/lit/ - Literature

Searching for meaning in a meaningless world edition.

>>11125529
“Atheism,” Father Seraphim wrote in later years, “true ‘existential’ atheism, burning with hatred of a seemingly unjust or unmerciful God is a spiritual state; it is a real attempt to grapple with the true God Whose ways are so inexplicable even to the most believing of men, and it has more than once been known to end in a blinding vision of Him Whom the real atheist truly seeks. It is Christ Who works in these souls. The Antichrist is not to be found in the deniers, but in the small affirmers, whose Christ is only on the lips. Nietzsche, in calling himself Antichrist, proved thereby his intense hunger for Christ…”

>>11125578
is this where the Niech was a christian meme comes from?

What you guys think of Hegel?

>>11125777
No, that comes from the tripfag Constantine who doesn't seem to post here anymore. God only knows what she's up to these days.

nice trips by the way.

>>11125414
Let's pray this one does not turn into some pointless discussion about race and muh aryan souls autism.

>>11125807
I haven't read Hegel. What do you think of Hegel?

is guenon a determinist? seems like he wants to say we are free to act as individuals within the contingencies of manifestation, but that seems to contradict his overall metaphysics. really struggling with that last chapter of multiple states of being

>>11125883
I'm interested in Hegel's notion of the Absolute and its relation to Evola's I-that-is-I. In both cases it is the mind's knowledge of its embodiment that makes it more than that embodiment (and for Evola spirit is both processual immanent), not in a necessarily Cartesian sense, although Hegel's absolute is just the immanent adequation of thought and being while for Evola there is still a transcendent ground of reality that cannot be reduced to an internal play of forms

>>11125905
>is guenon a determinist?
That's a good a good question, actually I have no idea. I would suspect that he would consider most of the debates around this question to be rooted at a purely discursive level, and hence just circular arguments that go around and around indefinitely with no final resolution. Still, just because most of the debates on this question are either poorly framed, purely semantic, or poorly defined doesn't mean that there isn't a postion on that question which doesn't accord more truly with "intellectual" knowledge (pic related). I don't know how Guenon resolves or relates to the free will vs. determinism debate, unfortunately. I also don't think it's that useful or pertinent of a question. Kind of like a story the Buddha tells about a man shot with a poisoned arrow. The imperative thing to do is remove the arrow as quickly as possible and apply the proper medicine. It would be pointless to begin speculating as to the origin of that arrow, the type of wood it is made up of, the name of the person who shot you with it, the motive of that person, etc. Same goes for this debate. The resolution for it "is what it is", whether we know it or not, and the resolution of it on a purely discursive level has little to do with attaining whatever it is we must attain in this short lifetime. Not discouraging you from exploring the qeustion, just suggesting you don't attach an undue importance to purely speculative and discursive questions.

>>11125578
>no matter what you do or say, you are still a christcuck
You go against the entire system of christian morality and metaphysics, but still...

>>11126011
youre right of course. im not hung up on it, but sometimes i think working through questions like that, no matter how meaningless the outcome, can be a powerful way to understand someone’s thought, even, as he is, if it’s not a matter of a systemization. aside from that, he seems to feel strongly about it int he last chapter of multiple states, i just don’t know how exactly and it can be frustrating to outright just not understand something.

>>11125961
I don't know much about Hegel, but how does he relate to this idea of "Mind". The traditional understanding is generally that there is an analogical relationship between the mind of man and the Divine Mind, but they are not entirely the same (they are not univocal). Neither, however, are they equivocal. Analogy plays a very important role in traditional metaphysics since symbolism (which is analogical, NOT metaphorical) is the means best adapted to expressing metaphysica truths. In that regard, philosophy is somewhat more poorly adapted, albeit not entirely impotent in expressing traditional metaphysics (see: Aristotelian metaphysics, Platonic, Neoplatonic etc). Does Hegel view this Mind (the Absolute as adequation of thought and Being, as you expressed it) as possessing entirely identical characteristics to the human mind, being a development of thought in a discursive manner? In other words does he paint the Absolute in all-too-human colors?

>>11126047
Yes, there is no Mind determining this movement as the return-to-self, it just is this movement itself. Hegel would deny a transcendent absolute because it is always dependent on finitude to conceive it: the unconditional's "condition" is the conditional itself. It's interesting how he uses a very Hermetic notion to cut metaphysics down to size.

Why are the videos on hooktube?

>>11126041
I would say, don't worry too much about how Guenon views that question. It's more important to have a correct understanding of it than to simply ape what someone else says, Guenon or anyone else. Given that we don't know what Guenon thought about it (as of yet), the next best thing is to explore the points of view of other thinkers and how their thought relates to it, if not explicitly then implicitly. I don't see any reason not to turn to the "classical" formulations of this debate for insight into it, e.g. al Ghazali, Plotinus, Aristotle etc. Or are there aspects of Guenon's thought that you are atruggling with precisely BECAUSE this "puzzle piece" seems to be missing. If so, which?

Help me out here guys: there is a very troubling implication in Evola's book on alchemy that if you experience dreamless sleep as total unconsciousness, you're destined to melt into the void at the moment of death. How do I train for the alchemic nigredo as Evola conceived it?

>>11126064
>it just is this movement itself.
Would you say that he identifies the world of "Becoming" with the Absolute qua "Becoming"?
>it is always dependent on finitude to conceive it
True, but it is precisely an examination of finitude which shows us that the Infinite is prior to the finite and hence not dependant on the finite. Similarly if I bake you a cake, and we have never met, and I leave it on your doorstep, you can infer my existence from this cake, but it doesn't follow that my existence is actually dependent on the existence of the cake just because the existence of the cake leads to you inferring that I exist.

>>11126077
oh fugg i don't wanna do that

>>11126077
I'm not a student of alchemy. I would say you're probably reading too much into all this, don't stress out for no reason. Evola is a bad place to start if you aren't grounded in the metaphysical formulations of someone like Guenon. It's like jumping into a wild ocean without a boat. First procure a boat.

>>11126077
All of that is given practically in the book. You need to restore the edenic/Adamic state through knowledge. On the other hand, salvation from Christianity will provide you temporary psychic continuity.

>>11126090
>"Becoming" with the Absolute qua "Becoming"?
Sorry, grammatically that's probably an awkward way to phrase that. Rephrasing:
>Does he identify the Absolute with "Becoming" qua "Becoming"?

>>11126090
Yes, the absolute wholly immanentized, and must subsist on/as the side of what conceives it, ie the contingent being.

No, the infinite in-itself is not dependent on the contingent, but the infinite thematized as Wisdom, Beauty, Freedom, etc. can only exist within the finitude that must conceive it as such. Purely in-itself it is Nothing.

>>11126109
It really isn't, he just said this is what initiates train to do and that's that

>>11125883
The last discussion was fine until the thread got shitposted to death because /leftypol/ types got upset, then the modfags deleted the entire thread. Nothing about the discussion was autistic until the shitposting started.

>>11126131
Well, first of all it's important to note men as they are do not attain immortality. Only knowledge is truly immortal and it is by attaining this knowledge in an effective way that renders it a part of your being. In Evola's terms, it is to realize a "creative state."

The initiatic path is one of effective knowledge of those immutable states.

>>11126159
I'm pretty sure Evola says something of the solar self survives death, but immortality being dependent on the noetic knowledge of one's fundamentally contingency is straight out of Hegel (besides the immortality part, he says what is eternal in man is only his properly speculative philosophical knowledge)

>>11126126
>the absolute wholly immanentized, and must subsist on/as the side of what conceives it, ie the contingent being.
I would disagree about the Absolute being "wholly immanentized", but it would also depend on what you mean by that. But your remarks regarding something of that Absolute subsisting on our side of manifestation recall some remarks made by Guenon on the "cavity of the heart", on the one hand, and on the inverted nature of our terrestrial world in relation to the heavens, on the other. Since our world is an inverted image, what is greatest in the "kingdom of heaven" appears as what is least on earth. Hence the Absolute appears symbolically as a point smaller than a mustard seed situated in the heart (i.e. occupying a central position in our reality), when in reality it is our reality which is contained in it.

>>11126286
Yeah I like this image, basically it comes down to Hegel refusing to conceptualize or transcendentalizing the nothing that makes the Ouroboros of nature possible

>>11126067
no idea, original op used youtube links, new op switched to hooktube for some reason

>>11126077
>>11126104
Yeah i don't know much about alchemy either but what you are describing is sounding very much like what the tibetan buddhists call Bardo - every night is a small bardo, death is a large one - so look into that if you want to know more.

>>11126188
I'm not familiar with Hegel's system to any serious degree. Can you point me to some selections that clarify what you mean?

As far as I'm aware the solar self in Evola is just the nous, the separate, active intellect in an Aristotelian sense. That seems correct to me.

>>11126077
how about you stop taking Evola seriously

>>11126344
I'm not far off the mark. Aquinas says the same thing. Hegel denies its transcendence, but does present his system as its elucidation. I don't think comparing Hegel's God to Aristotle's self-thinking thought is too far off the mark, except to eliminate its status as a substantial unmoved mover, and instantiate it only as the activity immanent to it itself, and as its self-driven motor, Spirit, is nothing but the appropriation of Otherness to itself retroactively grounded. Fundamentally being for Hegel is an infinite discursive movement, and the Idea is the knowledge of being as this movement. Or being as self-negation: there is a formal necessity in the absolute for differentiation (pure difference = becoming), its almost as if the content is arbitrary. So any necessity in history is only grounded by our being there to affirm it, and Evola says the same that nature is the free play of beautiful and terrible forces and praxis is the self confronting this negativity experientially instead of only dialectically

>>11125905
freedom/determinism is a false dichotomy. both are real.

>>11126423
Freedom is determinism experienced internally

I picked this up yesterday. Is it an alright overview of perennialist thought? I’ve heard that Huxley doesn’t really hit the nail on the head, so to speak but it is nonetheless a good introduction and contains some accurate parts...
Thoughts?

>>11125905
uh oh, someone's going off the kool-aid, quick everybody tell this guy that he can't even ask this question because the contradiction is actually illusory!! HURRY, TELL HIM THAT IF HE EVEN ASKS THIS QUESTION, IT MEANS HE DOESN'T "GET" GUENON AND HE SHOULD FEEL BAD! use platitudes that don't actually answer the question, but pretend to dissolve it in order to sidestep it!!

everybody hurry, before he realizes that traditionalism like all orientalist syncretist mysticism is an anti-personalist cult, derived from stagnant christless naked power-worshipping empathiless asiatics, whose divine "Self" isn't a Self at all but a pointless parmenidean urgrund

>What is to be said of someone who flings himself into the Ocean and has no aspiration but to drown himself in it?
Rene Guenon

>Eastasia's borders are not as clearly defined as those of the other two superstates, but it is known that they encompass most of modern-day China, Japan, Taiwan, and Korea. Eastasia repeatedly captures and loses Indonesia, New Guinea, and the various Pacific archipelagos. Its political ideology is, according to the novel, "called by a Chinese name usually translated as Death-worship, but perhaps better rendered as 'Obliteration of the Self'".
George Orwell

>The mortality of the human being is a reality and it’s of the greatest significance and importance, and of course men are not as strong and as powerful as the gods. And indeed, as we shall see, well, the tragic view of life, which the Greeks invent and which characterizes their culture, is there right at the beginning in the Iliad and the Odyssey. It says that at the same time as man is a remarkable, marvelous creature capable of all sorts of amazing things, even unto being almost like the gods, he is nonetheless mortal and dies, and he doesn’t have the power that the gods do.

>And what do you do about that? Well, it’s interesting, I think, to compare the Greek way of dealing with this human problem that we all have, the problem of death. How do we deal with the fact that we will die? Well, there’s what I like to call the Eastern solution that you find in many an Eastern religion and philosophy that says that man is, in fact, nothing. He is dust. He is dung depending on which story you listen to. So, of course you’re going to die. Who cares? Why should you care? You were nothing to begin with; you’ll be nothing when you’re finished. Relax. Then there is what I would characterize as the Christian solution. You’re worried about dying? You need not die. If you are a good Christian and you do all the things that you need to do to be a good Christian, you will not die.
Donald Kagan

>>11126153
>Nothing about the discussion was autistic until the shitposting started.

Except the dozen or so posts by Evola fanboys about 'Aryan souls' which has no scriptural or doctrinal basis in any tradition and is just a bunch of nonsense Evola pulled out of his ass; having nothing at all to do with genuine metaphysics. In so far as Evola occasionally devotes his time to bullshit and misleads otherwise intelligent people he can fairly be said to be furthering the counter-tradition.

>>11126394
You're using too many words of ordinance in German idealism for me to understand what you mean. I want to know what you think of this passage from Evola regarding Hegel:

>"[R]ationalism was destined to develop along unrealist lines and to generate Absolute Idealism and panlogism. The identity of spirit and thought, of concept and reality was upheld; logical hypostases such as the transcendental ego replaced the real ego as well as any premonition of the true supernatural principle within man. The so-called "critical thought that has reached conscioussness of itself" declared: "Everything that is real is rational and everything that is rational is real," which truly represents the extreme form of unrealism. (Revolt, 319)"

and

>"Critical or "epistemological" idealism claimed to be the awareness of all other philosophical systems; in this it was right. It is the unrealism of philosophy in general that becomes aware of itself in the system, whereby the real becomes identical to the "rational," the world to the "concept" of the world, and the "I" to the "thought" of the "I." (319n5)"

>>11126462
Contact with the ungrund is the nigredo. Evola rejects some kind of new age pantheistic dissolution into the One

>>11125414
Good thread. I was gonna ask about Guenon but then I saw there was already a guide on him.
>>11126423
>>11126431
The well of urd and world tree are a model of what is scientistically referred to as "freewill and determinism".
https://norse-mythology.org/cosmology/yggdrasil-and-the-well-of-urd/
https://norse-mythology.org/concepts/destiny-wyrd-urd/

>>11126462
>someone was so butthurt about traditionalism and eastern thought that they compiled a bunch of non-sensical attacks and silly quotes and thought it would be a good idea to post it

lmao

>>11126303
Hooktube is better, though.

>>11126459

Worth reading but not the final say on the subject, I am a fan of huxley but he doesn't come close to Guenon, Coomaraswamy etc.

He does focus on the transcendental aspects but neglects to explain a lot of highly relevent information including but not limited to why the modern world is inherently anti-metaphysical/trancendental, what needs to be done about it etc.

>>11126497
That's really interesting. Based anime poster I guess

>>11126499
cease replying to my posts with your contentless meltdowns, plastic perennialist

your humorless whingeposts are symbolic emanations of the reign of quantity

>>11126537
>compile a cringey post with a bunch of ridiculous and silly quotes trying to BTFO something
>accuse others of having a meltdown when they laugh at you

>>11126459
His point of view is experiential and experimental, rather than metaphysical and traditional. He covers some of the same ground as the traditionalists, though.

>>11126556
i said don't reply to my posts, plastic perennialist

i don't care about your horrid Babby's First readings of guenon, but i get a phantom odor of garbage when i see your 30th post in reply to someone you disagree with that takes the kernel of
>i don't like this guy's post!
and extends it into this:
>lmao did you really actually compile a whole post of wrong bad stupid gay shit that is wrong but i'm right and you're wrong and you really wrote that whole wrong post that isn't right like me who is right? it's a terrible bad shit post and my post is good though

to watch someone extending so little into so much is painful to me, because i actually know how to think, which is why my readings of guenon aren't sophomoric islamaboo roleplaying like yours are

>>11126462
you sound mad, bro. try adopting some power poses and forcing a big old grin you will feel really good

>>11126577
don't ever fucking phonepost to me

where is that autistic evola guy who read everything evola wrote and then posted interesting novel ideas in a big thread a few months ago?

this pseudo-guenonian faggot who keeps forcing his third-rate traditionalist blog megathread is ruining the name of guenon on this board

>>11126511
what's the difference? genuinely clueless about this

>>11126585
this is a zone of peace and serenity, please take your angery feeling elsewhere. also don't walk in here with your shoes please it's disrespectful

>>11126572
>because i actually know how to think

Evidently not, the main content of your original post was quotes from other people and not anything that you thought, it's all the more funny since the quotes are obviously from people who completely misunderstand eastern thought.

>>11126633
dont feed the trolls etc

not worth it mang, this is the slippery slope that ends up with trad threads getting deleted

>>11126597
there is nothing angry about denouncing shitty theosophy masquerading as real philosophy

>>11126633
>psycho-historical originality of insight is relevant
>a quote from guenon himself is irrelevant

plastic perennialist, like i said. you want the prestige of being a mouthpiece for a trendy internet LARPing phenomenon that demands nothing of you spiritually, but you aren't interested in thinking, much less initiation.

you are misleading people here with your godawful readings and your reactionary (and apparently selective) guru worship. i would advise you to speak out someone who can teach you to read the texts, and not the blogs you read that apparently taught you to be a shallow blogger.

>>11126523
The creator of that website is really lucid when it comes to explaining this kind of stuff. I can vouch that his book "The Love of Destiny: The Sacred and the Profane in Germanic Polytheism" is well worth the read if you poke around his website and find him to your liking as well.

Redpill on elves:
https://norse-mythology.org/gods-and-creatures/elves/

Redpill on red pills:
https://norse-mythology.org/tales/why-odin-is-one-eyed/

>>11126633
Actually I think its worth drawing the distinction between returning to some primordial womb vs. actualizing nous in and through this medium. If the Soul is the progression and return to the One then we only confirm this circle, there has to be a return at a higher mode

>>11126651
>it's the theosophy poster all along
hey man, where you been bro? it's been a while since you shat up one of our threads. i thought something happened to you, god forbid

>>11126651
What happens at death and what do I do about it

>>11126651
no matter how much hate you respnd with i will always give u love in return. because i love you anon (but seriously take your shoes off, ur staining the carpet)

>>11125414
OP if you are going to spam these threads at least post the various links and pastas to various primary texts and articles about different doctrines that people posted in the first two threads. Otherwise the threads are shitter because it often turns into Traditionalist e-celeb bullshit instead of discussing actual ideas, stop posting stupid memes and actually post serious material that people can engage with if you want to do these threads.

>>11126651
Try making a list of the things that are upsetting you. Most of us have no clue what you are talking about, you're barely coherent. It would help to facilitate dialogue if you took some deep breaths and relaxed before hitting your forehead on the keyboard and pressing enter.

>>11126663
we shouldn't talk about such things here. this is a thread about frithjof schuon's vertical wives, and the fact that guenon is EXACTLY like adi shankara!

>>11126661
>>11126694
i am glad i recognise your paranoid-delusional obsession with "theosophy poster" from a previous thread, where i was also making fun of you for being a paranoid plastic perennialist, who responds to everybody with whom he disagrees with a lifeless barrage of unfunny "lmao haha u actually believe this" whining, instead of discussing or sharing knowledge.

i don't know who this theosophy poster is, but i wonder if he might become an ally in mocking you for all your repetitive, knee-jerk pants-shitting at the mere sight of someone who disagrees with you. maybe together we can help show you that you are alienating people.

again, seek out someone who can guide your readings. you need a teacher right now, not to write more bloviating blog comments. listen to what this guy says: >>11126679

>>11126677
together we can defeat the pseudo-perennialist and make these threads a place of sanctuary for fellow seekers

>>11126698
Please make a list of things that are upsetting you so we can help you get over these emtional hurdles in a systematic fashion.

>>11126698
We were having a nice discussion on nous in Hegel and Evola care to join niggerfaggot

What’s up with gornahoor dot net?

>>11126698
Which religion/tradition are you actively involved with? Do they know that you make angry posts on malaysian pottery forums?

>>11126679
the thread was going fine until this faggot showed up and started complaining for no reason
>>11126462

>>11126716
this is another one of your bad faith tactics, another reason why your knowledge has not progressed since you first skimmed nasr's books and decided to make ornery blogposts, and another reason why your threads are hostile egregores.

you could be genuinely dangerous if you had any knowledge to impress on people in a way that made them admire and follow you, instead of being a whiny baby. thankfully your aggressive personality is coupled with an incapacity for metaphysics.

here you go again, plastic perennialist: >>11126741
>stop disagreeing with me! it's bad, because my opinions are good!

are we starting the cycle anew? am i sympathetically participating with you, right now, in the cosmogony? is your empty whining the the instaurational myth of these threads?

>>11126717
yes i like this >>11126655

>>11126753
I still have no clue what you're angry about. You have very poor communication skills. I'm perfectly willing to have some nice chit chat, if you're up for it, but you're going to have to tell me exactly what is making you so upset.

>>11126753
>werereachinglevelsofprojectionthatshouldntevenbepossible.jpg
holy shit lmao i have never seen this much projection in my life

>>11126728
Same question. I keep hitting its links and it looks sort of interesting but a little too into the reactionary stuff for my taste and wouldn’t really know where to start in terms of going through it.

>>11126763
i'm not angry, i said i smell garbage when i see your contentless posts

so far this is my diagnostic catalog of your behaviors
>(1). "your post is bad, so bad in fact that i cannot believe you even posted it!" (infinite variants)
>(2). "make a list. make a list, please. make a list of what's upsetting you, and i'll respond to it." (said when someone replies to an instance of (1)
>(3) posting irrelevant nasr blurbs from libgen pdfs, occasionally while denouncing other posters for discussing things you don't like
>(4) "why are you upset? tell me why you're upset. i'm not sure why you're upset." (note: possibly a degenerate form of (2))

i am morphologically ascending to an intellectual intuition of your psychopathology. thanks to its simplicity and ceaseless repetition, i will soon be able to cure you.

>>11126786
speaking of repetition, one of the two lines in this post is completely redundant and could be cut out (take your pick)

it would still be non sequitur and unfunny though

>>11126801
>your post is bad, so bad in fact that i cannot believe you even posted it
We can add this to your list of things that make you upset. So, where did I do that?
>denouncing other posters for discussing things you don't like
We'll add that to the list as well. Where did I do that?
>>11126753
>metaphysical incapacity
Where, in your opinion, did I demonstrate that?

>>11126824
i told you i'd cure you! you just made a post where you ask for information instead of just saying "lmao!" or
>postingallthisshit.jpg
>HAHA you posted all this shit!

look at you! you just asked questions and tried to get at the heart of a disagreement instead of acting like a surly cunt until the thread is just you talking to yourself.

all i did was show you the path, anon. you walked it yourself.

>>11126836
Good on you. You're a veritable healer of souls in the Socratic mould. Can you answer my questions, maybe?

>>11126844
fuck off you cunt

>>11126465
I don't particularly care much about this issue, and I want the thread to remain unmolested by trigger-happy intruders, but the idea that races don't exist is, as I'm sure you would agree, a ridiculous concept of modernity. The idea that they're merely biological/genetic is inconsistent with the teaching that castes correspond to spiritual levels, if castes exist spiritually then races exist spiritually. The only conclusion we are left with is that race exists on a spiritual level. "Aryan" may not be the correct term vis a vis its typical usage (particularly on 4chan) but people are using it in an attempt to describe *something* that's real.

It's hardly an important aspect of Traditionalist teaching, and perhaps it does invite an undesirable crowd, but whatever one's disagreements with Evola on the subject are, he cannot be summarily dismissed without "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". I'm happy to leave it at that if you are. I would prefer the thread remain up and that genuine metaphysical discussion continue, and I fear that continuing the discussion is going to invite the shrieking hyenas again.

>>11126844
no, this is a theoxeny. you don't need to know anything about me other than that you failed the first test of hospitality and had to make amends.

>>11126869
now neither of us will be virgins

>>11126929
>the idea that races don't exist is, as I'm sure you would agree, a ridiculous concept of modernity.
Agreed
>The idea that they're merely biological/genetic is inconsistent with the teaching that castes correspond to spiritual levels, if castes exist spiritually then races exist spiritually.
I fail to see how any of that follows. Caste (varna) is derived from guna (quality). The gunas are cosmic and metaphysical, and are not specifically or especially related to humanity or living creatures any more than any other phenomenon in the universe. Even a rock is composed of gunas. What spiritua race is a rock? Varna is determined based on which guna is predominant not by which "race" you belong to. People of a satvic nature can be found amongst all human races. If you want to argue that they are found more frequently among certain races...well, I'm not familir with any relevant guna related statistics but if you think you can make a case for this I'd genuinely like to see it.

>>11126929
>but the idea that races don't exist is, as I'm sure you would agree, a ridiculous concept of modernity.

Does anyone have insights on the issue of God being simultaneously totally transcendent and immanent in everything?

Seems contradictory. Has anyone here been able to make sense of this? Thanks

>>11127020
>Appearance is the arising and passing away that does not itself arise and pass away, but is in itself and constitutes the actuality and the movement of the life of truth

Alterability is immanence, changelessness transcendence. Though Hegel wouldn't put it this way

>>11126991
>People of a satvic nature can be found amongst all human races
Indeed.
>Varna is determined based on which guna is predominant not by which "race" you belong to
Didn't mean to imply anything to the contrary.

I'm not arguing for a "vertical" difference of races, rather a "horizontal" one. Castes are vertical stratification, race is a horizontal stratification.

>>11127049
Bit of both m8, most races are grasslands, a few are hills

>>11127036
can you explain more?

>>11127062
Genuinely don't understand what you mean by this.

>>11127020
Not really, personally, not perfect sense of it. There are a few considerations which help in making at least SOME sense of it, though. Firstly, we are too often used to thinking in spatial terms. So transcendant and immanent often just sounds like saying "God is like waaaaay up there" and immanence sounds like "but he's also like waaaaaay down here". So first thing we gotta do is get rid of this false conception of immanence/transcendence, even if its only unconsciously involved in our thought process. Now we need to get some sense of WHY these attributes are predicated of Him. I think some of the classical theistic arguments are sufficient on this score, we don't necessarily have to get all "mystical", although if you want a more symbolic take on it see >>11126286. Basically, the way it seems to me, is that God's transcendence is related to his aspect as the cause and source of the world. Since he is prior to the world he necessarily "transcends" it. On the other hand his immanence, or his Rahma (all-mercy), is related to his aspect as maintainer of the world. Everything depends on him and only subsists by his continual will, hence, to use a Quranic expression, He is "closer to us than our jugular vein". If He wasn't HERE, with us, we literally wouldn't exist.

>>11127049
>Castes are vertical stratification, race is a horizontal stratification
I'm the poster you're responding to. Sounds interesting, but could you offer some examples/elaboration?

>>11127036
>Alterability
Yeah, I gotta disagree. You can't predicate "alterability" of God. Show me one classical theologian who maintains such a thing. Or else establish by argument how that would even theoretically be possible.

>>11127072
It's a clunky way of trying to illustrate the fact that some races have more members on average that participate in a higher principle, but also that this realization is not automatically denied to any race in principle

>>11127106
I'm not talking about the Christian God, but immanence in the absolute understood as the relativity of manifestation

>>11127111
Wouldn't it follow from the inverted nature of our world (in relation to the "heavens") that being higher up in the horizontal stratification would *generally* correspond to being lower on the vertical stratification? Makes sense given the leading role that the West (top of the horizontal strat) has played in subverting traditional spirituality.

>>11127118
>absolute understood as the relativity of manifestation
But "absolute" and "relative" are contradictory, pure and simple. Metaphysicians (whether classical or traditionalist) would tell you that the absolute is by definition simply not alterable or relative in any way. Now, if you think they're wrong, that's cool, but explain how. How do you reconcile these contradictory terms, what thinkers can you cite as examples of your point of view (so we can just have some more references)? It sounds interesting, but I'm not really buying it.

>>11126929
If low caste relates to low spiritual level, why are blacks and other primitive people much more in touch with their roots and their traditions, and have "soul", while whites and chinks and other high caste races are known to be rigid and cold, and not in touch with themselves or their ancestors? Look at Jews - the most high caste race in the world, yet they're one of the most degenerate and cut off from the holy spirit.

>>11127079
thanks.

One of the names is indeed: Ar Razzaaq الرزاق - The Ever-Providing, The Sustainer

This verse also hints in the direction of what you said:
"Do you feel secure that He who is in the heaven would not cause the earth to swallow you and suddenly it would sway?"
Surat Al-Mulk 67:16

>>11127151
>whites
i blame descartes
>chinks
communism. nothing wrong with coldness per se, there are "dry" paths as well. taoism still exists in china btw, they just don't have much access to westerners.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xEphouqTF9M
>Jews
Well, there are still some authentic Hasidic sects and whatnot, but on the whole yeah, Zionism and secularism especially have really corrupted the Jews

>>11127126
Actually a great dialectical turn on my point, the greater vertical potential (below a certain threshold), the more complex and articulated its potentials for debasement. Mental rigidification, sterility, mechanism, is white European debasement, and for that reason more insidious

>>11127171
Good point, actually. Most religions, afaik, have some teaching equivalent to "the higher a spirituality a person is capable of attaining, the lower the depths they can sink to are".

>>11127088
Alright, admittedly, I'm not an expert and I'm not pretending to be. I've only read "Reign of Quantity" and "Revolt Against the Modern World" + "Ride the Tiger" (I know this is absolutely the wrong order, and that I shouldn't have read Evola before reading more Guenon, mistakes were made. I will have some more Guenon books arriving tomorrow) so that is the extent of my understanding of Traditionalist literature.

If each society can be likened to an organic whole, an ecosystem, each caste plays a part in that ecosystem. There are predators and prey, animals and vegetation, climate etc. Predators play a similar role in every ecosystem that they are a part of. They are vital to every ecosystem. In the same way, a given caste plays a vital role in each society (assume for the sake of the analogy that the society in question is in a state of racial harmony/homogeneity/equilibrium). Predator and Prey, soil and vegetation, can be viewed as "vertical" relationships in this context. A given caste may be likened to one of these categories such as "predators" or "vegetation" for example. If a given caste is represented by "predators" for this analogy, predators are vertically related to the other parts of the ecosystem, in the same way that castes are vertically related to the other castes of their society. Different ecosystems, however, are related horizontally. The predators of one ecosystem have a "horizontal" relationship to the predators of another ecosystem. The predators of one ecosystem are perfectly suited to that ecosystem, but they may be ill-suited to or even overly successful in another ecosystem, disturbing its harmony or being unable to survive. In the same way, while Brahmins are vitally important to every society, the Brahmins of one society may not be able to successfully relate harmoniously to the other castes in another society. Now if the society in question has lost a caste for one reason or another (perhaps the nobility was defeated in a war and slaughtered for example) it would be better for that society to bring in a caste across "horizontal" boundaries than to suffer without one of its castes, in the same way that an ecosystem without vegetation would likely benefit from the introduction of alien vegetation, though this may have unforeseen consequences.

Hopefully I've made myself clear. Please let me know what you think.

>>11127186
That sounds interesting and correct. Guenon, afaik, would agree with that. He thought it would be somewhat hazardous to import non-European faiths to Europe, BUT if Europe wouldn't get its shit together there wouldn't be a choice.

>>11127142
The guy asked how to understand the absolute as both transcendent and contingent, the answer (with volumes of philosophical qualification) is that only contingency can be the condition of possibility for a final Good.

>>11127207
>>11127186
>>11127088
So that is what I mean by the existence of race on a spiritual level. Each race is like an ecosystem of its own, with its own organically produced castes. The differences between one race and another vis a vis caste frequency is something I have no idea about. Sounds possible, but I would have to contemplate it and research it more.

>>11127210
I'm saying that you can't understand the Absolute as contingent (immanent, yes, but not contingent). No classical theoligian that I know of maintains that, and neither do classical metaphysicians or traditionalists etc. I'd be interested to hear an argument supporting that view, though.>>11127210

>>11127186
By this logic, whites should submit to racial suicide because we've become degenerate and are no longer capable of fulfilling our role as the master-race. Might makes right, does it not?

Alright buckos, fuckos, and cuckos, I have a question
Traditionalism would involve isolation from other parts of the world, but the internet immediately makes us all connected, even in Antarctica. So would that mean that you would have to get rid of the internet in your native country or just ban all the good sites like china does?

>>11127151
The more primitive and animalistic peoples are somewhat more unaffected by the Kali Yuga. Look at birthrates.

>>11127235
>by this logic, *completely unrelated bullshit*
No.

>>11127242
I shouldn't have said animalistic, I should have said stronger animal urges.

>>11127230
It's really just hair-splitting, if reality is an internal production of One it is, in some sense, contingent, and metaphysics must proceed bottom-up from contingent immediacy to transcendence if it is to be a metaphysics at all. This sameness-in-difference in Hegel's system is purely immanent, because essence is the reflection/negation of being with itself, nothing escapes this ring of dialectical closure. The question is how to formulate an understanding of pure difference grounded in trinitarian self-repose

>>11127235
Yeah, sorry, that's not what he is saying. Not at all.

>>11127237
>Traditionalism would involve isolation from other parts of the world
uh but it wouldn't so none of the weird stuff that follows from this faulty premise is relevant. Most trads believe there were a lot more contacts between ancient cultures than historians generally give credit for. Are you conflating traditionalism and fundamentalism?

>>11127266
>One it is, in some sense, contingent, and metaphysics must proceed bottom-up from contingent immediacy to transcendence if it is to be a metaphysics at all.
That's literally the opposite of what almost every metaphysician ever says. Maybe, I'm just a "brainlet" but I don't see how that's even theoretically possible.

>>11127289
Hardly, Buddhism is (very) radical empiricism

>>11127319
Ok, I don't know much about Buddhism. I'm a Muslim, but I've also delved into Christianity and Hinduism. Any other resources for learning about this view? Would you say that this is the Hegelian view? I've been wanting to study Hegel for some time now just to see what all the commotion is about. I still don't understand how a bottom up metaphysics could possibly make sense, but if its too complex to summarize on an imageboard hopefully I'll get around to reading some more in depth exposition of that idea.

>>11127333
you'll need to read Descartes Hume and Kant first

>>11127246
>>11127275
Yes. According to natural law all things are impermanent. There's no reason for whites to remain the master race when they are so weak and degenerate. Might literally does make right. If muzzies and blacks want to start killing whites, in most cases there will be nothing to stop them.

>>11127342
Who said anything about a "master race"?

>>11127345
You're talking about castes. Whites are a high caste race, but we're being destroyed because our time is up. We've lost God's favor.

>>11127340
Thankfully, I have spent time reading them (not too much time, thankfully), but I could probably go back and revisit Kant before I try my hands at Hegel. Any contemporary Hegelians that I might read to get a sense of his thought before I read his work?

>>11127354
>Whites are a high caste race
No one said that. That doesn't even make sense. Please go back and look at the conversation you're trying to enter. We have already eatablished a definition of caste that is not theone you're using. If you want to establish an alternative definition of Varna then please propose one and defend it.

>>11127333
Yes, its Hegel's view, but be warned Hegel's absolute is immanent to-itself, his bottom-up metaphysics is properly no transcendent metaphysics at all (though it is an elucidation of fundamental principles). A bottom-up metaphysics always terminates at the same ceiling, for them being is triadic because the trinity is immanent, speaking of reality outside this circle can only be done if it is always-already appropriated to the mind's intelligibility in the first place, but of course the question always was just what outside this self-given intelligibility (that can only be posed by it, so this outside is just a necessary precondition of thought's own activity, the fundament for Hegel is God as Subject but this pure or formal break of what is in-itself with itself)

Wew

>>11127370
It seems that he is operating under a different understanding of intelligence than traditional metaphysicians. Prior to modern European philosophy reason and intelligence were aeen to be separate faculties. The existence of such an intelligence as traditionally conceived would nullify Hegel's view, wouldn't it (assuming we could in fact establish the existence of such an intelligence)?

>>11127391
>aeen
seen*

What do you guys think of protestantism?

>>11127401
The idea of sola scriptura is really anti-traditional. Sure, those sacred texts themselves contain profound symbolism but without maintaining the integrity of traditional spiritual structures and interpretations very few people will penetrate to that meaning, most people remaining on the level of crude literalism. Sola fide is suggestive of an anti-knowledge attitude―if all you need is faith why bother about metaphysical knowledge. That said, most trads (if not all) would affirm that Protestantism has produced genuine cases of "mystics" and spiritually realized individuals.

>>11127391
But Hegel would say the privileged primordial knowledge that the intellectual intuition used to afford philosophers just were the insights of his system. Schelling said Hegel could sublate everything but the positivity of this sublation being given. Very complex stuff

>>11127431
>intellectual intuition
So did he believe in the existence of a faculty capable of direct apprehension of truths, a faculty wherein there is an identity between knower and known? If he did then what use is his "system" when we can just fall back on our inherent faculty (assuming we are "trained" in its use), and why does his system differ so markedly from what prior metaphysicians claimed?

>>11127401
Pretty much this >>11127423
It's also worth noting that Protestantism, in its refusal to recognize authority, played a part in the degeneration and secularization of Europe. Protestantism is not a "Traditional" religion.

>>11127363
I actually meant to respond to this:

>>11127207
>He thought it would be somewhat hazardous to import non-European faiths to Europe, BUT if Europe wouldn't get its shit together there wouldn't be a choice.

Yeah it was a tangent, sorry. What made me say that is that we're taking a naturalistic view of things, and if we're talking about how castes are the same as prey and predators in nature, it doesn't make sense to be afraid of high caste societies disintegrating. Traditionalists don't want to see tradition destroyed, but isn't the destruction of tradition an unavoidable process of nature? This is why I said might makes right. It it was might that brought certain races into power, it will be might that makes them low again.

>>11127473
>naturalistic
We aren't, that anon meant it as an analogy
>high caste society
No one has claimed that there is even such a thing as a "high caste society", which wouldn't make sense. Each society has its own castes, jut like each ecosystem has its natural hierarchy.
>isn't the destruction of tradition an unavoidable process
the destriction of PARTICULAR traditions, unfortunately is.
>might makes right
This neither has anything to do with might nor with right. "Primordial Tradition" is constantly being reexpressed in novel ways throughout history. Guenon believes IMPORTING a tradition could be harmful, and that it should be avoided if possible. Where do might and right fit into all this?

>>11127451
The conditions of knowability must eventually result in the reflexive knowledge of these conditions themselves. The exposition of this knowledge is the Hegelian system. Understood this way: truth is nothing but the process in which truth arrives at itself. Being has its intelligibility only in the other which it reflexively appropriates, /as/ this other's appropriation to itself. Do you get it? Hegel is describing the method by which the chaos of sense experience auto-organizes, and the organization is nothing but the movement that it is itself. Spirit is the sense that senses only the sense that it is, since reality is a universality that subsists only in/as its particularization

>>11127473
>it doesn't make sense to be afraid of societies disintegrating
Technically it doesn't make sense to be afraid of your friends and family dying, too. Doesn't mean it's a positive thing, or that you shouldn't try to avoid it.

>>11126997

>>11127514
>conditions of knowability must eventually result in the reflexive knowledge of these conditions themselves
This is interesting, and makes for a good jumping off point for a comparison between Hegel and classical metaphysics. "Classical metaphysics" would identify the "conditions of knowability" with the Intellect and the "reflexive knowledge" with the proper function of the intellect which is its very nature and which it carries out ETERNALLY, timelessly you might even say. The Intellect already knows itself, it is we, the contingent beings, who have yet to identify ourselves to this eternally present contemplation in in actual way, rather than being the passive products of it (according to Plotinus the world "emanates" from the overflow produced by self-contemplating hypostases, though not all metphysicians are "emanationists"). Hegel, if I understand you correctly, identifies the "conditions of knowledge" with Reason as vested in the Subject, and the "reflexive knowledge" as a gradual process that happens discursively ("dialectically") IN HISTORY. I think it's fundamentally contradictory, though, to claim that chaos could ever auto-organize. According to the principle of proportionate causality (which I might infer, Hegel rejects?) you cannot derive something from a cause that wasn't already contained in it in some sense (especially regarding hierarchical causal series, rather than temporal). Order engenders order, and chaos being receptive and being principally a LACK of order is receptive to the influence of order-giving forces. It cannot de-chaos itself.

>>11127760
>contained in it
I mean in that cause

>>11127431
>very complex stuff
give me a finger or a tongue
>>11126077
>people have no answers
the void is generative you fucking neophyte retards
>>11126104
No Evola is better than Guenon, having a spine is better than being a long faced dilettante
>>11126126
there are no “in itselves” in the world this is schizophrenic nothing has any substantialitu including “the infinite”
>>11126991
caste is derived from vitality which is associated with one’s activity and associations. the Aryans are Aryans because they are more vital, hence “upright” “masterful” “lord” (which are the literal translations of the word). The vaishyas and shudras are a different race of people. The system exists only in racialist nations like Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, America and India. There is a reason Barack obama was light skinned, had large cranium and was descended from an intelligent black man and a germanic mother
>>11127186
this is half intelligent but totally incoherent and shrinks away from the issue at hand. First of all races aren’t their own ecosystem, second of all the races are hierarchically ordered and thus vertical, third of all the Aryans never occupied the middle or lower castes and ALWAYS dominated other cultures with might and intelligence. So, you are basically obfuscating the racialism of the caste system. When you’re explaining something you may want to make sure you aren’t side stepping or forgetting (because you’re in a hurry to get social approval) what you’re arguing for. You had to add another reply and it was still an idotic vapid comment.
>>11127723
i am the only jew in this thread and would dominate you physically, mentally and spiritually irl you fat fuck

>>11127820
>No Evola is better than Guenon, having a spine is better than being a long faced dilettante
Evola would call you an idiot if he read that.
>caste is derived from vitality
Yeah, that's a completely made up definition of varna that no one but you uses.

Also your pseudohistory of the "Aryan race" has little to no contact with reality.

>>11127760
Well Hegel does say the serpent was right about the Tree granting knowledge so you could call him /the/ philosopher of discursion in history, and the dialectical summit being the realization that the Mind is nothing but this discursion, cannot subsist recognizably without it. It's a progressive shortening of sight, the Beyond is chipped away at until Kant jettisons it completely. The rest is faith.

>>11127820
>there are no itselves

well right which is why they are identified with Nothing. at least Hegel does. Orthodox Christianity goes full bore with the distinction

>>11127860
Cool, it's nice to consider alternative viewpoints. Hegel in some ways seems like the polar opposite of the traditionalist stance, so I may check him out sometime just for added perspective.

>>11127820
>No Evola is better than Guenon, having a spine is better than being a long faced dilettante

Do you mean the spine shattered by an Allied bomb when he walked around during a bombing raid like retard?

>>11127936
He did it intentionally. Like laughing at someone for getting burned because they wanted to put their hand on a hot stove. It's a non sequitor.

>>11127957

>>11127831
No caste is related to vitality and willfulness, bug scholarship from brahmins has nothing to do with an institute which transcends India. The Aryans are a people from the Pontic-Caspian steppe who did not have lower castes, they were pastoralist nomads who raided and conquered agriculturalists and horticulturalists, capturing valuable genes and ordering subordinate tribes into castes which they seldom bred with.
>appeal to dead authority
i don’t know why you think turning the other way will save you from how hard i can hit you
>>11127862
The identification is another reification, there is no Nothing in itself either
>>11127936
No, I mean not being an abrahamist and getting involved with a politically dangerous group which advances ones beliefs in practice rather than armchair bloviation which is all Guenon ever engaged in

again:

there are no things in themselves, none of the signifiers have any real signs behind them, Nothing isn’t substantial; evola is superior, hence sexuality, tantra, magic are part of his pathos; Aryans are White Europid Caucasoids from the Pontic-Caspian steppe who conquered Dravidian Caucasoid agriculturalists; the reason that Brahmins and Shatriyas were light skinned and often red/tawny haired and blue eyed is because they’re a different race. The dark people are lower caste because they’re of an inferior race, in the sense that they have less will, less vitality and are weaker physically. There is nothing else, if you dispute this ill just reiterate with stronger swings and we can make sure the thread dies.

>>11127957
It was more of a joke than anything. I think there are some good aspects to Evola but he is really just a shadow of Guenon. If you want to talk about spine I would argue it takes more spine to study and articulate in an orthodox way a bunch of different eastern doctrines instead of writing a bunch of quasi Guenon-like political tracts. It's easier to give into the urge to disseminate your private and sentimental views in your writings. It's more difficult to be able to stay true to form and present an orthodox exposition without getting one's ego or personal beliefs involved, both in the sense of it taking more self-control but also being more inaccessible in terms of actually having to study complicated subjects.

>>11127991
>The identification is another reification, there is no Nothing in itself either

don't mistake capitalization for reification

>>11127998
Dude lived what he preached. I barely sense any ego in his writings. They're clear, strong, direct. What are you talking about fr?

>>11128000
That is exactly what you and Hegel are doing, there is no Nothing, there is no generative negation. Its just language games, everything is appearance and nothing more, there is no dialectic, Truth or Spirit, these cannot ever exist as they are by definition conditioned and what is conditioned can’t ever become unconditioned. You are playing schizogenic games with yourself

>>11128011
what is unconditioned is the knowledge of the conditioned, what is unconditioned is conditionality itself

Are there any historians anyone would recommend?
Could be on an any variety of topics, I'm interested in learning about anything really.

>>11128022
no this is nonsense relations and knowledge of negations isn’t substantial or unconditioned you’re trying to use self moving incomplete looping logic to pin vapors down. There is no “itself” of any kind at all, everything is relative and conditioned, the itself and “for itself” are meaningless in relative space. You will respond with more pedantry or worse more dialectics and you’ll still be stuck with signifiers without corresponding signs

Hegel is very clever, and if linguistic play was at all valid he would be one of the strongest of philosophers, but he assumes things which have no meaning to begin with, Heidegger and Nietzsche revoke his access to the Spirit and Stirner basically exposes any ethical compunctions one would feel to reify these things. There is nothing and this includes Nothing

>>11128041
the Idea is precisely what understands this, is what you're not getting.

>>11127991
i mean i think that kind of "vitalism" is baseless and retarded but you're perfectly entitled to hold whatever belief you wish

>>11127820
>Evola is better than Guenon, having a spine is better than being a long faced dilettante
But anon, Evola literally lost his spine in WWII.

>>11127991
>>11127820
>me stronk aryan man
No matter how good your genetics are and no matter how much you work out you will still never be stronger than a donkey. A donkey will always be like 1,000x more vital than you. Bow down to your donkey overlords vitalist cuck.

I am this anon: >>11127186

>>11127820
>>11127991
>Aryans are White Europid Caucasoids from the Pontic-Caspian steppe who conquered Dravidian Caucasoid agriculturalists; the reason that Brahmins and Shatriyas were light skinned and often red/tawny haired and blue eyed is because they’re a different race. The dark people are lower caste because they’re of an inferior race, in the sense that they have less will, less vitality and are weaker physically.
The White Europid Caucasoids slaughtered the higher castes of the Dravidian Caucasoid and took their place. Meaning their behavior fits perfectly with the analogy I described. If you think there aren't White Shudras and Vaisyas open your fucking eyes.

>>11126929
You seem to be fundamentally mistaken about some of the most essential doctrines of Metaphysics (especially if you are the same poster who has been autistically arguing about Aryans throughout this thread), so I will take some time to explain it to you. I get the sense that you have mostly read Evola and have read little if any of Guenon or other traditionalists.

First off you should understand that Metaphysics, the Sanatana Dharma, the perennial truth ever remains unchanging and the same, the only change being the form through which it's expressed and to what extent its taught openly or cloaked in esoterism. Almost all of the major traditionalists including Guenon agreed on this point and also on that Advaita Vedanta was one of the purest expositions of Metaphysics that there is (vishishtadvaita being also orthodox but just with a different emphasis). The ultimate lessons of the various traditional forms like Hinduism, Daoism, traditional Buddhism, the esoteric side of the Abrahamic traditions and so on all points towards non-dualism, either more or less directly, either more or less esoterically. Non-dualism is the ultimate metaphysical truth, and without understanding this you have no chance of understanding any of the serious traditionalist writings. This doesn't mean that every little aspect of Advaita is the absolute infallible truth, it just means that the minor areas where Advaita, Daoism and Sufism differ from eachother are just examples of differing ways of expressing and emphasizing the same truths (e.g. the creator architect aspect of the Abrahamic gods just has to do with universal manifestation).

What this means is that if something deeply contradicts a central tenet of Advaita, then it's almost certainly not true, that it's pseudo-metaphysics. The concept of the 'Aryan soul' is one of these things. There is no scriptural evidence to support it and has more to do with Evola absorbing the rhetoric of (the thoroughly anti-traditional) Nazi Germany racial ideology. These are the reasons why your (and his) understanding is wrong:

1/2

>>11126929
>>11128275

2/2

Advaita clearly lays out that all is Brahman, and that there is nothing else. Any perception of a hierarchy, multiplicity or division can only be considered to be true relatively and is strictly null in respect of the absolute truth of the unity of the One. Atma, which is fundamentally the same as Brahman, permeates all of universal manifestation (Ishwara), which consists of the interplay of purusha and prakriti. Atma is the only real aspect of beings, the rest being prakriti, part of Maya, illusionary, not in any sense real other than being a secondary and accidental aspect of manifestation (the preceding concepts still contained within and part of Brahman, but not constituting Brahman itself (other than Atma); again there only being division of or multiplicity within Brahman in a relative and not in an objective or true sense). Atma is the only one that is absolutely identical with Brahman. Atma is the only real aspect of the being. All considerations of a hierarchy in and the phenomena themselves of races, ethnicity, people, cultures, anything can only be true in an illusionary and relative sense.

This why the idea of an 'Aryan soul' makes no sense at all. The only real aspect of beings (Atma, which is their 'self' or 'soul') is absolutely the same everywhere in all beings, remaining forever stainless, spotless, at peace, unchanged and unconditioned. The Atma in Indo-Europeans, Africans, frogs and microbiota is everywhere and always the exact same. Any perception of difference is only relative and due to the false perceptions stemming from ignorance of the supreme reality. The only things separating Aryans from non-Aryans is strictly nothing in relation to the supreme truth of non-duality.

Evola (and those who repeat his nonsense like you) seem to imagine that there is something concrete or absolute to the idea of differing races having fundamentally different souls, when in fact all of existence is one indivisible unchanging soul and awareness. Different races certainly have differing tendencies, attitudes, modes of thought and behavior, differing genes and biology with all the attendant consequences; but these are all strictly illusionary and secondary in respect of the absolute truth. That is why one should not talk seriously about the concept of an 'Aryan soul'. It implies that at the deepest core of the being that there is a difference between people of various races; which is the absolute opposite of the sum of the Vedic knowledge and all traditional metaphysics. Even though Evola claimed to have read all of Guenon's books and despite that at one point he wanted to write a foreward to Guenon's book on Vedanta he demonstrates at times a profound ignorance of it's central teachings, this is often how people get misled when reading him.

>>11128275
>>11128280
I am not this poster:
>>11127991
>>11127820
I am this poster:
>>11127186
>>11127049
>>11126929

>>11128280
>The only real aspects of beings is absolutely the same everywhere in all beings... in Indo-Europeans, Africans, frogs and microbiota
>Different races certainly have differing tendencies, attitudes, modes of thought and behavior, differing genes and biology with all the attendant consequences
I fail to see how your post is a contradiction of this one >>11127186 in any way. Extrapolate if you think I got something wrong, or did you just confuse me and the Evolafag?

>>11128292
>>11128318
I didn't really care about playing the detective and analyzing the responses and writing styles of each of your posts to figure out which is which. I've been at work for most of the thread and missed out on it. I just noticed that one or more people seemed to be arguing for the validity of the concept of the Aryan soul and related subjects in this thread and that this was also widespread in the last Trad thread that got 404'd. Because of that thread and because that people seemed to be directing the conversation in a similar direction here I just thought I'd take the time to clear up any potential misunderstandings. No ill-will intended, I was just trying to dispel what seems to be a common misconception that plagues these threads.

I'm the Nietzche-poster. And now we see that mankind is so sick from the diseases of modernity and nihilism that even the most genuine attempt to find meaning turns into a chaotic clusterfuck.

>>11128455
Bit dramatic. Every /lit/ thread on philosophy and metaphysics is going to have some degree of contention to it. These Trad series of threads are still better than out typical fare. It's good thing that we're coming together to keep these going.

>>11128455
Bit dramatic. Every /lit/ thread on philosophy and metaphysics is going to have some degree of contention to it. These Trad series of threads are still better than our typical fare. It's a good thing that we're coming together to keep these going.

>>11128363
I pointed out the distinction for the sake of the other readers as much as you.

Question for my /trad/bros, what is good literature for Christian Traditionalism?

>>11128532
Jean Borella

>>11128578
yup
>>11128532
also Phillip Sherrard and Rama Coomaraswamy

>>11128578
>>11128851
Great, thank you. Where should one begin with them, though? How much Guenon should one read before delving into their work?

>>11128053
no it doesn’t conditions appear and it looks like that, there is no Idea, Hegel is just saying things.
>>11128054
that’s fine you still believe other outrageous things about ontology and epistemology and are posting in a tradfag thread filled with pseudo-vedantists and christfags/mudslimes
>>11128077
yes and he is a braver man for it, i have deep respect for him
>>11128078
ridiculous bait
>>11128261
There are but they’re the vast minority of Indians and thus Hindus. So, you’re wrong as the Shudras and Vaishyas are predominantly dark skinned and look like hybrids of Dravs and Europid Aryans. The elites from north India retained mostly Aryan features save for the robustness of the jaw and slightly darkened hair/skin (no more red aryans). The caste system specifically was implaced to control breeding and produce specific types of human stock. The dravs are slaves, servants and merchants/artisans and aren’t considered worthy of breeding with aryans at all. Most Indians are not Aryan, Aryan is a subrace of Caucasoid which has distinct features like pale skin, hooded eyes, high cheekbones, huge jaw, red/tawny hair. The Hittites and Persians were Aryans, modern turks and Iranians are not Aryan at all save for remnants in the upper classes. The obfuscation is coming from you omitting that the Aryans are a different race and established the two dominant castes to preserve their culture and bloodlines, which makes the caste system racial.

>>11128880
I haven't read them yet. I've only read a short piece by Borella (I think arguing in favor of the absolute nature of the Trinity, since most trads consider it a relative truth), and a short piece by rama coomaraswamy on certain influences perverting the hindu tradition (e.g. osho, """"maharishi""" mahesh yogi)

>>11128887
ok you can have your special snowflake definition of aryan, but fyi no one else in this thread cares

>>11128880
also Seraphim Rose and hieromonk Damascene aren't trad per se but where influenced by traditionalism

>>11128909
were*

also you don't need to read guenon in order to read either of those, you can dive right in

>>11128887
Sorry, dude. But on the vitality hierarchy you're way below donkey. Filthy human shudra. They're stronger than you, got wayyyy bigger jaw then you, and they got massive vital donkey cocks. Bow down to the Aryan (aryan means vital btw, did i mention that?) donkey race.

>>11128904
What are you talking about the word describes the ethno-linguistic group that entered India from BMAC and were originally situated in the Andronovo zone and other adjacent areas in the steppe. They’re a completely distinct race and they went out of their way to create distinct castes which were racially homogenous. the dravs are the two lowest castes and the chandalas are australoid/australoid-drav hybrids who are even more primitive than the Drav caucasoids. That’s not a “special snowflake definition” its the working understanding of nearly all PIE theorists and people involved with Bronze and Iron Age Eurasian genomics studies. There is no doubt those populations were europid pastoralists who tamed and bred cattle-horses-oxen, built chariots and mastered primitive metallurgy. They’re not indigenous and they’re not from the same sub-race of caucasoids they’re a distinct branch with physiological, morphological and behavior differentiations. You can tell someone is Aryan because of their cheekbones, orbitals, and the texture of their hair and their height, eye color. Most Indians, the vast majority of Hindus and Iranians+Pakis+Afghans are not Aryan and there was always a huge overwhelming number of non-aryan iranica and dravs in the area who were simply subordinate and enslaved to the Aryans. Aryan means master, lord, honest, good, which are old world terms, they mean well made, beautiful, powerful, a master over others, its not merely metaphysical. Im perfectly aware its been adapted for Hindu nationalism, Buddhist monikers for Arhats, and of course there is a metaphysical dimension: someone of a non-Aryan race can have Aryan spirit and tendencies; but its basically a racial-ethnic term. The Indians are not Aryan, they speak and Indo-Aryan language and derived their cults from Vedic and pre-Vedic faiths. Advaita wasn’t practiced by Aryans the way Shankara and Guadapada taught it. There is an element of the old faith preserved in both Tantra and Advaita but its not the same. The cult of sacrifice was centered around a sky god Deu Pitar and fire god, Agni’s predecessor, Mithras and Ahura Mazda’s predecessor. The rest of it is hybridizing and adaptation. You can have the advaita but the Aryans were primary and certainly not the same type as the late Indians who penned all those commentaries and treatises. We know without a doubt that just north of BMAC there were europids with tawny-red hair and blue eyes, pale skin who were not indigenous and had traveled from the steppe either from the northwest, north or east.

>>11128887
>There are but they’re the vast minority of Indians and thus Hindus. So, you’re wrong as the Shudras and Vaishyas are predominantly dark skinned and look like hybrids of Dravs and Europid Aryans. The elites from north India retained mostly Aryan features save for the robustness of the jaw and slightly darkened hair/skin (no more red aryans). The caste system specifically was implaced to control breeding and produce specific types of human stock. The dravs are slaves, servants and merchants/artisans and aren’t considered worthy of breeding with aryans at all. Most Indians are not Aryan, Aryan is a subrace of Caucasoid which has distinct features like pale skin, hooded eyes, high cheekbones, huge jaw, red/tawny hair. The Hittites and Persians were Aryans, modern turks and Iranians are not Aryan at all save for remnants in the upper classes. The obfuscation is coming from you omitting that the Aryans are a different race and established the two dominant castes to preserve their culture and bloodlines, which makes the caste system racial.
If you really have as much respect for Evola as you claim you would read Guenon. Evola himself would tell you to do so. The fact that at a particular time, in a particular place, a caste system was set up along racial lines is not a grand insight into the nature of castes. Either you don't understand or you have forgotten the metaphysical foundation of the caste structure.

>>11128942
ok lol, like i said its fine, but no one in this thread cares

anyone here read my boy titus b

i just ordered his book on fez

>>11125807
Lol

>>11126462
This is your brain on christcukery.

>>11129103
Go to Hell.

What do you guys think of Lings? I just downloaded pic related

>>11128942
>and of course there is a metaphysical dimension: someone of a non-Aryan race can have Aryan spirit and tendencies

Simply larpy nonsense that Evola made up without any textual or metaphysical basis to support it

>Advaita wasn’t practiced by Aryans the way Shankara and Guadapada taught it.

The Vedic texts that form the source of Vedanta and which contain the seed and essentials of Advaita were composed by the Aryans, you actually have no idea how they practiced it, you cannot accurately tell just from archaeology or from analyzing the Vedas.

Guenon in 'Studies in Hinduism' goes a bit into inauguration of a new age/resetting of the cycle when Kalki arrives.

What is your opinion on Kalki and understanding of the avatars?

Will he be a real person, ie. warrior lord, or some metaphysical entity or something unfathomable/alien to our understanding? As his role as a cleanser, he would of course be regarded as "Destroyer" by the most of humanity.

And will the appearance of Kalki tie in with other end times prophecies of semitic religions etc.

>>11128532
I'd recommend both The Cloud of Unknowing (author unknown) and the Interior Castle by St Teresa of Avila.

>>11128275
>>11128280
If you are well read on Guenon and Hindu society in general, you would know that everything has its proper place. If you were to suggest to a Hindu that he didn't have a caste/profession because all is One, he'd likely scoff at you. It's the same mistake as suggesting I shouldn't run from the angry lion because at the absolute level he doesn't exist!

If only to persuade, we can appeal to Guenon's writings himself. Many times in his discussions of the East and West in his first book he approaches the issue of the differing races and their mentalities. In fact, was not the expression of metaphysics in a religious and theological form precisely suited to the mentality of the Europeans and Arabs? If you were to reproach his thoughts on the matter or even go as far as to attack his so-called conversion because it's too "dual," this would be an admittance of a distorted understanding, you certainly would agree there.

The fact of the matter is that all human beings occupy the same domain of "corporeality," at least partially, but always in an eliminable way, and to diffuse and hand-waive away genuine problems within that domain is a kind of despotism: not an illumination.

>>11127186
The castes are not founded on pugnacity and bloodthirsty predation, that ought to be demonstrated by the fact that any man can be disposed to violence and aggression and is therefore on the side of substance rather than qualification.

>>11130063
I don't think anon was implying that relative concerns were of no importance whatsoever. In fact, he mentions that the endless truth manifests itself different according to time and place.

>>11130100
>>11130063
of which the Hindu caste sytem is an example of**

>>11129945
>Will he be a real person, ie. warrior lord, or some metaphysical entity or something

These are not mutually exclusive, one could be an aspect of or reflect the other 'as above so below'. It could also denote a collective like Vyasa.

>>11130063
>The fact of the matter is that all human beings occupy the same domain of "corporeality," at least partially, but always in an eliminable way, and to diffuse and hand-waive away genuine problems within that domain is a kind of despotism: not an illumination.

No Evola is better than Guenon, having a spine is better than being a long faced dilettante

>arguing about the definition of being "Aryan"
you teenagers are fucking corny and awkward

>>11129993
>literally reading something a woman wrote
cuck

brought to you from Grand Strategy General

>>11128942
>What are you talking about the word describes the ethno-linguistic group that entered India from BMAC and were originally situated in the Andronovo zone and other adjacent areas in the steppe. They’re a completely distinct race and they went out of their way to create distinct castes which were racially homogenous. the dravs are the two lowest castes and the chandalas are australoid/australoid-drav hybrids who are even more primitive than the Drav caucasoids. That’s not a “special snowflake definition” its the working understanding of nearly all PIE theorists and people involved with Bronze and Iron Age Eurasian genomics studies. There is no doubt those populations were europid pastoralists who tamed and bred cattle-horses-oxen, built chariots and mastered primitive metallurgy. They’re not indigenous and they’re not from the same sub-race of caucasoids they’re a distinct branch with physiological, morphological and behavior differentiations. You can tell someone is Aryan because of their cheekbones, orbitals, and the texture of their hair and their height, eye color. Most Indians, the vast majority of Hindus and Iranians+Pakis+Afghans are not Aryan and there was always a huge overwhelming number of non-aryan iranica and dravs in the area who were simply subordinate and enslaved to the Aryans. Aryan means master, lord, honest, good, which are old world terms, they mean well made, beautiful, powerful, a master over others, its not merely metaphysical. Im perfectly aware its been adapted for Hindu nationalism, Buddhist monikers for Arhats, and of course there is a metaphysical dimension: someone of a non-Aryan race can have Aryan spirit and tendencies; but its basically a racial-ethnic term. The Indians are not Aryan, they speak and Indo-Aryan language and derived their cults from Vedic and pre-Vedic faiths. Advaita wasn’t practiced by Aryans the way Shankara and Guadapada taught it. There is an element of the old faith preserved in both Tantra and Advaita but its not the same. The cult of sacrifice was centered around a sky god Deu Pitar and fire god, Agni’s predecessor, Mithras and Ahura Mazda’s predecessor. The rest of it is hybridizing and adaptation. You can have the advaita but the Aryans were primary and certainly not the same type as the late Indians who penned all those commentaries and treatises. We know without a doubt that just north of BMAC there were europids with tawny-red hair and blue eyes, pale skin who were not indigenous and had traveled from the steppe either from the northwest, north or east.

>>11130157
What an awful response.

>>11130126
The thing is, how far are you willing to personify reality?

I mean: you would go far enough to say that Kalki is a meteor that strikes the earth

>>11129945
>Will he be a real person, ie. warrior lord, or some metaphysical entity or something unfathomable/alien to our understanding? As his role as a cleanser, he would of course be regarded as "Destroyer" by the most of humanity.

>>11130172
>The thing is, how far are you willing to personify reality?
>I mean: you would go far enough to say that Kalki is a meteor that strikes the earth

>>11130172
>I mean: you would go far enough to say that Kalki is a meteor that strikes the earth

>>11130100
He is simply incorrect that Evola's discussion of souls, that is informed by the Hindu doctrine of the subtle form and the various sanskaras or measures of the living soul. Besides, if one reads Evola it is clear that he recognizes the ultimate "relative" importance at the level of the absolute. Nevertheless, it is a doctrine attested to by the Vedanta as well.

>>11130200
So, what's your position on the concept of the "Aryan spirit?"

>>11130200
>He is simply incorrect that Evola's discussion of souls, that is informed by the Hindu doctrine of the subtle form and the various sanskaras or measures of the living soul. Besides, if one reads Evola it is clear that he recognizes the ultimate "relative" importance at the level of the absolute. Nevertheless, it is a doctrine attested to by the Vedanta as well.

>>11130203
Blasphemy (Canadian band) has a member "Caller of the Storms" who could be said to embody "aryan heart"

>>11130203
>So, what's your position on the concept of the "Aryan spirit?"

>>11130222
Fuck this Bruno chump

>>11130207
>>11130141
Sorry friend, you and your leftypol friends' shitposting aren't stronger than my katana. I ensouled it myself.

>>11130203
The soul or subtle body are the characteristics, both psychological and biological, that a given person (in the Guenonian sense) has an affinity to in the course of existences. The various paths are suited for different inclinations and proclivities derived from these characteristics.

Another thread ruined by race discussion. You're all incorrigible. Just unbelievable

In 1900, the German egyptologist George Steindorff reported that, "the feast of marrying a boy was celebrated with great pomp, and the money paid for a boy sometimes amounted to fifteen pound, while the money paid for a woman was a little over one pound."[12] The archaeologist Count Byron de Prorok reported in 1937 that "an enthusiasm could not have been approached even in Sodom... Homosexuality was not merely rampant, it was raging...Every dancer had his boyfriend...[and] chiefs had harems of boys.[13]

Walter Cline noted that, "all normal Siwan men and boys practice sodomy...the natives are not ashamed of this; they talk about it as openly as they talk about love of women, and many if not most of their fights arise from homosexual competition....Prominent men lend their sons to each other. All Siwans know the matings which have taken place among their sheiks and their sheiks' sons....Most of the boys used in sodomy are between twelve and eighteen years of age."[14] In the late 1940s, a Siwan merchant told the visiting British novelist Robin Maugham that the Siwan men "will kill each other for boy. Never for a woman".[15]

Ancient Egypt... so how 'bout that Traditionalism then?

>>11130234
>leftypol
when the autistic kid accuses you of being the other autistic kid
>katana
unoriginal tiresome unfunny shit

>>11130237
Traditionalism is inseparable in the West from reactionary thought. Get over it. Your distorted understanding of metaphysics is birthed from your tendency for escapism and New Ageism.

>>11130246
Say it again infidel

>>11130254
weird awkward autistic white kid attempt at humour

>>11130237
Have you considered leaving 4chan and reading books which pique your interest away from it?

In all honesty, 4chan has become an alt-right garbage dump in the last 3 years, and today in 2018 it's barely useable.

There are many good books on ancient religion but all you're going to get here is aryan race magic lifted from white nationalist blogs.

>>11130262
(cont.)
t. someone who's come to the thread to shitpost and laugh at people

>>11130247
I have no idea who you're talking to your demented faggot, discuss knowledge instead of the same stale reddit debates I can get just by shitposting Evola's face on /pol/. This is is supposed to be read general, talk about fucking ideas and shit that matters instead of the same fucking tedious politicized bullshit you find everywhere else

>>11130261
Not everything you disagree with is awkward or autistic, friend. In fact, the reason why the left has disparaged itself is because it has aped genuine thought with surrogate irony.

>>11130269
>I have no idea who you're talking to your demented faggot, discuss knowledge instead of the same stale reddit debates I can get just by shitposting Evola's face on /pol/. This is is supposed to be read general, talk about fucking ideas and shit that matters instead of the same fucking tedious politicized bullshit you find everywhere else

>>11130272
>friend
awkward
>The Left
you must be 18 or over to use this website

>>11130234
I don't think anyone is denying the relative differences between peoples, dude. It's obvious that a seeker born in India will have an easier time grasping the deeper metaphysical realities than a seeker born in New York, simply due to the sheer, front-and-center presence spirituality and gnosis has in the Indian psyche over the American.

With that being said, the idea of some kind of "subtle-body reality" of different races is incredibly flawed and would be dismissed almost immediately by any realised master of the path. I have yet to meet someone who spoke of such ideas who wasn't also just a fascist looking for an excuse to indulge their obviously evils ideas, which I unfortunately suspect you are.

All things arise and fall upon the existence of conditions; even the deepest, most hidden psycho-social reality is just built upon extraneous conditions that can be explored, rather than being built off some "innate spiritual reality." If you refuse to accept this, then I'm afraid you won't make much progress until you d.

average poster in this thread

>>11130291
>average poster in this thread

the day is ours again le leftypol

>>11130063
>If you are well read on Guenon and Hindu society in general, you would know that everything has its proper place.

I never said otherwise or even implied otherwise in my post.

>If you were to suggest to a Hindu that he didn't have a caste/profession because all is One, he'd likely scoff at you.

My post has nothing to do with this. In order to defend yourself you are willfully misinterpreting it. Caste is dharma applied so the social order and plays a vital role in organizing society, but one should never make the mistake of thinking that caste, race or anything else stands for something absolute when in fact it is only contingent and relative, the exact same atma is inside people of every caste and all beings. The atma inside a Brahmin and an intenstinal parasite are strictly the same, and the sruti leaves no room for contention on this. It's with this in mind that Shankara states that it's wrong to treat others because of their caste in Upadesasahasri, while also defending the notion of caste in his other works, the two positions are not in the least contradictory.

>in his first book he approaches the issue of the differing races and their mentalities.

Yes I'm fully aware but when push comes to shove he always demonstrates a knowledge of the ultimate truth of non-duality and the illusionary nature of the phenomenal world. Different races obviously have different tendencies but these are all themselves contingent and non-absolute, the only real aspect of the being and their soul (atma) is the exact same in all of them. Guenon not once in any of his works makes the mistake of claiming otherwise. He never claims that people or races have different souls. The key mistake Evola makes is to take the relative and contingent differences and to assume that there is an absolute difference of soul, which is the exact opposite of the truth. You seem to want to blur the distinction between the real and the non-real and so it should be noted that Vedanta teaches unequivocally that the only real aspect of beings (atma) is the exact same in all of them. Hence difference only is true in a relative, contingent and illusionary sense.

>The fact of the matter is that all human beings occupy the same domain of "corporeality," at least partially, but always in an eliminable way

The only eliminable aspects of the being are the non-real, while the only real aspect of them (atma) is non-eliminable, omnipresent, forever the same and unconditioned.

>and to diffuse and hand-waive away genuine problems within that domain is a kind of despotism: not an illumination.

You simply misunderstand basic Hindu doctrine, likely from your reading of Evola who makes the same mistake. Before you again try to claim that I'm denying or hand-waving away genuine differences I will again make it clear to you that the Traditional doctrines teach that the only differences are only relative and contingent (which does not preclude them from falsely seeming real to us).

>>11130305
You're the guy who spams "why does leftypol want an anti-white safespace" threads, aren't you?

Alas, the age of judgement is near...Kali Yuga...so Evola was right after all...what a dark, vile destiny...

The world is truly ending...when a nice guy like me is banished to the friendzone perpetually...I must go...I've spoke too soon...see you when dusk breaks the dawn...

Just awful. New thread when? Just awful.

>>11130307
>If you are well read on Guenon and Hindu society in general, you would know that everything has its proper place.

I never said otherwise or even implied otherwise in my post.

>If you were to suggest to a Hindu that he didn't have a caste/profession because all is One, he'd likely scoff at you.

My post has nothing to do with this. In order to defend yourself you are willfully misinterpreting it. Caste is dharma applied so the social order and plays a vital role in organizing society, but one should never make the mistake of thinking that caste, race or anything else stands for something absolute when in fact it is only contingent and relative, the exact same atma is inside people of every caste and all beings. The atma inside a Brahmin and an intenstinal parasite are strictly the same, and the sruti leaves no room for contention on this. It's with this in mind that Shankara states that it's wrong to treat others because of their caste in Upadesasahasri, while also defending the notion of caste in his other works, the two positions are not in the least contradictory.

>in his first book he approaches the issue of the differing races and their mentalities.

Yes I'm fully aware but when push comes to shove he always demonstrates a knowledge of the ultimate truth of non-duality and the illusionary nature of the phenomenal world. Different races obviously have different tendencies but these are all themselves contingent and non-absolute, the only real aspect of the being and their soul (atma) is the exact same in all of them. Guenon not once in any of his works makes the mistake of claiming otherwise. He never claims that people or races have different souls. The key mistake Evola makes is to take the relative and contingent differences and to assume that there is an absolute difference of soul, which is the exact opposite of the truth. You seem to want to blur the distinction between the real and the non-real and so it should be noted that Vedanta teaches unequivocally that the only real aspect of beings (atma) is the exact same in all of them. Hence difference only is true in a relative, contingent and illusionary sense.

>The fact of the matter is that all human beings occupy the same domain of "corporeality," at least partially, but always in an eliminable way

The only eliminable aspects of the being are the non-real, while the only real aspect of them (atma) is non-eliminable, omnipresent, forever the same and unconditioned.

>and to diffuse and hand-waive away genuine problems within that domain is a kind of despotism: not an illumination.

You simply misunderstand basic Hindu doctrine, likely from your reading of Evola who makes the same mistake. Before you again try to claim that I'm denying or hand-waving away genuine differences I will again make it clear to you that the Traditional doctrines teach that the only differences are only relative and contingent (which does not preclude them from falsely seeming real to us)

Alas...this is what we've come to..Kali Yuga, just as Evola foretold us...if only the public took the red pill...

Then they'd know that a traditional monarchy is the way to go...and all the women would pick a nice guy like me over those degenerate gym rats...then I could steer the new generation back to the path of our ancestors...

>>11130280
muh realised masters

Reading the copy of the Upanishads you bought off Amazon and smoking weed isn't Traditional, it's weak and degenerated.

Metaphysics is about knowledge, particularly, knowledge of principles. It has nothing whatsoever to do with some escape or flight from the reality that you feel has betrayed you, nor with any notion of some transmundane phenomena or experience. Differences in peoples has always existed and will always exist. This is taken into account by the doctrine of the subtle body in Hinduism, as it is taken into account in different ways by various other peoples.

>>11130307
All wrong. No, not all. Mostly wrong. Reality can only be transformed, not eliminated. I'll just further reiterate by pointing you to my words above.

Truly... The Age of Iron draws nigh

But what God creates.... Man can Destroy... And New Cycle Shall Begin...

>>11130328
You're not wrong

>>11130330
>It has nothing whatsoever to do with some escape or flight from the reality that you feel has betrayed you, nor with any notion of some transmundane phenomena or experience.
Change some of your terminology and it is actually quite literally that.

Alas... Kali-Yuga.. The age of quarrel..

Eternal friendzone... or succumb into degeneracy? Such temptations...

It is time... To Ride The Tiger.

>>11130319
Make it an eastern thought general or it will attract the same autists

>>11130330
>Metaphysics is about knowledge, particularly, knowledge of principles.

Yes, and the supreme principle is non-duality.

>Differences in peoples has always existed and will always exist. This is taken into account by the doctrine of the subtle body in Hinduism, as it is taken into account in different ways by various other peoples.

The subtle body is a minor feature and relatively unimportant, the texts are quite clear in stating only atman is real, the subtle body is just as illusionary and contingent as the mind, memory and emotions.

You are fundamentally wrong and seem to have latched onto the idea of the subtle body as somehow having proved that the souls of different races are fundamentally different when this is the opposite if what the Hindu doctrines teach. Evola was wrong, give it up you are just making yoursel look bad.

>>>11130330
>All wrong. No, not all. Mostly wrong. Reality can only be transformed, not eliminated. I'll just further reiterate by pointing you to my words above.

I meant in a relative sense, in terms of being absolutely dissolved back into the whole to an extent where no trace of the previous form remains.

>>11130918
>being absolutely dissolved back into the whole to an extent where no trace of the previous form remains.
Oh, boy. Just what exactly do you think the goal of initiation is? Do you expect the fabric of reality to roll away before your eyes like a scroll? A kind of Avengeresque Thanos-inflicted disintegration of matter before your eyes?

>We shall not dwell on the reproach addressed to us that we speak 'as if transcendence and so-called external reality were separate from each other'; if the author knew what we have stated about 'descending realization' - or if he had understood it - he would certainly have dispensed with this criticism. (Initiation p. 9)

>Certainly, we are far from denying that mysticism in itself may have a character much more elevated than magic; nonetheless, if we look more deeply, we soon realize that at least from a certain point of view the difference is not as great as one might imagine, for here again it is in fact only a matter of 'phenomena', visions, or the other tangible and sentimental manifestations that characterize the domain of individual possibilities alone (Perspectives, 21)

>Errors more subtle, and so the more to be feared, sometimes arise when a ‘communication’ with superior states or ‘spiritual worlds’ is mentioned in connection with initiation, for this involves the all too frequent illusion that something is ‘superior’ simply because it appears to be in some way extraordinary or ‘abnormal’. We will recall here what we have said elsewhere about the confusion of the psychic with the spiritual, which is the error most often committed in this regard, for the psychic states in fact have nothing ‘superior’ or ‘transcendent’ about them, but are merely a part of the individual human state; and when we speak of superior states of the being we mean, and without any abuse of language, exclusively the supraindividual states (Perspectives, 18-19)

The restoration "effected" by initiation is one of the so-called Adamic or primordial state, the "sense of eternity," where the individual is restored the "knowledge of the heart" previously, in only a relative way, revoked from him. It is the same faculty that permits the ordering and constructing of logic, propositions and dialectic, as attested to in Aristotle's Posterior Analytics, whereby principles are directly perceived. It is, so to speak, an exaltation of that faculty. It's the restoration of a pure intellectual intuition whereby the individual has total access to the faculty of knowledge that is identified with principles. There is never a "dissolution" of the corporeal world, that would imply a "dissolution" of the principles that sustain it! It is only a pure knowledge of those principles, where the conditions of the world are relative to them, but never thereby cease to exist!

So yes, you're right the subtle body is "contingent." Nevertheless, the differences are essential in the true meaning of the word.

>>11130972
>essential in the true meaning of the word.
Not the anon you're reaponding to, but I don't see that. It seems accidental "in the true meaning of the word". Subtle body still belongs to the domain of individuality and change, does it not? The fact that there even can be differences between one subtle body and another proves the accidental nature of that body, by definition.

>>11131115
>the accidental nature of that body, by definition.
Sorry, should have said "the accidental nature of those differences". The "form of the subtle body" to speak Platonically is what is essential, the fact that one is """Aryan""" and one is non-Aryan is purely accidental and hence nonessential by definition. Just like the "form of the cow" is an essential but the fact that one cow is large and red and the other small and blue is the result kf accident.

>>11131115
There is a confusion of terms here. I am going to use Aristotelian terminology when comparing the terms because it is what Rene Guenon employs. The subtle aspect of the individual, the nama or name, is the essential side of the individual, whereas rupa or form is its substantial/material side side. It is the seat of various determinations of the corporeal being. Among these determinations in the human being are inclinations of thought, emotion, action, etc. as well as the faculties or powers/capacities of thought, action, etc. in principle.

When the individual is delivered through knowledge, he is said to pass beyond "name and form." The ultimate principle is not the subtle body, and the determinations of the subtle form itself depend on higher principles, such as the atma or personality. From this respect, the subtle form is "contingent" in the sense that it depends on the existence (analogically that is, principles don't 'exist' strictly speaking, neither does the subtle form) of a necessary existence outside of itself. However, in the domain of the individual, his "ascent" must begin with the state he finds himself presently in; therefore, different means and expressions of metaphysics can be and are adapted to the individual as he is, which in a sense means to be adapted to his mentality, that is a determination of his expressions in "corporeality" and therefore on the essential level of the human being. It is in that sense one can speak of, say, a European "soul" or Chinese "soul."

What *would* be accidental is the physical characteristics of the human being, taken in the sense of qualities that manifest *through* his "substantial form" (that is, ousia, in the aristotelian sense), that are so many expressions of those determinations that essentially constitute him.

The subtle body of the human being essentially determines who he is. The physical characteristics of the human being are accidents in the proper sense of the word. The subtle body itself depends on something antecedent, a non-reducible act, that is his personality that establishes links to other metaphysical states that are beyond his name and form, that are principles.

Not to be garrulous but this may clear up the confusion.

>>11131193
This is a very good post.

>>11131193
I thought the subtle body was just a more "refined" material body of sorts and not identical with the essential form or soul. i.e. subtle body and soul are not synonymous

could you show me some textual evidence that subtle body = nama. that would really solidify your case. You are not being garrulous, thank you for actually putting effort into your posts its what makes these threads worth posting in

>>11131193
>>11131232
Also does this really address the fact that differences between one subtle body and another are necessarily accidental? If both are subtle bodies but one has feature A and the other has feature B, the essential part is by definition what they have in common, their subtle-bodiness, whereas their differentiating features are by definition accidental.

>>11131242
>>11131232
according to this article he isn't using the term "subtle body" correctly at all (yeah ok its wikipedia, but still). so yeah those differences would be accidental
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Bodies_Doctrine_(Vedanta)

>>11131232
>>11131242
>"As to the subtle form, . . . one must on no account attempt to picture it as a kind of 'double' of the body; neither must it be looked upon as a 'mould' for the body just because it is declared to be the formal prototype of the individuality at the origin of its manifestation." (Man and His Becoming, 126)

>"[Nama] corresponds to the subtle part of individuality, and rupa to its corporeal or sensible part. But, basically, this distinction coincides with the preceding one, for it is precisely these two subtle and corporeal parts which, in the totality of individuality, play, in sum, the role of 'essence' and 'substance' in relation to each other." (Studies in Hinduism, 81)

Honestly, I think Rene Guenon explains it very well so I will point to you there. Download the .pdfs of Studies in Hinduism and Man and His Becoming According to the Vedanta and read the chapters on Nama-Rupa, Kundalini Yoga, and in the latter on the envelopes of the self and various states (waking, dream, deep sleep).

The soul of the human being is the essential side of the being taken in what Guenon calls a "transposed" sense, where certain elements of the subtle form that are present relative to manifestation and corporeality cease to be once the separation from the body is effected. Some elements that are obvious are the faculties of reception and evacuation, such as sight and taste. You can read more about this in chapter 18 of Man and His Becoming on the reabsorption of the various powers.

The subtle body should more properly be taken as the domain of manifestation that is unextended, such as thought and mind, and as the place of the various faculties of the human being in principle, such as where the senses are unified and the determinations of action. So it is also the passive intellect. There is also the feature of the samskaras that are "emotive responses" and "habitual tendencies" Evola, Yoga of Power, p. 43). These are inherited determinations from previous existences (of the subtle form, *not* the causal body, the non-reducible determination of the being, the personality in the Guenonian sense).

>>11131322
All differentiation between things of a species are by definition essential. If two things were not essentially different, they are either the same or quantitatively different, that is, substantially (in the sense of matter). What qualifies a thing, any thing at all, are certain features that distinguish it from others. What qualifies the human organism is the presence of "manas," the inner sense, and thought. This is also on the side of subtle form.

>>11131347
Thanks, that's some nice food for thought. I've read many of Guenon's books but haven't read Man acc. to Vedanta or Multiple States which seem like the most relevant ones for your post. Another question, do you think the term "Aryan" applied to soul is a meaningful descriptor? If so what makes a soul "Aryan"? I can understand "Brahmin" soul or "Kshatriya" soul since those are related to the interplay of different gunas, but "Aryan" soul sounds a but LARPy. What would that even mean?

>>11131371
>but LARPy
bit*

>>11131371
>inb4 that "vitalist" cuck shows up

posting the superior evola recc list

>>11130063
>The castes are not founded on pugnacity and bloodthirsty predation, that ought to be demonstrated by the fact that any man can be disposed to violence and aggression and is therefore on the side of substance rather than qualification.
Clearly you didn't actually read the post.

>>11131347
>in the totality of individuality, play, in sum, the role of 'essence' and 'substance' in relation to each other
Key words here: "individuality" and "role". Guenon is making an analogy. The subtle body is analogous to an "essence" but still belongs to the individual domain. It plays an "esential role" relative to the physical body. An "essence" is the same as a "universal" or a "form", these being supra-individual. Subtle body is, strictly speaking, nonessential.

>>11131867
All individual states are formal. What constitutes a state as individual is the presence of form. The subtle body is the essential side of the individual because it determines the conditions of the individual in the human state. This is inescapable.

>>11131925
>All individual states are formal
Forms are prior to individual states. If the domain individuality were to disappear entirely, the forms would still exist. Subtle body belongs to individual manifestation, hence it is not essential. This is inescapable.

>>11130972

>that huge pasta of random Guenon quotes that is not even relevent to the point I was making

My only point was that the subtle body, like all of manifestation, is eventually subjected to cyclic dissolution at the end of and resetting of the cycle. The only exception is Atma, which is beyond manifestation and non-manifestation; and is indeed the only thing which may properly be classified as real.

>So yes, you're right the subtle body is "contingent"

Great, so you admitted that I was correct that the concept of the 'Aryan soul' having an absolute truth or reality is false. If only you could have admitted as much at the beginning and spared us all the arguing about the semantics of something you apprently knew was not true all along! Next time don't shit up the thread by insisting on making half a dozen large posts defending ideas that you already know to be false in an absolute sense; or just simply admit that they are not absolute at the beginning so there is no confusion.

>>11131957
>>11131925
Plato, Aristotle, i-is that you?

>>11131925
>All individual states are formal.
nigga thats like saying triangles are squares or some shit. you would fail philosophy 101 if you said something like that. particular things (read: individual) partake of form but forms are are independant from them. a particular thing is not an essential thing wth lol

>>11131995
The battle rages on across time and space...

>>11131997
how do they exist independent of their instantiations

>>11131957
Ah, I see what you're saying. Nevertheless, the subtle body does play the part of essence in the human individual, but not every aspect of the subtle body in the encompassing sense extends beyond that relation, like the faculties of action, memories, thoughts, etc. You're absolutely right about that.

>>11131983
My only point is that contingency isn't synonymous with "importance." The fact that different peoples have different mentalities, and are in fact disposed toward them, is not incompatible with the notion that there is a non-dual end to realization.

>>11131997
What?

>>11132025
Plato should be Neo.

>>11132034
>>11131983

Sorry, *unimportance

>>11132029
>how do they exist independent of their instantiations
As forms. They aren't material and they aren't merely mental. They are formal, and that is their manner of existence. The existence of forms is not comparable to the existence of particular things. Pls don't respond with "lel show me where they are" or some other brainlet shit. The whole point is that their manner of existence is not that of material things, but formal.

>>11132042
Neo iss the liberator of the cave matrix, Smith/Aristotle is the endless multiplication of 0s in the domain of relativity

>>11132057
On what is their intelligibility predicated, doesn't the Form of Beauty depend on some relation with the Form of Shape, etc. Are the Forms a meta-language? If not, aren't they only deducible from the sensible?

>>11132076
They precisely are intelligible since the forms are intellectual forms. Beauty in Plotinus' view is not related to shape. Something can have a beautiful shape but beauty is separable from shape. You can argue otherwise, but that's his view. Meta-language? Forms are not languge, let alone meta-language. Forms are forms. And just because you only deduce the existence of A from B does not mean A is dependent on B for its existence.

>>11132095
But this is exactly the argument that Aristotle uses, that the Forms are just projections of sensible universals. I'm ask on what is their logicity based on, if it's not relational? Do Red and Green participate in Color as Forms? Doesn't there have to be a Form that they participate in? How is Color separable from Form?

>>11132130
>sensible universals
what the heck is a sensible universal
>logicity
logicity, from the word "logos". forms are precisely "logoi", that which renders intelligible, being intelligible principles.
>red green color etc
Idk i suppose there is a hierarchy of forms of sorts, one that culminates in the intellectual principle above which is the One.

>>11132076
They're not deducible at all. The Forms aren't the Kantian categories. They are purely intuited from particulars. It is what gives sense and intelligence to any analysis of what a thing is. An exhaustive list of properties would never be enough to effect a 'passage to the limit' where the predicated form is given immediately and intuitively. In other words, you must be able to see what you're talking about.

>"In sum, then, the Idea in the truest sense is an incorporeal cause, transcending its participants, a motionless Being, exclusively and really a model, intelligible to souls through images, and intelligizing causally the existents modelled upon it. . . . If, then, any wish to attack the concept of Ideas, let them attack this definition, and not assume them to be either corporeal images of their own minds, or coordinate with the things of this realm, or devoid of being, or correspondent with our conceptions, or let them produce some other sophistic definitions such as these"
from Proclus in his commentary on Plato's Parmenides.

>>11132130
>Forms are just projections of sensible universals.
Forms and universals are synonymous. You're saying forms are projections of forms what does this mean

>>11132157
What I'm challenging you on is that I have no reason not to believe these intelligible are grounded internally to reality, I mean this is what Hegel does, that which renders intelligible must necessarily render only the intelligibility of itself (intelligibility as such), but this an immanent production

>>11132177
Good point, I made that mistake in my response to him to when I went along with the "deducible" part here
>>11132095
Intuit is indeed the proper word in that context. Thanks

>>11132180
Just another way of explaining regularities in perception which is what Aristotle thought Forms were, inextricable from the substance that produces them

>>11132184
Not who you're responding to but can you rephrase? I'm not sure what you mean by Hegelian "immanent production"

join philosophy discord

https://discord.gg/2XH9yW

>>11132184
>intelligible are grounded internally to reality,
are you ising the word "reality" as a synonym for our material reality specifically. if that's the case you're framing the debate from the get go so that no one will ever be able to convince you. even if you extend the limit of the word "reality" to include conceptual thought you would still prima facie be precluding the possibility of forms being real since you're definition of reality is too narrow to even hypothetically entertain their possible existence

i suggest you really interrogate your most basic assumptions, they're hampering your capacity for open debate

>>11132197
Hegel thought intelligibility was the movement of the absolute's contingent self-reflexive discursion instead of participation in transcendent forms. But he saves something of the nous in that it is precisely this knowledge that can only triuly qualify as eternal knowledge

>>11132218
>pls clarify your hegelian jargon anon
>*uses even more hegelian jargon*
sigh

>>11132218
I must be misunderstanding, that sounds a lot like the Aristotelian thought thinking itself. This isn't what Hegel believes, no?

>>11132211
No I'm actually on your side I'm just trying to figure it out myself, how to break out of the discursive spiral and articulate a transcendence beyond immanence that is/is not a projection of finitude

>>11132222
>contingent self-reflexive discursion

I think that's pretty clear. Boehme describes thought as a "spiration"

>>11132226
The Absolute self-articulates only this sense of itself as a self-articulation. Im not actually too sure how to differentiate Aristotle's self-thinking thought and Hegel's. Besides the dialectic, obvious stuff

>>11132227
it's called the intellect. without that faculty we WOULD be stuck in a discursive loop. using the intellect in an active way (we all make passive use of it which is why the idea of forms makes sense even to plebs, otherwise we couldnt have categories like color, horses, tree etc) requires training that traditional religions offer. mainly it requires a discipline of "clearing the mirror of the mind" so that nothing hampers the fucntioning of the intellect. the intellect isn't so much a muscle to be gradually trained, but more like a fully operational and loaded rocket launcher you ordered from amazon. all you gotta do is remove the packaging and that annoying bubblewrap and its at your service

I hope I won't end up regretting sharing this here but there is a serious traditionalist forum, anyone here who wants to engage in more sustained and serious discussion on these subjects might consider joining. It could take a while for a mod to approve you. It's also been highly inactive lately, but with some new membership we could inject some life into it. I HIGHLY reccomend you spend time lurking there befor making any posts. Here's the link:
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/traditionalstudies/

>>11132291
Come on guys, let's move our debate about race and Julius Evola and Forms to their forums!

>>>/fit/45957874

>>11132377
but why

>>>/int/89396102

>>11132291
>traditionalism internet forum
it's pretty funny isn't it

>>11132673
why is it funny? are you one of those people who conflate traditionalism with fundamentalism?

>>11132034
>My only point is that contingency isn't synonymous with "unimportance.

Except that it is for anyone even remotely interested in putting the lessons of Advaita into practice, Vivekachudamani states that the central task in one's spiritual life is learning to discern between the unreal and the real. If you spend your time thinking about such illusionary and contingent categories you are heading in the opposite direction of where you should be directing your thoughts.

>invents post-christianity

>>11132720
>"our shit's dead, we need new blood!"
>berates random anon for meaningless bants
>mfw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuD-pMLf7cs

>>11133460

>>We think we have said enough to show the worth of the Mormon doctrines, and also to make it clear that, in spite of their singularity, their appearance does not constitute an isolated phenomenon; in short, they represent in many of their particulars, tendencies that have found multiple expressions in the contemporary world, and of which the actual development even seems a rather worrisome symptom of a mental disequilibrium that risks becoming wide-spread if care is not taken. In this respect, the Americans have given Europe some truly deplorable gifts.

>>11133517
Wait what book is this?

>>11132720
people opposed to modernity which are only able to communicate with one another in a fundamental modern way through an instrument provided to them by modernity

>>11133533

Miscellanea

https://archive.org/stream/reneguenon/1976%20-%20Miscellanea#page/n1/mode/1up

>>11133553
>le "look what you're typing on" ebin argument

oh no. it's retarded

>>11133556
ahh thought it might've been spiritist fallacy, surprised it's in there

>>11133561
it's not an argument, it's just funny

>>11133573
Why is it funny?

I suppose Evola/Guénon using ballpoint pen to write their letters could be hilarious according to this logic

>>11134209
>I suppose Evola/Guénon using ballpoint pen to write their letters could be hilarious according to this logic
indeed

>>11133553
opposition to modernity refers to modern ideology, not opposition to technology. we're not amish

>>11134209
I bet they used toilets too, didn't even shit in the bushes like God intended, degenerate materialists

Any interesting Islamic reads?
Someone suggested Sayyid Qutb.