/lit/ - Literature

the writing of Rene Guenon

>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 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.

>>12947401
Metaphysical Principles of the Infinitesimal Calculus

>>11746566
alpha

based /lit/ wizard

take the primordial pill

>>10999136
>It's more of an intro to Traditionalism or Rene Guenon's thought than Hinduism.
Second half deals broadly with Hinduism, and really well imo, but you are correct regarding the first half of the book. Have a rare.

>>10964639
good job, have a rare