/lit/ - Literature

>>22337057
The uninterrupted memory of Rene Guenon’s (pbuh) lotus feet destroys all sins and brings about peace.

>>22114018
>Guenon (pbuh) retroactively refuted postmodernism
>Shankara (pbuh) retroactively refuted Buddhism

Based!

>>21891310
>Are Guenon and Evola simply a return to an earlier state in the ill-fated metaphysics of presence inaugurated so long ago?
It's the opposite, Heidegger expends much effort flailing around in the mud of western thought only to eventually approach via the backdoor the same eastern conclusions that Guenon and Evola were already keyed into, Heidegger also took various ideas from the Taoist stuff he read without properly attributing it (Guenon was personally initiated into Taoism)

>The paradox is that Heidegger himself eventually came to an understanding of the transcendental ‘horizon’ of thinking and experience as a primordial Openness or Clearing (Lichtung) that is a counterpart of the primordial space (Akasha) and light of awareness (Prakasha) central to Shaivist Advaita. And through the notion of an ‘enowning’ (Ereignis) he reverses the ‘owning’ or ‘appropriation’ of Being by beings. In this way Heidegger himself found a way to use the ‘Language of Being’ itself to point to the central Principle of Awareness as Absolute Subjectivity - that it is not owned by beings or subjects but needs to once again be known and experienced by each being or subject as ‘en-owning’ their own subjectivity and indeed ‘en-knowing’ their own knowing.”

>>21407258
>forced to deform common sense concepts
I almost forgot to add, that "common sense" was retroactively refuted by Rene Guenon (pbuh), and you show your foolishness in citing it

>We have said that pragmatism represents the final outcome of all the modern philosophy and marks the lowest stage in its decline; but outside the philosophical field there also exists, and has already existed for a long time, a diffused and unsystematized pragmatism which is to philosophical pragmatism what practical materialism is to philosophical materialism, and which merges into what people generally call “common sense.” This almost instinctive utilitarianism is inseparable, moreover, from the materialistic tendency: common sense consists in not venturing beyond the terrestrial horizon, as well as in not paying attention to anything devoid of an immediate practical interest; it is “common sense,” above all, that regards the world of the senses as alone being real and admits of no knowledge beyond what proceeds from the senses; and even this limited degree of knowledge is of value in its eyes only in so far as it allows of satisfying material needs and also sometimes because it feeds a certain kind of sentimentalism, since sentiment, as must be frankly admitted at the risk of shocking contemporary “moralism,” really is very closely related to matter. No room is left in all this for intelligence, except in so far as it may consent to be put to the service of practical ends, acting as a mere instrument subordinated to the requirements of the lowest or corporeal portion of the human individual, “a tool for making tools,” to quote a significant expression of Bergson’s: “pragmatism” in all its forms amounts to a complete indifference to truth.

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

>>20631937
Rene Guenon (pbuh), Introduction to the study of hindu doctrines -> Studies in Hinduism -> Man and his becoming according to Vedanta

>>20625619
Theres this guy named René Guénon who wrote a lot of really great books and articles on Hinduism. I recommend checking him out.

In a small mirror, even the big forehead of an elephant can be clearly seen. Even so, in this, my brief work, you will get the essence of all the extensive accounts about Guénon and his teachings. The intensely enjoyable taste of sweetness is enhanced by the intervention of other tastes. Similarly, my literary endeavour, however defective, will only enhance the delectableness of what ancient poets have written on the subject. May the great commentator Guénon accept the offering of my poesy even amidst the vastly superior writings on him by poets of old. For, did not Lord Mahavishnu, though living in the midst of the milk ocean, yearn for the milk offered to Him by the milkmaids of Vrindavana? The great world teacher Guénon defeats even the thousand-tongued Adisesha by the sweet and constant flow of his words resembling a perennial spring in the nectar ocean. I am attempting to narrate the most delectable excellences of that world teacher - the great René Jean-Marie-Joseph Guénon of transcending greatness and goodness. Where is the glory and greatness of René Guénon, which; in a subtle fashion, spreads everywhere like the fragrance of jasmine flower, transcending the barriers of space and time, and where am I, a creature of very little powers and talents? In spite of this disparity. I am attempting this unequal task only because of my faith in the support of the merciful look of benediction that my Guru has bestowed on me. By using my literary talent in this way, I am cleansing it in the waters sanctified by the glories of the Lord, and thus ridding it of the dirt it has accumulated through its deployment in the praise of mean and proud men whom wealth has raised to the ranks of pretenders to greatness.

>>20303266
>whats the big deal about guenon?

Rene Guenon is the most correct, smartest and most important person of the twentieth century. There was no smarter, deeper, clearer, absolute Guenon and probably could not be. It is no coincidence that the French traditionalist René Allé in one collection dedicated to R. Guenon compared Guenon with Marx. It would seem that there are completely different, opposite figures. Guenon is a conservative hyper-traditionalist. Marx is a revolutionary innovator, a radical overthrower of traditions. But Rene Halle rightly guessed the revolutionary message of each of Guenon's statements, the extreme, cruel noncomformity of his position, which turns everything and everything upside down, the radical nature of his thought.

The fact is that René Guenon is the only author, the only thinker of the twentieth century, and maybe many, many centuries before that, who not only identified and confronted with each other secondary language paradigms, but also put into question the very essence of language. The language of Marxism was methodologically very interesting, subtly reducing the historical existence of mankind to a clear and convincing formula for confronting labor and capital. Being a great paradigmatic success, Marxism was so popular and won the minds of the best intellectuals of the twentieth century. But R. Guenon is an even more fundamental generalization, an even more radical removal of masks, an even broader worldview contestation, putting everything into question.

- Aleksandr Dugin

Guénon undermined and then; with uncompromising intellectual rigour, demolished all the assumptions taken for granted by modern man, that is to say Western or westernised man. Many others had been critical of the direction taken by European civilization since the so-called 'Renaissance', but none had dared to be as radical as he was or to re-assert with such force the principles and values which Western culture had consigned to the rubbish tip of history. His theme was the 'primordial tradition' or Sofia perennis, expressed-so he maintained-both in ancient mythologies and in the metaphysical doctrine at the root of the great religions. The language of this Tradition was the language of symbolism, and he had no equal in his interpretation of this symbolism. Moreover he turned the idea of human progress upside down, replacing it with the belief almost universal before the modern age, that humanity declines in spiritual excellence with the passage of time and that we are now in the Dark Age which precedes the End, an age in which all the possibilities rejected by earlier cultures have been spewed out into the world, quantity replaces quality and decadence approaches its final limit. No one who read him and understood him could ever be quite the same again.

- Gai Eaton

>>20292757
>What will you do with your knowledge of tradition and (cyclic) degradation from guenon/evola?
keep calm, relish in one's knowledge of the presence of Absolute, and enjoy the memes

>>20222071
>Who was this guy?
allow me to fill you in

>Rene Guenon is the most correct, smartest and most important person of the twentieth century. There was no smarter, deeper, clearer, absolute Guenon and probably could not be. It is no coincidence that the French traditionalist René Allé in one collection dedicated to R. Guenon compared Guenon with Marx. It would seem that there are completely different, opposite figures. Guenon is a conservative hyper-traditionalist. Marx is a revolutionary innovator, a radical overthrower of traditions. But Rene Halle rightly guessed the revolutionary message of each of Guenon's statements, the extreme, cruel noncomformity of his position, which turns everything and everything upside down, the radical nature of his thought.

>The fact is that René Guenon is the only author, the only thinker of the twentieth century, and maybe many, many centuries before that, who not only identified and confronted with each other secondary language paradigms, but also put into question the very essence of language. The language of Marxism was methodologically very interesting, subtly reducing the historical existence of mankind to a clear and convincing formula for confronting labor and capital. Being a great paradigmatic success, Marxism was so popular and won the minds of the best intellectuals of the twentieth century. But R. Guenon is an even more fundamental generalization, an even more radical removal of masks, an even broader worldview contestation, putting everything into question.

- Aleksandr Dugin

>Guénon undermined and then; with uncompromising intellectual rigour, demolished all the assumptions taken for granted by modern man, that is to say Western or westernised man. Many others had been critical of the direction taken by European civilization since the so-called 'Renaissance', but none had dared to be as radical as he was or to re-assert with such force the principles and values which Western culture had consigned to the rubbish tip of history. His theme was the 'primordial tradition' or Sofia perennis, expressed-so he maintained-both in ancient mythologies and in the metaphysical doctrine at the root of the great religions. The language of this Tradition was the language of symbolism, and he had no equal in his interpretation of this symbolism. Moreover he turned the idea of human progress upside down, replacing it with the belief almost universal before the modern age, that humanity declines in spiritual excellence with the passage of time and that we are now in the Dark Age which precedes the End, an age in which all the possibilities rejected by earlier cultures have been spewed out into the world, quantity replaces quality and decadence approaches its final limit. No one who read him and understood him could ever be quite the same again.

- Gai Eaton

>>20222084
t. hylic

>>20100458
Hyperborea and the Traditionalist School are legit

Blavatsky isn't

simple as

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

>>19491443
>colonialist mystic
Guénon retroactively refuted colonialism, along with philosophy, science, atheists, secularism, utilitarianism, pragmatism, egalitarianism, psychoanalysis, marxism, atomism and forms of materialism, Leibniz, Kant, Bergson, Whitehead, Deleuze, anglos cultural mores, process philosophy, hylics, unprincipled modern “math”, consumerism, new-age syncretism, Protestantism, “Academia”, Orientalism, modern media culture, and theosophy

>>19294903

/thread

>>19200512
>My question is: What should I read to get these glimpses?
Guenon says that the most complete elaboration of this truth is in the Hindu school Advaita Vedanta. The main writer/philosopher of that school is Adi Shankara, whose works Guenon cites often. All of Shankara's writings have been translated into English, it's recommended to begin by reading Shankara's commentaries on the Upanishads (after reading Guenon's book on Vedanta) and then move on to the rest of his works.

>>19164219
>theosophy
retroactively refuted by Rene Guenon (pbuh) in his daring exposé: 'Theosophy: History of a Pseudo-Religion'

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

>>19123654
One of the best ones desu

>>19108908

>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.

>>19103014
Yes

>>19076299
>What do i do now boys
read René Guénon (PBUH)

>>18664679
>Stuff occurs, and it doesn't need an atman to.
Way to avoid the point of the argument entirely. You yourself cannot deny unless you're a fool that knowledge or some semblance of it is known, because if there is no knowledge then you wouldn't be able to have conversations with people such as right now, because they require you to know and formulate responses to what other people say.

This leads to "how is that knowledge known, by what means, by who?", saying that nothing knows that knowledge is incongruous with our experience. So, this knowledge can either be known by itself or by something else. The position that particular instances of knowledge like thoughts are known not by themselves, but rather are known by an inner conscious presence which continues in-between those particular instances of knowledge is the only position on consciousness that both fully aligns with our lived experience and which is free of all logical contradictions.

In the example you gave of reasoning for instance, the notion that discursive ideations in the mind/intellect are known by themselves is clearly nonsense, one thought would have to know the prior thought as well as itself to form chains of reasoning, and then this leads to the question of does that thought know the totality of the previous thought, or just the portion not related to the 3rd thought before that thought which that 2nd thought itself had knowledge of, either of these positions leads to weird contradictions and it doesn't align with the way in which our thoughts present themselves to our awareness, it actually leads to a kind of psychological atomism that ends up in absurd regresses that reveal the inadequacy of all attempts at explaining away the persistence of immediate and non-discursive witness-consciousness which occurs simultaneously with the ideations which it reveals.

>You're implying that people have perfect understanding of themselves. They don't.
No, just that the amount of memory needed alone to notice groups of cars and people walking around would be impossible with momentary non-persisting awareness. We can walk down the street and have a dozen or more people and additional cars be known to us at once merely by them occupying our sight, at the same time that we are aware of the sounds of the cars, the color of peoples clothes, the smell of the gasoline. When focusing or not focusing on one thing like a person, we never really lose awareness of the smells and colors around us, changes within those things still immediately present themselves to our awareness when they occur. Otherwise if you were engrossed with the sight of something you wouldn't hear a sudden loud noise, but we know this isn't true from experience.