[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 134 KB, 744x1024, 35b4ea784a7432fbe68c7bcf08c471ab.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13365838 No.13365838 [Reply] [Original]

In what book does Guenon talk about how he believes the resurrection to be an actual fact? The Symbolism of the Cross?

>> No.13365854

I don't think he does believe in a physical, bodily resurrection, or at least doesn't grant the idea any importance. I recall a brief reference somewhere to the "body of glory" as an initiatic symbol, but I can't remember what book.

>> No.13365864

>>13365854
I'm talking about the resurrection of Jesus. I was told Guenon affirms it.

>> No.13365874

>>13365864
Oh. I think he would consider it an unimportant fact, whether it happened or not, qua historical fact, since he did not consider history important in and of itself. He would consider important for its initiatic/symbolic value. I doubt that he would even comment on the debate over whether it was historical fact. If he did, I have not encountered such a statement in his books, or do not recall having done so.

>> No.13366033

>>13365838
I believe he mentions that he believes in it in Insights into Christian Esoterism

>> No.13366167

>>13365874
So you think.
>>13366033
Ah, thank you.

>> No.13366204

In the book the symbolism of the cross literally within the first few chapters he talks about how a symbol can have two separate meanings, both metaphorical and literal. He uses the cross as the example. He says outright that the metaphorical significance of the cross did not take away from its literal historical significance. So it is heavily implied that he believed in the resurrection. He may have said something about it in insights into Christian Esoterism, although I am forgetting at this point and time and cannot comment.

>>13365874
>>13365854
Stop talking about Guenon with terms like "I think he would." He addresses it in his books. By simply guessing you are leading people away from what he actually believed.

>he did not consider history important in and of itself.
Not true at all. He attributes extreme importance to sacred history. Profane history of merely recording dates and names, on the other hand, no.

>> No.13366216

>>13366204
>Stop talking about Guenon with terms like "I think he would."
No.
>He addresses it in his books. By simply guessing you are leading people away from what he actually believed.
I've read most of Guenon's books.
> He attributes extreme importance to sacred history.
That's another way of saying what I already said in my post.

>> No.13366277

>>13366216
>I've read most of Guenon's books.
Clearly not, since you are just making things up.
>That's another way of saying what I already said in my post.
Once again, certainly not. To someone who has not read Guenon, if you simply say he doesn't view History as important, that gives the sense that all historical facts are devoid of any value. Some people in comparative religion do believe such a thing. However, such a viewpoint he certainly did not have considering he adhered to a religion with a revelation set in historical time. If you didn't mean to argue that, you wording was very poor.

>> No.13366357

>>13366216
>I've read most of Guenon's books.

Doesn't sound like it.

>> No.13366481 [DELETED] 

>>13365854
He was a muslim, he believed in a physical resurrection for Judgement Day. It is mentioned numerous times in the Quran.