/lit/ - Literature

>>14706819
how can one man be so based?

>>14693935
>>14693993

A ‘satanic’ character is revealed with particular clarity in the psychoanalytic interpretations of symbolism, or of what is held rightly or wrongly to be symbolism, this last proviso being inserted because on this point as on many others, if the details were gone into, there would be many distinctions to make and many confusions to dissipate: thus, to take only one typical example, a vision in which is expressed some ‘supra-human’ inspiration is truly symbolic, whereas an ordinary dream is not so, whatever the outward appearances may be. Psychologists of earlier schools had of course themselves often tried to explain symbolism in their own way and to bring it within the range of their own conceptions; in any such case, if symbolism is really in question at all, explanations in terms of purely human elements fail to recognize anything that is essential, as indeed they do whenever affairs of a traditional order are concerned; if on the other hand human affairs alone are really in question, then it must be a case of false symbolism, but then the very fact of calling it by that name reveals once more the same mistake about the nature of true symbolism. This applies equally to the matters to which the psychoanalysts devote their attention, but with the difference that in their case the things to be taken into consideration are not simply human, but also to a great extent ‘infra-human’; it is then that we come into the presence, not only of a debasement, but of a complete subversion; and every subversion, even if it only arises, at least in the first place, from incomprehension and ignorance (than which nothing is better adapted for exploitation to such ends), is always inherently ‘satanic’ in the true sense of the word.

Besides this, the generally ignoble and repulsive character of psychoanalytical interpretations is an entirely reliable ‘mark’ in this connection; and it is particularly significant from our point of view, as has been shown elsewhere (4), that this very same ‘mark’ appears again in certain spiritualist manifestations-anyone who sees in this no more than a mere ‘coincidence’ must’surely have much good will, if indeed he is not completely blind. In most cases the psychoanalysts may well be quite as unconscious as are the spiritualists of what is really involved in these matters; but the former no less than the latter appear to be ‘guided’ by a subversive will making use in each case of elements that are of the same order, if not precisely identical. This subversive will, whatever may be the beings in which it is incarnated, is certainly conscious enough, at least in those beings, and it is related to intentions that are doubtless very different from any that can be suspected by people who are only the unconscious instruments whereby those intentions are translated into action.

https://ignotascintilla.wordpress.com/2017/07/14/the-psychoanalysis-according-to-rene-guenon/

>>14681462
The Mandukya Upanishad and Gaudapada's Karika (commentary) on it are fairly advanced. I would recommend beginning with these links below which have 8 of Shankaracharya's Upanishad commentaries (Isa, Kena, Katha, Taittiriya, Aitareya, Mundaka, Mandukya and Prasna), along with the Shankaracharya's commentary on Gaudapada's Mandukya Karika. Start with the first link because it has the shortest Upanishad commentaries of Shankara at the beginning which is helpful because it gives you time to get used to his style of writing and ideas before you dive into the really long commentaries. The Mandukya Upanishad, the Mandukya Karika of Gaudapada and Shankaracharya's commentaries on both texts make up the latter half of the pdf at the second link, but if you read the Volume 1 first and the earlier sections of Volume 2 first then you should be fully prepared to understand everything by the time you get to the Mandukya.

https://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-Vol-1.pdf
https://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-vol2.pdf

After you read through both PDF's you can find online or purchase Shankaracharya's remaining commentaries on the Brihadaranyaka, Chandogya and the Svetasvatara Upanishads. Good luck and happy reading my brother, you are about to experience a most sublime gnosis!

>>14663333
based quads of retroactive refutation

>>14644558
>Guénon was a brainle-
He was proficient at Greek, Latin, English, Italian, German, Spanish, Sanskrit, Hebraic, 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 heaped praise on him include Carl Schmitt, Georges Bataille, Aleksander Dugin, Antonin Artaud, Olavo de Carvalho, André Breton, Mircea Eliade, Alain Danielou, Julius Evola, 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 is also taught in some 'history of western esoterism/mysticism' classes at the few universities which offer them.
>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

There is one point in the preceding that might still lend itself to an objection, although in truth we have already answered it in part, at least implicitly, in what we just said regarding the 'spiritual hierarchies'. The objection runs as follows: given that there exists an indefinitude of modalities realized by different beings, is it really legitimate to speak of totality in the case of each being? One can reply first of all by pointing out that the objection thus phrased obviously applies only to the manifested states, since in non-manifestation there can be no question of any kind of real distinction, so that from the standpoint of these non-manifested states what belongs to one being belongs equally to all insofar as they have effectively realized these states. Now, if one considers the totality of manifestation from this same standpoint, it constitutes only a simple 'accident' in the proper sense of the word by reason of its contingency, so that the importance of any one of its modalities considered in itself and 'distinctively' is then strictly nil. Furthermore, since in principle non-manifestation contains all that constitutes the profound and essential reality of things existing in any mode of manifestation, i.e., that without which the manifested would have only a purely illusory existence, one can say that the being that has effectively attained the state of non-manifestation thereby possesses all other states 'into the bargain' in the same way that it possesses all the intermediary states or degrees, even without having specifically passed through them previously, as we said in the last chapter.

This answer, which considers only the being that has reached total realization, is fully sufficient from the purely metaphysical point of view, and indeed is the only answer that can really suffice,
for if we did not view the being in this way, that is, if we took any position other than this, there would no longer be reason to speak of totality, and the objection itself would no longer apply. In short,
what needs to be said both here and in response to objections concerning the existence of multiplicity, is that manifestation considered as such, that is, under the aspect of the distinctions that
condition it, is nothing with respect to non-manifestation, for there can be no common measure between the one and the other; what is absolutely real (all the rest being only illusory, in the sense of a reality that is merely derivative and, as it were, 'participated'), even for the possibilities comprising manifestation, is the permanent and unconditioned state under which they belong principially and fundamentally to the order of non-manifestation.

>>14616435
Rene Guenon (pbuh) ended Whitehead's whole philosophical project in 5 paragraphs

The same trend is noticeable in the scientific realm: research here is for its own sake far more than for the partial and fragmentary results it achieves; here we see an ever more rapid succession of unfounded theories and hypotheses, no sooner set up than crumbling to give way to others that will have an even shorter life— a veritable chaos amid which one would search in vain for anything definitive, unless it be a monstrous accumulation of facts and details incapable of proving or signifying anything. We refer here of course to speculative science, insofar as this still exists; in applied science there are on the contrary undeniable results, and this is easily understandable since these results bear directly on the domain of matter, the only domain in which modern man can boast any real superiority. It is therefore to be expected that discoveries, or rather mechanical and industrial inventions, will go on developing and multiplying more and more rapidly until the end of the present age; and who knows if, given the dangers of destruction they bear in themselves, they will not be one of the chief agents in the ultimate catastrophe, if things reach a point at which this cannot be averted?

Be that as it may, one has the general impression that, in the present state of things, there is no longer any stability; but while there are some who sense the danger and try to react to it, most of our contemporaries are quite at ease amid this confusion, in which they see a kind of exteriorized image of their own mentality. Indeed there is an exact correspondence between a world where everything seems to be in a state of mere ‘becoming’, leaving no place for the changeless and the permanent, and the state of mind of men who find all reality in this ‘becoming’, thus implicitly denying true knowledge as well as the object of that knowledge, namely transcendent and universal principles. One can go even further and say that it amounts to the negation of all real knowledge whatsoever, even of a relative order, since, as we have shown above, the relative is unintelligible and impossible without the absolute, the contingent without the necessary, change without the unchanging, and multiplicity without unity; ‘relativism’ is self-contradictory, for, in seeking to reduce everything to change, one logically arrives at a denial of the very existence of change; this was fundamentally the meaning of the famous arguments of Zeno of Elea.

>>14578620
>Stop ŕeading "Guénon".
No.

We have previously, in an article published here under the title Atlantis and Hyperborea, pointed out the confusion that is too often made between the primordial tradition, originally ‘polar’ in the literal sense of the word, and whose starting point is the same one of the present Manvantara, and the derivative and secondary tradition that was the Atlantean tradition, referred to a much more restricted period. We have said then, and elsewhere at various times,188 that this confusion can be explained, to a certain extent, by the fact that the subordinate spiritual centers were constituted in the image of the Supreme Center, and that the same denominations have been applied to them. Therefore the Atlantean Thule, whose name was preserved in Central America where it was brought by the Toltecs, had to be the seat of a spiritual power which was like an emanation of the Hyperborean Thule; and, as this name Thule designates Libra, its double meaning is closely related to the transfer of this same designation from the polar constellation of the Great Bear to the zodiacal sign, which still bears the name of Libra. It is also the Atlantean tradition that the transfer of sapta-riksha (the symbolic abode of the seven Rishis) should be related, at a certain time from the same Great Bear to the Pleiades, a constellation also composed of seven stars, but of a zodiacal situation; what leaves no doubt in this respect is that the Pleiades were called the daughters of Atlas and, as such, are also called Atlanteans.

All this is in keeping with the geographical location of the traditional centers, which is itself linked to their own characteristics, as well as to their respective place in the cyclical period, because everything here is much closer than those who ignore the laws of certain correspondences could suppose. Hyperborea corresponds of course to the North, and Atlantis to the West; and it isremarkable that the very designations of these two distinctly different regions may also be confusing, since names of the same root have been applied to both. Indeed, one finds this root in a variety of forms such as hiber, iber, or eber, and also ereb by a transposition of letters, designating at the same time the region of winter, which is to say the North, and the region of the evening or the setting sun, which is to say the West, and the peoples who inhabit one and the other; this fact is obviously of the same order as we have just recalled.

>>14552477
yes i unironically gained a ton of wisdom and im a hs dropout

>>14552344
why would I when all of them were refuted by Rene Guenon (pbuh)?

>>14534921
because he solved metaphysics and ended modern western philosophy

>>14529112

>The vigor of a religious tradition is nevertheless to be admired when, though withdrawn into a kind of virtuality, it survives in spite of all the attempts
made during several centuries to stifle and annihilate it; and, if one pauses to think about it, it will be apparent that there is something about a resistance of this kind implying the presence of a more than human power; but, once again let it be repeated, the tradition in question does not belong to the modern world, nor does it form one of its component elements, but is the exact opposite of all its tendencies and aspirations. It is necessary to say this openly and not look for deceptive reconciliations; between the religious point of view, in the true sense of the word, and the modern attitude of
mind there can be nothing but antagonism; any compromise can but serve to enfeeble the former and strengthen the latter, nor will the hostility of the modern mentality be lessened on that account, since it cannot help desiring the total destruction of It is said that the modern West is Christian, but this is a mistake: the modern outlook is anti-Christian because it is essentially antireligious; and it is anti-religious because, in a still wider sense, it is anti-traditional; it is this that gives it its particular character and causes it to be what it is.

>>14501723
FYI everyone Guenon basically proved OP is right so you can give up any attempt at disputing it and save your breath

>>14490931
5 guenon books down, 21 more to go!

a website with lists of the writings, articles, books etc by various Traditionalists

http://www.worldwisdom.com/public/authors/Rene-Guenon.aspx

traditionalist blog

https://www.gornahoor.net/

>*solves metaphysics*

I fixed Guenon

>>14467180
Introduction to the Study of the Hindu doctrines

>>14444261

“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

>>14399143
I like it

Bump

Funny how most of them were retroactively refuted by Guénon.

However, we have no wish to exaggerate and must add that theories such as these are not exclusively encountered in modern times; examples are to be found in Greek philosophy also, the ‘universal flux’ of Heraclitus being the best known; indeed, it was this that led the school of Elea to combat his conceptions, as well as those of the atomists, by a sort of reductio ad absurdum. Even in India, something comparable can be found, though, of course, considered from a different point of view from that of philosophy, for Buddhism also developed a similar character, one of its essential theses being the ‘dissolubility of all things ’. These theories, however, were then no more than exceptions, and such revolts against the traditional outlook, which may well have occurred from time to time throughout the whole of the Kali-Yuga, were, when all is said and done, without wider influence; what is new is the general acceptance of such conceptions that we see in the West today.

It should be noted too that under the influence of the very recent idea of ‘progress’, ‘philosophies of becoming’ have, in modern times, taken on a special form that theories of the same type never had among the ancients: this form, although it may have multiple varieties, can be covered in general by the name ‘evolutionism’. We need not repeat here what we have already said elsewhere on this subject; we will merely recall the point that any conception allowing for nothing other than ‘becoming’ is thereby necessarily a ‘naturalistic’ conception, and, as such, implies a formal denial of whatever lies beyond nature, in other words the realm of metaphysics— which is the realm of immutable and eternal principles. We may point out also, in speaking of these anti-metaphysical theories, that the Bergonian idea of pure duration’ corresponds exactly with that dispersion in instantaneity to which we alluded above; a pretended intuition modeled on the ceaseless flux of the things of the senses, far from being able to serve as an instrument for obtaining true knowledge, represents in reality the dissolution of all possible knowledge.