”. His view is not orthodox according to any existing religion, esoteric or otherwise. He has no metaphysics besides those he made up or inherited from Theosophy.

[Anonymous No.19565871]

>>19565645
And? The Pope endorses things that aren’t orthodox. Orthodox patriarchates endorse things that aren’t orthodox. Yet, you’ll argue that when Christians do it it’s invalidating but somehow in Islam it converts heterodoxy to orthodoxy. You just pick and choose and make up your arguments, just like Guenon did.

[Anonymous No.19566185]

>>19560843
This is the best argument against him. A mustache should be voluminous. Anyone who chooses to grow a mustache such as Guenon's has suspect judgement. Anyone who can only grow such a mustache is a mere boy who should be ignored.

[Anonymous No.19566211]

PBUH

[Anonymous No.19566223]

>>19560768
I admit it! For behold, master Guénon(pbuh)'s intellect is much too gigantic for my punny hylic brain.

[Anonymous No.19566247]

Consciousnessbros get the fuck in here

>>19566163
>>19566163
>>19566163
>>19566163

[Anonymous No.19566261]

>>19564816
>average
Guénon is not average.

>>19564839
I'm not guenonposter and I admire Guénon. I also don't write long paragraphs as you can see. Admiration is separate from sexuality.

>>19564893
>common denominator
Is God, and it should always be when judging a religion.
>spirituality
He oppose any common spirituality and any spirituality detached from an exoterism. Initiation is always into a form.

[Anonymous No.19566303]

>>19566261
Sure thing, fagboy.

[Anonymous No.19566338]

>>19565871
And you are the one who gets to define what's orthodox and what's not?
Muslims stand on the Quran and Sunnah and as far as I know Guenon didn't deviate from neither of these things regarding Sufism. The orthodoxy of Sunni Islam is maintained by Al-Azhar. Abdul Halim Mahmoud (or any cleric from Al-Azhar) didn't deviate from the Quran or Sunnah which are the primary sources of Islamic orthodoxy.
>The Pope endorses things that aren’t orthodox
Why is he still the pope then? Why is there no opposition to him?
>Yet, you’ll argue that when Christians do it it’s invalidating but somehow in Islam it converts heterodoxy to orthodoxy
This only happens in your head and you can't back any of what you say. What do you know about islamic orthodoxy and how did Guenon go against it?
The problem with christianity is that they derive their authority from the pope and when he does depraved things and goes against Mark 7: 20-23 it's viewed as ok because he's some type of god on earth or has the holy spirit with him or whatever.
If the Pope doesn't abide by the New Testament and the teachings of the early fathers then where do Christians derive their orthodoxy from? How do you know if something is orthodox or not? This is not a problem in islam.

[Anonymous No.19566354]

>>19560843
Guenonfags btfo. How can they ever recover?

[Anonymous No.19566529]

>>19566338
Good questions. How does René Guenon know what’s Orthodox?

> lowest common denominator
> just trust me

That’s literally his justifications. To deny this is a blatant lie.

[Anonymous No.19566917]

>>19565856
>>19566303
I've seen more shilling against the guy than I have seen anything genuine on the guy. It's almost like you want to prevent people from reading Guénon...

[Anonymous No.19567019]

>>19566211
Post more Guenonwave

[Anonymous No.19567647]

Makes you think. Makes you think about the people in your life. And when I think, I think of Guénon(pbuh). If he were here now what would he say? He would say "Anon what's it about? What's life about... if you don't go through Kali Yuga as a Traditional man?". He'd say "Suck it up, do the time in this dark age. That made you what you are. That makes you what you are. How long have we been around this cycle of ours? This Manvantara? 306,720,000 years. What's it about? It's about the spiritual transmission, tradition. You take the beating for your tradition, you don't run, you don't lay down, you don't betray who you are. What you are.

[Anonymous No.19567687]

Only christcuck ortholarpers hate him
Go back to jay dyer YouTube channel dear larpers.

[Anonymous No.19567743]

>>19563557
>A stupid argument since Shankara disagrees with Buddhism on basically everything

See >>19563170

[Anonymous No.19567820]

>>19566917
in this thread, maybe

[Anonymous No.19567871]

>>19567820
When was this? Holy shit that's a lot of guenon shitposting

[Anonymous No.19567873]

>>19567871
newfag
that was peak /lit/
if you didn't contribute to Guenon Magazine then you're not gonna make it

[Anonymous No.19567875]

>>19567873
unironically peak 4chan

[Anonymous No.19567881]

>>19567873
>Guenon magazine
kek

[Anonymous No.19567889]

>>19567881
I can't remember when exactly all that was
i'd like to say summer 2019-spring 2020 or so
maybe earlier

[Anonymous No.19568117]

>>19563557
>Maya isn't truly existing
how so? we're on maya right now, it has to exist in some capacity

[Anonymous No.19568258]

>>19568117
>we're on maya right now, it has to exist in some capacity
What really exists in this and each moment is immediate, partless, self-disclosing, unchanging awareness, that's present along with the appearance of the false (mithya). Everything (include thoughts, bodily sensations etc) other than this spotless, pristine, naturally-present awareness that reveals itself along with everything is neither identical with that self-revealing awareness nor a truly existing second thing, what truly exists in each moment and all moments is infinite space-like awareness alone, everything else being projected as falsity/ignorance/maya by an unlimited power inhering in that awareness as its nature.

[Anonymous No.19568275]

>>19568258
Awareness of what? That's like saying all that exists is smell but not any particular scent, just smelling. It stinks.

[Anonymous No.19568309]

>>19565387
(You)

[Anonymous No.19568322]

>>19567820
Now this is is the /lit/ I like. Without Guénon this board would succumb to /leftypol/.

[Anonymous No.19568355]

>>19568275
>Awareness of what?
Awareness is immediately self-disclosing and fully acquainted with the fact of its own presence independent of the objects, normally people don't understand this because they confuse awareness with the non-aware phenomena. When the phenomena are gone and there is just ever-liberated Brahman, then the awareness just abides forever and has its own presence forever disclosed to it, so it always has Self-knowledge this way, immediate and continuous non-conceptual knowledge of Itself as luminous presence, this is something inseparable from the very nature of awareness itself. The fact of being reflexive, i.e. directed or turned back on itself, allows awareness to be fully awareness of its own presence even without anything else, like in unembodied liberation. This constancy and immutability of awareness is why we never have to infer that we are aware but it's always self-apparent, and why we have infallible and immediate access to whatever our mind is engaged inthinking about.

>So my consciousness is not something I posit on the basis of some other evidence, but something I directly experience – yet not in the way I experience perceptual objects where givenness and being do not coincide and where therefore doubts about the existence of the appearing object are possible (because it is always thinkable that the appearing of the object takes place without the appearing object existing): It cannot just appear to me that I am conscious, for this very appearing would itself be consciousness. Rather, in the case of consciousness, being and givenness fall into one: presence is its own presence, without any subject-object or givenness-given difference.
>Hence, we do not know of our consciousness through any of the usual “means of knowledge” (pramāṇas) such as inference or perception. There are no special cognitive acts by which my consciousness could become known to me because its presence is the medium or base of any cognition. As Śaṅkara says: “The self is not to be established by any means of right knowledge […]. It is what employs any means of knowledge like perception, etc. in order to establish what is not already known. […] [T]he self is the very basis of any employment of means of knowledge and is therefore established prior to them. Therefore it cannot be refuted. We can only refute what we [externally] encounter, not what is our own being, for it is the very being of him who refutes it”
- W. Fasching

[Anonymous No.19568381]

>>19568258
then why is there maya in the first place? why not just existing in this self sufficient awarness?
maya seems redundant if awarness can exist on itself

[Anonymous No.19568443]

>>19568381
>hen why is there maya in the first place?
Because it's Brahman's inherent and uncreated self-nature to have it be effortlessly projected
>but that's not what I mean, I meant a reason aside from Brahman that made Brahman do it
If Brahman was impelled by anything other than itself/its own nature, then it would be subject to causal relations and couldn't be the author or origin of causality at the same time, which would be a contradiction, so Brahman projects maya along with the causality included within maya simply out of Brahman's own nature.
>why not just existing in this self sufficient awarness?
Because that would be contrariwise to God/Brahman's nature to project maya so beings can eventually on the spiritual path come to know and be Brahman
>maya seems redundant if awarness can exist on itself
maya does not fulfill any sort of purpose for the ever-liberated awareness of Brahman, so to speak of 'redundancies' and 'purposes' is meaningless, Brahman is eternally blissful and ever-fulfilled, so it never has any need of anything, or any reliance upon anything, nor does it have any purposes which presupposes a multiplicity of actor, object and means, none of which truly inhere in Brahman. Maya is not need for Brahman to be liberated, but it is needed for embodied beings to have experience as it includes the apparatus involved in this.

[Anonymous No.19568446]

>>19568355
>>So my consciousness is not something I posit on the basis of some other evidence
but is only after i have different moments of individual awarness that i can generalise and create in my mind the concept of awarnes son itself, i'm not epxeriencing awarnes sonitself, i'm just abstracting the idea of awarness as any otehr idea and then being aware of THAT idea, so when i'm aware of awarness in fact there's two parts not one, awarness and the idea of awarness of which i'm being aware, thus awarness still is dependent of a mental object
>>Hence, we do not know of our consciousness through any of the usual “means of knowledge” (pramāṇas)
>such as inference
we're infering a pure general awarness thru different particular moments of awarness
>or perception.
and we're perceiving this idea of a general pure awarness in our minds, to establish it's theoretical existence in the real world

>he self is the very basis of any employment of means of knowledge and is therefore established prior to them.
the self is a reflection arising from conciousness
>Therefore it cannot be refuted
the activity that creates the self can't be refuted, but that same activity by deffinition is moving(changin) so you can't affirm such identity will remain (have an essence )

[Anonymous No.19568459]

>>19568355
>When the phenomena are gone and there is just ever-liberated Brahman, then the awareness just abides forever and has its own presence forever disclosed to it, so it always has Self-knowledge this way
Phenomena are not gone. This is priestly world-denying babble. As expected, there is no awareness without objects of awareness.

[Anonymous No.19568475]

>>19568443
>that would be contrariwise to God/Brahman's nature to project maya so beings can eventually on the spiritual path come to know and be Brahman
>maya does not fulfill any sort of purpose for the ever-liberated awareness of Brahman

pick one and only one

[Anonymous No.19569691]

>>19568475
the first sentence is simply speaking from the perspective of what consequences it entails for is, without necessarily attributing that to Brahman as a motivation or purpose

[Anonymous No.19569993]

>>19568459
> Phenomena are not gone.
That sentence was speaking about when after the physical body of an enlightened person dies, their subtle body doesn’t transmigrate anymore but instead is withdrawn back into an unmanifest state in maya and then the awareness which had been animating that enlightened man and his subtle body remains as unconditioned self-revealing awareness in absolute reality alone, without maya, so that’s not saying anything any that contradicts the apparent appearance of phenomena right now since its speaking about their absence when the body is dead and not when the body is alive. Buddhism and other kinds of Hinduism also posit a final escaping of samsara whereby the liberated soul doesn’t have awareness of individual trees, rocks etc in the world anymore. The enlightened person whose body is alive remains aware of the minddo things like think about the world, reasoning etc even while being free of the notion that multiplicity ultimately real, like the lucid dreamer who remains aware of the dreamer while also being free from the notion that the dream is ultimately real.
>As expected, there is no awareness without objects of awareness
as expected, there is no distant world above the water said the fish

[Anonymous No.19570026]

guys are mother mary and kali actually one in the same

[Anonymous No.19570033]

>>19569993
Ok so this is all just "trust my mystical experience"

[Anonymous No.19570136]

>>19569691
>the first sentence is simply speaking from the perspective
you're talking about brahman's nature, there's no perspective there, the nature of a thing is by deffinition outside of perspectives, it's the objective thing, you can't say that someone's nature is subjective, that's a contradiction in terms

[Anonymous No.19570145]

>>19569993
>as expected, there is no distant world above the water said the fish
how do you know that awarness is not part of the water as well? until now you couldn't prove that awarness can exist outside of phenomena, you only said that it "should" because yoru system say so

[Anonymous No.19570147]

>>19560768
ya but what If I get direct revelation

[Anonymous No.19570209]

>>19562466
Is he just shifting the burden of proof here? Like the nietzche move of “if you thought about it for as long as I have you would come to the same conclusion?” Feels a bit week considering it’s the foundation of a belief he wants other people to adopt (which he does, otherwise he wouldn’t have bothered to publish work about it).

[Anonymous No.19570229]

>>19563103
He intuited them and thus you are wrong and also dumb.

[Anonymous No.19570232]

>>19562669
>the typical Guenonposter doesn't do anything except will himself to assent to one particular man's set of propositions
this pretty muc hsums up how guenonposter's minds operate

[Anonymous No.19570563]

>>19568446
>but is only after i have different moments of individual awarness that i can generalise and create in my mind the concept of awarnes son itself
Awareness is self-evident immediately and non-conceptually, prior to that mind reflecting on that fact of self-evident awareness as you describe, the mind reflecting on this actually presupposes that this fact is already self-evidently apparent, because you having any knowledge of what the mind is doing presupposes that you are awareness being aware of something (i.e. like a mind having specific thoughts). There can’t be knowledge or experience of anything without awareness ipso facto being present as the witness of that particular knowledge.The fact of us being able to generalize at all and the fact of having material to generalize from already involves the disclosure or revealing of the fact that you are aware, prior to any need to infer this or arrive at it through generalization/abstraction, because you can’t have any knowledge of things to generalize from without you having already been aware of them, having already *been* awareness. Employing the act of generalization presupposes and is done for the sake of an experiential presence who is the reason order is being imposed upon multifarious information, information that stands out at the moment it appears in stark contrast to awareness. Self-evident awareness as spontaneous effortless self-knowing presence is non-discursively and non-conceptually immediately self-evident to us at all times without any change.

>i'm not epxeriencing awarnes sonitself, i'm just abstracting the idea of awarness as any otehr idea and then being aware of THAT idea,
Having ideas to begin with has already made the fact that you are aware self-evident to you before you do this.
>so when i'm aware of awarness in fact there's two parts not one, awarness and the idea of awarness of which i'm being aware, thus awarness still is dependent of a mental object
The mental notion that the mind arrives at of awareness is never completely identical with awareness, as awareness cannot be objectified by the mind. The mental notion of awareness inhering in the mind is dependent on various things and is subject to change but this isn’t the actual real awareness (which is non-discursive and hence not a mental notion) , the actual real awareness is unconditoned and unaffected by any of this, unaffected by the mind being unable to objectify actual awareness. The conceptual idea of awareness being dependent on things doesn’t mean that the immediate, non-conceptual and self-evident fact of being aware qua awareness is dependent on anything. This remains what it is regardless of what the mind thinks about it. Since awareness isn’t identical with the mind, people can confuse their conceptual/mental idea of awareness for the actual awareness itself if they dont know how to discriminate between them.

[Anonymous No.19570606]

>>19568446
>>Hence, we do not know of our consciousness through any of the usual “means of knowledge” (pramāṇas)
>such as inference
>we're infering a pure general awarness thru different particular moments of awarness
you cant have a particular moment of awareness without the qualitative and experiential first-hand nature of being aware (which *is* the general awareness) being revealed already in that particular moment of awareness of something, in other words its impossible to find instances of being aware that don't contain the general nature of awareness in them since all experience consists of the general nature revealing itself as well as the changing particular thing alongside awareness which is presenting itself as an object to awareness. It doesn’t have to be inferred because it has already been made apparent. A “particular instance of awareness without knowing the unique qualitative-aspect or general nature (same as its unique first-hand qualitative aspect) of awareness” is like saying you can know something while also not knowing it, but that’s a logical contradiction, you can either be aware or not aware, but you can’t both be aware and not-aware of the same thing at the same time, you can’t know a tree or a rock without that ipso facto disclosing what it’s like to be aware of something generally, what it’s like to possess awareness as a nature, quality or mode of being, which is included together with the knowledge of the tree or rock and disclosed at the same time as it. Without this awareness as mode of being there is no knowledge of anything that can be had.
>the self is a reflection arising from consciousness
consciousness is its own self, reflections aren’t self-aware and sentient, to separate consciousness or sentience from the self is to make oneself insentient.
>Therefore it cannot be refuted
the activity that creates the self can't be refuted, but that same activity by deffinition is moving(changin) so you can't affirm such identity will remain (have an essence )
The changing activity is just the mind coming to the recognition and correct discernment of an immutable fact which has always been so, this fact remains what it is regardless of whether the mind recognizes it or not.

[Anonymous No.19570615]

>>19560768
>I am yet to read a proper refutation of this man
Race mixing muslim larper

[Anonymous No.19570695]

>>19570033
No, it’s not all just “trust me bro”, part of the point is that with intensive study of the Upanishads and Vedantic commentaries and especially with a teacher, one learns how ‘separate the kernel from the husk’ and have direct experiential realization of one’s own awareness as pristine, perfectly content and blissful, unaffected etc, it’s just that this is a highly complicated process that require intelligence and patient investigation, it has to be discovered within oneself after realizing how to connect what the text is teaching about with one’s own immediate experience. You can have direct experiential realization of it while the body is alive. This requires one to actually closely study and reflect on Shankara’s etc works but it can lead to one being able to personally confirm what they say about awareness as true.

[Anonymous No.19570749]

>>19570563
>Awareness is self-evident immediately and non-conceptually, prior to that mind reflecting on that fact of self-evident awareness as you describe
how so? how do you know that? each instance of awarness is awarness of something, in order for that statement to be real it should be an independent moemnt of pure awarness, which is impossible, cos as i said before, awarness is awarness of something
>because you having any knowledge of what the mind is doing presupposes that you are awareness being aware of something
yes but that don't presuposes that awarness can exist outside of the objects it's aware of
>There can’t be knowledge or experience of anything without awareness
and there can't be any knowledge of awarness if there's no objects to be aware of
>prior to any need to infer this or arrive
only on a categorical level, tat is, there's tons of a priori categories i need to perceive, space, time, quality, quantity etc, but that doesn't make any of them a priori on existence itself, there's only a priori as ideas
>Having ideas to begin with has already made the fact that you are aware self-evident to you before you do this.
it's also self evident that i need an object to be aware of, taht doesn't prove your point, on the contrary, shows howmuch awarness needs phenomena
>The mental notion that the mind arrives at of awareness is never completely identical with awareness
how so?
>as awareness cannot be objectified by the mind
that's what your trying to prove, but you can't use that as a proof, that's a petitio principii fallacy, or "beggin the question"
>the actual real awareness is unconditoned and unaffected by any of this, unaffected by the mind being unable to objectify actual awareness
again, that's what you want to prove, you can´t use that as a proof itself, you have to articulate how awarness can be self sufficient, just saying it is, like it's an axiom is fallacious

>This remains what it is regardless of what the mind thinks about it. Since awareness isn’t identical with the mind, people can confuse their conceptual/mental idea of awareness for the actual awareness itself if they dont know how to discriminate between them.
the same fallacy again
>>19570606
>you cant have a particular moment of awareness without the qualitative and experiential first-hand nature of being aware
but taht still show that awarness needs an object, it's interdependent, just being aware of awarness don't reveal his independence of phenomena, sicne i'm being aware of the idea of awarness, thus awarnes show itself as something interdependent
>reflections aren’t self-aware and sentient,
but sentience needs soemting to reflect upon
>The changing activity is just the mind coming to the recognition and correct discernment of an immutable fact which has always been so, this fact remains what it is regardless of whether the mind recognizes it or not.
how can you prove it? that's just a empty statement

[Anonymous No.19570781]

>>19570695
>the Upanishads and Vedantic commentaries
That is "trust me bro," it's scriptures about god and indo-thomist elaboration

[Anonymous No.19570795]

>>19560768
>turns out my unfalsifiable ramblings are after all unfalsifiable

[Anonymous No.19571018]

>>19570795
the problem is that guenofags undertsanding of logic is so small that they think something being unfalsifiable is a good thing

[Anonymous No.19571109]

>>19571018
I'm not Guénonfag btw. I just can't find myself to disagree with his Metaphysics. And everyone's seething seems to be ill-motivated. He is objectively a very good author, but I personally cannot find myself to agree with Advaita. Yet guys ideas about initiation and symbolism are great awakeners.

[Anonymous No.19571249]

>>19571109
>I just can't find myself to disagree with his Metaphysics
did you read any other metaphysical work? aristotle, kant, Aquinas,hegel, Cusa etc
cos guenon metaphysic system is really mediocre

[Anonymous No.19571258]

>>19570749
>Awareness is self-evident immediately and non-conceptually, prior to that mind reflecting
>how so? how do you know that?
Because I personally find/experience that at the moment of any arising of conceptuality, the immediate, non-conceptual awareness of the fact that I am aware is already present at the moment the conception arises, and that it remains during the gap between one conception and another. It’s there both in their presence and absence, regardless of their rising and falling.
>each instance of awarness is awarness of something, in order for that statement to be real it should be an independent moemnt of pure awarness, which is impossible, cos as i said before, awarness is awarness of something
What occurs in earthly embodied experience doesn’t prove or disprove what is possible if or when the soul or awareness continues on beyond earth/the body. There is no way to prove or disprove that based on what happens when awareness is present in the human body, your claim that it is impossible is a blind assertion, a statement of your unconfirmed beliefs.
>having any knowledge of what the mind is doing presupposes that you are awareness being aware of something
>yes but that presuposes that awarness can exist outside of the objects it's aware of
That awareness remains in the absence of objects does not have to be proven in order for Advaita to be free of logical contradictions or violations of logical laws, which it is, we dont have direct confirmation that it doesn’t remain (if we had confirmation then awareness would still be present), so we dont have direct confirmation of anything that refutes this claim of Advaita.
>There can’t be knowledge or experience of anything without awareness
>and there can't be any knowledge of awarness if there's no objects to be aware of
There is no ground to reliably know, prove or infer that about awareness after death, based on our embodied experience because these are not the same so what’s true of embodied experience cannot prove anything about how awareness exists beyond bodily transmigration.

[Anonymous No.19571268]

>>19570749
>Having ideas to begin with has already made the fact that you are aware self-evident to you before you do this.
>it's also self evident that i need an object to be aware of
That embodied human experience presents itself this show doesn’t prove anything about what happens to awareness and its self-knowledge when the body and mind are no longer present
>The mental notion that the mind arrives at of awareness is never completely identical with awareness
how so?
Because mental notions are conceptual and changing while awareness is non-conceptual and unchanging, mental notions (even the mental notion of awareness) are known by and revealed to an awareness as something different from it but the true non-conceptual awareness itself is continually known to itself in the form of self-disclosure that is identical with its very being instead of knowing itself in a subject/object split.

>as awareness cannot be objectified by the mind
>that's what your trying to prove, but you can't use that as a proof, that's a petitio principii fallacy, or "beggin the question"
Its you say this since you cite awareness knowing worldly objects to try (but fail) to prove it can cannot exist without objects in unembodied liberation. You are committing the fallacy you accuse me of. Awareness cannot be objectified by the mind because something that is non-conceptual cannot be grasped and rendered in conceptual terms by the mind while remaining non-conceptual, it becomes a conceptual representation of the non-conceptual instead of the same as it.
>the actual real awareness is unconditoned and unaffected by any of this, unaffected by the mind being unable to objectify actual awareness
>again, that's what you want to prove, you can´t use that as a proof itself, you have to articulate how awarness can be self sufficient, just saying it is, like it's an axiom is fallacious
I’m just pointing out how the whole Advaita teaching is internally-consistent and doesn’t violate any laws of logic or teach any contradiction, that’s not the same as proving its every individual claim about awareness.

>>19570606
>you cant have a particular moment of awareness without the qualitative and experiential first-hand nature of being aware
>but taht still show that awarness needs an object, it's interdependent
No it doesn’t, because if awareness was really independent then the fact of you having awareness of objects would just mean your independent awareness was aware of objects in addition to itself, in this scenario the objects can be reliant upon awareness without that awareness being reliant upon anything and you’d still experience it the same way, so that you experience things this way doesn’t prove anything in fact. You’d have to be pretty confused or deliberately be sophistic to not understand this.

[Anonymous No.19571274]

>>19570749
>just being aware of awarness don't reveal his independence of phenomena, sicne i'm being aware of the idea of awarness, thus awarnes show itself as something interdependent
wrong, your argument here erroneously presupposes that awareness = the conceptual idea of awareness
>reflections aren’t self-aware and sentient,
>but sentience needs soemting to reflect upon
>The changing activity is just the mind coming to the recognition and correct discernment of an immutable fact which has always been so, this fact remains what it is regardless of whether the mind recognizes it or not.
>how can you prove it? that's just a empty statement
Im just explaining how this is consistent with everything else Advaita teaches about awareness being unconditioned and independent, point out that it cant be refuted =\= proving it to be true. Advaita doesnt care about proving every little thing to everyone, they point out how none of Advaita is refutable, none of it violates logic, none of it is inconsistent, and then in deeply studying and practicing it people personally discover it to be true and confirm it as true within themselves in experience and realization. I’m not sure why you care so much about muf proofs when almost everything in Buddhism is completely unproven and highly contestable, perhaps its because you have….. totally inconsistent standards and are a hopeless sophist….

[Anonymous No.19571300]

>>19560768
Nature refuted him by cursing him with that physiognomy.

[Anonymous No.19571311]

>>19562936
I don't think you're talking about the same mongs, Anon...

[Anonymous No.19571475]

Here's a refutation: static hierarchies are a complete fantasy and in no way, shape or form resistant to the passage of time. There's your ultimate enemy: entropy. It will always destroy your stupid power pyramid, no matter how hard you try to avert its collapse

[Anonymous No.19571524]

Most traditionalists are cycle-pilled, entropy is not going to shock them as much as you think it is.
You're not as smart as you think you are

[Anonymous No.19571656]

>>19571258
>the immediate, non-conceptual awareness
how do you knoe is non-conceptual? that's a contradiction, since you can't know something beyond concepts, since concepts are that from which you can infer knowledge, that's my question, how can you know is non conceptual and prior to the mind?
>What occurs in earthly embodied experience doesn’t prove or disprove what is possible
yes, but ceratinly prove that awarness uses ibjects to manifest, on the other hand how can you prove that awarness can exist outside of objects/phenomena?
>does not have to be proven in order for Advaita to be free of logical contradictions or violations of logical laws
yes it does if advaita want to prove the exitence of brahman, since both are pure awarness, if pure awarness can't be proved then we have no reason to belive brahman exist
>here is no ground to reliably know, prove or infer that about awareness after death
you can't prove the contary, while is empircally obvious the relationship between awarness and perception, so the burden of proof is on you
>>19571268
>That embodied human experience present...
again, the burden of proof is on you if you wanna show the existence of brahman
>while awareness is non-conceptual and unchanging
you still din't prove that, you just taked for granted, and until now you did nothign to show that awarness can exist outside experience
>Its you say this since you cite awareness knowing worldly objects to try (but fail) to prove it can cannot exist without objects in unembodied liberation. You are committing the fallacy you accuse me of
lol no, i'mnot doing that, i'm just showing you that awarness manifest to us like something that perceive objects, the fact that you're reading this right now is proof enough, since you(subject/awarness) are reading this sentence(object) awarness as a category of perception is an empiric fact, doesn' t need rational articulations, but awraness as a metaphysical entity is indeed a ratinal claim nonempircally falsiable, so it needs further agurmentation, which you stil fail to do, you only relay on your axioms you just say awraness is non conceptual because it is, but how can you be sure of that when every instance of awarness is being aware of a concept? and the idea of awarness itself is for us just a concept

>No it doesn’t, because if awareness was really independent
i'm not saying is independent, i'm saying is interdependent>>19571274
>presupposes that awareness = the conceptual idea of awareness
no, my argument is that awarness needs the concept of awarness to be aware of awarness

>>19571274
>none of it violates logic
yes it odes, brahman being non causation but creatingcausation is contradictory, just saying it's in non causation nature to create causation is the most contradictory thing imaginable

[Anonymous No.19571668]

>>19560768
Here's the Nietzschean refutation: everyone who likes Guenon is a cringy permanently online loser who is into twitterphilosophy, and for that reason, he and his followers should be shunned as hostile to vitality.

[Anonymous No.19571809]

>>19571475
Check >>19571524
He's correct, but the dumbass forgot to reply to you.

[Anonymous No.19571814]

>>19560768
You're welcome:
https://newmanleary.wordpress.com/2021/03/14/the-modern-condition-as-a-natural-reaction-to-hypocritical-conservative-and-traditional-institutions/

[Anonymous No.19572219]

>>19571814
You haven't read Guénon.

[Anonymous No.19572223]

>>19571814
Also Dilate.

[Anonymous No.19572670]

>>19570209
>if you thought about it for as long as I have you would come to the same conclusion?
sounds like hegel

>>19570229
>He intuited them
sounds like deleuze, who i thought this guy was supposed to "retroactively btfo"

[Anonymous No.19572708]

i really havent read him, but this got me interested: how does he refutes Jung?

[Anonymous No.19572744]

>>19570695
>>19570606
>>19570563


For some Indian philosophers the British variations on Hegelian systems were both a point of entry into debates over ‘idealism’ and ‘realism’ in contemporary European philosophy and an occasion for defending Advaita against the charge of propounding a doctrine of world illusionism.

Consequently, the term ‘Absolute’ routinely appears in their texts, and, in fact, as S. Deshpande has noted, ‘the singular question that occupied these philosophers in the early part of the twentieth century was as follows: “What is the nature of the Absolute?”’ (Deshpande 2015: 19). As we will see, Mukerji, Raju, and Shrivastava developed distinctive styles of engaging with Hegelian idealisms as they reconfigured certain aspects of the classical Advaita of Śaṁkara through contemporary vocabulary.

(a) Mukerji was partly involved in locating Advaita in an intermediate conceptual space between, on the one hand, Kantian agnosticism and, on the other hand, Hegelian absolutism; (b) Raju and Shrivastava presented Advaitic thought as the fulfilment of certain insights of Hegel and F.H. Bradley; and (c) the interrogations of Hegel’s ‘idealism’ provided several Indian academic philosophers with a hermeneutic opportunity to revisit the vexed question of whether the ‘idealism’ of Śaṁkara reduces the phenomenal world, structured by māyā, to a bundle of ideas.

First, some have moved towards Kant’s agnosticism regarding the noumenon, and view the self as a bare that which remains completely unknowable. Second, others have elaborated Hegelian understandings of self-consciousness in terms of the self’s developing awareness of itself through its awareness of objects, thereby reducing the self, according to Mukerji, to the status of an empirical entity. At this critical stage of the argument, Mukerji presents Śaṁkara’s Advaita as a via media between these extremes in post-Kantian idealisms: on the other hand, the Absolute of Advaita (unlike the Kantian noumenon) is not utterly unknowable, for it is the self-revealing consciousness which is the ever-present background illumination in all empirical knowledge, but, on the other hand, the Absolute of Advaita is a pure undifferentiated unity and not the self-consciousness structured by identity-in-difference.

[Anonymous No.19573531]

>>19567647
I bet you have the Luigi Guenon. POST IT MOTHER FUCKER IM IN DIRE NEED OF THAT MEME

[Anonymous No.19573555]

This thread was moved to >>>/his/12482852