/lit/ - Literature

>>20911868
>Hume
retroactively refuted by Guenon (pbuh)
>Kant
retroactively refuted by Guenon (pbuh)
>Hegel
retroactively refuted by Guenon (pbuh)
>Heidegger
retroactively refuted by Guenon (pbuh)

>>20885678

PBUH

>>20806770
> What should I read about metaphysical monism versus dualism?
Rene Guenon’s (pbuh) metaphysics trilogy:

1) Man and His Becoming According to the Vedanta
2) The Symbolism of the Cross
3) The Multiple States of the Being

>>20790054
>Can someone explain what it is exactly which is so special about this author?

>>20625619
Theres this guy that wrote a lot of great books about Hinduism, his name is Rene Guenon. I really recommend checking him out.

>>20417789
> There was an excellent series of posts by an anon who accompanied the posts with pictures of anime girls with big tits
I already refuted that series of posts in the same thread that it was posted, you don’t need to bother posting it again

>>20406588
> What would Guénon have thought about Nagarjuna and Madhyamaka?
In some letter he says that Nagarjuna was more closer to the primordial tradition than is commonly realized (aka he actually kinda agreed with Upanishadic non-dualism, aka Guenon thought he was a crypto-Advaitin like Buddha).

Why did he think this? Well, once you really understand Advaita at a deep level the normative Buddhist understanding of Nagarjuna (i.e. the Gelug reading or the ‘wittgensteinian’ reading of certain academics does not seem philosophically or metaphysically serious at all, it rather seems almost laughable. For a committed pro-Advaita perennialist its therefore easier to fit Nagarjuna into your perennialist perspective by seeing him as a crypto Advaitin (as TRV Murti and C. Sharma both see him) , this would be the more appealing option for a committed perennialist than to admit a major world religion was bigly influenced by someone with laughable teachings. One of the more prominent examples is Nagarjuna’s denial (which is not supported by any actual argument) that consciousness is intrinsically reflexive; this is laughable because not only does it result in an infinite regress (which Nagarjuna ignores), but dismissing it out of hand with no argument undermines his whole project of purporting to show that ‘accepting that things have svabhava’ is untenable, since if you can’t refute reflexivity one can no longer say that awareness having svabhava is disproven, thus sunyata is no longer proved prima facie (and it never was to begin with, since Nagarjuna uses logical fallacies elsewhere in trying to do so as Richard Robinson points out, his whole project is a charade unless you interpret it as pointing to an *actually existing* Absolute). The history of the later Yogachara/Tantra synthesis with Madhyamaka in India and Tibet often consisted of Buddhists realizing that the normative Madhyamaka understanding of consciousness is totally untenable and attempting various stratagems of saying that Nagarjuna *akshualky* accepts reflexivity “conditionally” while not accepting it as an ultimate truth, even though if you accept it empirically and conventionally there is no serious basis any longer for saying its not true ultimately as well.

>Did it make him seethe?
No, nothing could make him seethe because he was at too advanced a level of spiritual understanding for such behavior

>what made him okay with Buddhism later in his life?
Coomaraswamy and Pallis presented evidence to him that 1) A reasonable but not airtight case can be put forth that Buddha’s original teaching was basically Upanishadic non-dualism that was misunderstood by later Buddhists as Atman-denying, and that 2) later Buddhist schools imbibed enough Shaivist and Taoist teachings to the point that they (in certain cases) circled back around to the primordial metaphysical tradition (a la Upanishadic non-dualism) but expressed in Buddhist vocab