/lit/ - Literature

>>17800725
>If our modern world is overflowed by quantity, and quantity is the basis of our physical existence, wouldn't the supremacy of quality over quantity make us reject our physical existence as something inferior to be overcome?
Y’all go to some lunatic extremes to justify your elitism. It’s time to be dragged down into the mud with the other peasants.

>>17800748
Please serious answers only thanks.

>>17800725
>Although Sherrard assumes Schuon’s “transcendental unity” approach throughout his book, this insight calls into question one of Schuon’s core teachings: that a personal (or Tri-Personal) deity derives from an impersonal Godhead and will be “dissolved” in the gnosis which transcends Being. (As Sherrard writes, “This view thus involves a total denial of the ultimate value and reality of the personal. It demands as a condition of metaphysical knowledge a total impersonalism – the annulment and alienation of the person.”)”
-article on Philip Sherrard
>Hindu tradition teaches many true things about the end of the kali yuga; but one who merely knows these truths in the mind will be helpless to resist the temptations of those times, and many who recognizethe Antichrist (Chalmakubi) when he comes will nonetheless worship him—only thepower of Christ given to the heart will have strength to resist him.
- letter on Guenon by Fr. Seraphim Rose
nope, it's orthodox christianity

>>17800856
What is wrong about the first quote? I really don't see how someone can refute metaphysics as described by Guenon/Schuon or Vedanta. Please respond only if you have a good logical argument, instead of the classic one like "because only Jesus can save", etc.

>>17800856
>and will be “dissolved” in the gnosis which transcends Being.
And this is orthodox christianity? since when?

>>17800970
I don't think that he agrees with that quote

>>17801004
then why did he answer "nope it's orthodox christianity" to the question of "is gnosticism the guénonian conclusion?"

>>17801031
Idk but Philip Sherrard never denounced his perennialism, like Seraphim Rose did. Also it is a weird quote coming from someone who thinks that orthodoxy is the ultimate conclusion.

>>17800902
There's nothing wrong with it, Sherrard is saying that gnosis and henosis (counter to theosis) dissolves the personal, which is not the Orthodox view of personage. Sherrard says gnosis denies the reality of the personal, in contrast to the Orthodox view. I included it to compare sherrard with the other perennialists.
>>17800970
It is, and that's why they don't believe in gnosis.
>>17801031
because sherrard was using that quote as an antithesis to the Orthodox view of the role of the personal.
>>17801074
This is true, sherrard is fringe in lay Orthodox theology, but he's cool.

>>17800748
>Y'all
Tranny

based Sherrard poster

>>17801184
>Sherrard is saying that gnosis and henosis (counter to theosis) dissolves the personal

On the contrary: what would happen to a personal distinct from and lesser than God in God's presence?

>>17800856
Yes, Kirill surely denies the corporeal realm by flexing his $36000 watch lmao

>>17800725
No, it’s the opposite of Guenonian. This is why it’s dangerous to read like 3 books and become a pagan or a Gnostic or whatever.

>>17800725
no, it was either become a muslim or a hindu. thats why he mostly talked about hinduism and didn't think highly of gnosticism.

>>17800725
The King of the World is Guenon's refutation of Gnosticism. Our World is not ruled by Satan or the Demiurge but by an extension of the divine, God himself rules Earth.

>>17802883
No, I’m actually from the south.
Blacks use it to, btw

>>17802883
No, I’m actually from the South.
Blacks here use it too, btw, since a lot of AA vernacular is derived from the South as well.

>>17803249
That's not the contrary, that's what Sherrard is comparing gnosis to. To fully know and be exposed/in the presence of God's essense, is to be dissolved. He is so beyond us and His energies (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) that we cannot be exposed to Him. That is the Orthodox view; that our personages are salvaged and kept safe, and we are given our new Creation, but we never "know" anything past God's energies because they are actually things we can communicate with.
>>17803267
Yes, Schuon surely denies the corporeal realm by flexing his child sex orgies.

>>17800725
Guénon(PUBH) did not believe in the 72 Archons, the primacy of Sophia, or the Demiurgus myth.

>>17804533

To what end would they be "salvaged"?

>>17805696
ressurected, that's the whole point of Christianity, salvaged from sin into a new Creation

>>17805901

You (?) claim that the only end of this Creation is knowing God, but then claim that that is the only thing that will NOT happen in the new one?

>>17805950
>knowing God
yes, his energies, not His essence, that's cornerstone Orthodox theology with people like Dionysious and Palamas
plus knowing is not the only factor, it's also love

>>17806086

What would distinguish the new one from the current one then?

>>17806098
mnay things, but we also don't know completely
chiefly a lack of sin and death, we also won't need to steward anymore because the king will have returned to Creation

>>17806205

And this does not sound like the current world indefinitely prolonged to you?

>>17806258
no, because the current world is plagued by sin, death, and apostasy
plus it likely won't look the same, at all
>indefinitely prolonged
eternally

>>17806292

It being without death is it being eternally prolonged.

>>17806469
yes, but that's a good thing, because there's no negative aspect of Creation
if you don't want it, you could always just hate God so you get purged and destroyed as a personage (which is why gnosis and henosis would be more like hell than theosis, back to the original conversation) instead of sitting comfy in eternal bliss with everyone you (knowingly and unknowingly) love

>>17800725
there is no gnostic tradition though

>>17806511
>so you get purged and destroyed as a personage
this is not what happens, “you” are not destroyed, the soul is eternal and cannot be destroyed

>>17806511

This is quite the backpedaling. That the initial question of "theosis" being good or not has degenerated into affirming the world in the most vulgar Materialist sense sums it up pretty well.

>>17806511

This is quite the backpedal. That the initial question of "theosis" being good or not has degenerated into affirming the world in the most vulgar Materialist sense sums it up pretty well.

>>17806708
um
>>17806746
>affirming the world in the most vulgar Materialist sense
there is no materialist sense to the ressurected Creation, we literally don't know the majority of what happens
affirming the world would be to idolize sin and death, with is the antithesis of almost every major religion which is why the Orthodox do not worship "the world"

>>17806842

No, affirming the world would be affirming the world.