/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.23188492]

>BTFOs Science
>BTFOs materialism
>BTFOs atheism
>BTFOs democracy
>BTFOs progress
>BTFOs academicucks
>BTFOs equality
>BTFOs modernism
>BTFOs Spinoza
>BTFOs Theosophy
>BTFOs Kant
>BTFOs colonialism
>BTFOs Hegel
>BTFOs orientalism
>BTFOs Neovedanta
>BTFOs Theravada Buddhism
>BTFOs Nietzsche
>BTFOs Whitehead
>BTFOs new-ageism
>BTFOs Bergson
>BTFOs Ibn Taymiyyah
>BTFOs Freud
>BTFOs Jung
>BTFOs Protestantism
>BTFOs Bataille
>BTFOs Christian fundamentalism
>BTFOs Mormonism
>BTFOs the Greeks
>BTFOs Heidegger
>BTFOs pantheism
>BTFOs mass media
>BTFOs Marx
>BTFOs discord trannies
>BTFOs Nagarjuna
>BTFOs Anglos
>BTFOs global Jewry
>BTFOs Bahaiism
>BTFOs proselytism
>BTFOs dualism
>BTFOs worshippers of Mammon
>BTFOs Deleuze
>BTFOs Cantor
>BTFOs atomism
>BTFOs Evola
>BTFOs French occultist scene
>BTFOs BAP
>BTFOs syncretism
>BTFOs Schopenhauer
>BTFOs renaissance humanism

[Anonymous No.23188502]

>>23188492
I mean yeah you can attack any worldview it's easier then constructing your own

[Anonymous No.23188507]

Too bad OP couldn't BTFO autism

[Anonymous No.23188534]

>>23188502
>constructing your own
"It is also an important consideration for these philosophers to be able to put their name to a 'system', that is, to a strictly limited and circumscribed set of theories, which shall belong to them and be exclusively their creation; hence the desire to be original at all costs, even if truth should have to be sacrificed to this 'originality': a philosopher's renown is increased more by inventing a new error than by repeating a truth that has already been expressed by others. This form of individualism, the begetter of so many 'systems' that contradict one another even when they are not contradictory in themselves, is to be found also among modern scholars and artists; but it is perhaps in philosophy that the intellectual anarchy to which it inevitably gives rise is most apparent"

[Anonymous No.23188645]

>>23188492
Greatest writter of the XXth century, with saints. May he give a bit of his Wisdom

[Anonymous No.23188717]

>>23188492
The jannies removed the IP count as a symbol of non-duality... traditionalists in control... trust the plan, brothers...

[Anonymous No.23188751]

PBUH

[Anonymous No.23188763]

>>23188492
Do people here genuinely like this guy or is this some weird and elaborate inside joke?

[Anonymous No.23188769]

>>23188763
Yes

[Anonymous No.23188816]

>>23188534
I agree. I also think this guy was a faggot, but I agree with him.

[Anonymous No.23188827]

>>23188763
Read Reign of Quantity. Literally btfos most of the stuff OP mentioned. I thought he was a meme until I started reading it.

[Anonymous No.23188894]

>>23188751

>>/lit/thread/20222071#p20222222

[Anonymous No.23189249]

>>23188492
Why does he make discord trannies seethe so hard?

[Anonymous No.23189267]

>>23188492
Reminder Guénon couldn't speak neither Arabic nor Sanskrit, lol.

[Anonymous No.23189276]

>>23188534
ok, but the question still remains of what he actually believed. An average american 14 year old can read through plato and detect his logical fallacies. An average philosophy grad school midwit can find the fallacies in 20th century positivism, popperism, and analytical philosophy. Neither of them can successfully defend their own philosophical suppositions.

[Anonymous No.23189347]

>>23189276
Like all of those who had fallen prey to the corrupted doctrines of the (((One))), he believed that one should achieve (((oneness))) with the (((Absolute))), dissolving the self/ego. Likely, his soul was utterly destroyed and consumed by the (((One))) at his death. An unfortunate loss for us all.

[Anonymous No.23189466]

>>23189347
>dissolving the self/eg-
The 'Self' is the transcendent and permanent principle of which the manifested being, the human being, for example, is only a transient and contingent modification, a modification which, moreover, can in no way affect the principle, as will be explained more fully in what follows. The 'Self', as such, is never individualized and cannot become so, for since it must always be considered under the aspect of the eternity and immutability which are the necessary attributes of pure Being, it is obviously not susceptible of any particularization, which would cause it to be 'other than itself'. Immutable in its own nature, it merely develops the indefinite possibilities which it contains within itself, by a relative passing from potency to act through an indefinite series of degrees. Its essential permanence is not thereby affected, precisely because this process is only relative, and because this development is, strictly speaking, not a development at all, except when looked at from the point of view of manifestation, outside of which there can be no question of succession, but only of perfect simultaneity, so that even what is virtual under one aspect, is found nevertheless to be realized in the 'eternal present'. As regards manifestation, it may be said that the 'Self' develops its manifold possibilities, indefinite in their multitude, through a multiplicity of modalities of realization, amounting, for the integral being, to so many different states, of which states one alone, limited by the special conditions of existence which define it, constitutes the portion or rather the particular determination of that being which is called human individuality. The self is thus the principle by which all the states of the being exist, each in its own domain...

[Anonymous No.23189494]

>>23188763
you know how the hipsters of the ‘10s got to the point where they couldn’t tell the difference between actually liking something and ~loving~ it because it was so bad and your faux appreciation would kick you up one level on the ~that’s so random~ ranking?
I think that disease spread into the whole world and it’s so commonplace we don’t recognize it anymore.

[Anonymous No.23189639]

>>23188492
German traditionalism > Romance traditionalism

Kant, Holderlin, Goethe, Kierkegaard, Wagner, Nietzsche, Jung and Heidegger are a thousand times deeper, and above all more honest, than this LARPer. Lutheranism is more traditional than Catholicism ever was. It isn't surprising that Guenon, a Frenchman, had to look to exotic foreign cultures for his 'tradition' when his own culture, and religion, was an artificial Latinate creation. Only he made foreign cultures just as artificial and arbitrary as his own; played with culture like a mechanism. Or that Evola had to rely on Nietzsche, Wolfram, the German 'Ur', etc. Western tradition is Greece, but these 'Traditionalists' barely consider it, presumably because Greece has always been beyond the grasp of the Latins. Only Germany understood Greece. And if all that wasn't enough, Guenon was filtered by classical music.

>The resurrection of the German Folk itself has emanated from the German Spirit, in fullest contrast to the "Renaissance" of the remaining culture-folks of new Europe—of whom in the French nation's case at least, instead of any resurrection, an unexampledly capricious transformation on mere mechanical lines, dictated from above, is equally demonstrable.
>French Civilisation arose without the people, German Art without the princes; the first could arrive at no depth of spirit because it merely laid a garment on the nation, but never thrust into its heart; the second has fallen short of power and patrician finish because it could not reach as yet the courts of princes, not open yet the hearts of rulers to the German Spirit.
>However high the French spirit might try to lift itself above the common life, the loftiest spheres of its imagination were everywhere delimited by tangibly and visibly realistic life-forms, which could only be copied, but not 'interpreted' (Nachbildung): for Nature alone supplies a model for aesthetic moulding (Nachbildung), whereas Culture can become an object of nothing but mechanical imitation (Nachahmung).

Everyone should read Wagner's masterstroke of cultural analysis, "German Art and German Politics", for a complete contrast of the German and French character.

[Anonymous No.23189650]

Guenon got hard filtered by Christianity and his thought never recovered.

[Anonymous No.23190339]

Did Aleister Crowley single handledly BTFO the entirety of the traditionalist school? Even Guénon could not handle this anglo?

He cucked Amanda Coomaraswamy:
>Coomaraswamy asked Crowley to help promote his wife Alice Ethel's performances in 1916. Crowley wrote reviews of her in Vanity Fair and offered letters of introduction for her. She and Crowley quickly became lovers and magical partners, engaging in sexual magic by April of 1916. Alice became pregnant.
>Crowley says that Coomaraswamy was quite aware of their affair and had even encouraged it, wanting Crowley to take on her living expenses while in New York. Crowley, in exchange, introduced Ananda to Gerda Maria von Kothek, a prostitute and former Crowley lover. Coomaraswamy and von Kothek were soon living together.
>when Alice Ethel's career began to take off, Coomaraswamy wanted her back. Alice Ethel loved Crowley, but, for whatever reason, decided to return to England with Coomaraswamy. She had a miscarriage as a result of sea sickness on the voyage.

Julius Evola in turn praised Crowley, wrote even an article about him:
>http://www.gornahoor.net/library/EvolaOnCrowley.pdf

He was a degenerate, sex addict, coomer. Crowley coomed regularly, he was a pro-coomer advocate:
>According to Crowley’s diaries, he performed masturbation about 150 times per year from 1912-1928.

While Guénon was bowing down to Mecca at high noon and Evola was writing about mysteries of the Grail, Crowley's philosophical-religious doctrine Thelema absolutely COOMs over all Abrahamic religions:
>49. Abrogate are all rituals, all ordeals, all words and signs. Ra-Hoor-Khuit hath taken his seat in the East at the Equinox of the Gods
>51. With my Hawk's head I peck at the eyes of Jesus as he hangs upon the cross.
>52. I flap my wings in the face of Mohammed & blind him.
>54. Bahlasti! Ompehda! I spit on your crapulous creeds.
>55. Let Mary inviolate be torn upon wheels: for her sake let all chaste women be utterly despised among you!

Aleister Crowley called René Guénon a literal ape after Guénon doubted Crowley's claim to 33rd degree of Scottish Rite (quote from Aleister Crowley: The Beast in Berlin):
>On 21 October 1929, Birven wrote to Crowley about Guénon's article:
>Guénon says, in a polemic with the Revue Int[ernationale] des Socieétés Secrétes (Voild d'Isis, October 1929), that if you were to present yourself at the least apprentice lodge, you would be turned away at the door with all the honours due to your rank. (!) This is idiotic, but it also proves that people do not know you
>Crowley's reply shows the relaxed contempt in which he held RISS propaganda:
>"Thank you for your letter of the 21st which reached me this evening in the country [Kent]. Monsieur la Guenon's monkeying around amuses me. What a wheeze!"
>Note that Crowley cut the acute accent from "Guénon". In French une guenon is a female ape!

[Anonymous No.23190347]

>>23190339
None of this makes Crowley look particularly good.

[Anonymous No.23191016]

>>23189639
> German traditionalism > Romance traditionalism
It makes no sense to compare them, one is about metaphysics and the other is concerned with culture and aesthetics, a totally different ballpark.

[Anonymous No.23191550]

>>23189650
how?

[Anonymous No.23191558]

>>23188492
>>BTFOs materialism
how?

[Anonymous No.23191572]

>>23190347
This,
Guenon was a pro-social family man.
Crowley was a degenerate coomer, basically a heroin addict.

[Anonymous No.23192672]

>>23191016
>the other is concerned with culture and aesthetics
German Idealism is all metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.23192764]

>>23191550
He really, really wanted everything to have a neat exoteric/esoteric divide where he could point at one group or another and go "look these are the initiated masters passing down secrets the plebs are too stupid for" and Christianity doesn't have that - the doctrines are open to anyone who asks, there are no hidden rites or rituals to be initiated into, and there is no secret "other" metaphysics behind that which is promulgated by all major orthodox (small o) churches.
He tried kludging hesychasm into his view of things but anyone familiar with the matter can tell it doesn't really work, it was never a secret line of initiation and it doesn't even go all the way back to the beginning of Christianity anyway. This unresolved conflict doesn't instantly BTFO everything he wrote but it does show that he was willing to believe things about certain systems to make them fit his views even if the things he believed weren't really accurate to the actual traditions they were about.

[Anonymous No.23192835]

>>23189650
I don't see how that's the case when he devoted a significant part of his early writings to support the establishment of a Catholic intellectual elite

[Anonymous No.23192889]

>>23188534
Holy shit finally, I felt like I was the only one who hates how so many philosophers have these autistic rigid systems for human nature.

[Anonymous No.23192931]

>>23189650
It is quite literally impossible to be filtered by Christcuckery, it is the most midwit religion imaginable, made to be understood by jewish peasants and roman slaves.

[Anonymous No.23192935]

>>23192931
I'm sure Guenon would be okay with you blaspheming the name of Christ...

[Anonymous No.23192951]

>>23188763
Both honestly, although there are people more seriously interested in ideas like Guenon’s Traditionalism or apposite studies (esotericism, initiation, traditional forms of spirituality from Sufism to Vedanta and more, etc.) without being as obnoxious and meme-y about it.

>>23189639
Also, this guy makes some good points, even if I’m not in agreement with everything. But one certain thing I can agree on for sure, is despite Guenon’s intellect and fascinating ideas, as well as very good recounting of traditional doctrines of Vedanta as well as forays into other forms of esoterism from Sufism to Christian mysticism (which he had a generally very good grasp on), his work, thoughts and life are interpreted by some here in a cult-like fashion to disregard other stellar thinkers or apposite and very valuable spiritual teachings.

For instance, reading Jung w/r/t Traditionalist ideas, esotericism, or perennialism/the idea of a perennial philosophy more generally is one potentially very interesting and productive lens. Or even playing off existentialism and phenomenology in general, or someone like Heidegger specifically, against/in tandem with such ideas. (Which does not mean forcing obviously different conclusions by different thinkers into the same slots to back up some idea of “universality” one has, the claim that “all these figures are really saying the same thing in different ways” — they’re clearly not in some important respects, and you have to intelligently make choices about who you think gets it more right on various issues, but in general I’ve preferred the idea of generative Hegelian clashes that can lead to greater syntheses on a higher level from study of differing great thinkers and forms of thought, than I do the cult-like following of one figure who “got everything right”, dismissing everyone and everything else and shutting off one’s learning process).

Another relevant point, is proof of Guenon’s stance on Buddhism softening towards the end of his life, as revealed by correspondences and claims of close associates, with him warming up to the idea that some original authentic forms of it may indeed by “Traditional”, even if put in a different language and context from other traditions.

>>23192764
Also another good point.

[Anonymous No.23192991]

>>23192951
> Another relevant point, is proof of Guenon’s stance on Buddhism softening towards the end of his life, as revealed by correspondences and claims of close associates, with him warming up to the idea that some original authentic forms of it may indeed by “Traditional”, even if put in a different language and context from other traditions.
Follow-up/edit (samefagging): and the reason this is relevant (which I forgot to say), is some here still often take on the cultish belief that Guenon totally dismantled Buddhism, revealed it’s entirely untraditional or corrupt and false, etc. Whereas other thinkers affiliated with this movement clearly saw much of value in Buddhism (Evola for Tantric Buddhism particularly, Coomaraswamy who thought Buddhism and Hinduism were of a pair, in deep agreement on many things, and made a sort of generative clash of seemingly diametrical pronouncements on certain great universal truths that could be seen as different angles of looking at it, and Schuon also got deep into Buddhism).

Fun links:
http://www.frithjofschuon.com/uploads/pdfs/articles/166.pdf
http://religioperennis.org/documents/Schuon/buddha.pdf

[Anonymous No.23193052]

>>23192764
>He really, really wanted everything to have a neat exoteric/esoteric divide where he could point at one group or another and go "look these are the initiated masters passing down secrets the plebs are too stupid for"
Not true, he literally says that the boundary doesn't neatly apply to all religions.

>and Christianity doesn't have that - the doctrines are open to anyone who asks, there are no hidden rites or rituals to be initiated into, and there is no secret "other" metaphysics behind that which is promulgated by all major orthodox (small o) churches.
This is something he himself admitted while also hypothesizing about tiny currents that remain underground/hidden in the modern era, and its one of the reasons that he considered Christianity to have degraded somewhat especially as time approached the modern era.

>and it doesn't even go all the way back to the beginning of Christianity anyway.
There is no way to know this for certain and you are citing your own beliefs as if they were facts, various scholars and writers point to what they consider to be esoteric and initiatic elements in original and early Christianity, their books and articles dont prove anything but its disingenuous for you or anyone else to act like we can know for certain.

[Anonymous No.23193104]

>>23192672
>German Idealism is all metaphy—
The English mentality, of course, has no aptitude for metaphysical conceptions, but it does not make any pretension in this respect either, while the German mentality, which is not really better endowed, has the greatest illusions. To realize this, we need only compare what the two peoples have produced in terms of philosophy.

The English mind hardly left the practical order, represented by morality, sociology, and experimental science, represented by the science of psychology which it invented. When the English mind is concerned with logic, it is above all induction that he has in view and to which he gives preponderance over deduction. On the other hand, if we consider German philosophy, we only find in it hypotheses and systems with metaphysical pretensions, deductions from a fanciful starting point, ideas which might seem to be profound when they are simply nebulous; and this pseudo-metaphysics, which is everything that is farthest from true metaphysics, the Germans claim to find in others, whose conceptions they always interpret according to their own

[Anonymous No.23193123]

>>23193104
Further confirmation Guenon being filtered by everything German. At the end of the day he was Frenchman, with all of the blind spots that entails. Though it should be mentioned that this was written very early in Guenon's career and he later retracted it.

[Anonymous No.23193198]

>>23193123
He didn't disavow the claims that were made or the observations made in support of them but he only withdrew the written chapter from the publication of a book. From his perspective, Kant, Heidegger, Hegel etc were poor metaphysicians. It's not only Guénon who held this view but you can find critiques of these kinds of German thinkers on occasion even in the works of Schuon, Nasr, Borella etc

[Anonymous No.23193233]

>>23193198
Yes, Guenon retracted it, which could imply that he later changed his mind about these nations or he found his own arguments insufficient. The fact that other Traditionalists were critical of German philosophy means absolutely nothing, since their intellectual credit is no higher than Guenon's, or more often than not is lower. And yet Evola was appreciative of Schelling and Nietzsche, and also Heidegger IIRC. Guenon was faced in the West by a tradition outside his sphere of study and beyond his own comprehension. To see Guenon as a messiah, as if his mere looking-away from something stands as a model to be followed, is cultishly dogmatic, and your dogmatism is palpable.

[Anonymous No.23193263]

>>23188717
ah yes now tradfags can samefag without scrutiny

[Anonymous No.23193266]

The way /lit/ posts about this dude just convinces me he's the biggest midwit signal of all-time. The kind of guy retarded 20 year olds would have "a phase" for kind of like Jung.

[Anonymous No.23193970]

>>23193266
filtered

[Anonymous No.23194637]

>>23188492
He didn't really btfo anyone, he just created a set of unproven rules and used those dogmas for his "refutations" his whole system is a huge petitio principii fallacy, and that's why he's ignored in philosophycal circles, he never really engaged with the metaphysical critics of the essentialist systems he defended, his notions of .anifestation and the absolute were already refuted by Hegel

[Anonymous No.23194644]

I hate this faggot and all who like him so much it's actually fucking unreal.

Dumbest retard niggercattle of all time.

[Anonymous No.23194653]

>>23188492
How did he BTFO science exactly?

[Anonymous No.23195041]

>>23189347
Yes the Jews are the One. You are very smart.

[Anonymous No.23195059]

>>23189466
Isn't this the kind of stuff Jed Mckenna says.

[Anonymous No.23195069]

>>23194653
Get ready...
>The scholastics, following Aristotle, distinguish these two meanings by speaking of materia prima and materia secunda, so that it can be said that their materia prima is universal substance and their materia secunda is substance in the relative sense; but, since terms become susceptible of multiple applications at different levels as soon as the relative is considered, what is materia at a certain level can become forma at another, and inversely, according to the more or less particularized hierarchy of the degrees of manifested exisence under consideration. In no case is a materia secunda pure potency, although it may constitute the potential side of a world or of a being; universal substance alone is pure potency, and it is situated not only beneath our world (substantia, from sub stare, is literally 'that which stands beneath', a meaning also attached to the ideas of 'support' and 'substratum'), but also beneath the whole of all the worlds and all the states comprised in universal manifestation. In addition, for the very reason that it is potentiality, absolutely 'undistinguished' and undifferentiated universal substance is the only principle that can properly be said to be 'unintelligible', not merely because we are not capable of knowing it, but because there is actally nothing in it to be known; as for relative substances, insofar as they participate in the potentiality of universal substance, so far do they also participate in its 'unintelligibility'. Therefore the explanation of things must not be sought on the substantial side, but on the contrary it must be sought on the essential side; translated into terms of spatial symbolism, this is equivalent to saying that every explanation must proceed from above downward and not from below upward; and this observation has a special relevance at this .point, for it immediately gives the reason why modern science actually lacks all explanatory value.

[Anonymous No.23195093]

>Before going further it should be noted here that the physicists 'matter' can in no case be anything but a materia secunda, since the physicists regard it as being endowed with properties, on the nature of which they are incidentally not entirely in agreement, so that their 'matter' is not potentiality and 'indistinction' and nothing else besides; moreover, as the physicists' conceptions relate to the sensible world and do not go beyond it, they would not know what to do with the conception of a materia prima. Nonetheless, by a curious confusion, they talk all the time of 'inert matter', without noticing that if it were really inert it would have no properties and would not be manifested in any way, so that it could have no part in what their senses can perceive; nevertheless they persist in pronouncing everything that comes within range of their senses to be 'matter', whereas inertia can actually only be attributed correctly to materia prima, because it alone is synonymous with passivity or pure potentiality. To speak of the 'properties of matter' while asserting at the same time that 'matter is inert' is an insoluble contradiction; and, by a strange irony, modern 'scientism', which claims to eliminate all 'mystery', nonetheless appeals in its vain attempts at explanation only to the very thing that is most 'mysterious' in the popular sense of the word, that is to say most obscure and least intelligible!

[Anonymous No.23195455]

>>23195093
>>23195069
based & PBUH-pilled

[Anonymous No.23195828]

>>23194644
>Dumbest retard niggercattle of all time.
Guenon-hating hylics were never known for their erudition and wit

[Anonymous No.23195839]

>>23190339
>33rd degree of Scottish Rite
All Freemason influenced garbage.

[Anonymous No.23195861]

>>23188492
Still just slave morality. Traditionalists are pessimists and Nietzsche has their number.

[Anonymous No.23195903]

>>23193233
>And yet Evola was appreciative of Schelling and Nietzsche, and also Heidegger IIRC
Early on, but in his writings he gradually distances himself from German Idealism and related figures more broadly until he is quite critical of and largely disavows the ideas Hegel and Nietzsche etc in later books like Men Among the Ruins and Ride the Tiger.

>Guenon was faced in the West by a tradition outside his sphere of study and beyond his own comprehension.
That's the whole point, it wasn't Tradition in the sense that he wrote about, it was "tradition" with a little t like tattooing and salsa-dancing are "traditions". He rejects the entire premise that man can come to ultimate truth about existence solely through his own ability to engage in rational speculation. From his perspective while this may sometimes posses a certain quotidian interest, e.g. Schopenhauer's insights into human psychology, when it comes to answering the ultimate questions of life and existence it's worthless. Some German Idealists had a tenuous grounding of their thought in Protestantism but this hardly counts for much since as Guenon observes its metaphysically vacuous aside from the rare inspired mystic like Bohme (who Guenon mentions approvingly) and who is more or less the exception that proves the rule.

>as if his mere looking-away from something stands as a model to be followed
You say this as if you know that he didn't read enough of them or engage with their ideas enough on his own time to reasonably form his own opinion that they weren't worth further study, but this is just a presumption.

[Anonymous No.23196591]

>>23195903
>He rejects the entire premise that man can come to ultimate truth about existence solely through his own ability to engage in rational speculation.
Guenon accepts that man can come to the ultimate truth about existence solely through his own ability to engage in concentration.

Rational speculation is a mere support to concentration, insofar as that is considered a person can come to the ultimate truth of his own existence through rational speculation indirectly, insofar as rational speculation forms a part of the preparatory theoretical knowledge, guenon only emphasizes that theoretical knowledge is not to be taken as an end in itself.

> How was it that Aristotle himself and his followers failed
to see all that here was implied? It is the same in many other cases,
where apparently other equally essential things are forgotten, such as
the distinction between pure intellect and reason, even after having
defined them quite explicitly; these are strange omissions. Should one
see in this the effect of certain limitations inherent in the Occidental
mind, apart from some rare but always possible exceptions? This might
be true in a certain measure; nevertheless it is not necessary to believe
that Western intellectuality has always been as narrowly limited as it is
in the present age. But after all, we have been speaking only of outward
doctrines, though these are certainly superior to many others since, in
spite of all, they comprise a part of the true metaphysics. For our part
we are certain that there has been something other than this in the
West during the Middle Ages and in olden times; there certainly have
existed amongst an elite purely metaphysical doctrines which could
be called complete, including their realization, a thing which, for most
moderns, is barely conceivable. If the West has lost the memory of this
completely it is because it has broken with its proper tradition, which
explains why modern civilization is abnormal and deviationist.

>If purely theoretical knowledge were an end in itself and if
metaphysics went no further, it would still assuredly be worth
something, but yet it would be altogether insufficient. In spite of con
ferring the genuine certainty, even greater than mathematical certainty,
which belongs to such knowledge, it would yet remain, though in an
incomparably superior order, analogous to that which, at an inferior
level, constitutes terrestrial and human, scientific and philosophical,
speculation. That is not what metaphysics is meant for; if others
choose to interest themselves in a “mental sport,” or suchlike, that
is their affair; these things leave us cold, and moreover we think that
the curiosities of psychology should be completely indifferent to the
metaphysician. What he is concerned with is to know what is, and to
know it in such fashion as to be oneself, truly and effectively, what
one knows.

[Anonymous No.23196596]

>>23196591
>>Thus we see no difficulty in recognizing that there is nothing in
common between metaphysical realization and the means leading to
it, or, if preferred, which prepare for it. This is why, moreover, no
means are strictly or absolutely necessary; or at least there is only one
indispensable preparation, and that is theoretical knowledge. This, on
the other hand, cannot go far without a means which will play the
most important and constant part: This means is concentration. This
is something completely foreign to the mental habits of the modern
West, where everything tends towards dispersion and incessant change.
All other means are only secondary in comparison; they serve above
all to promote concentration and to harmonize the diverse elements
of human individuality in order to facilitate effective communication
between this individuality and the higher states of being.
>Moreover, at the start, these means can be varied almost indefinitely,
for they have to be adapted to the temperament of each individual
and to his particular aptitudes and disposition. Later on the differences
diminish, for it is a case of many ways which all lead to the same end;
after reaching a certain stage all multiplicity vanishes, but by that time
the contingent and individual means will have played their part. This
part, which it is unnecessary to enlarge upon, is compared, in certain
Hindu writings, to a horse which helps a man to reach the end of his
journey more quickly and easily, but without which he would still
have been able to arrive. Rites and various methods point the way to
metaphysical realization, but one could nevertheless ignore them and
by unswervingly setting the mind and all powers of the being to the aim of this realization could finally attain the supreme goal; but if there
are means which make the effort less laborious, why choose to neglect
them? Is it confusing the contingent with the absolute to take into
account the limitations of our human state, since it is from this state,
itself contingent, that we are at present compelled to start in order to
attain higher states, and finally the supreme and unconditioned state?
>>23195839
>freemason garbage
pure cope clearly you havent read guenon where he quotes again and again parralels between masonic symbolism and hindu and islamic symbolism.

[Anonymous No.23196601]

>>23196596
>This is why, moreover, no
>means are strictly or absolutely necessary; or at least there is only one
>indispensable preparation, and that is theoretical knowledge. This, on
>the other hand, cannot go far without a means which will play the
>most important and constant part: This means is concentration. This
>is something completely foreign to the mental habits of the modern
>West, where everything tends towards dispersion and incessant change.
>All other means are only secondary in comparison; they serve above
>all to promote concentration and to harmonize the diverse elements
>of human individuality in order to facilitate effective communication
>between this individuality and the higher states of being.

>Rites and various methods point the way to
metaphysical realization, but one could nevertheless ignore them and by unswervingly setting the mind and all powers of the being to the aim of this realization could finally attain the supreme goal;

[Anonymous No.23196618]

>>23195903
>when it comes to answering the ultimate questions of life and existence it's worthless
incorrect.
read:
>>23196591
> But after all, we have been speaking only of outward doctrines, though these are certainly superior to many others since, in spite of all, they comprise a part of the true metaphysics. For our part we are certain that there has been something other than this in the West during the Middle Ages and in olden times; there certainly have existed amongst an elite purely metaphysical doctrines which could be called complete, including their realization, a thing which, for most moderns, is barely conceivable. If the West has lost the memory of this completely it is because it has broken with its proper tradition, which explains why modern civilization is abnormal and deviationist

By the way Guenon was limited by his contact and exposure, he didnt read everything from the modern west.

Earth has not anything to show more fair:
Dull would he be of soul who could pass by
A sight so touching in its majesty:
This City now doth, like a garment, wear
The beauty of the morning; silent, bare,
Ships, towers, domes, theatres, and temples lie
Open unto the fields, and to the sky;
All bright and glittering in the smokeless air.
Never did sun more beautifully steep
In his first splendour, valley, rock, or hill;
Ne'er saw I, never felt, a calm so deep!
The river glideth at his own sweet will:
Dear God! the very houses seem asleep;
And all that mighty heart is lying still!

William Wordsworth (England, 1770-1850)

>
The Props assist the House
Until the House is built
And then the Props withdraw
And adequate, erect,
The House support itself
And cease to recollect
The Auger and the Carpenter—
Just such a retrospect
Hath the perfected Life—
A past of Plank and Nail
And slowness—then the Scaffolds drop
Affirming it a Soul.

Emily Dickinson (ca. 1863)

>For some people the day comes
when they have to declare the great Yes
or the great No. It’s clear at once who has the Yes
ready within him; and saying it,

he goes from honor to honor, strong in his conviction.
He who refuses does not repent. Asked again,
he’d still say no. Yet that no—the right no—
drags him down all his life.

C.P. Cavafy (Alexandria, 1863-1933) [translated by Edmund Keeley and Philip Sherrard]

[Anonymous No.23196620]

>>23188492
And he was wrong, regardless

[Anonymous No.23196622]

>>23189639
Correct

[Anonymous No.23196623]

>>23196618

Mountains, a moment’s earth-waves rising and hollowing; the earth too’s an ephemerid; the stars—
Short-lived as grass the stars quicken in the nebula and dry in their summer, they spiral
Blind up space, scattered black seeds of a future; nothing lives long, the whole sky’s
Recurrences tick the seconds of the hours of the ages of the gulf before birth, and the gulf
After death is like dated: to labor eighty years in a notch of eternity is nothing too tiresome,
Enormous repose after, enormous repose before, the flash of activity.
Surely you never have dreamed the incredible depths were prologue and epilogue merely
To the surface play in the sun, the instant of life, what is called life? I fancy
That silence is the thing, this noise a found word for it; interjection, a jump of the breath at that silence;
Stars burn, grass grows, men breathe: as a man finding treasure says “Ah!” but the treasure’s the essence:
Before the man spoke it was there, and after he has spoken he gathers it,
inexhaustible treasure.

Robinson Jeffers (1887-1962)

Cloud-puffball, torn tufts, tossed pillows | flaunt forth, then chevy on an air-
Built thoroughfare: heaven-roysterers, in gay-gangs | they throng; they glitter in marches.
Down roughcast, down dazzling whitewash, | wherever an elm arches,
Shivelights and shadowtackle ín long | lashes lace, lance, and pair.
Delightfully the bright wind boisterous | ropes, wrestles, beats earth bare
Of yestertempest’s creases; in pool and rutpeel parches
Squandering ooze to squeezed | dough, crúst, dust; stánches, stárches
Squadroned masks and manmarks | treadmire toil there
Foótfretted in it. Million-fuelèd, | nature’s bonfire burns on.
But quench her bonniest, dearest | to her, her clearest-selvèd spark
Mán, how fást his fíredint, | his mark on mind, is gone!
Bóth are in an únfáthomable, áll is in an enórmous dárk
Drowned. O pity and indig | nation! Manshape, that shone
Sheer off, disséveral, a stár, | death blots black out; nor mark
Is ány of him at áll so stárk
But vastness blurs and time | beats level. Enough! the Resurrection,
A héart’s-clarion! Awáy grief’s gásping, | joyless days, dejection.
Across my foundering deck shone
A beacon, an eternal beam. | Flesh fade, and mortal trash
Fáll to the resíduary worm; | world’s wildfire, leave but ash:
In a flash, at a trumpet crash,
I am all at once what Christ is |, since he was what I am, and
Thís Jack, jóke, poor pótsherd, | patch, matchwood, immortal diamond,
Is immortal diamond.

Gerard Manley Hopkins (England, 1844-89)

[Anonymous No.23196640]

>>23195903
If you want to get a glimpse of just how relative guenons works are, the books he spent devoted to outlining the relationship between the "support of traditional doctrines and rites," between "theoretical preparation" and "realization"

It is summarized in this poem by Emily Dickinson a modern american poet:

The Props assist the House
Until the House is built
And then the Props withdraw
And adequate, erect,
The House support itself
And cease to recollect
The Auger and the Carpenter—
Just such a retrospect
Hath the perfected Life—
A past of Plank and Nail
And slowness—then the Scaffolds drop
Affirming it a Soul.

[Anonymous No.23196673]

>>23196591
>Guenon accepts that man can come to the ultimate truth about existence solely through his own ability to engage in concentration.
Not really since in those passages he is talking about realization and doctrines in the sense of as having been passed down from teacher to student as part of esoteric/initiation instruction, as guided by their religious tradition, he isn't talking about some esp-like ability to self-hack gnosis that anyone can activate without any connection to any religion. And those doctrines relates to knowledge considered to be of a non-human origin, not arrived at through logical speculation or philosophical thinking.

>>23196618
>incorrect.
>read:
He isn't saying anything I disagreed with there, I said he rejects the premise of secular philosophy arriving at ultimate truth as well as rational philosophy based on Protestantism, I never said that he rejected all western thought as worthless, in your quote he is talking about the middle ages and older and not the stuff I pointed out that he rejected in the post-medieval era.

[Anonymous No.23196758]

>>23195903
Every one of your arguments only boils down to a restatement of Guenonian dogma. There is no counterargument, it is cultish recitation. Oh, but Guenon is synonymous with the great 'Tradition' and therefore is logically and systematically right about everything and there is no need for true explication! Guenonians inherit Guenon's blindspots, his lack of knowledge, but tout it as profound apprehensions

>in his writings he gradually distances himself from German Idealism and related figures more broadly until he is quite critical of and largely disavows the ideas Hegel and Nietzsche etc
In other words, Evola had a dynamic interaction with them that differed from Guenon's interaction with them. His 'disavowal' was by no means black and white, and he continued to welcome their influence in specific areas. It goes without saying Evola would not agree with Nietzsche's atheism. How is it two traditionalists can have a different understanding of what tradition is? In the most literal sense of the term, Guenon's 20th century movement of 'traditionalism' is only one manifestation of traditionalism throughout history, of which the German is not any less valid, but far greater. Since we do not believe Guenon has the sole right as heir to India and all great preceding traditions.

cont

[Anonymous No.23196761]

>>23195903
>it wasn't Tradition in the sense that he wrote about, it was "tradition" with a little t like tattooing and salsa-dancing are "traditions"
...in Guenon's opinion. Who of that tradition would say that the means in which these great figures came to ultimate truth was through merely 'rational speculation'? Do you think Heidegger would claim that is the basis for the high achievements of German thinkers? That's a pitiful lack of knowledge already demonstrated, but when knowledge lacks you must supply dogma! Repeat the master when in doubt! You have already mentioned Boehme, and one could plunge much further into that deep well of mysticism that became known as Pietism, and out of which the great art of Bach came, and sprung up again in Goethe and the like. You are working under the extraordinarily superficial impression that Protestantism only amounts to a logical quibbling with church dogma. How is it Boehme, a mystic and thinker so thoroughly Protestant, was able to mature and develop, under an apparently metaphysically vacuous culture? NO, the most vacuous judgement possible is to reduce the entire tradition, culture and spirit of a nation to the presence or lack of presence of an externally recognisable schemata. The criticisms that Guenon brings against it, as well the defences he brings for the Catholic faith, are so tenuous, small and logic-mongering, that one could only expect a prideful Frenchman to have come to them. What can only by comprehended inwardly by one time, can never be comprehended by another. Ah! But he is safeguarded against any ignorance of spirit, because he doesn't have to bother with it if he insists on the oneness of spirit and system. He could be struck literally blind, and his petty system would not allow him to 'see' his blindness. There is no consideration of the FACTS of something in respect to a system, in the respect of failing to measure up to it, or of the necessity for spirit to cleave itself from system when all those system-mongers have lost their own spirit. Maybe a poorer state for spirit! But better to still have spirit and no system than the other way around. If perhaps that is not the way it is meant to be, it was a necessity. It was a veritable fact that the Catholic church lost its spirit, they had separated long ago in Christendom; do not blame Protestants for at least wanting to preserve their spirit!

end

[Anonymous No.23196783]

>plagiarised Blavatsky
>worships a known plagiariser of Buddhism (lil Shanky)
>is an inferior less well known Evola
hey at least he got that sweet brown poon tho

[Anonymous No.23196797]

>>23196758
>>23196761
You shouldn't say so much anon, you're blaspheming the Germanic Tradition by discussing it with a hylic. Let them be blind.

[Anonymous No.23196830]

>>23189639
yeah the history of germany is really pathetic.
it starts with them being generic barbarians trying to meaninglessly fuck some very local romans and always failing . They do it only to fill up their days and try to pass as local hardcore heroes towards their retarded local population lol

then they become nothing. France was all the most powerful kingdom ever. Spain, Italy, GB all achieve some relevance too.Meanwhile germany was still a shithole with little warlords killing each others lol.

Then progress was made by france once more. This time with the enlightenment. The german rats were 100 years late on this and the output of the german renaissance is turds like kant, hegel and nietzche lol

Then world wars happened entirely due to german rats.
Of course they got crushed like the rat they were.

Since then germany is a generic american bitch and has been trying to destroy europe for the last 20 years lol

[Anonymous No.23196852]

>>23188492
i'm never gonna read this. a great majority of what i read is stuff i first saw here but even so i'm not going this far. i'd just feel too stupid undertaking something so dry and scholarly for a meme. it's be like going without sleep to marathon the batmam movies just out of appreciation for bane memes.

[Anonymous No.23196854]

>>23196830
You have to be at least 18 years old to post here.

[Anonymous No.23196859]

>>23188492
He was right about everything.

[Anonymous No.23196926]

>>23196673
>Not really since in those passages he is talking about realization and doctrines in the sense of as having been passed down from teacher to student as part of esoteric/initiation instruction, as guided by their religious tradition, he isn't talking about some esp-like ability to self-hack gnosis that anyone can activate without any connection to any religion. And those doctrines relates to knowledge considered to be of a non-human origin, not arrived at through logical speculation or philosophical thinking.
Literal garbage response, yes really, you simply don't understand what guenon means by concentration. He says rites and traditional paraphernalia are not absolutely indispensable
>he isn't talking about some esp-like ability to self-hack gnosis that anyone can activate
Fantastical projection on your end...
>And those doctrines relates to knowledge considered to be of a non-human origin
Sure they relate but the doctrine is not identical, it has the function of being like a meditational support.

By the way without a religion or formal initiation, participation in rites and so on, it can be activated, that's already well established, what you're doing is seeing reducing the kernel to the husk, to the outer shell, acting as if it is only by a doctrinal support, which is nonsense and only speaks to your own attachments.

>not arrived at through logical speculation or philosophical thinking but Muh Non-Human origin
You mean arrives at through the supra-rational non-discurive faculty called the Intellect or Intellectual Intuition. Guénon fully accepted that Ramana Maharshi for example was probably a Jivanmukta/Universal Man, what did he produce writings on self-enquiry, revelation is the result of that supra-individual non-discursive element, it is not like some external entity like an alien gives man revelation on stone tablets with writings made from light...
>He isn't saying anything I disagreed with there, I said he rejects the premise of secular philosophy arriving at ultimate truth as well as rational philosophy based on Protestantism, I never said that he rejected all western thought as worthless, in your quote he is talking about the middle ages and older and not the stuff I pointed out that he rejected in the post-medieval era.
He never rejected philosophy as a tool, or as part of a theoretical "preparatory measure," only as a means to an ends, and guess what, logic is perfectly traditional if is implicit, logic is what runs through Shankaras Bhashyas, Ibn arabi's
Fusus, and so forth

Infact it is only guenons assumption that Hegel or someone else stopped at logic and philosophy as the be all end all of life and being, and some sort of token of "individuality." Maybe their followers do essentially practice philosophy as a cult extension of the individuality of the founding philosopher, but once that tendency has been rectified in you or me, I really don't see the purpose or function of your points.

[Anonymous No.23196931]

>>23196926
To continue...
Infact I do not think Guénon was at the level of some sort of faultless perfect prophet, that is mere adolescent naivety. the guy towards the end of the life was convinced he was getting attacked by black magic on the astral plane, by satanic black magicians, witches and so on and that his illness was similarly caused, whether you like it or not there is a certain paranoia running through his work, and also the accusation of a "religious fetishism" can be levelled against him and his followers (especially the later western Muslim zealots who claim he is the founding father of their war waged against modernity).

[Anonymous No.23196936]

>>23196673
The question you should be asking yourself is why are you relying on Guénon's theory of "initiation" and have not learnt sanskrit to read any of the technical books about śaktipāta or dīkṣā
which are widely available.

[Anonymous No.23196954]

>>23196931
The thing is it's entirely possible he really was suffering these attacks, and that is no fault to him, but I'm sure it would hurt your ego and self-perception for you to understand that people in psychiatric wards these days also suffer from similar situations...

[Anonymous No.23197017]

>>23188492
>Had no interest in the German sphere
>Gets BTFOd by theosophy, from Böhme to Baader

[Anonymous No.23197025]

>>23193970
t. 21 year old somewhere between his Jordan Peterson phase and his Julius Evola phase.

[Anonymous No.23197074]

>>23196758
>Every one of your arguments only boils down to a restatement of Guenonian dogma. There is no counterargument, it is cultish recitation
This is any Guenonposter in a nutshell, Guenon himself was that, just a dude reciting his dogma without any real argumentation or articulation, great for people with weak father figures and cultish tendencies

[Anonymous No.23197079]

>>23195903
> Ride the Tiger
Ride the tiger is a Nietzschean book, is one of his most "germanic" works

[Anonymous No.23197208]

He did. And yet, somehow, he was simultaneously as worthless as any of them. Perennialists were stupid and ineffectual then and that's even more true now, only the most hopeless individuals fall into that intellectual trap.

[Anonymous No.23197221]

>>23188534
This is exactly why the only ever interesting modern philosophers are the critics of modern philosophy, Nietzsche being a prime example. These critics steer the lover of wisdom, if not toward wisdom, at least, away from what is patently false and unwise. Midiwits will never understand, however. This is why the modern reader is well advised to avoid any philosopher after and including Decartes, or risk perishing thereby.

[Anonymous No.23197226]

>>23188827
>I doubt that anyone, with normal tastes and the baggage of modern intellectual education, does not feel a repulsion at the first encounter with Guénon’s work

^ you

[Anonymous No.23197357]

>>23196926
>it can be activated, that's already well established
Not reliably, the cases of it happening without formal connection are extremely rare so as to be practically miraculous, so you can't really cite that as a way that an entire school of philosophical thought can overcome lack of traditional affiliations. That's like saying "well somebody won the lottery once so everyone can therefore be a millionaire without working".
> revelation is the result of that supra-individual non-discursive element,
In such a case something that already existed without beginning is just being revealed or disclosed, not comparable in the slightest to attempting to arrive at ultimate truth through theorizing and rationalizing.
>He never rejected philosophy as a tool or as part of a theoretical "preparatory measure,"
I never said that he did
>logic is what runs through Shankaras Bhashyas, Ibn arabi's
Shankara writes that reason exercised independent of scriptural authority/teaching is not a valid or reliable guide to the ultimate truth.

[Anonymous No.23197382]

>>23197079
cope

[Anonymous No.23197395]

>>23188763
They don't know anymore.

[Anonymous No.23197409]

>>23197226
This strikes me as a compliment.

[Anonymous No.23197516]

>>23193104
>blah blah blah I hate WASPs

[Anonymous No.23197541]

>>23197516
>For this reason it should not be a matter for surprise that the Anglo-Saxon mania for sport gains ground day by day: the ideal of the modern world is the “human animal” who has developed his muscular strength to the highest pitch; its heroes are athletes, even though they be mere brutes; it is they who awaken popular enthusiasm, and it is their exploits that command the passionate interest of the crowd. A world in which such things are seen has indeed sunk low and seems near its end.

>One could show for instance that psychology as it is understood today—that is, the study of mental phenomena as such—is a natural product of AngloSaxon empiricism and of the eighteenth-century mentality, and that the point of view to which it corresponds was so negligible for the ancient world that, even if it was sometimes taken incidentally into consideration, no one would have dreamed of making a special science of it, since anything of value that it might contain was transformed and assimilated in higher points of view.

>Such is still more certainly the thought of the pragmatists, who make utility a substitute for truth and consider it at one and the same time under its material and moral aspects; and we see here too how fully pragmatism expresses the particular tendencies of the modern world, and above all of the Anglo-Saxon world, which is one of its most typical portions. Indeed, materialism and sentimentality, far from being in opposition, can scarcely exist one without the other, and they both attain side by side to their maximum development; the proof of this lies in America, where, as we have had occasion to remark in our books on Theosophism and Spiritualism, the worst pseudo-mystical extravagances come to birth and spread with incredible ease at the very time when industrialism and the passion for “business” are being carried to a pitch that borders on madness; when things have reached this state it is no longer an equilibrium which is set up between the two tendencies, but two disequilibriums side by side which aggravate each other, instead of counterbalancing.

[Anonymous No.23197553]

>>23197541
>From rationalism, religion was bound to sink into sentimentalism, and it is in the Anglo-Saxon countries that the most striking examples of this are to be found. What remains is therefore no longer even a dwindling and deformed religion, but simply ‘religiosity’, that is to say vague and sentimental aspirations unjustified by any real knowledge: to this final stage correspond theories such as that of the ‘religious experience’ of William James, which goes to the point of finding in the ‘subconscious’ man’s means of entering into communication with the divine. At this stage the final products of religious and of philosophical decline mingle together and ‘religious experience’ becomes merged in pragmatism, in the name of which a limited God is stipulated as being more ‘advantageous’ than an infinite God, insofar as one can feel for him sentiments comparable to those one would feel for a higher man. At the same time, the appeal to the ‘subconscious’ joins hands with modern spiritualism and all those ‘pseudo-reli-gions’ characteristic of our age. In another direction, Protestant moralism, having gradually eliminated all doctrinal basis, has ended by degenerating into what is called 'lay morality', which counts among its adherents the representatives of all the varieties of 'liberal Protestantism', as well as the open enemies of every religious idea; fundamentally, both groups are guided by the same tendencies, and the only difference is that not all go equally far in the logical development of everything that these tendencies imply

[Anonymous No.23197580]

>>23195861
Only retards aren't pessimists.

[Anonymous No.23197606]

>>23188534
Holy based

[Anonymous No.23197940]

>>23197357
“Initiatic teaching, outward and transmissible by forms, in reality is and can only be—we have said this before and stress it again—a preparation of the individual for acquiring true initiatic knowledge by personal effort (203)”
>comparing this to lottery
You're lost.
>not comparable in the slightest to attempting to arrive at ultimate truth through theorizing and rationalizing.
You excluded the descriptor which includes that "Supra-rational"
>In such a case something that already existed without beginning is just being revealed or disclosed
What's you'r point?
>exercised independent of scriptural authority/teaching is not a valid or reliable guide to the ultimate truth.
Bla bla bla, I already know what Shankara says, none of that is news to me.
"Logic and reason will not attain the absolute" or something like that.
And guess what, nor will the elements which are transmissible on their own end.
Just follow stick to the four reliance and you should be secure, I don't care for your guru or lamaist cults.

>Rely on the Dharma, not on the teacher.Rely on the meaning, not the letter.Rely on the definitive meaning (nitartha), not on the provisional one (neyartha)Rely on wisdom (jnana), not on your ordinary mind (vijnana)

[Anonymous No.23197958]

>>23197357
>Shankara writes that reason exercised independent of scriptural authority/teaching is not a valid or reliable guide to the ultimate truth.
Right and he even goes to the effort of adding supporting reasons for that, like the imperishable cannot come from the perishable (like karma etc.)

If your point is some sort of meaningless literalism, like relying on the actual letter of the Vedas, then you pretty much are also at odds with your idol guénon who admits non-vedic revelation, and non-vedic realized beings. Faith in the Vedas is faith in the Self, anything else is just an amplifier of desire and attatchment.

[Anonymous No.23197996]

>>23193104
>"My metaphysics real. Yours fake. Checkmate, Gemans"
Of course someone who get's filtered by Germans would seethe

[Bill Russell Bukowski No.23199103]

>>23188492
Guenon didn't btfo any of that you fucking retard

[Bill Russell Bukowski No.23199111]

>>23188492
Imagine being so fucking backwards and retarded that you resort to holding up someone who was as stupid to think that time is a big ol' loop as some kind of eminent philosopher that btfod Heidegger and Plato. OP truly and surely sucks cocks, also fuck Evola, and get out of the 20th century you dumbass

[Anonymous No.23199632]

>>23189466
This is just frenchified Bhagavad Gita

[Anonymous No.23199905]

>>23188492
Can anyone tell me where to find his argument against pantheism?

[Anonymous No.23200124]

Forget blowing things the fuck out, Guenon was at his best when going into esoteric headtrips, Jesus, The Multiple States of the Being is incredible, he came up with a metaphysics that could fit any religion, even though it fits none of them in a way, but hey, it's not very spiritual to dwell on differences like a filthy academic, the spiritual view is to dwell on the harmonies and deciding they're the most important thing.

Anyway, we need a new religion built off of that book. It should be called Infinitism, and the first claim of Infinitism is that Infinitism is not new, rather, every world religion is a different school of Infinitism.

[Anonymous No.23200206]

>>23200124
Im sure that some religions are closer to the truth than others. Perennialism is wishful thinking without understanding

[Anonymous No.23200216]

>>23188492
>'sunni' sufism

[Anonymous No.23200223]

>>23200206
Buddy, perrenialism is not traditionalism. Guenon wrote what you said.

[Anonymous No.23200234]

>>23200223
WTF I love Guenon now

[Anonymous No.23200919]

>>23188492
PBUH

[Anonymous No.23201011]

>>23200206
Two aliens make it to Earth, one landed in the Amazon, another in the Sahara. Who was closer to the truth of the Earth?

[Anonymous No.23201696]

>>23201011
Sahara

[Anonymous No.23202209]

>>23188492
That's not George Berkeley

[Anonymous No.23202376]

>>23197382
No you, i read Ride the tiger, is just Nietzsche for fans of esotetism

[Anonymous No.23203087]

>>23188534
Going to have to give it to Guenon on this one, DESU

[Anonymous No.23203188]

>>23188492
That's not Nimrod de Rosario