/lit/ - Literature

>>23006215
This completely fucking soulless thread should demonstrate that there's A LOT of work to be done in properly establishing Traditionalism. There have been huge breakthroughs but the quality of understanding has been broadly speaking diluted. Hopefully things improve with time.

>>22980616

Some blog posts

Letters from Guenon to Evola (I)
https://www.gornahoor.net/?p=4489

Letters from Guenon to Evola (II)
https://www.gornahoor.net/?p=4519

Guenon/Evola Letter 7 Introduction
https://www.gornahoor.net/?p=4545

Letters from Guenon to Evola (VII)
https://www.gornahoor.net/?p=4559

Letters from Guenon to Evola (VIII)
https://www.gornahoor.net/?p=4611

Letters from Guenon to Evola (IX)
https://www.gornahoor.net/?p=4693

Calling all Guenonbros, Vedantabros etc
I understand that there is a lot of variation in the Hindu tradition, but I need some help figuring out the more mainstream Advaita views on Brahman.
We say Atman = Brahman, right? This is the realisation that frees man from the cycle of reincarnation? Now, the Atman is the individual soul. But what is Brahman in this? I thought it was the ineffable principle that is the source of everything, but Atman can't actually *be* Brahman if that is the case, can it? Atman is soul, and soul can only be itself - we can say that Atman is the principle of soul or the cosmic soul, in which case Brahman would be the World Soul of Platonism. But we could also argue that there's ways to connect Brahman to the Platonic hypostasis of Intellect. If Atman *is* Brahman, however, I am not so sure we can say that Brahman is the ineffable transcendent source. Then again, this formula is supposed to liberate man from the cycle of reincarnation (including presumably incarnation as a divinity), which may suggest that Brahman is in fact precisely the ineffable source.
Help me bros. I NEED to know how to properly characterise Brahman - I can't afford to be some kind of Brahman-misunderstanding clown.

>>22570095
If you had worked harder to develop your discursive intellect, you would have realised that 1. it is indispensable for any (!) mental operation specific to the material world and 2. it can actually be used to lead you higher towards the contemplative intellect. This knowledge would have prevented you from ever making this post. Alas.

>>22201773
Guenonbros... I really love these high ideals of initiation and enlightenment but I just don't care to put in the work... Thinking of the Bhagavad Gita, I am reminded of the passage where the author compares those who pursue the manifold wisdom in an unfavourable way with those who pursue the one wisdom. But, constitutionally, I am just much more suited for pursuing that first wisdom. I love mastering all sorts of doctrines and arts, but the actual meditative and initiatic practical disciplines do not arouse my curiosity, nor can they sustain my commitment. This is a source of deep sadness to me, because I do want to penetrate the mysteries, but I just find the work required to be way too boring. It is much easier for me to study a philosophy or to learn a form of divination than to maintain a meditative practice. I try not to let it bother me and to just trust the Lord that I will be provided with enlightenment in this lifetime. But I can't help but feel like I am making a mess of things, I can't help but feel that I should be doing that which I simply do not want to do. I want to attain enlightenment, but I don't want to jump through a bunch of hoops to get there. This situation has left me somewhat crestfallen...

BTW OP don't worry. I read some of those pages and it was interesting. Thank you for sharing.

>>22124871
Whenever I have conversations with you people, I really can't tell if I am getting trolled or if you really just can't seem to understand this.
>"Ooooh Jesus save me, salvation is only through you! Save me God!"
>Truth responds (it's not Jesus but likes to help people who ask for connection with Truth)
>"Ooooh Jesus, I've been saved, I've been saved through your grace alone!!!"
>actually saved by something quite different
>the religion still works though
>perennialism.
I don't even like Guenon. Stop making me defend him.

>It is not accurate to say that Parmenides retroactively refuted Alfred North Whitehead's claims in his book "Process and Reality." Parmenides was a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher who lived in the 5th century BCE, and his philosophy focused on the nature of reality and being. He famously argued that change is an illusion, and that only what exists in the present moment is real. Alfred North Whitehead, on the other hand, was a 20th-century philosopher who developed the process philosophy, which emphasized the importance of change and becoming in the nature of reality. In his book "Process and Reality," Whitehead developed a metaphysical system that emphasized the importance of process and becoming in the nature of reality. While Whitehead's philosophy may be seen as in opposition to Parmenides' philosophy, it is not accurate to say that Parmenides retroactively refuted Whitehead's claims. Parmenides lived over two thousand years before Whitehead, and his philosophy focused on different questions and issues than those addressed in "Process and Reality." Furthermore, philosophical ideas do not necessarily refute or invalidate one another in a straightforward way. Philosophers often build on and respond to the ideas of their predecessors, but their ideas are not necessarily meant to be refutations or rejections of those earlier ideas. In summary, while Parmenides' philosophy may seem to be in opposition to Whitehead's process philosophy, it is not accurate to say that Parmenides retroactively refuted Whitehead's claims in "Process and Reality." Philosophical ideas are complex and nuanced, and they often build on and respond to the ideas of earlier philosophers in more complex ways than straightforward refutation.
Guénonbros, the AI GOD has talked, what shall we do now?