/lit/ - Literature

>>17911789
>perennialism
Can someone give me the rundown on this? I get how all religions probably have some truth to them, but do perennialists believe they’re all equally valid?

Islam is perennialist in the sense that all religions are a corrupted version of it.

>>17911789
Goddamn thats a nice pic :)

>>17911805
All religions derive from some primordial Tradition. That primordial Tradition is in theory not of this world, but in practice all Traditionalists just make their own weird Tradition that is actually of this world. For Evola, it was neo-crusader esoteric polytheistic warrior solar paganism, for Guenon it was a weird mishmash of Hinduism and Islam, there was one guy who believed that Tradition was literally just "whatever the Catholic church holds as doctrine at a given point in time (meaning that Tradition actually changes through the years)", etc.

They are not all equally valid, as all religions are just a corruption of Tradition. Evolva believed that Christianity was one of the earliest, and as such most dangerous, Satanic Inversions of Tradition, for example. This doesn't mean that there isn't traces of Tradition found in it, but it's not valid at all. While all religions (sans Tradition) are invalid, they are not all equally invalid. Buddhism and Hinduism are less invalid that Christianity, according to Evola, for example.

>>17911820
Thanks for that anon. Are there any /lit charts or starter packs for perennialism

>>17911832
Start with Huxley's The PerennialPhilosophy

>>17911789
Can you tell me who is in this picture?
I can only recognize shah ismail(second from left) and osman the first(third from right). Correct me if I am wrong.

>>17911789
>but Muslims would consider Guenon's Advaitin background as something evil anyway - associating the One/godhead with the soul's essence.
Something can’t actually be associated with itself, but only with other things

>>17911789
>90% of Quran warns against 'idolatry'
This is why I'm not engaging in this thread.

Guenon was just another pathetic larper, who couldn’t cope with the meaninglessness of his own existence, so he latched on to a system of meaning that he never fully thought through

>>17912424
what did Guenon do to make you seethe like that?

>>17912380
Correct it Mr. Enlightened. Obviously Advaitins and any Hindu will argue that they don't worship material objects as gods, but use the images as reminders to the god itself, or indeed the god is manifested through the idol but is not the object itself.

The Quran has ayats for that also. The Quran is completely against anything like intercession or images. If you mean Advaitins cultivate God 'within', in the same sense as Plotinus meant by shedding away the illusions of matter and attachment to maya, most Muslims are extremely exoteric and dogmatic and will call that kufr. As in the OP, only Ibn Arabi and other 'fringe' sufis come close to that.

>>17912944
Also, you don't have this problem with other Traditions. Islam's exoteric aspect is almost at war with its esoteric inner core, embodied by the meeting of Moses and Al-Khidr, but many modern Muslims (especially salafis/takfiris) want to make a parting of ways between the two seas a war, rather than an acceptance on the part of the uninitiated of their own inability to comprehend.

Christianity has it with Protestantism, and Hinduism doesn't have it at all. What gives?

>>17912944
>most Muslims are extremely exoteric and dogmatic and will call that kufr.
Who the fuck cares? Most Muslims place Hadiths over the Quran even if they’ll never admit it.

Muslim here. Guenon seems to have loved hindus more so why did he convert to Islam?

>>17912973
Sufis and people wanting to access that vein of Tradition must care, because the majority who (from the Sufi perspective are ignorant) could easily succumb to demagogic salafists who takfir them. Guenon lived just before the outbreak of this shit where sufis were well respected, no one had a problem with shrines, etc.

>>17911789
Islam is not perennialist (except perhaps Sufism), but a perennialist can be a Muslim. There is no contradiction in this at all.
>>17911805
It depends on what you mean by "equally valid". Think of a river - if one riverbank is ignorance and you need to crossover to the other riverbank of wisdom, then religion is the boat you use. Different boats have different advantages and disadvantages when crossing the river and some people may hold a better chance of making the journey with one type of boat rather than another. In the end of the day, however, the suitability of the boat for the job is judged on its effectiveness or lack thereof for its specific passengers.
>>17912988
He thought that the Hindu mentality and way of life were far too distant from contemporary European experience, whereas Middle Easterners were closer to Europeans and therefore more accessible in various ways.

They don't. They posited a loosely defined metareligion called Tradition prior to any other religion and from there made value judgements on the world's religions based primarily on the difficulty they presented in incorporating them within the framework of Tradition based on an esoteric/exoteric distinction. It is a thoroughly modern mindset that approaches religions structurally, placing primacy on their construction and placing the content of them second, paralleling in many ways McLuhan's slogan "the medium is the message" as an approach to media analysis. This is the primary reason Christianity is rejected by most Traditionalist within the Guenonian camp, because Christianity resists easy integration into the exoteric/esoteric distinction for heuristically determining validity. Evola's, who is more traditionalist adjacent rejected Christianity for more Nietzschean reasons than anything else.

The point is that Tradition, as a metareligion, or religion of religious interpretation, ultimately has to be accepted on faith. It is not a philosophy. It is after all a religion, one that contains its own internal logic, or theology, but like any religion one has to make the first step, as it makes claims that can't truly be verified discursively, and so can only enter it, through faith.

It is similar to how successive religions are forced to reinterpreted and recontextualize their predecessors to make claims to validity. Judaism reforms Canaanite mythology, Christianity does the same to the prophetic texts of the Hebrews, Islam relegates Jesus back to being merely a prophet to allow for the primacy of Muhammad. Traditionalism being a metareligion conceived within and of modernity is put to the task of doing this for world history, and it is no surprise that it's most vicious rebukes are against competing movements like Theosophy and Bahai'i who are all attempting to do the same.

>>17913146
>you again
You've got everything completely ass-backwards. >It is a thoroughly modern mindset that approaches religions structurally, placing primacy on their construction and placing the content of them second, paralleling in many ways McLuhan's slogan "the medium is the message" as an approach to media analysis.
Where did you get this from? The religious form is contingent, the religious content (Tradition) is eternal. This is the concern of Traditionalism. Perennialism as a whole concedes importance to religions on the basis of the universal wisdom that they transmit, not having this or that structural trait. The same structures can serve completely different purposes depending on context, any methodology that prioritises form over content would be misconceived and has to be necessarily rejected. This is why the Traditionalists are opposed to syncretisms and memeshit like Theosophy. The concern is not the form, but the generative principle behind the form and behind everything else.

>>17913192
>>you again
I'm new, hi.

>Where did you get this from?
It is my own analysis.

>The religious form is contingent, the religious content (Tradition) is eternal. This is the concern of Traditionalism.

This is what they tell them selves but it doesn't actually work out that way because they fail to separate the structuring of a religion from whether or not it contains transmissible universal wisdom. And let us be clear, we are not talking about this or that liturgy or ritual, or where the priests sleep, when we discuss structure, but specifically the esoteric/exoteric distinction and initiate linages that allow for student-teach transmission. And those things are inseparable from the structures that allow them to exist within time, yet are analogous not identical between religions.

Traditionalists are opposed to Theosophy because they were in early competition with one another, and they posit inverse timelines with Theosophy tending toward convergence of religions (and so yes, syncretism which I am not accusing Traditionalists of). My contention of their relation to one another is that they are both modernist schools of thoughts that are indebted to their moment in history. That moment being a increasingly connected world with increasingly easy access to the texts of previously distant cultures and a freedom to interpret those texts in a manner that would see you accused of heresy in the past. This isn't intended as a slight, or a dismissal, but a contextualisation of their moment in time. The "Primordial Tradtion" may be timeless, but Traditionalism isn't and can no more be separated from the printing press, fast and easy global transport, and the industrial revolution than Jesus's life can be removed from the Roman occupation of his homeland.

>>17912988
Advaita Vedanta would require him to stop having sex, eating meat, drinking, not have a wife, give up material possessions, and go through like three decades of initiatory monasticism just to be a neophyte. Meanwhile, Sufism would let you do all that stuff and initiate you in like a week.

Guenon's big thing was initiation. Spirituality was assenting to the Correct Propositions and being part of the Secret Clubs. This is in contrast to Evola who saw these things as ways to keep the plebs out (so you should have as many as you can, and they should be as aesthetically pleasing as possible) with the real meat being practices that are kept secret by the 97 layers of rituals in catacombs while wearing black robes.

>>17912944
Mr. Enlightened here and no, I'm not willing to engage in this on your terms.

>>17913356
>I'm new, hi.
Deja vu. I have had this argument in more or less the exact same terminology at least five times now. Do you guys perhaps get your arguments from the same source? What would that be?
>This is what they tell them selves but it doesn't actually work out that way because they fail to separate the structuring of a religion from whether or not it contains transmissible universal wisdom. And let us be clear, we are not talking about this or that liturgy or ritual, or where the priests sleep, when we discuss structure, but specifically the esoteric/exoteric distinction and initiate linages that allow for student-teach transmission. And those things are inseparable from the structures that allow them to exist within time, yet are analogous not identical between religions.
Can you elaborate? I do not see anything in your text here that can be construed as an argument against Traditionalism.
>My contention of their relation to one another is that they are both modernist schools of thoughts that are indebted to their moment in history. That moment being a increasingly connected world with increasingly easy access to the texts of previously distant cultures and a freedom to interpret those texts in a manner that would see you accused of heresy in the past. This isn't intended as a slight, or a dismissal, but a contextualisation of their moment in time.
Apart from your assertion that access to multiple texts makes you modernist, which I see no possible way to justify, this is a sensible position to take. I just don't understand why you would mention it in a discussion, if not as a slight. The Traditionalists declared themselves against everything modern for a reason.
>The "Primordial Tradtion" may be timeless, but Traditionalism isn't and can no more be separated from the printing press, fast and easy global transport, and the industrial revolution than Jesus's life can be removed from the Roman occupation of his homeland.
I see what you mean, but I have to object to your use of terms. To say that something is a "modernist school of thought" is to associate it with modern intellectual practices, not just modern conditions. Moreover, even to call it a "modern movement" would be an abuse of terms, since it brings to mind a movement of modernist character, not just occurring in a modern environment. By this logic one could call reactionary movements "postmodern" simply because they exist in the 21st century. You see the problem.

>>17913146
>Christianity resists easy integration into the exoteric/esoteric distinction for heuristically determining validity.
in what way does this happen? from what i’ve seen and read, the esoteric current in christianity is stronger than in other major religions, and unlike the others, also maintains exoteric structure.

>>17913389
>and go through like three decades of initiatory monasticism just to be a neophyte.
Advaita does not require this, people do not have to go through lengthy multiple year trials to become a sannyasin according to how they do it.

>Meanwhile, Sufism would let you do all that stuff and initiate you in like a week.
Sufi orders do not typically permit drinking

>>17911789
Traditionalism is just a backdoor into the West, the goal is to introduce Islam and undermine Western society.

>>17911789
Muslims don’t even consider Guenon to be a real Muslim, lol. He’s mostly well known for his books against modernity, his esotericism is usually condemned

>>17913612
>esoteric current in christianity is stronger than in other major religions
Esoteric elements of Christianity such as hesychasm and quietism are really only accessible to monks and ascetics, and are seen as hidden and kinda bizarre by the laity. If you’re talking about the charismatics and the Pentecostals then yeah I could see that, but they’re goofy anyway.

>>17913510
>I do not see anything in your text here that can be construed as an argument against Traditionalism.

I am not trying to argue against it. I am trying to understand it as it is, which means I may have interpretations or judgments that others disagree with, or even dislike, as my intent is to know, not just lay down and accept. And I might even be wrong in the end, but I have to try!

>Apart from your assertion that access to multiple texts makes you modernist,
It doesn't, but the way we access to them now is fundamentally different from the past and can't be separated from things like mass production, mass literacy, and how those thing send out ripples into society and affect things like mass politics, democracy, etc. Everything that could be considered part of the 'reign of quantity'. Getting a book today, and for the last couple hundred years, not to mention the kind of person who can acquire them is radically different than say a Christian scholar encountering a Buddhist text in Alexandria 2000 years ago.

> The Traditionalists declared themselves against everything modern for a reason.
You can hate your dad, but that doesn't mean you are not living in his house eating his food. Or posses half of his DNA. Neither does that mean your destiny is ultimately the same as his either for that matter.


>By this logic one could call reactionary movements "postmodern" simply because they exist in the 21st century
I would say that many of the recent reactionary movements we have seen have been exceedingly postmodern, and the term 'Reactionary Modernism' has been in use for a while to describe Nazism. I think the terms are fairly accurate considering that most reactionary movements seek to make horizontal moves into non-dominate schools of thought that are otherwise contemporary with liberal democracy. For all the signalling against 'The Enlightenment' you see online it is humorous how something like Fascism, for example, has roots in the same milieu of Enlightenment era thinkers as the modern democratic nation state. That doesn't make it identical, but it does contextualize it within history.

It simply isn't enough for a person to declare themselves against something to somehow break the chains of it. Neither do those chains invalidate the sentiment or intention to break free, and people who use that line of argument tend to be the jail keepers, so naturally it is in their interest to do so. I use the descriptor of 'modernity' and 'modern' for these reasons, as I still find them the most useful in understanding what I am studying and, in the nicest way possible, it isn't important to me if this upsets others because my end goal is find the truth, not conforming to the linguistic ticks and sensitivities of certain cultures that I don't even belong to. And if I find a descriptor I find does a better job, then I will adopted that in place.

>>17911832
Perennialism and Traditionalism are not the same thing. Start with Guenon's Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines and Coomaraswamy's Hinduism and Buddhism

>>17911857
No

>>17912424
You wish slave

>>17912988
Guenon correctly understood that it is impossible to "convert" to Hinduism. Coomaraswamy explains that Esoteric Buddhism is the form of Brahmanism that is accessible to those outside of the Hindu world/during the Dark Age, so Guenon's choice wasn't between Islam and Hinduism, it was between Islam and Buddhism. He was something of an orientalist who spoke very good arabic and had connections in egypt so it was inevitable that he would arrive at Islam, especially since he believed that the more valid form of Christianity was Eastern Orthodox and thus not accessible to him in France either.

>>17913838
>not accessible to him in France either.
So he decided to become muslim LMAO

>>17913862
It's pretty straightforward

>>17913766
>I am not trying to argue against it. I am trying to understand it as it is, which means I may have interpretations or judgments that others disagree with, or even dislike, as my intent is to know, not just lay down and accept. And I might even be wrong in the end, but I have to try!
The issue is that it appears we disagree but I am not sure why. Which is the reason I asked for more detail.
>It doesn't, but the way we access to them now is fundamentally different from the past and can't be separated from things like mass production, mass literacy, and how those thing send out ripples into society and affect things like mass politics, democracy, etc. Everything that could be considered part of the 'reign of quantity'. Getting a book today, and for the last couple hundred years, not to mention the kind of person who can acquire them is radically different than say a Christian scholar encountering a Buddhist text in Alexandria 2000 years ago.
A reasonable observation, but none of these things are a concern of Traditionalism, at least on the most essential plane.
>You can hate your dad, but that doesn't mean you are not living in his house eating his food. Or posses half of his DNA. Neither does that mean your destiny is ultimately the same as his either for that matter.
No human action occurs outside history, but I am not sure that's a useful observation to make.
>For all the signalling against 'The Enlightenment' you see online it is humorous how something like Fascism, for example, has roots in the same milieu of Enlightenment era thinkers as the modern democratic nation state. That doesn't make it identical, but it does contextualize it within history.
This is a whole separate can of worms, as IMO fascism is one of the most heterogeneous movements to ever exist. My point is that by your logic everything that arises in opposition to something, no matter how distant in content, can be described as a part of the object it is opposing so long as it is contemporaneous - which it necessarily has to be in order to actually oppose it.
>I use the descriptor of 'modernity' and 'modern' for these reasons, as I still find them the most useful in understanding what I am studying and, in the nicest way possible, it isn't important to me if this upsets others because my end goal is find the truth, not conforming to the linguistic ticks and sensitivities of certain cultures that I don't even belong to.
A fine sentiment, but rather hollow if you are actually wrong. Words have meaning. This isn't merely a matter of "linguistic ticks", but rather of accurately describing reality. Your premises are not wrong, but by using this type of language in a decontextualised manner, you are distorting the truth and misleading people, be it accidentally or intentionally.

>>17913838
>Guenon correctly understood that it is impossible to "convert" to Hinduism
That’s not true, he doesn’t say this in his writings, there are actually multiple sects of Hinduism including ones that Guenon cited as traditional like Sri Vaishnavism which provide initiations to foreigners who agree to follows that sects rules and precepts etc

>>17913815
>Perennialism and Traditionalism are not the same thing
What’s the difference

>>17913919
>The issue is that it appears we disagree but I am not sure why.
I believe it is because we are both, to some extent, interested in the Traditionalist writers, but I am not sold on the self-narrative of Traditionalism, what it believes about itself, or how it believes it is situated in the world. However I don't see that as necessarily invalidating, more an unavoidable human trait. The difference between running a race and the positive affirmations one might tell themselves before running it.

>A reasonable observation, but none of these things are a concern of Traditionalism, at least on the most essential plane.
Sure, but they are a concern to me when trying to understand something. This exchange has mostly been about my descriptor of Traditionalism rather than any of its central doctrines.

>My point is that by your logic everything that arises in opposition to something, no matter how distant in content, can be described as a part of the object it is opposing so long as it is contemporaneous - which it necessarily has to be in order to actually oppose it.

Well, I mean, where do you want to draw the line if we are talking about distinctions like Modernity. The term is a historical one, and to an extent arbitrary. It takes on a more Metaphysical quality in traditionalist works, sure, but many of the qualities that would be ascribed to it within this framework arguably predate the time period of historical modernity just as 'modernity' as a descriptor predates both Traditionalism and its specific, niche, usage of the word.

The word can be tricky to pin down in a uncontentious way, which can impede clear communication when the required response to hearing the word appears to be a mandatory hissing and stamping of feet.

>A fine sentiment, but rather hollow if you are actually wrong.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take :)


>This isn't merely a matter of "linguistic ticks", but rather of accurately describing reality. Your premises are not wrong, but by using this type of language in a decontextualised manner, you are distorting the truth and misleading people, be it accidentally or intentionally.

I can accept that as your opinion as it is natural that you would consider my usage of certain terms as wrong when we both approach the same topic with different hermeneutics. We are employing similar terminology on a topic, but with slightly differing definitions. It couldn't be any other way.

>>17914164
>Well, I mean, where do you want to draw the line if we are talking about distinctions like Modernity. The term is a historical one, and to an extent arbitrary. It takes on a more Metaphysical quality in traditionalist works, sure, but many of the qualities that would be ascribed to it within this framework arguably predate the time period of historical modernity just as 'modernity' as a descriptor predates both Traditionalism and its specific, niche, usage of the word.
Modernity is a very specific, although exceedingly broad phenomenon. Consequently, the meaning of the term can adopt different meaning in different contexts. When Traditionalists deal with modernity, they are not inventing something new onto which they attach the description "modern", instead they are dealing with the spiritual dimensions of the general phenomenon. Similarly, the relationship between modernity and antitradition isn't supremely clear cut - modernity is certainly unprecedented in its antitraditional character, but antitraditional currents and events have occurred before modernity and will occur in the future too, even if we surpass modernity.
>The word can be tricky to pin down in a uncontentious way, which can impede clear communication when the required response to hearing the word appears to be a mandatory hissing and stamping of feet.
If we have to really look at things objectively and metaphysically, then modernity isn't really "good" or "bad", it is what it is. From a Traditionalist perspective, it is a fall, hence the "hissing and stamping of feet". No one likes to be tarred with the same brush as that which he opposes.
>I can accept that as your opinion as it is natural that you would consider my usage of certain terms as wrong when we both approach the same topic with different hermeneutics. We are employing similar terminology on a topic, but with slightly differing definitions. It couldn't be any other way.
You are perfectly correct. In fact, I don't think I have found myself in this situation before, where this is apparent to both sides in a discussion, so I am into something of an uncharted territory. I suppose the reason I am still engaged in this conversation is in an attempt to connect with you personally and convince you of the benefit in re-evaluating your terminology. I don't suppose that I have been successful? At any rate, I don't really know where else to take this, if you believe our disagreement is so fundamental and subjective as to make further progress on this topic impossible.