/lit/ - Literature

>>20651406
Is it larping if your from the western muslum country?

>>20651406
Crossbreed?

>>20651549
t. cornish hens switchin' position

>>20651406
Threadly reminder that Guenon believed in personal annihilation after death.

>>20651651
رُبَيْثَاء
سُرْم

>>20651651
What do you mean believed, that is simply a fact.

>>20651406
Whom are you quoting?

>>20651672
Atheists say the same.

>>20651406
Tell that to Charles Upton. He is all trad but goes full SJW whenever someone criticizes Islam, and his pet political issue is fighting “islamophobia”. He is proof that once you convert to Islam your allegiance lies with your Muslim brethren first and foremost. You can’t serve two masters.

θαυμᾰστός

>>20651406
One potential major flaw I see in something like “Traditionalism” — or at least some modern potential interpretations of it, thought inspired by it — is it seems to value the roots and soil certain brilliant trees grew out of or can grow out of, over the tree itself. By which I mean, instead of the timeless yogic principles, or the Sufic principles for human spiritual development, and the like, the insights and teachings of the sages themselves, it becomes a petty worship of the culture they arose in, which necessarily also leads to crude debates like, “Am I or this guruist figure ‘authentic’ or ‘inauthentic’ based on how culturally adapted we are to some traditional religion or not? Are we sufficiently and authentically [Muslim]/[Hindu]/[Chinese] etc.? Do we need to take an Arabic name, put on a turban and robes, or an Indian name and become a wandering sadhu, so that we can authentically know God?”

Which is rather silly since, taking the metaphysics of Advaita Vedanta, as an example (or THE example, in a sense), we would clearly see what you could call the “universal identity,” Brahman, is not culture-bound, although the soil out which the roots of a knower-of-God were planted, so to speak, can appear to be just that — Earthbound, that they are solely Indian, Pakistani, Afghani, or what-you-will, instead of looking at the higher truths they were pointing to and trying to awaken in people.

A common crude ‘New Age’ conception is, “All religions are one,” and apparent conflicts in outer dogma are resolved by an esoteric vs. exoteric split, the exoteric path having to do with time, place, and culture-bound regulations for efficient sociological engineering of masses of people in a higher, more spiritual direction, rites and rules for them to hold onto, to uplift their lives and unify society, and also as the very means, the entrance to offer some more interested, sincere, faithful people a road to an even deeper approach towards their religion, a deeper engagement with the theology, the sacred scriptures, such as through some form of “initiation,” joining the clergy or the equivalent of that tradition, or finding a guru in Eastern traditions. Then the “esotericism” often does not necessarily crudely and bombastically refute or deny the exoteric soil it grew out of, but gets into deeper metaphysical teachings and interpretations, almost inevitably having to do with non-duality. So it’s said that the esoteric cores of religions reach the same mountain-top, as the cliche goes — if a real path is fully traveled upon, the seeker finds God, and the path itself is necessary as the purification and disciplining of the body, soul, and spirit to reach such a truth, can’t just be “disregarded”, as in, “Let me just skip to the esoteric truths and vast divine enlightenment, having Sufism without Islam or Zen without Buddhism.”

>>20651406
You're right, it's not Islam.
It's Baháʼí.

>>20652178
But the paradox then comes in, that in traditional teachings such as of Zen (although Buddhism itself is clearly somewhat of an outlier in Traditionalist circles, since it seems to deny God and self, although Guenon supposedly later came to believe there could have been an earlier, more authentic form of Buddhism which was closer to Tradition, later forms being corruptions of such teachings, and Coomaraswamy was a scholar of both Hindu and Buddhist traditions, regarding both the two major Dharmic ways as somehow compatible in some transcendent, holistic, non-linear, supra-logical way), Indian yoga or Sufism themselves, you can find this very heterodox tendency. They are IN but not strictly OF the culture they grew in, and this is not just a “New Age” conception but can be found running hundreds and hundreds of years back in such traditions. Jalaluddin Rumi, for instance, whose disciples founded the Mevlevi Sufi Order, tells you that he is not a Muslim, Jew, Christian nor Zoroastrian, not of the East nor of the West, in some ecstatic lyrics of his. Zen scriptures tell you that if you seek outside yourself for centuries, kalpas, even, in sutras, practices, and precepts for the truth of the Buddha-nature, you are veiling the Buddha-nature in that very activity.

This then leads to the paradox that if you really get into this from this angle, you’re not necessarily much different from a figure like Rajneesh (“The Tibetan way, the Sufi way, the Zen way, the Hasidic way, the way of Christ, and the way of yoga are ultimately the same”), who was NOT just an idiot, mind you, he was shockingly intelligent and well-read, having started out as an Indian philosophy professor, but DID also become a shockingly, famously corrupt New Age guru; or the Westerners who get Coleman-Barks translations of Rumi tattooed across their nipples. “Just be. #Zen.”

So you might decide you’re back at square-one of the dilemma, which is, “I need to become authentically Muslim (for instance), so let me travel to the Middle East or Central Asia and find the real dervish order to be initiated into”; or an authentic Indian yogi, authentic Buddhist monk, and the like. But doesn’t this itself seem like a runaway tendency of the outer physical ego and personality — thinking it’ll divinely regenerate itself, feel closer to the Truth, through exotic new decorations of its body and exotic new circumstances surrounding it?

>>20652178
The problem with Traditionalism is that it's made up of occultic nonsense and is just another Christian heresy that originated in the modern West and spread outward.

It is simply a lie.

aprel վէր

>>20652267
So you might decide to cultivate the soil you find yourself in, so to speak. Christianity is the major tradition of the West, so go to that, it would seem. Which then leads to the paradox that you’re so much as putting yourself under the dominion of — to put it bluntly — sometimes potentially rather authoritarian assholes, who are not likely to be so lovey-dovey airy-fairy about conceptions such as of perennialism, the prisca theologia, of the Sanatana Dharma (in Sanskrit terms), and the like, outliers such as throughout its history of theology and mysticism and even modern figures like Thomas Merton aside. “Christ alone is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and there’s a serious question about the eternal damnation or salvation of your soul if you don’t faithfully submit to and accept this and keep looking for truth in other religious traditions. After and if you’ve found your way in Him, you are not strictly FORBIDDEN from studying other religions as a broad-minded study of theology and comparative religion, since it IS your life and your intellect you’re playing with — we’re not so authoritarian as in the Middle Ages that we’ll excommunicate you, exile or execute you for blasphemy — but even this is besides the point, which is Christ.”

So you end up, funnily enough, back to where you as a (probable, considering you’re here on 4channel’s lit, although that’s clearly not everyone’s point of reference) Westerner started from, which is, “Christianity” as the default, and all esotericism and mysticism as inherently suspect unless it aligns with the teachings of the Church, which may or may not even be powerful corruptions of original Christian teachings closer to something like Neoplatonism-Hermeticism-Gnosticism, if you accept some of the apocrypha and Gnostic tractates as having any validity, as well as the disturbing possibility that this undercurrent was itself deliberately shirked so as to give an entity like the Roman Catholic Church societal and political centrality and control over “who owns God and can show you the way to Him.” In other words, back to the authoritarian assholes — who are also found in every tradition and culture, Muslim, Hindu, what-have-you.

So ironically, you now end up, again, functionally “traditionless” and rootless. You looked into so many religions and traditions you’re back at square-one.

I don’t have an answer.

>>20652322
You might decide to just read J. Krishnamurti lectures and throw the whole thing out altogether — “Truth is not owned by any sect or society, truth cannot be desperately sought for and ‘owned’ as a personal possession or attainment. It is not found through the strict reading of scriptures, the self-punishing rigidity of meditating for hours in the lotus position, the carrying out of yoga, the endless search for more gurus, cults, and esoteric knowledge, the cosmologies of Theosophy or Vedanta. Truth is simply in ‘what is,’ the beauty of a leaf on a tree which you have rarely ever looked at quietly and in reverent appreciation, without the overlay of your thoughts and worries,” etc.

So you’re again back where you started — something like an agnostic or atheist but now with pretty ideas of walking about in nature in a state of “choiceless awareness”, a relaxed state of consciousness which somehow spontaneously leads to freedom from the known, freedom from your tiresome preoccupations and all that, although paradoxically you’re not supposed to deliberately seek an expansion of consciousness, enlightenment, or anything like that, as that itself is a barrier from “what-is,” according to someone like J. Krishnamurti, whom you’re also paradoxically accepting as a teacher and authority while he tells you he isn’t one.

Or you might go through a similar head-trip with someone like UG Krishnamurti, who ironically is doing a similar thing as the J. Krishnamurti but of course even dickslaps Jiddu in his lectures, and you might really obliviously, with no hint of self-awareness, take this anti-guru as your guru and authority while claiming you’re not doing so, and feel much better than everyone else while doing so. And what he’s telling you is, “Just give it up, it doesn’t even exist — moksha, liberation, enlightenment, even the other Krishnamurti’s con of ‘choiceless awareness’ which he claims to be beyond these but is simply another form of the same desperate striving for some ‘higher’ state of consciousness — all there is is the moment-to-moment state of your own body and mind, inevitably sometimes at peace and comfortable, sometimes restless and in pain. All you can do is live with your state as practically and basically as possible. Which I call ‘the natural state’™. Thanks for listening to me, I’m not your or anyone’s teacher by the way!” But at least he’s honest enough not to charge money for listening to him or procuring his works.

>kuso bataillefag thread

>>20652463
Another potential cop-out is the Vedantic one — “I already AM That. Tat tvam asi, so’ham, you are That, I am He.” But does reading or thinking about this actually cause ecstatic joy, release from earthly cares, boredom and suffering, moksha or kaivalya, or is it just that you’re going around in words in your head about how fascinating and exotic Ramana’s or Nisargadatta’s teachings, the Ashtravaka and Bhagavad Gitas, or the recursive cosmic non-duality of the Tejobindopanishad — the Upanishads and Vedas in general, in fact — seem?

The very similar Zen-style cop-out (“This very body is the Buddha”, in the words of Hakuin Ekaku) can also lead to a similar paradoxical stagnation. Do you actually get into a state of heightened consciousness and liberation from your cares?

Does it even exist?

Does it even matter?

But then there’s the further paradox that it’s potentially not always actually just a “cop-out.” You might find a deep study (instead of just a cursory, glancing, shallow one) of such texts sometimes profoundly uplifting and enlightening, like some type of self-initiating kundalini shaktipat, the raising of your own energy of awareness through such faithful devotion and interest in it, the sitting still for periods of time to be entranced in a state of samadhi — or get a temporary but authentically self-confirming state of satori from deeply studying some traditional Zen Buddhist texts or carrying out the practice of zazen, sitting meditation — and if not this, at minimum you’ve at least heard of the miraculous gurus and chelas, monks and layperson devotees, who’ve experienced and recounted such things, and even perhaps some of their miraculous siddhis of telepathy, clairaudience, clairvoyance, prophecy, levitation, and the like (which the average Jews, Christians and Muslims may of course view as “demonic” or even “fraudulent cult hoaxes,” even though they obliviously & very faithfully believe miracles can and do happen in THEIR own tradition).

At this point, do you find it surprising that people just want to convert to Islam, maybe even to a Sufi order specifically, affirm the shahada, the declaration of faith that there is no Allah but Allah and Muhammad (peace be upon him) is His messenger, pray facing Mecca five times a day, carry out the Hajj towards Mecca at least once in your life if & when you are capable of doing so, and so forth (the five pillars of faith), in the ecstatic, grateful reception of what some Sufi mystics call the kaif (immaterial higher energy) and baraka (blessing power from God and passed down and able to be transmitted to others through chosen saints, prophets, relics, and pieces of literature) of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), the Sufi saints and sages, and the like?

Can you really blame them for wanting to just become Muslim Sufis and thereby have a very practical, direct, immediate form of relating with a religion?

Can you?

>>20651651
Guenon accepted the truth that our true self or Atman is immortal and never dies, and this what our true personhood consists of.

>>20652577
Just a fancy way of saying annihilation.

>>20652577
>true personhood consists of the void

why do guenonian zoomers love annihilationism so much? does it remind them of when they took drugs or do they not even know guenon teaches annihilationism?

>>20652283
not an argument

>>20652596
The problem with Traditionalism aka Guenonianism is that it is a dog-shit hermeneutic that encourages lazy skim-reading and waving away embarrassing facts with "that's exoteric."

Shankara's Advaita is not a particularly strong metaphysics, with tons of inconsistencies, but this doesn't matter to the Guenon schizo who just wants to keep shilling Guenon 24/7 which always means having the very last word in.

Guenon sucks.

>>20652589
> Just a fancy way of saying annihilation.
Not it’s not, because the Atman is an immortal, blissful, radiant, resplendent presence that is constantly disclosed to itself; an eternal timeless presence of God abiding in His own perfection and bliss; hence this is the opposite of an annihilation. If you remain as this forever its actually an elevation above your present state. If you cant understand the difference between this and being annihilated then you are truly hopeless.

>>20652592
Your own consciousness or Self/Atman is not a void, it is an immaculate pristine blissful radiant presence

>>20652608
That's just used car salesman logic. It's annihilationism because everything that makes you 'you' disappears and Guenon wants that to be the case, he desires this annihilationism.

Saying it isn't annihilationism is like you stealing my wallet and saying "No, I'm actually giving you the money you already had."

It's bullshit.

>>20652603
> Shankara's Advaita is not a particularly strong metaphysics,
Yes, its actually the very strongest, bar none
>with tons of inconsistencies,
there aren’t any, try listing some if feel like embarrassing yourself

>>20652608
>it is an immaculate pristine blissful radiant presence

Here's the inconsistencies of Advaita. The Guenonian is literally too stupid not to realize the massive inconsistency in his system.

>>20652603
>>20652616
>reddit spacing

>>20652618
No, it's mediocre metaphysics liked only by culturally lost white people.

>>20652623
not an argument

>>20652608
>Not it’s not, because the Atman is an immortal, blissful, radiant, resplendent presence that is constantly disclosed to itself; an eternal timeless presence of God abiding in His own perfection and bliss; hence this is the opposite of an annihilation. If you remain as this forever its actually an elevation above your present state. If you cant understand the difference between this and being annihilated then you are truly hopeless.

Polish that turd harder.

>>20652629
I wasn't making an argument. I was asking you to go back.

>>20652626
where’s the primo grade-a metaphysics to be found then brother

Shankara teaches annihilationism and that Brahman is a fucking retard lmao.

Polish this turd however you want by playing with words but these are facts.

>>20651406
Imagine bothering with some mystical branch, when you can just pick some political ideology and pepper it with a large dose of whatever humanism appeals to you, this is unironically why occultism fails.

>>20652616
> That's just used car salesman logic
No, it’s basic logic which you evidently have little grasp of. An annihilation means the total end of everything, it’s basic logic that if you already have this pristine radiant blissful presence inside you as yourself and it lasts forever then you are not annihilated, no amount of coping and no amount of denying basic logic and facts will change this truth

>It's annihilationism because everything that makes you 'you' disappears
That’s wrong because what makes you ‘you’ is your awareness, all thoughts and sensations are presented to you, who is awareness. If this awareness was removed there would be no ‘you’. You could remove certain thoughts of yours, certain beliefs, certain attitudes and your would still behave mostly the same, but if you remove awareness there is nothing and no ‘you’; this awareness never dies or disappears because its the immortal Absolute Itself

>Saying it isn't annihilationism is like you stealing my wallet and saying "No, I'm actually giving you the money you already had."
No, its pointing out how what you are saying fails to accord with logic
It's bullshit.

>>20652621
>it is an immaculate pristine blissful radiant presence
>Here's the inconsistencies of Advaita
That’s not an inconsistency, as none of those adjectives or qualities are inconsistent with one another or mutually exclusive isbany sense. Do you have any actual argument?

>>20652626
> No, it's mediocre metaphysics liked only by culturally lost white people.
Wrong, it’s the most refined and you are powerless against it and have no argument that would demonstrate any contradiction or inconsistency in it, that’s why you just pathetically whine and bitch about it day in and day out without any real arguments ever

>>20652631
You were just logically refuted in that post, if that’s the best response you can muster that says a lot about your intellectual capacities

>>20652640
> Shankara teaches annihilationism
No he doesn’t, he says our own consciousness and true Self is immortal, this is the opposite of an annihilation, which is basic logic. Having an immortal awareness =\= dying forever with nothing remaining.
>and that Brahman is a fucking retard lmao.
No he doesnt, Brahman in Advaita is untainted by anything

>>20652541
But this then leads to the further paradox of what seems at times like the potentiality of supra-Islamic Sufism existing. Reputable Sufi sages, saints, theologians, scholars and poets were talking about the merger of the individual self with the Absolute Self in Advaita-Vedanta-reminiscent style, and informing you that the Sufi way has existed eternally and perennially, being the true core of every religion, a latent potentiality for the development of the human soul towards God, who shines — although often unrecognized — in the heart and soul of every human being.

You might even at this point have heard of and be interested in the paradoxically non-Muslim Sarmoun Sufis — who do not deny Islam, per se, but rather do not strictly regard themselves as merely Muslim, either, practicing and speaking more openly amongst themselves what historical Sufis have had to do more secretively, constantly having to make clear that they are not heretics against Islam, in any way out of accordance with the dogmas, and so forth (so as to avoid actual potential execution). [But do the Sarmoun Sufis actually even exist or did they ever exist except as anything more than a cult, a myth or an obfuscation created by obscure names like Gurdjieff, Idries Shah, Rafael Lefort, Ernest Scott and Omar Michael Burke, in the vein of the Theosophical Ascended Masters or Mahatmas? Is it “non-Traditional” or the “counter-initiation”?]

And all this then leads back again to the initial paradox — “Is there a Sufism beyond Islam, a potential for Zen enlightenment without being a culture-bound Buddhist, the conscious recognition of one’s unity with Brahman without being a strictly culture-bound Indian?”

And, furthermore, also to this >>20652603, where people can get outrageously and irrationally angry about people even wanting to CONSIDER and speak about things like this, since they’re perhaps even secretly furiously resentful and jealous — “Happiness and divine bliss? It doesn’t exist, chuds! If it were possible, I would be experiencing it right now. My teachers and professors would have told me about it. Read your stupid Gitas, Vedas, Sufi theology, the Scriptures, Hermeticism and Neoplatonism, even the Buddhist sutras and scriptures, try to find similarities where there are none and mangle together different cultures into one ‘primordial truth.’ You’ll die just the same as we all will! Do NOT under ANY means try to realize the unity of your Atman with Brahman, which doesn’t even exist!”

Is it possible they’re even secretly envious at the possibility people have had and can have greater experiences and more wisdom than they have?

>>20652662
>>20652672
>>20652676
>>20652681
>>20652691
You're literally polishing a turd, pretending that by adding unnecessary words Advaita stops being inconsistent Buddhism.

It's annihilationism. It's void worship. Rene Guenon wants you to aspire to radical depersonalization and believe that God is like a cement block, completely inanimate.

Rene Guenon wants you to fuse with the void while marrying a third world woman and living in India or Egypt lmao. Or you can be a freemason. Those are your options for Rene "I hate existing" Guenon.

Guenon and Advaita are the ultimate NPC psyop. You tell yourself you don't exist and all humans are all the same, and you aspire to fuse into the big blob of everything where there's no distinctions. There's only meaningful difference between Guenonianism/Advaita and reddit materialism is that Guenon likes ritual. Otherwise, he teaches nearly the exact same. They both do not believe in God and believe that once your dead you lose all consciousness.

>>20652875
>You're literally polishing a turd,
No, I just logically refuted you by pointing out how what you say contradicts basic logic (if our self of awareness is immortal then its not annihilated). You are now coping in response and are posting the same thing I have already debunked and pointed out as nonsense.

>pretending that by adding unnecessary words Advaita stops being inconsistent
You have repeatedly failed to identify a single inconsistent thing about Advaita

>It's annihilationism. It's void worship.
Refuted already

>Rene Guenon wants you to aspire to radical depersonalization and believe that God is like a cement block, completely inanimate.
A cement block has no blissful awareness like God/Atman does so that claim of yours is wrong, it’s pretty standard in western theology to say God or the Father is immutable (not changing and thus not being animate and moving)

>>20652899
It's annihilationism and satchinada is secondary and doesn't even fit consistently into Shankara's metaphysics.

Polishing a turd calling the void the absolute and saying annihilation is blissful infinity. Yawn.

Guenon literally believed smoking opium helps you get into the state of depersonalization, a preliminary step to annihilation.

Imagine a cosmic Billie Eilish, now you know what Guenon is about. Just zone out. Just forget everything. Lose all your identity, memories, ties to existence. Become a cinder block. Worship the void. Join a suicide cult that Rene Guenon liked.

>>20652897
>Guenon and Advaita are the ultimate NPC psyop. You tell yourself you don't exist and all humans are all the same,
Wrong, it says your own foundational awareness that all your thoughts and activities depend upon is what truly exists

>and you aspire to fuse into the big blob of everything where there's no distinctions.
Wrong, there is no fusion because the Atman is already wholly identical with Brahman from the beginning. One solitary thing does not “fuse” with itself that’s inane nonsense.

>believe that once your dead you lose all consciousness.
Wrong, the Atman IS consciousness and this consciousness can never end or be lost because It is immortal and God Himself

Advaita is void worship. Shankara tried to stop the bleeding of Hindus into Buddhism by inserting Buddhism into Hinduism.

>>20652914
You're polishing a turd right now. I genuinely believe deep down you know this is wrong but are too heavily invested in it at this point and you shill Guenon 24/7 to help convince YOURSELF that he's right.

>>20652902
>It's annihilationism
That’s already refuted you midwit, it violates basic logic to say the Atman-consciousness existing eternally is an annihilation.

>and satchinada is secondary and doesn't even fit consistently into Shankara's metaphysics.
It fits perfectly into his metaphysics, what are you talking about when you say it doesn’t?

>Polishing a turd
Why are you so obsessed with poop?

>>20652927
You're like a sleazy used car salesman. All the advaita boomer shills have this dishonest creep aspect to them.

>>20652919
>Advaita is void worship
How is an eternally self-aware blissfully happy infinite awareness the void? Lmao

>>20652875
This is a profound misinterpretation. In something like the Tantric agamas of Shiva, for instance, are found the same Vedantic insights, but not in a strictly life-denying or ascetic way, but that it can be found and experienced “as a householder.” Being All, potentially directly understood and experienced in every situation, how is it simply just like a “void” or “annihilation”, “completely inanimate,” if it is the source of all animate life and the manifest universe?

Sat-chit-ananda — Being-Awareness-Bliss. This is not a life-denying concept, or just some blank void, but rather that a life-giving, consciousness-manifesting source, a timeless spaceless Sun, shines in the heart and consciousness of every human being, the light of which is obscured by our own indifference to it, the veil of our chitta-klesha (afflicted, tormented consciousness), the ages of samskaras (habit-tendencies) and karmas moving away from our own primordial all-containing blissful consciousness.

It is not necessarily about having less energy, less joy, less consciousness and awareness than one has, but gaining even more by coming to rest in the very Source of it all.

However, I do agree some of Guenon’s culturophilia, his conversion to Islamic Sufism and the like, his gloriously brainy hodgepodge of religions and insistence that “you must find one real tradition to stick to,” that it’s easier to find in some other country or culture, did sometimes appear somewhat silly. As described in this post >>20652875

I will try not talk about this anymore in this thread as I do not want to make you anymore upset than you already are, and it’s obvious the track you’re going on now is futile, that it cannot receive or hear something from beyond itself.

>>20652924
>You're polishing a turd right now.
take your scat fetish elsewhere anon

>I genuinely believe deep down you know this is wrong
Lol, Im just pointing out how what you say violates basic logic

>>20652936
Adding a lot of words to say little. Satchinada can at best be secondary. And if you apply Shankara's logic consistently, it is ultimately meaningless.

>>20652940
You know you're wrong but can't cope, which is why instead of following the path set by Guenon, you spend all your life on /lit/ shilling him. It's all a cope for yourself. You'll break if you admit it.

>>20652934
>You're like a sleazy used car salesman.
I dont care what you think about me, if you post nonsensical claims about Advaita that violate logic then I will continue to debunk them and expose you as a hapless fool who doesn’t understand logic

>All the advaita boomer shills
kek, I’m under 30

>>20652957
No, you won't debunk anything. You'll just continue to shill your death cult online.

Guenonianism is the veganism of /lit/. Mentally ill proselytizers tell you it's cool to want to die.

>>20652944
>Satchinada can at best be secondary. And if you apply Shankara's logic consistently, it is ultimately meaningless.
How is it secondary or ultimately meaningless? You have not shown how yet or substantiated that in any way

>>20652954
>You know you're wrong but can't cope, which is why instead of following the path set by Guenon, you spend all your life on /lit/ shilling him.
Because I enjoy posting about him and Vedanta and enjoy the trad threads here! It is its own reward!

The core of "pure metaphysics" is annihilation. You can't have pure metaphysics without annihilating the person, which was a mistake by retarded Brahman in the first place.

Guenonianism is a crypto-annihilationism. Seducing impressionable kids into their doom. Very rotten stuff.

>>20652969
>No, you won't debunk anything
I already pointed out how your central argument violates basic logic and you never ever tried to dispute this or argue it doesn’t but you instead made a bunch of whiny cope posts

Guenon wants you to love the inhuman, the inanimate. Hence 'pure' metaphysics, hence the rigorous unsentimental aspect to initiation. The human is to be obliterated.

>>20652989
No you didn't. You just jump up and down saying you won the argument when in fact you talked right past the point.

Guenon at the end of the day is no different than an atheist. You die and then there's nothing. Guenon just LIKES this and calls it by slightly different terms, but really he loves denying his existence and personality and his entire project is about slowly becoming an absolute NPC, a cinder block.

>>20652981
>You can't have pure metaphysics without annihilating the person,
The person is the Atman and is not annihilated ever. Everything that you consider personal qualities is actually presented to your awareness as something different from yourself, like a witnessed tree; there is no coherent epistemic model or argument that you can use to show that what you consider the person is actually what you are; the arguments and the facts support the Advaita position instead. Your position is totally incoherent when analyzed.

>>20653003
>No you didn't. You just jump up and down saying you won the argument when in fact you talked right past the point.
No I refuted it

1) annihilation means the end of everything about us
2) Advaita says our own Atman/consciousness is immortal
3) therefore it violate basic logic to say our own consciousness being immortal and eternal is an annihilation

You have not responded to or disputed the above argument but you just keep ignoring how what you said violates logic. Until you reply to the above argument what you’ve claimed has been thoroughly refuted.

>Guenon at the end of the day is no different than an atheist.
No, because he says the universe cannot take place without the Absolute, among many other reasons

>You die and then there's nothing.
Wrong, the unenlightened transmigrate to new bodies while only the enlightened remain as God-consciousness eternally; you clealry dont know what you are talking about

>>20653008
was a reply to and refutation of >>20652982

>>20652996
>Guenon is a crypto-Nietzschean and longs for the ubermensch
based

>>20653003
There is something deeply deeply wrong with you

>>20652996
>Guenon wants you to love the inhuman, the inanimate.
Wrong, love and sentiment play no role in Advaita, unlike in Abrahamic religions where they are very central
>Hence 'pure' metaphysics, hence the rigorous unsentimental aspect to initiation.
The Advaita metaphysics Guenon is talking about is pure precisely because its free from all sentiments and sentimental attachments like “hurr durr I want my body and mind to last forever because Im sentimentally attached to them therefore heaven has to be real”

>>20653008
That's polishing a turd. You're just saying, "yeah but it's better this way."

>>20653027
This retard. Satchinada violates Shankara's own logic. It's secondary. What is primary and primordial is the cinder block lmao. Stupid soulless metaphysics.

>>20653037
It's atheism, which is why it's liked and promoted by literal atheists like Sam Harris. Advaita is just fluffed up atheism. Guenon's particular take on it being more structural and inhuman and applying that it every "tradition."

>>20653045
>Wrong, love and sentiment play no role in Advaita, unlike in Abrahamic religions where they are very central

What a cheap little counter-argument. Okay, so you don't even get to love the cinder block.

Whatever, retard.

Fuse with the cinder block. It's not annihilation of a human being, because, uhhhhh, you're real self is the cinder block.

Yeah, that's just atheism and annihilationism called a different name.

Guenon sucks and teaches personal annihilation. You as a human are annihilated. He thinks this is a good thing. It's just a shame Guenon and his shills can't be open about it and admit what it is.

Just say you like annihilationism. Don't be dishonest about it.

>>20653066
You seemed unhinged, im afraid.

>>20653051
>That's polishing a turd.
No, it directly pointed out how what you said is incorrect. You dont know what the real person is and you have no arguments that would establish what the real person is, your position is apparently based on sentimental attachment and little else.

>This retard. Satchinada violates Shankara's own logic.
No it doesn’t, you have repeatedly tried to claim this without substantiating it in any way or explain why/how, stop being a pseud and just post your argument already
>It's secondary.
WHY?
HOW?

Do you have a single reason why anyone should take that claim seriously? You haven’t even read Shankara anyway

>What is primary and primordial is the cinder block lmao.
Wrong, this isn’t taught by Advaita and its not an implication of their metaphysics, its nonsense that you just made up on the spot

>>20652982
>>20653003
The idea of the “ultimate NPC,” “the primordial undifferentiated block or void,” moksha/kaivalya, being nothing but annihilationism and non-movement, total stasis, and paradoxically seeming the same as nihilism and atheism — “If everyone and everything is God, then nothing is God,” is very possibly a misinterpretation.

The Indian philosopher Sri Aurobindo is interesting to read on this for his thoughts on the supramentalization of humanity, of the self-perfecting Supramental Ascent and Descent. His life-affirmation seems in some ways closer to the Tantric traditions of the East, although he himself did tend towards asceticism and celibacy.

By this interpretation of Indian thought to be found in the Vedas and Upanishads and the like, the process of differentiation and individualization into completed, perfected human beings is just as integral to the purpose of the creation of the universe, instead of just the idea of stasis, “the Void” and the like, these individualized differentiation simply dissolving back into their Source.

In Aurobindo’s analysis, there has been a tendency in Indian culture and philosophy, clearly, towards the ascetic and life-denying (which he conceived of as people starting to make or experiencing the Supramental ascent, to the state higher than the ordinary mind and consciousness, the abiding in the so-called “Supermind” which is the source of our lives and consciousness, the vast creative, divine, intelligent Spirit behind evolution, but refusing the subsequent Supramental Descent), to view this as the final goal to be reached — a transcendence of ordinary life, the wheel of death and rebirth, into just some permanent blissful void state after death.

Aurobindo — kookily but very interestingly enough — saw this ascetic denial as just as imbalanced as the opposing pole, that of the nihilistic, atheistic, materialistic denial of spirituality and the insights of the ascetic sages.

For Aurobindo, the goal of life was hence to achieve both the Supramental Ascent and the Supramental Descent in this lfietime, the latter of which is the perfectionment of what could be called the three vehicles of the human being, as per the trisarira (three-bodies) doctrine (physical body, subtle body, and causal body, soma, psyche, and pneuma of the ancient Greeks — body, emotional animal dreaming and daydreaming psyche, and deeper intellectual consciousness or spirit) with the light of Brahman.

>>20653100
>>20653066
In his bizarre-seeming worldview, the goal of this could very well turn out as the immortal enlightened human being, who does not just transcend Earth to go to some “moksha” beyond it, but stays on it to, so to speak, help terraform the Earth and humanity into the endlessly greater and greater conscious manifestation of Brahman. This sounds very heterodox and New Age, but life-prolongation and immortality yoga in the Taoist tradition, as well as bizarre myths around the extreme reputed longevity of anonymous Indian rishis, sages and yogis are a traditional precedent for such an idea.

Why does life on Earth exist if not to be fully experienced to the highest, most joyous and life-affirming extent possible, although also preferably without needlessly hurting oneself or others through bad habits and violence?

>I don't like this philosopher so I'm gonna call him an atheist
Why are abrahimics like this?

>>20653166
Its not all Abrahmics, hes just representing us poorly. You can clearly see the seethe in his every post.

>>20652596
It is literally an argument you buffoon. The argument is that all Guenon did was adapt Catharism and Rosicrucianism for modern times, and he never actually justifies any of it. He just expects you to accept what he says or “know it intuitively” which is neither an argument nor a justification for one. I actually have started feeling bad for people who fall deeply into this rabbit hole.

>>20653166
He's no different than atheism, really, apart from the obsession with ritual.

>>20652603
Not only that, but the justification of anything beyond “it’s exoteric” is “it’s intuitive” which is not a justification. The fact that what Guenon preached was not orthodoxy anywhere in any religion and that there is no conceivable way of substantiating his claims should be telling but I suppose it’s not…

>>20653166
>>20653177
How many people would get into Guenon if they knew he preached annihilationism? They read Guenon because they think unsentimental but still classical theist.

Turns out Guenon is a crypto-Buddhist and only likes rituals because for Guenon they are depersonalizing.

>>20651406
Terrible, terrible thread.

1st off, no orthodox traditionalists Muslim refers to Guenon for authentic Islamic scholarship. His merits are in critiques of modernity and Western society. Period. Beyond that Muslims simoly have a generally affinity for ANYONE that's Muslim, which Guenon professed to be and actively recommend as a religion to multiple people.
In terms of Guenons own theological beliefs they are potentially heretical. I say "potentially" because the only thing preventing them from being outright is the excuse of ignorance, an erroneous tatweel or him potentially having recanted the views later on in life as per someone like Ibn Sina
Also calling also defintions like "fundamentalist" and "progressive" are meaningless for how nebulas they are.

>>20653066
I fail to see how Guenon is anything other than an attempt to further spiritualize Indian philosophy for Westerners. It’s a synthesis of nihilism in my view. The Westerner craves religion, but nooooo not that religion. It has to be the esoteric occultic eastern mystic religion. Even when he writes positively about Western religion it’s Western heresies largely influenced by Eastern philosophy. Weird. Somehow, I think I’ve heard this story before…

>>20652592
They’re atheists at heart

>>20652592
It’s nihilism

>>20653190
>Not only that, but the justification of anything beyond “it’s exoteric” is “it’s intuitive” which is not a justification.
There is extensive philosophical justification for his metaphysics in thousands of pages of writing by Shankara, not to mention other Advaitins. It’s not Guenon’s responsibility to recapitulate every single of those arguments for his readers, if they want that they can find that in Shankara’s works instead. Guenon’s works had a different focus than that.

>The fact that what Guenon preached was not orthodoxy anywhere in any religion
No, different kinds of orthodox Hinduism allow for perennialist interpretations whereby people in other religions have some measure of approaching the Godhead, Krishna says in Gita that all people who worship different Gods are just worshipping and approaching Him without knowing it.

>>20651406
Every Guenon thread feels like the same three or so people locked in an endless squabble.

I'm not a Traditionalist nor a 'Guenonian' but why is this 'annihilationism' a bad thing again? The popular Islamic expression says "we belong to God and unto Him we return", coming from the verse Q 2:156. I always understood this to mean the same thing. Seems like this anon is too attached to his worldly (dunyavi) identity.

>>20653297
It's just two. Guenonfag and the 'Guenon was a crypto-buddhist'-fag, with the occasional bystander.

>>20653247
None of these people can justify their metaphysical claims. At all. In fact, Guenon at one point literally tells you “just trust me” and then assuming you’ll take issue with that as any right-minded person would tell you it’s just a truth you come to know an intuitively. That is not a justification. It’s the evasion of a justification.

>>20653349
>None of these people can justify their metaphysical claims.
Incorrect, the metaphysics of non-dualism are fully justified in the works of non-dual Indian philosophers like Shankara and others who explain how it’s actually consistent with our experience and that it doesn’t violate any laws of logic and is logically consistent. Justifying something in this way is not the same thing as proving all its claims are true which no religion does.

>In fact, Guenon at one point literally tells you “just trust me” and then assuming you’ll take issue with that as any right-minded person would tell you it’s just a truth you come to know an intuitively. That is not a justification. It’s the evasion of a justification.
Anyone who is not a midwit and who seriously wants to find out and confirm for
themselves whether or not non-dualist metaphysics is philosophically justified or not has no choice but to read through Shankara’s works, as this is the only way to directly confirm for yourself whether what he says makes sense, because the total system is very subtle and contains different interrelated elements of pure metaphysics, epistemology, cosmology etc and so you can’t really understand the totality of it and how all the parts relate to the whole just from reading secondary sources like Guenon or books about Hindu philosophy. It should be obvious that Guenon’s works are not where one should be looking for that extensive justification and the refutations of the typical arguments against it that people usually come up with. Perhaps Guenon could have directed his reader to them but I dont think they were fully translated into any non-indian language at that point in time.

>>20653428
>is not the same thing as proving all its claims are true which no religion does.
any no philosophy or metaphysics does either it should be said

>>20653428
>the metaphysics of non-dualism are fully justified
Let’s not forget God Emperor Chris Langan independently arrived at nondualism via mathematics too

>>20653428
Give me the short summary then. Explain how it’s logically consistent. If the personal self is mere illusion then so is the personal self realizing that the personal self is mere illusion. There is no logical way out of this circle. That means it’s unjustified.

>>20653545
Rejecting mind-body dualism does not make one “a non-dualist” in the sense that it refers.

>>20651406
>Larping Muslim "guénonians"
Just be on /lit/.

>>20651406
pbuh

>>20653567
Langan has stated in interviews and Facebook posts that CTMU = Brahman and that his system is the same as "Eastern Nondualism"

here have some Langan OC while ur at it
https://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1657404620667.webm

bonus
have some Guenon OC
https://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1656966732508.webm

just get into buddhism

>>20654525
Hermeticism is way better if you can figure it out.

Guenon is certainly based but when it comes to spiritual realization or just getting through these times, Evola is better. Intro to Magic is indispensable and nobody talks about them.

>>20654462
BASED

>>20654925
>when it comes to spiritual realization
disagree, guenon is way better for this
Intro to Magic is weak compared to Guenon's Vedanta and Initiation books
>getting through these times
agree, evola wrote more about this type of stuff and had a rock solid understand of how "dissolutive forces" manifest within the social, economic, and political spheres.
https://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1657371536620.webm

>>20655137
Evola is garbage. He just ripped his ideas from Madame Blavatsky and painted them with a coat of fascism. It might have been forgivable if he didn't act like an authority on Tantra and Buddhism despite getting a lot wrong.

Is this board just pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-spiritual /pol/tards now?

>>20654925
I've read all three volumes and they are very dispensable. You would get much more out of reading Regardie and Crowley.

>>20655193
cringe take
even /our guy/ Dr. Saiyad Ahmad says Evola is helpful in getting through these times
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJJTR3CoCzA

>>20655256
This guy is on a whole other level. I recommend these videos:
https://youtu.be/WF-UwzURJqI
https://youtu.be/LqYT7PmwQVw

>>20655256
>Guenon and Evola are the absolute twin pillars of traditionalism

>>20655274
just listened to like 10 min of it...
love it, saved it for a future listen, thanks pal
>>20655256
>>20655414
also he's doing a Revolt Against the Modern World lecture series like he is with the Reign of Quantity series

Based...

Schuon on Vedanta (page 15 in book/ page 42 on PDF) :
http://ignca.nic.in/Asi_data/28808.pdf

>Hunter Biden, reader of Upanishads and Vedantist

>>20653428
>you must read shankara
Not necessary for all people, a jivanmukta can be illiterate

>>20655414
Agreed, evola is alright but you have to admit that it's pretty funny when evolatards sperg out, I would even say a well studied guénonian can profit from a study of Eliphas Levi and Madame Blavatsky,
Also you should read Böhme, read his dialogues on the supersensual life, he was no doubt a genuine initiate.

>>20655414
>>20655256
>>20655274
It's absolutely true that Evola and Guenon are a good source of guidance in the modern world, but they are worthless for spiritual transcendence or religious piety from the perspective of a Muslim. It's possible to accept Guenon's critiques of modernity without accepting his perennialism

>>20655854
Perennialism (al-hikmat al-khalidah) is a concept originally elucidated by Islamic philosophers Ibn Miskawayh and Suhrawardi, which found its way to Europe through a Renaissance scholar of Arabic literature (among other things) Agostino Steuco and then Leibniz. In no way does it go against Islamic teachings, far from it, it comes from Islam itself. Only Salafi Sunnis who uphold (unwittingly) an anti-Islamic view of Islam seethe about it.

>>20653557
>Explain how it’s logically consistent. If the personal self is mere illusion then so is the personal self realizing that the personal self is mere illusion.
This is very easy to answer for anyone who has closely read through Shankara. You are basically saying if the mind of the human was an illusion that would preclude it having the realization of itself being illusion.

What is the nature of all thoughts and mental phenomena in general?
They are a temporary objective (is not the subject of subject-object relations) mental content that arises and is thereby observed by a witnessing awareness which senses them, and then the awareness observes that thought being replaced by another in a stream, this is true of both baser thoughts about animal urges and higher-order mental activities like introspection, imagination, creativity etc.

Understanding that the egoistic or psychological identity is illusory in the sense that Adaita is talking about means that it’s an ephemeral appearance that has a relative state of being through it being utterly contingent on that Brahman’s power or nature that casts it as the appearance it is; not that its a nothingness. What is real in any moment is the Brahman-Atman awareness which imparts a relative being to all appearances and forms, the timeless you that knowledge of anything requires.

All thoughts and other changing phenomena are cast by Brahman as appearances along with all objects, space, time etc in an occasionalist-like manner via maya, realization about Brahman or anything else is another thought that takes place in the mind as a maya-appearance that is witnessed by truly real awareness, and it is sustained and generated and has its relative being through the power of Brahman endowing it with such. Thus, each soul is not a self-contained locus of existence which is also illusory (which would be a contradiction); but rather all individual bodies and minds are illusory appearances that are illumined and revealed by supra-individual infinite Brahman-consciousness.

Thus, “realizing things about Brahman” is just another of many phenomena that Brahman’s power generates as appearances which flash before our awareness, like just regular thoughts and the body itself also are.

Someone here perhaps may think “but if all realizations about Brahman are appearances we can never truly know Brahman”; this is wrong because Brahman (awareness) is reflexive by nature, i.e. it’s by nature immediately self-disclosed to itself or self-aware of itself without relying on thought or the Kantian categories or even the mind or mental acts in general, because it’s not even the mind or body to begin with but a self-aware independent incorporeal entity, (you) are not the mind or body, you instead know them as objects. This self-awareness of Brahman is not another appearance like thoughts are but is the nature of the real Absolute.

>>20655882
Thus, the ‘personal self’ can realize itself to be illusory because this simply entails another thought taking place *about that exact subject* through the exact same mechanism by which all thoughts appear to us as observed mental content, i.e. its relative or conditional being is directly given to it by Brahman projecting it as an appearance. The real awareness of Brahman which is present when that thought happens allows us to witness and know it even though the thought is an ultimately false appearance. And we can know the Absolute without relying on illusory thoughts because as our own non-illusory consciousness it’s naturally self-disclosing. Consciousness has a natural, immediate, non-discursive, effortless, constant ‘auto-awareness’ about itself. Thus we can know the Absolute or God or Brahman in this way without relying on illusions since that’s not a thought or other objective mental phenomena/action casted by maya but its just God knowing Himself without relying on anything else.

All sentient beings always have this which is why no effort has to be made to acquire it but instead one has to discern its presence by putting an end to the confusion of it *that one already has knowledge of on some level* with other things so that one no longer fails to clearly know it without mistakes and misconceptions .

>>20655886
>The self is called light, because it is self-effulgent, for through this light, the self-effulgent Ātman, this aggregate of body and organs sits, goes out and works, as if it were sentient, as a jar placed in the sun (shines). Or as an emerald or any other gem, dropped for testing into milk etc., imparts its lustre to them, so does this luminous self, being finer than even the heart or intellect, unify and impart its lustre to the body and organs, including the intellect etc., although it is within the intellect; for these have varying degrees of fineness or grossness in a certain order, and the self is the innermost of them all.

>The intellect, being transparent and next to the self, easily catches the reflection of the intelligence of the self. Therefore even wise men happen to identify themselves with it first; next comes the Manas, which catches the reflection of the self through the intellect; then the organs, through contact with the Manas; and lastly the body, through the organs. Thus the self successively illumines with its own intelligence the entire aggregate of body and organs. It is therefore that all people identify themselves with the body and organs and their modifications indefinitely according to their discrimination. The Lord also has said in the Gītā, ‘As the one sun, O Arjuna, illumines the whole world, so the self, the owner of the field of this body, illumines the whole body’ (G. XIII. 33); also, ‘(Know) the light of the sun (which illumines the entire world, to be Mine),’ etc. (G. XV. 12). The Kaṭha Upaniṣad also has it, ‘Eternal in the midst of transitory things, the intelligent One among all intelligent beings’ (Ka. V. 13); also, ‘It shining, everything else shines; this universe shines through Its light’ (Ka. V. 15). The Mantra also says, ‘Kindled by which light, the sun shines’ (Tai. B. III. xii. 9. 7). Therefore the self is the ‘light within the intellect,’ ‘Puruṣa,’ i.e. infinite entity, being all-pervading like the ether. Its self-effulgence is infinite, because it is the illuminer of everything, but is itself not illumined by anything else. This infinite entity of which you ask, ‘Which is the self?’ is self-effulgent.

>>20655897
>It has been said that when the external lights that help the different organs have ceased to work, the self, the infinite entity that is the light within the intellect, helps the organs through the mind. Even when the external aids of the organs, viz. the sun and other lights, exist, since these latter (being compounds) subr serve the purpose of some other agency, and the body and organs, being insentient, cannot exist for them-selves, this aggregate of body and organs cannot function without the help of the self, the light that lives for itself. It is always through the help of the light of the self that all our activities take place. ‘This intellect and Manas are consciousness.... (all these are but names of Intelligence or the Ātman)’ (Ai, V. 2), says another Śruti, for every act of people is attended with the ego, and the reason for this ego[18] we have already stated through the illustration of the emerald.

>Though it is so, yet during the waking state that light called the self, being beyond the organs and being particularly mixed up in the diversity of functions of the body and the organs, internal and external, such as the intellect, cannot be shown extricated from them, like a stalk of grass from its sheath; hence, in order to show it in the dream state. Yājñavalkya begins: Assuming the likeness... it moves between the two worlds. The infinite entity that is the self-effulgent Ātman, assuming the likeness—of what?—of the intellect, which is the topic, and is also contiguous. In the phrase, 'within the heart’ there occurs the word ‘heart,’ meaning the intellect, and it is quite close; therefore that is meant. And what is meant by ‘likeness’? The failure to distinguish (between the intellect and the self) as between a horse and a buffalo. The intellect is that which is illumined, and the light of the self is that which illumines, like light; and it is well known that we cannot distinguish the two. It is because light is pure that it assumes the likeness of that which it illumines. When it illumines something coloured, it assumes the likeness of that colour. When, for instance, it illumines something green, blue or red, it is coloured like them. Similarly the self, illumining the intellect, illumines through it the entire body and organs, as we have already stated through the illustration of the emerald. Therefore through the similarity of the intellect, the self assumes the likeness of everything. Hence it will be described later on as ‘Identified with everything’ (IV. iv. 5).

>>20655899
>Therefore it cannot be taken apart from anything else, like a stalk of grass from its sheath, and shown in its self-effulgent form. It is for this reason that the whole world, to its utter delusion, superimposes all activities peculiar to name and form on the self, and all attributes of this self-effulgent light on name and form, and also superimposes name and form on the light of the self, and thinks, ‘This is the self, or is not the self; it has such and such attributes, or has not such and such attributes; it is the agent, or is not the agent; it is pure, or impure; it is bound, or free; it is fixed, or gone, or come; it exists, or does not exist,’ and so on. Therefore ‘assuming the likeness (of the intellect) it moves’ alternately ‘between the two worlds’—this one and the next, the one that has been attained and the one that is to be attained—by successively discarding the body and organs already possessed, and taking new ones, hundreds of them, in an unbroken series. This movement between the two worlds is merely due to its resembling the intellect—not natural to it. That it is attributable to its resembling the limiting adjuncts of name and form created by a confusion, and is not natural to it, is being stated: Because, assuming the likeness (of the intellect), it moves alternately between the two worlds. The text goes on to show that this is a fact of experience. It thinks, as it were: By illumining the intellect, which does the thinking, through its own self-effulgent light that pervades the intellect, the self assumes the likeness of the latter and seems to think, just as light (looks coloured). Hence people mistake that the self thinks; but really it does not. Likewise it shakes, as it were: When the intellect and other organs as well as the Pranas move, the self, which illumines them, becomes like them, and therefore seems to move rapidly; but really the light of the self has no motion.

- Shankara, Brihadaranyaka-Upanishad-Bhasya 4.3.7.

>>20654915
care to elaborate on that? i never dwell deep enough on hermeticism

>>20655590
>Not necessary for all people, a jivanmukta can be illiterate
In that post I said you really had to read his works only if you want to be able to judge firsthand that metaphysics is logically consistent because that way you can see all his actual arguments, I did not say that you had to do so to become enlightened

>>20651546
Bah ouais

@guenonfag

>>20656512
the indo-european race was refuted by guenon (pbuh)

>>20656520
what did he mean by this then?

>What is essentially at stake is to bring out the elements which, in the Roman tradition, seem to go back directly to the time when the peoples that we have agreed to call "Indo-Europeans" had not yet been divided into several distinct branches, so each was subsequently to pursue its existence independently of the others.
-Traditional Forms and Cosmic Cycles

>>20656520
>I also have to thank you for your reviews of the "Vishwa Bharati Quarterly", which I find very good, and in a sense even better than the "Siddhant" articles. These, as a whole, are mostly a well-done and fairly complete summary of the "General Introduction"; but there are, however, here and there some reflections which prove that their author has not fully understood my point of view, and that he has taken certain things only in a much too "external" sense (for example, as regards Vyasa and Manu), so that it is his way of looking at things which, in reality, appears to be much more "Western" than mine; and why does he attribute to me a "Western training" of which, fortunately, I have been entirely exempt? I also note incidentally that, for the assertion that the Hindu tradition came from the North, which he seems to dispute, one need only refer him, not to "Western scholars" whose opinion is of no value to me, but simply to B.G. Tilak's book, "The Arctic Home in the Veda". I don't want to insist on all this, but there are some misunderstandings that I don't think it's useless to point out to you: for example, I certainly never intended to write "for the general reader in the West", but on the contrary only for those who are capable of really understanding, and who, in our time, are certainly very few! What surprised me also was the regret of not having any biographical information about myself; this is something I have always been formally opposed to, and above all for a reason of principle, because, according to the traditional doctrine, individuals count for nothing and must disappear entirely... But, in spite of this, I am obliged at least to rectify erroneous assertions when they occur; for example, I cannot let it be said that I am "converted to Islam", because this way of presenting things is completely false; anyone who is aware of the essential unity of traditions is by that very fact "unconvertible" to anything, and he is even the only one who is so; but one can "settle", if it is permitted to express oneself in this way, in such or that tradition according to the circumstances, and especially for reasons of initiation.
— Correspondence with Alain Daniélou, René Guénon, Cairo, 27 August 1947

Guénon whilst not affirming the indo-european theory per say, agreed instead with the hyperborean polar origin of Hinduism, which is the common origin of the pre-christian European traditions.

>>20655882
>Thus, “realizing things about Brahman” is just another of many phenomena that Brahman’s power generates as appearances which flash before our awareness, like just regular thoughts and the body itself also are.
How do you know?

send me a friend request if you want to join the guénon server
Julian#2309

>>20651546
There is nothing Western about Bosnia other than its location. Bosnians are a bunch of fucking niggers. The same goes for the entire Balkans.

>>20656908
Because that’s what the Upanishads teach (there is also nothing about our experience that’s inconsistent with it), which are considered revealed scriptures that are a unique means of knowledge of divine truths. In order to be philosophically coherent and perfectly defensible it only needs to be shown by Advaita how the concept is logically consistent and does not violate any logical principles, which they do. There is no need to prove that it is necessarily true. Similarly, Christianity is unable to offer arguments proving that the trinitarian nature of God is necessarily true and and that we can reliably know this, or that the incarnation or heaven are necessarily true etc and that we can reliably know this. In all religions there will always be things you have to accept on faith or suspend disbelief about when it comes to matters beyond the senses or after the death of the body

>>20657202
But didn't guenon say europe ends around turkey? So this would imply bosnians and albanians are just westerners.

>>20657356
He also included Levantines too
I think it’s in the opening chapter of intro to Hindu doctrines

(Taleb redeemed!)

>>20655467
lol

>>20655608
>Also you should read Böhme
I feel like I hear more Eastern Trads talk about him than Western Trads