/lit/ - Literature

>Neither pleasure nor pain, nor good nor evil, ever touches this knower of Brahman, who always lives without the body-idea.

>Pleasure or pain, or good or evil, affects only him who has connections with the gross body etc., and identifies himself with these. How can good or evil, or their effects, touch the sage who has identified himself with the Reality and thereby shattered his bondage ?

>The sun which appears to be, but is not actually, swallowed by Rahu, is said to be swallowed, on account of delusion, by people, not knowing the real nature of the sun.

>Similarly, ignorant people look upon the perfect knower of Brahman, who is wholly rid of bondages of the body etc., as possessed of the body, seeing but an appearance of it.

>In reality, however, he rests discarding the body, like the snake its slough; and the body is moved hither and thither by the force of the Prana, just as it listeth.

>As a piece of wood is borne by the current to a high or low ground, so is his body carried on by the momentum of past actions to the varied experience of their fruits, as these present themselves in due course.

>The man of realisation, bereft of the body-idea, moves amid sense-enjoyments like a man subject to transmigration, through desires engendered by the Prarabdha work. He himself, however, lives unmoved in the body, like a witness, free from mental oscillations, like the pivot of the potter’s wheel.

>He neither directs the sense-organs to their objects nor detaches them from these, but stays like an unconcerned spectator. And he has not the least regard for the fruits of actions, his mind being thoroughly inebriated with drinking the undiluted elixir of the Bliss of the Atman.

>He who, giving up all considerations of the fitness or otherwise of objects of meditation, lives as the Absolute Atman, is verily Shiva Himself, and he is the best among the knowers of Brahman.

>Through the destruction of limitations, the perfect knower of Brahman is merged in the One Brahman without a second – which he had been all along – becomes very free even while living, and attains the goal of his life.

>Neither pleasure nor pain, nor good nor evil, ever touches this knower of Brahman,
who always lives without the body-idea.

>Pleasure or pain, or good or evil, affects only him who has connections with the
gross body etc., and identifies himself with these. How can good or evil, or their effects,
touch the sage who has identified himself with the Reality and thereby shattered his
bondage ?

>The sun which appears to be, but is not actually, swallowed by Rahu, is said to be
swallowed, on account of delusion, by people, not knowing the real nature of the sun.

>Similarly, ignorant people look upon the perfect knower of Brahman, who is
wholly rid of bondages of the body etc., as possessed of the body, seeing but an
appearance of it.

>In reality, however, he rests discarding the body, like the snake its slough; and the
body is moved hither and thither by the force of the Prana, just as it listeth.

>As a piece of wood is borne by the current to a high or low ground, so is his body
carried on by the momentum of past actions to the varied experience of their fruits, as
these present themselves in due course.

>The man of realisation, bereft of the body-idea, moves amid sense-enjoyments like
a man subject to transmigration, through desires engendered by the Prarabdha work. He
himself, however, lives unmoved in the body, like a witness, free from mental
oscillations, like the pivot of the potter’s wheel.

>He neither directs the sense-organs to their objects nor detaches them from these,
but stays like an unconcerned spectator. And he has not the least regard for the fruits of
actions, his mind being thoroughly inebriated with drinking the undiluted elixir of the
Bliss of the Atman.

>He who, giving up all considerations of the fitness or otherwise of objects of
meditation, lives as the Absolute Atman, is verily Shiva Himself, and he is the best
among the knowers of Brahman.

>Through the destruction of limitations, the perfect knower of Brahman is merged in
the One Brahman without a second – which he had been all along – becomes very free
even while living, and attains the goal of his life.

>>11463049
The long answer is read his books that are more explicitly about metaphysics (man and his becoming, symbolism of the cross, multiple states of the being, the great triad, symbols of sacred science etc), in combination with primary texts so you are able to experience and verify what he says as true instead of just taking his word for it.

The short answer is roughly that its some sort of non-dualistic understanding/awareness. He writes that Advaita was the most pure and direct exposition of it but also that all other traditional doctrines teach it either more or less openly/exoterically or in a closed/esoteric sense according to the needs and tendencies of the culture and peoples where that religion is followed. This sounds illogical at first since we all know Islam is pure monotheism and Buddhism says there is no soul etc and so on but when you actually study all these things in depth you realize there is truth to that claim.

Guenon did not mean to say that Advaita is the 100% truth and that everything else is just a way of teaching it but rather that they all point towards a common truth which goes beyond all names and forms, including Advaita. He regarded Vishitadvaita (which holds that there is a real plurality of beings different from each other within the all-encompassing unity of god) as equally true. Buddhism at first seems contradictory but the actual state of one who has become enlightened according to Buddhism is extremely similar to the Vedantic Jivanmukti, there is also the fact that later strains of Buddhism came up with concepts that were in practice even more closer to Hinduism, (for example Dzogchen regards all (manifested) phenomena as magical apparitions spontaneously arising in a way that transcends causality) and there is also the point that what Buddha actually taught is way closer to Hinduism than most realize, Anatta does not refer to Atma see Coomaraswamy's book Hinduism and Buddhism. Perhaps the single most common element uniting Abrahamic mysticism is a state of seeing/experiencing everything as god, or everything as god's creation/presence in an overwhelming, oceanic and sublime sense, which in practice leads to a similar state of mind as Advaita (e.g. Guenon thought Bohme was secretly initiated by someone because his ideas were so close to eastern metaphysics), this is found in Jewish, Christian and Islamic mysticism/esoterism. Daoism teaches spontaneously abiding in the Dao which in practice leads to a similar state when done seriously. The parallels are endless.

>>11272664
I was not following the thread that closely and thought you were implying Christianity itself was the FPBP and not in this thread itself, I'd seen other people before use it as a expression in that sense. Not like that matters or changes anything though, everything else in my post remains true. I never stated that Hinduism was better specifically because it's older, although if someone places value in such a thing than Hinduism undoubtedly wins over the Abrahamic faiths.

Hinduism is much better because it has a much more extensive and serious body of texts and teachings dealing with the fundamental nature of existence, the universe and living beings as well as the various implications and applications of these truth. The bible is like basic bitch 101 morality+theology condensed into small-brain wojack parables, the product of when a primitive people like the Jewish tribes have Persians explain Zoroastrianism to them but then they run away with it and make it even sillier.

>>11220325
I consider the published discourses of theirs to be inferior to the primary texts themselves, but still helpful and interesting insofar as they expound and confirm the principles involved from their personal experience.

>>11191456

We are discussing the realm of ideas and thought, and not secondary considerations such as cultural and historical circumstances. The way in which you casually make such poorly considered comments betrays your ignorance of the subject matter.

European and Indian culture arose out of the same bedrock of Proto-Indo-European civilization. The ennui that characterizes western thought, the preference for action over contemplation, the very existence of philosophy and trying to pin down and discover the ultimate meaning of everything (implying it was ever lost in the first place), all these things fundamentally reveal the nature of the differentiation of European thought from the primordial tradition and the accompanying teachings of the Proto-Indo-Europeans. At the exact moment it begins to emerge as a unified whole, European thought is marked by the absence of any notable figures and groups expounding the timeless transcendental truth which has remained the case up until the present day. All of the ostensibly impressive and unique aspects of European thought are actually tragicomic examples of the disastrous consequences of when the traditional teachings are lost to history; leading people to search around and grope in the darkness searching for something to replace what was lost. Philosophy itself can be considered as a consequence that arises when knowledge of the Absolute ceases to be taught within a given era's culture.

I'm not even Indian but am just someone who is well-read enough to understand the exact relation between and the exact nature of eastern and western thought, I couldn't care less about the historical developments and have no dog in the fight. From one perspective the colonial governing of India was a great thing insofar as it allowed for an infusion of eastern thought into western as never before.