/lit/ - Literature

https://discord.gg/AnN6m3qf

I invite you to our server about Tradition:
https://discord.gg/HmyXaD72

What classical language must I learn to become a Zoroastrian?

Seeing all these huge shelves, I'm wondering do you guys keep books if you don't like them or if your interests have changed, or do you keep them? I sold almost all my books recently (about 15-20 and 2 left) and now I'm going to buy about 10 other books I'm interested in, but that may be because I'm poor.

Just starting to read the perennialists. I'm starting with Guenon and Corbin (since I'm familiar with Jung and Islam). Perhaps I misunderstand the intellectual mission of the traditionalists, but how do they reconcile the Trinity and Islam's Tawhid? I can see how one can reconcile Brahman and Allah (upanishads call Brahman formless, Hindus actually being pluralistic, etc.), but how do they reconcile the triune godhead with the oneness of Allah? I read a while ago on here that Corbin's concept of theophanies and "men of light" have potential for reconciling it, but I'm not really familiar enough with his work to make definitive statements

>>19181098

is Frithjof Schuon as orthodox (based in 4chan lingo) as Rene Guenon? i have heard his style is less "mathematical" and more poetic, and theres certainly nothing wrong with that, but does he get metaphysics like Guenon does?

If all orthodox religions are true, how are we going to deal with the fact that they speak bad of each other? It is well known that christians like John of Damascus considered Islam to be a heresy, or that the Quran considers the Bible to be corrupted. Maybe you will tell me that all of this is part of exoterism, dogma, etc and it is relative, but if you are going to say this to any priest or authority of any religion of any time, he will probably kick you out of the Church. On the other hand, it is impossible to admit that only one religion is true, when you read about the metaphysical and mystical experiences of people from other religions. For example, there are sufi saints which had visions of Christ and the Holy Virgin, what is the christian explication for this? That they were actually demons? It is hilarious to think like this... Or what should a christian say about the rich history of Islam? About its beautiful mosques, its calligraphy and the wisdom of the sufis? That all of this come from Satan? It is absurd to think like this. Also, I already imagine that some people will say stuff like "All religions have some truth in them but only Christianity has the full truth", and I would reply that you can say this about any religion.

Is Gnosticism the ultimate guénonian conclusion? If our modern world is overflowed by quantity, and quantity is the basis of our physical existence, wouldn't the supremacy of quality over quantity make us reject our physical existence as something inferior to be overcome?

>>17640072
Yes. Even people who disagree with perennialism, still find Guenon's and Schuon's writings to be very interesting. Probably because they were smart and had a lot of knowledge.

Is Christianity compatible with perennialism?

>The same Person who says of himself that he is the only way to the Father also says that “before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58), a passage whose very tenses undercut the identification of Christ with a strictly temporal set of saving facts. Christian perennialists conclude that it is therefore a mistake to confuse the uniqueness of the only-begotten and eternal Son of God with the alleged singularity of his historical manifestation in first-century Palestine.

>>14981591
*blocks your path*

Books for guidance on how to set up a monastery in the modern world?

Also, has /lit/ ever started monasteries for brothers to join and devote their life to studying /lit/-philosophers? I am specifically interested in places of worship where one can get closer to the ideas of René-Jean-Marie-Joseph Guénon.

>>14512762
>refuted Aquinas
Saint Aquinas (pbuh) was retroactively protected from all refutation by Saint Guenon (pbuh).

>>14412214
Share your Arabic pseudonyms. With all humility and deference, mine is:
Abd al-Ba'ith Adam - عَبْدالنَاعِث آدَم
"Adam, Servant of The Raiser of the Dead".

Honestly, once you've understood that Guénon is right, it's really hard to return back to your previous worldview.

Also, ignore anything anti-Guénon related, he's meme tier being pushed by some autist on this board.

What is the Guenonian view on Gnosticism and the divinity/incarnate nature of Christ?

What is René Guénon's view on the problem of transsexuality in modernity? I am looking for answers for why so many innocent young people are experiencing this exact same manifestation of the same illness.
I don't think his "The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times" answers this question, as those afflicted with transsexuality desire to change they're nature qualitatively, even though they're means of doing so are highly atomic and purely quantitative.

the final red pill

>To express their respective “outward” and “inward” natures, exoterism and esoterism are often compared to the “shell” ( qishr ) and the “kernel” ( lubb ), or to the circumference and its center. The sharia comprises everything that in Western languages would be called “religious,” and especially the whole of the social and legislative side which, in Islam, is essentially integrated into the religion. It could be said that the sharia is first and foremost a rule of action, whereas the haqiqa is pure knowledge; but it must be well understood that it is this knowledge that gives even the sharia its higher and deeper meaning and its true raison d ’etre, so that even though not all those participating in the religion are aware of it, the haqiqa is nevertheless its true principle, just as the center is the principle of the circumference.

>In any case — and this ought to settle the matter for anyone not regarding things merely from the outside — tradition expressly indicates that esoterism, as well as exoterism, proceeds directly from the very teaching of the Prophet, and, in fact, every authentic and regular tanqa possesses a silsila or “chain” of initiatic transmission that ultimately goes back to him through a varying number of intermediaries.

>It is a question here of two clearly different domains [haqiqa and sharia], and this is why there can never be any contradiction or any real conflict between them; it is moreover obvious that one cannot in any way oppose exoterism and esoterism, since on the contrary the second finds its foundation and point of departure in the first, and since they are really no more than the two aspects or the two faces of one and the same doctrine.

>We should also point out that contrary to an opinion only too widespread among Westerners, Islamic esoterism has nothing in common with “mysticism.” The reasons for this are easy to understand given everything we have explained so far. First of all, mysticism seems to be unique to Christianity, and it is only through erroneous assimilations that one can pretend to find more or less exact equivalents of it elsewhere. Some outward resemblances, in the use of certain expressions for example, are undoubtedly the cause of this error, but they can in no way justify it in light of differences that bear on everything essential. Since by very definition mysticism pertains entirely to the religious domain, it arises purely and simply from exoterism; and furthermore, the end toward which it tends is assuredly far from being of the order of pure knowledge.

>To express their respective “outward” and “inward” natures, exoterism and esoterism are often compared to the “shell” ( qishr ) and the “kernel” ( lubb ), or to the circumference and its center. The sharia comprises everything that in Western languages would be called “religious,” and especially the whole of the social and legislative side which, in Islam, is essentially integrated into the religion. It could be said that the sharia is first and foremost a rule of action, whereas the haqiqa is pure knowledge; but it must be well understood that it is this knowledge that gives even the shan a its higher and deeper meaning and its true raison d ’etre, so that even though not all those participating in the religion are aware of it, the haqiqa is nevertheless its true principle, just as the center is the principle of the circumference.

>In any case — and this ought to settle the matter for anyone not regarding things merely from the outside — tradition expressly indicates that esoterism, as well as exoterism, proceeds directly from the very teaching of the Prophet, and, in fact, every authentic and regular tanqa possesses a silsila or “chain” of initiatic transmission that ultimately goes back to him through a varying number of intermediaries.

>It is a question here of two clearly different domains [haqiqa and sharia], and this is why there can never be any contradiction or any real conflict between them; it is moreover obvious that one cannot in any way oppose exoterism and esoterism, since on the contrary the second finds its foundation and point of departure in the first, and since they are really no more than the two aspects or the two faces of one and the same doctrine.

>We should also point out that contrary to an opinion only too widespread among Westerners, Islamic esoterism has nothing in common with “mysticism.” The reasons for this are easy to understand given everything we have explained so far. First of all, mysticism seems to be unique to Christianity, and it is only through erroneous assimilations that one can pretend to find more or less exact equivalents of it elsewhere. Some outward resemblances, in the use of certain expressions for example, are undoubtedly the cause of this error, but they can in no way justify it in light of differences that bear on everything essential. Since by very definition mysticism pertains entirely to the religious domain, it arises purely and simply from exoterism; and furthermore, the end toward which it tends is assuredly far from being of the order of pure knowledge.