/lit/ - Literature

>>19525077
The serpents in the iron tower have revealed to me that Brahmā is a mere apparition of the Vairocana Buddha whose entire body is the emptiness and form of the cosmos. You are retroactively refuted

No one cares. Guenon is a meme you fell for.
>inb4 general seething
All intelligent /lit/ posters ignore Guenon threads.

>>19525077
Can we even say that syncretism is a modern phenomenon? We could affirm that what is essentially modern is a kind of artificial mixture equivalent to the production of modern cultural industry, as is obvious in music. But in the end it happens that even in the hellenistic period, the growth of syncretic cults had its origin in social-political factors as well. And this is the main point of contention I have with Guénon and other theologians/metaphysicians. Their disregard of matter leads them to be oblivious to the intimate relationship between the political-social and the religious, proposing a certain idealistic purity. This is common too, conversely, with the brutish scientific materialists, who disdain any significance of the phenomenological implications of the consciousness of the sacred.

>>19525077
didnt read but he look like this nigga lmao

>believe that Christ is God or you will end up in hell

>>19525077
i find it hard to believe there's an unbroken line of succession from adam to today's "initiates" going back to 'hyperboreans' and atlanteans (then adam and so on). my issue is about this claim of tradition transmitted through an unbroken initiatic line. everything guenon says falls into this. if he did not believe eastern traditions shared the same root he would dismiss them so there is no value in them per se but in the fact they are branches from the same root.

now if we look at the greeks for example socrates says the uninitiated are those that are materialists and deny metaphysics. from pythagoreans to plotinus there doesn't seem to be an unbroken line, same for iamblichus and porphyry to proclus.

they might have reached a common point, but i dont see it as evidence there is an unbroken line.

>>19525174
Guénon was against the mixing of traditions. Yes, he agreed that some traditions were influnced by others but he didn't agree with practicing multiple traditions at the same time.

>>19525077
>he takes oriental metaphysics as the basis for the absolute truth
>Oriental metaphysics (mainly Advaita Vedanta and Taoism) is the absolute truth.

this is wrong. as i said in >>19525198 they only have value insofar as they share the same traditional wisdom that would be traced back to the 'hyperboreans'. even christianity is part of the tradition according to guénon, and he cites the three magis visting our Lord Jesus as an evidence for this.

>>19525198
I don't find the neo-platonists very relevant here. The ancient greek mysteries were initiatic. Also, initiation can also come from a prophet, because it implies a divine initiation.

>Hyperborea
>Atlantis
Based schizo.

>>19525237
"Hyoerborea" just means that primordial tradition, the chinese speak about a primordial tradition an so do hindus. This was a huge amount of time ago, if you believe that these traditions are true, they might have a common source and they all speak about it anyways. Also, the traditions which we have today are adaptations of the primordial tradition, to fit the mentalities of the respective time and races.

>>19525077
>Oriental metaphysics (mainly Advaita Vedanta and Taoism)
I thought by "oriental" you meant Islamic. I was under the impression that "Traditionalism" was rooted in this Quranic doctrine: "And verily We have raised in every nation a messenger, (proclaiming): Serve Allah and shun false gods" (16:36).

>>19525198
if i've understood correctly there has been established several new initiatic lineages since the time of Adam, as different avatars have descended into our world and brought with them a spiritual influence throughout history

>>19525262
>Also, the traditions which we have today are adaptations of the primordial tradition, to fit the mentalities of the respective time and races.
adaptations? i dont that's what guenon thought. for guénon adam had a link to the primordial traditions before the current cycle.

the whole guenonian idea revolves around this idea of an unbroken line.

>>19525263
OP seems biased against abrahmic religions but as guénon says all religions are geographically oriental and that includes the three abrahamic religion.

apparently many of these guenonians do no read guenon

>>19525263
according to Guénon, oriental metaphysics includes sufism(only the metaohysical aspect of Islam) but I didn't want to bring that in since some disagree with its universal aspect and I don't want the discussion to go into another direction

>>19525277
Yes, adaptations. I can't recall exactly where he said it but I am sure he did. Also, Guénon dates the fall of Adam to the destruction of Atlantis, which is closer to us in time than the primordial tradition. The Bible doesn't include our whole Manvantara, but interesting enough, there is a hadith which says that before Adam there were many other Adams or something like that, Guénon saw that as a confirmation for what I said.

>>19525291
yes that's from the king of the world, but since guénon traces adam's line to atlantis there's the link to the supposed primordial tradition. so i don't see adaptation as a good term. it is part of the tradition as long as the transmission keeps going, that according to his views

i see no reason to believe any of this

>>19525311
What about the prophets? Doesn't revelation implies adaptation? Adaptation doesn't mean innovation or something like that. There are different sacred languages, different mentalities, different rites, all of these are adaptations of the primordial tradition.

>>19525352
yes. i thought you meant adaptation as in an willful act to adapt and not as the nature of how revelation works. naturally every prophet also expresses as a member of his culture

Primordial tradition Guenon speaks of is the "Golden Age" of paganism. All spheres of life from modern science to modern religion in one way or another dwell on mythological mindset, which was most prominent precisely at the time. It knows no duality at all, for myth doesn't differentiate between sensual and metaphysical, spiritual and material, good or evil etc. The truth that is contained in myth is intrinsic to it, but nothing exists beyond it either, so you could say it is the very embodiment of truth itself. You could equate it with Life - again, not with just its metaphysial or material aspect but with absolutely everything there is, 'illusory' or 'real'. This mindset has never been lost nor is it fading; all superficial conflicts you see are basically just clashes of different, secondary mythologies. Their prevalence is always temprorary, for not being part of Life they cannot exist at all. And that's why, applying empty abstractions to themselves, they are inherently aimed at self-destruction, pronouncing duality in one way or another and either hating conventional 'soul' (materialism) or 'body' (most religions, including Adavaita Hinduism and partially Taoism), ultimately failing to see that they are one and the same. So in the end they either develop until they coincide with the initial 'mythological mindset' (see Mahayana Buddhism and its equation between Samsara and Nirvana, late Neoplatonism which stated nothing other than The One can be cognised, or to some extent hesychasm in Orthodox Christianity, which implies unity with God not just in soul but in the body too) or vanish. Since Life is all-encompassing, it is impossible to interpret, which means all the prophets who had ever existed made a fatal mistake when they tried to do so - their interpretations were attempts at regulating Life with logic, which is impossible, since the latter only exists in the former. And the real goal of religious practices isn't "returning to the oneness", but just openeing one's eyes to something that has always been there. Consequently all of the above said means that when "initiating", one shouldn't differentiate between categories of exoteric and esoteric or reduce a religion to its illusory metaphysical implications - the core of Guenon's syncretism and the reason why traditionalism flails before the actual tradition - but think as if nothing exists beyond this religion, and it is only then that faith becomes knowledge.

>>19525481
>Consequently all of the above said means that when "initiating", one shouldn't differentiate between categories of exoteric and esoteric
Guénon does this only to better explain the stages. There is no practical difference in his point of view and what you say. Is literally the same path.

>>19525571
>Is literally the same path.
I don't think so. Guenon openly neglects religion's external side to the point of completely disregarding it if it contradicts his Adavaita-based metaphysics, whereas they exist as a single entity which cannot be differentiated. What Guenon strives for is some form of objectified knowledge, whereas I say realms of objectivity and subjectivity don't exist at all. He clearly distinguishes religious and metaphysical tradition, and opposes the former to the latter as the means of its achievement. And I say nothing exists besides religion - or, to completely honest, besides myth.

>>19525652
incorrect, guenon was adamant that you cannot practice esoterism without first being integrated in the exoteric system that surrounds it, which is a fairly obvious requirement.

>>19525652
He doesn't oppose it but considers religion to be a support for the spiritual realization. Is obvious to me that there is a big difference between the spiritual state of someone who is "saved"(Guénon wrote that this state can be comparable to that of the vegetal, mineral and animal worlds) and that of moksha. From a techincal point of view, Guénon is explicit and right. What you say about religion and myth can only complicate things and cause the confusiom between salvation and liberation.

>>19525685
>guenon was adamant that you cannot practice esoterism without first being integrated in the exoteric system that surrounds it
Only in the gradual sense, and ever since one could enter esoteric circles he could dismiss exoteric parts if necessary. That's why he was apologetic of Western esoteric orders which engaged in practices renounced by The Bible.
>>19525731
>He doesn't oppose it but considers religion to be a support for the spiritual realization.
Yeah, that's what I consider an opposition. I don't think opposition in this sense inherently applies being diametrically opposed (sorry for play on semantics) but rather just being distinguishable.
>What you say about religion and myth can only complicate things and cause the confusiom between salvation and liberation
is actually a counterpoint between my views and Guenon's, since he believes it is something to be achieved whereas I think it is the initial state of being that one just needs to make himself aware of.

I wouldn’t call myself an opponent but I have reservations about René Guenon and these so-called Traditionalists generally. Why is it that you believe I have to provide an alternative in order to explain my reservations and their cause anyway?

>>19525481
>all the prophets who had ever existed made a fatal mistake when they tried to do so - their interpretations were attempts at regulating Life with logic
I’m not sure I agree with that.

>>19525799
>I think it is the initial state of being that one just needs to make himself aware of.
This is also what Guénon thinks but since you must become aware of it, you have to practice an initiatic tradition.
>It is then, but only then, that one can speak of the being “who is in himself his own law”, because that being is fully identical with his sufficient reason,WHICH IS BOTH HIS PRINCIPIAL ORIGIN AND FINAL DESTINY.

>>19525481
There’s several claims in here that there will be obvious problems with. For one, where do you get your notions of “Golden Age of paganism” and the “initial mythological mindset”? Where do you get this notion of all encompassing life? You have to be aware of religion which proposesly precisely that which is more than life, after life, and/or beyond life.

>>19525837
Why?
>>19525841
I don't criticise "initiatic tradition", what I speak against is Guenon's principal division between exoteric and esoteric. I'm repeating myself but I believe considering religion (myth) somehow other than in its entirety is reductive.

>Now tell me what interpretation of those traditions do you suggest?

One that isn't based on the 19th century cringe known as nationalism, since nation states didn't exist back then

>>19525888
Is that what prophets do? Apply logical arguments? It seems to me that a prophet is a fountain of divine revelation. I don’t necessarily see that as “logic” or “applying logic”.

>>19525913
Are you calling Guénon nationalist?

>>19525920
>akshually God is a deductive of the logical substratum you mere sophomore

>>19525923
The vast majority of his cringe followers certainly. Especially the naked gayboy by the pool

>>19525930
He says the nation state is a consequence of the modern lack of tradition in the western world, stating the west does not even constitute a civilization currently. He's very far from being a nationalist, more like an anti-nationalist.

>>19525888
Guénon also considered it in its entirety. If that wasn't the case, why would he stress out his support for the caste system, sacred law and so forth? This thing are part of the tradition as a whole. What Guénon did was to make the difference between what the hindus call the supreme and the non-supreme, unmanifested and manifested.

>>19525943
Doesn’t change the fact that the vast majority of perennialists online are cringe wignats who pretend that ‘their’ neo-pagan religion is only for people with a certain amount of melanin

>>19525930
you are retarded, Guénon never supported nationalism or fascism

>>19525963
The majority of Guénon's readers are french or mena boomers, get out of 4chan

>>19525963
a consequence of evola and his gay followers destroying guénon's reputation

>>19525963
I have never seen a single Natsoc perennialist. I have seen some "esoteric hitlerists", which I suspect is something of an inside joke, and I have seen Christian, atheist, and neo pagan natsocs. It doesnt even make sense.

>>19525974
You know what, maybe >>19525981 is correct. Evola is the real problem. One can hardly discuss ancient European traditions or Vedic traditions online without retards turning into some sort of materialistic / racial thing

>>19525989
They exist. There’s some on the less popular imageboards

>>19525991
Well, try mentioning Hyperborea or Atlantis and the tread will get full of larpers and schizophrenics. Honestly, I am not a fan of Evola but his fanbase is worse than him.

>>19525871
>“Golden Age of paganism”
It's a conventional term I really came up with on a whim, think of it as the beginning of human history.
>initial mythological mindset
That's more or less a common concept. To put it bluntly it is the embodiment of what reality was to ancient people. Basically every study on mythology talks about it, but I think it was best formulated by Losev in "Dialectics of the Myth".
>You have to be aware of religion which proposesly precisely that which is more than life, after life, and/or beyond life.
Yeah, and what I mean by capital L "Life" is the form of being which encompasses all these simultaneously, making them indistinguishable. I don't think this concept can be properly formulated to begin with since applying any secondary definitions to it will make it lose its universality, and it cannot be described the same way Neoplatonists or Christians described God via negative definitions either since it would encompass all of these too. So naturally it'd be struggling for me to properly explain it. At the basic level just think of the Samsara = Nirvana postulate, like I said.
>>19525920
Not in the same sense as in "formal logic". What I'm saying is that by trying to articulate what they saw they bounded themselves to the formalities of language, and pretty much everything that goes through speech in any way or form gets rationalised. There's a Zen motto which goes like "It is possible to explain satori only to those who have already experienced it", I think it correlates with what I'm saying.
>>19525960
>supreme and the non-supreme, unmanifested and manifested
And I've been saying for a while that separate existence of these is illusory. But to address your point directly Guenon favours exoteric Hinduism just because its his ideal model of a religion - metaphysics ratio. And every time this model doesn't reflect in other supposed Traditions he's all up for negligence of exotericism in favour of esotericism. I mean my example with Christianity still stands.

>>19525999
Are any of those image boards any good, incidentally? I used to sometimes browse this Russian one called depreschan but it was, well, depressing.

>>19526050
The post quality is on average much higher and the PPH is a lot lower. I use those sites more than 4chan honestly because there are less normalfags. A lot of them are just endless /pol/ shit but some of them are nice and comfy for certain topics and niches

>>19526043
>And I've been saying for a while that separate existence of these is illusory.
Why? What possible justification is there for claiming this?

>>19526072
I take it you're reluctant to name them here?

>>19526160
Read Damascius, he goes about it in detail. To put it shortly though it's because the manifestation itself is undefined and thus exposes the problem of infinite number of manifestations required for original one to truly be manifested.

>>19525077

>>19525077
Guenon gives no reason to believe in the first place that Oriental metaphysics is the truth. Someone like Hegel has a far more encompassing understanding of different traditions.

>>19526178
>Read Damascius, he goes about it in detail.
I'm highly skeptical that what he is specifically discussing presents any issue for Advaita, as he had no knowledge of Advaita and none of the doctrines of the western world in that era are close enough to Advaita to the point where criticizing their theory of manifestation would damage Advaita by extension. In any case, if you read and understand his argument then you should be capable of explain why it's relevant for Advaita here.
>To put it shortly though it's because the manifestation itself is undefined
Undefined in what way?
>and thus exposes the problem of infinite number of manifestations required for original one to truly be manifested.
Why and how? What is the necessity for additional manifestations?

>>19526165
One gets autobanned for mentioning most of them.

>>19526234
>Undefined in what way?
Illusory Maya is being manifested or projected by an absolute reality which is Brahman, and how this projection comes about in the first place is what's undefined. It's just considered as a fact.
>Why and how? What is the necessity for additional manifestations?
Because a certain duality between Brahman and Maya exists, since one is real and one is illusory. In order for manifestation to take place it must be overcome at the level of manifestation itself, because otherwise reality and illusion can co-exist as metaphysical categories and division between them becomes meaningless. So what we have is a manifestation that must possess a character of being neither fully illusory nor fully real, because if it isn't it just ultimately remains in the realm of either Maya or Brahman. But that means that this manifestation must also be manifested since it cannot exist on its own outside of absolute reality while not being illusory. Then this applies to the new manifestation as well and so on.

be very careful when interpreting guénon. basically no traditionalist (schuon, whitall perry, nasr, burckhardt, rama coomaraswamy, wolfgang smith, upton etc) believes in what /lit/ advaitins preach about the annihilation of the personal self they fantasize about.

there are lukewarm self-hating nihilists among us who proselytize their void cult that is opposed to the heavenly blissfulness of union with God. they take the apophatic path as an end not as a mean

>>19526300
>Illusory Maya is being manifested or projected by an absolute reality which is Brahman, and how this projection comes about in the first place is what's undefined. It's just considered as a fact.
No, that's not true. Shankara specifies throughout his commentaries that it's the inherent nature of Brahman to always effortlessly project maya. So, maya is explained as being contingent upon Brahman who unchangingly projects maya from beyond the domain of time, causation, space etc, these categories are themselves part of what is being projected. To try to ground maya as emerging from something else in temporal or spatial terms is missing the point that you seeking to locate its origin where you won't it, where it doesn't come from.
>>Why and how? What is the necessity for additional manifestations?
>Because a certain duality between Brahman and Maya exists, since one is real and one is illusory. In order for manifestation to take place it must be overcome at the level of manifestation itself, because otherwise reality and illusion can co-exist as metaphysical categories and division between them becomes meaningless.
You have two very vague sentences here, what do you specifically mean by "overcome at the level of manifestation itself"? What would be an example of that?

And what do mean by "reality and illusion can-exist as metaphysical categories and division between them becomes meaningless"? Are you trying to say that "admitting illusion as a valid category makes it real and hence makes it belong to the 1st category"? If so that's wrong, simply admitting falsity to be a category doesn't affirm that what is false to be true or real. That's like saying "oh, if you admit that telling lies exists as something which people can do then every lie told by someone is actually true because it exists". Just because falsity (mithya) is affirmed by Advaita to be different from both reality and complete nothingness/non-being doesn't automatically entail the conclusion that falsity is synonymous with truth, in fact this is an illogical claim to make. The fact of falsity/mithya/maya being contingent upon what IS Real is enough for falsity to have the relative being that it has, it doesn't need to be included within the category of the Real (which is a contradiction) but only needs to be contingent upon it, which is exactly where Advaita places it.

>>19526300
>So what we have is a manifestation that must possess a character of being neither fully illusory nor fully real, because if it isn't it just ultimately remains in the realm of either Maya or Brahman.
That's incorrect, because in Advaita the division is between 1) Reality, 2) Falsity (maya) 3) Unreality/nothingness; so maya is in fact fully illusory because the illusory can only ever be placed in category #2 and not in #1 (Brahman) or #3 (nothingness). Maya is neither reality (Brahman) nor Unreality (nothingness, in which case we wouldn't experience it), but its the middle ground in-between them, it is like the indefinite in relation to the metaphysical infinite.
>But that means that this manifestation must also be manifested since it cannot exist on its own outside of absolute reality while not being illusory. Then this applies to the new manifestation as well and so on.
Well, this argument is based on the above misunderstanding of Advaita and maya; when you say "maya must be manifested since it cannot exist on its own outside of absolute while not being illusory" that's actually completely wrong, maya *CAN* exist outside of absolute reality while being completely illusory, PRECISELY BECAUSE... the illusory is that which is neither absolute reality nor complete nothingness. All of this would already have been clear if you had read a moderate amount of Shankara

>>19526406
>Shankara specifies throughout his commentaries that it's the inherent nature of Brahman to always effortlessly project maya. So, maya is explained as being contingent upon Brahman who unchangingly projects maya from beyond the domain of time, causation, space etc, these categories are themselves part of what is being projected.
This is literally what I'm saying. I don't enter the realm of time etc. since I'm considering this projection in terms of the absolute. And if you refuse to consider it altogether it just becomes dogmatic.
>"overcome at the level of manifestation itself"? What would be an example of that?
What I'm saying is manifestation (given that by manifestation I mean HOW Maya is projected and not Maya itself) must possess certain characteristics which could also be applicable (in the sense that you could say "yes" or "no" to them) to Brahman, namely not-real, illusory and real. You stated them yourself.
>And what do mean by "reality and illusion can-exist as metaphysical categories and division between them becomes meaningless"
No, I'm not saying what you're imaging, I'm saying that if manifestation doesn't take place Maya and Brahman become one. But in order to avoid that what you called contingency upon Brahman must exist as is (!) because otherwise the only way Brahman could project Maya would be by being Maya itself.
>>19526413
>That's incorrect, because in Advaita the division is between 1) Reality, 2) Falsity (maya) 3) Unreality/nothingness; so maya is in fact fully illusory because the illusory can only ever be placed in category #2 and not in #1 (Brahman) or #3 (nothingness)
I don't know why you think I imply anything else. If you thought that by "manifestation" I meant Maya then it should be good since I have already cleared that up above. Consequently your following rebuttal doesn't take into account my implication.

>>19526489
>And if you refuse to consider it altogether it just becomes dogmatic.
Refuse to consider what? Saying that it's Brahman's uncreated self-nature to do effortlessly is not refusing to answer anything.
>>"overcome at the level of manifestation itself"? What would be an example of that?
>What I'm saying is manifestation (given that by manifestation I mean HOW Maya is projected and not Maya itself) must possess certain characteristics which could also be applicable (in the sense that you could say "yes" or "no" to them) to Brahman, namely not-real, illusory and real. You stated them yourself.
Brahman's nature, which accomplishes or projects the unfolding of maya while itself qua Brahman's nature remaining different from that maya, is the HOW maya is projected. There is no 3rd term or relation required to link them but Brahman's nature directly projects maya. This Brahman and his nature are the sole thing in the category of the real, when speaking in absolute terms, maya inheres solely in the category of the false/mithya/illusion/magical appearance, there is no problem of maya needing to be real, or some 3rd thing linking Brahman to maya, because Brahman's nature which directly irradiates or projects maya is non-different from Brahman and Brahman itself is fully identical with the real as an ontological category, just as falsity as that which is between real and unreal is the ontological category that is fully identical with maya. The 2nd category 'rests' upon the first with all of its false and relative being taking place through the 1st's projecting. There is no "manifestation" of maya that is different from maya, (there is in fact undifferentiated maya (mula-prakriti) and differentiated maya, but its all maya alike).
>No, I'm not saying what you're imaging, I'm saying that if manifestation doesn't take place Maya and Brahman become one.
That's not true, because they posses mutually exclusive natures (Brahman is aware and maya is totally insentient i.e. without awareness) and so they can never be considered the same entity in any circumstances ever because it violates logic like the law of non-contradiction due to it involving saying the same thing is both X and the complete negation of X at the same time, it violates basic principles of logic to consider them as the same.

>>19526899
>undifferentiated maya (mula-prakriti)
or rather, mula-prakriti literally means 'root-nature' or 'root matter' which is held to be the undifferentiated maya

>>19526379
True! Also I love this painting

>>19525077
>ell me what interpretation of those traditions do you suggest?
none, only the tradition itself is valid
>he takes oriental metaphysics
there's no truemetaphysics in Guenon's body of work, only ontotheology
>>19525077
>Until now I haven't seen any arguments against Guénon which come from the point of view of truth

the absolution of intellectually intuitive cognition of shankaran 'brahmin' he implies doesn't necessarily expand onto the metaphysical order of lesser levels, and by implying this order exists objectively from the matter he also baselessly assumes that the character of relation between these two layers of reality - essence and substance - is linear, 'projectory', even though it isn't necessarily so, because this relation can also be objectified, as well as its objectification, objectification of objectification and so forth ad infinitum. ergo the very premise of essence - substance duality is in question. saying they're one as brahmin also doesn't really solve the contradiction, because all it does is reduce it to immanence which can only exist as long as brahmin is either wider and hence at least partially beyond the substance or is identical to it, which makes him as illusory from the down - up standpoint as it makes the substance otherwise

>>19526413
>Maya is neither reality (Brahman) nor Unreality
this violates the principle of non contradiction, someting can't be A=-A at the same time
since if something is not reality is unreality, and if is not unreality is not reality, trying to negate the two won't work since it's a binomial concept, the negation of one is the affirmation of the other
(A=real) (-A=unreal) something can0t be real and unreal at the same time and can't be neither real or unreal at the same time either, since you're just saying bascially the same thing

>maya *CAN* exist outside of absolute reality
no it can, because that defeats the purpouse of an ABSOLUTE reality, is something can exist outside of an ABSOLUTE, then is not an absolute

>>19526899
>Saying that it's Brahman's uncreated self-nature to do effortlessly is not refusing to answer anything.
I think it is. Rather than modulating it logically you basically just say "it is because it is".
>Brahman's nature directly projects maya.
That's what I'm questioning, whereas you have predisposed Brahman just directly does so. You say Maya is projected by Brahman because it's its very nature and I'm enquiring as to how exactly can an absolute reality naturally result in projection of illusion with nothing else involved, when both Brahman itself and its nature are absolute reality.
>hat's not true, because they posses mutually exclusive nature
Yeah, it is a contradiction I'm trying to resolve.

>>19526899
>brahman's nature directly projects maya
>because it violates logic like the law of non-contradiction due to it involving saying the same thing is both X and the complete negation of X at the same time, it violates basic principles of logic to consider them as the same.
if violates that principle, then that means that both of them are two separate metaphysical entities, which then creates a duality
a true absolute reality should be able to make illusion part of its being, if not, then is not absolute reality, since there's thing outside of its being
>just as falsity as that which is between real and unreal
if maya is between the real and the unreal, then there must be something between the unreal and maya and the real and maya, and those things must have things in between too, making an infinite loop

>>19525183
Convince me this isn't polytheism

Syncretism is not a modern phenomenon. It was first done by the gnostics, then by Mani. Remember, manicheism fused buddhism with gnostic christianity, a cocktail Islam was built upon. Islam appeared precisely as syncretic tradition following these. This esoterism was kept mostly in what later became Shi'a islam and sufism, possibly influencing europeans and begetting freemasonry. This is why Guenon, initially enthralled with Freemasonry later recognized Islam as a more intact form of the same universalist Tradition. Guenon did not invent perenialism nor syncretism, he merely rediscovered it

nigga ugly af hence his ''doctrine'' ugly as well: as without so within as they say in the Talmood or whatever. look closely at his mug, his essence is that of a copper, baiting you with 'the absolute truth' to modulate your spiritual irradiation. you fucking nerds, how is there 'the primordial tradition' if Abraham betrays Adam? 'the traditionalism' are the 600$ gucci loafers worn by a sussy amigo. but the true sneed has his eye attentive, seeing what is what.

>>19527396
>Maya is neither reality (Brahman) nor Unreality
>this violates the principle of non contradiction, someting can't be A=-A at the same time
Saying that maya is neither reality isn’t affirming both A and -A about it, it’s the denial of two propositions, which are not the total sum of options, because there is the 3rd option of maya/falsity/mithya. Denying a claim is not the same as the affirmation of one or two claims, such as would be required to violate the law of non-contradiction. If something belongs to the third category, then denying its status as reality or unreality isnt violating the LNC just like its not violating it when you say “the winner of the gold medal is neither the winner of the bronze medal nor the silver medal”.
>since if something is not reality is unreality, and if is not unreality is not reality, trying to negate the two won't work since it's a binomial concept, the negation of one is the affirmation of the other
Only if you assume from the very beginning that there is no third option, which is exactly what you are trying to refute, in other words this is completely circular and hence worthless as an argument. You havn’t actually demonstarted any logical contradiction or violational of any logical law that reality, falsity and unreality are all seperate and mutually-exclusive ontological categories, you’ve just said “well, if we assume there is no 3rd option, then…. its a contradiction to say there is one!”, it demonstrates and accomplishes nothing
>(A=real) (-A=unreal) something can0t be real and unreal at the same time
The 3rd option is neither real nor unreal and is hence the 3rd option precisely because neither of the former two categories apply to it, hence Advaita is not claiming it’s “real and unreal at the same time”, thats a strawman
>and can't be neither real or unreal at the same time either, since you're just saying bascially the same thing
Wrong you clown, saying that C isn’t A or B isn’t the same as saying something is both A and -A, those are two completely different statements.
>maya *CAN* exist outside of absolute reality
>no it can, because that defeats the purpouse of an ABSOLUTE reality, is something can exist outside of an ABSOLUTE, then is not an absolute
maya doesn’t actually ‘exist’, when I said ‘exist’ I wasn’t implying anything belonging to the first category, it meant “””exist””” as falsity, saying “maya existing relatively” is like saying “falsity falsifying” or “maya mayically mayifing”, it’s not affirming or implying anything about maya/falsity as more than false in any way. Hence it doesn’t contradict the premise that what really exists is Brahman in/as absolute reality alone.

>>19525198
This is the real dagger. You’re expected to believe this just because or else just “know” it intuitively. All of it is ultimately “just trust me”. Even if any of it could be proven, justified, “known” there’s no clear reason why a certain appeal to classicism should be given so much primacy. How can I intuitively know what hyperboreans knew if I’m not a hyperborean? It makes absolutely no sense.

>>19525926
Literally not what was said.

>>19526043
I take issue with appeals to “common concepts” or “general terms”. Since I’m asking you about them, they’re clearly not all that common or general. We know nothing about that age or those people, let alone their beliefs. Why talk about their reality?

So by capital L Life you mean precisely the afterlife?

>>19527725
>I think it is. Rather than modulating it logically you basically just say "it is because it is".
Advaita does have a conception of how everything originates that they consider completely logical, what you call ‘logical modulating’ Advaita would consider as being fraught with logical misteps.
>Brahman's nature directly projects maya.
That's what I'm questioning, whereas you have predisposed Brahman just directly does so. You say Maya is projected by Brahman because it's its very nature and I'm enquiring as to how exactly can an absolute reality naturally result in projection of illusion with nothing else involved, when both Brahman itself and its nature are absolute reality.
Brahman as absolute reality can effortlessly project maya because Brahman has limitless power, is all-powerfull, being the unlimited metaphysical Infinite which conjures up the illusion of limitations, we find that even our limited human minds can conjure up whole dream worlds without us exercising any control over the matter whatsoever, of course an all-powerful infinite being who is the basis of time, space etc would by comparision be able project falsity that was a semblance of real being, if it was Its very nature to do so effortlessly. Because maya is false and not actually real, it requires no substance or material to be produced out of as a modification, it’s just the ‘virtual’ consequence of a Being’s power being unleashed, the power inhering in an all-power Being allows falsity to rest upon it and be supported by it without requiring some intervening factor, we find examples in the word of things acting directly like one object touching another without needing a 3rd object for them to touch, or light revealing itself directly to the eye without needing a 3rd component, so it’s wrong to assume as the default position that everything always requires a 3rd thing linking them. This approach that Advaita takes involves less logical contradictions than a) either trying to maintain some sort of real creation, which is somehow real but different from its infinite source or b) trying to make the absolute non-different from the immanent world, despite them possessing mutually exclusive natures. These two above approaches both involve trying to relate the Absolute and the world in ways that violates logic by affirming contradictory things, but accepting avidya as neither being nor non-being as Advaita does isn’t affirming two different mutually-exclusive things to both be true (i.e. A =/= C =/= D does not equal A = -A)
>hat's not true, because they posses mutually exclusive nature
>Yeah, it is a contradiction I'm trying to resolve.
I don’t don’t see how what you are proposing does solve it. For Advaita, Brahamn and maya are never the same in any circumstance so there is no problem of trying to shoehorn them into one category despite having different natures

>>19527783
>both of them are two separate metaphysical entities, which then creates a duality
No, it’s not a duality because it’s affirming that only one of them actually exists, in order to be a duality then both would have to be real, but in absolute reality there is no such division or duality, and Advaita teaches that you can attain eternal perfect non-duality by reaching liberation from transmigration where there is just Brahman in absolute reality without even maya. So for Advaita there is no duality between Atman and Brahman, there is no persisting duality at the level of absolute reality and there is just non-duality alone, and Advaita explains how to reach this. In any case, accusing something of being a “duality” is only a rhetorical attack and not an example of any violation of logic, the charge the Advaita is professing any true duality is absurd for the above reasons.
>a true absolute reality should be able to make illusion part of its being,
That’s a logically untenable idea, because then the same thing (God) posseses mutually exclusive characteristics like being illusory and non-illusory (violates LNC), moreover anything that has parts is liable to have those parts be divided and recombined, be subject to deplation etc, which violates the standard acceptance of the Absolute as being immutable, undecaying, freed from being a slave to becoming etc. Lastly it’s an illogical idea to say God has parts for the following reason: does God exist only inside the parts, or inside and outside them too? If it’s the former then you are violating the LNC by saying God is a singular and self-contained entity that is whole but only exists in and as specific instantiations of multiple, incomplete and fragmented parts, i.e. you saying God exists both as complete and incomplete . If it’s the latter answer that God is both inside and outside the parts then you are saying that there are portions or parts of God that are somehow a ‘partless part’ or not a part like the others but still non-different from God (this also violates the LNC).
>if not, then is not absolute reality, since there's thing outside of its being
That thing (maya) that’s outside of its being isn’t real though, so it doesn’t have to be included within absolute reality in order for absolute reality to be what it is. Absolute reality means “truest unqualified reality”, not “true reality that also illogically contains what isnt itself within itself”
>just as falsity as that which is between real and unreal
>if maya is between the real and the unreal, then there must be something between the unreal and maya and the real and maya, and those things must have things in between too
Wrong, we find examples of things acting directly like light directly revealing itself to the eye, so there is no infallible basis for always assuming some 3rd factor is always required. Neither maya nor nonbeing really exist anyway

>>19529092
Maybe it is because his life and works are so politically charged, no matter if he wanted this or not, but I never understood the notion of Guenon being more Scholarly than Evola, and that Evola lacked rigour.
Yet Evola's works are rife with citations and references to what he is speaking on, often multiple times per page.
Reading Guenon I found would be more like reading the travel diaries of Marco Polo or Herodotus, with their wild tales of exotic lands, giant dog-sized ants that dig up gold and the like. Much of it was "This is what the ancients say" or "It is known by the wise that" etc.

>>19529184
>Brahman as absolute reality can effortlessly project maya because Brahman has limitless power, is all-powerfull, being the unlimited metaphysical Infinite which conjures up the illusion of limitations
You're not answering how does this happen though, and why exactly it projects illusion and not a reality. Given that Brahman is all-powerful, it can also project absolute reality which would be nothing different from it, right? Shankara even has a thesis of atman being identical to Brahman, so I see no reason why this kind of "projection" couldn't be expanded to all of maya or, likewise, atman can't be regarded as illusion.
>we find that even our limited human minds can conjure up whole dream worlds without us exercising any control over the matter whatsoever, of course an all-powerful infinite being who is the basis of time, space etc would by comparision be able project falsity that was a semblance of real being, if it was Its very nature to do so effortlessly.
The problem is that the reality - illusion duality characteristic of a dream takes place within a single realm - the realm of (sub)consciousness, which encompasses both of these categories, whereas Advaita insists there's nothing greater than Brahman. That's why in a sense we truly cannot formally differentiate between a dream and a not-dream, which is something Advaita denies.
>Because maya is false and not actually real, it requires no substance or material to be produced out of as a modification, it’s just the ‘virtual’ consequence of a Being’s power being unleashed, the power inhering in an all-power Being allows falsity to rest upon it and be supported by it without requiring some intervening factor
You see, that's why we can't understand each other and just repeat our theses. You (and Shankara too for that matter) take maya = falsity as an axiom, and I'm asking why exactly is maya false, which, of course, wouldn't make sense from an axiomatic standpoint, but once you refrain from it it sure does. Consequently all your reasoning is dependent on this equation, but what if you stop regarding it as such? You probably will notice that unless taken as a base point (and there really is no reason why it should be) it doesn't follow naturally.
>we find examples in the word of things acting directly like one object touching another without needing a 3rd object for them to touch, or light revealing itself directly to the eye without needing a 3rd component
"Light revealing itself to eye" is just a word game, since I suppose you're well aware that light actually reveals itself to consciousness/perception/whatever which unlike the eye isn't subjected to the same plane of conventional reality as light. And this is exactly why we can talk of light existing at all only for so long as its existence is encompassed by consciousness.

>>19529184
>>19529546
The 3rd party problem is indeed made up in the sense that it doesn't exist naturally, but rather as a methodological issue which leads to the same line if thought I demonstrated above.

>>19525077
I remember reading a translation of an article by Aleksander Dugin about Guenon. IIRC he basically pointed out that even when you take the most mystical, original parts of each religion, they still don't fit into each other. e.g. in Buddhism, the goal is to numb yourself and disperse into nothing. I'm using the wrong language to explain this, but you get what I mean. On the other hand, in Islam, the greatest goal in life is to behold, receive Allah's will and then go out into the world and execute, perform this will, the kind of creation Shakespeare talks about in his twelfth sonnet except also divinely inspired. These two things are polar opposites, you can't bring them together.

Another example would be Judaism's obsession with Jews being the chosen people; /pol/-tier opinions aside, this is an integral part of the religion, even in its mystical realisation. What this means is that Guenon is either wrong, or that counterinitiation has creeped its way into even the most sacred realisations of each religion, which in turn means that there's no way to tell the true apart from fake, which in turn means Guenon's theory is absolutely useless.

Another thing Dugin mentioned is that what counternitiation means differs in the context of each religion, but I don't remember that part too well.

>>19529102
>Since I’m asking you about them, they’re clearly not all that common or general.
Like I said, read Dialectics of the Myth, even if it isn't a common assessment it goes into detail about what I'm talking about.
>We know nothing about that age or those people, let alone their beliefs.
Yes, that's why it is a "conventional term". But we know many things about primitive mythology since it can be still found among people detached from civilisation as well as in ancient texts, which while not providing the full picture do highlight the approach of ancient people to them.

>>19525198
The way I see it, this is the single most damning critique and I don’t see how any Traditionalist overcomes it.

Traditionalism is itself not a religion, it has no appeal natural theology, logic, nor divine revelation. Yet, you’re expected to accept this proposition on some basis. From what I’ve heard, that basis is an appeal to classicism (as someone said, i.e. oldest = best) in place of eternal or unchanged and a sense of intuitive knowledge. But those of those are obvious problems because something being (or appearing) old and unchanged doesn’t make it true or good (and there arises an obvious issue when we start looking across space as well as into time) and what I can know intuitively may not be what Guenon knows intuitively.

I’m actually open to these ideas as being possibly correct, but where I’m totally loses me is the talk about Hyperborea, occultism, and going to exotic religions whether than be Sufism or Buddhism or whatever because even if they were possibly correct, it seems to me going to these renders it all moot.

It seems to me that the only way he could’ve validated his project is if he simply rewound the clock so to speak and became a pious Christian, but he didn’t. If Guenon, addresses this anywhere, I’d like to read it.

>>19529509
Exactly. And this is my view: In the end, Traditionalism is borne out of a distaste for the modern world (the modern West really) with its extreme rationalism, science, and the thusly, atheism. Rationality and science may not be wrong but the atheism they tend toward most certainly is, and the Traditionalists have a distaste for that. So what you see in Traditionalism is rationalism collapsing. Ultimately, they all concede that you can’t rationalize or logic your way to understanding, the Traditionalist project is, ironically, exactly that to a large degree. The roofs of the rationalist cathedral have collapsed under their own weight, but the struts and columns still stand, only now appearing to support a religious sky rather than the atheist dome. This is why I say Traditionalists are closer to atheists than religious fundamentalists, because the method is the same. Only whereas rationalism and logic closes the dome off with atheism, Traditionalism has you climb up the columns only to concede in the end that the domed roof has caved in and “here are the pieces it looks like religion up there”.

Maybe that’s a good thing. Maybe that’s how religion comes back to us, but I think the so-called Traditionalists do their own project a tremendous disservice when they start assimilating what is really a system by which those
Traditions which are labeled as Traditional come to be one and the same. That doesn’t get them anywhere, and ultimately then they have to say “Well, you just know”, which after all their logic and rational explanations doesn’t convince anyone.

>>19525077
>coherent
>revealed religions can be traditional
lol

>>19525077
>Oriental <put anything here, mangas, metaphysics, food> is the absolute truth
Imagine falling for the otentalist meme... so pathetic.

>>19529845
>Traditionalism is borne out of a distaste for the modern world
You mean: orientalism is designed to attract traitors.

>>19529845
I think they would’ve better underscored their project if those which are Western returned to Western faith, namely Christianity, even if it was a Traditionalized, syncretic, pagan, or Nietzschean sort of Christianity. If the appeal is ultimately to just “intuitively know” and to a sense of an unbroken chain from time immemorial, what you have to do is retrace your steps. That is, YOUR steps. If the Traditional religion of the West was not Christianity itself, then it was contained in Christianity. It existed in the crusading nobility of the Middle Ages, in the scholastics and mystics, and most importantly (the Traditionalists ignore this entirely) in the countryside and the peasantry. Even in modern day Europe, one finds remnant traces of our pagan past given form and articulation in the Christian faith across the land. Examples include wayside shrines to St. Hubertus. To not see this authentic spirituality, be it pagan or Christian, which has been totally and thoroughly retained through both is to become caught up in that which is only surface deep in my humble opinion. And the flee to exotic “Traditions” which may have an unbroken chain but which are definitively not your own, in lieu of these clearly authentic forms and “feeling” I think is a failure to be honest. The West may never be Christian again but if it’s ever going to be religious again, I have absolutely no doubt that it will be religious in a way which affirms that which existed before, within, and after its Christian past. Christianity, if nothing else, is authentic point of access in my opinion. He failed when he didn’t recognize that.

>>19529898
A natural distaste for something doesn’t make for a traitor. As I said, the atheistic conclusion is wrong. It might be supported by the urban masses and fools, but the genuinely pious man should not and he would not be a traitor for doing so. Unrelenting irreligion is rather a betrayal on the part of the civilization if you ask me.

>>19529899
>He failed when he didn’t recognize that.
Well, the point of Orientalism is to undermine the confidence of the people in their own environment, to turn them against their own kind.

>>19529912
You'll never sell those stinky pissy carpets of yours, because you are just another deluded orientalist, and people just laugh at you with disgust.

>>19529921
>turn them against their own kind
What if their kind are wrong? Orientalism didn't exist before the West became modern.

>>19529912
You can't go back, traitor. You'll burn in Hell. And you know it.

>>19529944
>What if your kind are wrong? They hurt you, but I'll show you how to despise them and feel superior. They don't deserve you. You are so special !Trust me bro, just look at those smelly carpets I have here for you...
lolololol

>>19529845
>Rationality and science may not be wrong
They are absolutely wrong

>>19529944
>Orientalism didn't exist before the West became modern.
Are you trying to say that the West had no contact with judaism, christianity or Islam before the modern times?
Are you this retarded?

>>19529899
The countryside and peasantry were certainly not engaging in their religion in an intellectual, metaphysical sense. None of you get the point of Guenon.

>>19529509
Guénon was a stupid orientalist, only able to lure people even more stupid, like Evola.
In other words, Guénon filled bottles with camel piss, out of twisted vanity, which is stupid and disgusting, and Evola drank them, out of sheer stupidity, which is even more disgusting.

>>19530012
>None of you get the point of Guenon.
I don't think so. I think we all know exactly what to do when a stinky carpet dealer is knocking at our door.

>>19530057
you are seething because white people convert to Islam after reading Guénon, but the part bad for you is that you can't stop them

>>19530079
>white
Not the traditional name of any nation.
>Islam
Not the traditional name of any nation.

Also, muslims do haram things all the time, without any consequences, because nobody gives a single fuck. Islam is just an empty shell. All muslims act like infidels. All of them. They know it, and you know it as well.

>>19530079
>convert to Islam
Ah yes, they say this one single magical sentence and then keep doing haram stuff all the time, as usual.
Islam is just a farce, even the most pious muslims do blatantly haram things all the time without giving a single fuck.

>>19530098
Fuck you, stop being a retard who misses the point. Tradition is not about the esoteric religion, his work attacks the notions of science and philosophy(even ancient), this is not a minor detail. The very concept of nation itself is not traditional in his perspective.

>>19530124
I mean exoteric instead of esoteric. And I'm not going to explain anything further, as I don't agree with this perspective of making people aware of guenon's work for everyone; only those who are capable of understanding it should engage with it, everyone else should stay in the dark.

>>19530124
>The very concept of nation itself is not traditional in his perspective.
Of course, because, as I sated before : >>19529921

Orientalism isn't rocket science, it's just a way of turning weak people into unhinged traitors and lunatics, using some basic techniques: They hurt you, but I understand you, they don't deserve you, let me show you, you are so special, etc...

>>19530150
>only those who are capable of understanding it should engage with it, everyone else should stay in the dark.
Oh dear you feel so special...
LOLOLOLOL

>>19530183
And you write like a middle aged unmarried woman

>>19529325
>we find examples of things acting directly like light directly revealing itself to the eye, so there is no infallible basis for always assuming some 3rd factor is always required. Neither maya nor nonbeing really exist anyway
you find "physical" examples (and even that is debatable, since we can metaphysically argue that space has component on his extension that are paradoxical) but "metaphyisically" we don't find those examples at all, and since ontology is a branch of metaphysics, then you need to explain how a mechanics of links can randomly need only 3 parts and not 4, 5,6 etc
>it’s not a duality because it’s affirming that only one of them actually exists
if that's so then advaita is materialistic, since if only one exist, the only on that present itself to experience is the material one
>for Advaita there is no duality between Atman and Brahman
i know that, what i'm saying is that it doesn't make any sense, since advaita can't really explain how this non duality actually happens, just say "it happens because it happens"
>which violates the standard acceptance of the Absolute as being immutable
there's no such standar, different metaphysical schoos have different standars
>That thing (maya) that’s outside of its being isn’t real though, so it doesn’t have to be included within absolute reality in order for absolute reality to be what it is. Absolute reality means “truest unqualified reality”, not “true reality that also illogically contains what isnt itself within itself”
the problem arise again, if only one is true, then maya is true since it's the one that empirically manifest on experience, if not, then you're a nihilist who just negates the world on itself and escape to a dogmatic world of conjetures and "the world should be like this and since it isn't we must conclude a more rational world exist somewhere else and that is the real world"
but that more logical, rational world has tons of holes, one of the the infinite links it need
also absolutereality, means an all encompasing reality, that what absolute means, if there's something outside of it, then is not absolute by deffinition, you can't change the meaning of absolute just to acomodate your ideas, if your concept of absolute means somethign different tha an all encomapsing being, then you have a concept that is wronlgy applied, and it shows since if you actually aplly the concept of absolute the whole advaita systems gets destroyed
>Neither maya nor nonbeing really exist anyway
but you just said maya is neither real nor unreal

>>19529572
no metaphyscial problem exist naturally, that's the whole point, causation and the self also don't exist naturally, the whole deal with metaphysics is how you can argue the ratinal existence of things that don't present itself on epxerience, things like the 3rd man problem or the extension problem are useful to show if a metaphysical system is robust and can defend their premises, advaita always fail to do so

Please someone recommend book to get familiar with indo iranian mythology plzzzz

>>19530012
No, I get it. I thought I had said exactly that in other words. It’s precisely that which I think is a problem for him.

>>19529546
>You're not answering how does this happen though, and why exactly it projects illusion and not a reality. Given that Brahman is all-powerful, it can also project absolute reality which would be nothing different from it, right? Shankara even has a thesis of atman being identical to Brahman, so I see no reason why this kind of "projection" couldn't be expanded to all of maya or, likewise, atman can't be regarded as illusion.
this one problem even advaita schoolar recognize has no real answer

>>19529991
Rationality is a method and science is just a system of understanding the physical world. Neither can be wrong. It’s rationalism and scientism which trend towards exclusivity which are de facto wrong because they refute themselves.

>>19530012
>>19530382
It’s precisely his insistence on intellectuality and an intellectual, esoteric elite which trends him up the rational ladder to a conclusion that dooms itself. It’s why he ultimately refers to intuitive knowledge, which is not the same as intellect. The rationalist cathedral has collapsed and it’s domed ceiling caved in. Guenon would still have you look up the struts to the hole in the ceiling in order to have you see the heavens above, but what I think he should’ve had someone do is walk back outside to the soil where the cathedral was built in the first place. Then the heavens present themselves in full view. This is the peasantry, or what was born of the soil in God’s creation. It’s an organic, intuitive, feeling sort of spirituality which is not at all at odds with intellectuality but it rather precedes it. Whereas Guenon insists on esoteric intellectual elites. That’s why, I think, he moved outward to Islam, rather than in a return to Christianity. Going outside is the return.

That is my humble opinion. His insistence intellect and rationalism only to end up at “just trust me about this unbroken change” and “have to intuitively know” indicates what I am suggesting rather than what he did in my view.

>>19530390
Of course they can be wrong, as long as their fundamental basis is wrong. Which, when it comes to science, is largely a myth, because there are many different, contradictory epistemological basis for, all of them wrong. "Philosophy" is a step above, but on a deeper level it's actually the same thing, part of the same phenomenon. I'm not saying every single thing that has passed for philosophy or science are entirely wrong, but at large, they are.

>>19530419

His pure intellectuality are concepts which can only be grasped through intellect, but not in any way through sensorial means and imagination(which constructs imagery that could theoretically be perceived from the senses). Such concept is very alien to the normal western mind.

The organic, intuitive, feeling sort of spirituality you speak about is nothing more than spiritualism and sentimentality, both which Guénon criticizes extensively.

>>19530494
We’ll have to agree to disagree but as for your second response, I think I depart from Guenon so just because he criticizes something doesn’t mean his criticism is valid in my opinion. It’s my view that this pure intellectuality is a highly urban, highly cosmopolitan, and actually a highly rational and late notion of religiosity which will never effect a restoration of metaphysics (the fact that he refers to it as such I think is telling) on its own. I think nothing could be more alien to any mind than that, and I’d add that I did indicate the organic, intuitive, and feeling spirituality I described is not at odds with the intellect. I see this as the religiosity of a Meister Eckhart, a Jacob Bohme, and perhaps more importantly, to a Saint Francis, a Joan of Arc, and even a Charlemagne as opposed to that of a René Guenon and his so-called Traditionalists. I regard the latter as closer to the modern atheist than the first five and I think that’s the big problem with Guenon.

>>19530607
You should read some authorized advaitins like Ramana Maharshi and after that, come back to Guénon, maybe you will see him in a different light.

>>19530607
But to be clear, I do think Guenon can point readers in a positive direction.

>>19530659
But why should I? Coming from my critique of Traditionalism, I don’t see why I, or anyone else, should read more Indian metaphysics as opposed to that which we’ve already inherited. It seems to me only misleading in the end.

>>19530802
This is from one of Guénon's letters to Evola, it fits you well and probably other anons too.
"You ask me about Maritain; notwithstanding everything, I have always had friendly relations with him; as to ideas, we are in agreement especially on a negative point of view, that is, on “anti-modernity”. Apart from that, even he, disgracefully, is full of prejudices against the Orient; at least he was, because it seems that those prejudices since a short time ago have been attenuated; but, something strange, it is fed by a type of fear in the face of what one does not know, and it is a disagreeable thing, because it prevents him from broadening his own point of view."

>>19525274
That's my understanding. Every so often God descends to Earth in some way a delivers salvation to a people. God can incarnate through a person like Jesus or a Buddha, or through objects like the Quran or the burning bush of Moses

>>19530211
Tell that to my grandchildren, loser.

>>19530376
pic related

>>19530419
>esoteric
>elite
lol

>>19530802
>Indian
>metaphysics
lololol

>>19530985
this so much, i can't belive how many people keep repeating the guenon/indian metaphysics meme
both guenon and vedanta don't have a metaphysical system, they just do ontotheology, metaphyisics reatred little borther

>>19530998
>ontotheology, metaphyisics
>orientalism

Guénon writings are all about manipulating the mind of young westerners and turning them into useless pieces of shit.
Guénon is about mind control, about manipulating the weak.
It's about convincing stupid people to buy the most stinky & pissy oriental carpet.

>>19530880
I don’t think that does fit me actually. In fact, all of my critiques of Guenon go for Evola as well. I suppose Evola is more agreeable to me in some respects but even less agreeable in others. If I’ve not been clear, there’s no xenophobia or even ethnic preference at work here.

This scoundrel doesn't attack what Guenon has said, but rather, what he imagines Guenon has said. And then he attacks the ego of his followers, but not their real ego, the one he imagines for them. In the end he is fighting this mental Frankenstein that doesn't exist, spouting nonsensical offenses.

>>19531039
So you're basically bragging about liking strangers on the Internet.
lol

>>19531062
>Guenon fanboys act totally normal and are well respected in society, they are totally fine and normal, and never spout nonsensical offenses like pathetic outcasts. Just trust me bro. Those who mock Guénon are fools, they don't see the truth, but you an me bro, we 've seen the light...
lolol

>>19531039
I suppose it could be called a sort of inconsistency. Guenon’s project is very much an intellectual project, a rational project, but it’s an intellectual and rational project which can’t justify itself. I think that’s why he ultimately says you have to really on intuitive knowledge. It’s because he inwardly knows what he preaches can’t get you anywhere. Therein lies the inconsistency. The intellectual project is, in the end, fundamentally not intellectual but rather based on feeling. This is why Guenon results in a sort of cosmopolitan intellectualism, a buffet of metaphysics where one can go anywhere, do anything, pick and choose religions as one picks and chooses clothes. If ultimately the appeal is to something irrational, not intellectual then shouldn’t it be predicated on an organic sort of intuitive knowledge, a genuine religious feeling? No contemporary Westerner genuinely feels spirituality akin to that of an ancient Indian. If he would have us rather accept the unbroken primordial chain, wouldn’t the best thing to be not to move in space but in time? It seems to me one would want to retrace their steps and literally return to Tradition, rather than find it elsewhere. This is the fundamental difference between a René Guenon and a St. Anselm. In the former, we see a late, hard, intellectual, cosmopolitan, urban, and inorganic sort of religiousness and in the latter, a deep piety, mystical awareness, organic, and eternal, not urban but of that which God provides. Therein lies my entire problem with Traditionalism. What it really needs is to conclude with the deep piety of the Middle Ages, when the world was saturated with an organic sort of religiosity, or possibly it’s precursors, it’s precursors but in my opinion it seems to universally fail to do that.

>>19531062
Who are you referring to?

>>19531107
>piety
>deep
lol

>>19531111
Probably not to you, I'm refering to the schizo

Only chirstcucks hate guenon

>>19531111
People who disrespect his guru, I think.

>>19531121
Christianism is also orientalism you retard.

>>19531107
>Guenon
>intellectualism
Orientalism is just a set of stupid tricks made to lure stupid people.2A8NM

>>19531121
Is this the level of argumentation that the opponents of the Christians have to offer then?

>>19531156
>Churches are so fucking full of people everywhere bro, just trust me, we are strong bro, just clap your hands with us and sing to the lord, we so powerful...
lol

>>19531156
>argumentation
People just insult orientalists, without any consequences. Just for fun.
Because nobody likes creepy outcasts rambling about esotericism, exotericism and other nonsense...
You better get used to it.

>>19531121
a lot of christians read guénon, some cardinal even like cardinal jean daníelou who wrote a chapter on guénon. borella, hani, wolfgang smith, rama coomaraswamy, custinger. all christians who read guénon. schuon wrote a lot on christianity. not to mention the respect others have for catholicism like burckhardt and whitall perry.

>>19531169
ofc the anti-christian guy has his view of christianity based on american envangelicalism

guénon himself respected christianity as traditional and oriental. you are just an anti-christian based on your own protestant/evangelical background. sad. go read evola and go to /pol/ it will suit you better, you absolute pseud.

>>19530998
>metaphysics isnt metaphysics when its the kind that triggers me

titus burckhardt had a private meeting with pope pius xii and gifted him a fascimile of an old gospel manuscript. rama says titus was deeply impressed by the sanctity of the pope

whitall perry and other traditionalists like nasr and upton quote catholic saints even more than the suras in some texts.

only americans (mostly) that reduce christianity to evangelical sentimentalism act this foolishly on the internet.

>>19531198
cutsinger*

>>19531198
>posts a pic of childless "women"
lol you orientalists are so degenerate and pathetic...

>>19531198
>revealed
>traditional
Are U retarded?

>>19531198
>your own protestant/evangelical background
???
>go read evola
Why would I read some orientalist bullshit written by a stranger?

>>19525963
>certain amount of melanin
What a retarded way of simplifying race.
Say what you want about gatekeeping but the idea that a certain race's religion is best suited for that race is not ridiculous

>>19531198
>go to /pol/ it will suit you better
/pol/ is an international board full of strangers, just like here, so what's your point, retard?

>>19531198
Evola shouldn’t just be dismissed as a /pol/ author. There are problems but there are things of value too. Regardless, it’s not accurate to characterize him as such even if there are certain affinities there.

>>19531198
There are problems with many of these as well. Cutsinger published an essay called the Noble Lie, all but conceding his Christian Traditionalism was a charade but presenting it as “noble”. This is why I invoke organic piety, as opposed to this intellectual project called Traditionalism. Compared to contemporary alternatives, it’s positive but it’s only a few degrees distinct from contemporary atheism in my opinion. I think that really summarizes what I’ve been trying to say in this thread.

>>19531224
unfortunately in most places christianity has been reduced to sentimentalism and it doesn't matter if it's protestant or catholic

>>19531255
Evola was a childless stranger.

>>19525077
The ultimate truth is interpreting religions based on the Zoroastrianism centered around Balk and later Kushan empire. The Zoroastrianism of Pars had a fundamentally different character and was not oriented towards the full truth.
It is better to focus on a simple and elegant dualism that treats the good as having an ontological reality where following it over evil naturally leads to the Absolute. You cannot arrive at the Absolute with evil intent.
The nature of the Absolute itself does not matter. What matters is the dualistic distinction between good and evil whereby one arrive at the Absolute. By treating good and evil as having equal veracity or level, then you risk corrupting traditions and spreading creepy antinomian cults.
Most ancient traditions from Hinduism, Christianity, to Buddhism all valued virtue/purity over sin/vice. They believed the Absolute could only be arrived by adopting a virtuous, pure mind. These traditions later became more corrupted with endless ratiocination that muddled the line between good and evil.
Why is there no dualistic approach to perrenialism? Ask yourself this, and you will start going down a rabbit hole involving nefarious secret cults, which are still heavily active during this day and age.

>>19531255
>Christian
>Traditionalism
Christianism is a revealed religion you absolute moron....

>>19531266
>it doesn't matter if it's protestant or catholic
You nailed it: Orientalism is just orientalism, an nobody wants to drink camel piss.

>>19531274
>more orientalist gibberish
lol I bet people are used to insult you when you go out of your mom's basement.

>>19531275
Follow along. The man in question, James Cutsinger, considers himself an Orthodox Christian Traditionalist.

>>19531288
Zoroastrianism influenced Abrahamic religions and Mahayana Buddhism (in Kushan empire).
It has Indo-European roots especially the kind followed by those in Balkh.
It's not really oriental. It's more like the bridge between both the West and East.
Rejecting the division between good and evil is one of the most depraved things anyone can do.

>>19531266
>christianity
"Christianity" is just one of the many words for "I like strangers".

>>19531298
Again, you can't be christian and traditionalist, because christianism is a revealed religion, which is the exact opposite of any tradition.
So the man in question is just a stupid orientalist, and his name doesn't matter.

you people (both guenon's readers and the so-called opponents) can't even conceive the importance of his work
https://ur.booksc.org/book/75615674/d8c1d8

>>19531299
>Zoroastrianism
Sorry, I don't speak african.
>the West and East
I know it's difficult for you to grasp that, but Nations have traditional actual names.

>>19531330
>Sorry, I don't speak african.
Projecting much?

>>19531318
what the fuck is a traditionalist? guenon never used this word, actually, he despised any kind of involvement with a 'movement'
don't confound Schuon's cult with the work of Guénon

>>19531324
>If u like my guru then I will give luv to u
lol

>>19531347
>don't confound Schuon's cult with the work of Guénon
Schuon and Guénon were exactly the same: strangers.
So what's your point, retard?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT4FyRqACBo

>>19531347
>actually, he despised
He told weak people how to despise their own kind. That's the whole point of orientalism.

>>19531347
>he despised
Evola did the same, in his own manner :
Despise your own kind (Evola's club)
Worship the strangers (Evola's bow)

>>19531347
>he despised any kind of involvement with a 'movement'
Guénon wrote his books because his publisher asked him to, because certain kind of people buyed them.
So René Guénon kept writing them, knowing very well how to retain his (stupid) audience captive.

>>19531347
>he despised any kind of involvement with a 'movement'
He literally wrote niche entertainment books for addicted fanboys. That's what his publisher asked him, that's how he earned money...

>>19531347
>he despised any kind of involvement with a 'movement'
He wanted his readers to feel special, to feel like they are part of a tiny elite, far from the masses, and high above the masses, of course... because quality and quantity bla bla bla... just the good old classic orientalist trick, nothing new here.
People buyed his books, so he kept writing them.

>>19531405
>>19531416
>>19531475
>>19531487
>>19531509

holy shit lmao calm down mate

>>19531540
Nice pic of a pious muslim posing for a photograph (which is haram).

>>19531330
>nation
>traditional
lolol

>>19531667
COPE
O
P
E

>>19531707
seethe dilate sneed

>>19531709
cope more lol

>>19531733
>cope more orientalist camel piss drinker!

>>19531228
>>19531236
>>19531244
>>19531246
>>19531250
cope

>>19531255
the orthodoxy of those christians can be discussed, my main point was proving there is no clash or prejudice from christians since many associates of guénon and schuon were christians or had a deep respect for christianity.

the poster implied christians dislike guénon but i just showed how there's nothing to sustain that a priori --- the discussion about christian initiation was disagreed by most of those christians anyway. their orthodoxy is a whole different matter and i'll probably agree with you.


i forgot about mentioning eliade too.

>>19531767
>christian initiation
Ah yes, the magic water you drop on someone's head... abracadabra!

>>19531767
just keep dilatin' much

>>19531785
what is your point in this thread? first you attacked christians as if they disliked guénon, then you attack guenonians and guénon's ideas. what is your problem? i mean really: what is wrong with you? are you in damage control mode or just like to act like a fool?

one of you lifeless faggots tell me what book your banner image is from

>>19531767
christianity is no longer initiatic

retroactively refuted by nietzchad

>>19531767
>the discussion about christian initiation was disagreed by most of those christians anyway

they disagreed by leaving this discussion aside;
the only Christian to touch on this was Borella but his attachment to theology and to revelation in spite of metaphysics just creates more problems (there's a good article by Jean-Marc Vivenza about that)

>>19531801
More paranoiac seething, please.
*sips some tea*

>>19531826
no. schuon for example considered the iniations valid. same for rama

>>19531830
initiations* but i should've said sacraments in reality

>>19531802
It's from "Le Règne de la Qualité et le Signe de l'Ultime".

>>19531833
im gonna need you to stop sucking that cock and answer my question honestly my dude

>>19531830
he was wrong, like all those who are opposed to the fact that freemasonry is still initiatic

>>19531803
><put anything another guénonian fanboy sees as initiatic here> is no longer initiatic
Guénon fanboys in a nutshell.

>>19531830
i know, but based on what? just by affirming that the sacraments are initiatic? Guénon showed in great detail what initiation is about, why does only the Christian tradition have to be different?

>>19531843
imagine thinking that all baptised plebs are initiates lmao

>>19531847
>why does only the Christian tradition have to be different?
because they hate freemasonry

>>19531851
Imagine thinking that Guénon and his fanboys are above the pleb lololol

>>19531803
>>19531828
>>19531836
>>19531841
>>19531843
>>19531851
>>19531857
>>19531868
cope

>>19531879
dilate & seethe

>>19531851
it seems that christianity suffered from the same problem that buddhism suffered after the departure of the Buddha, this 'historical gap', that no one knows exactly what happened in that period; but at least buddhism had its 'restoration' with Mahayana

>>19531893
>Mahayana
No that's Bananarama.

>>19531857
didn't freemasonry degenerate itself completely? it seems that most of them don't even know the meaning of their symbolism

>>19531886
you have been called out a pseud and have been ever since in extreme damage control

>>19531893
it is not the same. the apostles immediately started preaching and establishing tradition. we have st. paul, the didache, st. clement of rome etc. they were men that had direct contact with christ or the apostles

>>19531893
>buddhism had its 'restoration' with Mahayana
So was the medieval Christianity with the pre-christian initiations, Guénon mentioned one related to the Grail, one to hermeticism and there were probably more. From all initiations which existed in the christian extended tradition, inly Freemasonry is still initiatic but is only virtual since is no longer a craft initiation but only speculative.

>>19531909
Guénon said that anything western is in fact degenerated and in fact counter-initiatic, and that only camel piss is genuinely traditional and initiatic.

>>19531909
I think the masons were infiltrated and subverted in the 17th and 18th centuries. Not that they were ever a particularly valuable organisation but they became just a tool of the bankers in the period leading to the revolution in France.

>>19531909
It doesn't matter that the majority of them are hylics, so are the majority of catholics, what matters is that the virtual initiation is still there. They still practice the rites (only the regular lodges ofc).

>>19531919
>early
>AD
lol

>>19531932
The catholic church was also infiltrated by liberals, Islam by salafis and so forth. Are these religions invalid now? As long as there are the rites, they are valid.

>>19531946
>As long as there are the rites, they are valid
Drinking camel piss is the only valid rite of initiation, as explained by Guénon himself.

>>19531946
I agree that we should be nuanced about the subject; a member of these organizations can still be sincere and they retain some of their original principles. But the catholic church is obviously seriously compromised, and my guess is that masons are too.

>>19531954
Imagine your brain constantly thinking about guénonian gibberish like that...

just keep an eye on the poster counter itt. it is the same guy who got called out as a pseud trying to shit up the thread the hardest he can

>>19531962
I'm no Guenon follower. I'm just stating facts about these organizations as historical entities

>>19531973
keep seething

>>19531973
>trying to shit up the thread
The Guénon fanboys have already pissed it up to the max.

>>19531998
>>19531973
What is it about this guy that provokes this behavior? Every time I enter a thread about him there is some gay little war going on

>>19531920
>>19531932
>>19531934
>>19531954

Guénon was very enthousiastic about the constitution of the loge La Grande Triade (actually his was very happy with that, just look at the last line):

'Pour terminer sur une nouvelle plus agréable que tous ces racontars déplaisants, vous aurez peut-être déjà appris (cela date d’un mois environ) la constitution, sous les auspices de la G∴ L∴ D∴ F∴, de la L∴ La Grande Triade (vous pouvez naturellement voir tout de suite d’où vient ce titre), dont le Vén∴ fondateur est le F∴ Ivan Cerf, G∴ Or∴. Il s’agit d’une L∴ destinée à demeurer très fermée (une des conditions d’admission est une connaissance suffisante de mon œuvre) et où l’on se propose spécialement d’appliquer, dans toute la mesure du possible, les vues que j’ai exposées notamment dans les « Aperçus ». […] Vous pouvez penser si je suis heureux de ce résultat, qui me donne dès maintenant la certitude que le travail que j’ai fait et auquel j’ai consacré toute ma vie ne sera pas perdu !'
René Guénon à Edmond Gloton, 17 mai 1947.

>>19531803
Guenon readers really just take everything the guy wrote as fact.

>>19525077
>Do you have any pertinent opinion, based on a rational argumentation, which will prove, for example, that the religious, moral and mystical aspect of the abrahamic religions (be it Christianity or Islam) is the absolute truth, from where the judgment of other traditions must come?
Does Guenon make a rational argument that the Eastern religions are absolute truth and from where the judgement of other traditions must come?

>>19532439
this guy doesn't know what he's talking about, there's no such thing as eastern or western metaphysics, if it's metaphysical, its universal (what happened is that the west seems to have lost this 'knowledge' and the east 'preserved it'); religions are just particular expressions of these immutable principles; religious forms cannot be the 'absolute truth' because the Absolute cannot be contained or restrained by any form or limit.

>>19532003
There is a Hindoo nationalist around who is threatened by Guenon's "appropriation" of Vedic knowledge. His insecurity always flares up in these threads. The only threads he is more hostile to are those about Indo-European migrations.

>>19531216
ontotheology isn't metaphysics, and guenon only developed a pretty mediocre ontotheological system, the fact that all you can do in repsonse is post pepe memes just proves my point

>>19532599
>if it's metaphysical, its universal
metaphysics is the study of being, of which there's tons of systems, aristotle, hegel, kant, plato, aquinas etc all have their own unique systems with tons of differences between them

>>19532685
no, that's ontology, Metaphysics go beyond that and deals with Non-Being, possibilities of manifestation and non-manifestation, Absolute, Non-duality; see Chuang-Tsu, Nagarjuna or Shankara for example; metaphysics died a long time ago in the west, that why it needed to be rediscovered in the east

>>19532831
What are you talking about, there was scholastic metaphysics and then there were a bunch of odd ones starting with Descartes, Spinoza, etc. which have continued to this day.

>>19532848
I'm not that guy, but from Guénon's perspective none of those constitute real metaphysics with the exception of Scholastic and Aristotelian metaphysics, which are both incomplete and come from an incorrect perspective, that is, metaphysics as a first, foremost philosophy, when metaphysics, in an absolute and universal sense, is not part of anything, but something that comprises everything.

>>19525077
Why the Guélong face anon?

>>19532599
But the proposition remains along the lines of the East having something which presumably the West does not and the necessity of the East to be the gold standard in some respect. I’d like to know if it’s believed that Guenon makes a rational argument for that or not.

>>19532879
You know, the more you hear people talk about Guenon, the more you get the sense that all of his shtick is just made up. You could present any number of Western propositions and he would find a way to dismiss them because “West bad”. The whole school of thought, to me, just appears as obviously occultism masquerading as religion, even if it was sincere.

>>19532831
ontology is one of the branches of metaphysics, ontology study the possibilities of existence of beings, metaphysics study being in general, how can be constituted, see aristotle for example

>>19532831
you're just wrong, just read a wiki article bro

>>19532879
>but from Guénon's perspective none of those constitute real metaphysics
well yes and guenon wa swrong, that's why is important to make the distintion between metaphysics and ontotheology, guenon was doing ontotheology, which is metaphysics applied to theology

>>19532948
guenon was never wrong about anything

>>19532914
how could it be made up? he just synthesized the whole thing, the notions of Being and Non-Being for example, are from taoism, you find that in Chuangtzu, liezi, laozi; and this is not a mere theoretical work, Guénon wrote a lot about initiation, the 'pratical side', what it meant and how to really 'see it', and there's no 'west bad', everything is collapsing, it just started in the west

>>19532948
Isn't theology just a type of metaphysics

>>19532948
>guenon was doing ontotheology, which is metaphysics applied to theology

>>19532831
Metaphysics is a very broad field, and metaphysicians attempt to answer questions about how the world is. Ontology is a related sub-field, partially within metaphysics, that answers questions of what things exist in the world.
guenon was doing ontotheology, theology disguised as metaphysics, he never articulated a true metaphysical system
>>19532970
the interpretation he did about those authors and the ideas he attributed t othose authors are made up, no scholar of oriental studies takes guenon seriously, he's considered a meme orientalist

>>19532983
yes, but the worst kind, being called an ontotheologist is an insult in philosophy
ontotheology take the worst aspects of metaphysics(dogmatism) and theology(speculation)

>>19532986
this is how you know you won an argument agiants guenonfags, when all they can do is post memes
which is fiting since guenon wa sa huge meme himself

>>19533002
it's not applied to anything, all other things are manifestations of metaphysics, they are part of it

>>19532988
here for you ,
a work of PURE metaphysics, without resorting to symbolism and revealed forms

>>19533009
yes it is

>all other things are manifestations of metaphysics
that depend in which system you're using, but that's besides the point, when you want to explain how the world was created by a force outside of this world you'r eby deffinition doing ontotheology, which is a futile ffort, sicne you can explain how causation was caused from non causation, without using a principii fallacies or arguments from authority, so the whole metaphysical scheme get's falls on itself, and that's why no one tries to do ontotheology anymore, and why the primum mobile is considered one of aristotle worst ideas
to bad guenon didn't get the memo and keep doign that meme shit and falling into all the commom mistakes

>>19533008
>>19533018
if you're lazy you can read this ok
https://traditionalhikma.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/The-Logic-of-the-Absolute-the-Metaphysical-Writings-of-Rene-Guenon-by-Peter-Samsel-.pdf

>>19533018
>a work of PURE metaphysics
how is that PURE metaphysIcs and not speculative ontotheology?

>>19533037
>without resorting to symbolism and revealed forms

>>19533042
ontotheology don't use symbolism or revealed forms
if you want me to waste time reading that book at least invest your own time googling what ontotheology is

>>19533051
Did I ever tell you the definition of ontotheology?

>>19532608
>normal people insulting orientalists for fun are in fact hindooo nationalists because bla bla bla
lol

>>19532914
>“West bad”
This is called orientalism.
Guénon is just an orientalist.

>>19532970
>everything is collapsing, it just started in the west, trust me bro, you'll only find the light in oriental Traditions, you'll be initiated, because you are so special!
lol orientalism is so stupid...

>>19534147
>>19534143
>>19534138
t.

>>19534177
>people who dislike oriental stuff are all asians
okay retard, keep embarrassing yourself

Stupid to call Guénon an orientalist when he's completely different than all of them, even if that is indeed one of the objects of his study

>>19532970
How can a syncretic synthesization of eastern religions by a former occultist be made up? Is that what you’re asking…? You are being asked to believe in an unbroken hyperborean chain of “Tradition”.

What he should’ve done instead is go back to Western religion, compare and contrast with Eastern religion, and look for the common thread that runs not only across space (across West and East) but in time (through the West) and committed to that. Instead, he had you accept some assertions about an unbroken chain of hyperborea, Eastern metaphysics as gold standard, and an appeal to consensus among religions as absolute truth, which ended in disaster.

>>19535268
Is the point to find what the religions have in common or to find the absolute truth?

>>19535280
It’s good question that should’ve been put to René Guenon since he seemed to confuse the two despite his protests to the contrary.

what no hegel does to a mf

>>19525077
lol

>>19525930
You haven't even read Guenon (pbuh). Big Cringe.
>In this also can be seen an outcome of the belief in the power of numbers alone: it is in keeping with the quantitative character of modern civilization to set in motion enormous masses of combatants; and at the same time, egalitarianism also finds its expression here, as well as in systems such as 'compulsory education' and 'universal suffrage'. Let it be added that these generalized wars have only been made possible by another specifically modern phenomenon, that is, by the formation
of 'nations' -a consequence on the one hand of the destruction of the feudal system, and on the other of the disruption of the higher unity of medieval Christendom;
The Crisis of the Modern World (Chapter 7)

>>19530098
>>19530120
>That is [merely] their wishful thinking. Say, "Produce your proof, if you should be truthful." Quran 2:111

>>19531121
Only ortholarpers hate him. Guenon wholeheartedly wished to restore Catholicism (the original church founded by Christ) and wrote numerous books and articles about christian esotericism. The situation for the catholic church is now worse than the time of Guenon (read The Destruction of the Christian Tradition by Rama Coomaraswamy).
What he did by converting to islam filters all sentimentalist idiots who shouldn't even read him in the first place. Their bigotry is the same as that of the jews (they also seethe about Guenon because he didn't give their tradition enough attention and called him antisemitic, etc) and think that salvation only belongs to them.

>>19535226
Guénn was but an orientalist.
And you are stupid.

>>19536263
Guénon was an orientalist.
People laughed at him and despised him.

>>19531962
Imagine having Guenon living in your head rent free and you can't get him out of your head or stop the seething. You must be living in hell lol.

>>19536288
>People laughed at him and despised him.
Jesus was also laughed at and despised, and all genuine saints and people of God are hated throughout history by the scum of the earth. It never affects them and their mission is always completed regardless of the barking.

>>19525091
Based

>>19525077
Still undisputed destroyer of "philosophers" and hylic. 100 years since the publication of Introduction générale à l'étude des doctrines hindoues and the seething grows by the day.

>>19536544
in this same thread a lot of people refuted guenon's main claims and no guenonfag could defend guenon's arguments

>>19533962
yes, you implied it here:
>>19533042

>>19537143
fiction

>>19536074
this is liek when a chrsitfag want's to refute you by citing the bible

>>19525963
lol every single thread about Guenon there's one of you bioleninists trying to "sterilize" him politically for obvious reasons
a guy who supported the caste system, recognized fundamental individual inequality and more or less a theocratic state is inevitably going to appeal to the right even if he didn't care about politics, get it through those empty heads you spiteful mutant

>>19525077

>>19537154
the argument are all her,e youc an just read them and try to refute them if you can

>>19536263
It has nothing to do with bigotry and everything to do with an obvious oriental bias. Guenon would actually have you believe that there exists an unbroken chain of initiation from hyperborea, evidenced by the fact that several (mostly Eastern religions) happen to agree and Hinduism and Islam still have it but Western religion doesn’t because…. Well, for no reason at all. He literally just expects you accept it because he said it. The fact that a handful of religions are in agreement in some respects is proof of absolutely nothing.

>>19536389
If you think Guenon is a Saint, you’re an idiot. Fr. Seraphim Rose will be a Saint. Solovyov will be a Saint. Guenon will be remembered as he is now, a writer popular with occultists and chronically online people, if he’s remembered at all.

>>19536544
Nietzsche and Guénon refuted all philosophy

>>19537186
and nietzsche refuted guenon

>>19525077
I don't really see the point in arguing with plebs who can't appreciate Guenon, he is meant for an elite which means most people will never "get" him anyway, which is good. Just cherish his writings and be grateful for being among the choice few.

>>19537184
Your opinion on high spirituality is completely irrelevant, and I'm not trying to hurt you little ego here.

>>19537476
> high spirituality

>>19537482
It is interesting to observe the beta, bitch-like behaviour of many Christians. This is probably a result of people believing their exoteric, Judaicised religion provides all the answers to divine mysteries, which is laughable.

>>19525077
>opponents of gibberish

Guenon walks into a bar and the bartender says, "Why the long face?"

>>19530158
>>19529921
>>19529898
traitors to what?
an order that hates them?

>Guenon walks into a bar and the bartender says, "Why the long face?"

>>19537616
>t. dirty shudra

>>19537184
>Seraphim Rose
I guess fr Rose didn't expect you to find his secret letters where he praised Guenon as a positive influence on his mental outlook and uses hindu terms like the kaliyuga.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mArUQ6fYt4
Rose was a liar and a crypto-perennialist who followed Guenon's advice and sticked with a tradition (good) but deceived all his followers and shielded them from any true intellectuality. If you want to be a devout christcuck good for you and go read all those saints that you listed, but Guenon is a whole other level who should be read only if you want a complete understanding of religion and complete self realization.

>>19537802
fuckin based

>>19537802
No, he did. I’m completely aware actually as many people are since it’s very open and well-known fact about his life and Rose himself was orientalist before his conversion as. It doesn’t change a single thing I said. This isn’t shocking or secret or a refutation of anything but it is unfortunate that you thought otherwise as is unfortunate what it indicates.

>>19537602
Not like you. You’re the based elite.

>>19537979
damage control.

>>19525077
Guenon never culd argument agiants the problem of the 3rd man, he only said that ultimate reality was "real" while the imanent world was an illusion, but hat's just an argument from authority, not a logical, metaphysical argumentation, aslo his idea of awarness as the trascendental principle is also flawed since awarness can only manifest on the material world, awarness needs something to be aware of, so awarness ends up being interdependent with a material object

>>19529807
Traditionalism is not a religion, but it does have a 'system' of coherent metaphysics which are found in the various traditions or religions across the world.
Traditionalism is simply trying to piece these bits of metaphysical knowledge together in a way to appeal to the primordial unity.

>>19536263
Ortholarpers hate him too. I think only mormons love him

>>19538834
>but it does have a 'system' of coherent metaphysics
not at all, his "metaphysic" system is deply flawed, he commit all kinds of logical fallacies(petitio principii being the most common) make arguments from authority and circular reasoning