/lit/ - Literature

dead meme

>>20106161
didn't Schuon touch boys?

>>20106168
How are these Authors, their writings, the underlying principles which have guided their works, how would you say all this constitutes in some form a meme?

>>20106177
The personal life of an Author, even the name of the Author - is of an entirely relative order, Knowledge is supra-relative, and all the aforementioned things matter not.

>>20106161
All of Guenon’s works will be in the public domain with expired copywrites sometime new year, according to Jonathan Pageau

>>20106177
No, there were unsubstantiated allegations made by someone who was later shown to be wholly unreliable. The Police investigated but concluded it was BS.

>>20106191
nice non answer
>>20106205
actual answer

>>20106208
Well I see it as more irrelevant than relevant entirely secondary,

Here is a quote of Schuon which conveys not exclusively "His" idea, but an idea:

“From the strictly human point of view, which alone is what religions as such have in view, “God” could not be the Absolute in itself, for the Absolute has no interlocutor; we may, however, say that God is the hypostatic Face turned towards the human world, or towards a particular human world; in other words, God is Divinity that personalizes itself in view of man and insofar as it takes on, to a greater or lesser extent, the countenance of a particular humanity.” – F. Schuon, In the Face of the Absolute

>>20106161
What happened to all those David Foster Wallace threads with the funny interview screenshots?

I'm translating his works to Brazilian Portuguese right now, already translated Lord of the World and Crisis, now I'm translating Symbolism of the Cross and afterwards I'll translate Introduction to the Hindu Doctrines and then the rest of his work. Lusoanões comprem:

https://www.amazon.com.br/Senhor-do-Mundo-Ren%C3%A9-Gu%C3%A9non-ebook/dp/B09RW733GT/ref=sr_1_2?crid=3SKKAA1REHK5A&keywords=o+senhor+do+mundo&qid=1648003230&sprefix=o+senhor%2Caps%2C306&sr=8-2

https://www.amazon.com.br/Crise-do-Mundo-Moderno-ebook/dp/B09SGBB589/ref=sr_1_3?crid=2V92153VZSJMQ&keywords=a+crise+no+mundo+moderno&qid=1648003199&sprefix=%2Caps%2C841&sr=8-3

>>20106257
>I'm translating his works to Brazilian Portuguese right now, already translated Lord of the World and Crisis, now I'm translating Symbolism of the Cross and afterwards I'll translate Introduction to the Hindu Doctrines and then the rest of his work.

HOLY BASED..... Thank you anon for helping to spread the light of his wisdom in Brazil.

>>20106161

Here is a "Guénonian" "proof" of God it is not exclusive to him, and it isn’t an original argument. It is an adaptation from several different arguments, or rather another perspective on them. Schuon uses the same language, so does Coomaraswamy, but the argumentation has been inspired by the ideas explicated by Guénon, who gives a clearer explanation of this particular use of “infinity” in several places.

The infinite is “supra-rational” in that logic itself leads “beyond itself” (not “beneath itself”) into infinity. The idea of infinity having “no limits” is not a “negation” in the sense of combining two contrary concepts (a square and a circle) into one (also limited) concept, it is that which, in Guenon’s words:

“…nothing can be denied, and is therefore whatcontains everything, that outside of which there is nothing; and this idea of the Infinite, which is thus the most affirmative of all because it comprehends or embraces all particular affirmations whatsoever,can only be expressed in negative terms by reason of its absolute indetermination. In language, any direct affirmation is in fact necessarily a particular and determined affirmation-the affirmation of something particular-whereas total and absolute affirmation is no particular affirn1ation to the exclusion of others since it implies them all equally”

The argument(s) can be put like this:

1.The infinite is that which has no limits.
2.The infinite can be conceived in the mind.
3.Whatever can be conceived in the mind exists in the mind,
4.The infinite can either exist only in my mind or in reality outside the mind.
5.The infinite, by definition, has no limits, including limits of existence.
6.Therefore, the infinite also exists outside my mind.
7.The infinite is greater than all things with limits.
8.The universe has limits.
9.The infinite is greater than the universe.
10.There is either one infinite or more than one infinite.
11.If there is more than one infinite, they are limited in that they are not one another (i.e they exclude each other).
12.The infinite cannot be limited in any way.
13.Exclusion is a limitation.
14.Therefore, there is only one infinite.
15.There is either something greater in some quality than the infinite or the infinite is the greatest in all qualities.
16.For something to be greater than the infinite, it means the infinite is limited in that respect.
17.The infinite cannot be limited in any respect.
18.Therefore, the infinite is the greatest in all qualities.

Source: https://theosymmetry.wordpress.com/2020/08/08/the-guenonian-proof-of-god-the-metaphysical-infinity/

Updated with more precisely formatted arguments:
https://theosymmetry.wordpress.com/2020/08/13/guenons-infinity-some-more-clarifications/

>>20106161
Test

>>20106257
Basado

>>20106276
1. Wrong
2. Wrong
3. Come on
4. Wrong
5. See 1
6. See 5
7. Wrong
8. Unknown
9.
>comparing an abstraction to the universe
10. True
11. Wrong, it means they're not equivalent
12. Wrong
13. Wrong, embarrassing mathlet
I'm to tired to continue but you are a retarded ape

>>20106294
>From the Blogpost
"Firstly, “Proof” here doesn’t mean anything like “the argument is true, therefore what the argument aims to prove is true”. It is rather the opposite. God is true, God is real, and therefore the argument works. The logic that undergirds Guenon’s and Schuon’s use of “proofs” is not that the proofs are perfect or infallible in themselves, indeed anyone can take apart an argument by its premises. Anyone can believe anything they want, no matter how illogical or contrary to experience it is. The logic of their use of proofs is instead based on “intellection”. They help, in Cutsinger’s words, to “see along” the ray of light they trace up to its source. It requires attention, mindfulness, and a willingness to know. In short, it requires faith. If you are not willing to be convinced, you won’t be, and it is not always immediate even if you want to be. People are different and there are different ways for different people to be convinced."

>retarded ape
See Pic

>>20106304
>The logic that undergirds Guenon’s and Schuon’s use of “proofs” is not that the proofs are perfect or infallible in themselves
Then why does he need to prove anything if faith alone is the answer?
Also
>I posted the chad haha GOTCHA
>tranny tranny tranny
As stated above, you are a retarded ape

>>20106257
Very good Brazillian Anon, on an at least partially related subject to Lord of the World, here is some interesting material written by Charles Upton called "ATLANTIS AND HYPERBOREA: An Inquiry into the Cyclical Mysteries With a Reconsideration of the René Guénon’s Rendition of the Cycle of Manifestation in Traditional Forms and Cosmic Cycles, The King of the World, and The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times"
http://religioperennis.org/documents/charlesupton/ATLANTISHYPERBOREA.pdf

And an essay by Réne Guénon called "Land of the Sun" http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/public/articles/The_Land_of_the_Sun-by_René_Guénon.aspx

>>20106257
Are you translating from French?

>>20106318
See >>20106276 Note the usage of double quotes, on the word proof.

>>20106161

Some old links saved reposted from an old thread, still relevant information to be posted here:

>Intro books to read first before any Vedanta text (read 1 or both)

https://archive.org/details/EssentialVedanta.TheANewSourceBookOfAdvaitaVedantaSeeAdvaitaVedantaAPhilosophica_201701
https://archive.org/stream/reneguenon/1925%20-%20Man%20and%20His%20Becoming%20according%20to%20the%20Ved%C3%A2nta

>Shankara's commentaries (most important)
http://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-Vol-1.pdf
http://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-vol2.pdf
https://archive.org/details/Brihadaranyaka.Upanishad.Shankara.Bhashya.by.Swami.Madhavananda
https://archive.org/details/Shankara.Bhashya-Chandogya.Upanishad-Ganganath.Jha.1942.English
https://archive.org/details/BrahmaSutraSankaraBhashyaEnglishTranslationVasudeoMahadeoApte1960
http://estudantedavedanta.net/Bhagavad-Gita.with.the.Commentary.of.Sri.ShankaracharyaN.pdf

>>20106294
Also,


∞This is the dictionary definition of Infinite:

1.Having no boundaries or limits.
2. Immeasurably great or large; boundless: infinite patience; a discovery of infinite importance.
3.Mathematics.Existing beyond or being greater than any arbitrarily large value.Unlimited in spatial extent: a line of infinite length.Of or relating to a set capable of being put into one-to-one correspondence with a proper subset of itself.

In metaphysics, we are interested only in the first definition. The second is only a figurative use of the word and is of absolutely no interest. Mathematicians use the word only in a specialized and technical sense; in comparing it to the first definition, it is obvious that the mathematical infinity is not the metaphysical infinity, so care must be taken never to confuse the two. Rene Guenon uses the word “indefinite” to designate mathematical infinity.

From this definition we note that the Infinite is necessarily one, indivisible, eternal, and unchanging.

One:

There cannot be two infinities because Infinity A would limit or set a boundary to Infinity B. Therefore, the Infinite is One.

Indivisible:

If the Infinite were divisible, it could either be divided into two finite parts, which is impossible, or it could be divided into two equally infinite parts, which is also impossible. Thus, the infinite is indivisible. Another word used to express this quality isSimplicity.

Eternal:

It is eternal, otherwise it would be limited or bounded by time.

Unchanging:

Suppose the Infinite could change from state A to state B. That means that the Infinite as B would limit the Infinite as A. By definition this cannot be, therefore the Infinite is unchanging. Thus any system of thought that claim the Infinite is “evolving” is necessarily false.


Also I noticed... your use here of the word "mathlet" so all I can say is you are arrogant and confused, and you should be totally embarrassed, we are obviously not discussing the "Mathematical notion of Infinity" rather the "Metaphysical Infinity" if you have no clue, regarding this distinction, then I suggest you read the book by Réne Guénon called "The Metaphysical principles of Infinitesimal Calculus"

You exude a sort of "pride" so I don't want to humiliate you too much.

>>20106445
There is also the problem of “mathematics”, which you may think has “infinities”, which negates the conclusion that there has to be one infinity. The infinity presented here is the “metaphysical infinity”, which, on close inspection, is the original infinity. All mathematical “infinities”, which are not really “infinite” except in a particular “domain”, derive from the one metaphysical infinity. The indefinitude of natural numbers is in one “domain” only, precisely that of “natural numbers”. It is limited in an indefinite number of other domains, the most obvious of which is in other number “domains” (irrational, integers, fractions, etc). It is not infinite except in a derived sense. Think about it, the idea of a hierarchy of infinities (see Cantor’s Theorem) is absurd without qualification, the qualification being that they are only “infinite” in the sense that there is no end to a particular analytic explication of a particular property of a sequence. For example, the sequence of natural numbers can be defined by 1, 2, 3, 4 … ∞. By this definition, there are an indefinitude of “numbers” (if we can call them that) not included in this sequence, as fractions are not natural numbers, but an impossible division that is used to represent a “numerical” value for something that is beyond basic quantity (what we call “natural numbers”). They are “natural” for a reason: They satisfy the basic definition fully, that is, they are pure “quantities”; discrete, with absolute, or “quantized” intervals (This is why Wolfgang Smith sees quantum phenomena as matter “tending” to pure quantity, “quantum” and “quantity” coming from the same latin word: quantus, “how much”). Other sequences break this rule in some way. For example, Fractions have varying, or “non-quantized”, intervals, behaving more like quality than pure quantity, hence their applicability in many measures of quality, although not able to exhaustively describe those qualities. An example of phenomena beyond natural number notation is physical extension, which by nature is not discrete like natural numbers. Because of this “qualitative” aspect of nature, natural numbers require “modification”, a kind of “analogical” transposition, to fit the realm that is not pure quantity. The fact that these “infinities” are limited is the reason Guenon preferred to call them “indefinites”, in order not to confuse those who want to learn the difference. The true infinite needs no “qualification” that renders it finite, the “copycat” infinites are “infinite” only in virtue of analogy with the true infinite.

>>20106294
I would love to entertain a response from you with regards to
>>20106445
And
>>20106456
Also on the subject here >>20106318
That it is a matter of "blind faith" in addition to calling me a "retarded ape" you layer insult upon insult, and all I can say to you, is that your metaphysical ineptitude is resoundingly striking, that you are of the scientisitic disposition, and that is fine - as I too acknowledge that we are all prescribed varying modalities of dharma, vocation etc. Some perhaps less than others.

>>20106161


A rough definition of the Humanstate of Being, according to Guénon and the loose descriptors of language:

"The "gross state" in fact is nothing else than the corporeal existence itself, to which [...] human individuality belongs by one of its modalities only, and not in its integral development. As to the "subtle state", it includes, in the first place, the extra-corporeal modalities of the human being, or of every other being situated in the same state of existence, and also, in the second place, all other individual states [...] It may be said, therefore, that the human being, considered in its integrality, comprises a certain sum of possibilities which constitute its corporeal or gross modality, and in addition, a multitude of other possibilities, which, extending in different directions beyond the corporeal modality, constitute its subtle modalities; but all these possibilities together represent, nonetheless, one and the same degree of universal Existence. Itfollows fromthis that human individuality is at once much more and much less than Westerners generally suppose it to be: much more, because they recognize in it scarcely anything except the corporeal modality, which includes but the smallest fraction of its possibilities; much less, however, because this individuality, far from really constituting the whole being, is but one state of that being among an indefinite multitude of other states. Moreover the sum of all these states is still nothing at all in relation to the personality, which alone is the true being, because it alone represents its permanent and unconditioned state, and because there is nothing else which can be considered as absolutely real."

Man and His Becoming According to the Vedanta, chapter 2: «Fundamental distinction between the 'Self' and the 'ego'», p. 28.

The icon of St. Michael who filled the role of Hermes (notice similar caps) as the primary Psychopomp, in the pic attached, the inscription above the body says reads:

Φρήξον ψυχή μου τα ορώμενα

It is a shortened version of this:

Φρήξον ψυχή μου τα ορώμενα, φρήξετε πάντες αδελφοί το πικρόν ποτήριον του θανάτου

“Tremble, my soul, at the sight, tremble all, brothers, at the bitter cup of death.”

If we look at Michael’s upraised left hand, we can see that he holds the soul of the dead man in the form of an infant wrapped in what the King James Bible calls “swaddling clothes.” It comes from the old practice of binding infants in strips of cloth to restrain their movements and calm them — a practice that largely fell out of use in Europe in the 17th century. In icons it is common to depict the soul of the dead as a new-born infant.

>>20106161

A rough definition of the Humanstate of Being, according to Guénon and the loose descriptors of language:

"The "gross state" in fact is nothing else than the corporeal existence itself, to which [...] human individuality belongs by one of its modalities only, and not in its integral development. As to the "subtle state", it includes, in the first place, the extra-corporeal modalities of the human being, or of every other being situated in the same state of existence, and also, in the second place, all other individual states [...] It may be said, therefore, that the human being, considered in its integrality, comprises a certain sum of possibilities which constitute its corporeal or gross modality, and in addition, a multitude of other possibilities, which, extending in different directions beyond the corporeal modality, constitute its subtle modalities; but all these possibilities together represent, nonetheless, one and the same degree of universal Existence. Itfollows fromthis that human individuality is at once much more and much less than Westerners generally suppose it to be: much more, because they recognize in it scarcely anything except the corporeal modality, which includes but the smallest fraction of its possibilities; much less, however, because this individuality, far from really constituting the whole being, is but one state of that being among an indefinite multitude of other states. Moreover the sum of all these states is still nothing at all in relation to the personality, which alone is the true being, because it alone represents its permanent and unconditioned state, and because there is nothing else which can be considered as absolutely real."

Man and His Becoming According to the Vedanta, chapter 2: «Fundamental distinction between the 'Self' and the 'ego'», p. 28.

_________________________________________
The image here is an icon of St. Michael who filled the role of Hermes (notice similar caps) as the primary Psychopomp, in the pic attached, the inscription above the body says reads:

Φρήξον ψυχή μου τα ορώμενα

It is a shortened version of this:

Φρήξον ψυχή μου τα ορώμενα, φρήξετε πάντες αδελφοί το πικρόν ποτήριον του θανάτου

“Tremble, my soul, at the sight, tremble all, brothers, at the bitter cup of death.”

If we look at Michael’s upraised left hand, we can see that he holds the soul of the dead man in the form of an infant wrapped in what the King James Bible calls “swaddling clothes.” It comes from the old practice of binding infants in strips of cloth to restrain their movements and calm them — a practice that largely fell out of use in Europe in the 17th century. In icons it is common to depict the soul of the dead as a new-born infant.

>>20106161
In the Original heading post I procided a definition of metaphysics coming from Guénon's own writings, here in addition is how Guénon see the relationship between Metaphysics and what we know as Theology, from his first book A Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines - link to pdf also in original post,

"The theological point of view is but a particularization of the metaphysical point of view … it is an application of it to contingent conditions, the mode of adaptation being determined by the nature of the conditions to which it must respond … From this it follows that every theological truth, by means of a transposition dissociating it form its specific form, may be conceived in terms of the metaphysical truth corresponding ot it, of which it is but a kind of translation."
- Since everything has a reason for its existence, so does theology. In particular, man as he is a contingent being, will respond and understand theological language, while finding metaphysical language abstract and unapproachable. The other more important factor, de-emphasized or ignored by Guenon, is that metaphysical doctrine itself is secondary and derivative. Specifically, in a book dedicated to the six orthodox schools of Hinduism, which claim to be based on the Vedas, there is no mention of the contents of the Vedas themselves.

This can be further understood with reference to the quote from Schuon provided here
>>20106220

>>20106161
I guess we are dealing with "nu-/lit/" here, seeing the quality of the other posts here, I did not necessarily expect much engagement.

>>20106483
No I'm not arguing with guenonfags
Keep double quoting bono, another guenon chad image might make your opinion true

>>20106603
>Guenonfag
Not an argument, all you have done is proven yourself inferior and insecure, those guenon chad things are all memes of an entirely relative and secondary order, even the name "Guénon" itself by Guénon's admission is worth pittance, I am only interested in the realm of pure intellectuality, who, what, where, when - I'll leave drama pertaining to these notions to those who care for it - people like you.

>>20106161
Another order who is worth reading for those interested in Ancient European traditions, is Georges Dumézil, his "insights" are worth understanding

>>20106641
*author in addition Alberto Bernabe's research on orphism - is worth investigating for the primary source material

>>20106603
If you are not at all capable of grasping the ""opinions"" of Guénon and the Traditionalists then you should leave this thread, stop polluting it - with your total incomprehension, go back to a thread about Kant and Descartes I'm sure there are plenty, and go discuss their infallible statements.

>>20106161
What happened? I used to to see all these great discussions and insights into Traditionalism and Guénon, Perennialism on this Board, I guess they have all moved on into greater things, perhaps they have become preoccupied, or have resigned themselves to a life of solitude and contemplation, why have you all forsaken this board?

>>20106725
/pol/ evolians ruined these discussions for me. It must always be stressed that Evola is by no means a member of the same school as Guénon, Schuon, Titus, Ananda et al. On the contrary, Evola went against everything those members defended.

>>20106734
>/pol/ evolians ruined these discussions for me

Care to elaborate? I haven't fully read Evola, I have read Revolt Against the Modern World, Ride the Tiger, the metaphysics of sex - was great one, they were all good and parts of other works, I thought they were insightful - you just have to have a well-developed symbolical intuition and your understanding of his texts scales - according to the development of that intuition? I don't agree with Guénon in every respect, and honestly like Evola.

Guénon is somewhat inconsistent in his various works. On the one hand in Hindu Doctrines, he makes the rather racist claim that “Westerners, including even those who were true metaphysicians up to a certain point, have never known metaphysic in its entirety.” Yet, he also claims that the Middle Ages knew Tradition and hadtrue initiates. In particular, he writes that Western Neo-Platonism did indeed understand the Infinite. AsGornahoor has pointed out, the intellect of the Middle Ages was formed by the Neo-PlatonistsPlotinus,Augustine, andBoethius.

>>20106764
Second paragraph is from https://www.gornahoor.net/?p=3344 and I agree with, and this was probably due to the limitations with respects to guenons "academic knowlege base" which is of to me at least secondary importance.

>>20106168
fpbp
Lit is the least self conscious board. Everyone knows this. Actual lit users are still anons, but the fact that they’re so oblivious of that fact attracts non anons and other actual schizos who post their insane books people pick up on because they’re so ridiculous.
>>20106180
That’s barely a sentence. You fell for the meme.

>>20106764
evolians often have a shallow view of tradition, they get hooked due to the critique of modernity, but they are mostly aestheticians instead of being concerned with metaphysics – or rather they have a CURIOSITY for the 'occult' and 'esoteric'. The emphasis on 'race' and politics (fascism) is all too anti-traditional.

Most of them probably have never read Evola anyway. I like to recall that Evola is not published in the same publishers as the traditionalists (Sophia Perennis, World Wisdom), but instead is published with other new age stuff in Inner Traditions, which is fitting.

>>20106161
>What has happened to all the Réne Guénon threads
The constantly bullying finaly got too Guenonfag so he left. A reminder why its important to bully nerds.

>>20106798
I will add my thoughts on this opinion as someone who was familiar with Guénon before getting into Evola, Evola has been the subject of far more popularisation - and essentialy people who lack the the intuition which I alluded to before, essentialy the materialist grifters - who have a vain understanding of the subject cling onto Evola and pervert his work, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Evola's notions of Race, politics etc. Once you already understand that these subjects are of the contingent order - which evola himself understands But these pseudo-traditionalist evolians do not,

They don't read evola, to me evola is like extra Canon, he does really well as is said bridging this Guénonian anti-west mentality, simply because he lived beyond Guénon, witnessing the dichotomy break down all to succumb to the onslaught of Globalism, Evola treats this subject well in his Ride the Tiger,

Thinking about "Authors" in the way lit promotes is an anti-traditional mentality, to me sure there are statements here and there which on the part of a reader couldn't make him think this or that, but generalising the entire corpus of Evola is just silly, if they actually do a proper holistic reading they will understand its not so simple.

The problem is evolian grifters, not evola, he is published in inner traditions and not sophia perennis rather because associating oneself with evola is not a good public image in today's day and age - if you know what I mean, schuon etc. And later Traditionalists tried dissociating themselves from evola because of the inarguable "anti-semetic" connotations, to me him being not published there is not at all a form of denigration but lends credence to evola, he was right and he was a gifted author.

If you think he was racist and that's why you don't like him then you are a retard and don't understand guenon, and how these subjects are all of a relative and contingent order, we can say anything about them and subscribe to anything - it is secondary though.

Evolas popularisation is the consequence of him being so easy to misinterpret that if you do not have the necessary "intuition" you will essentialy be perverting the work and in effect internalising "counter-tradition" which is really only the fault of the reader who has a mind primed for such things.

/pol/ materialist grifters ≠ spirit of evola

>>20106798
Evola is undeniably an improvement to guénon in the more secondary and contingent domains, and most of his work is sound, the incomprehension of the pseudo-esotericists who have the tendency as Guénon also noted to express a radical and subversive hatred for the East etc. And even West out of inferiority and lack of metaphysical grounding are the issue here not Evola per say.

>>20106826

Bullying got to a "Guénonfag" whose whole purpose is to transcend such materialistic squabbles - I seriously doubt that, more likely that he became preoccupied or moved onto greater things.

>>20106859
*work that I have read

>>20106161
FromRide the Tiger(1961):

“Among those who have recognized the crisis of the modern world […] some have turned their eyes to the East. They see there, to a certain degree, a traditional and spiritual orientation to life that has long ceased to exist in the West as the basis for the effective organization of the various realms of existence. They have even wondered whether the East might furnish useful reference points for a revival and reintegration of the West…

“It is important to have a clear view of the domain to which such a proposition might apply. If it is simply a matter of doctrines and “intellectual” contacts, the attempt is legitimate. Butone should take note that valid examples and points of reference are to be found, at least partially, in our own traditional past, without having to turn to non-European civilizations…

“If one is more concerned with real influences that have a powerful effect οn existence,one should have nο illusionsabout them.The East itself is now following in our footsteps, ever more subject to the ideas and influences that have led us to the point at which we find ourselves, “modernizing” itself and adopting our own secular and materialistic forms of life.What is still left of Eastern traditions and character is steadily losing ground and becoming marginalized…

“[The process of decline] is still in an early phase there.For such civilizations it is only a matter of time before they find themselves at the same point as ourselves, knowing the same problems and the same phenomena of dissolution under the sign of “progress” and modernity.The tempo may even be much faster in the East. We have the example of China, which in two decades has traveled the whole way from an imperial, traditional civilization to a materialistic and atheist communist regime-a journey that the Europeans took centuries to accomplish…

“The “myth of the East” is therefore a fallacy. “The desert encroaches”:there is nο other civilization that can serve as support; we have to face our problems alone.“

>>20106790
Just get rid of the "How are" at the start
>fixed

>>20106839
Of course "say anything" this is an exaggeration, and that is why evola attempts to connect these domains to "metaphysical principles" how well he did this is up for anyone to judge.

>>20106161
85% of thread I have been replying to myself...... ;(((((

>>20106839
Evola was so traditional it intrigued Nasr how his house was dark and lacked traditional art instead of that garbage he liked

Any Seraphim Rose frens herE?

>>20106965
Yeah this interrelation between people where X said to Y doesn't do anything for me, it's total anthropomorphism for those concerned with drama on an interpersonal level, its meaningless, Evola and Nasr are just names - meaningless things, the whole point is to be unoriginal, all that matters is the subjects and knowledges explicated in their books.

If you enjoy this sort of mental play, where He said this to He and this and that, then I'm sorry but you won't find any sort of reciprocal effort from me at least to that end.

Go to r/relationships and discuss it there

>>20106988
fair enough. but evola is still anti-traditional and one should expect a traditional house from a traditionalist

>>20107064
Actually, there is no correlation, the true Traditionalist dwells in caves and has internalised all symbols, Sri yantras' or whatever it be and preoccupies himself with meditations in caves like the ascetics of the Himalayas, all having a Traditionalist styled house proves is some worldly interest in Traditionalism, and the wealth to support this interest.

Not a good argument by any means, in fact, your argument is entirely anti-traditional equating the Metaphysical disposition to some material object or preoccupation.

>>20107088
This "true" put before the Traditionalist at the start is of relative connotation, I'll correct myself and just say >a Traditionalist may dwell, to avoid confusion.

>>20106161
>What has happened to all the Réne Guénon threads, all the threads dedicated to works (books) of the Traditionalist authors?
I was wondering the same thing. I thought that is because I don't visit this website as much as I did in the past. Anyone with a discord and interested in Guénon, give me a friend request to Hadrien#1291 and I will give you an invite to my discord server.

Corbin thought the traditionalists were a bunch of midwits. I get why people name their work in thesame breath but Corbin distanced himself from them.

>>20107118
I'll make a discord for that

Tried to read The Great Triad and man, it was both turgid and unclear. Makes historical claims that might be true but with no justification at all, eg. Confucianism and Daoism are scions from an original unified belief system.

Any advice? Inb4 read this other guenon book first

>>20107258
http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/public/articles/Taoism_and_Confucianism-by_Rene_Guenon.aspx
I recommend this essay here, and maybe follow a guenonian reading guide, in chronological order with respects to the order in which he published his books - they're common here or you can just find the order online. Guenons because do not exist independent on eachother, they have dependencies - takes time to get used to.

With regards to Taoism and Confucianism being derived from the same primordial tradition or precedent tradition, guenon talks about it in that essay

>>20106161
I just had to say pbuh

>>20106734
100% agree.
/pol/ retards are too caught up in muh strong man aesthetics and as a result give precedence to action over contemplation.
They never realise that action without thought is as modern as it gets.

>>20107118
>>20107133
There was a Traditionalist school discord attempted recently but no interesting discussions were had. Also way too much counter-tradition and reliance on the psychic >.>

Can someone explain the warrior-priest to me?
I get confused because if one masters the greater mysteries (contemplation and the priestly field) surely they also master the lesser mysteries (action and the warrior field). Isn't a priest also a warrior-priest then? Esp. with common troupe of priest teaching the warrior on their quest: merlin and arthur, krishna and arjuna etc.

>>20107368
>There was a Traditionalist school discord attempted recently

How do you keep track of such things?

>>20107411
It was posted in a previous Guenon thread a couple months ago. You didn't miss much. The short form communication of discord doesn't lend to constructive discussion.

>>20107448
>The short form communication of discord doesn't lend to constructive discussion.
That's unfortunate

>>20107379
Training in one way doesn't mean succeeding, success can occur after or just at the moment of death.
For those who succeed before death they have better to do than teach a lower path, they have their own achievement to transmit.
Of course councelors of the princes is a traditional roles of brahmins but they are not usually kings because it would take time, violence,... that's a question of opportunity and order in everyone's life

>>20107519
What is the warrior-priest then? I understand it is something of the golden age but how does it really work? e.g. Jesus and Muhammad were seen as priest-kings/warrior-priests.

>>20106864
Guenonchad here, Ive been posting on /lit/ continuously since 2011-2012 (at the beginning I wasnt posting about Guenon but that came later), sometimes I take a few month break or I just post in fiction threads.

>>20107760
Where are you from Guenonchad? I am interested in what place birthed such an interesting character like yourself?

>>20107788
I was born on the west coast of the USA, I still live in the USA to this day

What does Guenon say about an early death...asking for a friend.

>>20107841
"The “end of a world” never is and never can be anything but the end of an illusion."

>>20106161
I lurk to see what's bumpin' but I read more BOOKS. Back to the Books mining effort posts. Brb. See ya next season.

>>20106276
Ansalem is significantly tighter.

>>20106161
Because people finally realized Evola was literally Tik Tok crystal witches for right wingers

>>20106304
>I'm doing real metaphysics but I don't need to explain mystical logical contradictions.
>I'm doing real philosophy but my proofs aren't actually proofs.
>Hey, why won't philosophers take me seriously! It's because the West is in decay!

>>20106568
Yeah, he defines metaphysics as deep thinking about mystical stuff. Not the systematic study of being qua being normally taken to be metaphysics.

This is where a lot of these threads go to shit. People who've haven't read much philosophy and never read a primer on metaphysics think this sort of metaphysics is all metaphysics, not an unpopular definition.

So Guenon will get shit on for contradictory statements "the manifested and instantiated in the world is non-being, it is not but has existence," by people versed in actual metaphysics, but that isn't really the point. He is talking about religion more than philosophy.

Although, he himself muddies the water. He seemed unaware of the problems of having a two tier epistemology (illusion/empiricism vs ultimate truth) where the lower tier is a substratum of the higher and is negated by the higher.

This can be a sort of mystical truth, a truth that is illogical but apparent, but it can't be good ontology in the rigorous sense.

>>20106456
A hierarchy of infinites isn't absurd, it's mathematically provable with set theory, as you refer to.

Asspulling "metaphysical," infinities doesn't change that. For mathematical realists, numbers are universal, they are already metaphysical. You're not using the term right. Just say "mystical infinities," and you have a better case because the mystical doesn't rely on proof.

>>20107945
BTW, while Guenon never tackles this problem, plenty of later Vedanta scholars did. You can make true propositions about stories. The problem emerges in Sankara trying to have a sort of sub reality for external objects to beat back Buddhist critiques, and the result is to create a two tier ontology, rather than a comparison of illusion and truth. Although some Vedanta scholars just bipassed this by going full dualism, creator/created.

>>20107888
In that blog if you'd read it Anselm was talked about and linked too, only so much that can be fit in a 3000 character limit, which is why I linked it.

>>20107945
>>20107897
This is Jay Dyer tier nonsense you don't understand Guénon, it's okay bro,

>why won't "philosophers" take me seriously
Bro.....

>>20107967
>>20107970
I know this doesn't respond to anything you've said, and that it is sort of low, however, you're so steeped in pseudo-philosophy deconstruction your criticisms which I do not see as genuine argumentation but mere opinionated insult.. seems pointless, it feels like some one says "you're an idiot" do you respond with a redutstion to that? I won't.

>>20107987
*deconstructing and *refutation -autocorrected and spelling-error'd

>>20107970
>Jay Dyer
He wrecked a perennialist in a debate lol. Perennialism is incoherent anon

>>20107945
>He seemed unaware of the problems of having a two tier epistemology (illusion/empiricism vs ultimate truth) where the lower tier is a substratum of the higher and is negated by the higher.
Both parts of your sentence are incorrect, the two-tier distinction is an ontological one and not an epistemological one (that statements about relative experience on the lower tier are on the level of empirical statements doesn't make the two-distinction itself a non-ontological distinction), and the higher tier is the substratum (adisthana) of the lower one and not vice-versa as you wrote. There *are no* problems with the actual Advaita two-tier system as it is articulated by Shankara.
>This can be a sort of mystical truth, a truth that is illogical but apparent,
Nothing is illogical about it, if you think so then say exactly what instead of being vague.
>>20107960
>You can make true propositions about stories.
Advaita doesn't disagree
>The problem emerges in Sankara trying to have a sort of sub reality for external objects to beat back Buddhist critiques, and the result is to create a two tier ontology, rather than a comparison of illusion and truth.
What problem? There is none, the two tier ontology is precisely a distinction between illusion and truth, illusion is not a "sub-reality". The Yogachara Buddhists whose subjective idealism Shankara was attacking predated Shankara and had no idea of him, they don't even critique Advaita once in their works, Shankara came after them and refuted their subjective idealism while putting forward his own Vedantic ontological idealism that was on stronger philosophical grounds.

>>20107991

Christianity is in a sense perennial ever heard of Augustine's philosophia perennis and logos spermatikos,
The only argument against perennialism from the Orthodox christian perspective is saying well that's integrated into our tradition, that Justin Martyr talks about how we believe everything of that nature ate simply seeds of the logos, and that yeah essentialy we do that better, and already have that. An I fully agree being a perennialist is not what Guénon ever argued for, essentialy he advocated some orthodox tradition + a perennial mentality, which could essentialy correspond to being an orthodox christian and subscribing to philosophia perennis or logos spermatikos, whatever argument you're talking about was based on a false dialectic, besides I even referenced an Orthodox Christian perennialist James Cutsinger in OP, regardless, the only way to absolutely deny that there aren't traces or some presence of a "Primordial Tradition" is blind faith or willfull ignorance, you can't keep ignoring the patterns and even Justin Martyr realised that.

>>20108015
*are simply seeds of the logos

>>20108015
*not being a perennialist in the exclusive sense - that would be counter-initiatic and even Crowley-tier

>>20108058
Kek Seems odd though, given that Rose even claimed to be inspired by Guénon, and RECOMMENDED him - of course I realise that the meme is exaggerated - however his comment at the end has me lost maybe, the "Chalmakubi" was a misquote or poor transliteration- any idea as to what Rose was trying to reference and correlate to the "Antichrist"

>>20108107
Seraphim Rose has nothing to do with Guénon, he is the father of EO american larping

>>20108107
Even at the end of pic-related I think he maintains a "Christianity is the only way mentality" seemingly invalidating other traditions - but I could be reading tooo far into it. He has a great beard though

>>20108058
Did Fr. Seraphim hit a nerve, demon-worshiper?

>>20108143
Seraphim Rose even admits that demon-worshipper (Shankara) Guénon was the most primary influence which even Lead him into Orthodoxy, saying Guénon Shaped his intellectual outlook - so I bet he probably affirmed non-duality and such things, I'm not too sure as i have not read the works of Seraphim Rose.

If anything holding that Hinduism is in its entirety "demon-worshipping" is a non-sensical position for someone claiming to be chiefly inspired by Guénon - my guess is Rose meant the highly degenerated pantheistic form of "Hinduism" - which even Guénon anathematises.

>>20108184
Correction *demon-worshipper (Shankara) influenced Guénon

>>20108184
>my guess is Rose meant the highly degenerated pantheistic form of "Hinduism" - which even Guénon anathematises.

Nevermind just read pg. 47 of that meme above and he is talking about Vedanta but in reference to Vivekenanda - even orthodox Hindus would agree that Vivekenanda was anti-traditional in spirit, and that "liberal-christianity" is modernist and anti-traditional also, he is not wrong there.

>>20108236
But of course he does repeat the "Psalmist's words"

>>20107991
That was such a shitty debate. Dyer's argument for orthodoxy over perennialism is just
>it's orthodox therefore it's true and correct
I agree Averoll the perennialist did get destroyed though. He admitted you can't know what true or real "perennialism", so he's like yeah I have my schools of perennialism that I believe in, but I don't know which one is correct.
It's like gambling that the particular schools you chose (I think his preferred metaphysics come from Shankara and Schopenhauer) would be the correct ones which is boardeline agnosticism and skepticism

>>20107118
>>20106161

Warning: do not join this pseud (((discord))) abrahamic pseudo-metaphysical elarp.

Banned almost instantly after joining, for harbouring different opinions, online discord "traditionalism" is totally fruitless, all technological communication will be more or less counter-initiatory and anti-traditional...

Run by some insecute Romanian larping as a Frenchman (buys French edition Guénon only - when he cannot understand the language)

Was an entertaining time nonetheless kek.

>>20108516
*insecure

>>20108341
Dyer is a pseudo-philosopher (((evangelist))). Nothing more needs to be said.

>>20108516
what a clown you are

>>20108184
Hinduism can be both demon worship and the most primary influence which even Lead him into Orthodoxy
There have been worse things that lead people to Christ

>>20108568
Cope if you are romanian anon. You can't see the bigger picture, even just as the seemingly "distinct" polarities can coexist - in the exact way guénon explicated, so too can opinions which are of a relative and contingent order, regardless I would not expect you to understand such things. Anyway, you can continue you on with your fetishism unbothered, as I acknowledge the coexistence of supposed distinctions.

>>20106161

>>20108516
Online trad talk is full of crazy people and autists who can't understand empathy or friendship and only want a 'group', either to dominate or to be dominated by.

IRL is always better because you can get a feel for people. They will still be mostly strange people but at least you can get a sense quicker. Hope you have a good day anon. Remember people who do evil are just confused and always hurting themselves more than they hurt others by isolating themselves in behaviors that are more isolating than any physical prison. Doesn't mean you have to open yourself to abuse. But makes it easier to let it go once you have gotten to a safe distance, and forgive the person and hope they figure this out too.

>>20106350
>the masses have always been led
Who are the masses?
>the ones that have been led
wow. I love this guy

Has Guenon or anyone other Trad ever presented. Coherent world view or has it always just been an analysis of different religions

>>20108341
It wasn't a good debate because Averoll didn't have a good foundation to basis Perennialism on but Jay did for Orthodoxy.

He's position fell apart when he couldn't give a reason to believe one thing from the past is Trad but another is is not

>>20109355
phone poster

Is there like a simple intro to traditionalism? Just to see if I'll like it and want to pursue it further?

>>20109460
eliade secular and profane
guenon crisis of the modern world
sedgwick against the modern world (unironically)

It’s ultimately because what they refer to as traditional ism was little more than the orientalist one free of Guenon’s time with the occasional decent criticism of modernity. When one abandons what they were raised in for something which to them is that exotic and novel, they can hardly be considered traditional by any stretch of the earth imagination.
The slightest amount of scrutiny reveals all of these men to be total frauds.

>>20109514
I agree with you in a sense, guenon considers this sort of traditional character - something passed on as of the "sentimental" order, whereas I can't help but see the truth in what you're saying, but the question still stands if we are supposed to ideally accept what was passed on to us, how come ancient European traditions were rejected and replaced by an untraditional according to your definition religion. What you say is contradictory in sense, unless you are to entirely deny "historicism" which is reasonable to do, and the essentialy beleive that the tradition eternally passed on has been Christianity, but then what do we do about Muslims who've been recently converted amidst Christians in the past couple generations or even they have retained a living memory of someone passing down how there grandfather passed on their grandfather's etc. Account of converting to Islam, or to Christianity etc. So we arrive at a bit of a problem, what would you say?

>>20109564
Made many spelling errors here, however I hope you don't mind them and are able to mentally correct the paragraph.

>>20106161

Guenonposter was most likely a single anon, he stopped posting and that is why there are no more Guenon Threads and posts.

Has Guenon or anyone other Trad ever presented. Coherent world view or has it always just been an analysis of different religions

>>20107993
Sankara defenders always make the empirical truth vs metaphysical truth distinction to try to save his system.

If you say both truths are ontological than you have the objects of Maya as ontic entites, but then this actually false because they are really just Brahama.

This is even more of a problem than the normal side step.

Something derived, less ontologically primitive, can not be true in an ontological sense, but also actually false.

This is a contradiction.

This also is a problem if you claim that claims about Maya are somehow a secondary "epistemological" truth. The claim is not just that propositions about them are true in the sense that propositions about a fiction are true, which could work, unfortunately the "manifest" has a certain reality. This was to counter Buddhist thought, but the problem is that now propositions about Maya are true, except actually nope, they are actually all Brahma.

There is also the question about if an undifferentiated being as being makes any sense. If Brahma is not a personal God, the ontology gets potentially doomed here too.

Because if Brahma is just some sort of pure being, then what is it. The only thing that can define it is nothing. But nothing is traitless. So now your are positing a traitless pure being that is defined only by not being a traitless non-being. This makes your soul ontological primitive undefined.

Now this can be saved maybe if there are other ontic entities cascading from this undefined bare substratum of being, but the problem is that the only other things beside Brahama are said to not really exist, except they do, but really they don't

This is the common critique. Madhava makes some similar points although lacks the formalism of modern arguments.

Generally papers end here, but if you were to subject it to the rigor of other metaphysics you'd have to wonder if there can be parts and wholes of objects since all things actually, really lack haeccity.

People also point out that ignorance appears to be residing in Brahma, because the self is actually Brahma, but somehow ignorant.

>>20109355
You use foreign religions or ancient ones so that you don't have to deal with anyone calling you on your bullshit.

You can just say, "no, you're blinded by your culture, in context, this all makes sense."

In reality, Hindu thought has a long history of schools shitting on other schools and calling them out on their bullshit, but you'd think a handful is sages just hit on universally acclaimed truth and it was never questioned again based on Trad talk. Meanwhile, these guys have tons of sects.

>>20109769
there are, he still argues with buddhists about how advaita makes no sense

>>20110298
This is becoming amusing for me to read more and more confused replies from you each time, all coming from someone who knows almost nothing about Advaita aside from what you've probably gleaned from slanted incomplete portrayals in secondary sources, backing off from the previous mistakes that were corrected in the last exchange, only to add new, equally absurd and baffling ones in their place.

>Sankara defenders always make the empirical truth vs metaphysical truth distinction to try to save his system.
It's an important in-built component in his system already from the beginning and not something exterior which needs to be brought in, Shankara repeatedly makes the distinction between empirical matters vs metaphysical truth in his works.
>If you say both truths are ontological than you have the objects of Maya as ontic entites, but then this actually false because they are really just Brahama.
This isn't what Advaita teaches you clown, nothing within Maya is an ontological truth or ontological reality, only Brahman is ontologically real/true, that's why Shankara says Maya and the perception of Maya-objects like pots is unreal in his commentary on Gita 2.16. Making the empirical vs metaphysical distinction isn't saying both truths or both Brahman+Maya are ontological, it's saying that the ontological ultimate reality (Brahman) is true and that the empirically-experienced world (Maya) is false.
>This is even more of a problem than the normal side step. Something derived, less ontologically primitive, can not be true in an ontological sense, but also actually false. This is a contradiction.
Fortunately, Shankara doesn't teach this, Maya is not an ontic reality for him, this is just another of your laughable mistakes which he repeatedly refutes throughout his major works
>This also is a problem if you claim that claims about Maya are somehow a secondary "epistemological" truth. The claim is not just that propositions about them are true in the sense that propositions about a fiction are true, which could work,
Advaita ONLY considers Maya as relatively true in the sense that "propositions about a fiction are true"

>>20110298
>unfortunately the "manifest" has a certain reality. This was to counter Buddhist thought, but the problem is that now propositions about Maya are true, except actually nope, they are actually all Brahma.
Incorrect, nothing has changed from above, only Brahman is real, nothing else is according to Shankara. For Shankara, manifestation is a change and so since the Real is unchanging anything that manifests is ipso facto metaphysically false. Shankara refuted Buddhist thought in many ways, if you are referring to his critique of Yogachara subjective idealism, his arguments consistent in noting that reason and experience indicates the metaphysically-false world is shared between minds and isn't the delusion of one mind, and that the elements and empirical objects are outside our minds and not just mental images that we falsely think surrounds us as objects; however none of this entails making maya real or manifestation real as you wrongly implied, a metaphysically false world can still be independent of one person's brain.

>There is also the question about if an undifferentiated being as being makes any sense. If Brahma is not a personal God, the ontology gets potentially doomed here too. Because if Brahma is just some sort of pure being, then what is it. The only thing that can define it is nothing.
Brahman is defined in the Taittirya Upanishad as Truth, Infinite, Knowledge (Consciousness), and is also said by the same text to be bliss, the additional description of bliss is included in the first part when you understand that pure Consciousness divested of all superimposed ignorance and false attributions is inherently blissful and is non-different from Bliss unqualified. So, Brahman isn't just "pure being", but Brahman is Infinite, True, and endowed with the radiant light of blissful immaculate Consciousness; all of which in unison irrevocably refutes your claim that "the only thing that can define it is nothing".
>But nothing is traitless. So now your are positing a traitless pure being that is defined only by not being a traitless non-being. This makes your soul ontological primitive undefined.
Except Advaita doesn't do that and they directly refute that in just about every Advaita text ever written! Shankara defines Brahman as infinite Bliss-awareness

"This is the ultimate reality, the changeless eternal, all-pervading like space, free from all causal modification, ever-contented pure bliss, indivisible, self-luminous by nature, untouched by actions in the form of virtue and vice along with their effects, and beyond time in its three tenses of past, present and future; this unembodied reality is called moksha or absolute freedom"
- Shankara, 'Brahma Sutra Bhasya 1.1.4

Does "ever-contented self-luminous all-pervading pure bliss" sound like nothingness to you? Have you ever even experienced bliss? Do you know what it is? Hint: it's not nothingness

>>20110298
>Now this can be saved maybe if there are other ontic entities cascading from this undefined bare substratum of being, but the problem is that the only other things beside Brahama are said to not really exist, except they do, but really they don't
It's not something to be saved because it's not the position of Advaita to begin with, anyone advancing this claim immediately gives away they have no idea wtf they are talking about

>This is the common critique. Madhava makes some similar points although lacks the formalism of modern arguments.
His argument is garbage, no argument that tries to construe eternal bliss as being nothingness/void will ever be anything but retarded and completely illogical
>Generally papers end here, but if you were to subject it to the rigor of other metaphysics you'd have to wonder if there can be parts and wholes of objects since all things actually, really lack haeccity.
Brahman is partless, Shankara points out that the very relationship of parts to whole is contradictory, and he uses that to refute other Vedantins (like Ramanuja et al) who say Brahman has parts, because if Ramanuja says Brahman is whole but has parts then he has to answer "does Brahman exist only inside the parts or outside them too?" If Brahman exists outside the parts as well, then portions of Him become a "partless part" which is a contradiction, but if Brahman is only inside the parts and hence the only real instantiations of Brahman are as incomplete parts then it's contradictory to say Brahman is a united whole and One Being when the only Brahman that exists are incomplete fragmented shards. It's not important for Shankara to delineate the exact nature of maya-objects which are illusory anyway, but since the parts-whole relation is contradictory he wouldn't say it's truly real in any context regardless.
>People also point out that ignorance appears to be residing in Brahma, because the self is actually Brahma, but somehow ignorant.
The Atman-Brahman that is everyone's Self is entirely unaffected by ignorance in Advaita, ignorance is just something that affects the subtle body or mind of living beings. The Atman-Brahman which is the Self is the unaffected unconditioned light which allows that mind to function by being present, but without being altered or affected by Maya in any way.

>>20110298
This is predicated on a complete misunderstanding of metaphysics my nig, you're trying to force into a limited system where it doesn't belong
>
Because if Brahma is just some sort of pure being, then what is it. The only thing that can define it is nothing. But nothing is traitless. So now your are positing a traitless pure being that is defined only by not being a traitless non-being. This makes your soul ontological primitive undefined.
Literally laughed out loud when I read this. I remember when I would say shit like this too.

>>20109355
>has Guenon or anyone other Trad ever presented. Coherent world view or has it always just been an analysis of different religions
Yes, Guenon presents a coherent world view throughout his books in the sense that he explains how to reconcile the different traditions as reflecting a single primordial truth, and he goes further into detail and says that within this perennial universe with multiple paths to God, that we are in such-and-such stage of cyclical development and this has such-and-such influences on the world, people, spiritual matters etc.

Most of Guenon's general worldview that is not just about finding the same metaphysis reflected in different traditions is explained in the books "Intro to Hindu Doctrines, East and West, Crisis of the Modern World, and Reign of Quantity". The specific details of how he sees the teachings of different religions as reconcilable is found in his books on pure metaphysics. He doesn't systematically go over every point of conflict and how to reconcile them, which is not the point of what he is trying to do anyway, he just shows that it can be easily done, and once you consult the sources he works off of it becomes clear how to do so. To be clear he doesn't say that all religious teachings are equally true or ultimate, but that some are more indirect and filtered approaches to a truth another path may take a more direct and unfiltered approach to, and this is still true of two teachings that are both esoteric, e.g. it's not only true viz. the exoteric/esoteric divide.

>>20110318
>In reality, Hindu thought has a long history of schools shitting on other schools and calling them out on their bullshit
That doesn't make Guenon's world-view any less coherent. Not everyone has equal capacities but there will invariably be people in any culture of different aptitudes and with different dispositions, some people will see the truth right away, others will finally get it after long and careful effort, others will be predisposed to be averse to the truth, others will prefer an adulterated or attenuated form of the truth, and others yet still will ambivalent about such matters.

>>20111122
Not him but absolutely no argument there.

>>20109769
Are all of these threads just arguments over which Hindu doctrine is superior?

I feel like I'm in the Bible thread, but for Hindus, and instead of it even being practicing Christians getting autistic about this stuff it's a bunch of white dudes because they read a French c list academic. lol

>>20111211
>Are all of these threads just arguments over which Hindu doctrine is superior?
No, pretty much every religion and type of mysticism/metaphysics gets discussed in Guenon/Trad threads at one point or another, some other Guenon/Trad threads end up being mostly filled with posts on Christianity, Islam or Buddhism. Hindu stuff just sometimes comes up more often than others because Guenon's notable association with it means that if somebody wants to talk about anything Hindu-related and there are no Indian threads in the catalog then people know that they can usually find willing conversationalists about Hinduism in a thread like this

>>20109355
Guénon presents the "necessity" of a worldview generally, and lists coherently what this worldview should constitute with regards to all its various aspects, essentialy guénon advocates esoterism, and points the reader in the direction which should ideally lead him to choose a more Traditional worldview.
A guénonian can become an abrahamic Christian, Muslim - maybe even Kabbalist... or non-abrahamic Hindu, Taoist, Buddhist, its unlimited so long as the religion is a more or less "tradition." the reality is that no matter what tradition the guénonian is initiated into as they will typically always maintain some belief in perennial truth.


"Another debate that still seems to go back and forth about Guenon and possibilities of a Western initiation, involves his rejection of the Christian sacraments as initiatory—the reasons for which he précised in both “Perspectives on Initiation”, and in the article “Christianity and Initiation”–but he said more than just that concerning the sacraments, which tends to get short shrift. Yes, he argued that once Christianity “exteriorized” as religion, from tariqa, the sacraments (although efficacious in the religious domain), could not in any event remain efficacious initiatically; so, although remaining beneficial to the human being in individual mode (“securing” and prolonging the human state post mortem, as opposed to possible disintegration of that state), they could not of themselves any longer take the being beyond the human state. What tends to gets ignored though, is that he added to this that they could however become initiatory, if a qualified being has the ability to “transpose” them beyond the domain of religion, in a reversal of the process leading to their exteriorization so to speak, returning them to their principle, noting “The truth is that the sacraments cannot indeed have such effects by themselves…but…the exoteric rites can, in a certain way, be transposed into another order in the sense that they will serve as a support for the initiatic work itself and that consequently their effects will no longer be limited to the exoteric order (17)”. Naturally, their use as such “supports” is contingent upon, as in the various foregoing scenarios, that the person is, in one or more of the senses outlined earlier, already an initiate."
- the second part of this paragraph is important,

Regardless I would say and Guénon wrote similarly, that Islam is perhaps the most "fool-proof" religion in the sense that it almost incessantly affirms the Oneness of God, even amongst plurality and multiplicity Oneness is almost implicit to those with Metaphysical understanding - who have undergone realisation, so even amongst the ancient what some people call mistakingly "polytheistic" religions - the ancients simply didn't require this incessant Oneness affirmation as the modern abrahamic religions do, as it was already so obvious and implicit to them.

>>20111563
Also we should remember that Guénon himself underwent many Initations into many different religions, abrahamic and non-abrahamic, saying that he was exclusively a Muslim is probably misplaced as he still maintained his "Universal role" even as a Muslim, Guénonians will also almost always be the very small minority "heretic" to the majority exoterists - this is the reality of the matter so when we say Christianity, or Islam we are not talking about the mainstream forms, Guénons whole purpose was to "re-establish" the esoteric heart of various religous traditions in the West - that's all.

>>20109355
In summary of all those things above: The proper Traditionalists maintain the validity of all Traditions which have a more or less Traditional metaphysics, what Guénon writings do is give basic tools to decide then which Tradition is good and bad - Guénon was against "Evangelism" so it would be hypocritical for him to "Evangelise" any religion, even if there may be some references somewhere to such a thing- all that was "Evangelised" or recommended were Metaphysics - of which theology is but a particularisation.

Hindu bros does anyone have a recommendation for learning Ayurveda. Want to enjoy the metaphysical symbolism want studying physiology/anatomy. Cheers

Anyone know any good youtube channels or lecture series that i can listen that would increase my knowledge. I'm doing labour work and would like somthing interesting to listen to to pass the time. Thanks in advace bros.

>>20106195
Link to Pageau talking about Guenon?

>20106257
It might be a retarded question but who writes the footnotes in Guénon's books?

>>20111789
I've been listening to this guy lately.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJIIMmCfJxBv5-jGTK3iIMw

>>20111819
Just search up Pageau Guenon or Pageau Perennialism,
https://youtu.be/Eu0RFzknY7Y

This is probably related too
https://youtu.be/iyC4zHC7dxU

I'll leave my thoughts out of it...
But I'll just say that this Pageau guy seems pretty respectable, up to you to decide

>>20111819
If you mean about this specific copyright subject, then it's probably that this anon heard this in a small part of one of his videos on YouTube, so unless that anon is more specific - can't help you there.

Exposing one evolian at a time: a bunch of anti-traditional pseuds.

>>20112071
t. spiritual cuckold

>>20111949
Pageau should stick to what he specialises in rather than spout off bullshit.
Despite Guenon's perennialism, he always insisted that one needed to choose a particular initiatory path and stick to it. Only once one had attained effective knowledge could one technically "stand above any particular path" and this is because the closer one gets to the Truth the more the traditions converge.

>>20112392
I agree there, he misunderstands Guenon, in a way he is correct but is "debunking" a strawman or scapegoat, rather disingenuous

Does anyone know a publication that collected all of Guenon's letters and translated them into English?
I can only find a collection in Italian.

>>20112499
there is none but here is an index in french with all of his letters (and books) so you can automatically translate them
https://www.index-rene-guenon.org/Access_book.php

>>20112389
>cuck this and cuck that AAAAAA KEK
>cuck cuck cuck
>everything is cuck
yep it's a /pol/ evolian shitter. That's how you spot a /pol/ shitter posing as traditional

i will expose every single /pol/ evolian for the fraud they are

>>20112526
Cheers Guenon bro.

>>20112561
Based

>>20112544
>yep it's a /pol/ evolian shitter. That's how you spot a /pol/ shitter posing as traditional

Oh Noooo I am brown and this guy Uses /pol/ somehow his political opinions which are of an entirely contingent and relative order affect and invalidate his Metaphysical perspective, if anything Evola tried his best to at least develop a "relatively" consistent at least metaphysically worldly ideas, while not equating what he was doing to a traditional science, contingent political science.

Seethe more bleeding heart, our /pol/itical opinions are irrelevant to this discussion, you are just brown.

>>20112562
Guenon did not hate Evola read their letters, cope you spiritual semite.

>>20112571
*least develop "relatively" consistent at least metaphysically worldly ideas

>>20112571
*but rather a contingent political science

>>20111924
I like Chad's stuff, just trying to mix it up at the moment.

>>20112561
Evola??? Oy Vey!! Sorry buddy but to be a "Traditionalist" you must subscribe to Eurasianism and Duginism - far more kosher.

All in all politics is completely irrelevant you total faggot.

>>20112571
>Guenon did not hate Evola read their letters, cope you spiritual semite.

>GUENON DID NOT HATE EVOLA
>THAT MEANS EVOLA IS TRADITIONAL!!!!

lol imagine setting for the worst of the 'traditionalists' (in actuality evola was not a traditionalist by any means)

>>20112588
>Sorry goy Evola cannot have a racially positive perspective, we only denigration around here, like this: In the Hindu Doctrines, he makes the rather racist claim that “Westerners, including even those who were true metaphysicians up to a certain point, have never known metaphysic in its entirety.” Fixed. No embrace duginist eurasianism...

>>20112594
>only do self-denigration around here

>>20112594
And In addition by the way, Judaism and the European West need absolutely no separation,

not discussing this here anyway, so that wraps it up. Guenon was NOT infallible.

>>20112594
>>20112571
>>20112389
are you lost? this is a thread about traditionalism as held by guenon, schuon, ananda coomaraswamy, titus burckhardt, pallis, nasr etc.

it's not about your dark academia new age occultist, il (self-titled) baron. this place is not for larpy 'aristocrats of the soul'

>>20112602
>>20112588
Nevermind you are completely right

"[“traditionalists” refer] to people who only have a sort of tendency or aspiration towards tradition without really knowing anything at all about it; this is the measure of the distance dividing the “traditionalist” spirit from the truly traditional spirit, for the latter implies a real knowledge …"

>>20112571
>this guy Uses /pol/ somehow his political opinions which are of an entirely contingent and relative order affect and invalidate his Metaphysical perspective
yes

>>20112584
>>20112571
>>20112612
of course you are a legitimate traditionalist who only read some shitty evola. here is a normal traditionalist behavior:

>>/lit/?task=search2&ghost=yes&search_text=&search_subject=&search_username=&search_tripcode=&search_email=&search_filename=1352038502857.jpg

>>/lit/?task=search2&ghost=yes&search_text=&search_subject=&search_username=&search_tripcode=&search_email=&search_filename=1590981561.jpg

i already outed you in the other thread and will keep doing the same

>>20112632
Schizo tier. I have no idea what you are talking about, rather superstitious of you.

'trad' evolian attacks:

>>/lit/?task=search&ghost=&search_text=spiritual+semite

>>20112640
>t-that's not me!!!!
kek

>>20112561
>>20112562
>>20112571
>>20112584
>>20112588
>>20112602
>>20112632
I have to tell you how little I was able to understand at all the interest that you showed in the reading of my books.

Obviously, the point of view you are assuming is quite distinctive and certainly cannot be mine

letter from Guénon to Evola

>>20112642
I am finding this incredibly entertaining, I hope whoever you are actually talking about comes to this thread, "spiritual semite" is not a very unique identifier.

>>20112640
sure

>>20112646
In an article published in the journal Ultra, he alluded to me in a note, concerning East and West, in terms that prove that he did not understand very much about what I expounded; all the same, he goes as far to describe me as a ‘rationalist’, which is really ridiculous (considering that it concerns a book where I expressly asserted the falsity of rationalism!), and which clearly shows that he is among those who cannot get rid of philosophical labels and who feel the need to apply them wrongly everywhere.

Evola doesn’t lack any pretentions, as you see; but, for my part, I continue to think that he does not understand at all what we mean by ‘intellectuality’, ‘knowledge’, ‘contemplation’, etc., and that he doesn’t even know how to make the distinction between the ‘initiatic’ point of view and the ‘profane’ point of view. It appears that he has the intention to publish a review of my work on the Vedanta in the journalRealistic Idealism; we will see what that will be. In any case, in spite of everything that we have tried to explain to him, he persists in finding ‘rationalism’ in the Vedanta, all while failing to recognize that he then takes this word ‘rationalism’ in a rather different sense that is usually given to it.

letters from Guénon to Guido de Giorgio

>>20112659
for those who will say that "ohhh but this is from his youth, Evola changed his views later during his life", you can look for his article about the "problems" of vedanta which is post ww2

>I do not see how anyone who cannot read John, or Dionysius, or much of Philo or Hermes or Plotinus with enthusiasm can read the Upanishads with enthusiasm;

>I quote from St Thomas Aquinas a good deal because most of what I need can be found there
Ananda Coomaraswamy

>>20112675

Even those perennialists (Guénon, Schuon, AKC, Titus, Pallis, Whitall Perry et al) who studied many traditions believed in the validity of christianity. They were all very fond of christianity and Ananda loved to quote St. Paul, St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas (along with Eckhart).

Schuon wrote:
>The Catholic saints have nothing for which to envy the bhaktas of India.

Ananda's son wrote:
>Tough outwardly it has been primarily bhaktic or devotional in character, Christianity contains legitimate and essential elements which Coomaraswamy, for one, has compared to “an Upanishad of Europe”. Christianity is a full Revelation, addressed to a particular sector of humanity; our task, as “workers of the eleventh hour” is to fathom its profundities once again insofar as this may be possible and, hopefully, sense something of That which led St Paul to exclaim: “O the depth of the riches, the wisdom and the knowledge of God!” (Rom xi, 33).

Guénon wrote:
>The homage rendered in this way to the new-born Christ by the authentic representatives of the primordial tradition in the three worlds which are their respective domains, is at the same time, we should clearly note, the assurance of the perfect orthodoxy of Christianity in this respect.

I must add a new quote I read from Ananda:
>What I am appalled by is that even Catholics who have the truth if they would only operate with it wholeheartedly, are nearly all tainted with modernism.

>>20112669
>>20112659
>>20112646
it can't be...

>What is singular in this respect is that there are things in what you tell me which remind me of what happened to me in 1939 (I think you must have known it at the time), when I lay on my back for six months without being able to turn over or move. For everyone, it was a rheumatic crisis, but in reality it was something quite different, and we knew very well who unwittingly served as a vehicle for the evil influence (this is the second time this has happened, but the first, two years earlier, had been less severe) ; measures were taken to make him leave and to prevent him from returning to Egypt, and since then nothing like this has ever happened again.

Does anyone know who this person who spiritually attacked Guenon was?

>>20112727
name? no. probably an agent of the counter-initiation

>>20106161
"Traditionalism thread"
>"In any case, everything that is discussion and controversy is of a purely profane spirit. " -Letter (II) Guénon to Evola

Yeah no thanks /lit/ "Traditionalism" is a dead meme for pseuds, just Read Guénon, pick your Tradition - and that's that, discussions and the sort of controversy just as we see we see above my comment - the argument between the /pol/lack and the Anti-Evolian Guénonian - is a fine example of what Guénon meant by the above quote, this thread and all like it, are totally redundant and amount to a blasphemous desacralisation of Tradition. I realised this early on, I didn't require this quote from Guénon - however it seems some still doggedly cling to Materiality, I'm sure Guénonfag also realised this, discussion is an obstacle.

>>20106161
"Traditionalism thread"
>"In any case, everything that is discussion and controversy is of a purely profane spirit. " -Letter (II) Guénon to Evola

Yeah no thanks /lit/ "Traditionalism" is a dead meme for pseuds, just Read Guénon, pick your Tradition - and that's that, discussions and the sort of controversy we see above my comment - the argument between the /pol/lack and the Anti-Evolian Guénonian - is a fine example of what Guénon meant by the above quote, this thread and all like it, are totally redundant and amount to a blasphemous desacralisation of Tradition. I realised this early on, I didn't require this quote from Guénon - however it seems some still doggedly cling to Materiality, I'm sure Guénonfag also realised this, discussion is an obstacle.

>>20112681 >>20112675 >>20112659
>>20112654 >>20112653 >>20112646
>>20112645 >>20112642 >>20112640
>>20112632 >>20112620 >>20112612
>>20112602 >>20112601 >>20112598
>>20112594 >>20112588 >>20112584
>>20112577 >>20112575 >>20112574
>>20112571 >>20112561 >>20112544
Etc. Etc.

Refer Here:
>>20112825

>>20112561
The reactionism you are trying "combat" here is simply the result of the Evolian being by his constitution unable to truly transcend certain or particular features of his personal and world-conditioned identity, you should understand that we all are different, we have different capabilities - different capacities and so on. You are a vehicle of the purely profane spirit, the Evolian is at least honest albeit inadequate in some respects, just move on and ignore, let things take their respective course.

>>20112861
the fact we live in an inevitable degenerate age does not mean we should be complacent with evil.

i had decided to let threads about guénon et al die to prevent things like that but since two days ago i decided to break my vow of silence and name them (evolians) as they were shitposting without opposition. it is about time readers of traditionalists start admonishing evolians if they want to preserve the least quality in threads about perennialism and comparative religion. for newcomers it serve as an alert

of course, if we all decide to let these subjects out of the public sphere then we should simply ignore all this. but since this thread managed to stay up i posted

>>20106161
I don't believe in perennialism but are guenon's books on hinduism a good objective intro to that religion's philosophy and tenets or should I look elsewhere

>>20112936
>the fact we live in an inevitable degenerate age does not mean we should be complacent with evil.

In a more noble age perhaps you would be fighting dragons of some kind, but unfortunately you are fighting half-serious /lit/ "evolian" shitposters - have you really convinced yourself that it is evil that you are fighting against, in actuality it is probably more so a part of yourself.

>break my vow of silence
....

>subjects out of the public sphere
That would be best.

I stand by my post here
>>20112825

>>20112959
No. They're horrible from the Outside perspective - rather they are more of an Inside perspective which you would consider biased, Guénon's work doesn't fit your criterion so perhaps it would best if you skipped them, unless you are alright with challenging these biases of yours.

>>20112959
His books are primarily a good introduction to the Hindu school of Advaita Vedanta. They also give you some knowledge that will help you understand other schools of Hindu Vedanta, like Vishishtadvaita, Dvaita etc since they also use much of the exact same Sanskrit terminology that Guenon explains to the reader in his books, although Guenon’s longer explanations of these are mostly from the Advaita view, it would still be of some use though.

Essentials of Indian Philosophy by Hiriyanna is a not too long and it cover most of the main schools, I would start with that if you just want to get a general sense of the major schools. There are much longer encyclopedias and longer books that examine the doctrines and intra-school debates in exact detail but I would getting into reading primary source texts first and reading 1 or 2 shorter intro books instead of getting burnt out on some 800+ page secondary source.

>>20113008
It's not a bias, I'm just not a perennialist
>>20113013
Thank you

>>20113002
>have you really convinced yourself that it is evil that you are fighting against
yes

>>20113049
>yes

Holy cringe.

Don't tire your hands out in all the refutations and arguments you're soon to type.
https://www.nomorepainergonomics.com.au/pages/arthritis#:~:text=Repetitive%20movements%2C%20such%20as%20typing,of%20aggravating%20your%20arthritis%20symptoms.

>>20113098
Posts from the archive say enough

>>20113121
Just for my own personal curiosity, could I see some examples, of what you would consider "evil" from the archives?

>>20113128
No. Drop this shit