/lit/ - Literature

Even Eggyman couldn't solve the problem of Bean. What makes you think a French monkey could?

>>20521993
I read Guenon back when I was depressed, he was actually a surprisingly clear writer. After my LSD usage and getting rid of my depression I moved on to Marx.

>>20522003
>I moved on to Marx
You didn't learn anything from Guenon, it seems.

>>20522003

>Reads Guenon, warning about counter-initiation
>Takes LSD, opening himself up to demons
>Moves onto Marx

Really makes you think

>>20522003
>After my LSD usage and getting rid of my depression I moved on to Marx.
Is this a joke? kek

>>20522016
>>20522072
>>20522079
it's the deranged tranny marxist who has been shitting up all trad threads
ignore

>>20522016
Yes, I didn't. I read Crisis of the Modern World and tried to get into Hindu Doctrines, I own hardback copies of both as well as symbolism of the cross. I realized any search for 'inner strength' stems from weakness and that I should focus on external concrete goals instead of becoming a monk trying to find the perennial wisdom.
>>20522072
If you really think Marx is some sort of Demon, [and LSD LOL, the Shamens of old would always partake in hallucinogens] then you are really ignorant and stupid. If it wasn't for people like Marx you'd be to busy slaving away in a factory to some capitalist instead of enjoying self masturbatory philosophy sessions.
>>20522079
No.
>>20522086
I never join 'trad' threads and I don't consider myself a Marxist.

>>20521993
I love this book. Genuinely one of my favorites. I fully adopt the ontology described therein.

>>20522003
Opposite here. Started with Marx when I was lost in hedonism and depression and blamed the system for my plight. Started working out, sought greater meaning and found Guenon.
Man is more than a material, interchangeable economic unit and class struggle a smokescreen for the complexity of being but to each their own, eh?

>>20522207
>Man is more than a material, interchangeable economic unit
That's kind of what Marx is arguing, LOL. Maybe you would see that if you actually read him, instead of pretending to? Lol.

>>20522219
Most of Marx isn't this good. And even in that quote he has to mention 'labour', again returning man's value to his economic position.

>>20522236
he is not returning man's value to his economic position that has nothing to do with what he is arguing for. marx is not arguing a metaphysics of what is valuable and what is not. marx is arguing how the capitalist mode of production works and eventually destroys working people.

>>20522003
Opposite for me. I loved Marx but then I started taking HRT and smoking weed and moved onto the trads.

>>20522219
I can tell your a Marx fan by your passive aggression and use of "lol." Please start lifting weights and stop being a leftist.

>>20522244
>marx is not arguing a metaphysics of what is valuable and what is not.

>>20522247
what is this association of marxism and progressive values? makes no sense to me.

>>20522260
you change the world with every interaction you make in it. inactivity is death.

>>20522278
i heard a story that evola punched a nazi for insulting the italian nation.

>>20522284
>still interpreting Marx as materialism
clearly hasn't read Gentile's essays here, or even engaged at all with Marx's dialectical analysis,

>>20522283
and his monocle stayed in place

>>20522291
it would not surprise me if it were true.
god took away evola's legs because he did not support fascism.

>>20522283
>mfw Evola unleashed his Revolt Against the Modern World all over a nazi

>>20522207
you haven't read marx then

>>20522349
most people haven't. I don't even think Lenin did, honestly.

>>20522367
Lenin essentially detached Marx from his elements of idealism. Lenin’s book about Materialism and Empirio-criticism, a book that would later be mandatory reading in higher education in the Soviet Union, rewrites Marx’s sense-idealist side and says this:

>”Materialism, in full agreement with natural science, takes matter as primary and regards consciousness, thought, sensation as secondary, because in its well-defined form sensation is associated only with the higher forms of matter (organic matter), while “in the foundation of the structure of matter” one can only surmise the existence of a faculty akin to sensation.”

and

>”Sensation depends on the brain, nerves, retina, etc., i.e., on matter organized in a definite way. The existence of matter does not depend on sensation. Matter is primary. Sensation, thought, consciousness are the supreme product of matter organized in a particular way. Such are the views of materialism in general, and of Marx and Engels in particular.”

it’s Marx’s opening line on the Theses on Feuerbach

>>20522301
That really shook Evola to the core. Evola always believed till then that we choose the lives we want to live before we are born. He was pretty spooked at the thought of he chose to have his legs taken away from him. He even wrote to Guenon about it, and whether that event was caused by occult influences.

>>20522372
it detaches*

>>20522379
>Evola always believed till then that we choose the lives we want to live before we are born.
I agree and Jung does too most likely.
I am of the same agreement with Evola there, but I hold him in contempt for not taking a more active life in the political of the state, as should have done as his duty as citizen,

>>20522372
Isn't Lenin the one who said Man's consciousness not only reflects the objective world, but creates it.? How was soviet physics department?

>>20522402
Lenin sees sensation, thought, and even consciousness (apparently having solved the hard problem of consciousness!) as simply, “matter organized in a particular way” even going as far as to say this is the particular view of Marx himself. Meanwhile, Marx says that his philosophy is a correction of classical (ie. “vulgar”) materialism which wrongly sees sensation as “only in the form of the object or of contemplation,” the exact way Lenin sees sensation as merely organized matter.

So Lenin builds off of dialectical materialism, in turn he also extends it into materialist physicalism, that is to say everything is reduced to simply being matter. Consciousness is matter i.e. biology, religion is not real (Darwinian evolutionary theory and Feuerbach), and everything is reduced to the plane of materiality. From here we can properly understand the “capital C-communists” or Marxist Leninists (MLs) as also following physicalism.

>>20522003
bait

>>20522412
If consciousness is matter then religion is real. Because it is through consciousness religious thought finds itself. The logical conclusion of Lenin's theory would be that thought itself is also material.

>>20522431
Not. I Prefer Marx, Sorel, and Gentile.

>>20522447
No, it isn’t, this goes against Traditionalist metaphysics which is based on idealism, often some form of Platonism, which says that consciousness is separate from matter and often holds to an absolute prior consciousness, a God. Traditionalists completely rejects any form of materialism. This means all of creation including matter is dependent on prior consciousness.

>>20522470
'This means all of creation including matter is dependent on prior consciousness.'
This is somehow in the favor of Materialism?

>>20522477
gentile was totally BTFO'd by Evola

>>20522479
Gentile died in war in service to his country and Evola in his crippled old age. Who BTFO WHO?

>>20522485
Gentile BTFO'd

>>20522479
I Evola is sophist-mysticism, i.e make up your own divine commandants. It’s adulterated trash for the mentally ill. I have no idea why some people can’t be Christian but instead chose to rationalize this garbage.
>>20522477
>Giovanni Gentile
My nigga.

>>20522490
I'd sooner live Gentile's life than Evola's. Evola lived to see the bourgeoisie conquer and destroy his country.

>>20522492
Evola is funny because I don't doubt he saw too differently from Nietzsche but both in the end have allowed their countries to slip by them due to their inactivity.

>>20522412
how does Marx distinguish between his materialism and vulgar materialism? I have a hard time understanding that desu.

>>20522516
I don't think he ever even bothered to distinguish himself from them.

Giovanni Gentile's (funny of) >>20522477
turns essentially on the first gloss of the "Theses on Feuerbach," which Marx had written in 1845 (when he was twenty-seven) and which Engels published in 1888 as an appendix to Ludwig Feuerbach.

That gloss, with which Gentile is primarily concerned, is a consideration of "sensuous activity" (sinnliche Tätigkeit). Although the "Theses" are now generally recognized as marking a transition from liberalism and idealism to socialism and materialism, Marxist orthodoxy insists on interpreting them in a strict materialist fashion, as though there had been no development at all in the thought of Karl Marx.

Gentile's contention is primarily that the "Theses" reveal a metaphysics, which develops out of an analysis of sensation, anything but materialist in any formal sense. The “Theses,” particularly the first, give evidence of a curious philosophical position, never clearly defined, but which is of fundamental importance in any attempt to reconstruct the development of Marx's thought. The first thesis reads in its entirety:

“The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism (that of Feuerbach included) is that the object, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or datum of contemplation but not as human sensuous activity, practice, not subjectively. Thus it happened that the active side, in opposition to materialism, was developed by idealism-but only abstractly, since, of course, idealism does not know real sensuous activity as such. Feuerbach wants sensuous objects, really differentiated from thought objects, but he does not conceive human activity itself as activity through objects. Consequently, in the Essence of Christianity, he regards the theoretical attitude as the only genuinely human attitude, while practice is conceived and fixed only in its dirty-Jewish form of appearance. Hence he does not grasp the significance of "revolutionary," or “practical-critical.”

Marx's choice of words here is singular, to say the least. Gentile contends that the point of Marx's objection to "all hitherto existing materialism" is essentially that advanced by Idealism, i.e., that materialism conceives the object, the external world as a datum, something "given" to sensation, something simply contemplated.

>>20522564
You might be interested in the works of Ugo Spirito, he was a student of Gentile and was the practical theoretician of the corporatism which would somehow see capital and labor merge into one.

>>20522176
>I read Crisis of the Modern World
that book is basically a pamphlet
>and tried to get into Hindu Doctrines
cool bro
>I own hardback copies of both as well as symbolism of the cross
owning a book you haven't read doesn't mean anything
Holy shit

>>20522647
>owning a book you haven't read doesn't mean anything
yes and I wont read it until I'm old and dying. you understand guenon even less than I,

>>20521993
What is the name of that knot

There is some sort of PSYOPS going on in Guénon threads that tries its best to deviate the subject matter at every turn it seems. Why is half of this thread about Marx while we have the Multiple States of Being as the main topic ?

>>20523248
So that you can stop masturbating and assert your consciousness on this world.

>>20521993

I was in a Half Price Books the other day and they'd bought a lot of this schizo shit knowing that they're now marketable due to this board. There there all were, lined up in a row, the white schizo books, each one with the cute cover image. Someone will call me a Hylic as if it means anything.

>>20521993
>Multiple States of the Being
>its just beings not actually Being

please fuck off back to your discord and stop spamming these threads

>>20522345
kys

what is the best first book to read of Guenon

>>20522207
>greater meaning
No one tell him!!!

>>20522219
Reducing man to labor from money is still a reduction.

>>20523752
He isn't reducing man to anything. WTF do you think Marx's theory is? Seeing people like statistics?

>>20523726

Crisis of the Modern World if you would like to begin by the 'socio-political' aspect of his work (it's the closest thing to a political book he ever wrote).

Introduction to Hindu Doctrines if you are more interested in the religious/philosophical stuff. This book is not actually about Hinduism all that much, but more about the state of mind you need to be to truly understand its 'spirit'.

>>20523770
It basically is, yes, and that is how it crystallized in all regimes which tried to utilize his understanding of economics. He tends to put a idealistic gloss on "consciousness" though, as though it is some sort of tabula rasa which can only produce value through its labor (this is the reduction), which is really just a smokescreen, perhaps some sort of remnant from Hegel. That and him and Engels's emphasis on technological advancement (their real materialism) enabling people to "switch between jobs" at will, and the weirdly bourgeoise idealization of "cultural labor" - everyone being free to "do as they will." All that I've described is mostly dross. The other aspect of his reduction is historical materialism, which is not merely a "description of capitalism", it is an attempt to reduce history to material relations beyond the period of capitalism. The typical rebuttal is "but it's scientific", but I am not really shallow enough to be fooled by that. Science has enough trouble proving cause from effect as it is.

>>20523770
>WTF do you think Marx's theory is? Seeing people like statistics?
No, seeing a profane "good life", with the basic material needs fulfilled, as the goal of humanity. Therefore it is a humanitarian and sentimentalist ideology. The will of God on earth doesn't matter cause we can figure out on our own what is "better" for us.

>>20523807
marxism is not an understanding of economics marxism concerns itself not what is happening between individuals but outside them. Marxism is not an economics.

there is no tabula rasa or whatever because marx thought people take up the qualities of what is in their nature to do so.

>it is an attempt to reduce history to material relations
LOL. this is where it starts to show you never read a word of marx. marx is not arguing history in the form of material relations, marx is arguing the material world creates social relations which governs over man. his magnum opus: capital he argues precisely that capital is not a real material thing, but only a social relation! not material!

>>20522003
Guenon threads always have the silliest bait.

>>20523812
you should try reading marx sometime. 'goal of humanity' LMAO. you've never read marx in your life.

>>20523824
>>20522466
did you not see my picture?

>>20523248
>Why is half of this thread about Marx while we have the Multiple States of Being as the main topic ?
Because anons havent read the book.

>>20523824
And people keep falling for it

>>20523835
I am not baiting you. I have been on this thread for 8 hours advising people to stop mental masturbation and there was a fruitful discussion on the state of contemporary idealism.

>>20523841
Go do it somewhere else, it is very clear that nobody wants what or care about what you are proposing

>>20523726
Have not read them all or even most of them but Man and his Becoming has been the most interesting so far if you're capable of following Hindu/Vedantic terminology.

>>20523850
the discussion finished long before you came around. you can read what was said if you'd like to learn. why don't you discuss guenon? if there was something to discuss you would be discussing that right now instead of just going:
>b-b-bait!
your are the 8th person to have that sort of response. you seem to only think in memes, too much masturbation has clouded your judgement.

>>20523820
>marxism is not an understanding of economics
It obviously is.
>there is no tabula rasa
Maybe there isn't, I'm just paraphrasing a section I read from one of Marx's essays. What I mainly recall is his view of human subjectivity being even more ridiculous than most of the philosophical materialists I've read, who I usually have more in common with, or who I at least find slightly more sensible.
>marx is arguing the material world creates social relations
That's exactly what I just suggested, learn to read. It's a reduction of history (see: social relations through time) to the "material world."

>>20523859
>It obviously is.
no it isn't. marx is an argument against abolition of economics as a field.
>What I mainly recall is his view of human subjectivity
Marx was Aristotelian. He took his method from Hegel and attempted at creating an objective science. The very opposite of 'subjectivism'. philosophical materialism isn't subjective. it quite literally in the name of the philosophy argues for the existence of an objective world apart from subjective experience.
>That's exactly what I just suggested, learn to read.
No, that is not what you suggested, you talked about 'material relations' when relations are not material. that is why they are called 'relations', marx does not come to the conclusion of the material world through social relations. marx comes to the conclusion of social relations through analysis of the material world.

>>20523871
>against economics and ultimately abolition of economics as a field.

>I was a butterfly, flitting about and contented with my lot; then I awoke, to find myself a tripfag named Dago. Which am I really? A butterfly that dreams it is Dago, or Dago who imagines that he is a butterfly? Are there two real individuals in my case? Was there a real transformation from one individual to another? Neither the one nor the other: there were two unreal modifications of the unique Being, of the universal norm in which all beings in all their states are one.

>>20523910
dago, you need to get a job

>>20523920
refuted by Guenon (pbuh)

>>20523871
>Marx was Aristotelian
Not at all. (Or wait, are you a rare supporter of the teleological view of historical materialism? This is not even a settled question in Marxist studies from what I could tell).
>He took his method from Hegel and attempted at creating an objective science.
Hegel is a subjectivist. One of the final points of his whole spiel is that substance = subject. It's "objective" insofar as a schizophrenic's hallucinations are "objective."
>philosophical materialism isn't subjective.
Yes, which is exactly why it is superior to Marx's own "philosophy."
>ou talked about 'material relations' when relations are not material.
Marx uses this term à la lettre, "sachliche Verhältnisse." It's the entire basis for his study of history, which implies that social relations derive from material conditions.

>>20522659
The slippity-dip

>>20523931
>Not at all. (Or wait, are you a rare supporter of the teleological view of historical materialism? This is not even a settled question in Marxist studies from what I could tell).
I do not follow anything which can be called Marxist studies. Marx only acknowledged his debt to Aristotle and sought to create an empirical science. That is all that I am arguing.
>Hegel is a subjectivist
I have not read Hegel myself to comment on this but I do know that Hegel was also very much likely a materialist, had he been a subjective idealist as you say Gentile, who stated everything itself was spirit would not have felt the need to correct Hegel.
>Marx uses this term à la lettre, "sachliche Verhältnisse." It's the entire basis for his study of history, which implies that social relations derive from material conditions.
This is correct and I believe we have misunderstood one another.
Pray tell, if social relations are not a reflection of existing material conditions, then where do they come from?

just bought:
Guenon - The crisis of the modern world; Intro to the study of the hindu doctrines; Man and his becoming
Evola - Revolt
Schuon - Understanding islam; Esoterism as principle and as way

I just hope that I didn't wasted the money of my parents and these are good books!

>>20521993
Let's talk metaphysics in this thread not tranny politics
Anything about:
>Universal Possibility, Possibility, Potentiality, Actuality
>Metaphysical Infinity, Non-Being (Metaphysical Zero), Being (Essence and Substance), Existence,
>or better phrased
>Being
>Neither Being nor Non-Being
>Non-Being
>Nonmanifestation, Formless Manifestation, Formal Manifestation (Subtle and Gross)
>Universal, Individual

>What is possible for the human being is to realize his essential identity with the Self, and thus with the integral and total Being, the metaphysical Infinite in its participative aspect within universal Possibility. With this realization, the human being transcends his particular individuality, his humanness, no longer a fragment, but a totality. Guénon describes this ultimate condition in the words of the great Vedantic sage Shankaracharya: “The yogi, whose intellect is perfect, contemplates all things as abiding in himself and thus, by the eye of Knowledge, he perceives that everything is the Self. He knows that all contingent things are not different from the Self and that apart from the Self there is nothing.”

>Deliverance, together with the faculties and powers which it implies by superaddition (since it encompasses all states), but which must only be considered as accessory and even accidental results and in no wise constituting a final goal in themselves. Deliverance can be obtained by the Yogi with the help of the observances indicated in Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras. It can also be favoured by the practice of certain rites, as well as of various particular styles of meditation. It must be understood that all such means are only preparatory and have nothing essential about them.

>Unsatisfied with “salvation”, a small number of men will seek instead to deliver themselves from all attachments while in the human state. This involves not just actualizing the possibilities of the human state, but also the possibilities of all states of the Being. Such a being is liberated, or delivered, from all restrictions and privations. In other words, for that being, essence and existence are identical. There can be only one such being, hence the formula Atman is Brahman. In the Western Tradition, that is what is known as “God”.
The Tao that can be expressed is not the eternal Tao;
The name that can be named is not the unchanging Name.
Tao Te Ching, I

Then only will you see it, when you cannot speak of it; for the knowledge of it is deep silence, and suppression of all the senses.
Hermes (Lib. X. 5–6)

God is He whose Name must not even be pronounced.
Akka Chief585

>>20524032
>Above all of the Mysterium Magnum, that it cannot be communicated, but only realized: all that can be communicated are its external supports or symbolic expressions; the Great Work must be done by everyone for himself....The Way has been charted in detail by every Forerunner, who is the Way; what lies at the end of the road is not revealed, even by those who have reached it, because it cannot be told and does not appear: the Principle is not in any likeness’ (Coomaraswamy: ‘The Nature of Buddhist Art’, in Figures of Speech, p. 170).

>‘This supreme goal is the absolutely unconditioned state, freed from all limitation; for this very reason, it is entirely inexpressible, and all that can be said of it is only to be rendered by terms that are negative in form; negation of the limits which determine and define all existence in its relativity. The acquisition of this state is what the Hindu doctrine calls “Deliverance” when considered in relation to the conditioned states, and “Union” when envisaged in relation to the supreme Principle

>‘In this unconditioned state, moreover, all the other states of the being are recovered in principle, but transformed, being released from the special conditions which determine them insofar as particular states. What remains is all that has a positive reality, since it is here that everything has its principle; the “delivered” being is truly in possession of the plenitude of his possibilities. What disappear are uniquely the limitative conditions, whose reality is wholly negative, since they only represent a “privation” in Aristotle’s sense of the word. Hence, far from being a kind of annihilation as certain Westerners believe, this final
State is on the contrary absolute plenitude, the supreme reality in regard to which all the rest is but illusion’ (Guénon: La Métaphysique orientale, pp. 19–20).

>Sensibilia are not ‘denied’ in the via negativa, which would be metaphysically untenable; but, to use the language of Zen, ‘they are understood in relation to what they are not’

>‘The (Supreme) Essence (adh-Dhât) is God insofar as He is without “aspects”, being in Himself neither the “object” nor the “subject” of any knowledge. The (Divine) Qualities (aṣ-Ṣîfât) by contrast are the “aspects” through which God reveals (tajalla) Himself in a relative manner. If the Essence cannot be known by created beings, this is because relative being does not subsist in confrontation with absolute and infinite Reality. However, the Essence is knowable at each degree of reality, in the sense that It is the inner reality of all knowledge. God knows Himself by Himself in Himself without any internal distinction; and He knows Himself by Himself in the universe according to relative modes which are infinitely varied’(Burckhardt: De l’Homme universel, pp. 8–9).

>>20524057
>The entire man is in his being the three worlds.
Boehme

>Lo! thou art of a tremendous nature.
Qur’ân, LXVIII. 4

>I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
Revelation, I. 18

>His are the keys of the heavens and the earth.
Qur’ân, XLII. 12

>Man, this major world in miniature, is a unified abridgement of all that exists, and the crowning of divine works.
St Gregory Palamas

>Our Stone is called a little world, because it contains within itself the active and the passive, the motor and the thing moved, the fixed and the volatile, the mature and the crude—which, being homogeneous, help and perfect each other.
Philalethes

>I was Manu and the sun (Sûrya).
Rig-Veda, IV. xxvi. 1

>Man is a composite of all things spiritual.
Ezra ben Solomon

>(Man is) an image which comprises everything.
Zohar, III. 139. b

>The universe is composed of a part that is material and a part that is incorporeal; and inasmuch as its body is made with soul in it, the universe is a living creature.
Hermes

>To him who knows the Truth comes the realisation:—
‘I am Brahman; I have no suffering and no joy; I neither long for anything, nor do I renounce anything; I am blue, I am yellow, I am white; I am in grass, leaves, trees and flowers; I am the hills, the·streams, dales and peaks; I am the essence of all. When all imagination and feelings are gone, then I am the transcendental Reality. The immutable, the nameless and the formless, am I: I am the Witness-Self; I am the basis of all experience; I am the light that makes experience possible.
‘I am the man who has fallen in love with a young woman and who compares her beauty to the moon; the consciousness which illumines the joy in the heart of a lover, am I. I am the taste in the dates. Gain and loss are the same to me. As the string bearing the beads remains hidden, so I am the Reality which is hidden in all beings.
‘I worship the Atman which is the essence of living beings, the sweetness in the moon, and the splendour in the sun.’
Yoga Vasishtha

>The sun illumines earth and sky, but the saint, kindling the fire of divine wisdom, lights up the heart. He is the true friend of man. He is the Atman. He is my very Self.
Srimad Bhagavatam, XI. xix

>>20524032
Do you (or another anon) have any thoughts regarding Heidegger and how he relates to Traditional Metaphysics?

>>20524164
https://sensuscatholicus.jimdofree.com/2020/12/12/contra-haereses-heidegger-pseudo-prophet-of-anti-metaphysics/

>>20524171
Word, I’ll take a look
Don’t know nuffin about him t b h

>>20524171
Good article, "heideggerian angst" is peak pseud, Hegel is alot better.

>Heidegger ‘seeks’ a mode of knowledge which goes beyond discursive thought; this is all very well, but discursive thought is worth infinitely more in itself than anything that a Heidegger can conceive of, seek, or find (Schuon, Letter on Existentialism).

>>20524182
Retroactively and proactively refuted.

>>20524081
>And then our Lord opened my spiritual eye and shewed me my soul in midst of my heart. I saw the Soul so large as it were an endless world, and as it were a blissful kingdom. And by the conditions that I saw therein I understood that it is a worshipful City. In the midst of that City sitteth our Lord.
Julian of Norwich

>I am blind and do not see the things of this world; but when the light comes from Above, it enlightens my Heart and I can see, for the Eye of my Heart (Chante Ishta) sees everything; and through this vision I can help my people. The heart is a sanctuary at the Center of which there is a little space, wherein the Great Spirit (Wakantanka) dwells, and this is the Eye. This is the Eye of Wakantanka by which He sees all things, and through which we see Him. If the heart is not pure, Wakantanka cannot be seen, and if you should die in this ignorance, your soul shall not return immediately to Wakantanka, but it must be purified by wandering about in the world. In order to know the Centre of the Heart in which is the Mind of Wakantanka, you must be pure and good, and live in the manner that Wakantanka has taught us. The man who is thus pure contains the Universe within the Pocket of his Heart (Chante Ognaka).
Black Elk

>In this abode of Brahma (Brahma-pura) there is a small lotus, a place in which is a small cavity (dahara) occupied by Ether (Akâsha); we must seek That which is in this place, and we shall know It.
Chândogya Upanishad, VIII. i. 1

>If thou conceivest a small minute circle, as small as a grain of mustard seed, yet the Heart of God is wholly and perfectly therein: and if thou art born in God, then there is in thyself (in the circle of thy life) the whole Heart of God undivided.
Boehme

>The heart of the gnostic possesses such an amplitude that Abû Yazîd al-Bisṭâmî said of it: if the divine Throne with all that surrounds it were to be found a hundred million times in a corner of the heart of the gnostic, he would not feel it; and Junayd said in the same sense: if the ephemeral and the eternal are joined, there remains no further trace of the former; now, how could the heart which contains the eternal feel the existence of the ephemeral?
Ibn ‘Arabî

>‘Heart’ is merely another name for the Supreme Spirit, because He is in all hearts.
Sri Ramana Maharshi

>The Dwelling of the Tathagata is the great compassionate heart within all living beings.
Saddharma-puṇḍarîka

>What a wonderful lotus it is that blooms at the heart of the wheel; who are its comprehensors?
There in the midst thunders the self-supported lion-throne, there the Great Person shines resplendent.
Kabîr

>He whose heart rejoices in the knowledge that he is really one with God loses his own individuality and becomes free. Be eternally satisfied with thy Beloved, and so shalt thou dwell in Him as the rose within the calyx.
‘Aṭṭâr

>>20524269
>In virtue of his miraculous power, transcending human intelligence, Residing in the centre of the smallest atom, The Tathagata preaches the doctrine of perfect serenity.
Avataṃsaka Sûtra

>Soul is not in the universe, on the contrary, the universe is in Soul.
Plotinus

>Om mani padme hum: ‘Om, the jewel in the lotus, Hum!’
Tibetan Mantra

>Once transport ourselves in spirit, outside of this universe of dimensions and localizations, and there will be no more question of trying to ‘situate’ the Principle.
Chuang-tse (ch. XXII)

>Those who bridle their mind which travels far, moves about alone, is without a body, and hides in the chamber of the heart, will be free from the bonds of Mâra, the tempter.
Dhammapada, III. 37

>The Most High is absolutely without measure, as we know, And yet a human heart can enclose Him entirely!
Angelus Silesius

>‘My earth and My heaven contain Me not, but the heart of My faithful servant containeth Me.’
Muhammad

>That God, the All-worker, the Great Self (mahâtman),
Ever seated in the heart of creatures,
Is framed by the heart, by the thought, by the mind—
They who know That, become immortal.
Śvetâśvatara Upanishad, IV. 17

>Near and far addeth not nor subtracteth there, for where God govemeth without medium the law of nature hath no relevance.
Dante (Paradiso, xxx. 121)

>What is here is there, what is not here is nowhere.
Vishwasâra Tantra

>He, truly, indeed, is the Self (Âtmâ) within the heart, very subtile, kindled like fire, assuming all forms. This whole world is his food. On Him creatures here are woven.
Maitri Upanishad, VII. 7

>His throne is in heaven who teaches from within the heart.
St Augustine

>Bring together in yourself all opposites of quality, heat and cold, dryness and fluidity; think that you are everywhere at once, on land, at sea, in heaven; think that you are not yet begotten, that you are in the womb, that you are young, that you are old, that you have died, that you are in the world beyond the grave; grasp in your thought all this at once, all times and places, all substances and qualities and magnitudes together; then you can apprehend God.
Hermes

>This, verily, is the person (puruṣa) dwelling in all cities (puriśaya).
Bṛihad-Âraṇyaka Upanishad, II. v. 18

>I am seated in the hearts of all.
Bhagavad-Gîtâ, XV. 15

>God...who dwells nowhere but in Himself, while compenetrating all things, in being neither near nor far from anything....
Boehme

>This center which is here, but which we know is really everywhere, is Wakan-Tanka.
Black Elk

>Nor is being such that there may ever be more than what is in one part and less in another, since the whole is inviolate.
Parmenides

>Thus, open out the Tao, and it envelops all space: and yet how small it is, not enough to fill the hand!
Huai Nan Tzû

>>20524269
>>20524279
>In each atom a hundred suns are concealed... The core in the centre of the heart is small, Yet the Lord of both worlds will enter there.
Shabistarî


>All know that the drop merges into the ocean but few know that the ocean merges into the drop.
Kabîr

>If you cleave the heart of one drop of water
There will issue from it a hundred oceans.
Shabistarî

>‘O Arjuna, I am in the expanse of the Heart,’ says Śrî Krishna. ‘He who is in the Sun, is also in this man,’ says a mantra in the Upanishads. ‘The Kingdom of God is within,’ says the Bible. All are thus agreed that God is within. What is to be brought down? From where? Who is to bring what, and why?

>Realization is only the removal of obstacles to the recognition of the eternal, immanent Reality. Reality is. It need not be taken from place to place.
Sri Ramana Maharshi

>He who knows Brahma as the real (satya), as knowledge (jñâna), as the infinite (ananta),
Set down in the secret place (of the heart) and in the highest heaven,
He obtains all desires,
Together with the intelligent Brahma.
Taittirîya Upanishad, II. 1

>As soon as one particle of dust is raised, the great earth manifests itself there in its entirety. In one lion are revealed millions of lions, and in millions of lions is revealed one lion. Thousands and thousands of them there are indeed, but know ye just one, one only.
Jimyo

>Man’s heart is the central point
And heaven the circumference.
Shabistarî

>The Buddhas in the numberless Buddhist kingdoms
Are nothing other than the one Buddha in the center of our soul.
Kôbô Daishi

>Find Buddha in your own heart, whose essential nature is the Buddha himself.
Eisai

>I thought that I had arrived at the very Throne of God and I said to it: ‘O Throne, they tell us that God rests upon thee.’ ‘O Bâyazîd,’ replied the Throne, ‘we are told here that He dwells in a humble heart.’
Bâyazîd al-Bisṭâmî

>The kingdom (Law) of the Buddha is not far away, but within us; eternal truth (Shinnyo) can not be seen outside ourselves. Search, and you will find it. Believe, and you will soon be free from illusion. Practise, and you will at once realize the truth. Alas! for the foolish who deny this certainty! Woe to them who are too ‘drunken and mad’ to listen to the living sermon of nature!
Kôbô Daishi

>>20524290
The Logos of God is like a grain of mustard seed (cf. Matt. I3:3I) : before cultivation it looks extremely small, but when cultivated in the right way it grows so large that the highest principles of both sensible and intelligible creation come like birds to revive themselves in it. For the principles or inner essences of all things are embraced by the Logos, but the Logos is not embraced by anything. The grain of mustard seed is the Lord, who by faith is sown spiritually in the hearts of those who accept Him. He who diligently cultivates the seed by practising the virtues moves the mountain of earth-bound pride and, through the power he has gained, he expels from himself the obdurate habit of sin. In this way he revives in him self the activity of the principles and qualities or divine powers present in the commandments, as though they were birds.
Maximus the Confessor

>O Arjuna, the Lord dwells in the heart of all beings, causing all beings to revolve, as if mounted on a wheel.
Bhagavad-Gîtâ, XVIII. 61

>He who knows That, set in the secret place (of the heart)— He here on earth, my friend, rends asunder the knot of ignorance.
Muṇḍaka Upanishad, II. i. 10

>(Pythagoras) divinely healed and purified the soul, resuscitated and saved its divine part, and conducted to the intelligible its divine eye, which, as Plato says, is better worth saving than ten thousand corporeal eyes; for by looking through this alone, when it is strengthened and clarified by appropriate aids, the truth pertaining to all beings is perceived.
Iamblichus

>The Atman is self-luminous and birthless; it is existence, absolute knowledge, the eye of the eyes, One without a second.
Srimad Bhagavatam, XI. xx

>Each thing a certain course and laws obeys,
Striving to turn back to his proper place;
Nor any settled order can be found,
But that which doth within itself embrace
The births and ends of all things in a round.
Boethius

>The nature of the universe which stilleth the centre and moveth all the rest around, hence doth begin as from its starting point. And this heaven (the primum mobile) hath no other where than the divine mind.
Dante (Paradiso, XXVII. 106)

bump

>>20524290
>>Man’s heart is the central point
guenon discusses this in Symbols of the Sacred Science in the Sacred Heart chapter
tl;dr the Heart is the center of Being

>>20524032
>>20524057
>>20524081
>>20524269
>>20524279
>>20524290
>>20524302
Based. This book is an excellent souce for such quotes, can highly recommend

>>20525258
The introduction by marco pallis is great too

Are any of you guys actual members of a religion? there seems to be no good Sufi orders anymore and every other major religion would kick out a perennialist

>>20525340
of course not brother, we just LARP

>>20525340
>Are any of you guys actual members of a religion?
still waiting
>there seems to be no good Sufi orders anymore
there are, especially in North Africa
>and every other major religion would kick out a perennialist
if you are not annoying and don't shill your views too much, no one will kick you, but as a matter of fact, sufism is not as perennial as hinduism

https://youtu.be/-bgWnzjONXE

I’ve just listened to this today and I think the ontology of the Multiple States of the Being can be matched with Ibn Arabi’s even more perfectly than with Shankara’s. Now I know there’s some controversy on whether Guenon interpreted Ibn Arabi correctly. It’s irrelevant to what I’m saying, because the guy on the video is not arguing for Guenon. He’s explaining Ibn Arabi’s doctrine, and it just happens to match perfectly that of Guenon. In Multiple Statea. Was Guenon already a Muslim when he wrote it? I’ve heard someone say that he was already a Muslim way before he came out of the closet, even as he was expounding Hindu Doctrines.

>>20526312
Can you explain what you mean by the ontology of the multiple states of being, and why exactly it is "more" in line with Ibn Arabi than Shankara?
As in the following?
>Universal Possibility, Possibility, Potentiality, Actuality
>Metaphysical Infinity, Non-Being (Metaphysical Zero), Being (Essence and Substance), Existence,
or better phrased
>Being
>Neither Being nor Non-Being
>Non-Being
>Nonmanifestation, Formless Manifestation, Formal Manifestation (Subtle and Gross)
>Universal, Individual

>The language of metaphysics, necessarily one of high abstraction, is rendered more accessible by Guénon through the employment of several suitable metaphors. Just as the term metaphysical Infinity at once evokes and transcends mathematical infinity, so Guénon extends this numeric metaphor to the other metaphysical categories. Thus, Non-Being, in its unmanifest undifferentiation, may be considered as “metaphysical Zero”; Being, as the primal differentiation, may be considered as “Unity”; Existence, taken in its comprehensiveness, is a “Unicity,” which comprises multiplicity as such, taken in the indefinitude of its manifest possibilities. Unity may be seen as the affirmation of Zero, just as Unicity preserves an essential unity, while nonetheless expressing multiplicity. In geometric terms, one might consider Non-Being as that which antecedes space and extension, Being as the primordial point, spaceless in itself, yet possessing all of space in virtuality, and Existence as the entirety of space, in its indefinitude of extension. Similarly, in terms of speech, one might consider Non-Being as silence, as all that is inexpressible, Being as pure sound, or the pure possibility of speech, and Existence as the entirety of the expressible, of all that is spoken.

>>20526312
I should add what have you read of shankara to make such a comparison, you should mention a part of shankara which guénons metaphysical writings disagree with and which Ibn Arabis writings agree with.

>>20526335
>>20526353
Just watch the video

>>20526357
??? No thanks. If you can't describe here what it was exactly which made you think in terms of "more" Ibn Arabi than Shankara, then I can't fathom why you would make such a point, and if you're not prepared to substantiate this, in relation to Guénons book Multiple States of Being then you have really made no point and have said nothing here.

I will repeat have you even read Shankara?

>>20526369
Suit yourself. Of course I’ve read Shankara. I’m not gonna be sucked into a “debate me bro” session where we end at the same place we started after 200 replies. I have better things to do.

>>20526390
You've misunderstood me entirely, debate is pure pseud, I asked you merely to elaborate on the point you made above, what about Shankaras writings do you find disagreeable with Guénons, and what about Ibn Arabis writings do you find *more agreeable with Guénons, don't misunderstand me, but you made pretty sweeping generalisations, without any actual substance, you just said

>this and this and that is more because video

It's not a debate, but because you can't actually elaborate on your point any further, I will just take your post as a bump.

>>20525688
Are you joining a Sufi order?

>>20526511
simple as'

>>20522003
to think youre doing this for free... your life is sad, you poor creature, I sincerely hope that you and your discord friends try starting a commune somewhere and that it works out. My sympathy for religious folks has no boundaries... One day you will reach your promised Hea... I mean communism.

>>20523975
you did not good sir:)

>>20525258
It's an indispensable resource to have. The Spiritual Ascent is the same book and much easier to find.

Beware the counter-initiation.

>>20525340

I'm an Orthodox Christian. I stopped being a perennialist because it was simply impossible to reconcile the reality of the miracle-working Saints of living memory with perennialism.

I still have an appreciation for Guenon and I have him in my prayer rule. He helped utterly kill any hope I had for modernity at all.

>>20527303
>LOTR
why not tho. at least rap music is still okay.

>>20527402
>>20527303

It really feels like this list has been made by a Protestant. LOTR as the devil's gateway but somehow he forgot the Pentcoastals, mmmmhhh

>>20527367
Is it truly impossible ? I mean, as far as I am aware, people like Guénon always had a positive view of sainthood and miracles, and I would find it strange if it didn't fit in his broader view. Where does that block come from ?

>>20527912

The most fundamental problem, is that the confirmed miracle-working Orthodox Saints, in particular the ones who were extensively learned, did not confess the same doctrines as Guenon, and yet they acheived heights of asceticism and spirituality to the points of miracle working, like St John Maximovitch, of recent memory for example.

If I was to stay a perennialist, and accept the Orthodox Saints as legitimate, I would have to thread the needle, of the problem of the practise of countlessly witnessed miracles by these Saints.

This would be far easier to write off if they were magicians or tantrikas of some kind, since demonic empowerment can develop siddhis in a mode of pure delusion, since what's important is the indwelling of demons within the practitioner, not the truth of their beliefs (which often involve the denial of any absolute truth except arbitrary will-imposition) - but the beliefs and methods espoused by the Orthodox Saints are not left-handed in the slightest. They're ascetics, men of prayer, self-sacrifice, and sober-minded confession of absolute truth.

And yet, this confession of absolute truth contradicts Guenon directly - in particular, Guenon's assertion that Genesis is an allegorical form of Guenon's doctrine of manifestation, and not about the actual creation of matter from nothing, and a beginning of time. The literal confession of Genesis is continually and insistently affirmed by the Orthodox Saints, and that's just one of the many many possible examples.

So I would have to come up with some way to justify the idea that these people, who have some of the holiest lives in recent history, could act in such a miraculous way, and acheive such superhuman heights of asceticism (St John Maximovitch barely slept, barely ate, and didn't even wear shoes), and yet be operating in a mode of ignorance and delusion.

What standard do I have to measure them against, especially if I were to become Orthodox? If I were to join Orthodoxy fully, I would have to believe like our Saints believe, and the ones in recent memory, in order to not be a LARPing hypocrite trying to invent my own tradition, since it's clear that their beliefs brought them closer to God - since what they believed is God's direct revelation to them, including the revaluation of the first days of creation's history. The other only people that try to re-interpret what the miracle-working Saints believed, or try to divide doctrine from metaphysical reality, or make the confession of and alignment to Truth irrelevant for connection to the highest metaphysical reality, were all modernists, who try to cherry-pick early Christian writers outside of their context, regardless of the rest of the tradition's evaluation of them, to justify beliefs that are heretical in the continued present-day tradition.

>>20526312
>I’ve heard someone say that he was already a Muslim way before he came out of the closet, even as he was expounding Hindu Doctrines.
before moving to Egypt he was already initiated into freemasonry, taoism, sufism and a shaivitelineage and his wife was catholic so I am pretty sure that his regular practice while in France must have been catholicism, not islam

>>20527912
>>20528062
Even though Guénon acknowledged miracles, visions, etc. he didn't place them into the top of spirituality, he makes it clear that mysticism is still part of exoterism and not esoterism and the initiatic path, ofc visions can also be part of the later but they are viewed from a totally different angle. Now, Guénon says that certain saint like St. Bernard for example, were more than mystics (without excluding the obvious mysticism) so I guess that the same thing can still be applied to some orthodox saints. Still, the subordination to the hindu/taoist non-dual point of view is pretty obvious and orthodox christians don't want to accept this way of thinking because they see all of their ascetics as top tier spirituality. At least this is what I've observed so far.

>>20522260
this nigga has a lot of nerve saying shit like this not having accomplished anything at all besides making some autistic faggots on twitter more deluded

>>20528524

With Guenon's evaluation of so-called "Christian mysticism", is that he's working off of the self-imposed category that Roman Catholicism puts on itself. Internally, Roman Catholicism divides sentimental mysticism and rational scholasticism, and Guenon follows this division by dividing esoteric initiation from exoteric mysticism.

There's no such internal divide in Orthodoxy in either direction, since every part of the tradition is catholically integrated - the rites of Orthodoxy are ontological initiations into the eternal divine life. It's also difficult to actually categorise the experience of the Orthodox Saints by Guenonian categories, precisely because of the extreme sentimentality and passivity implicit in mysticism, and the impersonality of non-dual experience. The following is an excerpt from here, about St Seraphim of Sarov and the presence of God http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/wonderful.aspx

It can't particularly be called what Guenon identifies as "mysticism" because it's not some private, sentimental experience of ravishment, since they are both sober in the growing brightness and presence of God, and it's not a non-dual experience since they are both persons acknowledging each other.

>"Nevertheless," I replied, "I do not understand how I can be certain that I am in the Spirit of God. How can I discern for myself His true manifestation in me?"

>Father Seraphim replied: "I have already told you, your Godliness, that it is very simple and I have related in detail how people come to be in the Spirit of God and how we can recognize His presence in us. So what do you want, my son?"

>"I want to understand it well," I said.

>Then Father Seraphim took me very firmly by the shoulders and said: "We are both in the Spirit of God now, my son. Why don't you look at me?"

>I replied: "I cannot look, Father, because your eyes are flashing like lightning. Your face has become brighter than the sun, and my eyes ache with pain."

>Father Seraphim said: "Don't be alarmed, your Godliness! Now you yourself have become as bright as I am. You are now in the fullness of the Spirit of God yourself; otherwise you would not be able to see me as I am."

Bonus: Sergei Nilus, the publisher of the Protocols, was protected from communists by St. Seraphim of Sarov, long after St. Seraphim of Sarov's soul left his body. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4t1oR0g4Brk

>>20528726
If you read Guénon's letters to Vasile Lovinescu, you will see that when Lovinescu gave descriptions of the orthodox monasteries which he visited and what the monks said (in fact, their mentality was very similar to contemporary monks like elder Paisios for example, so the description to which Guénon replies are in no way made up) Guénon wasn't at all that hopeful and claimed that an orthodox initiatic way (if it still exists) must be something secret among a few monks and not what is commonly thought in those monasteries. You can read the correspondence here, just use the automatic translator:
https://www.index-rene-guenon.org/Access_book.php

>>20528771

I'll respond to excerpts from the letters

>What you say about Orthodox monasteries is also an interesting question; I have heard, for Russia, of training where breathing plays a big role.

It was actually when I was reading "Introduction to Magic" by Ur Group, during one of the first chapters, that I found a reference to the heart as the centre of the human being, refernced from a text from Mt Athos, from a certain Xerocarsa(I haven't yet been able to find the source of this, but this is consistent with other Orthodox writings on the heart). That was a period of time where I was going to an Orthodox Church, and deciding between Orthodox Christianity, and being a magician - and so it seems like I was placed in a position where there was literally no point in looking into magic, if the thing I was looking for was to be found in Orthodoxy.

>Another annoying thing, it is this insistence on humility; if it is considered only as a simple “purifying” means, I agree that it can have its value in this respect like many other things, but, ... it could only play a part in the preliminary stages, and it would be inconceivable that it could influence the results already achieved.

Curious that he has a problem with humility - since even on the purely practical order, a lack of humility is something that can always destroy you - a chef who assumes that it is impossible for him to make a mistake, will ignore his mistakes, and ruin a dish. Pride always comes before the fall, and there's no way to mechanically insulate yourself from your own free will, outside of binding your body.

>So wouldn't that suggest that there is only a very small, extremely closed group that has real initiation, and that ordinary monks are unlikely to ever be admitted? It would be necessary at the very least to know how and where these ascetics are recruited when their number must be completed; is it among the monks, or, what seems more probable, among the solitaries who live in these almost inaccessible places of which you speak?

There actually are a group of twelve "invisible monks" on Mount Athos, who are selective and secretive, who replace their members when one dies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEkDo9j4fqs

>Finally, there is this story of the Devil which, if it is really taken in such a literal way, is not a good sign either; from the initiatory point of view, it is certain that this cannot have any interest;

Well, there's where his commitment to advaita comes in, where the devil cannot be a fallen angelic person who is truly hostile, but simply must be a symbol. It's also interesting that this insistence that the devil is simply an initiatory symbol of adversarial influence, rather than an actual entity, is comorbid with his disdain for humility. It's obvious that these are connected in some way.

(continued)

>>20522219
listen, passive aggressive "LOL" tranny, marx is a materialist and his entire observation of man's position comes from their material circumstances. cope more

>>20528844

Note: I attached the prior image of "My Elder Joseph the Hesychast" since it is a biography of a man who has in fact acheived the "Prayer of the Heart" that was discussed with Guenon, and has acheived very exalted spiritual capacities. If you want to read something that goes in depth into a legitimate Athonit Monk, from a disciple in his lineage, (who someone I know has personally seen suspended in the air, glowing in golden light).

In Orthodoxy, there's no shortage of deep metaphysical doctrine to glean out of the iconography, the sacred history, Saints like St Maximus the Confessor (and to a certain extent Origen). But, Orthodox Christianity is, emphatically not hermetic or hindu, and its metaphysical outlook is incompatible. In earlier letters, Guenon expressed a disdain for the focus on the exclusively historical aspects of iconography and sacred history - and it is true that it is a shame when deeper elements are not explored, but in Orthodoxy, metaphysical, ontological truth is fully coterminus with historical circumstance.

As an example of this principle, here's an article about why Alchemy and its metaphysical understanding is not compatible with Orthodoxy: https://mindofthefathers.wordpress.com/2022/03/23/alchemy-is-not-orthodox/

It's precisely. Guenonian ideas can be , by interpreting any history allegorically. Historical fact is mostly a detail for Guenon, except where the beginnings of new legitimate traditions are concerned. In Orthodoxy's understanding, the beginning of the legitimate tradition was prior to the creation of the world - and the first initiate was Adam, and his first disobedience to his Master, the pre-incarnate Logos, Christ, through the deception of the Devil, introduced death, disease, corruption, etc. into the world.

All of this is symbolically relevant, and applies metaphorically and symbolically to all aspects of spiritual life, but the origin of the symbolic reality echoes out from the events and persons. As a profane example, when a meme derived from a person, like the Will Smith slap, the form and meaning of that meme echoes out into the rest of the usages and permutations of that meme, to serve a symbolic purpose - but the origin of that meme was a specific person and their symbolism was fully coterminus with their actions.

In this case, in the Orthodox Christian understanding, Satan as the Adversary is indeed a person (not a human, since the ontological categories of nature/essence and person are distinct in Orthodoxy), but a person of such impact and significance that his symbolism has cosmic consequences, since mankind was corrupted through his active deception.

Another way I could put this, is the bell curve meme. Low IQ: Ah believe mah bahble, the stories in it are true. Simple as.
Midwit: It's all an allegory for a higher truth that you're too stupid to understand.
High IQ: The higher metaphysical truths expressed in the bible are simultaneous with the historical facts of the bible.

>>20528844
I think that by humility, he means something akin to theatrical self-depreciation (kind of like a show-off, if you think about it). I remember Guénon saying basically that someone who truly went through the full initiatory process doesn't need to be 'humble' in a 'social', outwardly way : he knows what role God assigned to him because he has learned his place in the universe, so he will do that without any unnecessary display. Maybe I misread him but it's what I thought he wad getting at

>>20528894
Do you think that a person who achieves Theosis can lose it?

>>20528917

If that's what he was getting at, then he would be completely right, and this type of "outward, showy" humility is condemned in Orthodoxy. That's one reason we reject Francis of Assissi as a Saint - his outward shows of "humility", like pouring ashes and a bucket on his head, and asking his followers to parade him with a rope around his neck for eating meat, are considered illegitimate and a totally fake form of humility. Things like this are compared to St Seraphim of Sarov who I mentioned earlier, in this article: http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/francis_sarov.aspx

But, given the straightforwardly elitist flavour of Guenon's writings, I don't personally think your interpretation accurately reflects what he means. If there's a clarification, I'd like to see it.

>>20528961
This reminds me of Suhrawardi, the persian neoplatonist sufi, who used to sometimes dress as a rich noble to be in contradiction with many of the avearge sufis used to show this false outward sense of humility.

>>20528894
Guénon says that demons or the devil can appear physically and can harm you but they are beings of the psychic/subtle domain (which is still part of Physics) and not of the metaphysical one.

>>20522512
Yeah bro they should've like done something about it. What exactly? Yeah idk but they really could've actually like did a thing to make it not do that.

>>20528998
That fascinates me. Could you expand on the mechanics of how that happens? Do you think devils and angels have the ability to manifest physicality or do they bypass the senses appearing directly to the mind as if they were physical (and creating physical effects like Neo taking a beating in the Matrix and the wounds manifesting in his body)? Aquinas seems to have believed in the latter while I think Augustine and a Greek church father who wrote on demonology (I can’t remember his name, anyone?) seemed to think that they had a body but made of air.

>>20528952

Before their death? Yes, because before their death, they're still on the spiritual battlefield - the fallen human nature is subject to change.

Christ is the way, and not as an empty saying - his incarnate life is the pattern for the spiritual life of the lineage that He has laid down. Notice that Christ, prior to his resurrection, had a fallen human nature just like us, though it was not possible for him to sin since He is the Logos - and he still performed miracles despite the fallen human nature. However, the full deification of his human nature did not happen until he died, and three days later resurrected. This resurrected form of human nature, is fully deified, and only available after crossing the threshold of death.

Theosis prior to someone's death is a process of degrees, and of greater and lesser participation in God according to their degree of repentance and humility, of which asceticism is a tool to acheive this goal.

If someone has died holy, successfully keeping the gift of God's grace up to the moment of death, then their Theosis is confirmed, sometimes by a pair of angels escorting their soul to heaven, and often by that person performing miracles after their death to confirm their Theosis, and can even appear on earth after their death, like for St Seraphim of Sarov helping Sergei Nilus in the video mentioned in this post: >>20528726

>>20529050

Ortho-anon here, I've unfortunately had extensive experience with demons, and just last night I've had a repeat of a continual experience.

What tends to happen for me, is that I'll be dreaming, and for some reason a situation will occur in which a ritually unclean animal comes near me, and when it touches me, I wake up to demonic screaming, very much like what you would hear in the exorcist. However, I had anointed myself with holy oil the night before, so its scream was fast and it "fell away" quickly. When they are exposed to holy items, they tend to scream in pain rather than in whatever other bizarre demonic mood they scream in, or have seizures.

St Theophan the Recluse (recent Russian Saint) writes that demons & angels are composed of a rarified ether, the same substance our souls are made out of. So demons are spatially located, but not hindered by cruder kinds of matter. Their sight is also dependant on the state of someone's soul - a sinful person is more "visible" to demons, and a good person is less "visible" to demons.

>>20529052
>Before their death? Yes
You see, this is what Guénon calls mystical states. He makes it clear that initiatic states can never be lost once they are achieved. He talks about these states in the Multiple states of the being, there are first the individual states and afterwards come the supra-individual states.
>>20529050
>Do you think devils and angels have the ability to manifest physicality or do they bypass the senses appearing directly to the mind as if they were physical (and creating physical effects like Neo taking a beating in the Matrix and the wounds manifesting in his body)?
Hmm, I don't really know what to say here but it's an interesting question indeed. In any case, even if they appear to the mind, your comparison with the Matrix isn't that accurate because your real Self can't be affected by anything, only your awareness is.

>>20529097

>>Before their death? Yes
>You see, this is what Guénon calls mystical states.

I know that Guenon says that once initiation is acheived, it cannot be lost. That's only applicable in Orthodoxy after the death of a Saint.

Conflating the initiation into the divine life, and what Guenon calls "mystical" experience, is not consistent with the sober, non-passive states mentioned here.

>>20528726

And not consistent with the fact that it is the exact same type of divine life being extended into the afterlife, except without subjection to the fallen human nature.

>>20529155
>And not consistent with the fact that it is the exact same type of divine life being extended into the afterlife
Not reall, Guénon says that there are different levels of salvation and that the msytics are higher in the hierarchy of saved beings than the average saved believer

https://vedavyasamandala.com/initiation-and-method-of-hesychasm/

>>20529193
Oh God, not this blog again. That guy simply wants to make guénonians get into orthodoxy instead of sufism because of his hindu prejudices against islam.

>>20529200
Islam is being used as a pawn by the NWO to destroy Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism and all of their respective civilizations, just as much as Communism and Capitalism are.
Another thing, Sufism is considered heretical among actual Muslims. When I've talked to Muslims IRL about it they recoil at Sufism; it's not Islam to them but utterly anathema.

Anybody know of some cool initiatic possibilities in Japan?

>>20529302
you confuse islam with salafism and whatever the later might believe, there are still millions of sufis in certain countries, like those of North Africa for example. You seem to judge the whole islamic world based on your beef with the local londonistan salafi convert lol. I have also talked with multiple indian hindus from the internet and many of them believe in literalist interpretations like that of reincarnation, the Vedas teaching a different thing from the Upanishads and so forth. If you think that literalists are only in islam, you are very foolish.

>>20529336
Shingon Buddhism

>>20528062

If I understand correctly, you are saying that among Orthodox practitioners, you clearly have people that are saints : not only are they performing miracles, but their actions and understanding of the teachings of the Church make clear that they are not frauds or pawns of something sinister.

Therefore, you, an Orthodox, have no right to claim to posess a better understanding than them, Guenon or not. And yet, they disagree with him on some important points. So, the logical conclusion is to follow their teachings over Guenon.


I must admit that my understanding of Orthodoxy is very superficial, so I cannot question what you are saying. But are you sure these disagreements are not a matter of perspective or point of view ? I have met many more Orthodox that had a positive view of Guenon than Catholics, so I always thought Orthodoxy was the more Guenon-compatible Church in general. That's why I am asking

>>20529352
It's not the people themselves but their usefulness to deep state actors that is the utmost concern.
If tradlarpers convert to islam to become sufis and expect muslims to embrace them they've got another thing coming.

>>20529571
Also, the guys I talked to were North African Sunnis.

>>20529578
I’ve heard someone say that the Ottoman Empire was supposedly a hub for Sufism. What is the status of Sufism on Turkey today considering it’s been undergoing a sort of Islamic revival with Erdogan?

>>20529659
In* Turkey (sorry, ESL)

>>20529659
Hell if I know. I just used to work with Egyptian guys. They said "Sunni Islam IS Islam" and declared all else, including Sufis, to be satanic heretics. Since guys like that are like 9/10ths of the religion I've got no idea. Sufism will survive but it's not an apologia for mainstream Islam.

>>20529675
I have noticed a strong progression of salafist ideas amongst a lot of Sunnis, especially modernized ones. Generally, if you meet a muslim that spend a lot of time on social media and who learned his religion through YouTube or TikTok videos, the odds of him being more or less a salafist are quite strong. But in the campaigns of Morrocco for example, people will basically trust sufis completely

>>20529369
Cool, I asked that question before and that was the reply another anon gave

Will have to explore it desu…
Seems pretty cool actually
All the Buddhas have swords in the depictions

>>20530002
Schuon has a book named Treasures of Buddhism, maybe he said something there about Shingon idk, I never read that book.

>>20530928
>Schuon
Said Protestantism was trad. Dropped.

>>20529571
>If tradlarpers convert to islam to become sufis and expect muslims to embrace them they've got another thing coming.
Ik very well what different type of muslims believe and how they behave towards "perennialism", especially sufis.
>>20529578
>>20529675
Egypt has a good amount of both sufis and salafis. Morocco, Mauritania and some other countries from west Africa are mainly sufi and the government promotes it in order to keep salafism away.
>>20529659
Atatürk persecuted sufis because they didn't support his secular innovations so it's not what it used to be.

>>20530928
holy based...
how could one man be so /trad/pilled...?

>In Shingon esoterism, the open fan of the five elements is closed again within “consciousness”, which is the sixth and superior element: to be Buddha is to know totally the nature of what are seemingly external phenomena; it is therefore to know that they are not of a substance other than our own selves. To affirm that the Bodhisattva sees nothing but the “void” (shūnya) means that he perceives only the “voidness” (shūnyatā) of things, or that he beholds things in their suchness, which is identical with that of consciousness; the elements are like the outward diversification, or like crystallized aspects, of this single consciousness; he who looks at the world sees himself, and he who realizes the depths of the heart contains the world. The synthesis of the five objective elements in the sixth, which is subjective, prefigures in its own way the spiritual synthesis of the pāramitās: in other words, earth, water, air, fire, ether—taken in their broadest meaning—are, finally, the outward and cosmic appearances of the first five pāramitās, the sixth element—chitta or consciousness—being by the same token the natural prefiguration of the sixth virtue, prajnā.

>>20522176
>the Shamens of old would always partake in hallucinogens
not really. That's more of a stereotype.

>>20530936
>Said Protestantism was trad. Dropped.
He didn't really said that. Yes he had a more positive view than Guénon (who btw, said that protestant baptism is problematic, not straight up invalid, his problem was mainly with the protestant mentality which worked hand in hand with modernity) because of a few protestant mystics (Guénon also says that Böhme was legit) but he also acknowledged that there are problems with protestantism, just not that it's compeltely invalid (talking here about lutheranism, not neo-protestantism, mormonism and these later developments)

>>20523825
He's not wrong. Marx was a man who, like all men, had beliefs and convictions. He just coped by pretending to be a scientists. He was also wrong about society and the state and today his theories hold no water due to the constant technical specialization of labor/worl/ slave/whatevs and there is no class in existence that encompasses all these things:
1. is the overwhelming majority
2. society depends upon
3. is in dire need

>>20530936
>t. counter-initiate

>>20523871
>Marx was Aristotelian
absolute retardation. Also, economics is a meme. It's all based ultimately on belief and expectations.

>>20523966
>if social relations are not a reflection of existing material conditions, then where do they come from?
nature/the state. They are what they have been and always will be. There is nothing intrinsically material about social relations. They precede it.

>>20530976
>mormonism
Let's not kid ourselves here. If mormonism were a world religion these guys would retcon it into a hypertrad antedeluvian hyperborean religion. Guenon, Schuon are priestly caste. The priestsly caste is about whoring itself to power, like women. They will adapt their narrative accordingly.

>>20531155
idk why I respond to such a hylic bait but taoism used to be also a tradition followed by few and they had great respect for it

>>20531270
>t. priestoid
Evola and Nietzsche were right about your ilk all along.

>>20530976
Harry Oldmeadow is an Anglican. I wonder how he reconciles Protestant Christianity with Traditionalism?

>>20531591
It is interesting to note that the guy who wrote 'Suft of Rome', Evola's Table Talk, ended up becoming an Anglican priest
Frank Gelli
http://www.radicalviews.org/index.php/controversy/homosexuality/itemlist/user/714-frankgelli/

>>20531617
It is quite interesting. I never would have guessed until I listened to an interview of Oldmeadow. His speech in the Sacred Web Conference is one of the best in the conference, and sounds quite Traditionalist to me.
https://youtu.be/6_9G95Ozonw

>>20531641
There is definitely something /trad/ from an Evolian perspective of someone in a Commonwealth country to hold the same faith as their King.

>>20531617
Frank Gelli is a liar who wrote the book for personal interests.

>>20531672
so u think that shit is fake and gay?

>>20531666
Checked.

Dude, I would love to read this if anyone has it.

>Sophia: Volume 13, No. 2
>by Huston Smith, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Charles, Prince of Wales
>This issue of Sophia addresses the environmental crisis from two points of view: the first in the acceptance speech by HRH The Prince of Wales given when he received the 10th annual Global Environmental Citizen Award, and the second in an article by internationally renowned author Seyyed Hossein Nasr on the contemporary Islamic world and the role it must play in the environmental crisis. Huston Smith, revered philosopher, lecturer, and author in the field of religion and mysticism, gives succinct answers to questions posed by Sophia on a wide range of topics including globalization, the environmental crisis, bioengineering, and the relation among religions. The roots of the Kabbalah are examined in two penetrating articles: "The Wisdom of Christian Kabbalah" by Wolfgang Smith and "The Question of Sufi Influence on Early Kabbalah" by Tom Block. Other articles include "Ananda Coomaraswamy Invites Shiva to Dance" by Dan Rudmann and "Muslim Intellectuals and the Perennial Philosophy" by Zachary Markwith in which he discusses the legacy of Frithjof Schuon and Rene Guenon in particular.
https://www.amazon.com/Sophia-13-No-Prince-Charles/dp/0979842913/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=2KMX1JVYFA6WS&keywords=huston+smith+prince+charles&qid=1655337940&sprefix=huston+smith+prince+charles%2Caps%2C88&sr=8-1

>>20529509

Yes, you understand me correctly.

>I have met many more Orthodox that had a positive view of Guenon than Catholics, so I always thought Orthodoxy was the more Guenon-compatible Church in general.

I think that you met more Orthodox who have a positive view of Guenon because of two possible reasons: The influence of Alexander Dugin, and influence of Fr. Seraphim Rose. I'll explain the tendencies and strains of those two lines of thinking.

Dugin is a political philosopher who references Guenon and other perennialists in order to construct a Traditionalist philosophy to politically strengthen Russia after Perestroika, and unite all of what the Russian state calls its "traditional religions" into service of the state. This was prophecied by Orthodox writers like Constantine Zaitsev, who saw that Soviet Atheism was necessarily going to run out of Steam, and that the Communist leaders would switch to a "traditionalist" approach, with the Sovietified Church at its head - since the Moscow Patriarchate prior to Perestroika was simply a tool of the state, and every Bishop necessarily needed a KGB codename, it has not changed at all in spirit to this day, with the hammer & sickle proudly showing in the stained glass of the "military cathedral". Russia promotes what they call "traditional religions" not because of a commitment to perennial truth, but because the KGB-run State recognises that it is a more practical way to unite the country. Guenon, therefore, in this strain of thought, is seen as a dialectical tool for rejecting Western degeneracy, and affirming "Russia's traditional religions", of which the Sovietised Moscow Patriarchate is its head.

However, there is a lineage of Russian Orthodoxy which refused submission to the Soviets - including St John Maximovitch, whose miracles are countless and well documented, to the point of walking through walls. This is the lineage Fr. Seraphim Rose was initiated into, and St John Maximovitch was one of his teachers. The place of Guenon in Fr. Rose's spiritual development he explicated in letter 323 here https://thoughtsintrusive.wordpress.com/letters-of-fr-seraphim-rose-1961-1982/ . I'll attach it in an image.

So, Fr. Seraphim Rose saw the value of Guenon as someone who taught him to love eternal Truth above everything else - but that through his participation in and deeper initiation into Orthodoxy (and his initiation into monasticism, which by his own admission and confirmation from his monastic partner Fr. Herman Podmoshensky, granted him a flame in his heart) he saw Guenon's teachings completed in the direct experience of Christ. Then, after his lifetime of asceticism, and publishing works that included pointing out the false spiritual direction that Russia was heading in, he died a Saint, and performed miracles after his death, as recorded here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxtGZxHDra4

(continued )

>>20531724
absolutely

I start to think that Schuon was actually based
https://youtu.be/G33mj_KvJgg

>>20531746

So the Duginist lineage sees Guenon as a useful and compatible philosophical tool to assert political dominance over Western Degeneracy, rather than as a signpost towards Truth - and the Fr. Seraphim Rose lineage sees Guenon as an instructor in the love of Truth above all else.

If the Orthodox you talk to see Guenon as compatible from the first perspective, then they're likely interested in perennialism and spirituality primarily as a political tool in dialectical rejection of modern western degeneracy, not as an end in and of itself, and the Orthodox you speak to from the second perspective would see him as an edifying read to remove any love for modernity from their soul, including any love for cold rationalism, but recognizing the limits he necessarily has from his perspective.

There's likely to be Orthodox who don't fall into either camp, but those are the two main ones, and it's important to note that one lineage is a lineage of Soviet and Post-Perestroika-Crypto-Soviet collaborators, and the other lineage is a lineage of Saints.

>But are you sure these disagreements are not a matter of perspective or point of view ?

Like I hope I demonstrated above, even positive evaluation of Guenon can be taken from different points of view. In the first case, which would be the most "fully all-embracing" of Guenon and his perspective, are doing so with the intention of political expediency, and in the second case of people who see Guenon's intellectual outlook as a good step inbetween cold materialistic worldliness and Orthodox spirituality.

One of these lineages sponsors Churches with the Hammer and Sickle in stained glass windows - and the other lineage has miracle-working Saints.

The differences between them is a matter of perspective - and in this case, as it is in many cases, the factor of difference here is loyalty, faithfulness, and closeness to God.

>>20531788
holy based...
I need to go visit his grave and pay my respects
I promised /lit/ last summer i'd take some pics but never did
I will do so in 2 weeks before I move out of here

>>20531805
fuck it i'll go take a peak now and scout it out

>>20531805
>I promised /lit/ last summer i'd take some pics but never did
at this point I have the impression that we are just 3 people constantly posting in these threads, you, me and guenonfag

>>20531854
We are the new Schuon, Guenon, and Coomaraswamy

>>20531856
inshallah

>>20531838
Comfy ass location
Lots of privacy barriers (woods, high fences, etc) and was hard to make out which house was the Schuon complex

>>20531746

Dugin uses ideologies and religions as tools, in order to coalesce a wide variety of groups opposed to US hegemony together into a single front. He doesn't believe any of it - for White Nationalists he is a White Nationalist, for the Muslims he is sympathetic to Islam, to the Christians he is a bastion of Orthodoxy and to the Traditionalists he drops hints that he is one of them too. His only actual goal is more power for the Russian state, and to sew confusion for its enemies. He himself outlines this strategy in his untranslated textbook on geopolitics.

It is very reminiscent of the Communist strategy of the United Front, where the Communists create a controlled front group osentisbly opposed to some enemy (Fascism, a certain govt or a foreign invader). They then invite other non-Communist groups to join and fight their common enemy, all the while subtly guiding them towards Communist ends.

Charles Upton did a recent interview on Dugin that discusses this in depth (skip ahead about 40 minutes in, because he rambles on at the start).

https://counter-currents.com/2022/06/deconstructing-dugin-an-interview-with-charles-upton/

>>20531927
>Charles Upton did a recent interview
Awww helllll yeaaahhhhhhh
Nice find

>>20531927
honestly, what sane takes Dugin seriously, he applied the nazbol principle to everything, philosophy, religion, politics, literally everything which can be part of the worldview, it's meme tier

>>20531941
you had discord, right? give me your username

>>20531971
DagoItaka#9953

>>20531943
>Aleksandr Gelyevich Dugin pretends to be a pious christian who belongs to the Old Believers. The soft-spoken Russian philosopher, however, wit his monk-like appearance and demeanor, is a veritable oxymoron. Most people who praise him have never read his books. Rather than preach the Sermon on the Mount, as one would expect, his radical and violent rhetoric, which includes longing for a nuclear holocaust, appeals to extremist on all sides of the political spectrum. As a master tactician, the political scientist and reactionary activist employs the art of deception.
>Considering his popularity in certain circles of opposition to the New World Order, it becomes apparent that Dugin has effectively duped sincere seekers of social and economic justice on all sides, people who recognize the evils inherent in capitalism and liberalism, but who have been left with no other political options after the demise of communism and fascism. Left rudderless in the scuttled that is the planet earth, desperate people have placed their final fait in the pirate ship of Duginism, in the misplaced hope that it will lead them to safer and more prosperous shores. In the end, however, they will only be raped , robbed, and murdered. Dugin’s approach to geopolitics is simple, single-minded of purpose, and deadly: promote extreme ideologies, both left and right, in the belief that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, knowing full well that if they succeed in destroying their own secular, Western, liberal, capitalist, and imperialist societies, the victorious extremists will turn against each other like vicious dogs, conveniently allowing the Eurasians—namely, Russia and China—to sweep down up on the ruins of Western civilization under the guise of multi-polarity.

>>20529369
Should I become a Buddhist? I don’t believe any of the Abrahamic religions is compatible with perennialism and I don’t to hide my views. I’ve heard that Zen and Tibetan have legitimate lines of succession and initiation.

>>20532162
buddhism is pretty much the only sane tradition left

sufism will probably disappear in a few decades because of muslim secularization. salafism and the degeneration of the sufis themselves
christianity has been dead for centuries. No, you will not find any true hesychast, not even in mount athos
true taoism is pretty hard to get into, they're alive, but hard to find, you'll probably need to go to china or at least taiwan, but they'll probably not accept you
'primitive' traditions have degenerated (you're not gonna find any Black Elk, sorry)
paganism is just larp
jewish mysticism, kabbalah, all memes, there's no ibn Ezra anymore

buddhism is probably the only left, but not unharmed

>>20532327
hindu traditions are well-alive, but not very accessible, specially advaita

Putting Advaita as the best metaphysics is what ruined Guenon for me. My guess is that most who read him haven't understood the implications.

>>20532363
I hear that Kashmir Shaivism is doing fine, will initiate sincere foreigners, but doesn't advertise itself keeping a low profile.

>>20532545
What implication?

>>20532559
Actually understanding Advaita. Most readers of Guenon would get turned off and I very much doubt most who claim to like Guenon know understand what is Advaita Vedanta. They see Guenon as someone metaphysically closer to Feser than to Shankara, whom they don't really understand or know.

>>20532586
So where do you think Guenon deviates from Advaita orthodoxy? Is it a significant misrepresentation of the doctrine or minor?

>>20532327

>christianity has been dead for centuries. No, you will not find any true hesychast, not even in mount athos

>centuries

>many miracle-working Saints in living memory, like St. John Maximovitch, and Elder Ephraim of Arizona were alive within the past century, Elder Ephraim alive within the past five years

It is true that Orthodox Christianity is in a very poor spot globally, but at least be honest about in which way it is bad. Having many miracle-working and holy elders alive within the past century, and within the past five years, is a far cry from saying that it "being dead for centures", and Christ Himself promised that the gates of hades would not prevail against his Church, so by divine promise it literally cannot die.

This video, recorded in 2019, is a testimony of a direct encounter with a recent Orthodox Elder, who has passed on shortly after. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRl3THDYN6Q

I know someone *personally* who has seen, simultaneously with a friend of theirs, this exact same elder ephraim glowing in uncreated light.

"Actual Orthodoxy has become very small and most major Orthodox Jursidictions are filled to the brim with pretenders that suck up to globohomo, either on the left wing or right wing"? Sure, that would be an accurate description of it.

"Dead for centuries?" Fundamentally inaccurate.

>>20528062
Has the thought never occurred to you that miracle working is not related or correspondent to correct discursive knowledge? I have respect for Orthodoxy and for your position in it, so please don't take this as an insult, but its such a hylic tendency to think that miracle working = universally correct doctrine. You don't have to be a perennialist to achieve realization. Nor are miracles necessarily indicative of realization. Recall that Jesus will turn away miracle workers who "never knew him". Its not about miracles, which are just special phenomena. They are an effect of spirituality and not a cause, and spirituality does not consist in discursive knowledge.
The Western obsession with thinking that the people with the correct beliefs will have legitimate magical powers is just insane to me. Only speaks to a materialist mindset honestly. That said, again, nothing but respect for Orthodoxy.

>>20532586
He's asking for the actual implication. Not just "they don't understand"

>>20533331

You misunderstand my position, if you think I'm saying that miracle working is directly related to correct discursive knowledge, since I'm not talking about discursive knowledge as the foundation here.

The knowledge I'm talking about is expressed and clarified discursively, especially in clarifying it in relation to error, but the ground of it isn't discursive - the ground of it is the direct experience of the three persons of the pre-eternal Godhead, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the indwelling of the divine energies in a Saint. That's Theosis - but also is how the doctrines I'm talking about have been revealed. The revalation of the history of the past to Moses isn't a discursive, hypothetical proposition, it's a direct testimony from God to Moses about the history of the world, recorded in Genesis.

As you know, individual miraculous phenomena could have various causes (imitation miracles by purely material means, phenomena caused by demons on the psychic plane, or direct uncreated divine intervention of God), but in this case the miracle-working is a result of the direct indwelling of the uncreated energies of God, the exact same uncreated energies which brought the created world into existence from non-existence. For this to be something on the purely psychic sphere, the miracles would have to be performed exclusively by the power of purely created energies - but this is simply not the Orthodox doctrine.

>The Western obsession with thinking that the people with the correct beliefs will have legitimate magical powers is just insane to me.

Miracles, as understood in Orthodoxy, are not magical powers. Magic is purely in the psychic realm and empowered by demons, and correct belief is irrelevant for this, and in fact often a detriment to performing magic, since the magical mindset is purely pragmatic, and Truth is not a concern for the magician. Legitimate miracles are performed by God, and Orthodox Saints are not performing magic. I already covered this point in this post >>20528062

>You don't have to be a perennialist to achieve realization.
>Recall that Jesus will turn away miracle workers who "never knew him"

Here's the point: Does misaligning yourself with the eternal Truth, God, have any metaphysical or spiritual consequence? Or is God a relativist, and adapts Himself to whatever alignment a person might find themselves in, even in direct contradiction? Does error have no meaning at all, then, if it has no consequence at all, and realization is completely unrelated to alignment with Truth, and disalignment with Truth is not a barrier to realization? If you intentionally reject the teachings of Christ, that he has personally given, is that evidence of you actually knowing him?

If not, then "spiritual realisation" in a scheme where Truth and alignment with it has no meaning, ironically fits far better with the purely psychic pragmatic/magical perspective, and would necessarily be closer to the infernal temperament.

>>20522003
>>20522016
After LSD going to Marx... LMAO what a waste of experience. If you were reading guenon and real trads 4real, you would have done a fucking ritualistinc experience. TAKE PSYCHS AS THEY DID IN ELEUSI bois

>>20531789
Interesting. Thank you for your perspective, we don't see well-read Orthodox often in the West

>>20533392
I think our core disagreement is on what "discursive knowledge" is. If it can be expressed discursively, then it is discursive. True knowledge can only be realized intellectually or purely and cannot be expressed, except in negative theology.
>The revalation of the history of the past to Moses isn't a discursive, hypothetical proposition, it's a direct testimony from God to Moses about the history of the world, recorded in Genesis.
No this is definitely discursive. Communicated discursively, is an exoteric history, etc. Not realized purely, but communicated as a set of facts to be assented to (or denied I guess).
> but in this case the miracle-working is a result of the direct indwelling of the uncreated energies of God, the exact same uncreated energies which brought the created world into existence from non-existence. For this to be something on the purely psychic sphere, the miracles would have to be performed exclusively by the power of purely created energies - but this is simply not the Orthodox doctrine.
Yes I have no qualms with this.
>Miracles, as understood in Orthodoxy, are not magical powers.
I take Guenon's position expressed in Intro that a magician or sorceror is someone who achieved partial realization but was tempted off the spiritual path. So the difference in abilities is not a difference of kind. The whole "muh demons" thing always just seemed like a lame cop-out. That said magic as such is detestable of course because it is a barrier to realization.
>Here's the point: Does misaligning yourself with the eternal Truth, God, have any metaphysical or spiritual consequence?
The Truth is not discursive, you are gravely mistaken if you think it can be communicated in a book or an exoteric form. The Truth must be experienced directly. As Jesus said, "I am the Truth." Anything you read a book is not "Truth".
That said, yes there are consequences for having heterodox beliefs - it will limit your ability to achieve realization and become a barrier. The whole point of discursive, exoteric forms is to serve as a basis for realization.
>Or is God a relativist, and adapts Himself
Quite the contrary, it is we who are the relativists, and God who is the Absolute. This is precisely why no exoteric form is sufficient, but can only serve as a valid basis.
>If not, then "spiritual realisation" in a scheme where Truth and alignment with it has no meaning
I think the central issue is you're confusing "Truth" with a set of propositions that you've rationally assented to. A lot of Christians make this mistake. Again, "Truth" has to be experienced, it can't be assented to with or without evidence.
I have no doubt that Orthodox saints have achieved realization but again, that doesn't necessarily mean their beliefs as rendered discursively are correct. You also did nothing to prove this in your post, which is an issue because its a rational assertion.

>>20533392
Also to continue: you can be a perennialist and never achieve anything in the way of realization, ever. You can agree with all Orthodox doctrine and make no spiritual progress as well. Similarly, one doesn't have to assent to pereniallism to make spiritual progress. It is perfectly natural for an exoteric form to regard itself as the only valid path to God and this does not necessarily prevent realization. In other words, its completely possible to proceed along the path while having universally incorrect discursive beliefs. Also completely possible to have perfectly correct discursive beliefs and never proceed at all. Realization is supra-rational.

>>20532327
you didn't mention hinduism

>>20532545
It's not just advaita, it's taoism and advaita, then there are also certain strains of buddhism and sufism here and there. All of these things teach the same thing, just read Lao Tzu and you will see.

>>20532545
"Best" is relative, advaita is just pure so the best one to study. Doesn't necessarily mean its the best, what's best depends on the person.

>>20533912
>>20533899
Let's not be dishonest nor stupid now. Guenon thinks Advaita is the best and its the measure by which he assesses all other traditions and metaphysics.

>>20533844
>I think the central issue is you're confusing "Truth" with a set of propositions that you've rationally assented to.
This is wrong. As the anon you're responding to clarified
>I'm saying that miracle working is directly related to correct discursive knowledge, since I'm not talking about discursive knowledge as the foundation here.
>Does misaligning yourself with the eternal Truth, God, have any metaphysical or spiritual consequence? Or is God a relativist, and adapts Himself to whatever alignment a person might find themselves in, even in direct contradiction? Does error have no meaning at all, then, if it has no consequence at all, and realization is completely unrelated to alignment with Truth, and disalignment with Truth is not a barrier to realization? If you intentionally reject the teachings of Christ, that he has personally given, is that evidence of you actually knowing him?
By saying this all this anon is clarifying here, is that a particularised traditional form - in this case like orthodoxy, which is insulated and exclusive, is one which is perfectly justified, even if the there was no reason to be exclusive, and infact all the anon clarified here (to my understanding) is that only once a person makes an "intentional" rejection of christ does he not know him,
He is claiming that the specific doctrinal formulation of orthodoxy is complete insofar as it is insulated and exclusive in itself, so what is the point of making any further comments on what is outside, there is not something outside because only nothing exists.
>No this is definitely discursive. Communicated discursively, is an exoteric history, etc. Not realized purely, but communicated as a set of facts to be assented to (or denied I guess).
This is just your assumption here, if someone gives a discursive command to abandon discursion, then the end of that discursion is definitely not discursion.

Infact what are you calling "discursive" here? Discursion is an excerise of intellect it's internal, A scriptural object cannot have something like "discursive" and "nondiscursive" attributed to it in of itself, if any only in the case that insofar as there is a recognised union between the nondiscursive subject and the object, all things become intuitive then it becomes so.
>The Truth is not discursive, you are gravely mistaken if you think it can be communicated in a book or an exoteric form. The Truth must be experienced directly. As Jesus said, "I am the Truth." Anything you read a book is not "Truth".
You've repeated the same error here, what is being relegated to a book exactly, if the anon you're responding to said, the foundation is "non-discursive" then it is just that, and therefore primarily experiential, be it through the transmission of some traditional teaching from a spiritual father, or blessing etc, or even initiation into monasticism.

>>20534148
>Guenon thinks Advaita is the best and its the measure by which he assesses all other traditions and metaphysics.
Read Matgioi's works on Taoism and you will see how similar that is to Guénon's non-dual metaphysics, especially the anti-sentimental side. We can discuss about how sufism is like advaita or not but when it comes to taoism, it's the exactly same thing.

>>20533844
>That said, yes there are consequences for having heterodox beliefs - it will limit your ability to achieve realization and become a barrier. The whole point of discursive, exoteric forms is to serve as a basis for realization.
Heterodoxy does not have any existence from the supra-rational point of view of the ascetic, infact in the initiatic or properly mystical state, elders of Christian orthodoxy give advice like distinguishing between different lights, and experiences, the proper way to conduct oneself initially instructing a person so as to connect the aspirant to the traditional regularity of it all.
>Quite the contrary, it is we who are the relativists, and God who is the Absolute. This is precisely why no exoteric form is sufficient, but can only serve as a valid basis.
I agree here, what the anon said about relativism and objectivism though, all he meant was the "objective" nature of God is that of Being purely Absolute, and the relativism part was not in reference to anything but a person outside of traditional regularity, which would be the "mystics" and pragmatic magicians.

>>20534229
>>20534216
Now to conclude as far as I understand, what a householder who does not have knowledge or understanding of the main liturgical languages of Mt. Athos for example can get out of orthodoxy is more or less outside of traditional regularity.

But this holds the same for people who do not get involved in some sufi order and learn arabic, or learn Tibetan or sanskrit or even Hindi and join one of the corresponding orders. Or whatever else, but I firmly believe that orthodoxy has merit in terms of traditional regularity and the initiatic state which is rightfully distinguished from mysticism.

But really as far as I see it, mysticism and mystical states seem to be really one of the only options, in the current times, or getting involved with a tradition only so much as to receive an initiation, to understand the traditions literature, have a teacher to guide you through the literature which becomes available after initiation, and so on.
For this in the modern West, the best options seem to be, Vajrayana Buddhism and Sufism, or something like this,

Unless a person is going to get really involved with the Church - knows the languages of the realised saints and ascetics so as to be able to form a relationship with them, to receive their blessings and teachings, then its really totally inaccessible.

Whereas something like Vajrayana Buddhism has a far more concrete and straightforward - and does not require such "personal" involvement.

>>20534226
> Read Matgioi's works on Taoism
have any of them been translated to English?

>>20534148
Even if Guenon thinks its the best, it doesn't matter, since its just his relative viewpoint. He says the same when he selects Shankara in Man and His Becoming, saying there is no "better" or "worse" viewpoint, but for the purposes of the text he would treat Shankara as superior.

>>20532549
i heard that kashmir shaivism is dead, although there are other paths like sri vydia, shakta
>>20532637
>>20532545
i wonder what guénon would have written if he had access to the writings of Vasubandhu, Nagarjuna or even Dogen.
His description of Advaita is not so orthodox, he mixes a lot with samkhya doctrine to 'fit' all the symbolism he found in other traditions
>>20533126
so there it is, this focus on 'phenomena' is what destroyed christianity.
'miracles' happen all around the world, its not exclusive to christians, no hindu will be surprised by 'miracles', they already know what they are: siddhis. Sufi sheikhs perform miracles everyday.
there are 'incorruptible bodies' in buddhism
>Christ Himself promised that the gates of hades would not prevail against his Church
you know what symbolism is?
if you want assess the state of a tradition by the number of extraordinary phenomena, then go with it.

There's no 'system' or order in christianity(just the external, exoteric), no one knows what the fuck they're doing, just look at the catholic church and see the number of 'saints' that died or became completely ill in their 20s because they had some 'mystical experience' and didn't know how to cope with it, thats why Guénon called them 'passive'.

>>20534539
Marthe Robin spent her whole in a bed, agonizing, the church doesnt have any answer to that.

the stigmata are another interesting phenomena that denotes the feminine and passive character of western christianity (i dont think this is present in the Orthodox Church)

you want to see the difference between a sane tradition and a degenerated and lost one? just look at a zen(ch'an) monk and a christian saint, its like comparing an eagle aware of everything and a white sheep lost in a dark forest

>>20534539
Yeah the extraordinary focus on special phenomena is really endemic in Christianity in general and just strikes me as so Western/materialist. It's insane because Jesus tells a parable where he indicates that many who have performed miracles in his name will have have no part in him yet so many Christians still persist in this focus on phenomena rather than on pure spirituality.

>>20534372
>have any of them been translated to English?
only italian

>>20534539
>i heard that kashmir shaivism is dead, although there are other paths like sri vydia, shakta
you can go to India, get the trust of a householder and he will initiate you into his hindu tradition

>>20534593
not just christianity but all abrahamic traditions are bound to historical events and phenomena, thats just how they appeared and developed, so they can't escape dualism even though there are some passages in the NT that suggest the non-duality between the individual and the Universal (atman-Brahman).

>>20531729
Nobody else wants to talk about Huston Smith and Seyyed Hosein Nasr having a discussion about climate change with Prince Charles, who is also read on the Traditionalist School yet also a member of WEF?

>>20535263
Go ahead m8
Spit out all your schizo thoughts
We are all ears

Why Liberalism Failed and Revolt of the Elites blackpilled me. Will Ride the Tiger get me back on track?

Also
>are liberals materalists?

>>20535435
Simply, yes. Ride the Tiger is a white pill.

>are liberals materalists?
Yes of course.

>>20534539
>i heard that kashmir shaivism is dead, although there are other paths like sri vydia, shakta
Not only Sri Vidya but most Vaishnavite and Shaivite sects are willing to initiate foreigners

>i wonder what guénon would have written if he had access to the writings of Vasubandhu, Nagarjuna or even Dogen.
Vasubandhu and Nagarjuna I think were translated by the time of his early books. I can’t find it now but there is some letter Guenon wrote to someone where he says that Nagarjuna is closer to the primordial tradition than most people realize, it would seem that Guenon viewed Nagarjuna under a Shentong interpretation, like how Jonang Buddhism interprets Nagarjuna.

I dont think that having access to a lot of Vasubandu’s or Asanga’s writings would have changed much, aside from making him more favorable to early Yogachara. The early-stage Yogachara of Asanga and Vasubandhu is openly Absolutist and teaches that Nirvana/Dharmakaya is an independently-existing eternal non-dual consciousness, just like the Upanishads also say so. The later-stage Yogachara of Dharmakirti and Dinnaga abandoned this Absolutism and turned into a subjective idealist system without any eternally existing Absolute. Shankara BTFO’s this latter-stage Yogachara of Dharmakirti and Dinnaga pretty hard in his works, which Guenon had read. Some of Shankara’s criticism’s also apply to the earlier Absolutist Yogachara of Asanga+Vasubandhu, although less of his arguments that refute Dharmakirti still apply to it. Chandradhar Sharma in his book ‘The Advaita Tradition in Indian Philosophy’ has a section where he carefully compares Advaita to the early Absolutist Yogachara and also the latter subjective idealist Yogachara. From the perspective of Advaita the early Absolutist Yogachara is less objectionable although there are still a few finer details in its metaphysics which Advaita says isn’t correct or which isn’t logical; even though they do get some stuff right. Guenon would have probably viewed this earlier Yogachara of Asanga+Vasubandhu as another way or approaching the primordial truth (even if imperfectly/incompletely), while rejecting the latter Yogachara of Dharmakirti and Dinnaga as a degeneration.

>His description of Advaita is not so orthodox, he mixes a lot with samkhya doctrine to 'fit' all the symbolism he found in other traditions
Do you have any example(s) of this? I have never heard anyone say that before about his presentation of eastern doctrines and I was curious what exactly you had in mind.

>>20535519
>I can’t find it now but there is some letter Guenon wrote to someone where he says that Nagarjuna is closer to the primordial tradition than most people realize
Nagarjuna pretty much ends the metaphysical investigation and Dogen puts this into practice

i saw some criticisms on Guénon's interpretation of advaita here: https://vedavyasamandala.com/

and there's this guy who got initiated in sri vidya that tried to refute many argumnets by Guénon (concerning even the reincarnation/rebirth topic that Guénon talks about in 'The spiritist fallacy')
here's some of his texts (you could use google translator, its in portuguese):
https://tradgdm.medium.com/
https://tradgdm.medium.com/ainda-sobre-reincarna%C3%A7%C3%A3o-7502cc1a6a17
https://devaarcana.blogspot.com/2017/12/o-renascimento-segundo-rene-guenon.html
english:
https://intellectualkshatriya.com/category/author/giuliano-morais/

>>20535977
I don't understand Guenon on reincarnation. Isn't that something in basic in Hinduism?

>>20535977
>Nagarjuna pretty much ends the metaphysical investigation and Dogen puts this into practice
Nagarjuna’s works are more an attack on realist metaphysics instead of being an attack on all metaphysics in general. You won’t find any argument in Nagarjuna’s works that damages or provides trouble for anything taught by Advaita for example, which is a non-realist ontology or metaphysics. And even this attack by Nagarjuna on realist metaphysics has its own foibles that can be disputed. For example as R. Robinson pointed out, Nagarjuna’s attempted refutation of akasha (ether) in the MMK presupposes that real things have extension, but this claim isn’t admissible as valid until after akasha has been disproven and not before, so he basically commits the circular reasoning fallacy; the implication being that he actually fails to show any inherent contradiction or problem with admitting the real existence of Akasha and other things with extension.

>and there's this guy who got initiated in sri vidya that tried to refute many argumnets by Guénon
I didnt translate everything by him but the major point of actual doctrine that he seems to be criticizing Guenon for is Guenon’s denial of reincarnation; however Guenon clarifies in his writings that he doesn’t deny transmigration and he accepts that Hinduism teaches transmigration, he just recognizes this to be different from the western idea of reincarnation which he says isn’t taught by Hinduism. I agree that Guenon wasn’t really clear enough though in clarifying this because it seems to be a common misconception where people say he denied reincarnation and attack him for this while not realizing he wrote about transmigration being taught by Hinduism.

>>20536266
*Nagarjuna’s attempted refutation of akasha (ether) in the MMK presupposes that real things DONT have extension

>>20536209
he says that no traditional source ever talked about or approved reincarnation, but that is simply not true
see:
https://intellectualkshatriya.com/rene-guenon-sameness-and-digestion-of-dharma-part-2/

>>20536266
i suggest you read more, even if you're not convinced, the guy really knows alot about sanatana dharma

>>20535381
Well, we already know some of the globalist elite are read on Guenon and his metaphysics from that one excerpt an anon posted weeks ago, and if HRH Prince Charles is in cahoots with the WEF and other Traditionalists are seriously considering climate change measures, then it makes me think how badly infiltrated is the Traditionalist School by the counter-initiation.

>>20534539

>Christianity has been dead for centures! You will never find a true hesychast!
>No, it hasn't, here's the evidence of true hesychasts within the past century and literal past five years
>Evidence that Christianity hasn't been dead for centuries? uhh.. Evidence is PHENOMENA! Phenomena is... LE BAD!

It is literally impossible for you to learn about anyone who has "achieved realization" (and therefore legitimate signpost on the way to realization) by your standards without encountering phenomena that you have personally taken as evidence of it, despite the fact that any and all phenomena has the potential to be faked, including all phenomena you take as evidence of someone's realization, even if that phenomena is not in and of itself a miracle.

>All this focus on phenomena is what destroyed Christianity!
>All of my focus on the phenomena of writings of Guenon, Vasabandhu, Nagarjuna, and Dogen is... LE GOOD!

Writings are phenomena too, you self-contradicting giga pseud.

>>20536424
Another reason are the claims of Nasr being a CIA asset, though I don't know the whole story behind that. As for the book, I found that issue of Sophia completely by chance when looking up books written Prince Charles. I was trying to look up /trad/ books by actual royalty and aristocrats. Afterall, given all the larping in this thread about pure royal bloodlines, wouldn't it make sense to read books by these people, like HRH Ghazi bin Muhammed Prince of Jordan and Lord Northborne? I also find it interesting how Prince Muhammed cites Evola as a source.

>>20536445
Taking phenomena as a sign of realization is one thing, arguing phenomena constitute proof that Orthodox Christianity is the sole true religion is quite another.

>>20536516

I do think that Orthodox Christianity is the sole true religion, but if you read my posts, it's clear I wasn't making an argument for that.

I was responding to that Anon's claim that "Christianity has been dead for centuries". That was the whole scope of my response.

>>20536445
>>20536516
>>20536556
just cope with the fact that abrahamic traditions (not only christianity) are limited due to their attachment to historical events

monotheism is dead, just deal with it, no hesychast, sufi or whatever can save it

>>20536747

If you admit that initiation into a true lineage is necessary, then you necessarily admit the necessity of a legitimate beginning to that lineage in history.

Legitimate tradition must have its origin in true historical events, and your own initiation must also be an event in history.

>>20536424
>then it makes me think how badly infiltrated is the Traditionalist School by the counter-initiation.
we shall counter the counter-initiation brother

>WEF & Prince Charles
idk what to make of it t b h
can't help but notice the stench of Malthusianism when it comes to this "trad ecology" stuff
but maybe they are right..?
maybe the damn shudra need to stop being so antitraditional when it comes to ecology?
are we encroaching 'revelation of the method' with such talk??
hmmmmmmmm

>>20536802
Could christianity survive without resorting to Jesus of Nazareth LITERALLY walking with his disciples in the middle east 2000 years ago and being crucified?
(actually if you removed the 'LITERALLY' i'd say yes, it could, but that alternative has already been discarded a long time ago by christians and it will not come back)

>Legitimate tradition must have its origin in true historical events
if it has an origin than its already limited by definition, what was born must die. Someone could 'discover' or develop a doctrine in a determinate space and time, but truth itself is eternal, the Buddha could have appeared in any place or time and it wouldn't make a difference

>>20536915
Part of the problem with discourse on ecology in trad circles is a kind of vestigial conservative reflex against anything seen as "green" because of the association such measures have with technocratic managerialism and profane science. Forgetting of course that environmental destruction is largely caused by the profane science of yesterday under the auspices of the same managerial technocrats.

Of course when I am crowned Potentate of The Hermetic Empire of Holy Europe I will do much to see the wilderness kept pristine, to encourage the return of wolves to the forests, and institute a breeding program to bring back aurochs, I think such issues can only be 'trad' adjacent at best. A traditionalism that has become overly concerned with mundane issues of domestic policy and environmentalism is one that has gone dangerously off course.

>>20536979

>Could christianity survive without resorting to Jesus of Nazareth LITERALLY walking with his disciples in the middle east 2000 years ago and being crucified?

Christianity will survive regardless of how many people chose to believe the opposite of what Christ and his Apostles taught, and regardless of if you chose to deny the countless historical witnesses of Christ(in all three camps, positive[apostles], hostile[talmudic jews], and neutral[roman pagans]), because Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church.

Belief in a non-historical tradition that is purely allegorical is perfect if you want to twist beliefs to serve contemporary fashions, rather than submitting to Truth Himself when he became incarnate as a man in history. A Christianity without Christ is a self-construction too pathetic to even rise to the level of LARP, since LARP would require imitating faithfulness to a true tradition.

If you completely deny the necessity of the eternal Truth manifesting signs toward the eternal truth in created space and time, then you completely give up the legitimate use of any of the writings that you are referring to, that point towards what you believe the eternal truth to be.

>what was born must die

You must have completely missed the part where Christ, being an eternal person, acquired human nature in his human birth, died in his human nature, and resurrected from the dead with the deified human nature. Death, as understood by Orthodox Christianity, is a foreign addition to the created nature, brought in through Adam in his sin against God.

>>20528889
>man's position
Man's position in what? What the fuck are you even arguing you retard?
>>20526625
Marx's writing isn't even about communism.

You people are so stupid.

>>20530991
>poster says marx isn't an economist
>eCoNoMiCs Is A mEmE
Idiot.

>>20531022
Marx isn't arguing social relations are material retard, he is arguing social relations come from material things.
What is something material? It's something which can be measured. Nature is material, it can be measured. The state is also material, since it can be measured. The real is material. If it can be measured it is matter.

>>20536990
>reflex against anything seen as "green" because of the association such measures have with technocratic managerialism and profane science
very true
>Forgetting of course that environmental destruction is largely caused by the profane science of yesterday under the auspices of the same managerial technocrats.
interesting, I have never thought about this from such an angle.
>A traditionalism that has become overly concerned with mundane issues of domestic policy and environmentalism is one that has gone dangerously off course.
indeed...
so what do you think are the core issues?
seems to me that it starts with /trad/itionalizing the banking system. Our "sacred center" in western societies is the Central Bank brrrrrr money printer machine and that's gotta change.
> when I am crowned Potentate of The Hermetic Empire of Holy Europe
let me be the head of your secret police

>>20531022
Marx isn't arguing social relations are material retard, he is arguing social relations are a reflection of material reality.
What is something material? It's something which can be measured. Nature is material, it can be measured. The state is also material, since it can be measured. The real is material. If it can be measured it is matter.

You might as well be arguing reality isn't real, which most religious idiots seem to do because of their impotence.

>>20537088
> seems to me that it starts with /trad/itionalizing the banking system
Apparently, one of the men who influenced Ghaddafi’s plan to create a pan-African Gold-backed dinar was a Guenon-reading western convert.

>>20537382
wagnerfag?
yo I read that book you recommended
honestly I got filtered a bit because I was not familiar with Wagner's work in depth but nevertheless it was a good read
thanks for the rec

>>20537399
>wagnerfag?
close, but no cigar

>>20537063
>man's position in what
not even smart enough to grasp basic context in a sentence, or just larping as a clueless hatchling so you don't have to address reality. dilate more.

>>20537418
that's a nice pic, saved

but ya, that Gaddafi advisor guy was an interesting fella.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdalqadir_as-Sufi
he said that Hitler was the greatest Mujahids of our time for fighting Usury.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nk4yfPl6fe8

Charles Upton too says that International Finance is largely at the core of the counter-initiation, and that the World Financial System is the ultimate form of the counter-tradition and the coming NWO.

>>20536990
I don't know how that excuses Prince Charles for bring a proponent of the Great Reset, but nonetheless, the fact that there is discussion on ecology from a Traditionalist point of view is interesting enough. Traditionalist discussions on niche subjects like ecology, sports (from the pic my other post), or Traditionalist economics like >>20537088 points out.

>>20537088
Guenon amd Evola litely touched on economics in a Traditionalist society but no one has ever discussed how it functions. I know there is a speech from the 2006 Sacred Web Conference where traditionalist economics is discussed, but the DVD only has an excerpt of it.
>so what do you think are the core issues?
Economics as you brought up, ecology, and technology is a big one. All of the big Traditionalist authors have criticized modern technology, but they discuss substantially what kind of technology a Traditionalist society would have, hff own they relate to it, or whether they even use technology at all. Yuk Hui talks about something like this in his book Cosmotechnics: The Question Concerning Technology in China, but he distances himself and comsotechnics from Traditionalism.That is the closest I have found to a book length discussion of a Traditional technological society.

>>20537487
>but they discuss substantially
*but they have not discussed substantially

>>20537445
> Charles Upton too says that International Finance is largely at the core of the counter-initiation, and that the World Financial System is the ultimate form of the counter-tradition and the coming NWO.
That doesn’t surprise me, a lot of what they have done before seems devilish. On the topic of a case by case look at the dastardly deeds of groups like the IMF and WTO I recommend Michael Chossudovsky’s ‘The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order’.

>>20537501
You ever watch that interview of the Dutch "Illuminati Banker", Ronald Bernard?
https://www.bitchute.com/video/xYIcRn7iKIW8/
He says that bankers (at his level) are kind of like drug dealers in which they deal this funny money fiat currency to the masses.
They are basically dealing and channeling satanic energy so it is no surprise that the current financial system is wholly satanic. (not to mention the fact that Ronald Bernard states that he witnessed various satanic rituals)

Jennifer Upton (Charles' wife) wrote a good commentary on Divine Comedy regarding money printing brrrr:

Canto XIV-XVII
>Third Ring in the Seventh Circle of Hell: USURY
>Punishment: Crying in a great Plain of Burning Sand scorched by great flakes of flame falling slowly down from the sky

The Usurer is violent against God because he believes he can magically manufacture value out of nothing, whereas in reality only God is the source of value. To charge interest is thus a sort of satanic parody of God’s creation of the universe ‘ex nihilo’ (out of nothing). Karl Marx was right insofar as he knew that value had to be based on something realer than an essentially fraudulent manipulation of finances; he identified this real basis with human labor.

>>20537540
>The Usurer is violent against God because he believes he can magically manufacture value out of nothing, whereas in reality only God is the source of value. To charge interest is thus a sort of satanic parody of God’s creation of the universe ‘ex nihilo’ (out of nothing). Karl Marx was right insofar as he knew that value had to be based on something realer than an essentially fraudulent manipulation of finances; he identified this real basis with human labor.
Marty Glass also brings up how Marx pointed out capital is fake and gay. Speaking of which, have you received Yuga yet?

>>20537553
>it's Yuganon
arrives tomorrow desu!
I spent the week reading Mitchell Heisman's Suicide Note (for the third time) and tried to critique it from a /trad/ POV
you ever read that by chance? it gets floated around this board from time to time.

>>20537487
>I know there is a speech from the 2006 Sacred Web Conference where traditionalist economics is discussed
interesting...
>All of the big Traditionalist authors have criticized modern technology,
I recall Guenon hating on communications technology in one of his earlier books. He said something along the lines how it is a net negative because it primarily increases one's irritability and has an agitating effect.

>>20537578
I've heard of it but I haven't read it. I haven't met anyone who was able to explain it to me in detail either. What about it?

>>20537593
do you live in the anglosphere by chance?
it is basically about the effects of the Norman Conquest of England in 1066

>>20537605
Thanks, I'll read your pic tomorrow, but would like to here what this has do to with Traditionalism.

>>20537615
he takes a totally anti-traditional approach and so I examined it from an Evolian 'Regression of the Castes' POV.

okay so the beginnings of British-American civilization start not with the Anglo-Saxons, but rather with the Norman Conquest of 1066. The Norman victory allowed the victors to occupy and secure the Aryan castes while the Anglo-Saxons were relegated to Shudras. Over time they started to blend and both of them ended up speaking a common language.

The first 'fall' of the Brahmin to Kshatriya regression happened when King Henry VIII cut ties with Rome. This paved the way for the Kshatriya to Vaisya fall.

The English Revolution was really a race and caste war between the Royalists (Normans), the Kshatriyas, and the Parliamentarians (Anglo-Saxons), the Vaishya-Shudras. Cromwell not only usurped power, but committed Regicide - the ultimate act of ressentiment from a lower caste.

The Royalist Kshatriyas ended up recovering after Cromwell's death, but around this period do the Anglo-Saxon Vaishyas start to use capitalism as a weapon against their Norman rulers.

Fast forward to the settlement of America, New England and the South were settled by two completely different peoples. In New England you had Puritans (Anglo-Saxons) who were Vaishya-Shudras (arguably Chandalas), and in the South you had Cavaliers (Normans) who were Kshatriyas. There was no caste regression during the American Revolution (a convenient alliance), but there was a severing of the Royal tradition amongst the Cavaliers in the south.

The fall from Kshatriya to Vaishya occured when the North and South duked it out in the American Civil War nearly a hundred years later, and the Vaishya industrial capitalist North laid ruin to the Kshatriya aristocratic agrarian South.

So ever since 1865, America has been an Anglo-Saxon Vaishya state wielding Techno-Capital as their weapon and is experiencing a slow descent into a Shudra sate where AI-Satan will rule.


Thank you for reading my blogpost (no I did not proofread it)

>>20537487
>I don't know how that excuses Prince Charles for bring a proponent of the Great Reset

It doesn't, and wasn't intended to. My point is that we have been under a multi-generational regime, and the mindsets of conservatives who gesture to past iterations of the same regime as though these are solutions to the regime itself is a shoddy heuristic that does not serve traditionalists in any way. This is the conservative fallacy, and is best avoided. That doesn't mean there can't be a discussion either.


>>20537088

>so what do you think are the core issues?
seems to me that it starts with /trad/itionalizing the banking system.

Well the core issue for traditionalism is, and will always be, initiation. However, like I said to the other guy, that doesn't mean traditionalists can't discuss whatever they want to. My apprehension merely comes from seeing how discoursing on low topics in the name of high often brings the high down low, at least when not properly delineated.

On banking. It does seem like it would be the place to start, but also the place to end. It is the Alpha and Omega of worldly power. Starting there seems tricky, because there is so much else downstream to impede any progress toward such a goal, but it is also hard to imagine achieving anything long lasting without addressing it. When the picture is the frame, and the frame is the picture, where do you start? Somewhere, anywhere?

Islamic Banking and Finance has already been discussed somewhat here, and it does provide a hint toward an alternative financial order.
Maybe something closer to the model the Templars used before succumbing to the temptation of charging interest. Although I wonder about the Templars, if being Warrior-Priest-Merchants was what ultimately brought them to ruin. Too many professions mixed together, maybe?

>>20522290
>Marx's dialectical analysis
hylics eternally BTFO

>>20537728
>Well the core issue for traditionalism is, and will always be, initiation.
>It does seem like it would be the place to start, but also the place to end. It is the Alpha and Omega of worldly power.
You are absolutely right
I mentioned that the "sacred center" in current societies is the money printing machines, which is a satanic perversion of true centers, and what is needed is to move this center to an initiatory center.
Now, this could take form in different ways, as Evola points out, the Palace is just as valid of a center as the Church is...
But the Temple...
>the Templars used before succumbing to the temptation of charging interest
iirc Upton puts most of the blame on the Templars for providing the seeds for the current state of the financial system behemoth
I used to think it was due to Charlemagne granting exclusive interest charging rights to Jews, but the Templar stuff makes more sense.
>Although I wonder about the Templars, if being Warrior-Priest-Merchants was what ultimately brought them to ruin. Too many professions mixed together, maybe?
Who knows? Or perhaps it was the mixing and syncretizing of Traditions with those found in Jerusalem (namely Islam)?

>>20522412
>>20522372
He does write like that but I wonder if it is a quirk of translation considering how much he railed against positivism. I think by matter here he means "substance" and was mixing new atomic theory as it was popularly understood into it. I think that it is a similar situation to where people call Hegel an idealist, and they are really talking about the popular presentation of Hegel during their time which puts emphasis on his idealist and religious language choice and interpreters of Lenin put emphasis on his scientific outlook. Both of them, and Marx, if they are being properly dialectical would be neither. MLs usually call themselves dialectical materialists.

>It has frequently been asked to no purpose how multiplicity can proceed from unity, without it having been noticed that the question so put admits of no answer for the simple reason that it is wrongly posed, and in this form does not correspond to any reality; multiplicity does not in fact proceed from unity, any more than unity does from metaphysical Zero, or than anything at all does from the universal Whole, or than any possibility can be situated outside the Infinite or outside total Possibility. Multiplicity is included in primordial Unity, and it does not cease to be so by the fact of its development in manifested mode; this multiplicity belongs to the possibilities of manifestation, and cannot be conceived otherwise, for it is manifestation that implies distinctive existence; moreover, since it is a matter of possibilities, it is necessary that they should exist in the manner implied by their own nature. Thus the principle of universal manifestation necessarily contains multiplicity, all the while being one and even being unity in itself; and multiplicity, in all its indefinite developments, realized indefinitely in an indefinitude of directions, proceeds in its entirety from primordial unity in which it remains ever contained, and which cannot in any way be affected or modified by the existence of this multiplicity in itself, for it could obviously not cease to be itself by an effect of its own nature, and it is precisely insofar as it is unity that it essentially implies the multiple possibilities in question. Therefore multiplicity exists in unity itself, and if it does not affect unity, this is because it has only an altogether contingent existence in relation to it; we can even say that as long as we do not relate it to unity in the way we have just done, this existence is purely illusory, for it is unity alone that, being its principle} gives to it all the reality of which it is capable; and, in its turn, unity is not an absolute principle, nor is it self-sufficient unto itself, but draws its own reality from metaphysical Zero. - THE MULTIPLE STATES OF THE BEING pages 32-33

>>20537822
Nice

why hasn't Saiyad Nizamuddin Ahmad dropped a vid in 2 weeks???

>>20539151
he got expelled from university for recommending dangerous far-right authors

>>20539151
I want to know if he still practices Iaido.

>>20539278
What a legend

>>20539278
>>20539744
say, I wanted to pair my upcoming Shingon studies with a japanese martial art
was leaning towards Judo but Kendo/Iaido seems kinda dope

you guys have any thoughts?

>>20539774
why this attraction towards Japan? do you want to move there?

>>20540070
Because I am proficient in Nihongo already (no, it has nothing to do with weebfaggotry)
>do you want to move there?
Very soon

>>20540086
I always planned to study an eastern tradition before coming back to Catholicism
For me, it came down to Japan and Thailand +Theravada
It has less to do about the Traditions and more so with the countries. I’ve been to India & China and found them to be total shitholes so I kinda knew Hinduism and Taoism wouldn’t be the path for me. I believe Steve Jobs had the same experience (thought the jeets were too dirty so picked up Zen instead)

>>20529093
Meds

>>20536747
The exoteric degraded forms of the major Abrahamic faiths today are almost always totalitarian and highly self-praising in their exclusivity of all other traditions, teachings, even other saints, sages, and miracle-workers. They’ve become, in many ways, massive sociologico-political entities who want to have an exclusive monopoly over all veridical mystical experiences, insights, and theological dogma, instead of necessarily being authentically spiritual entities — they mistake their emotional and intellectual conditioning for being some type of monopoly on all authentic religious truth. In Buddhism, Hinduism, and even Islamic Sufism, you might see an understanding that Christ was an enlightened human being, maybe in Hindu terminology that He had attained moksha, union with God, and did indeed work miracles and was showing people the way to God. In other words (arrogant and blasphemous as it undeniably sounds), “He was one of Us.” An avatar, a bodhisattva even by certain Buddhists (such as Tibetan Buddhists), a Muslim prophet in Islam. But this will seem somehow “disrespectful” — they want Him to be central, the sole repository of all truth and insight (which, in a sense, He both is and is not). You won’t see the same open-mindedness in much of Christian dogma and Christians themselves the other way around, who take themselves as the be-all end-all ultimate repository of all mystical insights, and essentially look on those of other faiths, or those today interested in schools of thought such as of Traditionalism, with an enlightened pity — “You guys are just metaphysical tourists and degraded New Agers. We’re so sorry you’ll never make it to Us. Some of you might be good people but just a little confused — you just need to realize Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and the sole one.”

The greater is trying to and willing to include the lesser, but the lesser (by which I don’t mean Christ Himself, the prophets, the apostles, but rather the modern form of “Christianity” as a sociologico-political entity) imagines itself to be the supreme body of teaching due to some heavy emotional conditioning they’ve received, and hence does not view itself as another part of a whole but AS “the whole.”

No one “owns” your breath, or the air you breathe, the water, the oceans, and yet people think they can “own” God or enlightenment.

>>20536747
>>20541187
Ironically, this even happens in the school of “Traditionalism” itself which sets itself up as another idol, an authoritative body of truth objectively and superiorly weighing which school, teaching, tradition, or lineage is or is not Traditional, authentic or inauthentic, corrupted or incorrupt ... which are also entirely valid comparisons and weighings to make, to point out and notice — where a thing has or has not become degraded, merely a cult — but even “Traditionalism” (TM) gets into this arrogance, having crystallized and solidified itself into simply a much more enlightened and intellectually-wide-ranging cult of sorts, weighing on who or what can or can’t give you enlightenment. You can see very snobbish denunciations by figures of the Traditionalist school of other figures, such as of Gurdjieff in this astoundingly snobbish article by the Traditionalist Whitall Perry. But how few know that he was bringing esoteric Naqshbandi Sufi teachings, practices, and insights to the West?

http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/public/articles/Gurdjieff_in_the_Light_of_Tradition_Part_1-by_Whitall_Perry.aspx

And you will rarely see the Traditionalists talking about Idries Shah, a modern self-proclaimed Naqshbandi Sufi teacher authentically authorized by them to teach and bring their teachings to the West, which even include within themselves something like an ADMITTED Traditionalist/perennialist outlook.

And then, fascinatingly enough, you even see the self-proclaimed “Gurdjieffian” James Moore, writing another astoundingly snobbish article “putting down” Idries Shah as a derivative huckster selling “neo-Sufism.” He doesn’t even see how Shah is revealing much of and more about one of Gurdjieff’s own major source of teachings!

https://stottilien.com/literaturverzeichniss/neo-sufism-the-case-of-idries-shah-reprint/

What is the answer to this, the explanation for it? I think it’s that we always have to be on guard to distinguish false snobbishness, pretentious “put-downs” and the like, which legitimately blind people from further understanding of the same subjects and interests they claim to be so devoted to.

>>20537423
>doesn't bother to explain his poorly constructed sentence
>dilate! seeth! Cope!
You're so stupid you're spritually a nigger.

>>20541261
And then how does Traditionalism deal with someone like Ramana Maharshi, who didn’t have a physical, external, human guru but attained moksha and became a very advanced teacher of Advaita Vedanta?

The real and nameless “Tradition” is beyond even “Traditionalism” (TM), which certainly contains many fantastic insights within itself but even then shouldn’t be another idol to be reared and blindly worshiped.

Of course, most people are not and will not conceivably in this lifetime ever even BE into something as seemingly “far-out” as the comparative study of religions, as a genuine student of religion or seeker-after-spiritual-truth and not just as a mere academic or sociologist-of-religion or even a missionary of one faith learning more about other faiths simply so they can learn how to better understand, argue against and persuade them and everyone that their own dogma is the supreme one. Also, even if you reading this find these posts temporarily interesting because you have some type of “occult” excitement, exotic titillation at hearing about all these different names and schools and cultures, it’s highly unlikely that they will directly enlighten you. You need a guru for that (or to somehow be self-initiated and self-enlightened, spontaneously finding the Supreme Guru within oneself at a young age, probably from brought-over latent karmic tendencies, as Ramana Maharshi apparently did (?), which, funnily enough, to most people is not even a plausible premise, a figure like Ramana Maharshi simply seeming like “another Indian huckster and part of the guru-industrialist cult,” even if it seems he had somehow reached a very high state of consciousness in himself at a young age through a spontaneous fiery dedication to it, devotion to it, and intense practice for it, which most people don’t care about). So these posts are funny in how useful they are.

There's some great stuff in this thread. This is why I still come here.

>>20541328
Guenon thought Ramana Maharshi was legit, but it's true I never saw what he made of Maharshi's initiation.

>>20541328
IIRC, Guenon thought this kind of initiation from on high is possible but exceedingly rare, like 1 in a billion.

>>20541328
> And then how does Traditionalism deal with someone like Ramana Maharshi, who didn’t have a physical, external, human guru but attained moksha and became a very advanced teacher of Advaita Vedanta?
He actually studied the Upanishads as a teenager, under the instruction of his uncle, before he had ever traveled to Arunachala or had any awakening experiences. Past karma effecting the present shouldn’t be ruled out, but I’m sure that studying the Upanishads with his uncle implanted some seed of understanding which later fruited.

>>20541328
>>20541805
>>20541834
>>20541863
the appearance of Ramana Maharshi really was a notable event, but everytime i see him i remeber those terrible books written about him with those awful interviews where westerners can't grasp anything Maharshi is saying and everything ends up in kind of loop; the same happened with Nisargadatta Maharaj

>>20542023
and what was the outcome of all that literature? this modern neo-advaita/non-dualist movement

its incredible how everything is getting corrupted and destroyed

>>20542039
>its incredible how everything is getting corrupted and destroyed
Not really, the Advaita tradition continues strong in India and their temples are still centers of monasticism and learning. What random foreigners do in far-away places has no bearing upon the status or vitality of the actual tradition.

>>20524081
>I was Manu and the sun (Sûrya).
>Rig-Veda, IV. xxvi. 1

That sentence from that Rig-Veda verse is repeated or cited in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10. In his bhasya on this Upanishadic passage Shankara speaks about it describing about the seer Vamadeva in his state of realization visualizing the Vedic verses referring to realizing non-duality

>“This self was indeed Brahman in the beginning. It knew itself only as "I am Brahman." Therefore it became all. And whoever among the gods had this enlightenment, also became That Brahman. It is the same with the seers (rishis), the same with men. The seer Vamadeva, having realized this self as That, came to know: "I was Manu and the sun." And to this day, whoever in a like manner knows the self as "I am Brahman," becomes all this universe. Even the gods cannot prevent his becoming this, for he has become their Self. Now, if a man worships another deity, thinking: "He is one and I am another," he does not know. He is like an animal to the gods. As many animals serve a man, so does each man serve the gods. Even if one animal is taken away, it causes anguish to the owner; how much more so when many are taken away! Therefore it is not pleasing to the gods that men should know this." - Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10.

https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-brihadaranyaka-upanishad/d/doc117939.html

>>20537088
>seems to me that it starts with /trad/itionalizing the banking system. Our "sacred center" in western societies is the Central Bank brrrrrr money printer machine and that's gotta change.
This book may provide some clues.
https://manticore.press/product/twenty-tales-on-the-political-economy-of-quality/

He who seeks a religion other than Islam, it will not be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he shallbe among the losers.[3:85] Elsewhere it states: The [true] religion in Allah’s sight is Islam. [3:19]

>>20542890
Islam = Dharma

>>20542072
Apparently, a lot of India is modernizing fast. Quite a few indians appear to be kind of 'colonized' mentally by the western world

test

>>20542277
>He is like an animal to the gods.
Holy based.
Those quotes I sent from whitall Perry is pure Kino, I have the feeling that you are guénonfag, if so I want to ask, what are your thoughts on "traditional medicine" have you looked into it?
>>20541328
You don't require initiation to become a realised stage, even guénon admitted it, he never uttered something as absurd as
>initiation is an Absolute necessity for realisation
Maharshi is the real deal. Anyone here who acts like a "muh initiation" sperg, is a deluded beaurocrat. But really it's just safe to stress "get initiated" there can be no loss from it although....
Initiation can technically cause you to degenerate even further.
>That spiritual function which can be described as 'activity of presence' found in the Maharshi its most rigorous expression. Sri Ramana was as it were the incarnation, in the latter days and in the face of the modern activist fever, of what is primordial and incorruptible in India. He manifested the nobility of contemplative 'non-action' in the face of an ethic of utilitarian agitation, and he showed the implacable beauty of pure truth in the face of passions, weaknesses, and betrayals. . . . The whole of the Vedanta is contained in the Mararshi"s 'Who am I?'

Frithjof Schuon, author of The Transcendent Unity of Religions

>>20544221
>Initiation can technically cause you to degenerate even further.
?

>>20544231
>?
Assuming you're unqualified and ill-prepared. Through initiation as with any serious attempt at "modifying" the state of being, it is certainly possible to get stuck in a vegetable or mineral like state.

I have encountered initiates into tantra and so on who are evidently unstable, schizophrenic, and so on, not in some based esoteric autist way, but in a violent agitated and disturbed sort of way, they are more like animals, not in the sense of purity either.

This is to be expected, given all the popularisation and vulgarisation of esoterism. Some people just don't have it in them, and trust me - once you enter into certain states, say through the initiatory process, you are sort of entering uncharted territory,

Think about those ill-prepared people who dabble in psychedelics, and dmt and end up in states of total instability, e.g claim that they are constantly being terrorised by demons and entities coming from psychic realms.

I don't need to tell you all this anyway, if you know you know, if you're on the right path with right guidance be it from Guénon, or whoever then you will not run into it.

All I am saying is these sorts of things like initiation are not free from "danger and risk," not to mention you may get caught up in abusive cults which become more damaging than anything else, of course all these things can be avoided with right guidance.

A big mistake is to "underestimate" the initiatory process.

To summarise initiation can lead to imbalance and delusion.

>it's out
the madman did it!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-3pUVZ1XB0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-3pUVZ1XB0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-3pUVZ1XB0

>>20522072
>>Reads Guenon, warning about counter-initiation
>>Takes LSD, opening himself up to demons
>>opening himself up to demons

this is your mind on Guenon

>>20522207
>Man is more than a material, interchangeable economic unit
that's Marx whole point, capitalism alienate men and turn him into part of the equation of a system that only functions in a quantitative way
Marx literally say that capitalism stole the spirit of men and turn him into a number

>>20545247
Marx literally stopped believing in spirit or 'species-being' and began larping as a scientist. He also thought material conditions precede social relations and that the state suddenly poofed into existence and will eventually vanish.

>>20523931
>Hegel is a subjectivist
no, he's not, he's an idealist, there's a huge difference, anidea is what order the relationship between subject an object, so the object is just as important as the subject

>>20522264
Anti-inheritence is always anti-family.

>>20522270
You are but part of the system of nature. The world is in flux with or without you. And what is 'inactivity' anyway?

>>20545259
>stopped believing in spirit or 'species-being' and began larping as a scientist
Marx(and Hegel) was always a scientists, science(wissenschaft) and the spirit(geist) are the same thing in german post idealism, a scientist is someone who can understand the movements of the spirit

>>20541459
You'd spend your time better by actually reading though

>>20545282
Hegel was a schizo who doubted and claimed agency. Marx believed material conditions precede social relations. Honestly, sociology should be censored out of existence

>>20545282
>a scientist is someone who can understand the movements of the spirit
A scientist is a marketer pretending to know the mores of society and how to predict the future by assuming all humans are rational(like him lol)?

>>20524081
redpilled poster detected

Realized advaita is realized non-duality, it is realized non-existence of any and all opposites and transcendence of the polar nature of the whole world. There is, of course, a nature even higher than the mind, which is not individual (by a funny twist of the modern language it is the true individual, the thing that cannot be divided into any more parts).
It would seem to me that this is a pilgrim's journey, it is a journey through life lived backwards, tracing the steps backwards to reach the final goal, which is in fact the origin point. That is the true meaning of a revolution, to revolve completely, just as a wheel revolving fully reaches the same state as it was in before it began to turn.
If God had not made evil then good would not have had any meaning because the purpose of good is to fight evil, that is why the Zoroastrian religion says that man came into this world to fight the battle of good versus evil, and this is also why God punished Adam and Eve, and banished them away from the Garden for the act of eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. To fight would have no meaning otherwise, and the only traditional caste higher than the warriors are the priests...

Even as you are reading this post, you are me and I am you, there was never a time when we were not one, and this time will return forever because it takes place in the mind of the one who experiences historical events, who is like a bird sitting on a treebranch, silently witnessing the other bird, who is also you and me.

>>20545490
Wrong https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AMu-G51yTY

>>20545380
>lol
okey boomer

Bumping for PBUH

>>20545490
>Even as you are reading this post, you are me and I am you
Charlie Manson used to say the same thing.

>>20546250
dont think that newfag move didn't go unnoticed
we'll let it slide this time

>>20546285
hahahah LOL <@:-)

You will always be babby next to me.

ALWAYS.

Foreverial.
Amen.

where should I be initiated into a tradition? Catholicism condemns perennialism and has pretty much died and sufi orders are rare in the west(Atleast in America). Did Guenon say if it was beneficial to follow an exoteric tradition without being initiated ?

>>20547111
Just become a Platoniost Shi'ite. Its the most coherent thing available imo.

>>20547118
If that existed near me I would totally join that

>>20547111
>sufi orders are rare in the west(Atleast in America
And gay too, sometimes literally.

>>20547196
yeah, I was looking them up and all of them had some sort of pro diversity and pro gay statement, also tons of girls without hijab