/lit/ - Literature

>Thinly veiled /traditionalism/ general about some irrelevant metaphysics speculation and Hindoo and Sufi name dropping

Kill yourself Guénonfag

>>18478127
fuck is shlvaskchalcaslascrbya?

>>18478140

bump

>>18478127
any good links to any high-quality summary of his thought that can be read online? Google mostly just gives me pages with a few paragraphs at most

is it Ih-bin, I've been saying I.B.N.

>>18478159
Adi Shankara, a Hindu philosopher/theologian

>>18478857
I just have this.
https://youtu.be/1hdgsRdbZfE

>>18478862
I've been saying N.W.A.

>>18478916
Not that anon but I've watched the video and it was interesting, similar to Ibn Arabi but in a more clear or direct way I guess. Also, his "negation of the self" was negation of the illusory self, right? If not, that would be Buddhism but I doubt it, since he talks about illusion or whatever that guy translated as that.

>>18478127
Yes. Why did Guenon attribute his ideas to Ibn Arabi, who is much closer to Ramanuja? Was he retarded?

It's ironic that Ibn Arabi is taken up by Guenon and his sheeple followers. Ibn Arabi is actually one of the thinkers who writes most positively about the body.

Guenonfag will try to cope and fit this into advaita somehow. I don't care. Only lazy skim readers like Guenon and his followers believe Ibn Arabi shills something like advaita.

When people who aren't degenerate Swedish hippies translate Ibn Arabi they realize that he's not Guenon, even less Shankara. Even a child molester like Schuon realized this and tried to distance himself from Ibn Arabi.

>>18479791
Michel Vâlsan, which was probably Guenon's most closest collaborator, attributed that work translated by Agueli to Balayani, which probably was indeed inspired by Ibn Sab'in. Are you gonna stop spamming now?

>>18479929
Yes, and Valsan's student, Michel Chodkiewicz, who produced the only western translation of the Futuhat literally says that advaita is completely foreign to the perspective of Ibn Arabi.

Why was Guenon so retarded? Why did he spread false teachings?

>>18478127
Islam could never possibly lead to enlightenment, none of the Judaic religions can.

>>18479955
>Why did he spread false teachings?
That doesn't change anything, if Ibn Arabi believed different things from Shankara (something which I can't affirm since I never read him and is a very difficult author), and Guenon would agree with it, he would probably say that the former didn't fully understood metaphysics or something on those lines, like he said about Aquinas, without mocking him. There is no Guenon without Advaita and very similar ideas can be found in Islam, from authors like Ibn Sab'in and others.

>>18479996
Sure, why should I trust the muslim sages when I could trust a /pol/fag?

>>18480112
The desert cults are all centered on worship of the Demiurge, not God.

>>18480101
So he never really read Ibn Arabi yet comments on him but that's not a problem. He never really read Aquinas yet comments on him but that's not a problem. He never really read Plato yet comments on him but that's not a problem. He never really read Plotinus yet comments on him but that's not a problem.

>>18480389
>He never really read Guenon yet comments on him but that's not a problem.

>>18480383
ok dharma nation

>>18480432
I've read East and West, Crisis of the Modern World, The Reign of Quantity, Man and His Becoming, Multiple States of Being, first half of Intro to Hindu Doctrines, and some of the miscellaneous essays.

But Guenon's own followers realized he didn't read Ibn Arabi or Aquinas. He admitted to Coomaraswamy he never read Plotinus, yet he feels he can dismiss him. And in all likelihood he never read Plato, but dismisses him wholesale in Intro to Study of Hindu Doctrines.

>>18480473
And I've read a bunch of his letters which are probably inaccessible to guenonfag since he probably doesn't know french.

>>18480473
I don't believe you, show me the proof that you read Guenon.

>>18480543
Almost forgot, I read Chacornac's A Simple Life of Rene Guenon too. Never touched any Schuon though.

>>18480558
lol and I forgot I read his book on calculus too...I only ever bought The Reign of Quantity and Metaphysical Principles of Infinitesimal Calculus. The rest I read as ebooks.

Essentially, I was very impressed by Guenon's anti-modernity trilogy (East West, Crisis, Reign of Quantity) but then I realized what he was really about (crypto-buddhism and annihilation) and immediately disliked him but continued to read him critically because I felt I needed to engage with him honestly before dismissing him. The more I read, the more I realized he's empty and a hack. I began to realize he never formulates great counter-arguments and rebuttals, and most of his argumentation goes along the lines of getting you to take his word for it out of fear of thinking like a modern, or some kind of vague and never clearly defined terminology that sounds cool. Nothing is ever explored in depth, it's all just hinted at and implied in this admittedly fun turn of the century occultist style. You really smell the 1920s antiquarian bookstore vibe in him, and I think lots of people will buy into him because of this without actually understanding his core dogma. The Chacornac biography succeeds well in playing up this atmosphere.

Man and His Becoming was good an exposition of advaita, but again he doesn't succeed in formulating strong counter-arguments. Everything is stated as an eternal fact beyond question, but also beyond deep analysis.

Multiple States of the Being was surprisingly bad. I didn't expect someone who emphasized pure metaphysics so much to write a purely metaphysical book that is so bad. Again, it shows that when push comes to shove he's not a strong thinker.

His book on calculus was also pretty bad. It was just petty seething at definitions, and an inability to see why Cantor could be useful in math. It's hard for me to make a solid judgment since I haven't studied math at the university level.

Intro to the Study of Hindu Doctrines is "FUCK WHITE PEOPLE" the book. Terrible. Lots of sweeping, unsubstantiated armchair history. This was the book that made me realize Guenon was shit. I don't know why Guenonfag recommends it as a starting point. Had I read it to begin with I would have never read anything else by him.

>>18480611
Yeah ok, I just realized that I know who you are and you know me. Now stop spamming on my threads, hylic.

>>18480640
Stop spamming my board.

DON'T FALL FOR THE GUENON MIND VIRUS

YOU'VE BEEN WARNED

>>18480642
So you are you also a jannie? No wonder that my threads get deleted for no reason at all.

>>18480660
MODS = BRAHMAN

>>18480389
>He never really read Aquinas yet comments on him but that's not a problem. He never really read Plato yet comments on him but that's not a problem.
That’s wrong though, Guenon read both Plato and Aquinas and he cites both of them on occasion throughout his works, Plotinus was the only person Guenon said he never studied, why are you lying?

>>18480842
Skim-read maybe. The Borellians (who are still too close to Guenon imo) admitted that Guenon very likely never read Aquinas.

I can't believe anyone who has read Plato deeply will say what he said about Plato in Intro to the Study of Hind Doctrines.

>>18480611
>Multiple States of the Being was surprisingly bad
how so?
>>18480853
>admitted that Guenon very likely never read Aquinas.
What reason is there to think that? Do you think he got anything wrong about Aquinas?

> I can't believe anyone who has read Plato deeply will say what he said about Plato in Intro to the Study of Hind Doctrines.
What did Guenon write that triggered you? I just remember him citing Plato himself admitting that he didn’t understand some of the meaning behind some very old Greek laws or myths or something, I dont see how anyone can be bothered by him citing Plato’s own words and taking them at face value

>>18479791
although Shankara disagrees with Ibn Arabi that the soul’s association with the body is eternal, Ibn Arabi’s statement that “without the bodies specific preparedness, the spirit would be indistinguishable from the Divine Spirit” is actually closer to Advaita than Vishishtadvaita, as in Vishishtadvaita the individual Atman of humans is in no way identical to the “super-soul” or Paramatman of Vishnu, who is said to stand in relation to the individual souls as the human soul stands in relation to the body, Vishishtadvaita teaches that there is an ingrained and irreducible difference and hierarchy between Vishnus Supreme Soul and the humans souls, even when removed from the context of the body, while Ibn Arabi seems to be implying that absent the body there would be no difference.

bump

>>18480842
>>18480905
Guénon didn't read Plato completely. His understanding of Platonism is superficial and we can see it when he makes an incidental remark on platonism, in Man and His Becoming, that was like two lines saying platonism is confined to the realm of being or whatever. Utterly retarded, he probably didn't even know Plato had unwritten doctrines and that he hints at them and says explictly in some dialogues and letters.

>>18480990
You're such a dishonest little pilpuller. You asked me not to post in your threads but now you're replying to my old posts because no one else gives a shit about your lame threads.

>>18481643

>>18480990
>Vishishtadvaita teaches that there is an ingrained and irreducible difference and hierarchy between Vishnus Supreme Soul and the humans souls, even when removed from the context of the body,

To speak specifically to this point, Ibn Arabi affirms it. It's called ayn thabita or immutable/fixed entities.

You keep coping but are always proven wrong. Just stop.

>>18481675

>>18481687

>>18481517
>His understanding of Platonism is superficial and we can see it when he makes an incidental remark on platonism, in Man and His Becoming, that was like two lines saying platonism is confined to the realm of being or whatever.
That's wrong, it seems your understanding of what Guenon was saying about Plato is actually what is superficial, you should be embarrassed. Guenon probably understood Plato better than you do, being that Guenon could read Greek and so he almost certainly read Plato in Greek. The citing of Plato in question in 'Man and His Becoming According to the Vedanta' seems justified. Guenon is not saying there, contrary to your misrepresentation, that Plato's thought is exclusively confined to the realm of being, Guenon is here only comparing Plato's intelligible world to a certain metaphysical concept from Vedanta, he isn't saying that the intelligible world is all of Plato's doctrine. The exact quote where Guenon writes about that is provided below, which shows that he is not reducing all of Plato's thought to "the realm of being"

>By reason of its connection with the mental faculty, the realm of subtle manifestation can be described as an ideal world, to distinguish it from the sensible world which is the realm of gross manifestation. This term however should not be taken in the sense of Plato's 'intelligible world', since his 'ideas' are possibilities in the principal state, which must be referred to formless being (in spite of the over imaginative expressions in which Plato often enveloped his thoughts): in the subtle state we are still only concerned with ideas clothed in forms, since the possibilities which this state comprises do not extend beyond individual existence.
Guenon clarifies what he says about Plato with the footnote in pic related, where he compares the specific Greek word used by Plato where the corresponding metaphysical level in Vedanta, this is not what someone does who has not at least read Plato fairly closely.

>>18481517
>>18481755
>he probably didn't even know Plato had unwritten doctrines and that he hints at them and says explicitly in some dialogues and letters.
That's not true, that's two things which you got wrong about Guenon and Plato in a row. Guenon was aware of the unwritten doctrines, he mentioned them in his essay here below called "Know Thyself".

>Those who have studied the ancient philosophers know well that these latter had two kinds of teaching, one exoteric and the other esoteric. What had been written down belonged only to the first. As for the second, it is impossible for us to know its precise nature, for on the one hand it was reserved for a few, and on the other hand it had a secret character. There would have been no reason for these two characteristic had there not existed something higher than mere philosophy. One may at least surmise
that this esoteric teaching had a close and direct connection with wisdom, and that it did not only appeal to reason or to logic, as is the case with philosophy, which for this reason has been called rational knowledge – the philosophers of antiquity maintained that rational knowledge, that is, philosophy, is not the highest degree of knowledge, is not wisdom.

>It is possible that wisdom could be taught in the same way that exterior knowledge is taught, through speech or through books? This is in fact impossible, as we shall shortly see. But what we can already affirm now is that philosophical preparation was not enough, even as preparation, for it concerns only the limited faculty of reason, whereas wisdom concerns the reality of the whole being. Hence there exists a preparation for wisdom which is higher than philosophy, which no longer addresses itself to reason, but to the soul and to the spirit, and which we may call inner preparation; and it appears to have been the characteristic of the highest levels of the school of Pythagoras. Its influence extended through the school of Plato right up to the Neoplatonism of the Alexandrian school, where it clearly appears anew, as well as among the Neo-Pythagoreans of the same period.

https://www.scribd.com/document/191132860/Rene-Guenon-Know-Thyself

>>18481704

>>18481755
>Guenon probably understood Plato better than you do, being that Guenon could read Greek and so he almost certainly read Plato in Greek.

Hahahahahahaha

take meds

have any of u dudes read this? highly comfy with sth for everybody, there's islamic scholars, pagan vikings, turkic horseman, you name it.

>>18481755
You are right, he is not actually confining all of platonism to the realm of being. But still, all Guénon says about platonism is confined to it. He never mentions anything worth being mentioned by anyone who has studied platonism. And obviously he didn't know more than me about plato, as I said, he never even studied the main teachings of Plato: unwritten doctrines, nor Plotinus, the best interpreter of platonism, as Proclus affirmed.

>>18481811
Guenon literally said all of Plato's dialogues amount to "banal conclusions." He's a hack and a skim-reader.

>>18481760
>Guenon was aware of the unwritten doctrines
Sure, we is he saying anything about Plato's agrapha dogmata? Where does he say anything about the platonic Dyad?

>philosophy, is not the highest degree of knowledge, is not wisdom.
Retard, do the opposite of Guénon and actually read The Republic. The philosopher is already concerned with suprarational intellection. Guénon was right about a few things but a complete retard whenever it came to some terminology, the guy who fought modernism bought into the very degeneracy this period made in relation to philsoophy to disqualify it altogether.

Nothing there explictly elaborates on anything. It just says, well Plato taught, like Pythagoras, esoterically. That's it. He didn't even know what was taught.

>>18481816
Where does he affirm this? Genuinely curious.

>>18481844
Intro to the Study of Hindu Doctrines, the book his Sanskrit teacher thought was retarded.

>Fundamentally there are not two separate and radically different worlds, as modern philosophy suggests when it qualifies them with the names of “ subjective ” and “objective,” nor two superimposed worlds like the “intelligible world ” and the “ sensible world ” of Plato ; but, as the Arabs say, “ existence is unique ”and all that it contains is but a manifestation, in multiple modes, of one and the same principle, which is Universal Being.


>It was only among the Neo-Platonists that Eastern influences were again to make their appearance, and it is there indeed that certain metaphysical, ideas, such as that of the Infinite, are to be met with for the first time amsng the Greeks. Until then, in fact, the Greeks had only possessed the notion of the indefinite, and “ finished ” and “ perfect ” were synonymous terms for them — a particularly characteristic trait of their mentality ; for the Orientals on the contrary it is the Infinite which is identical with.


Why was he so retarded guys?

>>18481643
>You asked me not to post in your threads
That wasn't me, not everyone who finds you annoying at times is the same person.
>but now you're replying to my old posts because no one else gives a shit about your lame threads.
I just post in threads related to topics that I find interesting without overthinking it and I don't concern myself with who created what thread, don't involve me in your autism please. I just want to discuss the topic because I find it interesting.

>>18481643
Nothing I said was dishonest, I was just making a reasonable observation based on a statement which Arabi himself says, I'm not an expert on him but the phrasing "indistinguishable from the Divine Spirit" doesn't leave much room for equivocation. If you think you know better than all you have to do is just explain otherwise, you don't have to throw a fit. How is what I said pilpul? You don't even seem mature enough to be posting about this topic tbqh but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

>>18481675
>To speak specifically to this point, Ibn Arabi affirms it. It's called ayn thabita or immutable/fixed entities.
Okay, can you explain how to reconcile this with his statement that “without the bodies specific preparedness, the spirit would be indistinguishable from the Divine Spirit?” That implies that it is God's very act of making the soul a servant, by removing it from a state of oneness "from which it never returns" and which Arabi calls "their first state" and placing it into a body, thus making it a 'servant' that is subservient to the 'Lord; which is ultimately responsible for making the soul distinguishable from the Divine Spirit, it seems he is saying that God produces souls out of himself from his original oneness. But that without God doing this and and placing them into bodies and thus making them servants, that they would be indistinguishable from him because of them remaining in their original state of oneness. And this is in a way somewhat closer to Advaita, it's not directly equivalent to Advaita but there are similarities, although it's in opposition to a core tenet of Vishishtadvaita. Since in Vishishtadvaita the souls are never fully equivalent to the Lord's soul/oneness itself and then ejected from that state never to return, as Arabi sasy about the soul, but the souls are beginningless parts of Vishnu's body which never indistinguishable from Vishnu Spirit to begin with, unlike in Arabi.

>>18481675
>>18482026
Arabi = God is original oneness, God at a certain point in time ejects spirits from their original oneness and puts them as his servants inside bodies
Vishishtadvaita = God is atemporal all-encompassing oneness, however the souls never have a state of complete oneness or indistinguishability with the total Oneness of Vishnu, they are never directedly equivalent to the totality of the oneness, nor of the Highest Spirit. They separation from this was always the case, it was beginningless, their separation and estrangement from being indistinguishable from God was forever true without any beginning, and also endless.

Advaita isn't directly equivalent to Arabi, but in both Advaita and in Ibn Arabi, there is a traceable thread which connects the individual soul to being within the oneness of God, being indistinguishable from him. In Advaita, this thread is traced ontologically, in Ibn Arabi, this thread is traced temporally. For Advaita the jivas existence as such is also beginningless like Vishishtadvaita, but as you ascend up the hierarchy of their metaphysics, as all distinctions disappear, the soul inside every being is ultimately identical with the totality of God itself, at the same time that it appears to be place inside the human body, thus it can be traced up the hierarchy of being in a non-temporal ontological sense. For Arabi it is temporal and follows the model of original creation and emanation/ejection.

What unites Advaita and Ibn Arabi is that the both posit an existing traceable chain that links the human soul to a state of oneness, of indistinguishability from God, either temporally or ontologically, but this traceable chain is completely absent in Vishishtadvaita. Rather, in Vishishtadvaita, in an ontological sense and temporally extending forever backwards and forwards in time, the human soul never attains oneness or indistinguishability from God. I've only read passages of Ibn Arabi on pdfs online and by no means am a student of his works, but this is just my passing observations about something that seems to be shared between Advaita and Arabi, which Vishishtadvaita lacks.

>>18481965
Do you have an example of Greeks prior to the Neoplatonists speaking about the infinite in the sense Guenon uses it, which would be an example of him being wrong? I'm curious.

Also, he is not saying there that Plato's unwritten doctrines didn't extend beyond the intelligible world and the sensible world, he is just in that instance contrasting the eastern conception of a metaphysical notion with on one hand the modern philosophical sense of "subjective and "objective", and on the other hand the distinction between the intelligible world and sensible world that is presented on a surface-level in Plato's works, which presumably a larger amount of educated readers of Guenon would be more familiar with instead of the more arcane Neoplatonic speculations about Plato's unwritten doctrines that go beyond this. Guenon isn't saying there either that all of Plato's doctrine and understanding is reducible to the intelligible/sensible distinction.

>>18482026
>>18482033
You're coping so hard right now, it's not even worth responding to. Reread the excerpts and then reread what you just typed. You're an idiot and I'm honestly not even memeing or trying to trigger you. You're simply trying to convince yourself.

I am literally speechless at the sheer wilful ignorance and damage control guenonfag is trying to pull with regards to the excerpts from Ibn Arabi that explicitly and unequivocally admit and insurpassable distinction between servant and Lord.

There are moments when you realize the person you're debating with is a complete tard and very likely insane. This is that moment for me. Get a trip so I can filter you. You're not worth my time.

>>18482075
Yes, read Plato's dialogues.
The distinction between the intelligible world and sensible can only be properly understood when one grasps the intimate relation between epistemology and ontology in platonism. There were already many eastern ideas in Plato which Guénon didn't notice because he didn't read him. And no, we don't have mere speculations about Plato's unwritten doctrines, we have exactly what was taught orally with testimonies by Aristotle and other disciples.

>>18482155
I wasted hours of my time yesterday discussing with him and he could only resort to those endless posts with the same advaita repetitions about non dual consciousness and how this is a consciousness but has no consciousness of itself as relating to itself, etc. The guy is really batshit crazy.

>>18482102
>You're coping so hard right now, it's not even worth responding to
How am I coping, I'm just making an observation about how there is a thread connecting human souls to the oneness of God in Advaita and in Ibn Arabis sufism. I don't greatly care about Ibn Arabi, I have never read any of his works from beginning to end and I have no attachment to him. There are other Sufi thinkers who are closer to Advaita, RC Zaehner calls al-Ghazali "A non-dualist of whom Shankara himself would have been proud" . It's not important to me to demonstrate that Ibn Arabi is identical to Advaita because I always knew he wasn't and there are other Sufis who are closer. At the end of the day, nobody is identical to Advaita but Advaita, I was just speaking about a commonality shared between them because I find it interesting, that's hardly coping. You seem to think in memes all the time like a zoomer.
>You're an idiot
how?
>You're simply trying to convince yourself.
convince myself of what? I'm just making an observation that seems to be correct and that I thought was an interesting parallel, there is no greater narrative that this observation is a part of
>>18482155
>sheer wilful ignorance and damage control
ignorance or what? damage control for what?

>>18482190
>I wasted hours of my time yesterday discussing with him
Wrong, I refuted your sophisms and pointed out how what you were saying was violating basic logic, like when you pretended that awareness was synonymous with nothingness.
>but has no consciousness of itself as relating to itself
Because if there is just a self-aware consciousness whose self-awareness is its very nature, that self-awareness is not a relation which consciousness relates to because things simply *are* their nature without being in a relationship with them, because relationships require *two things* and a thing and its nature aren't two things but they're identical, this in itself doesn't make that self-awareness non-aware or nothingness until you use sophisms.

>>18482102
>Reread the excerpts and then reread what you just typed
If there is anything particularly objectionable then you can point out what's wrong, there's no point in empty posturing

>>18482209
>RC Zaehner calls al-Ghazali "A non-dualist of whom Shankara himself would have been proud" .

>>18482229
>violating basic logic
dude you were the one literally saying that what you were explaining was not discursive and could only be understood beyond reason and logic, but still affirming it was pretty logical

>self-awareness is not a relation
yes, the nature of consciousness is relation, and you will deny it because you're brainwashed with atheistic conceptions.
you are literally affirming the reflexive nature of consciousness (expressed in self, SELF, -awareness, that is, turning back to itself) and denying it. you make consciousness unaware of itself.

fuck off go pray to your guru sam harris

>>18482243

RC Zaehner has a whole chapter in his book "Hindu and Muslim Mysticism" that is called "Vedanta in Muslim Dress" in which he talks about various Muslim thinkers whose positions are like Advaita Vedanta, names in addition to al-Ghazali that he identifies are Abu Yazid of Bistam (Bāyazīd Bisṭāmī), al-Ḥallāj and Abū Saʿīd Abū'l-Khayr

on page 167 of the book, in the chapter on al-Ghazali, RC Zaehner in speaking about al-Ghazlis most esoteric work "Mishkat al-Anwar" writes

>Now in the Mishkat he says that the type of mystical experience enjoyed by Abu Yazid and Hallaj is called 'tawhid in the language of truth'. Tawhid in the context is probably meant to mean no more than the 'affirmation of the divine unity', but in the Fadail al-Anam, which is a commentary in Persian on the Mishkat, he reveals at last the 'secret doctrine' of tawhid. Here he argues that two things can never become one: for either both exist, in which case they are not identical; or one exists and the other does not, in which case again there is no identity; or they both do not exist, and in that case there is no identity either. So 'perfect tawhid means that nothing exists except the One'. Here at last Ghazali forgets to worry about the orthodoxy he usually chooses to parade, and declares himself a non-dualist of whom Sankara himself might have been proud. Atman is Brahman, and Brahman is atman; the soul is God, and God is the soul. This is his 'secret doctrine' and his 'reality of realities'. Yet the fana he speaks of is the first fand of Junayd, the destruction of bashariyya, of all the human qualities that bind the soul to a body, all its mental, emotional, and sensitive apparatus. The terms ittihad and hulul, which imply an original duality, are thus seen as not being extreme enough, and the metaphors Ghazali uses in the Kimiya and elsewhere like the comparison of God and the soul to the sun and its rays, are mere approximations to the full monistic truth.

>>18482275
>>18482275
>dude you were the one literally saying that what you were explaining was not discursive and could only be understood beyond reason and logic, but still affirming it was pretty logical
I guess you didn't understand or pay attention to what I said, I said that the *direct experiential knowledge* of it was non-discursive, but that the intellectual/theoretical knowledge of it, which is different from the direct experiential knowledge of it, is discursive and can be framed and defended in rational, logical terms.

>yes, the nature of consciousness is relation, and you will deny it because you're brainwashed with atheistic conceptions.
That's not an argument, that's just blindly asserting your position as correct, Advaita disagrees with this. Simply stating that you agree with other people that the nature of consciousness is a relation is not itself an argument against the self-aware Awareness which Advaita is speaking about, that doesn't refute it. You are just using circular reasoning when you presume your own position as true and then try to claim other stuff is refuted because it disagrees, that's like the equivalent of Christian presuppositional apologetics in the context of phenomenology. It's the same loopy circular thinking.
>you are literally affirming the reflexive nature of consciousness (expressed in self, SELF, -awareness, that is, turning back to itself) and denying it. you make consciousness unaware of itself.
I'm not denying it, I'm just saying that Awareness is aware of its own nature, which is self-awareness, and that there is no difference between the Awareness and its awareness of itself as self-awareness (i.e. its self-intuiting presence), and that this can all be true without Awareness being in a relation with anything else, and that this idea isn't illogical. The reflexive or self-directed nature of awareness I am speaking about refers to the fact that it simply intuits its own nature directly instead of being directed to anything else, that the awareness is reflexive precisely because it intuits itself (directed back upon itself) instead of intuiting something else. This doesn't make it nothingness, because its not the complete absence of everything, not does it make that Awareness unconscious, because its self-intuiting of itself means its self-conscious of its presence. This 'being self-conscious' is its very nature instead of being a relation that connects one term with another different term.

>>18482323
He is reading way too much of Shankara into Ghazali. See this passage from the Munqidh.

>>18482413
>*direct experiential knowledge* of it was non-discursive
which you said was COMPLETE knowledge.
Either knowledge is what it is completely or it is not knowledge.

>the rest of your post
already refuted by me in that previous threads, you maintain the same repetitions, coping in the same manner

>>18482418
Also

>>18482424
>Either knowledge is what it is completely or it is not knowledge.
I don't accept that premise, it's foolish. If that were true then no mathematician in history could ever say that they "know math" or "have knowledge of math" because none of them ever grasped the entirety of mathematics by themselves, but this is absurd. By extension no doctor knows medicine, that no musician knows music and so on. In any case that's not demonstrating a contradiction or illogical thing in Advaita doctrine, that's just fostering on me your own idiosyncratic usages of words.

>already refuted by me in that previous threads
Wrong, I pointed out already how you rely primarily on sophistically changing the meanings of words to non-accepted usages that violate logic, and on the other hand of using circular reasoning whereby you do the equivalent of presuppositional apologetics with phenomenology

>>18482488
The fact is that we are not dealing with mundane knowledge (despite your advaita being really just atheism), its knowledge is simple and intelligible - literally intelligibility itself. If it is not complete then it is not what it is, you cannot have partial knowledge of it because it is not contingent on the world, matter, etc.

>Wrong
You are wrong, I proved how consciousness is not what the atheistic conception of advaita vedanta posits by explaining with logic and based on many different doctrines.

>>18478163
up there with kant in terms of goblinness

Hey muslims is the Quran uncreated?

>>18483940
both;
hypostatic union between Allah's eternal speech and the incarnation of that speech in the form of physical-material Quran

>>18484023
You have 2 uncreated things in islam? Allah and the Quran?

>>18484126
the quran is the recited eternal word of god

>>18484133
So God was reciting verses about a guy named Mohammed before the world existed? I guess Allah needs creation for his words to come true

>>18484145
yes, god caused everything you dumb christshit

>>18484148
Lol so you have 1 and 2 uncreated things? Uh oh that's 2 things possessing the nature of God. You just committed shirk

>>18484151
where did I say that you retarded christcuck

>>18484160
Calm down. You said Allah is eternal and the Quran is eternal. Is Allah the Quran?

>>18484165
why should I calm down when talking to a christcuck sophist?

>>18484175
Why cant you answer my question without personal attacks?

>>18484175
seething so much you insult Christ, sad.

>>18478916
This guy looks like a vegan. He desperately needs to eat meat.

>>18484195
>christcuck can't read
figures
you insult christ by equating him to god

>>18484208
instead of putting (pbuh) after his name, as Islam suggests, you put (cuck) and (shit). Filthy

>>18484218
christcuck means christian
you can stop with these sophist gotchas, they don't work

>>18484232
filthy mouth for a filthy soul

>>18484232
Why are you so dumb theres 2 different people replying to you. Can you please answer my question. Why do you have 2 uncreated things in islam?

>>18484248
not as filthy as your mom's cunt

>>18484251
god's word isn't separate from him, it is simply revealed (and recited) as the quran

>>18484251
Because you are a faggot, now shut up and get out my thread, until I post a pic of your face so all guenonbros will make fun of you.

>>18484257
>not as filthy as your mom's cunt
your ''religion'' has done nothing for you. spiritually or intellectually.

>>18484257
>god's word isn't separate from him, it is simply revealed (and recited) as the quran
the voice that Gabriel heard was that the actual eternal, uncreated voice of God or was it another creature making sounds? If it was the uncreated word of Allah then Allah entered into creation. If it was a mere creature, like another Gabriel then who did he get the recitation from, an infinite regress of creatures reciting a message Allah never spoke to any of them personally. You can't answer this, you are stuck in a knot.

>>18484257
>>18484262
Resorting to threats because your religion has zero theology that can stand on it's own. Do it faggot i dont care.

Allahs word is eternal. Your book is eternal. You have 2 eternal things. Thats shirk, enjoy hell.

>>18484276
They are told not to ask such questions, because the implication leads them to shirk lol

>>18484281
Exactly anon lol, that's why it's fun to put it in their face

>>18480611
>Intro to the Study of Hindu Doctrines is "FUCK WHITE PEOPLE" the book. Terrible. Lots of sweeping, unsubstantiated armchair history. This was the book that made me realize Guenon was shit. I don't know why Guenonfag recommends it as a starting point. Had I read it to begin with I would have never read anything else by him.
Yeah I recently re-read this and came to a similar conclusion. Some parts on perennialism are a decent introduction but it was obviously written when he was young and bitter.

>>18484274
>noooooooo you can't say bad words because... you can't ok? it says so in the biblerino

>>18484276
>threats
you an ESL or something? the only threat here is your threatening me with hell

>Allahs word is eternal
yes
>your book is eternal
the book (mushaf) is a written record of the revealed word of god (quran)

>>18484281
>>18484287
bronze age goat herders are smarter than you
pretty sad desu

>>18484294
>And We have revealed to you, [O Muúammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ.
>5:48
This says the Quran is the kitab

>>18484301
>still hasnt refuted a single point and can only resort to personal attacks
Ask me why I dont care about your opinion abdul

>>18484322
quite literally refuted every single one of your posts lol

>>18484329
When? By saying christcuck over and over?

>>18484333
no that's just the cherry on top

>Allah can't enter into creation
>but he entered into creation to whisper something to Gabriel personally

>there's nothing in creation like Allah
>but our created Qurans are like Allah's uncreated eternal Word

>there's nothing in creation like Allah
>but I'm going to signify his uncreated properties with created properties like justice/mercy, existing/non-existing, power
lel

>>18484292
>fuck white people
Really? What about Guenon's good opinion about the Middle Ages? And when it comes to Antiquity, he just considered the greco-roman world to be overrated(the moderns love them btw, even though they don't understand their spirit), but when it came to other europeans, like the Celts, he had a very good opinion about their symbolism and druidism. Guenon said many times that when he talks about westerners in a bad way, he referred to the modern westerners.

>>18484340
who are you quoting?

>>18484340
the standard narrative has holes in it
(theological and historical)

>>18484335
Allah is uncreated. Allahs word is uncreated. The Quran is Allah's word. The Quran is a book. Thus Allah is also a book. If I rip up your quran I rip up your God.

Refute that I'm still waiting.

>>18484358
He can't make such nuanced distinctions because he's just told ''Allah is one'' and ''nothings like Allah'' and that's his whole theology

>>18484356
>the standard narrative
all esoteric "narratives" are wrong

>>18484358
>Thus Allah is also a book
your brain on gayreek logic

>>18484340
>>there's nothing in creation like Allah
>but I'm going to signify his uncreated properties with created properties like justice/mercy, existing/non-existing, power
What position is this critique even coming from? Even believers in divine simplicity like Aquinas agree you can speak about God using this kind of language.

>>18484363
nuanced doesn't mean right, christshit
in fact it's the exact opposite 99% of the time

>>18484370
>t. seething Muslim that cant defend islam
Your pedophile prophet would be proud

>>18484374
>p-pedo!
only one here seething is you, christcuck, lol

> 116
> 20
also not /lit/
you fucking retarded janny, clean this shit up.

>>18484358
What a childish literal way of thinking, how can you even be so stupid? Guenonfag refuted you YEAR AFTER YEAR and you are still posting the same nonsense, now attacking non-dualist Islam instead of Hinduism. You are just a pathetic loser.

>>18484379
Why did your prophet marry a 6 year old?

>>18484341
You're correct about his later writings, but in that early book he keeps hammering on that no classical European expression came close to the Hindus, "and if they even did it was just a coincidence", it just gets tiring after a while. And keeps insisting that it's due some inherent spiritual deficiency in European peoples. He became more nuanced later.

>>18484356
>the standard narrative has holes in it
alhamdulillah

>>18484381
>paragraph of seethe
>no refutation
>argument from feelings
Classic Muslim

>>18484382
because he was keyed

>>18484388
>>argument from feelings
aren't you the one seething about muh pedophilia?

anyone who rejects Guenon is a murtad

>>18484394
I just brought it up to mention how disgusting your religion is. Excusing this away shows how evil you are anon

>>18484397
>disgusting
>evil
emotional buzzwords

>>18484400
But not wrong

>>18484400
Yes raping a 9 year old is objectively disgusting.

>>18484404
>wrong
emotional buzzword

>>18484383
I think he had this type of attitude because of the times in which he lived, when the modern europeans saw the greeks and romans aa their predecessors because they "invented" democracy, civilization and so forth. So Guenon's more radical expressions were like a reaction against this and a defence of the orientals which were highly misunderstood by the materialist West, and treated like barbarians.

>>18484409
>desperate Muslim repeating themself

>>18484394
>muhammad when he sees a 9 year old ''woman'' or his son-in-laws' wife

>>18484406
can't rape your wife
marriage is consent

Remember muslims! The cure for lust is to let the men suck your wifes tits

>>18484414
>noooooo you can't repeat the truth!

>>18484416
he was light skinned

>>18484422
Repeating yourself without adjusting to the argument makes you look like a retard.

>>18484413
Yes I understand where it comes from, you're absolutely right, but the book is often mentioned as a good introduction to Guenon and I think (just like the anon I replied to) that it isn't for that reason, although there's some good chapters on perennialism and hinduism. If I had read it first I probably would have been somewhat put off, now I can place it in its proper context.

>>18484428
what's your argument?

>>18484417
>6 year old ''woman'' consenting
goat logic

>>18484409
No, objective reality

>>18484436
your feelings aren't objective reality

>>18484434
I'll repeat it for the 5th time for you. Allah is uncreated. Your Quran is also uncreated. If you dont have 2 uncreated things, then the Quran is part of Allah. Why is your God a book?

>>18484442
raping a 9 year old goes against human nature itself
we are wired to be attracted to women who have gone through puberty not pre-pubescent children
but i don't expect muslims to understand this because they fuck animals

>>18484442
But they're not my feelings, they're objective reality. My feelings just happen to be consistent with it.

>>18484449
>but i don't expect muslims to understand this because they fuck animals
This is so funny to me, "nooo you can't eat pork that's haram", then proceeds to fuck a goat. Lmao

>>18484457
Lmao but what do you expect from these people? Muhammed had to give them legalized prostitution via marriage with nikah mut'ah because they couldn't stop themselves from raping women

>>18484449
>we are wired
so you're an NPC?

>>18484457
stop circle jerking

>>18484443
>Allah is uncreated.
yep
>Your Quran is also uncreated.
yep
>If you dont have 2 uncreated things, then the Quran is part of Allah
yep
>Why is your God a book?
he isn't

>>18484449
If Muhammad (pbuh) was a pedophile how did he withhold having sex with Aisha for 3 whole years (from ages 6 to 9) ? A pedo would have given in to lust, this just shows how much self-restraint the Prophet (pbuh) had, and how the relationship was about love and charity; and your attacks miss the mark.

>>18484477
LOL
>my prophet isnt a pedo because he didn't rape a 6 year old he waited until she was 9

>>18484474
Are you saying it's not common practice among young muslim men to fuck goats so that they don't go around raping women instead?

>>18484470
>nooooooooo not the heckin roasterinos!
why do christcuck basedboys empathize with women?

>>18484474
>>If you dont have 2 uncreated things, then the Quran is part of Allah
>yep
>>Why is your God a book?
>he isn't
how did Allah's transcendent speech enter into creation, without Allah entering into creation himself?
You keep making affirmations without justifications.

>>18484491
he's god he can do whatever

>>18484489
Imagine thinking sympathy for fellow humans is a valid angle of attack

>>18484495
So you can't reconcile those problems in Islam. And now you just admitted God can incarnate, cool.

>>18484511
no I didn't, you christcuck sophist

>>18484501
>[emotion]

>>18484422
>he was light skinned
with ugly physiognomy

>>18484531
every mosque I've been to had really ugly, deformed people, is it because of inbreeding?

>>18484534
>is it because of inbreeding?
Of course. The only normal looking muslims are those of "recently" converted peoples like Chechens.

>>18484534
the secular answer would be inbreeding, the real answer is once you start worshiping the doctrines of demons they make your soul dirty, your mouth dirty, and your appearance dirty. see this muhammedan seething >>18484524 >>18484257

>>18484531
nah he is described as handsome
also that guy probably "mogs" you, to use the christcuck term

>>18484541
only christcucks are seething (about based islam) ITT
I'm just laughing at their retardation

Islam means submission (to rapists and pedos)

>>18484544
Yeah sure you are abdul

keep seething christcucks

>>18484546
christcuck reduced to feminine whining
pathetic

>>18484542
>>18484544
the seething muzzie resorts to cope
>nah he is described as handsome
I mean so is Kimg Jong Un but look at that fucker lmao
>only christcucks are seething
Not all of us are christians, christians are nearly as retarded as muslims. You both larp as jews.

>>18484550
>some of the worst parts on earth even the natives hate living there
Based.

>>18484550
>>18484551
Bro go take a walk outside (if you can evade the bombs), you're absolute shaking and fuming behind your keyboard right now, it's not good for your heart

>>18484552
>Not all of us are christians
you're not a buddhist, you're a bored christcuck lol

>>18484559
I'm neither, but to be fair I'd rather be a buddhist than a jew larper

>>18484555

>>18484557
>g-go away
I accept your concession

>>18484550
ataturk was a feminist liberal

>>18484550
>>18484563

>>18484565
Ik, he destroyed to Ottoman Empire, modernist scum

>>18484564
>concession
I don't think you know what that word means, but what did I expect from a goatfucker. It;s obvious you're seething so hard lmao

>>18484576
you conceded when you were destroyed by facts and logic and reduced to angry babbling

>>18484587
seething

>>18478862
It's ih-bin, means "son of" in Arabic

>>18484591
>reduced to monoverbal replies
I win

>>18484587
>christcuck reduced to feminine whining
>keep seething christcucks
>facts and logic
lmao, I'm surprised you can still spell words correctly the way you're shaking so hard

>>18484598
>I win
lmao the absolute state of muzzies

>>18484601
>>18484603
>incoherent christshit babble

>>18484609
Ibn Fi'bbin
Ibn Fa'ppin
Ibn See'thing

>>18484609
>no u
You would have a point if you didn't do the exact same, goatfucker

>>18484619
>>18484621
>incoherent christshit babble

>>18484491
>how did Allah's transcendent speech enter into creation, without Allah entering into creation himself?
>You keep making affirmations without justifications.
Good question.

>>18484495
>no justification. no nothing.
this is where you lost the debate.
If you were Christian you'd have no problem explaining how God manifested to Adam and Eve, or to the Angels or incarnated as Christ. But since you have a deformed version of God taken from the Greeks you can't answer these basic questions.

>>18484635
>how God manifested to Adam and Eve
why did god "incarnate as christ" when he could just manifest?

>>18484632
>everyone who disagrees with my retarded takes is a christian
yeah this is why no one takes you "people" seriously

>>18484647
what are you then? hint: atheists/agnostics are just lazy christcucks

>>18484635
>But since you have a deformed version of God taken from the Greeks
AHAHAHAHAHAHA I JUST READ THIS PART
A CHRISTIAN SAYING THIS LMFAOOOOOO

>>18484641
>why did god "incarnate as christ" when he could just manifest?
ultimately because he willed to, and he's free to that. Also different means for different ends; the incarnation of Christ had specific soteriological ends to fulfill, while God's manifestation as theophanies (burning bush or walking in Eden) had different ends. But we have no problem explaining how God's revelation went from the transcendent mind of God into created reality, God can literally enter reality and speak to his creations. But this problem remains in Islam.

>>18478127
He was certainly another stinkpile Calcutta slum sucker. This isn't a Mudslime board you Mossad agent fraud.

>>18484707
your post boils down to "because it says so in the biblerino, it doesn't have to make sense"

>>18484706
My dude you're absolutely fuming and shaking, I'm worried for your blood pressure

>>18484722
I'm shaking with laughter

>>18484726
so now you're a hysteric woman too? Why am I not surprised

>>18484719
Our position makes sense since we don't put God in total opposition to the world, as if entering it would defile him. Islam makes this mistake thereby creating a contradiction between Allah's properties (his transcendent Word) and revelation within creation (quran).

>>18484739
no I'm a man and I'll never be a woman (and that's a good thing)

>>18484706
Islam posits an absolutely transcendent being who can't enter into creation, yet one of his transcendent properties (his Eternal speech) somehow entered into creation and ended up in books, and those books can tell you what Allah is like. Yet Islam also says nothing in creation is like Allah.