/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11376052]

Why was this guy completely oblivious to the racial dimensions of spirituality? Was it just not convenient to his "perennial" agenda and later conversion? How can someone so intelligent think we are all the same?

[Anonymous No.11376154]

>Why was this guy completely oblivious to the racial dimensions of spirituality?

He was not. One of the reasons Guénon did not "convert" to Hinduism was that he recognized the fact that he had born "outside of the caste system", so instead of modern day westerners who go seek Gurus and spiritual masters from the Indian subcontinent, he recognized that he could not never truly convert to Hinduism as a mleccha.

Islam, on the other hand, makes no such distinction between men for Muhammed destroyed polytheism in favor for the doctrine of the Unity of God and his will was to unite all Men under one reasonable faith.

But this my no means that Guénon or other perennial authors were advocate of some democratic universalism of religions. You are a brainlet if you think so.

[Anonymous No.11376186]

>>11376052
>>11376154
>In the origin of the Democratic Illusion is the denial of the natural hierarchy, whose clearer expression is in the Hindú Doctrine of Castes, hierarchy that settles down from top to bottom, that is, from the highest quality, the spiritual, until the least high, in other words, the material. The mentors of the modern democracy based it precisely on what exists of more roughly material and quantitative.

>The denial of the qualitative superiority and of the hierarchy begins at the end of the Medium Age, more precisely by the year of 1313, with the destruction of the Order of the Temple by Felipe the Beautiful, then King of France. This monarch ordered to surround the Pope's palace, that died humiliated few days after such insult. Felipe, the Beautiful, decides then to force the nomination of a submissive pope, easy to his greed and to his political projects, what will be impossible under the authority of a real Sumo Pontífice.

>The denial of the priestly superiority (typical attitude of rioted Kchatriya) implicates the denial of the Unique, or God. But, respecting the logic, is it possible to defend such denial?

I think we are done here.

[Anonymous No.11376203]

>>11376154
>>11376186
Pretty good. Guess I'm just a brainlet.

[Anonymous No.11376379]

How deeply did Guenon look into Eastern Orthodox theology and metaphysics i.e. the actual Christian tradition? Why does it seem like he doesn't acknowledge it's stark difference from the eastern flavoured monism?

[Anonymous No.11376462]

does guenon just ignore kant as someone not worth engaging?

[Anonymous No.11376519]

>>11376052
>Why was this guy completely oblivious to the racial dimensions of spirituality? Was it just not convenient to his "perennial" agenda and later conversion? How can someone so intelligent think we are all the same?

Because most of the traditions, but Hinduism especially teach that the only differences are illusionary and that the only thing that is strictly real inside of everything is exactly the same. Guenon in his writings holds up Advaita again and again and again as the purest and most direction exposition of perennial Metaphysics, Advaita teaches that the only real aspect of beings is Atma, which is forever pure, unconditioned, unchanging, spotless etc. There is no difference between the Atma in a Brahmin, Dalit, baboon or mouse. Everything that is non-atma is considered illusionary and a part of Maya. Of course this can have real consequences with regard to day-to-day interactions but from the perspective of someone trying to attain a high state of metaphysical realization, i.e. trying to reach moksha etc it's an impediment to progress to think that there are real differences and thinking this will only prevent one from reaching the highest state. Just about every Vedic and Vedanta text ever describes the Supreme State as where no differences are observed.

It's amusing that Evola-fags want to have their cake and eat it to by getting into eastern doctrines while disagreeing with fundamental concepts from them. From the perspective of Metaphysics there can of course be conventional differences between peoples that have consequences upon behavior and day-to-day interactions but from the perspective of the highest reality the Supreme Self abides equally in all of manifestation, which emanates out it, is supported by it and is resolved back into the Self. The ironic thing is that this isn't even incompatible with HBD/The Bell Curve type stuff, that stuff can all be conventionally true as part of manifestation while it still remaining true that the only real aspect of beings remains the same in all of them. These kinds of logical deductions and doctrinal subtleties escape the grasp of people who don't read primary sources though.

>>11376186
That has nothing to do with race you brainlet. Guenon makes it explicitly clear that he held the view that the castes were originally meant to be determined by someone's innate qualities, by what gunas manifest in them etc and that the transfer to someone determined by birth was a partial degeneration of how it's originally meant to be, he provides textual examples from the Vedas to back this up. Race has nothing to do with a natural hierarchy of ability and capability in people that separates them into people who are best suited for various roles like priesthood, warfare commence etc.

[Anonymous No.11376558]

>>11376379
>How deeply did Guenon look into Eastern Orthodox theology and metaphysics i.e. the actual Christian tradition? Why does it seem like he doesn't acknowledge it's stark difference from the eastern flavoured monism?

From what I understand he did study it a bit although it was never a large focus of his. Just because he never wrote a book on it though does not mean he was oblivious to it. For example he was known to own books on Native American religion despite never writing about them.

>Why does it seem like he doesn't acknowledge it's stark difference from the eastern flavoured monism?

Because the esoteric and mystical side of Christiantiy almost always comes close to some kind of non-dualism or qualified non-dualism. He didn't focus on the exterior and exoteric side because he didn't consider that interesting or worth his time write about. He explicitly says in his books those that those who deny non-dualism are basically clueless about metaphysics, in his and the other traditionalists view bar Evola non-dualism is the eternal truth expressed either more or less esoterically in the various traditions.

>>11376462
>does guenon just ignore kant as someone not worth engaging?

No, he explicitly explains why Kant was wrong, see pic related. Schuon later wrote a whole book about this subject which largely btfos Kant called 'Logic and Transcendence'. Kantian thinking is completely retarded from the perspective of eastern metaphysics. Kant got it wrong in that he didn't come close to realizing that there is a transcendental reality which is directly knowable, to know this reality is to participate in it and to become it. To know Brahman is to be Brahman. Logic is just an accessory and applied form of intellect, true intellect and true knowledge transcend logic.

If you just don't agree with eastern doctrines that's your choice although it's not for no reason that Guenon thinks Kant was a moron. I won't hold your hand and explain every tiny area where they disagree and why but if you are in any way interested in eastern doctrines they provide a coherent and logical mode of thinking that goes way deeper and beyond Kantian thought, especially Advaita (not taking logic as an end in themselves but remaining a logical concept as a whole)

[Anonymous No.11376571]

>>11376558
thanks anon. do you know what guenon/schuon thought of hegel?

[Anonymous No.11376629]

>>11376571
As far as I'm aware Guenon or Schuon never wrote on Hegel but they were no doubt aware of him. Guenon writes about philosophy in 'into to Hindu doctrines' and acknowledges that in some cases they partially agree with Metaphysics but basically says, they never get it entirely correct but always contain bundles of errors and why would you bother when you can actually be initiated into and study a completely true doctrine instead of half-baked truths.

As an example monism especially the idealist variety is on a surface level similar to Advaita but when you actually study it in depth there are dozens of fundamental differences. Guenon was known for denying that Spinoza's thought was true metaphysics despite it being close to a Hindu 'everything is Brahman' kind of thinking, and that's confusing for some people but when you actually look into the details, compared to Vedanta Spinoza relied heavily on logical statements to 'prove' his ideas when Vedanta starts out with revealed truths that logic are applied to, his work doesn't get anyway near to fleshing out or drawing out the conclusions of his monism to the same extent as Vedanta, there are no concepts of maya/dharma/karma/jnana other than a basic 'order', no clear delineation of what exactly is true absolutely and conventionally, no notion of attaining high states of metaphysical realization, no limitless bliss and release, no notion of reaching the Supreme State etc.

Hegel's thoughts are largely Spinozian with some exterior changes. That his monism is more explicitly more idealist brings him marginally closer to Advaita but there is still a bunch of stuff that contradicts it. Hegel is also one of the worst examples that Guenon writes about of philosophers attempting to substitute dense and obtuse verbiage for profound and sound ideas and for disagreeing with other philosophers on the ephemeral basis of terms which have their meanings constantly change from one philosopher to the next. Hegel was also known for going really hard on the 'I got it 100% right everyone else is wrong' shtick which would have made Guenon think he was even stupider.

[Anonymous No.11376701]

good thread

[Anonymous No.11376785]

>>11376154
>reasonable faith.
faith by definition is not "reasonable"
also
/lit/ - literature
religious goons fuck off

[Anonymous No.11376969]

>>11376785

[Anonymous No.11376999]

>>11376154
Only conservative -- let's be real, reactionary -- hindu traditions care about castes. Castes aren't emphasised in all hindu traditions either. But I guess perrenialists want the "pure", "truest" meme religion based on a strict hierarchy, with no fun allowed. So Islam is perfect.

[Anonymous No.11377253]

>>11376999
>religion must allow fun

[Anonymous No.11378548]

>>11376999
Hindu society WAS in its entirety organised by a strict caste system. You're trivialising historical reality because you don't understand it and it makes you feel uncomfortable.

[Anonymous No.11378727]

>>11378548
Hindu society was organised according to caste, not according to a caste system. I'll let you work out the difference.