/lit/ - Literature

>>17505609
He explains this at great length, he thought there was basically no living Tradition™ in any of the Christian churches. IIrc he says that Christianity was even always kind of lacking in having one of these traditions.

>>17505609
>native
>Christian
He was french not palestinian

>>17505621
You recall incorrectly.

>>17505660
you sure? He talks about the Medieval churches but there was some caveat about their not having a fully developed tradition like exists in Hinduism or Islam

>>17505609
in short because he wasn't that smart
>>17505621
here you go.

Orientalism and a strong desire to larp

>>17505621
Not even the Orthodox?

>>17505754
Yes, I’m positive.

>>17505874
well if he did say that, he would be wrong anyway.

>>17505794
He didn’t engage with Orthodoxy almost at all. The unfortunate reality for René Guenon is that while he gave us some insights and probably oriented more than a handful of readers in the right direction, he was just as confused and disoriented as his readers were only he was enough of an orientalist and opium user who networked with people in occult currents that he felt comfortable speaking from authority. The René Guenon compass cuts off the world of materiality from there it can lead you in a million and one directions except for 1 very obvious 1. Maybe that says something.

>>17505609
Because, like all typical leftists, he hates greatness, so he had to fled to Egypt, surround himself with coolies, instaid of Paris or some other large city where he would meet his equals and betters.

>>17505794
He said that it seems to be a living initatic tradition in orthodox hesychasm, but wasn't that interested in it.

>>17505881
You’ll forgive me, and everyone else, if I don’t take your word for it.

>>17505609
Because he got booted form Aton for his peranialisum . And want ting secret knowledge. Instead of actual experience of God.

>>17505889
"The ways to God are as many as the souls of men"

>>17505901
Aton? You mean Athos? You can get booted from Athos as a guest?

>>17505909
Sauce?

>>17505794
Guenon wanted to live as a householder and be initiated at the same time. I’m pretty sure there are no initiatiac orders that you can join and be instructed in spiritual realization while remaining a householder in EO, unlike Hinduism or Sufism. Instead you have to join a monastery to eventually be instructed in the deeper teachings involving theosis. One of the people that Guenon corresponded with traveled to Mount Athos and didn’t find anything of the sort approaching being initiated into some sort of spiritual understanding, that’s not to say that it doesn’t exist but it’s not really available to the average worshipper who lives at home outside of self-studying books which is not the same as being instructed by someone who knows.

All of European history is larping as Asians.

>>17505917
Guenon.. but I think is also a muslim quote. Maybe from Ibn Arabi? Not sure...

>>17505901
>Because he got booted form Aton for his peranialisum
Source? I’ve never seen any info about him visiting

>>17505909
Okay, relativist. Not only is that not actually a Traditional viewpoint but the man himself also maintained that certain valid Traditions were nonetheless totally disagreeable to certain people. It’s not a matter of picking and choosing what fits your fancy and literally never has been.

René Guenon and Julius Evola are probably the two biggest voices in and around the Traditionalist circles, with much of the credibility we lend to René Guenon actually coming via Julius Evola but if you actually read his letters it becomes plainly obvious that Guenon was rather confused himself and frankly, not at all willing to engage with the most serious of scholarship to benefit his readers. Guenon will lead you in a whole array of directions except for one very obvious one and that in and of itself is telling. The fact that a Westerner, raised in the West, who proclaimed himself to be in search of a valid Tradition belonging to the West, absolutely refused to engage with the Orthodox form of his own Western Tradition is the greatest disservice he could have ever given his readers.

> The politically motivated destruction or the Templars led to the diminution of esoteric knowledge in the West. Those who maintained such knowledge were forced to do so clandestinely. Thus the alchemists had to disguise their true purpose. The Rosicrucians, who also continued the tradition, had to hide behind the story that they had all scattered to the East. That describes their state of consciousness, not their physical locale. Guenon claimed to trace some evidence of esoteric teaching in Protestantism, although even Jacob Boehme ran afoul of the authorities. From there, the trail went dark, apart from occasional clues. Nevertheless, the Tradition can never disappear; there will always be a remnant. Since Guenon’s death, there have been other developments, of which he was unaware, that alter the picture. First of all, there is the remarkable case of Vladimir Solovyov who had his own realizations of Divine Sophia.

>>17505918
>that’s not to say that it doesn’t exist but it’s not really available to the average worshipper who lives at home outside of self-studying books which is not the same as being instructed by someone who knows
And never has been. Here René Guenon shares some common experience with Western Yoga moms who go to Asia to be “initiated” into those religions in ceremonies open conveniently to Westerners in unorthodox manners designed for nothing more than capturing the attention and money of Westerners. How would a scholar of Tradition believe it would be open to anyone who asks?

>>17505980
>with much of the credibility we lend to René Guenon actually coming via Julius Evola but if you actually read his letters it becomes plainly obvious that Guenon was rather confused himself
Is exactly the other way around, Evola was influenced by Guenon and in their correspondence(we have only Guenon's letters), Guenon is the one who is "teaching" Evola.
>Not only is that not actually a Traditional viewpoint
Orthodox fundamentalism cope. As I said, the quote is muslim in origin.

>>17506020
Yes, and many readers give René Guenon credibility because Julius Evola regarded his as “maestro”. You’re simply wrong about having only Guenon’s letters because I’ve read both.
> It’s cope. Just trust me, bro. Become a Muslim.
Guenon-tier argumentation regarding Orthodoxy.

>>17506039
>Guenon-tier argumentation regarding Orthodoxy.
Bro hesychasm literally developed out of sufism.

>>17505970
a french guy who was reading him told me about it, I have to ask him where he read it.

>>17506048
All of Islam developed out of Christianity.

>>17506048
>The origin of the term hesychasmos, and of the related terms hesychastes, hesychia and hesychazo, is not entirely certain. According to the entries in Lampe's A Patristic Greek Lexicon, the basic terms hesychia and hesychazo appear as early as the 4th century in such fathers as St John Chrysostom and the Cappadocians. The terms also appear in the same period in Evagrius Pontikos (c. 345 – 399), who although he is writing in Egypt is out of the circle of the Cappadocians, and in the Sayings of the Desert Fathers.

>The term hesychast is used sparingly in Christian ascetical writings emanating from Egypt from the 4th century on, although the writings of Evagrius and the Sayings of the Desert Fathers do attest to it. In Egypt, the terms more often used are anchoretism (Gr. ἀναχώρησις, "withdrawal, retreat"), and anchorite (Gr. ἀναχωρητής, "one who withdraws or retreats, i.e. a hermit").

>The term hesychast was used in the 6th century in Palestine in the Lives of Cyril of Scythopolis, many of which lives treat of hesychasts who were contemporaries of Cyril. Several of the saints about whom Cyril was writing, especially Euthymios and Savas, were in fact from Cappadocia. The laws (novellae) of the emperor Justinian I (r. 527–565) treat hesychast and anchorite as synonyms, making them interchangeable terms.

>The terms hesychia and hesychast are used quite systematically in the Ladder of Divine Ascent of St John of Sinai (523–603) and in Pros Theodoulon by St Hesychios (c. 750?), who is ordinarily also considered to be of the School of Sinai. It is not known where either St John of Sinai or St Hesychios were born, nor where they received their monastic formation.

>It appears that the particularity of the term hesychast has to do with the integration of the continual repetition of the Jesus Prayer into the practices of mental ascesis that were already used by hermits in Egypt. Hesychasm itself is not recorded in Lampe's Lexicon, which indicates that it is a later usage, and the term Jesus Prayer is not found in any of the fathers of the church.[5] Saint John Cassian (c. 360 – 435) presents as the formula used in Egypt for repetitive prayer, not the Jesus Prayer, but "O God, make speed to save me: O Lord, make haste to help me.

All of this predates Islam itself, let alone sufism.

>>17506039
I never said that people should become muslims, but I am tired of this atitude that orthodox fundamentalists have. They think that orthodoxy is the only absolute truth, while other religions are just evil and bad.
>I’ve read both
give me source

>>17505609
His own hang ups as a

>>17506054
By this logic we can also say that christianity developed out of Judaism

>>17506005
>Here René Guenon shares some common experience with Western Yoga moms who go to Asia to be “initiated” into those religions in ceremonies open conveniently to Westerners in unorthodox manners designed for nothing more than capturing the attention and money of Westerners
That’s wrong though, he lived more or less as an orthodox Sunni Muslim in Egypt and he belonged to a traditional Sufi order

>>17505889
Perfect. You drew the line between what is worthy in Guénon and his crass flaws with precision. I'm saying that as an admirer of Guénon for life, owing to him a decisive turning point in my life toward spirituality and religion.

>>17506052
He might be confusing him with someone Guenon corresponded with who did visit Athos. Sedgewick in his bio of Guenon doesn’t mentioned Guenon visiting Athos ever from what I remember but he does mention that someone Guenon was in touch with did. Googling Guenon and Athos does not turn anything up

>>17506092
How do you know? How do you know Guenon’s initiation was ever even valid? How do you know he made the right choice in Sufi Islam even? You don’t.

I’m simply pointing out that it seems a bizarre notion for an alleged scholar of Tradition to have in thinking that it would just be open to any layman who walks in in a place where he even identified as hostile to Tradition. There’s also the possibility suggest that Athos was ever anything other than an Orthodox monastery where Orthodox monks observed Orthodox Christianity, not whatever divine esoteric melding with God that Guenon thought it should have been. It’s entirely possible that Guenon was just wrong, you know.

>>17506089
It did. Early Christianity is Hellenistic Judaism mixed with Greco-Roman Philosophies such as Platonism, Stoicism, etc. The thing is, since it's earliest time it became it's own unique Tradition and Doctrine. It'd be reductionist to call Christianity this now, but it's origins are absolutely this.

>>17506089
They are one and the same thing with the exception of Post-Christ Judaism being a Christian heresy.

>>17506118
>They are one and the same thing
Not quite.

>>17506113
Guenon was initiated in sufism long time before he moved to Cairo.

>>17506114
And Hellenistic Judaism comes from Hebrew theosophy. Why not just say Judaism/Hebrew theosophy? We know Merkavah Mysticism influenced Christianity more than pagan philosophies (Philo was perfect in his employing Platonism as what it really is: hermeneutical tool of theosophy).

>>17506130
>Philo was perfect in his employing Platonism as what it really is: hermeneutical tool of theosophy
Didn't philo say the jewish myth are allegory for the human condition?

>>17506124
There is no break from Moses to Christ and from them to the Church. The deviations are what they just are: heresies. And these we have countless ones.

>>17506128
That doesn’t remotely answer my question.

>>17505909
>>17505917
>>17505962
It is a quote from Prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon his soul).

>>17506124
If they were one in the same, then Jesus would have never had to incarnate as the Son of God and the Jews would have never wanted him killed. It would make no sense for God to send his son if they were one and the same. Christianity has roots in Judaism, Greco-Roman philosophy, Greco-Roman religion, and Egyptian religion but it’s not “one and the same” as any one of them.

>>17506151
lol, even better

>>17506130
We could trace the rabbit back to perennial tradition, isn't that the point? I don't dispute that Christianity originated largely in forms of Judaism. "Hebrew theosophy" is a stupid term you just came up with, though. It's not a phrase that has any weight. I can google "hellenestic Judsaism" and there's a large Wikipedia summery of it. The same can't be said of "Hebrew theosophy." Theosophy should only be used in the context of the occult currents of the 19th and 20th century which explicitly identified as such.

>>17506152
Meant for
>>17506142

>>17506142
>There is no break from Moses to Christ and from them to the Church
Surely you can't be that retarded? Moses taught the law, Yeshua said people who step over the law are his enemies and starting with Saul the christjews rejected the law

>>17506171
>Yeshua said people who step over the law are his enemies
lmao no he didn't.

>>17506176
Mt 7:23

>>17506158
If you put it in context, he didn't mean it in a relativistic sense though (of course). What he meant is that men, according to their different capacities, arrive at different understandings of the Oneness (i.e Tawhid) of Allah. Some have nuanced, philosophical or mystical understanding, some have simple dogmatic understanding. What matters is that the Oneness of God is acknowledged and agreed upon.

>>17506183
That says nothing about people violating the "law" being his enemies.

>>17506189
let him be he's an antichristian bigot nothing you will say will convince Him.

>>17505609
I mean just look at him, which christian woman would have wed him?? at least he had a chance in Cairo

>>17506152
>>17506165
Read >>17506142 and >>17506130 too. I'll complement here some things.

>If they were one in the same, then Jesus would have never had to incarnate as the Son of God and the Jews would have never wanted him killed.
Despite my thinking of the perfect parallel between OT and NT representing the Boëhmian idea of God's Fire of Wrath being the same as God's Fire of Love to be essential, I'll avoid to talk a lot about the Trinity.
Christ is literally the Messiah. I mean, Khristos-Masiah: the anointed one. As I said here: >>17506142 there is no break at all of this revelatory, theophanic line. Post-Christ Jews' rejection of Christ is the same as other heresies of denying Christ of what he really is: Son of God, Divine (and Man).

>>17506189
It does though. Btw my atheist friend. No christian would claim there is no break between Moses and Yeshua. It's literally the new covenant.

>>17506200
That's just pathetic.

>>17506112
maybe i will try to find it

>>17506214
The OT messiah wasn't meant to be God or Son of God idiot.

>>17506152
The real question in all this is what Jesus himself did. I accept the virgin birth but think it's a spiritual virginity, I accept the sacrifice of Jesus in exchange for devotion as redeeming the soul, I accept the efficacy of the sacraments and the church's authority to be legitimate even if I don't think large amounts of the catechism or even Jesus's own teachings in the Bible are accurate. (or at least, they are heavily contextualized and must be subject to heterodox teachings).

What, in your opinion did Jesus himself do besides setting up his own priesthood? How was he so great as to have been able to succeed in such a lofty goal?

>>17506183
>>17506171
>Mt 7:23
>Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
Are you retarded, for real?

>>17506220
I literally showed to you how Christos and Messiah mean the same thing.

>>17506226
Anomian means law breaker.
>retarded
I take you very seriously when you boast about heresies and don't even know basic christian theology.

>>17506187
Still true but even from a muslim perspective, also people from other parts of the world can know God, this was my point.

>>17506230
First of all you didn't
Second it doesn't
Third neither Christ nor messiah means God. That is before we even get into all the messianic prophecies Yeshua did not fullfill

>>17506176
>>17506189
>>17506226
Not the same anon, what about Matthew 23:2-3?
"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat."
"So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach."

>>17506245
>First of all you didn't, Second it doesn't
>Christ is literally the Messiah. I mean, Khristos-Masiah: the anointed one.
There is no way to talk with people like you. See the level of coping dishonesty here.

>>17506237
Be objective for once, develop your assertions. Who broke the law and how? How there are different laws or whatever you think?

>>17506260
>"So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach."
Isn't it simple? God's law degenerated into legalism and crypto-pagan ritualistic observations.

>>17506278
The law of the old testament. Literally google christianity for fucks sake. The idea that christians are not under the law is one of the basic assumptions of all christian denominations.

>>17505609

They're both middle eastern religions and are about the same thing.

>>17506270
Anointed one doesn't mean messiah and neither does mean God. Just because you act all exasperated doesn't mean you are any less wrong

>>17506297
what religion are you part of?

>>17506286
Yes of course, the Jews have perverted the law, hence the need for Christ's presence to correct this, but the law itself (as in the presence of the true law) must be maintained according to this quote surley? Unless I am misunderstanding what is meant by Christ ending the law, as many christians often say.

>>17506308
I'm a Proto-Indo-European synergist Hindu with Mesolithic ancestor-worship aspects.

>>17505609
They're really all not that different; it's like asking why he moved from Heelys to RipStik.

>I'm a Proto-Indo-European synergist Hindu with Mesolithic ancestor-worship aspects.

>>17506288
You're saying that Christians reject the Commandments?

>>17506298
>Anointed one doesn't mean messiah
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%97#Hebrew

>>17506322
A lot of them yes. But it's not me saying that it's a core christian doctrine. I mean it you can look this up.

>>17506308
Whatever guarantees me total death.

>>17506328
I stand corrected. Anyways the messiah was never claimed to be a god. And son of god is the title of david

>>17506331
>I mean it you can look this up.
Provide me with anything vouching for that.

>>17506338
Sure if you are a jew, but then as I said this is their heresy falling into political, cultural, mundane inclination. Only God saves.

>>17506316
>>17506319
Pretty based if I do say so myself

>>17506346
Galatians 5 I guess if you're not memeing. Epistle to the romans for a more flashed out exegesis.

>>17506367
>heresy is believing in the revealed texts instead of the claims of some hellenising apocalyptic cult

>>17506385
I'm the one reforcing the Providential Revelations and you are the one denying it. Try reading Jeremiah 31.

>>17506377
Do the whole work, anon.

Serious discussion on this board is impossible.

>>17506473
Correct, but one can still gain the occasional valuable insight

>>17505609
idk, islam was more biased I guess

>>17505636
perfect response


>>17505897
are you going to explain were the Anon was wrong?

>>17506243
Sure they "can", but if they approach via a way other than the one specified by the words of God himself, they are almost certainly going to be mislead. Why risk it when God himself laid out the way?

>>17506316
Gotta catch em all

>>17506479
That's why I keep coming back to this shit hole.

>>17506505
Same anon

>>17506510
f r e n

>>17506531
RETVRN

>>17506490
>are you going to explain were the Anon was wrong?
What do you mean? He said the guy said X, I said he didn’t, and then he said if he did he was wrong and X is true anyway with absolutely no justification. It’s just a blind assertion. There’s nothing to even address so what do you even want me to prove wrong? I already wrote above about Geunon tracing through Boehme and then refused to engage with the other elements.

>>17505980
Most accurate summary of Guenon I've seen on /lit/. It's easy to tell the fanboys from people who've actually looked at this man carefully.

>>17506316
>I'm a Proto-Indo-European synergist Hindu with Mesolithic ancestor-worship aspects
What does that even mean? You worship the (known) PIE equivalents to the Hindu deities, as well as your own ancestors?

>>17506544
bro just go on a hike and you can ‘retvrn’ all you want. Nature hasn’t disappeared just because you’re a lazy neet

>>17507106
Cant speak for that anon but I do so all the time, benefits of living in the countryside

>>17505609
I think the main problem with Christianity is the doctrine of the trinity, which might have contradicted his perennial philosophy about the oneness of God. He might have tried to avoid discussing it at length to not offend his "Christian" readers. Although they might not be practicing but they still feel a connection to it (celebrating Christmas and such things) and feel that it represents a part of their identity. This is not to blame Christians because it's human nature to reject cling on to one's beliefs and reject foreign concepts, only a minority can embrace the truth no matter what. This saddens me a lot, but I believe that the ones who willfully corrupted God's message will pay for their sins.

Idiots transcend time.

Because there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger.

>>17506048
no it didn't, the desert fathers preexisted Islam by centuries.
Sufism developed out of Zoroastrian Seethe Magi, in shambles due to Arabs btfoing their religion.

>>17506075
no you little shit, people just react when you smear them. Grow a pair.

>>17507930
>He might have tried to avoid discussing it at length to not offend his "Christian" readers.
Perhaps you should stop putting words into the authors mouth and discuss the topic at hand, mudslime.

>>17506113
Great point. Traditionalists have the premise that there is some esoteric knowledge hidden from the mundane in some hilltop monastery when in truth those obscure ultra-traditional monks will practice the same doctrinal form of Christianity as the average priest does only that applied with greater care and profoundness with the support of a community in retreat. Then, when they send people looking for the metaphysical tradition in those places, they are forced to conclude that the tradition is somehow lost, when there wasn't any, to begin with. What has already been "revealed" it's all that there is, there is no "hidden gnosis", only commitment, and love of God.
>This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet: “I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter what has been hidden since the foundation of the world.”

>>17507930
It doesn’t seem to make much sense to me why a guy who wrote positively on Hinduism and Tibetan Buddhism would have a problem with the trinity unless you mean that that Roman Catholic Christology posed an issue in some logical way, in which case the Orthodox have been arguing that for literally a thousand years but again, Guenon refuses to touch Orthodoxy so....

Why should you necessarily adopt the same religion as the people in your geographical area? If you don't feel a spiritual calling to it, it's stupid.

>>17508081
if you don't feel a spiritual calling to it you're debased.

>>17508054
here you go.

>>17508089
Okay, and?
I'm not going to force myself to practice a religion that does absolutely nothing for me.

>>17508089
>debased
I'm not of semitic origins, so no.

>>17508054
Personally, I think there’s some truth in what you’re saying. In Orthodoxy, you can see a synthesis between what Traditionalists might refer to as right and left hand path, one exoteric and one esoteric, into one spirituality in some sense. Now, a Traditionalist might propose that’s not Traditional but who’s to say? The fact is that Guenon and as a result, his entire milieu and subsequent school was tinted by their association with the neospiritalist and occult movements of the early 20th century and while they came to reject many of their ideas, they never really escaped their way of thinking. There’s another element here which I think is the single greatest shortcoming of René Guenon and one in which his failure to overcome did the greatest disservice to his readers that anyone could ever do and that’s to be totally blinded by your own personal affinities. For Julius Evola, that was his politics. For René Guenon, it was his orientalism. Both were too stubborn, too stuck in their own ways, to actually engage with an investigation into their own Tradition in a nuanced way that is deserving of their readers. Now, I’m not actually an Orthodox Christian. I’m just a reader who is interested and I won’t claim to say I know better, or I know the circumstances, or I know that Orthodox Christianity is true Tradition of the West or anything so bold. I just think we have to acknowledge, and I’m rather confident in doing so, that while we can glean insights from this author, there are simply areas where, by ignorance or inability, he totally failed to perform the sort of investigation that was due. It’s not to anyone’s benefit Christian or Muslim, to pretend otherwise.

>>17508054
Extremely blessed post. The selfish and individualistic quest for personal enlightenment is cancerous and quite an ironic thing for a so called traditionalist to seek. The wisdom of God is not revealed in secret initiations or to great sages but to the humble and loving

>>17508099
Then you can continue to swim alone.

>>17508133
Sure. I'd rather swim alone towards a worthwhile goal than join something I don't believe in for the sake of belonging to a group.

>>17508113
>muh semitic bad
are you people for real? is this a meme? i refuse to believe there are people who genuinely think that any trace of semitic influence is to be rejected, even the most dumbfucked poltard.

>>17508131
Anon can correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t quite think that’s what he meant. I don’t think he’s denying imitation or anything like that, only suggesting that perhaps these sort of esoteric under-currents that so many of the 20th century went looking for and came to use as a barometer for acceptance or rejection, were not the proper thing to be sought in the first place.

>>17508148
I didn't say it was bad, I said these are not my origins, therefore I have no ties to a semitic religion.

>>17505609
sufism

>>17508143
In the valley without exit, what is worthwhile? You have the free will to wade around in the waters if that’s what satiates you. Others are acutely aware of their innate privation and come to realize that they are forever taking on water. By grace and truth then, they can grab onto the rope and be lifted from the waters. I suppose one who is not drowning has no need for the rope.

>you should belong to a religion whose metaphysics have nothing to do with your actual beliefs because it's part of your cultural heritage
Are some people genuinely this brainwashed?

>>17508167
what do you think the term semite implies

>>17508177
You're making a bunch of assumptions. I don't believe in your worldview, this thinly veiled fear-mongering does nothing for me. I don't have an "innate privation" nor a need for grace. If this is what satisfies you, so be it, but why assume everyone is in the same situation?

>>17508179
>he thinks something like ''opposed metaphysics'' is possible

>>17508196
>If this is what satisfies you, so be it, but why assume everyone is in the same situation?
Because you are whether YOU realize it or not.

>>17508199
Yes please tell me how abrahamism, dharmism, chinese religions and various ethnic cults actually have the same metaphysics and philosophy

>>17508210
Yeah, that's about what I expected. Have a good one.

>>17505609
Ironically Christian converts are far better Muslims than native ones.

>>17508196
>I don't have an "innate privation" nor a need for grace
yes you do.

>>17508211
they all have the same metaphysics because there is no two, three metaphysics. they just differ in degree.

>>17508226
Explain how.

>>17508196
>why assume everyone is in the same situation?
really anon?

>>17508228
in the same way eleatic and heraclitean philosophies are perfectly compatible

>>17508224
This cultish behavior is downright laughable. Fuck off with your guilt-tripping garbage.
>>17508245
Yes, really. You feel a calling for Christianity for several personal reasons, there is no need to assume everyone is in the same case. As much as proselytes will deny this, there is no "spirituality for everyone".

>>17508251
Unconvincing. Abrahamism and dharmism alone are forever impossible to reconcile. Chinese philosophy can more easily be tied to either.
Unless you handwave most of the Bible as metaphorical, it's not even compatible with other abrahamic faiths, let alone hinduism, buddhism, jainism etc.

>>17508253
no I won't.

>>17508270
Correct. Not all religions can be said to be true or valid. You have to escape the all or nothing mentality.

>>17508281
And what makes yours true? Your personal sensibility towards it, nothing more. Just as my own sensibility is different, and makes it false to me.

>>17508279
>you HAVE to believe that 2000 years ago a man died to absolve you from an alleged sin and that this man is also a god who created the world in a specific way and wants you to follow specific rules
Sorry, but no.

>>17508287
Are you arguing that no religion is worthwhile or that my particular religion is worthwhile? It’s difficult to follow. You started by claiming it wasn’t worthwhile to follow a particular but unspecific religion and then you resorted to universalisms when comparing religions. So I’m just not following you at this point.

>>17508253
Everyone and every being want the same thing. End of story.

>>17508330
I'm arguing that your particular religion is worthwhile to you in particular, but that just because it's the truth for you doesn't mean that I have to feel the same way.
>>17508331
Yeah and you can spin this in ways that benefit other religions too. Yours doesn't have the monopoly on "what beings want".

>>17508270
Give me one example of how they are not reconcilable. The same could be said about taking the doctrine of reincarnation literally. Ouroboros representing anything other than what Solomon said, which is part of every religious sacrificial rituals.

>>17508346
So you’re arguing that there is no objective truth then?

>>17508346
>Yours doesn't have the monopoly on "what beings want".
Now this is a different thing. Do you want to discuss it? First put your petty hubris aside and admit what you denied before my first post to you.

>>17508347
>The same could be said about taking the doctrine of reincarnation literally. Ouroboros representing anything other than what Solomon said, which is part of every religious sacrificial rituals.
Not that anon, can you talk more about this?

>>17508356
No. I'm arguing that what I perceive to be the truth, I genuinely believe it to be so. And this is the same for you. In my mind, you are in the wrong, but the difference is I have no desire to force you to see things my way, nor do I believe that you are lost if you don't.

>>17508363
>petty hubris
That's rich.
It's not that different, no matter how you spin it with sophistry.

>>17508347
Hindus take the doctrine of reincarnation literally except for fringe sects, yes. They are not reconcilable because the God of Abraham is obviously not Brahman. Hindus would say Jesus is an avatar but Christians would never accept a similar concession because the truth of Christianity lies in its specificity.
As for Buddhism, do I really need to explain why it's not compatible with Christianity at all?

>>17508388
Since you are not open to talk about things without having your debile idolatrous idea of your-own-self profaned I'll just leave it here without any explanation: Christianity is superior both metaphysically and anthropologically. Farewell!

>>17508131
Exactly. Like St. Gregory says:
>Why should he not know the secrets of God, who kept the commandments of God: when as the scripture says: "He that cleaves to our Lord, is one spirit with him?" [1 Cor. 6:17]

>>17508422
Sure, keep huffing your own farts. I really don't give a shit about your baseless assertions.

>>17508406
Nothing you said has the least thing to do with metaphysics. You are in a thread about Guénon, for fuck's sake.

>>17508427
>hi anon, I think you are wrong about this thing here because of this.
>WHATEVER BUT WHAT ABOUT THAT
>Oh that is another discussion, do you want to talk about it?
>SHUT UP YOU SPIN IT WITH SOPHISTRY

>BASELESS ASSERTIONS!!!!

>>17508372
But just because you believe something to be true, doesn’t mean it is objectively true. If you believe truth to be objectively true and that truth is mutually exclusive of what I believe to be true, you would necessarily believe that what I believe is objectively untrue. Otherwise, you are implying that they’re not mutually exclusive and thus, non-existence of objective truth. So yes, you actually do believe that I am lost necessarily if I don’t see things your way.

>>17508422
Explain how the answer provided by Christianity with the original sin is any better or more complete than the one provided by Buddhism with the truth of suffering or the one provided by Taoism with the Tao

>>17505890
Muslims are social conservatives

>>17508432
Do you actually think the metaphysics of buddhism are even remotely similar or compatible with the christian view or am I being rused here

>>17505609
What's this got to do with getting pussy?

>>17508449
>I AM SILLY
Ok.
>>17508453
I believe truth is not constrained by logic or rationality. I don't believe you are lost because I don't believe there is such a thing as damnation. Even though you don't see things my way, there may be other ways that will lead you to the truth, I can't say.

>>17508449
The original argument was about the necessity for someone to adopt the "religion of the land" I believe

>>17508456
The ''answer'' concerning original sin bears little to no correspondence to a taoist doctrine of the Tao since it would imply heavily anthropology, we could compare it with the Christian metaphysical foundation that is the Trinity and the Logos. But it indeed may be closer to the Buddhist doctrine of dukkha since now here we have the same ''veil'' that corresponds both to a samsara and the Fall. The obvious and immediate distinction (and superiority of the latter) is that first, evil is present and nevertheless does not posit a dualism, it does not deny good, contrariwise, it reaffirms it, whereas in buddhistic samsara, samsara itself is without explanation and the duality is insurmountable (I know there are some buddhist lines that goes even closer to an affirmation like the All-Pervading as a kind of Logos, but this is exception).

>>17508522
I know, I picked precisely what was absurd in his affirmation of ''our not being in the same situation''.

>>17508524
Liberation in Christianity cannot be done through one's own efforts; this alone is a deep incompatibility (inb4 pure land since even in that specific tradition, liberation is done by the individual in the end, and not granted by anyone). Christianity absolutely rejects the idea of man being able to fix his own condition through his own efforts.
>evil is present and nevertheless does not posit a dualism
This isn't an argument for superiority, you're talking about your personal preference. Buddhism doesn't even have good and evil, just conditioned and unconditioned.
>samsara itself is without explanation
The idea of a prime mover is not without flaws.
>duality is insurmountable
What gave you that idea? Duality is a construct but not ultimately real, see Nagarjuna

>>17508557
>Christianity absolutely rejects the idea of man being able to fix his own condition through his own efforts.
if you don't read the Bible, yes

>>17508569
Salvation is delegated through the acceptance of Christ's sacrifice. It is not an "effort".

>>17508582
>Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
The entire chapter is an injunction toward right action.

UNLESS, Unless, we can just do whatever the fuck we want and as long as we accept Christ it's gucci, right? I know a few Christians who think that's a thing.

>>17508535
>''our not being in the same situation''.
Oh that's why you're throwing a fit? That specific sentence was about personal situations, not the condition of man. As for my remark on innate privation, this is the nature of existence viewed through a Christian lens and I disagree with it, since it implies a value judgment on the way things exist. Things are not sullied or stained, they just are.

>>17508582
kek,protestants.
Grace makes it POSSIBLE for you to be saved, works is how you show that you're willing to work towards it even if you fail.

>>17508608
I've seen so many Christians quote so many different passages of the Bible to fit a particular narrative that I can't help but be doubtful of your personal interpretation.
There's also a difference in the process shown by this quote. In one case, you work towards salvation, then it is granted to you; in the other, you seize it through your own means entirely.
I'm skeptical of the existence of a creator deity, so I don't believe anything is granted to me.
>as long as we accept Christ it's gucci
Are you saying that accepting Christ as your savior is not a big part of the faith?

>>17508633
This doesn't go against what I said, you can only be saved if you believe in Christ's sacrifice. Whether this is enough to be saved or not is irrelevant.

>>17505609
Why the long face?

>>17508557
>Liberation...
As I said we have a different degree of sublety and profoundity here. There is a synergy or a ''synthelesis''. In any case all of this will constitute the fundamental difference between (crypto-)dualistic doctrines and theosophies like Christianity, Kabbalah and Platonic philosophy.

>This isn't an argument for superiority, you're talking about your personal preference.
It is not preference. I just gave the example of a most conditional duality present in human consciousness. Indeed, there is no good and evil for buddhism, but there is suffering and cessation of suffering, nirvana and samsara, conditioned unconditioned. This duality is never resolved in Buddhism.

>The idea of a prime mover is not without flaws.
No prime mover in Christianity. You should know this. There is, like in Kabbalah, a willing act of creation.

>Duality is a construct.
Yet there are conditioneds and unconditioneds.

>>17505889
>>17505891
Anons I want to join the Orthodox Church because I think that it is the one true church, but there are no Orthodox churches anywhere near me and my situation doesn't really allow me to go somewhere far away.

>>17508640
I'm not Christian either, but anyone with a clue knows better than to think faith alone saves anyone. Again, they can just read the damn book and find all evidence against that ridiculous notion.

>>17508667
>will constitute the fundamental difference
Please elaborate.
>This duality is never resolved
It has never existed in the first place. The point being that these dualities were created for the purpose of cognizing a truth that is inexpressible, but that they are not inherently real in the end.
>No prime mover in Christianity
Existence is not created in Christianity? It has always been? I haven't read the whole Bible but I've read Genesis and I got the impression that Yahweh does indeed create the world.
>there are conditioneds and unconditioneds.
Refer to what I said above.

>>17508667
>>17508704
And by the way, we're deviating from the initial point, I don't want to argue about which religion is "objectively true" since that's utterly pointless. There are sufficient doctrinal divergences between dharmism and abrahamism that it justifies some individuals feeling pulled towards one rather than the other. What I was trying to express from the start is that Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on spirituality and is not a "one size fits all" religion: there are some to whom a different tradition will speak to more deeply and more personally. I don't think you just choose a religion based on impersonal factors, if you feel no particular calling towards a tradition then it's not for you.

>>17506089
No. Judaism came after Christianity. Judaism comes from the pharisees who hated and rejected Jesus and follow the vile Satanic teachings of the Talmud. Christianity is the true religion. The old testament is about foretelling the coming of Christ, and the new testament is when Christ has come. Judaism is anti-Christian.

>>17508652
you have said it's not an effort, it pretty much is.

>>17508704
>Please elaborate.
Really?

>It has never existed... They were created for the purpose of cognizing a truth that is nexpressible but that they are not inherently real in the end.
Exactly. This is the fatal weakness of such doctrines. There is a forced negation of what is most obvious. They were not created to be shown to us they were never real (like, ???). They are part of the process and the whole process is true, from procession, proodos, to epistrophe, return, and stasis. All affirms Reality itself. I could go on and on about this but I think this is very clear, isn't it?

>Existence is not created in...
Yes, it is created but it is also sustained. There is no deist prime mover, but Divine Providence leads the whole process of what It moves.

>>17508813
Then I was wrong and retract what I said initially. What I should have said is "it is not an entirely personal attainment" since, as stated before, salvation is not seized but granted. There is the implication of righting a wrong, of absolving oneself and fixing a mistake, which I don't agree with. This may be because I don't believe in a supreme creator deity.

>>17508865
>This may be because I don't believe in a supreme creator deity.
Then you are living in delusion, anon.

>>17508859
>This is the fatal weakness of such doctrines.
No. I guess it could seem that way if you see the doctrine itself as important. It has always been described as more of a method and it not an end in itself. It is indeed part of the process. This is expressed clearly in the heart sutra. In the end, there is no dualism, but pure interdependence.
>it is created
Whether it's sustained or not doesn't really matter, the fact that it's created means that it is not a continuous process without a discernible point of origin, yes?

>>17508895
You're free to believe this. You know you're right and I know I'm right, there's nothing much to discuss in that regard.

>>17508757
Yes. But in the case of Christianity it makes anthropologically clear what is behind pagan ritualistic cycles and mythological representations.
My “preference” for Christianity is sustained by what I understand as superior both metaphysically and anthropologically like I said before, that is, the Trinity and perichoresis and the Passion of Christ, respectively. The Providence of the Spirit in the World pervades my being with the affirmation of this most apophatic Divine Love.

>>17508911
I can't argue against faith, and this wasn't the intent of my post.

>>17508670
I’m actually not Orthodox but I know a good bit about Orthodoxy. The church recognizes that physical church attendance won’t always be possible for adherents even though you are strongly encouraged to change your location to make that happen if you can. There are directories online so you can find whatever is the closest to you and try to make a trip as often as possible. You can also try sending a message to that parish for advice regarding conversion since that’s less clear than church attendance. If there is no way you can attend an Orthodox Church, not A church but an Orthodox Church, you’re encouraged to pray and worship from home. Just don’t attend non-Orthodox Churches.

>>17508907
Anon if you are so inclined I recommend watching this video.
https://youtu.be/rBG2pPFshVQ

>>17508945
>three hours
I'm not going to watch it now. Could you at least give me a summary?

>>17508502
Anon, you’re dodging the point. We weren’t talking about how you come to believe what you believe to be true. We were talking about objective truth. See, this is the problem with debating people who don’t actually engage with theology, apologetics, philosophy, etc. They literally don’t know what it means to provide a justification or an argument and the words become malleable depending on what seems the best tactic to “win”. Here now you’ve shifted from using truth as a transcendental where you admitted objectivity to a subjective “faith” or “belief” and those two things are just not the same. Whether or not I’m led to “truth” in a different way is totally irrelevant here.

>>17508994
No need to get excited over this. I don't like debating because it never leads anywhere, words are useless to express something that is unconstrained by them.
I believe there is objectivity to a transcendental truth but this doesn't imply there is only a single path towards it, or that the path appears the same to everyone.

>>17508955
It is about how all the different so-called "conspiracy theories" or rabbit holes, so to speak, when you investiage them and research them long enough and take it all to its conclusion, you will discover the Jesus is the truth. Christ is the final redpill.

>>17509053
Yes, I understand that from the title, but do you have any details on what leads the guy to make that conclusion specifically?

>>17509027
No, anon. You’re still doing it. You’re engaging in relativism and leading yourself down a path to nowhere but you just don’t realize it.

I’ll state again. How one is led to the truth is totally irrelevant here. We’re talking about truth as a transcendental. As in the context of a logical argument, something can be said to be either true or not true. If you believe something to be objectively true then, and I also believe something to be objectively true, but those somethings are mutually exclusive then it follows that one of us is wrong. Thus, what that one of us believes to be objective truth, is actually necessarily objectively untrue. Follow?

>>17509108
>what that one of us believes to be objective truth, is actually necessarily objectively untrue
Yes.

>>17509053
>>17509074
Also, I'm dubious of claims like these since they're usually ingrained in a specific cultural narrative. I doubt that a guy from Japan or Sudan doing similar research would come to the same conclusion. Christianity is one of the cornerstones of western culture and thought.

>>17509118
So how can we share the same truth? If our “truths” are mutually exclusive and you accept objective truth, you can’t. Something is either true or it’s not and if we diverge in a mutually exclusive manner, one of us is wrong. If I’m making apologetics and I make truth claims about something which can be said to be both objectively true and mutually exclusive of the claims of another apologist, then the other apologist is objectively wrong.

>>17509146
>If our “truths” are mutually exclusive
How do we demonstrate that they are? I said before that I consider truth to be experiential.
But otherwise yes, I agree with you.

>>17509159
>How do we demonstrate that they are?
You use logic. For example, if something is not true, it follows that it must be untrue. See? Saying “truth is experiential” is a nonsense statement.

>>17509191
Why must absolute truth be constrained by logic? If you're a Christian, is God constrained by logic?

>>17509199
No quite the opposite. God created logic. Jesus Christ is the Logos from whom we get things like logic.

>>17509199
It’s not. These are transcendentals.

>>17509240
Sure, then logic is not the most fundamental building block of existence. It does not contain truth, truth contains it.
I don't want to keep arguing about this, it's fruitless and I don't think we're going anywhere and all this arguing about abstractions just deviates from the more grounded reasons a person might have to doubt Christianity.

>>17509258
It’s only fruitless for you because you keep making wrong assertions and not justifying them and then refusing to reconsider when it’s pointed out.

>>17509289
That's not true. You said it yourself, God is not constrained by logic. There's nothing more to argue about.

>>17509297
I didn’t say that. I am someone else although it’s true. I’m the one who said they are transcendentals because that’s clearer.

Let me ask you. What’s your personal belief?

>>17509297
except God MADE logic and isn't in the habit of contradicting himself.

>>17509322
Does it apply to him?

>>17509311
By that I mean, are you Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist, etc?

>>17509329
He decided to make a logical universe.
You might remember that part about the word being God and the word being with God.

>>17508928
I did not say anything about faith. Will you ignore all things I posted? Metaphysics and anthropology demonstrate how my faith is reassured for they express the superiority of Christianity.

>>17509311
>>17509333
I'm not secure enough in my spirituality to answer that question with absolute certainty, since I haven't had any kind of transcendental experience. From my posts you can probably gather that I'm more attracted to dharmism than abrahamism, but that's about it.
I'm not here arguing for another religion, though, it's more that I'm not convinced by Christianity.
Why are you asking?

>>17509346
Yes but that's not what I asked.

>>17509348
How do
>the Trinity and perichoresis and the Passion of Christ
demonstrate the superiority of Christianity?

>>17509352
Because I want to understand your mindset since I can see that you’re sincere and actually interested. I’m not even making the case for or against Christianity either way. I just want you to understand the error in the argument that you’re making in your relativism.

>>17509379
The Trinity and perichoresis represent the metaphysical expression of supreiority and the Passion of Christ its anthropological one.

>>17509385
Maybe we're talking about different things, or maybe I'm just a brainlet. But when you call me out on my relativism, here's where I'm coming from:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/twotruths-india/
>Knowledge of the conventional truth informs us how things are conventionally, and thus grounds our epistemic practice in its proper linguistic and conceptual framework. Knowledge of the ultimate truth informs us of how things really are ultimately, and so takes our minds beyond the bounds of conceptual and linguistic coventions.
This is why I'm reluctant to reduce everything to mere logical statements. I'd like to know why you think this is an error.

>>17509425
>The Trinity and perichoresis represent the metaphysical expression of supreiority
Within the framework of Christian thought, they do. Isn't your reasoning self-contained? Why should a non-Christian take those concepts as a proof of Christianity's superiority?
>the Passion of Christ its anthropological one.
This one at least I think I understand, even though I don't really agree.

>>17509445
On the Trinity: >>17485594. Basically a Love unknown but of which we are all hungry (this is one of the apophatic teachings that surpasses even the Platonic Good).

>>17509433
I’m sorry but I just don’t have the time to read that entire Stanford entry. What I’m saying is that you’re shifting the meaning of truth without realizing it. This all started because you said basically you don’t know why you should accept one particular religion, in this case Christianity, and you implied a degree of relativism when comparing it universally with other religions. I’m simply trying to walk you through the justification why you might accept Christianity as true and only Christianity as true. You already accept the notion of objective truth. So let’s say I’m a Christian apologist and I show that logically Christian belief is fundamentally at logical odds with let’s say Islam, meaning they can’t both be true at the same time and you agree that my arguments are true. Let’s also say that I make a series of arguments supporting the idea that Christianity is the one true religion and you also agree that those arguments are true. Because you accept objective truth, you have no choice but to also accept that my argument that Christianity rather than Islam is true. The only reason you would come to deny this is if you shift the meaning of truth to mean something more subjective or totally different but you already said you accept objective truth. So either I, the Christian, am making claims which are objectively true, or I’m not. You’re confusing here the ability to move beyond linguistic frameworks for relativity of meaning. Truth can be said to be a transcendental and that’s why we rely on God to justify it but it’s meaning can’t be said to be relative. Otherwise, you don’t actually have any objective truth and you can’t make sense of anything.

>>17509527
I wasn't expecting you to, I just linked you to it as a source for the quote. Thank you for clarifying, I understand what you meant now. Then I guess I should rework my disagreement as "I do not agree with Christianity being the one true religion", the reason why I was reluctant to do this is because I didn't feel qualified to assert what is and isn't true due to lacking a direct vision of what lies "beyond linguistic frameworks".

>>17509521
That post is clear enough, but I don't feel compelled to call Christianity superior because of it. Just to be sure: you're saying Christianity surpasses other religions because the expression of love that is represented by the Trinity is the most metaphysically complete?

>>17509595
Hello I am different anon but Vladimir Lossky explains in his book The Mystical Theology Of The Eastern Church why God is a Trinity rather than a monad or diad.

>>17509595
Because it is complete, period. It is not only the metaphysical representation of an entity's self-relation but an entity's relation to the Other. The metaphysical and the anthropological coincide with a perfection without comparison. Kashmir Shivaism's prakasavimarsamaya is the intellectualistic counterpart of the perichoresis of the Trinity, I would say, but still lacking the most fundamental and apophatic source, precisely for being intellectualistic, that is Will.

>>17509776
Thanks. I think the post the other guy linked explains why relatively well though.
>>17509782
Why should there be an entity? I don't know, I just don't feel anything special from that. Maybe I'll get it someday, but right now it just seems like elegant metaphysics. Thank you for explaining at least.

>>17509842
By entity I just wanted to mean the most simple, basic ground of a reality, even if it is a sort of Ungrund like in Boehme, beyond being, non-being.

>>17509906
Oh, ok. What do you think of the extreme apophatism of nirvana compared to this entity you're describing?

>>17505609
I very rarely call for physiognomy check but this case is really the perfect opportunity. Just look at the guy, he's off-kilter

>>17509962
One ugly motherfucker

>>17509974
Me? I'm not saying he's ugly, it's more like the guy looks weird enough that I'd believe you if you told me that he bathed in a mix of urine and milk or that he built a miniature city which he populated with his pet cockroaches. He's necessarily an oddity and a funny house reflection of anything that could be considered healthy and conducive to building complex human societies

>>17509936
I think the apophaticism around nirvana is very genuinely representative of the final state of a liberated, or a partaker of theosis.

>>17510019
Yet do you think the surrounding philosophical and theological claims are inaccurate or incomplete?

>>17509906
>>17509936
>>17510019
Desu anons I haven't quite figured out to explain the reasons why in words yet but I think that God, the supreme, absolute, highest truth, has to be a personal entity with identity, not just some sort of vague impersonal "force" or "energy" as some people describe Him. I think that He has to have identity. Like I said anons I don't know how to explain it in words yet but there is no way that He is just some vague, formless "it."

>>17506113
>How do you know? How do you know Guenon’s initiation was ever even valid?
The Sufi order he attended in Egypt is traditional has a long history behind it, suffice it to say anyone from that region knows well how authentic it is. Instead of griping about what he did or didn’t do, look inward and ask why are you griping?
>How do you know he made the right choice in Sufi Islam even?
I know that in my heart because I have studied Sufi works as well as those of other religions and have seen how they speak to the same essential truth very beautifully.

>>17510109
I agree with you. A lot of neoplatonists and other metaphysicians also agreed. There are whole traditions that speak of the transcendent/metaphysical realm as a place to be explored and matured into, not as a simple dynamic of a couple "forces," logically definable by some monkey down here. We don't know what's going on in heaven. Just hints and suspicions buried in our souls. I can't remember if it's Pascal that said, the heart must give impulse to the mind, not the other way around. We feel it before we know it, not because arbitrary feeling is good, but because it's the link to true higher knowledge that we can eventually raise to (with effort).

Not only do I think God is personal, I think we weren't created just for fun, or because God "necessarily" spilled over like a cup from blind overfulness, but to live up to our creation and make God proud.

>>17509367
it applies to him inasmuch as he keeps his Word, which he says he won't break.
So for all intents and purposes yes, but not inherently.
Dualistic thinking is a fucking disgrace

>>17510109
>has to be a personal entity with identity,
Why does he have to be anything

>>17510161
Do you believe in Platonic Forms, anon? I do and I think from my understanding, the Eastern Orthodox Church believes that Platonic Forms are part of the Logoi.

>>17508054
this, take the guenontoorthodoxypill

>>17505609
>Guenon thread
>Automatic +200 replies

Yep, this board has gone to shit

What will come next after the orthodoxy fad starts to wane?

>>17510958
Truth is not a fad. Truth is eternal.

>>17505609
What phenotype is this

>>17510742
For me it was Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya to Orthodoxy desu anons

>>17508125
>For Julius Evola, that was his politics.
What was wrong with Julius Evola's politics? Isn't fascism well suited to traditionalist thought?
See based Codreneau for example

>>17511063
Correct. The wave of orthodoxy currently washing over this part of the net however is a fad

>>17511164
Why do you think such a thing, anon?

>>17511138
>Isn't fascism well suited to traditionalist thought?
No. He literally wrote a book about this.

>>17510138
How am I griping? I’m simply point out the flaw in his thinking/writing. Also, you still didn’t actually justify how it’s valid. You just said it is because well, it just is.

>>17511319
Why not?
If not fascism, then what? The only other good choice for traditionalism seems to be monarchy.

>>17511169
Not him, but it does appear to be built on delusion. Not Orthodoxy, the fad. Like it's all going off of an emotional high, which, like all highs, wears off. A crucial part of spirituality is being able to distinguish it from emotion.

>>17511366
Fascism with its nationalism, secularism, republicanism, etc is modern. Feudal monarchy is trad.

>>17511411
Maybe for some but not for all of us desu anon

>>17511469
Yes but wasn't traditional feudal monarchy sort of nationalistic in terms of being ethnocentric

>>17511411
>A crucial part of spirituality is being able to distinguish it from emotion.
Yes this is correct. But for me, my interest in Orthodoxy is not about emotion.

>>17511646
For a lot of people right now it is

>>17511582
Not necessarily, no. Even if it were, that doesn’t make it like fascism.

>>17511797
Have you considered you are just projecting an assumption on to them, which you don’t at all know to be true?

>>17511924
Weren't people always ethnocentric though?

>>17511944
Projecting an assumption? It's called hypothesising

>>17511969
I don’t want to answer the question because to say yes or no implies something that’s not exactly correct. It’s not even a concept that a traditional society would have had. You mentioned Julius Evola and his books, The Myth of the Blood and A Traditionalist Confronts Fascism on these topics might interest you.

>>17512135
> “it is”
> “it was just a hypothesis”
No you were asserting it as if it’s true. Either way, you’re speculating at best and you know that to be the case. I don’t have to ask if you’ve considered it.

>>17512183
Are you telling me that some Medieval Germans wouldn't think sub-Saharan Africans look and act weird and foreign? You think they would just accept them into the village as their own people?
No way desu anon

>>17512189
>No you were asserting it as if it’s true.
Do you know this for sure or are you just speculating?

>>17512228
bump

imagine if you guys actually dedicated this time to spiritual practice instead of endlessly debating authenticity, racial/geographical politics, and other anti-spiritual crap

even the average new ager is more useful than you

Because sufism was as close as you could get to something european (by relation of christianity) that still had an esoteric quality to it.

>>17513141
Being spiritual does not mean completely rejecting material reality unless you are some retard who fell for the gnostic meme. The material and the spiritual are a hierarchy and are not meant to be seen in dialectical tension but in harmony.

>>17511103
>get involved in politics at the expense of your spirtuality
>Trump will save the West
I love his commentaries on actual teext, there are wonderful, but he really should stick to just that alone, he tries to appeal to neo-pagans too much

>>17514494
*they are

>>17506220
>The OT messiah wasn't meant to be God or Son of God idiot.
Bruh what the hell are you talking about lmao? Psalm 2 says the ruler of all nations (can’t be David, he only ruled Israel,) would be the Son of God.

Plus if we look at Jeremiah 23:6 it says the Messiah will be called the LORD (YHWH)

In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called: The LORD Our Righteous Savior.

>>17507984
Wrong. There is no God but Jehovah and He is triune.

>>17505609
He became a Muslim because he thought Christianity was a western religion and hence thought it was doomed I think idk though

>>17505909
“I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes unto the Father but through Me.” - Yeshua HaMashiach

>>17506319
>>17506316
>>17506371
antisemites detected

>>17514620
and proud

>>17513141
Spiritual practice is something you have to be able to do all the time no matter what is going on. Yes, even when shitposting on 4chan.

>>17505609
Do people always post this guy's picture because he has an enormous mid-face slapped in between a normal upper and lower face?

>>17511582
No, Guenon makes it clar in his "Spiritual authority and temporal power". Nationalism is a product of the nation-state. During the Middle ages the states were multi national in many cases, and their unity was based on religion(apart from political strategies), not on some romantic historicist theories. The problem today is that people can't go beyond this modern simplistic ideas like nationalism or internationalism, racism or anti-racism, etc. and want to define everything with them.

>>17505889
Great, valuable post.

>>17512228
No, I’m not telling you that. I’m telling you they wouldn’t have subscribed to biological racialism. You’re stuck in a dialectic that has no application. Just read the books and it will be clear.

>>17508670
You should get in touch with the priest at the closest parish to you via e mail. Your situation is not as uncommon as you think and he will be able to help

>>17506316
Lol you can't be serious..

Guenon chose Islam because he realised how retarded the trinity was and he didn't want to deal with all the mental gymnastics required to be Orthodox. /thread

>>17515504
>Hindu tradition teaches many true things about the end of the kali yuga; but one who were merely knows these truths in the mind will be helpless to resist the temptations of those times, and many who recognize the Antichrist (Chalmakubi) when he comes will nonetheless worship him - only the power of Christ given to the heart will have the strength to resist him.

>>17515133
>>17515366
Can you please explain? Sorry anons but I don't understand. If they weren't sort of racial nationalist then what were they? I know they didn't know all about genetics back then but I think it is obvious that they could tell different ethnicities apart by physical appearance and I would tend to think it sort of beyond question that they would have preferred their own people to others.

>>17514494
Spirituality does not mean letting the world do whatever they want even when you know they are living in degeneracy.

>>17515399
The closest ones (but still far away) are Greek Orthodox. I have heard that they are very liberal and Americanized. I would prefer Russian or Serbian or Romanian because I heard that they are much more traditional and conservative.

>>17515875
They were barely exposed to other ethnicities. It's just not something they would think about all that much to begin with.

>>17515961
Either conservative or liberal are bad signs, if that's something that comes up often in the parish. Spirituality is not about worldly matters like politics.

>>17515759
Only the power of Christ? I love my Christian brothers, but let's be real, the simplicity of monotheism trumps the multiplicity of a triune God. Doesn't matter what mental gymnastics you do. A simple one-ness is more correct period.

>>17515982
Why do people keep making this false dialectic? Spirituality does not mean you don't speak out for what is right. That is why secularism has taken over, religious people not taking a stand.

>>17515999
Wrong desu. You have not solved the problem of the one and the many.

>>17515875
Biological racialism is a totally modern concept. It didn’t exist in Traditional civilizations. No Traditional man would have even considered such a notion as racialism, race, or ethnocentrism. Would they perceived certain people as different? Almost certainly. They’d have to be blind and deaf not to but it wasn’t with this sort of lens that is so common today. Life was governed by and oriented toward the spirit and the kingdom. Evola himself writes that basically, the blood mattered to Traditional people but it wasn’t ultimately important. He also writes that to the degree that it was important, it was important in regard to caste more than to what we now refer to race. He goes so far as to claim that members of the equivalent caste (of spirit - that’s important) but different races might feel a greater sense of fraternity than two members of different castes within the same race. And there are examples in history which support this. There’s the commonly cited example of the black samurai, Yasuke. All in all, Evola was simply aware that race as we know it, was essentially a made up, modern concept, a product of speculative “science” pushed by thinkers like Charles Darwin (look up the full name of On the Origin of Species), which placed too much emphasis on blood and biology and did too much to try to equivalence people within “races”. His The Myth of the Blood, A Traditionalist Confronts Fascism, and Notes on the Third Reich all explain his position. I think he touches on it in Revolt Against the Modern World as well but I can’t remember.

>>17515982
If a church supports things like feminism and abortion and trans and homos and BLM then they are a false church.

>>17516015
Elaborate. Please.

>>17515961
That’s not exactly true. Are you in America? If so, pretty much most Orthodox churches will be somewhat Americanized somewhat but don’t let that deter you completely (see Fr. Seraphim Rose’s Orthodoxy in America - it’s on YouTube). If you’d prefer the Russian church, which I would recommend and you’re not in Russia, look for the closest member of Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR).

>>17516032
Not even most Ameridox churches will go that far, at least not yet.

>>17516010
You can speak out, but it's ultimately not the object of the path. It's tangential.

>>17505928
>>>/r/aznidentity

>>17516061
I have seen some signs of globohomo infecting some churches.

>>17516069
The political body is under the umbrella of the church. You seem to be implying that the Church itself is and necessarily should be apolitical but that’s only true as a matter of praxis in the modern world.

>>17516080
That’s why I recommend people go to ROCOR and understand that Ameridox is phenomenon. They are in schism with Constantinople for reasons that go beyond Ukraine.

>>17515999
Wrong, just as we are personages, we experience God as personages. To say we are the same manifold as His essence is to deny the Truth that has lived and walked Creation, He comforts us in out time of need.

>>17516015
Lol that is because God is beyond the phenomenal. You can't attribute logical precepts to that which is beyond such conceptions, it starts and stops with the one.

This doesn't make sense of your argument, it just binds God to our conceptions further which is heresy.

>>17516112
Thats fine, but this argument is pertaining exclusively to Jesus (pbuh).

>>17516134
All three personages of God. Why do you think we talk about "the acquisition of the Holy Spirit"?

>>17516087
The church doesn't need to be apolitical, it's just that politics cannot be the primary focus, as that would be succumbing to the third temptation of the devil. In particular, people seeking a church shouldn't make politics the priority, as religions are not political projects, or at least, true ones aren't.

There are churches that make politics a big deal, and reduce the spiritual aspects to mere psychotherapeutic contrivance. Those are the ones to avoid.

>>17516030
I see. This makes more sense now. Although I think there is a potential problem in that if people from equivalent castes from different kingdoms relate to each other more than they relate to other castes from their own kingdom, then isn't there a chance that they might betray their kingdoms and try to unite in some kind of proto-liberal or proto-Marxist class revolution?

>>17516161
https://youtu.be/hMerAhTD178

>>17516162
>and reduce the spiritual aspects to mere psychotherapeutic contrivance. Those are the ones to avoid.
Yes this is correct but at the same time one must understand that correct politics comes from correct spirituality so a good spiritual person must speak against the evil politics of the world.

>>17516030
People say this but how can it be so? The modern concept of race is just an extension of the tribe, the clan, the family.

>>17515999
>the simplicity of monotheism trumps the multiplicity of a triune God.
Honestly no. Monotheism either implies God is a multiplicity or He’s somehow above His own existence—making Him logically contradictory. It’s a sort of Neoplatonic philosophy where God’s attributes must be distinct but inseparable from God or God becomes this weird being that has a hierarchy within Himself with His attributes coming out of Himself while being eternal due to being God’s eternal characteristics. In both senses you get a form of plurality in God.

>>17516166
bump

>>17516215
No, it’s not. Race is really a made up categorization. All it does is imply a similar set of genetic clusters with some assumed cut off for each cluster. The basis is totally scientific and totally speculative, not at all objective, and downstream of a paradigm which no Traditional person would’ve had. The Greeks had the term, ethnos or ethnic, but it wasn’t the same as race. Ta ethne meant literally “the nations” and just meant non-Hebrews. It referred basically to different pagan nations but didn’t ascribe a conception of biological race to them. What you’re actually failing to grasp is the entire concept, the entire paradigm would have made no sense to them. In fact, in early Greece it would have just meant something like “group of like men” without necessarily an implication for anything which we now consider biological. In Classical Greece, it came to mean something like “nation” and in Hellenistic Greece it came to mean something like “foreign nations”, eventually “heathen nations”. It literally did not come to be associated with race until the 19th century.

>>17516294
Ok but can you pls respond to >>17516166

>>17516249
We see this in many Monotheistic religions, Christianity being the biggest example, but also Ancient Judaism (the whole ‘powers in heaven’ controversy) and modern Rabbinic Judaism (through things like the sefirot and the emanations of the ein sof) and sometimes even in Islam despite being an ‘opponent’ of this theology in a contradictory sense, with the contradictions lying through ideas such as the Qur’an’s eternal existence as the word of Allah and in some traditions the Muhammadan light, ect. (There are also some hadiths that say that Allah would recreate the world if people didn’t sin so that he could have mercy on a people that could sin, clearly indicating that Allah’s attribute of mercy is eternal,) and so on and so on.

Either a monotheistic God is a plurality or God is illogical; even if you want to say God is ‘above logic’ then you are saying that God is so transcendent that He is above His own existence, or that He is somehow unable to interact with His creation in a real and meaningful sense, hence being a logical rationalization of an alleged illogical God.

All of these things have been recognized via the problem of the one and the many, and the many heresies challenging this view in several traditions (Arianism, Muʿtazila, ect.)

>>17516294
I am still not convinced desu. Think of it like this. Individual, then family, then clan, then tribe, then ethnicity, then nation, then race.

>>17516428
Well more precisely instead of individual, think person or hypostasis because I don't mean the modernist Enlightenment liberal concept of individualism where everyone is turned into interchangeable atomized units with no soul or identity.

>>17516166
>>17516311

In short, yes but the same is true for the aristocracy and higher castes as well and it’s important to note that certain aspects of Traditional society have to give way to allow for such a thing. A Traditional civilization is one where the civilization is governed by and oriented towards the spirit as I mentioned and things are in their proper place according to hierarchy. Such a disposition would necessarily imply an allegiance to the “nation”, or kingdom, the culture, and most importantly, the spirit above all else with the political function being performed by higher costs and not the workers and merchants who are prone to subscribe to internationalist ideology out of interest for money or revolution, and not something like what we might consider chivalry or spirit. Evola would cite the rise of the papacy and the conflict between the Guelphs and the Ghibellines as a conflict to breakdown the proper order of things which would subsequently give way to continued “revolutions”.

>>17516428
You can think that way if you want but the fact remains that it’s not at all a Traditional viewpoint. Race is simply a modern concept and I would ask what exactly is the cutoff to distinguish this race against that race, why, who is the authority on such matters? It’s all vague and at best, wholly scientific speculation and thus, not traditional.

bump of life