/lit/ - Literature

>>18626053

Hylics seethin.........
Brothers memein....while we dreamin.... Of a season....where reason.....is diesel....for a vehicle.....that we needin.....to fight treason.....stop it breathin.....best be believin.....what we meanin....when we postin bout the gnosis.....
Hylics can't help but ghost us....cos they knows us.....to be soldiers.....
That'll roast yuh.....roll ya up like a postuh......make ya feel like we own ya......make ya mom get a boner... Yeah she moanin...
But we goin.......toward knowin....what Guenon was showin...
Before...we was Ronin's....didn't know where we was goin.....we was Rollin....like the stone did......fo Guenon done did throw it....to the skies whey the birds is.....whey they angels...whey they souls is......we home now...welcome home bitch

PBUH

PBUH

>>18485526
>Guenon was a retar-
He was proficient at Greek, Latin, English, Italian, Russian, Polish, German, Spanish, Sanskrit, Hebrew, Egyptian Arabic and Chinese, was trained in mathematics and was extremely well-read in both eastern and western philosophy
>Guénon was a stupid posing larpe-
He was initiated into both a Vietnamese Taoist Triad as well as the al-'Arabiyya Shadhiliyya Sufi order, furthermore in all his writings he stressed the need for personal and genuine participation in whatever Traditions one aspired to follow. His acquaintances both Egyptian and western observed that he scrupulously followed Islamic observances during his life in Egypt
>Guénon was a literal nobody, he was not influenti-
Among the many western philosophers, artists and authors who were influenced by him or who warmly praised him include Carl Schmitt, Simone Weil, Aleksander Dugin, Seraphim Rose, Antonin Artaud, Ananda Coomaraswamy, Olavo de Carvalho, André Breton, Mircea Eliade, Alain Danielou, Julius Evola, Michel Valsan, André Malraux, Albert Gleizes, René Daumal, Raymond Queneau, Paul Ackerman, Huston Smith, William Chittick, Steve Bannon, Harry Oldmeadow, James Cutsinger and Hossein Nasr. Furthermore as Nasr notes in his article 'The Influence of Rene Guenon in the Islamic World', Guénon is well-known and influential among the intelligentsia including traditional Islamic scholars in certain Islamic countries such in Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and Malaysia.
>Guénon just made a bunch of stupid and unjustified comparisons between religio-
To the contrary over the course of some twenty odd books he painstakingly and patiently elucidated the fundamental agreement between the metaphysics of Advaita Vedanta, Taoism, Sufism, Hermeticism and Christian esoterism, work that Coomaraswamy built on and further confirmed

>>18473885
What it's like to live knowing your whole worldview was retroactively refuted?

>>18452337
How can one man be so based?

>>18440579
Hylics seethin.........
Brothers memein....while we dreamin.... Of a season....where reason.....is diesel....for a vehicle.....that we needin.....to fight treason.....stop it breathin.....best be believin.....what we meanin....when we postin bout the gnosis.....
Hylics can't help but ghost us....cos they knows us.....to be soldiers.....
That'll roast yuh.....roll ya up like a postuh......make ya feel like we own ya......make ya mom get a boner... Yeah she moanin...
But we goin.......toward knowin....what Guenon was showin...
Before...we was Ronin's....didn't know where we was goin.....we was Rollin....like the stone did......fo Guenon done did throw it....to the skies whey the birds is.....whey they angels...whey they souls is......we home now...welcome home bitch

>>18432144
>Why are you posting this haram picture, murtad?
To trigger you, also because every time I gaze upon the sublime countenance of Rene Guenon it fills me with serenity

>>18339005
>What have you been reading, anon?

René-Jean-Marie-Joseph Guénon (pbuh), also known asʿAbd al-Wāḥid Yaḥyá, the wise and all-penetrating Guénon, the thunderbolt of Theosophists, he who precipitates the destruction of process philosophy, the Shankaran sheikh who makes Kantians quake.

>Through consciousness of the permanent Identity of Being throughout all the indefinitely multiple modifications of Existence, there is manifested, at the very centre of our human state, as well as at the centre of all other states, the transcendent and formless, and hence unincarnated and unindividualized element which is called the "Heavenly Ray". This consciousness is therefore higher than any formal faculty, which means that it is essentially supra-rational, and implies intuitive perception of the law of harmony which binds together and unites all things in the Universe ; and for our individual being, but independently of it and of the conditions to which it is subject, this consciousness is no less than the "sense of eternity"

Second the hindu logic is hurted :
Brahman is immutable. In fact that's what the sanskrit word "Satyam" means, and since everything changing is doomed to disappear, Advaita vedanta says it's unreal. That's why this word is translated as "reality". So even this adds a difficulty, because we now have "immutability, consciousness, bliss". Brahman's nature being immutable, he doesn't have a qualification of His nature that comes from another : that is, consciousness doesn't come from immutability. His nature is immutable and is never dependant upon another aspect of His nature. In other words, God doesn't have to act (pure actuality doesn't mean acting, you seem to twist the Aristotelian logic, it just means pure being, and in the case of God, it doesn't need actualization, or it would mean it is not God but a changing being, progressing in himself towards blissfulness).
There is no distinction between knower and knowledge in Brahman, as vedanta says. God doesn't have to know Himself, He Is knowledge and the Self, he doesn't emanate or activate his consciousness, he is this as well as pure being. Any distinction is just verbal and can't be a real causality (Engendering of the Son, or processing of the Spirit).
Not to add pure being without consciousness is Prakriti, maya, absolute ignorance. But that is a complicated notion of Vedanta. Just remember Brahman is by definition conscious of himself, or else it would mean He is Prakriti, ignorance, nihil or non-being.

The western papist understanding of the Trinity (knower, known, knowing), that imposed itself to India through catholic elements such as Upadhya (who latter reconciled with Hinduism two month before his death) doesn't make sense at all. God doesn't have to construct Himself, or to act, he is not composed. There exist no unconscious and logical moment when God was not conscious and had to become it. To be, means to be conscious of what you are, to be is knowledge of existence, and blissfullness is being. So there can't be knowledge aside from the one who knows in God. There can be no act in God, He can't take knowledge of himself because by being, he knows himself. Being is knowledge and knowledge is being.
On can't argue it's just a verbal distinction, because Trinity is not just verbal and if it were just verbal then it would be simply appositions to Brahman and not three "modes" dependant on each other.

The separation, in God, of the subject who knows and the object known, by the western christianity, is the creation of that which breaks consciousness or knowledge and Being and consequently stops the knowledge by identification of the being deer to Guenon, central for the loss of Gnosis.
If you understood what I said previously, you would have a sense of it.
This comes from the filioque and the new triadology attached to it.

>>18280411
basado

>>18171773
>but who is this man

>René Guénon defies classification. . . . Were he anything less than a consummate master of lucid argument and forceful expression, his work would certainly be unknown to all but a small, private circle of admirers.”
—Gai Eaton, author of The Richest Vein

>“Guénon established the language of sacred metaphysics with a rigor, a breadth, and an intrinsic certainty such that he compels recognition as a standard of comparison for the twentieth century.”
—Jean Borella, author of Guénonian Esoterism and Christian Mystery

>“To a materialistic society enthralled with the phenomenal universe exclusively, Guénon, taking the Vedanta as point of departure, revealed a metaphysical and cosmological teaching both macrocosmic and microcosmic about the hierarchized degrees of being or states of existence, starting with the Absolute . . . and terminating with our sphere of gross manifestation.”
—Whitall N. Perry, editor of A Treasury of Traditional Wisdom

>“René Guénon was the chief influence in the formation of my own intellectual outlook (quite apart from the question of Orthodox Christianity). . . . It was René Guénon who taught me to seek and love the truth above all else, and to be unsatisfied with anything else.”
—Fr. Seraphim Rose, author of The Soul After Death

>“His mixture of arcane learning, metaphysics, and scathing cultural commentary is a continent in itself, untouched by the polluted tides of modernity. . . . Guénon’s work will not save the world—it is too late for that—but it leaves no reader unchanged.”
—Jocelyn Godwin, author of Mystery Religions in the Ancient World

>“René Guénon is one of the few writers of our time whose work is really of importance. . . . He stands for the primacy of pure metaphysics over all other forms of knowledge, and presents himself as the exponent of a major tradition of thought, predominantly Eastern, but shared in the Middle Ages by the . . . West.”
—Walter Shewring, translator of Homer’s Odyssey

>>17278677
>why did this happen?

As we are speaking of philosophy, we shall mention some of the consequences of individualism in this field, though without entering into every detail: first of all there was the negation of intellectual intuition and the consequent raising of reason above all else, this purely human and relative faculty being treated as the highest part of the intelligence, or even as coinciding with the whole of the intelligence; this is what constitutes rationalism, whose real founder was Descartes. This limitation of intelligence was however only a first stage; before long, reason itself was increasingly relegated to mainly practical functions, in proportion as applications began to predominate over such sciences as might still have kept a certain speculative character; and Descartes himself was already at heart much more concerned with these practical applications than with pure science.

More than this: individualism inevitably implies naturalism, since all that lies beyond nature is, for that very reason, out of reach of the individual as such; naturalism and the negation of metaphysics are indeed but one and the same thing, and once intellectual intuition is no longer recognized, no metaphysics is any longer possible; but whereas some persist in inventing a 'pseudo-metaphysics' of one kind or another, others-with greater frankness-assert its impossibility; from this has arisen 'relativism' in all its forms, whether it be the 'criticism' of Kant or the 'positivism' of Auguste Comte; and since reason itself is quite relative, and can deal validly only with a domain that is equally relative, it is true to say that 'relativism' is the only logical outcome of rationalism. By this means, however, rationalism was to bring about its own destruction: 'nature' and 'becoming', as we said above, are in reality synonymous; a consistent naturalism can therefore only be one of the 'philosophies of becoming', already mentioned, of which the specifically modern type is evolutionism; it was precisely this that finally turned against rationalism, by accusing reason of being unable to deal adequately, on the one hand, with what is solely change and multiplicity, and, on the other, with the indefinite complexity of sensible phenomena.

>>17008104
so u can dabb on faggots who aint lmao xdddd

>>17003042
Explain to her that she has been retroactively refuted by Shankara (pbuh) and Guenon (mAhmoh), and then make her repent (if you know what I mean).

Your argument —like all arguments before and after— was and will be retroactively refuted by Guénon (pbuh). The end.

>>16780533
>Even so, they are still not fully rooted in it.
Because Buddhism is founded upon falsehoods; whereas, true paths of Tradition are all founded upon Truth and thus accessible to anyone who devoted themselves to that path.

cringe hylic

PBUH

>>15138237

>>15126457
Perhaps there are transcendental qualities that can be channeled via TikTok?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0zw-oQgrrk

>>15024075
at last I truly see

>>>/int/>>120882182
He is now in int bros...