/lit/ - Literature

Catholicism is just a repressive offshoot of Hinduism

>>15140186
its one of the few points he was mistaken, frithjof schuon, marco pallis and jean borella have written critiques on this point.

>>15140186
Guenon was involved in the organization of a gnostic church in his youth. He only quit because they didn’t let him become bishop or something. Needless to say, he didn’t like Christianity except as a possible fodder for esotericism.

>>15140259
>gnostic church
he should've transitioned, i heard they accept female clergy.

Both he and Evola are often criticized for this and the general sentiment is that their rejection of Catholicism was based more on feeling than fact, both of them having rejected the modern world and gone looking to the East for what was lacking. I know for a fact that Evola wrote a pretty interesting investigation in to Christian mysticism, however. He obviously criticized it from a political point of view as a well. It’s a bit hard for me to really disagree on the points made in all honesty.

>>15140459
Catholicism was already cucked beyond belief in their day. Vatican II and Francis are not detours, they are logical steps in the same direction of cuckold universalism

>>15140537
It seems like Catholics are only either universalist liberal cucks or massa damnata schizo edgelords

>>15140459
>looking to the East for what was lacking
>East fetishising
He could've dropped his perennialism and became Orthodox clergy then and still raise a family. I guess God's providence diverted him away from sullying Christianity with his beliefs.

>>15140259
>Guenon was involved in the organization of a gnostic church in his youth.
BASED. too bad he became a mudslime, even becoming a hindu would've been more respectable.

>>15140556
He wrote about the whole of Christianity, not just Catholicism. Evola was just particularly critical of the Catholic church and though I was raised Catholic myself I have to admit that he turned out to be right. It’s been difficult for me to reconcile Christianity and Tradition also.

>>15140550
>massa damnata
Sounds like an Italian death metal band name

>>15140580
>He wrote about the whole of Christianity
I seriously doubt Ebola knew much about Orthodoxy, probably applies to Catholicism too to be fair, not many perennialists really understand Christianity beyond a very bugmanistic and modernity-influenced view of it.
>reconcile Christianity and Tradition
Christianity IS the original primordial tradition though, the one that was passed to the first priest, first king and first prophet Adam. Everything else is from demons.

>>15140669
He wrote quite a lot about Christianity, both Catholic and Orthodox. Esoterismo e Mistica Cristiana is one example. If you read their writings on this topic, you would probably see that it’s difficult to argue with some of the points made. I see Orthodox, in particular, attack Traditional perspectives claiming they just don’t understand Orthodoxy or Christianity but it’s just not true. What other arguments there are like the one you presented which just argues from the Orthodox perspective which isn’t really an argument. I’ve seen Jay Dyer do this a lot. He’ll ask someone “Well, how do you know that’s true?” and get them to concede that they can’t conclusively know empirically but then try to refute the position on the basis of what Orthodox believe as if that’s empirically provable even though he knows fully well that it’s not. I’m not even trying to convince you by the way. I don’t know the right answer myself since as I mentioned, I’m not sure about my faith. I’m just saying they were more nuanced on this matter than anyone on /lit/, who mostly know very little about these authors, would have you believe.

Indeed, Guénon's views on Christianity was kind of superficial to be honest. He was a superb exhibitor of Vedanta beyond comparison, but he had no knowledge about apophaticism, about the Trinity and the Church Fathers. I want to think that his mistakes concerning it were due to his lack of study about the christian doctrine in the same way he admitted his ignorance about platonism, and not an omission in bad faith like that of Evola.

>>15140936
>claiming they just don’t understand Orthodoxy or Christianity but it’s just not true
Ok, give me two best books "refuting" Christianity from these authors and I promise to read them. Preferably about more metaphysical/theological topics instead of history where it's easier to argue in bad faith. I've only read Guénon on this topic and his assertion that Christianity was first some esoteric hidden group that later became open to everyone is laughable.

>>15140936
>as if that’s empirically provable
I don't think any Orthodox would claim that it's "emprically provable" in the same sense modern people use the word. Nothing is "empirically" provable from an atheistic standpoint which rejects Christ and his scripture since God is the only source of truth. If you can prove some truth while rejecting him, it's despite of that, not because of it.

>>15140186
>Do the local Guénonians know why did Guénon not become a tradcath priest?
Because he became a muslim when he was 23

>>15141187
professing a false teaching doesn't metaphysically alter your being though, you can still repent.

>>15140230
http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/public/articles/The_Veil_of_the_Temple-by_Marco_Pallis.aspx

>>15141201
A false teaching can contain practices which lead to change in being. Beliefs don't really matter that much.

>>15141274
>Beliefs don't really matter that much.
Only in magic. True religion requires belief in Christ.

>>15141274
>change in being
no such thing. your hypostasis is immutable from creation unless God explicitly chooses otherwise.

>>15140200
Hinduism was only invented after aryans invaded india.

i'm very surprised that no one has shoped his face on this guy at this point

>>15141788
Same smooth skin and long chin

>>15141097
They never refuted Christianity. That’s not what they set out to do at all. That said, Esoterismo e Mistica Cristiana by Evola comes to mind. I’m not sure if this has been translated.

>>15141180
No, they don’t claim that. That’s what I’m saying. I’ve seen debates where they argue against positions because they’re not empirically provable and then take similar positions themselves. Usually, it’s something like “How do you know that?” Obviously, the other person doesn’t know so then they’ll respond with something line “We’ll, the Orthodox view is ...” which fine but it still isn’t something you can’t know. They always approach why Tradition is wrong because of why they think it contradicts Orthodoxy but that doesn’t actually prove that it’s wrong. For the record, there are Orthodox Traditionalists. Dr. James Cutsinger comes to mind.

>>15142137
>Tradition is wrong because of why they think it contradicts Orthodoxy
>that doesn’t actually prove that it’s wrong
If you show that Christianity is correct then it naturally does. The hard part is getting to the point where you drop the falsehoods from your thinking and understand that Christ is the only way to truth.

>Dr. James Cutsinger
>It seems that Jesus must either be God or not, and that the Quran is either the final and uniquely perfect revelation of God, or not—to mention only two of the more obvious “contradictions” between these traditions. It is therefore inevitable that Christians and Muslims who limit their approach to the dogmatic letter of their religions will find their perspectives to be mutually exclusive
Why would you trust someone this influenced by modernity to be a true representative of Orthodoxy when literally every saint we have ever had would disagree with him? So-called traditionalism was condemnded in Christianity since the very beginning, just read the New Testament itself.

>>15142137
>Cutsinger
Jew? Converso?

>Evola

http://www.juliusevola.net/excerpts/Tradition_of_the_Mysteries_against_Christianity.html

His takes on Christianity read like an atheist bugman's diary and he only seems to be familiar with modern protestant perversions of traditional Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

>In its frenetic subversion of every hierarchy, in its exaltation of the weak, the disinherited, those without lineage and without tradition; in its call to "love", to "believe", and to yield; in its rancor toward everything that is force, self-sufficiency, knowledge, and aristocracy; in its intolerant and proselytizing fanaticism, Christianity poisoned the greatness of the Roman Empire. Enemy of itself and of the world, this dark and barbarous wave remains the principal cause of the West's decline.

>They are the ones who sapped Rome, contaminated Wisdom, and destroyed aristocracy in the name of a reign of sentimentalism and humanitarianism ruled by "enemies of the world". And they did so in order to exalt a superstition according to which God is an executed man and enslaver of other men whom he condemns to damnation unless "grace" intervenes on their behalf. No more foolish or absurd fable has ever been devised than that which treats paganism as a synonym for materiality and corruption, while Christianity is, instead, associated with purity and spirituality. Yet this superstition still manages to inform so much contemporary thinking!

The guy doesn't seem to realize that we have codified hierarchy everywhere in the church and that we worship a literal all-powerful monarch.

>>15142325
>muh intolerant and proselytizing fanaticism
kek

>>15142217
If you have something read which shows empirically or otherwise that Christianity is correct then I’m willing to read it. In fact, I want to read it. I was raised Catholic and I desperately want to reconcile with Christianity whether Catholic or Orthodox.

However, what I’m saying is these people, often Orthodox but probably only because Catholics are wet noodles these days, attack Tradition knowing actually very little about it and they resort to arguments that are just flawed. You can’t attack someone on the basis of “You can’t know” and then defend your own position if you know fully well that you don’t know either. Moreover, there’s this emphasis that exoteric Christianity seems to have on demolishing any hint of esotericism or anything that deviates in any way whatsoever and that’s what some Traditionalists take issue with. Evola, for example, honestly gave exoteric religion, Christianity in particular, little thought.

>>15142304
He’s not a Jew nor a convert from what I know but what are you trying to say? Do you not want Jews and others to be Christians?

>>15142325
Have you actually read his books? If you did, you would know why he still takes issue with it despite the hierarchy and monarch worship.

>>15142382
>Do you not want Jews and others to be Christians?
he's saying that he's not actually a committed Christian and has too much holdover baggage from whoever he was previously.

>>15140186
And how is the priest merely saying this stuff automatically renews a Jewish ritual meant for the Jewish people?

>>15142382
I'm saying that Jews are insincere and always trying to subvert Christianity

>>15140669
>Christianity IS the original primordial tradition though, the one that was passed to the first priest, first king and first prophet Adam. Everything else is from demons.

The worst part is that this sort of retardation comes from the mouth of people unironically.

>>15140186
>>15141067
>>15142217
>>15142325
>>15142367
It was a question of which religion has been least changed by the world, and it was also a question of psychology. Both Guénon and Evola were born in Catholic countries. The peasantry of both countries is essentially Catholic. How could someone who seeks to set themselves apart accept that the tradition they sought was one accepted by the many?

An additional factor in the case of Guénon, and of most of those who followed him to Islam and Sufism, is homosexuality. Almost every Western Arabist who becomes sufficiently enamoured with Islam to adopt not only its culture, but also its religion, is a homosexual. The strict segregation of the sexes in the Arabic world, and Sufism's all-but-open acceptance of emotional and/or actual homosexuality, provides a safe haven for those of their proclivities.

>>15142515
I should have said "not only its religion, but also its culture".

>>15142504
and the best part is that it is absolutely correct

>>15142515
>An additional factor in the case of Guénon, and of most of those who followed him to Islam and Sufism, is homosexuality.
Oh no no no guenonfags pbuh exposed !

>>15142515
dude wtf are you accusing guenon of? he had a wife and kids.

>>15142538
The best part is that retards like you don't rule society anymore. Thank God for that.

>>15142544
>he had a wife and kids.
This proves nothing by itself. Most homosexuals throughout history have married and had children.

>>15142581
Their votes decide who becomes President of the United States, and this is still a deciding influence in the world.

>>15142544
>he thinks the fabulous gay as a cultural identity is old
Most sodomites in history had wife and kids, and still had homosex secretly.

>>15142586
>>15142619
well, it seems the onus of proof is on you.

>>15142515
This an absolutely garbage take. The peasants in both countries was Catholic? So was the Holy Roman Emperor. This makes no sense at all.

>>15142367
>shows empirically or otherwise that Christianity is correct
I personally don't believe that 'debating' can convince every single person or is the best strategy in every case. What worked for me is learning prayer and submitting to Christ. Then I started discovering how everything I've been told by various detractors about Christian spirituality and theology was either a complete lie or a half-truth. Just learn more about the faith from actual trusted and traditional sources (find a good local priest, read some saints and church fathers), not a random academic who openly doubts the divinity of Christ. See pic related for some introductory books. I can also recommend this channel by a Croatian orthodox guy for some metaphysics videos, he even has videos on the traditionalists, agreeing with some of their points and refuting others - https://www.youtube.com/user/max20028/playlists https://youtu.be/xdxOskzcuos https://youtu.be/H2Q5js9bbfM

>know fully well that you don’t know either
I 'intellectually' know fully that every other religion/view is reducible to falsehood (Guenon actually helps here in showing actual valid similarities between many religions, reducing them to a single false non-dualistic philosophy). This in itself is a proof of Christianity, but a weaker one, as it only shows a negative statement. But true and full knowledge is experiential and doesn't come from knowing a collection of facts or understanding a couple of rational proofs.
>exoteric Christianity seems to have on demolishing any hint of esotericism or anything that deviates in any way whatsoever
Christianity doesn't split into the "exoteric" and the "esoteric". All of its metaphysical teaching is absolutely open to anyone and there are no "initiations" except through the Holy Spirit joining you to the Church in baptism and confirmation. The "exoteric" dogma/rituals capture "esoteric" metaphysical/spiritual truths, so naturally everything that contradicts it would have to be demolished to preserve the faith. Traditionalists falsely assume that dogma is merely contingent when traditional Christianity itself has never at any point claimed that dogma is anything but unshakeable and absolute truth.

>“I have spoken openly to the world,” Jesus replied. “I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret. Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said.”
John 18:(20-21)

>These are the things you are to teach and insist on. If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, they are conceited and understand nothing. They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.
1 Timothy 6

>>15140669
>Christianity IS the original primordial tradition though, the one that was passed to the first priest, first king and first prophet Adam. Everything else is from demons.

>>15142504
Is that belief any more retarded than what the average "esoteric" moron spouts? Didn't Evola literally believe in weird people living at the North Pole at the dawn of time?

>>15142860
>This makes no sense at all.
The Holy Roman Emperor no longer existed. The background noise of their two countries was Catholic. How can you revolt into the orthodoxy of your people? This was their motive. I don't say it was rational, only that it made sense to them, and makes sense in view of their psychology.

>>15142956
Seconding orthodoxy and the religion of the future. The author was an ex-guenonian too.

>>15140669
>Christianity IS the original primordial tradition though, the one that was passed to the first priest, first king and first prophet Adam. Everything else is from demons.
Holy... Based...

>>15142439
Because the Jewish ritual was renewed by God himself to be for all the nations.

>>15143132
This.

Let's not forget that the Jews basically forfeited their covenant when they rejected Christ and handed him over to Pilate to be crucified. So God declared that EVERYONE could be part of the New Covenant, not just Israel.

Which, now that I think about it, is foreshadowed in the Old Testament, when Esau gets cucked out of his birthright by Jacob.

>>15143072
i read orthodoxy and the religion of the future before stumbling upon traditionalism, once i heard he was a (ex?)-guenonian some of the statements in his book made sense, like pious muslims avoiding deception of the antichrist and so on.

>>15142656
The anus of poof was on guenon, hahaa

>>15143236
your intellect is utterly darkened cumbrain hylic

>>15143245
How did you know I'm from Cumbria?

>>15143226
>like pious muslims avoiding deception of the antichrist
Don't think this has anything to do with Guénon, I've heard other priests talk about something similar. Muslims with all their faults at least recognize that Christ already came and that there will be an Antichrist with a given eschatological role. The Jews are still waiting for the "Messiah" so they're more likely to get duped, and similarly, pagans/atheists will get tricked too because of their lack of this knowledge.

>>15140186
How do we save our friend Jordan's soul?

>>15143471
>IN PASSING FROM PHILOSOPHY TO PSYCHOLOGY it will be found that identical tendencies appear once again in the latter, and in the most recent schools of psychology they assume a far more dangerous aspect, for instead of taking the form of mere theoretical postulates they are given practical applications of a very disturbing character; the most ‘representative’ of these new methods, from the point of view of the present study, are those grouped under the general heading of ‘psychoanalysis’. It may be noted that, by a curious inconsistency, their handling of elements indubitably belonging to the subtle order continues to be accompanied in many psychologists by a materialistic attitude, no doubt because of their earlier training, as well as because of their present ignorance of the true nature of the elements they are bringing into play (1);

(1) >The case of Freud himself, founder of ‘psychoanalysis’, is quite typical in this respect, for he never ceased to declare himself a materialist. One further remark: why is it that the principal representatives of the new tendencies, like Einstein in physics, Bergson in philosophy, Freud in psychology, and many others of less importance, are almost all of Jewish origin, unless it he because there is something involved that is closely hound up with the ‘malefic’ and dissolving aspect of nomadism when it is deviated, and because that aspect must inevitably predominate in
Jews detached from their tradition?

>>15143503
>is it not one of the strangest characteristics of modern science that it never knows exactly what the object of its studies really is, even when only the forces of the corporeal domain are in question? It goes without saying too that there is a kind of ‘laboratory psychology’, the endpoint of the process of limitation and of materialization of which the ‘philosophico-literary’ psychology of university teaching was but a less advanced stage, and now no more than a sort of accessory branch of psychology, which still continues to coexist with the new theories and methods; to this branch apply the preceding observations on the attempts that have been made to reduce psychology itself to a quantitative science.
There is certainly something more than a mere question of vocabulary in the fact, very significant in itself, that present-day psychology considers nothing but the ‘subconscious’, and never the ‘superconscious’, which ought logically to be its correlative; there is no doubt that this usage expresses the idea of an extension operating only in a downward direction, that is, toward the aspect of things that corresponds, both here in the human being and elsewhere in the cosmic environment, to the ‘fissures’ through which the most ‘malefic’ influences of the subtle world penetrate, influences having a character than can truthfully and literally be described as ‘infernal’ (2).

(2) >It may be noted in this connection that Freud put at the head of his The Interpretation of Dreams the following very significant epigram: Flectere si nequea superos, Acheronta movebo (Virgil, Aeneid, VII, 312).

>>15143508
>There are also some who adopt the term ‘unconscious’ as a synonym or equivalent of ‘subconscious’, and this term, taken literally, would seem to refer to an even lower level, but as a matter of fact it only corresponds less closely to reality; if the object of study were really unconscious it is difficult to see how it could be spoken of at all, especially in psychological terms; and besides, what good reason is there, other than mere materialistic and mechanistic prejudice, for assuming that anything unconscious really exists? However that may be, there is another thing worthy of note, and that is the strange illusion which leads psychologists to regard states as being more ‘profound’ when they are quite simply more inferior; is not this already an indication of the tendency to run counter to spirituality, which alone can be truly profound since it alone touches the principle and the very center of the being? Correspondingly, since the domain of psychology is not extended upward, the ‘superconscious’ naturally remains as strange to it and as cut off from it as ever; and when psychology happens to meet anything related to the ‘superconscious’, it tries to annex it merely by assimilating it to the ‘superconscious’. This particular procedure is almost invariably characteristic of its so-called explanations of such things as religion and mysticism, together with certain aspects of Eastern doctrine such as Yoga; there are therefore features in this confusion of the superior with the inferior that can properly be regarded as constituting a real subversion.
>It should also be noted that psychology, as well as the ‘new philosophy’, tends in its appeal to the subconscious to approach more and more closely to ‘metapsychics’ (3);

(3) >Incidentally it was the ‘psychist’ Myers who invented the expression ‘subliminal consciousness’, which was later replaced in the psychological vocabulary for the sake of brevity by the word ‘subconscious’).

>>15143517
>and in the same way it cannot avoid making an approach, though perhaps unwittingly (at least in the case of those of its representatives who are determined to remain materialists in spite of everything), to spiritualism and to other more or less similar things, all of which rely without doubt on the same obscure elements of a debased psychism. These same things, of which the origin and the character are more than suspect, thus appear in the guise of ‘precursory’ movements and as the allies of recent psychology, which introduces the elements in question into the contemporary purview of what is admitted to be ‘official’ science, and although it introduces them in a roundabout way (nonetheless by an easier way than that of ‘metapsychics’, the latter being still disputed in some quarters), it is very difficult to think that the part psychology is called upon to play in the present state of the world is other than one of active participation in the second phase of anti-traditional action. In this connection, the recently mentioned pretensions of ordinary psychology to annex, by forcible assimilation to the ‘subconscious’, certain things that by their very nature elude it, only belong to what may be called the ‘childish’ side of the affair, though they are fairly clearly subversive in tendency; for explanations of that sort, just like the ‘sociological’ explanations of the same things, are really of a ‘simplistic’ ingenuousness that sometimes reaches buffoonery; but in any case, that sort of thing is far less serious, so far as its real consequences are concerned, than the truly ‘satanic’ side now to be examined more closely in relation to the new psychology.

>>15143526
>A ‘satanic’ character is revealed with particular clarity in the psychoanalytic interpretations of symbolism, or of what is held rightly or wrongly to be symbolism, this last proviso being inserted because on this point as on many others, if the details were gone into, there would be many distinctions to make and many confusions to dissipate: thus, to take only one typical example, a vision in which is expressed some ‘supra-human’ inspiration is truly symbolic, whereas an ordinary dream is not so, whatever the outward appearances may be. Psychologists of earlier schools had of course themselves often tried to explain symbolism in their own way and to bring it within the range of their own conceptions; in any such case, if symbolism is really in question at all, explanations in terms of purely human elements fail to recognize anything that is essential, as indeed they do whenever affairs of a traditional order are concerned; if on the other hand human affairs alone are really in question, then it must be a case of false symbolism, but then the very fact of calling it by that name reveals once more the same mistake about the nature of true symbolism. This applies equally to the matters to which the psychoanalysts devote their attention, but with the difference that in their case the things to be taken into consideration are not simply human, but also to a great extent ‘infra-human’; it is then that we come into the presence, not only of a debasement, but of a complete subversion; and every subversion, even if it only arises, at least in the first place, from incomprehension and ignorance (than which nothing is better adapted for exploitation to such ends), is always inherently ‘satanic’ in the true sense of the word. Besides this, the generally ignoble and repulsive character of psychoanalytical interpretations is an entirely reliable ‘mark’ in this connection; and it is particularly significant from our point of view, as has been shown elsewhere (4),

(4) >See The Spiritist Fallacy, pt. 2, chap. 10.

>>15143532
>that this very same ‘mark’ appears again in certain spiritualist manifestations-anyone who sees in this no more than a mere ‘coincidence’ must’surely have much good will, if indeed he is not completely blind. In most cases the psychoanalysts may well be quite as unconscious as are the spiritualists of what is really involved in these matters; but the former no less than the latter appear to be ‘guided’ by a subversive will making use in each case of elements that are of the same order, if not precisely identical. This subversive will, whatever may be the beings in which it is incarnated, is certainly conscious enough, at least in those beings, and it is related to intentions that are doubtless very different from any that can be suspected by people who are only the unconscious instruments whereby those intentions are translated into action.
>Under such conditions, it is all too clear that resort to psychoanalysis for purposes of therapy, this being the usual reason for its employment, cannot but be extremely dangerous for those who undergo it, and even to those who apply it, for they are concerned with things that can never be handled with impunity; it would not be taking an exaggerated view to see in this one of the means specially brought into play in order to increase to the greatest possible extent the disequilibrium of the modern world and to lead it on toward final dissolution (5).

(5) >Another example of such means is furnished by the comparable employment of ‘radioaesthesia’, for in this case also psychic elements of the same quality very often come into play, though it must be admitted that they do not appear under the ‘hideous’ aspect that is so conspicuous in psychoanalysis.

>>15143543
>Those who practice such methods are on the other hand without doubt convinced of the benefits afforded by the results they obtain; theirs is however the very delusion that makes the diffusion of these methods possible, and it marks the real difference subsisting between the intentions of the ‘practitioners’ and the intentions of the will that presides over the work in which the practitioners only collaborate blindly. In fact, the only effect of psychoanalysis must be to bring to the surface, by making it fully conscious, the whole content of those lower depths of the being that can properly be called the ‘sub-conscious’; moreover, the individual concerned is already psychologically weak by hypothesis, for if he were otherwise he would experience no need to resort to treatment of this description; he is by so much the less able to resist ‘subversion’, and he is in grave danger of foundering irremediably in the chaos of dark forces thus imprudently let loose; even if he manages in spite of everything to escape, he will at least retain throughout the rest of his life an imprint like an ineradicable ‘stain’ within himself.
Someone may raise an objection here, based on a supposed analogy with the ‘descent into hell’ as is met with in the preliminary phases of the initiatic journey; but any such assimilation is completely false, for the two aims have nothing in common, nor have the conditions of the ‘subject’ in the two cases; there can be no question of anything other than a profane parody, and that idea alone is enough to impart to the whole affair a somewhat disturbing suggestion of ‘counterfeit’. The truth is that this supposed ‘descent into hell’, which is not followed by any ‘re-ascent’, is quite simply a ‘fall into the mire’, as it is called according to the symbolism of some of the ancient Mysteries. It is known that this ‘mire’ was figuratively represented as the road leading to Eleusis, and that those who fell into it were profane people who claimed initiation without being qualified to receive it, and so were only the victims of their own imprudence. It may be mentioned that such ‘mires’ really exist in the macrocosmic as well as in the microcosmic order; this is directly connected with the question of the ‘outer darkness’ (6)

(6) >The reader may be referred her~ to what has been said earlier about the symbolism of the ‘Great Wall’ and of the mountain Lokaloku.

>>15143551
>and certain relevant Gospel texts could be recalled, the meaning of which agrees exactly with what has just been explained. In the ‘descent into hell’ the being finally exhausts certain inferior possibilities in order to be able to rise thereafter to superior states; in the ‘fall into the mire’ on the other hand, the inferior possibilities take possession of him, dominate him, and end by submerging him completely. There was occasion in the previous paragraph again to use the word ‘counterfeit’; the impression it conveys is greatly strengthened by some other considerations, such as the denaturing of symbolism previously mentioned, and the same kind of denaturing tends to spread to everything that contains any element of a ‘supra-human’ order, as is shown by the attitude adopted toward religion (7)
(7) >Freud devoted a book specially to the psychoanalytical interpretation of religion, in which his own conceptions are combined with the ‘totem ism’ of the ‘sociological school’.

>>15143560
>and toward doctrines of a metaphysical and initiatic order such as Yoga. Even these last do not escape this new kind of interpretation, which is carried to such a point that some proceed to assimilate the methods of spiritual ‘realization’ to the therapeutical procedures of psychoanalysis. This is something even worse than the cruder deformations also current in the West, such as those in which the methods of Yoga are seen as a sort of ‘physical culture or as therapeutic methods of a purely physiological kind, for their very crudity makes such deformations less dangerous than those that appear in a more subtle guise. The subtler kind are the more dangerous not simply because they are liable to lead astray minds on which the less subtle could obtain no hold; they are certainly dangerous for that reason, but there is another reason affecting a much wider field, identical with that which has been described as making the materialistic conception less dangerous than conceptions involving recourse to an inferior psychism. Of course the purely spiritual aim, which alone constitutes the essentiality of Yoga as such, and without which the very use of the word becomes a mere absurdity, is no less completely unrecognized in the one case than in the other. Yoga is in fact no more a kind of psychic therapy than it is a kind of physiological therapy, and its methods are in no way and in no degree a treatment for people who are in any way ill or unbalanced; very far from that, they are on the contrary intended exclusively for those who must from the start and in their own natural dispositions be as perfectly balanced as possible if they are to realize the spiritual development which is the only object of the methods; but all these matters, as will readily be understood, are strictly linked up with the whole question of initiatic qualification (8).

(8) >On an attempt to apply psychoanalytical theories to the Taoist doctrine, which is of the same order as Yoga, see the study by Andre Preau, La Fleur d’or et le Taoisme sans Tao [Paris: Bibliotheque Chacornac, 1931], which contains an excellent refutation of the attempted application.

>>15143567
>But this is not yet all, for one other thing under the heading of ‘counterfeit’ is perhaps even more worthy of note than anything mentioned so far, and that is the requirement imposed on anyone who wants to practise psychoanalysis as a profession of being first ‘psychoanalyzed’ himself. This implies above all a recognition of the fact that the being who has undergone this operation is never again the same as he was before, in other words, to repeat an expression already used above, it leaves in him an ineradicable imprint, as does initiation, but as it were in an opposite sense, for what is here in question is not a spiritual development, but the development of an inferior psychism. In addition, there is an evident imitation of the initiatic transmission; but, bearing in mind the difference in the nature of the influences that intervene, and in view of the fact that the production of an effective result does not allow the practice to be regarded as nothing but a mere pretence without real significance, the psycho-analytic transmission is really more comparable to the transmission effected in a domain such as that of magic, or even more accurately that of sorcery. And there remains yet another very obscure point concerning the actual origin of the transmission: it is obviously impossible to give to anyone else what one does not possess oneself, and moreover the invention of psychoanalysis is quite recent; so from what source did the first psychoanalysts obtain the ‘powers’ that they communicate to their disciples, and by whom were they themselves ‘psychoanalyzed’ in the first place? To ask this question is only logical, at least for anyone capable of a little reflection, though it is probably highly indiscreet, and it is more than doubtful whether a satisfactory answer will ever be obtained; but even without any such answer this kind of psychic transmission reveals a truly sinister ‘mark’ in the resemblances it calls to mind: from this point of view psychoanalysis presents a rather terrifying likeness to certain ‘sacraments of the devil’.

/END/

>>15142367
You know what is funny? I found true ''esotericism'' in the Trinity. I still appreciate Guénon a lot, he was important to my spiritual growth, an indispensable light to this obscure aera in which we currently live. But I deem it to be funny that he and Evola failed to grasp the true esoteric doctrine of Christianity, the apophatic doctrine par excellence, the doctrine of gnostic charisma, of the Deus absconditus, of the ineffable monadic triadic God. As is expressed in exodus how each receives his share in the experience of the Christian mystery lived by te Church.

>''God commands me to enter within the cloud and hold converse with Him; if any be an Aaron, let him go up with me, and let him stand near, being ready, if it must be so, to remain outside the cloud. But if any be a Nadad or an Abihu, or of the order of the elders, let him go up indeed, but let him stand afar off... But if any be of the multitude, who are unworthy of this height of contemplation, if he be altogether impure let him not approach at all, for it would be dangerous to him; but if he be at least temporarily purified, let him remain below and listen to the voice alone, and the trumpet, the bare words of piety, and let him see the mount smoking and ligthening...''

There is no metaphysics apart from apophaticism and there is no apophaticism apart from the Trinity.

>>15143743
>There is no metaphysics apart from apophaticism and there is no apophaticism apart from the Trinity.
sentimental dogmatism

>>15142998
>Didn't Evola literally believe in weird people living at the North Pole at the dawn of time?
In the Vedas and Mahabharata there are extensive descriptions of the astronomical patterns that would be witnessed by someone in the arctic circle, there have been books written on this such as by Tilak

>>15144042
They calculated it. It's Sci-Fi...

>>15144011
>sentimental dogmatism

>>15144011
>apophaticism
>dogmatism

The Trinity is the ultimate expression of apophaticism. Dogma is an essential foundation to any metaphysics/theology though.

>>15144165
>The Trinity is the ultimate expression of apophaticism
completely subjective

>>15144206
As I said, the Trinity is the only expression of truly transcendent apophaticism, it is not an all-engulfing impersonal idea of dissolution and confusion.

>>15144519
>it is not an all-engulfing impersonal idea of dissolution and confusion.
None of the non-dual teachings in Taoism, Sufism, Hinduism etc involve this, only a brainlet who has no idea what he is talking about at all would say that. In fact, Rene Guenon who promoted non-dualism in his writings warned against exactly what you describe (pic related) because he correctly knew that it had nothing to do with traditional non-dualism and is only found in philosophical "pantheism" and psuedospiritual new-age cults. You are completely clueless

>>15144630
transcendence-immanence distinction vanishes so it is useless to take it into account, explain to me what ''Tat tvam asi'' means then.

>>15144630
Christianity is the One Truth.

>>15144667

>>15144780

>>15144630
>None of the non-dual teachings in Taoism, Sufism, Hinduism etc involve this
They do, they just dislike that being pointed out, as it rightfully puts them on the same level as new age cults

>>15144780
>merging into his real Self, Being; he becomes merged, etc
Care to explain how, as Guénon explicitly and repeatedly shows in his Man and His Becoming, there is no dissolution of individuality?
The text is beautiful, I can see value in the Upanishads, but there is still no true apophaticism. The Trinity is founded precisely on Its inherent incomprehensibility and twofold mystery of One and Three (not to mention the relation of the twofold mystery of the hypostatic union of divinity and humanity in Christ which also represents the mystery of our union with God).

>>15144898
exactly, that frog poster is the perfect ensample of this. this kind of person was another fundamental impulse in my detour from such doctrines

>>15144667
>transcendence-immanence distinction vanishes
noo dude you don't get it! the distinction DIDNT EXIST in the first place so its totally different!!!!!

>>15144938
Oh yes but that's precisely my point. There is no distinction at all, only an impersional confusion, no transcendence no immanence because there is no distinction whatsoever (even though it is the INDIVIDUAL knowing what he truly is that conditions his very liberation). How is that any different from what I said previously or from what Guénon points out to be a pantheistic aspect?

What did the first advaitins to hear of Christianity think of it? Are there any writings from them about Christ?

>>15144888

>>15144911
>Care to explain how, as Guénon explicitly and repeatedly shows in his Man and His Becoming, there is no dissolution of individuality?
It seems like you've already read it, as have I, why would you ask me to rephrase something Guénon already clearly explained? The distinguishing between the "individuality" and the "personality" which he makes in that book and others shows why there is no real dissolution, liberation is a remembrance of which one of those two that you were. A metaphor used in Vedantic writings are a group of 10 men who cross a river, one attempts to count the others to see if any were missing and in counting forgets to count himself, mistakenly counting 9 and believing there to be only 9. There is nothing dissolved and no dissolution when the 10th man suddenly remembers his nature as the 10th who is different from the other 9.

>>15145178
Is undifferentiation different from confusion, becoming merged, etc?

>It should be observed moreover that when this dissolution has taken place there is strictly speaking no longer any human being left, since it is essentially this compound which constitutes the individual man.

Also, who remembers what after moksha?

>>15142998
Hyperboreans. It’s a myth referred to in many ancient texts. See Herotodus for example.

>>15143056
This is nonsense honestly. You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about. It’s really obvious when people don’t read any of these things at all and jump to conclusions.

>>15143132
>>15143154
You go tell the Jews that.

>>15145259
>Is undifferentiation different from confusion, becoming merged, etc?
Yes it is different. If God never differentiates from his essential nature, and is in that sense undifferentiated, is that undifferentiation confusion? No
>Also, who remembers what after moksha?
Non-dual knowledge annuls all other knowledge, it is a remembering of one's true nature as all-pervading self-luminous Awareness, after this state has been attained there is nothing to remember anymore as there is never ever deviation from that non-dual Awareness, from that point on one remains blissfully resting on the body until it dies as the uncaring and unaffected observer, after the death of the body one continues exactly as before as all-pervading awareness-bliss but without any residual association with the body. In the residual stage after enlightenment one is still able to observe and use the intellect and body, and as their inner controller (Antaryāmin) use the mind and memory as necessitated by circumstances but they are never again confused for being That which is different from them, and the curtain is drawn back revealing them to be no more than transient waves of the boundless ocean that It is, which in no way affect It.

>>15145419
beautiful! but ultimately flawed, I don't think it is worth to keep replying to one another over and over. We will never reach an agreement. I just think that the apophaticism and mystical union with the Triadic Monad of christianity is a bit more refined, not to mention the gnostic charisma of the Spirit which imparts the true character of transcendence of the Divinity.

>>15145485
okay, you don't have to agree, but you should at least be aware when posting that when you use the words 'confusion' and 'dissolution' you are just attacking a strawman, which is no wise relates to the thing you are ostensibly attacking, as Guénon rightfully points out in his books.

As far as I can tell it's the Fallen nature which is dissolved. The soul in her purest form cannot be dissolved because she is the pure mirror and image of God.

>>15145419
>Non-dual knowledge annuls all other knowledge
So there is "other" knowledge "distinct" from non-dual knowledge?

>>15145498
I mean, that is what it sounds like. The individual ceases to be altogether. Brahman was, is and will be (not in any temporal sense, I hope you get my point here depiste linguistic limitations), and he (the individual) was, is but will not be because Brahman is all there was, is and will be. Can you understand me? There will be no individual to remember what he was and what he is (or, with what he is identified now), there is no realization.

>>15145519
only until you reach non-dual knowledge

>>15145504
Fallen nature is a Judeo-Christian thing. The better term is elemental body.

>>15145532
The "Individual" and the "Personality" enumerated in Guénon's books on metaphysics are the "two birds" of the same tree in the Mundaka Upanishad in this picture >>15144988, the "two in the heart" are found in many traditions. al-Ḥallāj said "we are two spirits conjoined in one and the same body", see for an explanation chapter 2 of Man and His Becoming 'Fundamental distinction between the Self and ego'. You are the Personality, who witnesses the Individuality, you continue, but not the things which you had been observing before as things different from you, this why there is no dissolution, *You* continue.

>>15140186
His knowledge of the other stuff probably sucked too but you don't notice because you're less familiar with them

>>15145588
Jacob boehm says that the elemental body is the fallen nature. those elements come from one Pure Element. I understand that Christianity tends to take the serious approach while Hinduism takes the "God is just playing around" approach. Both ideas have their pros and cons.

>>15145370
Christ will tell them himself when he arrives.

>>15145536
>only until
so there is the 'until' distinct from the 'only'?

Jacob also mentions a lower soul which is the product of the stars and planets, though this is also a more esoteric expression of the Soul developing in this age/aeon in the condition that it finds itself in.

Berdyaev likes to make a distinction between individuality and personality but he was a very Pro personhood person. Personality is the cosmos in his understanding. Many Christian Mystics were very concerned about ridding themselves of their self-will. then you have them claiming things like "my only I is God". Personally I still see Jesus as a person even though he is the son of God.

>>15145594
Yes, I agree that our individuality here is transient and corrupted, not that perfect created mirror of the divine; but there is no utter Identity between what is communicable to us through God's energeia and all His Divine Names through grace and what is God in Himself incommunicable in His essence. We are never ''merged'' with God's essence, that will always remain incommunicable to us even in theosis. As Saint Maximus wrote:
>''Let us become the image of the one whole God, bearing nothing earthly in ourselves, so that we may consort with God and become gods, receiving from God our existence as gods. For it is clear that He Who became man without sin will divinize human nature without changing it into the Divine Nature, and will raise it up for His Own sake to the same degree as He lowered Himself for man's sake''.
In this deification we are by grace (in the divine energies) all that God is by nature, except identity of nature. It is a state of Other-Not-Other, which is completely alien in advaita.

>>15145712
>individuality here is transient and corrupted
sounds a lot like gnosticism. our mode of being is corrupted, but not our subsistence itself.

>>15145660
The 'only' is the Supreme Lord and as such posses an internal power which artfully allows for that 'until' to seemingly appear real, but when the 'only' is attained it's realized that the 'until' never really existed to begin with, just as when one sees a rope in the dark and for a moment thought you were seeing a snake, the snake never had any real existence even at the moment you believed you were seeing it.

>>15145738
>seemingly
As opposed to, or different from 'unseemingly'?
>realized
As opposed to, or different from 'unrealized'?

>>15145712
>We are never ''merged'' with God's essence, that will always remain incommunicable to us even in theosis. As Saint Maximus wrote:
I like this better than non duality.

>>15145730
yeah by individuality i meant to say the most outer expression of our subsistence (which is an amalgam of experiences in this fallen world)

>>15145712
I was never trying to say that Orthodox theology specifically agreed with Advaita, I only wanted to defend it against what I thought were mischaracterizations. I respect Orthodox spiritual teachings and see clearly that there is also wisdom in them. There are a couple dozen different types of relationships between the soul and God and his essence/energies in the numerous sub-schools and popular sects of Hinduism, some of which are much closer in their theology to Eastern Orthodoxy than Advaita, which itself only aligns to a large degree with a very few number of Christians thinkers/mystics like Meister Eckhart, Eirugena, and a few others, but not entire Churches and their theology.

In Christianity we like to make a distinction between God and not God. This is done in speaking of the trinity. The power of the godhead made everything out of itself because it has nothing else from which it may make anything. And yet we would say devils are not God. Yet again we would say God loves the devils. In that way we see that love even is in hell even though hell is not in love. Thus it is expedient for Christians to make a distinction in god of those who are outside of God and those who are not even though in another sense nothing could be outside of God. This I think is where Universal salvation, which is a great controversy within Christianity, comes into play. it is useful to make a distinction between discursive realities and more fundamental realities.

>>15145805
Yes. Eckhart is specially a very ambiguous case. While he overtly displayed an identity of his positions with nondual doctrines he also posited some subtle but still orthodox views, like that ''The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God's eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love''.
Going to bed now, may God be with you and bless you!

>>15145851
>great controversy within Christianity
Not since the sixth century when it was unequivocally condemned.

non-dualism is schizo apophaticism.

guenon was modern scholar par excellence. to take him as spiritual director is the very thing he would label as anti traditionelle

if you pay attention to guenonfag's posts you'll see the hubris of an intellectual man who is spiritually dead. he not only takes guenon as prophet but also speaks of the western and eastern churches as if he was above them

>>15144630
>only a brainlet who has no idea what he is talking about at all would say that.
his typical approach. then he proceeds to post screenshots of texts he read as if they served as authority

do not try to trick me into believing non-dualism differs from pantheism, immanentism and all new age bs just because your guenon prophet said so

>>15145967
guenonfag once was full of optimism, here is the timeline. only the last greentext is made up, the first two are real quotes (i checked).

Punished Guenonfag timeline:

2018
>Buddhism has not really degenerated. There are some east Asian schools that have become too 'religious' and some Theravada schools may have become a little too westernized in thought but there are still tens of millions of practicing Traditional Buddhists.

2019
>It's been 24 hours and none of you ming-mongs have replied to this. All the more embarrassing considering YoU CaN't HaVe Up WiThOuT dOwN mY dUdEz loooooollzzlz lmafaooo :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!1!111! was intended to be the epic GOTCHA retort. Writhing animals.

2020
>LOL U MAD??? BASED EPIC. seethe CRINGE le epic guenon (pbuh) XDDDd
>(replying to above) Based... Thank you so much for this post my good friend... I will begin reading guenon immediately...

>>15145875
I don't care for the pride of groups of men because I'm not a respecter of persons but rather I seek those people who are close to God. However that too has become a burden to me. if you're going to do something you might as well do it yourself. It was expedient that God let that group of men's condemnations be since Universal salvation does not happen by force. the image of Truth arising may condemn a shadow only for another shadow to rise up from the image of Truth which was attempting to express itself by condemning the first shadow. now I can say the concils of men are inspired by the Holy Spirit in this sense - that even God's enemies were inspired by his holy spirit though that does not mean that they were in God. This once again is a great mystery of universal salvation And even a proof of those seeing the Rope as if it was a snake. The servant does not abide in the house forever but the son does.

Esau was hated by God because he condemned his inheritance for a measly meal. So go ahead and love your official group of random people claiming to know the truth. Go ahead and take your pride in your specific religious sect. I will escape from all of the unclean and never let go of this Pearl that is growing into a tree.

now who is guenonfag in comparison to western and eastern churches? who is he to act as a judge and say they are not traditional? he is not different from a protestant that idolizes words in a sterile literalism

>>15146052
This. Guenonianism is no different from protestantism. They cannot tell you with certainty which religions are actually "traditional" and only have their subjective preferences to go by. This is clearly seen in their rejection of traditional Christianity and a general dismissive attitude towards it when it arguably should the most """initiatic""" religion even by their metric (the priesthood is """initiated""" in a chain directly from God, baptism or """"initiation"""" is done in the same manner as to God himself, and so on).

>>15146011
>only the last greentext is made up
I swear i've seen it play out before in that exact arrangement

>>15144630
>>15144780
>>15144888
>>15144988
Based... Thank you so much for these posts my good friend... I will begin reading Shankara immediately...

>>15146013
>I don't care for the pride of groups of men because I'm not a respecter of persons but rather I seek those people who are close to God. However that too has become a burden to me. if you're going to do something you might as well do it yourself. It was expedient that God let that group of men's condemnations be since Universal salvation does not happen by force. the image of Truth arising may condemn a shadow only for another shadow to rise up from the image of Truth which was attempting to express itself by condemning the first shadow. now I can say the concils of men are inspired by the Holy Spirit in this sense - that even God's enemies were inspired by his holy spirit though that does not mean that they were in God. This once again is a great mystery of universal salvation And even a proof of those seeing the Rope as if it was a snake. The servant does not abide in the house forever but the son does.
>Esau was hated by God because he condemned his inheritance for a measly meal. So go ahead and love your official group of random people claiming to know the truth. Go ahead and take your pride in your specific religious sect. I will escape from all of the unclean and never let go of this Pearl that is growing into a tree.

>>15146013
>councils led by saint theologians closest to Christ's time are wrong
>a bugman on the 4channel literature board is correct
lel

>>15146281
nah, mate, all those saints the church produced they got it all wrong. true spirituality and tradition is being a crypto namefag on 4chan and posting dead words in screenshots

>>15142544
So did Oscar Wilde.

guenon was the same type of a seeker who jumps from one thing to another. first he was a theosophist, then freemason, then martinist, then initiated in a chinese triad, then... i dont even know how many orders he joined. what guarantees us he wouldnt have jumped to another dozen orders if he lived 300 years? these people never settle down. as quotes suggest he wasn't an orthodox muslim that followed ramadan

Saints are so disgusting compared to the face of God. go ahead and keep claiming that random groups of people are automatically Saints and that historical closeness to the beginnings of the religion Jesus instituted is the truth rather than God himself. Little babies need angels to watch over them so do not go beyond the borders that your fathers have set for you. If you wish to follow Christ then become a reject.

>>15146467
6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

good luck reaching God with your sterile readings of eastern texts

>>15146523
Oh weird I figured Jesus would have said to go through some group of peoples and to obey the official authorities like he always did.

>>15140186
>Guénon and Christianity
who gives a shit what a muslim toad thinks, to hell with this heretic

>>15146577
Based

>>15146430
That was smart of him to learn from so many different organizations. it's almost like he could come up with an idea such as perennialism if he studied and experienced very many things.

>>15146145
This just isn’t even true. It’s quite clear which are considered traditional and Guenon wasn’t particularly anti-Christian. He simply believed there was no esoteric initiative Christian order in the West. That can hardly be argued with.

>>15146579
>Based
Cringe

>>15146579
Based
>>15147681
Cringe

>>15140186
I wouldn't call him a bugman pseud, he was just ignorant of the truth of Christianity, like many on this board.
>What do Islamists even do
live miserable lives hating on the Second Person of the Blessed Holy Trinity and rejecting His divinity (as their "prophet" did) for the most retarded reasons ever (usually stemming from their complete misunderstanding of Scripture)

>>15147716
What are you referring to? Jesus is the second most celebrated figure next to Mohammed in Islam.

>>15147762
sure He is... which is why they reject His divinity.. so celebrated and respected!
Isa is not Jesus my dude, he's a character Muhammad made up by taking from Gnostic and apocryphal sources

>>15147762
also, Muslims spend more time arguing against the real historical Jesus than they do "celebrating" him
if they truly celebrated the Christ, only begotten of the Father, they would be Christians

>>15142956
>This in itself is a proof of Christianity

Guénon never rejected catholicism. In fact he says a renewal of catholicism is needed in Europe. As to why he did not become Catholic himself, he explains it and has nothing to do with the doctrinal elements of Catholicsm.


Once more, 148 replies, nobody has read or understood Guénon at all.

>>15148301
Are you a Catholic, my friend? If yes, could you/would you expound, please, on Thomas' view on theosis?

>>15148315
I'm born and raised Catholic although I do not associate with Christian exoterism, for the same reason as Guénon.

>>15145967
>post screenshots of texts he read as if they served as authority
How is that different from quoting the bible?

>>15148323
Thomas' theology is hardly but exoteric, however.

>>15146011
The 2020 one is hysterically funny though. Like a dude using /lit/ as a stage for a puppet show he wanted to put on

>>15148323
what reason? he doesn't even given a worthy reason in his insights into christian esotericism. he just affirms: they (sacraments) were at first esoteric and turned into exoteric. all the sacraments, as the church and popes teach, are initiatic. even schuon acknowledged this

for him freemasonry had more valid initiation than the sacraments. that's how wrong he was. there is absolutely no reason to believe christianity was esoteric at its beginning. this just goes against the gospels and church history

there you are, guenonfag, blindly following your theosophist master, the modern scholar of comparative religion, even when he's wrong

>>15148301
>Once more, 148 replies, nobody has read or understood Guénon at all.
I'm starting to see a common theme on /lit/ every time Guénon and Evola are brought up

>>15145594
sounds like semantic nitpicking

>>15147762
Jesus is mentioned in like 2 lines in the Quran...all praise of Jesus is just to enlarge the praise of Muhammad

basically...Jesus was so great and performed miracles and is the word of God, but Muhammad was more perfect and the miracle of his Quran is even better! Imagine that!

>>15148301
Guenon "accepts" Catholicism when he reads it as a oriental-celtic fusion focused on his iodsyncratic interpretation of the Holy Grail.

Guenon retained his scholastic way of thinking and the Catholic respect for authority, but he never accepted orthodox Christianity. You can't take Guenon's take on Christianity seriously and be anything but a medieval LARPer when it comes to Catholicism.

He even said so himself that he never seriously gave credence to Christian dogma, he just liked one period of medieval Europe, that's fucking it.

>>15148425
Reminder that Guenon's sanskrit teacher rejected his thesis of a primordial tradition. Guenon remains fundamentally a theosophist with a Catholic/scholastic mindset that attacks anything he doesn't like as a heresy. But he was just a 1920s right-wing theosophist. Nothing more.

>>15146430
>as quotes suggest he wasn't an orthodox muslim that followed ramadan
Source?

>>15149901
>He even said so himself that he never seriously gave credence to Christian dogma
sounds mega cringe. why is he spammed here?

>>15150693
that's not exactly true...the quote is taken out of context and refers to guenon breaking the ramadan fast at night with a cigarette...

that said, he never made hajj, despite being able to go when his wife went, and theres no sign he ever learned classical arabic and his library had very few islamic texts and was mostly filled with hindu stuff...

the source is the mark sedgwick book...a very good critical examination of the fruits of perennialism

>>15149920
That's the issue with "Traditionalism", isn't it? It's not particularly traditional, once you look at it, it's mostly just riffing off of Blavatsky.

>>15140186
>Guénon
Based

>>15151530
It's funny that for all their faults "atheistic" scholars like Sylvain Levy (guenon's teacher) were closer to the true wisdom of the orient than the Guenon types were, if only because they actually respect the complexity of uncovering that wisdom rather than assuming it's all some easily accessible bullshit for facebook buddhists like theosophy.