/lit/ - Literature

>>19238792
Any other Traditionalists/inspired by Traditionalism: Evola, Commarswamy, Eliade, Cobrin (somewhat), Nasr, Burckhardt, Perry, Smith, Palis etc

>>19238792
Schuon is a pedophile syncretist just like every other traditionalist LARPer

Capitalising nouns to make them seem more important and magical is one of the most reliable ways to spot a pseud.

"La diferencia fundamental entre la Obra de René Guénon y la literatura de Frithjof Schuon estriba en la concepción que de la religión tienen ambos autores. Mientras que Schuon concibe el esoterismo como una hiper religión, Guénon aclara a lo largo de su obra (y su correspondencia) que ambas pertenecen netamente a distintos órdenes y niveles de la realidad. Al caer en tan tamaño y deliberado error, Schuon crea una situación que confunde y asimila la religión a la metafísica, impidiendo la efectivización de esta última, negando así su existencia que es en definitiva la única posibilidad verdadera que le cabe al ser humano, ya que ella es la realización del Conocimiento, por la que le toca al hombre el papel de mediador que le ha sido acordado"10.

https://symbolos.com/s23mgarc.htm

>>19238792
This
>>19238830
With an emphasis on Evola, Coom, Eliade and Burkchardt

>>19238904
Selfie Suicide is a crime against literature.

>>19238792
ananda coomaraswamy
rene guenon
toshihiko izutsu
henry corbin
martin lings
rama coomaraswamy
leo schaya
titus burckhardt
jean borella
jean hani
jean bies
wolfgang smith
joseph epes brown
michel valsan
charles-andre gilis

>>19238792
Guenon, Evola, and A.K. Coomaraswamy are more direct and lucid. Schuon likes to dress up his language in over intellectualized and feel good words.

>>19240057
all hacks

>>19238792

>>19241245
they hacked through the obscuring Matrix of the Kali Yuga to reveal the underlying Sophia Perennis

>>19241265
something about perennialism attracts kooky boomer midwits

>>19238792
So, we have to admit Schuon and the Traditionalists are the only people able to see this "invisible" and "underlying" religion? Is that the underlying premise of his project?

>>19241677
Even kooks sometimes know the truth when it is presented to them clearly

>>19241762
No, they would say that this underlying religion is to be found also in the sages of different religions, but you have to cherry pick it.

"My heart has become capable of every form: It is a pasture for gazelles And a monastery for Christian monks, And the pilgrim's Ka'ba, And the tablets of the Torah, And the book of the Koran. I follow the religion of Love: Whatever way love's camel takes, That is my religion, my faith."
Ibn Arabi

>>19241251
larp

>>19241832
Strange. Because nobody talked about any "religio perennis," not even the ancient sages that created said religions before the enlightened folks of the Traditionalist horde disclosed reality for us.

>>19242935
Prisca theologia was huge during renaissance dumbass

>>19242935
The parable of the blind men and the elephant is ancient.

>>19242935
imagine getting filtered by terminologyamxd

>>19243089
Not even close to the scope of the Traditionalist project.

>>19243205
It implies no one really knows the absolute truth, it doesn't imply there's an underlying religion to be exposed by an elite of pseuds. If anything, the parable of the blind men and the elephant shows Guenon and his followers are full of crap like everyone else.

>>19243531
Imagine believing the bullshit of a group of larpers.

>>19243574
Guenon didn't claim he was the way to the primordial tradition.

>>19243655
He's implicitly the only way since he's the first and the only to understand it the way he does. Although he never said that explicitly because he's not retarded and knows what he's doing and presenting himself as a new messiah or a guru of the world would turn off intelligent people -- which are clearly his target. By not saying it he can reel people like you more easily.

>>19243574
what about you start following a traditional religion and stop being so angry?

>>19243697
This makes no sense. Guenon was initiated into a Sufi order, which means he had a spiritual father with real authority over him. Someone who thinks he's a Messiah would never submit to such authority.

>>19243817
His life story pretty much shows he never really had any allegiance to anything and tried to take opportunities here and there. From the Gnostic Church, to Freemasonry, Hinduism up until he finally found a place to live by and be respected among the Sufi. Nowhere in his works you can find definitive proof of his full allegiance to Islam as he is characteristically ambiguous with his attitude towards Catholicism and Freemasonry. Guenon is a shady figure that nobody really knows his true intentions and probably just accepted being initiated into a Sufi order for the sake of survival.

>>19243574
>It implies no one really knows the absolute truth
No, that’s wrong. It’s source is ancient Hindu, Buddhist and Jain texts of India and not secular literature, and in all three of these instances its used in their literature in the context of there being an existing real absolute truth which people will not understand fully without being connected with the right teacher or instruction.

>>19243890
>It’s source is ancient Hindu, Buddhist and Jain texts of India and not secular literature
Yeah, relativism was thing in China and India more than 500 BCE. You didn't know that?

>>19238792
How do traditionalists deal with Darwinism? doesn't the fact that we're just monkeys negate the idea that there is some transcendent, perennial Tradition™ that humans should use as the center of their personal spiritual growth and to guide their civilizations? if we're just monkeys then who cares? what's the point?

>>19243890
>all three of these instances its used in their literature in the context of there being an existing real absolute truth which people will not understand fully without being connected with the right teacher or instruction.
And this the reason why people should avoid Traditionalist crap like the plague. Please, read the actual texts and get lectured by actual Buddhists, Hindus and Jainas instead. All of this is made up crap by desperate Westcucks superimposing their existential fears on cultures that would laugh at their effort and call it, you guessed, LARP.

>>19243913
They reject evolution. They think the world was completely different in previous eras.

>>19243948
Krishna straight up says in the Gita offerings to other gods go to him in the end. The Lalitavastara features Hindu gods and demons. It's really only the Abrahamic religions that take the view they alone are the absolute truth.

>>19243948
>Please, read the actual texts
I have and they say exactly what I claimed. In Buddhism the metaphor is used by Buddha when he says that the Vedic ritualists are like blind men who don’t know the absolute truth which he claims to know. In Jain texts its used with reference to the ‘many-sidedness’ of reality or Anekantavada, and only Jain saints or Arihants are supposed to know the absolute reality behind this and be able to teach others about it. In the Hindu Upanishads a type of this metaphor is used to explain how the Absolute reality of Brahman appears variously to people who have not been properly instructed in the truth. In all three of these instances, the textual source of this metaphor presupposes an existing absolute truth, the metaphor doesn’t mean that there is no absolute truth whatsoever; you’re probably a pseudointellectual who just read the wikipedia page and thought that was it.

>>19244252
>the textual source of this metaphor presupposes an existing absolute truth, the metaphor doesn’t mean that there is no absolute truth whatsoever
And this exactly were your Traditionalist LARP goes bad. All of said traditions you mentioned are trying to teach people about the necessity to go beyond the barriers do dualistic notions, and whatever you may call truth is simply part of the dual scheme. They're not worried about leftists claiming there's no such thing as truth because, in fact, most leftists loathe this notion as much as you do. But since Traditionalist garbage is too worried about modernity -- which is a shitty fear mongering residue left from Continental philosophy, really --, they superimpose Westcuck impotency on things that really have no saying in what they're trying to teach. Reading those texts with a guenonian mindset isn't going to help either because you're not reading Buddhism or Hinduism, you're reading Tradcuckery.

>>19243913
They see it the other way around. To them, chimps came from humans, and humans are the first humanoid species to have ever exist. In other words, the series of species we have thought to have to have evolved into humans, have actually devolved from humans.

>>19244300
>All of said traditions you mentioned are trying to teach people about the necessity to go beyond the barriers do dualistic notions,
That’s wrong you pseud. Jainism is a dualistic tradition and so is Theravada/Abhidharma Buddhism, they reject the Mahayana claim of Buddhism being non-dual. And the dualist Hindu schools argue that the Upanishads dont teach non-dualism; so what you say isn’t in the least true. In the instance of that parable in the Buddhist Pali Canon it has no relation to dual/non-dual whatsoever but is just made as part of an attack on the Vedas.
>and whatever you may call truth is simply part of the dual scheme.
Not if that truth itself is the doctrine of non-dualism, i.e. what most of the first generation of the Traditionalist school wrote about, you really are clueless

>>19244383
Looks like you don't really believe in religio perennis, huh?

>>19244333
That's a bit scary. I will never see a monke the same again.

>>19244439
I do, but the Traditionalist school version of it, where not every single minor religious sect and tradition teaches the same eternal metaphysical truth, but some do so directly, others teach more indirect approaches to it, and others yet still just get it wrong. Even the ones that are wrong can still act as the long route to God though according to how non-dual metaphysics work, because even if you believe the wrong doctrine as long as you are devout and develop purity or heart and mind it can lead to you transmigrating into a future life where you’re more likely to be born into a tradition that has the full metaphysical truth or a fuller explication of it. That not every single minor and major religious tradition/sect correctly teaches what the ultimate truth is in its esoterism is made clear in most of the books of the Traditionalists; you would know that it you had even read them you pseud; but instead you repeat the same dumb misinformed criticisms that every clueless idiot makes.

>>19244502
Sounds like a big cope to me. You either admit there's no such thing as religio perennis and this all pseudo-mystical larp or negate all dualistic religions to exist or to be correct. You can't have both without falling into performative contradiction and using a different argument against a different person when the time is right -- like you did to me just now. Stop juggling people around with your bullshit and take religion seriously if you really want something to do with.

>>19238792
We're in hell OP, all there is to it (read: simple as)

I advise all men that browse this board and that seek truth to stop coming here. You see what it devolves into right here, in this very thread. Particularist, philosophy 101 early 20's knowitall's that define their whole being through debating ad nauseum and the memorizing of facts and data without being able to give them structure, or to even identify structure. Young men should look for older men to talk to about these topics. If you seek to butt heads with other young men, do the honorable thing and fistfight. How sad.

>>19244641
>Young men should look for older men to talk to about these topics
based pederast

>>19244549
>You either admit there's no such thing as religio perennis and this all pseudo-mystical larp or negate all dualistic religions to exist or to be correct.
That’s a false dichotomy, and anyways the dualistic religions typically end up teaching non-dualism once you get past the exoteric shell and examine their most esoteric writings
>You can't have both without falling into performative contradiction and using a different argument against a different person when the time is right -- like you did to me just now.
Yes I can, because in dualistic religions, typically non-dualism is taught by multiple of their important esoteric schools. And the ones that have no non-dualism whatsoever like Jainism are fringe and barely followed by anyone anyway.
>Stop juggling people around with your bullshit and take religion seriously
I do, fuck off with your entry-level brainlet arguments which show that you’ve never read these authors or any notable amount of the primary sources they cite.

>>19244300
>>and whatever you may call truth is simply part of the dual scheme.
non-dualism doesn't contradict dualism, retard, is just above it in the same way as metaphysics is above rationality without being irrational. read Guenon.

>>19246292
>is just above it
how's that? i never quite understood how non dualism can negate and overcome dualism at the same time

>>19243871
>just accepted being initiated into a Sufi order for the sake of survival
that's not how you handle a initiation tho, thats is the sign of a casual doing iniciatic tourism

>>19243948
>All of this is made up crap by desperate Westcucks superimposing their existential fears on cultures that would laugh at their effort and call it, you guessed, LARP
this so much

>>19244383
>dualistic tradition and so is Theravada/Abhidharma Buddhism
not really, buddhism in general and theravada in particular are more akin to a idealist school

>>19246603
There is no non-dualism without dualism. First you have to win against the devil in the dualist domain, after that you can transcend it. All spiritual paths require practice and you can be tempted on your path. Our aim is to attain the state before the fall, before the "knowledge of good and evil". We are born in the fallen state so we can't get out without dualism, this are the rules of our dark age.

>>19246646
>after that you can transcend it
but wait, if there's a dual world and a non-dual world, wouldn't that be a dualist cosmos? since there's a dual/non-dual duality as trascendental principle

>>19244641
based

>>19244252
but all those examples also imply that the other traditions are wrong, closer to the true but wrong in the end, according to buddhism the wheel of dharma started to turn when buddha awakened so every other sage or saint was just all correct, according to every upanishad shcool tehre's atarscendnetal god which goes against buddhistetacing, jain karma theory is totally different from buddhist karma, eah school have more differences than similarities

>>19246680
Non-dualism is an understandings of reality based on a spiritual state. There is just one cosmos. Your opinions about non-dualism are very predictable and very literal. Do you think that non-dualists across the ages were so retarded that they weren't able to see the opinion which you hold? Cause this is what it implies, if your simplistic opinion is right.

>>19244775
>I do
you do? did you get initated in any tradition? are you actually practicing any esoteric path with a teacher or at least following the exoretic rules of conduct of any religion?

>>19246735
okey and how they respond to that? because i think is a reasonable argument

>>19246735
>Do you think that non-dualists across the ages were so retarded that they weren't able to see the opinion which you hold?
you're gonna use an argumentum ad verecundiam to defend your argument? that's a fallacy bro

>>19246759
it was more of an attention mark than an argument, I already explained what non-dualism means

>>19246785
but you didn't explain how non-dualist resolve the inherent paradox in the system

>>19246735
>>19246785
didn't shankara explained non-dualism logically? wouldn't be easy for you to refute logically his point without an argument from authority?

>>19246881
which argument from an authority did I used?

>>19246887
>>19246735
>Do you think that non-dualists across the ages were so retarded that they weren't able to see the opinion which you hold?

so? which arguments non-dualist have to adress this problem?

>>19246910
I already said that it was an attention mark and not an argument. I said also other things apart from this, but you seem to ignore them, you are interested only in having a discussion with a negative conclusion. Once again proved that people like you are not worthy of my attention.

>>19246881
>didn't shankara explained non-dualism logically?
lol no, shankara "logic" is just a bunch of contraditions,conceptual errors and what wittgenstein called "play on words" buddhist phenomenology is vastly superior

>>19246938
i meanis not that hard, you just have to answer how the dual/non.dual duality isn't actually a duality

>>19246955
You mistake the non-dual for a monad, that is, unity. That is not the non-dual. The non-dual stands beyond the opposition of unity and multiplicity.
It's exactly this misunderstanding that leads midwots to Gnosticism. I've argued this in plenty of threads. There simply seems to be a threshold that many people can not cross in metaphysical understanding.
Also, it is foolish to get so worked up over and obsessed with words. Words will not lead to enlightenment. You use them to draw yourself an ontological map. After that you'll have to leave the drawing board and walk. Metaphysical speculation is important,and most people here lack the ability to even understand properly what non-duality is. They misunderstand, they get haughty. They're silly. After speculation, action. But if you can't even speculate properly, well, then just abandon this discussion.

>>19246950
Shankara BTFO Buddhism, Buddhist “phenomenology” is just sophist relativism with false reductionist views of consciousness

>>19246638
Abhidharma and Theravada admit an irreducible existing multiplicity

>>19246721
>but all those examples also imply that the other traditions are wrong, closer to the true but wrong in the end,
Yes, which I already made clear in my posts when I mentioned Buddha attacking the Vedas for example. The only point of me citing these examples was to disprove the other posters false assertion that the elephant and blind man parable just means that “there is no absolute truth”. Now, there are *other* passages in those texts which imply an openness to perennialism, but they are not the elephant and blind man examples.

>>19246865
It’s not a paradox, empirical reality involves multiplicity and is dual, but this whole empirical reality is superimposed upon the underlying non-dual reality

>>19246991
>You mistake the non-dual for a monad, that is, unity.
no, not really, monism has nothing to do here, if non, duality is beyond duality, then how is that not some sort of "meta-duakity"? your argument don't solve this problem
That is not the non-dual. The non-dual stands beyond the opposition of unity and multiplicity
if it's "beyond" itthat imply two sgements, one above and one below, and that's by definition a dualistic cosmology

how shankara resolve this problem?

>>19247104
>It’s not a paradox, empirical reality involves multiplicity and is dual, but this whole empirical reality is superimposed upon the underlying non-dual reality
yes it is, you're impling two separate formats of reality and that's dual
every dualsitic cosmology has this same problem, all of them pourpouse one reality is superimposed upon the other, but that just imply that the dualism works in a hierarchical way, in which one reality works beyond the other, but alas still there's still two realities, one being inferior ontologically to the other don't make the system any less dualistic, most dualistic systems are hierarchical and have one reality as more "real" or correct than the other, just saying one is superimpsoed will not help your point at all

>>19246991
>Also, it is foolish to get so worked up over and obsessed with words. Words will not lead to enlightenment
says the guy who get's triggered every he heard the words, emptiness or sunyata

>>19247119
Haha oh fuck you're really not up to the task are you. Lmao, how pathetic. Go read and meditate

>>19247182
That was my first post, imbecile

>>19238792
What a load of bullshit.

>>19247231
why is so hard for you to answer this question? i actually want to know how shankara resolve this problem, in a lot of this non-dualism thread all advaita posters say that shankara articulated non-dualism in a logical way, so i guess he should have addressed this problem, why is so hard for you to just say what was shankara solution to this problem?

>>19247094
that's not dualism

>>19247339
If Samsara and Nirvana are not negatable or sublatable in some way but remain two independent principles then its a kind of dualism

>>19247128
>yes it is, you're impling two separate formats of reality and that's dual
No it’s not, because one of them isn’t reality, it has no reality whatsoever. You mistakingly assumed they formulate this so as to imply a second reality but they dont. All the rest of your post proceeds from this same misunderstanding of yours.

>>19247387
To add, when they say “empirical reality” its taken for granted that this is just a concession to make speaking about it easier without adding elaborate qualifications to every sentence; but they specify that it lacks any reality (which only the absolute reality of Brahman has); it’s not nothingness either but belongs to the third ontological category of falsity, or mithya.

>>19247363
nirvana is not an independent principle,it is a state of consciousness

>>19247387
>>19247428

okey, but then how advaita defends that this reality actually don't exist? what kind of proof does it have? and how's actual reality is different from sunyata? if this reality which is not reality at all is defined by the existence of properties, true reality must have no properties
or mulitpilcity thus making it indistinguishable
from emptiness

has india created anything in its entire history other than religion?
seems kind of strange that a place can be that spiritual and absolutely nothing else

>>19247428
but that's by definition dualistic, you're proposing two worlds, one real and one "false"
>it’s not nothingness either
even you recognize that the false world exist in some way

this idea of a false world and a ultimate reality is one of the most common ways to conceive a dualistic cosmology

>>19247506
Indeed. Culture matters.

>>19247506
>has india created anything in its entire history other than religion?
Yes

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_inventions_and_discoveries

This thread is so painful to read. Some people really shouldn't read philosophy.

>>19238792
I dare any of you pseuds to unambiguously explain what this quote actually means
Sounds like unfalsifiable babble

>>19247330
I never claimed to be a vedantist?

>>19247330
there's no answer, vedanta in general and shankara's metaphyisics in particular are laughably bad, hid's whole criticism of buddhism is he thinking the pratiyasamutpada is a onthological theory when in reality is a gnosiological system, and his whole non-dualism school is a metaphysical cop out relaying in circular reasoning(see his idea of pure awarness)
atthe end of the day advaita vedanta is just another dogmatic sect, like any other rationalist school(in the east or the west) that put awarness above experience, ends up falling into blind dogmatism and faulty logic and metaphysics

>>19248697
so you can't answer the question

>>19242911
filtered

>>19248812
So Vedanta is the non plus ultra of non-duality?

>>19247475
>okey, but then how advaita defends that this reality actually don't exist?
Advaitin philosophers make many such dialectical arguments against the reality of difference, these are detailed in multiple books which if you want I can give you the names and relevant chapters of, this topic is a subject in itself; at the end of the day though these are unnecessary, there role is to supplement the Advaita position and not prove it since Advaita maintains that non-duality is not subject to logical proofs; they accept it first and foremost on the basis of scripture. Advaita does show that their doctrine is logically consistent and free from contradictions but they dont try to provide positive proof of every little thing from the ground up, and they say that such systems which attempt to do so inevitably involve errors. They provide arguments refuting that we perceive truly existing difference but this in itself doesn’t prove that Advaita as a system is true. At a more basic level you can only confirm that your own awareness is real and nothing else, although their arguments go far beyond this basic point.
>and how's actual reality is different from sunyata?
Sunyata has no independent existence and no awareness, the absolute reality of Brahman is conscious and has independent existence.
>if this reality which is not reality at all is defined by the existence of properties, true reality must have no properties
True reality of Brahman is considered to have its own transcendental nature that is beyond worldly properties; Awareness and infinitude are not objects of awareness that we encounter in the world, i.e. aren’t worldly.
>or mulitpilcity thus making it indistinguishable from emptiness
Wrong for reasons explained above
>>19247518
>but that's by definition dualistic, you're proposing two worlds, one real and one "false"
Nope, dualism means two enduring and opposed principles, a multiplicity which is not reducible or sublatable; that which doesn’t truly exist presents no opposition to that which does, since in true reality there is just the one Absolute reality. From the perspective of that true reality, there is no 2ndness of maya/mithya/falsity. There only appears to be such when subject to transmigration but when someone is liberated and their body dies their awareness remains the one reality alone with no 2ndness anymore. The 2ndness is sublated, and from the perspective of absolute reality there was never any maya to begin with. i.e. from the perspective of absolute reality there forever is non-duality alone by itself
>even you recognize that the false world exist in some way
not when existe is used in its absolute sense as Advaita does

>>19248808
> there's no answer,
There is, you just have to either read what they write themselves or have enough of an attention-span to read several paragraphs explaining it.
>vedanta in general and shankara's metaphyisics in particular are laughably bad
No it’s not
>his whole criticism of buddhism is he thinking the pratiyasamutpada is a onthological theory
First off that’s just one of his critiques of Buddhism, he also shows out how their theory of mind makes no sense and is contradicted by our experience; and in any case when Buddhists deny that Brahman or Isvara can be the origin of the universe and put forward dependent-origination as a substitute explanation, they themselves justify making this criticism of Buddhism. Even if Buddha didnt say this, the Buddhists of Shankaras time and before him did.
>and his whole non-dualism school is a metaphysical cop out
nice buzzwords
>relaying in circular reasoning(see his idea of pure awarness)
No it’s not, they provide arguments against the objects of awareness either being identical with awareness or a truly existing different thing, which supports the conclusion that what is always immediately apprehended is pure awareness free from difference