[ 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: 22 KB, 235x346, 1221221112.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14389770 No.14389770 [Reply] [Original]

do you need to read guénon in the original french or can I read him in english?

Also where do I start with the Upanishads? Can I just read the Bhagavad Gita?

>> No.14389787

>>14389770
there are TWELVE FUCKIFGN THREADS ABOUT THIS NIGGER IN THE CATALOG AT LEAST and you couldn't pick one and post this in it so you had to MAKE A WHOLE NEW THREAD ABOUT IT
WHY

>> No.14389806

>>14389787
>there cant be multiple threads about an author

>> No.14389929

>>14389787
Because he doesn’t care about the answer to this stupid question. He’s spamming. He’s a troll.

>> No.14390134

>>14389806
TWQELVE
FUCKING
THREADS

>> No.14390559

Bumping, can some Guenon poster please reply to this anon's inquiry

>> No.14390574

>>14389770
>do you need to read guénon in the original french or can I read him in english?
what kind of stupid question is that
>Also where do I start with the Upanishads?
Start with the Upanishads
>Can I just read the Bhagavad Gita?
Of course you can just read the Gita. Who the fuck is going to stop you
>>14390559
there you go, faggot

>> No.14390579

>>14389770
I don't know about your question but I just wanted to thank you guenonfag! I just come to lit to read your posts! Each one truly more enlightening than the other! Stop posting already fucking cretin

>> No.14390654

>>14389770
Guenon reads better in French but you can understand him in English fine. If you want a brief intro to Hindu teachings you can read the Gita alone, but if you want to understand Hindu/Vedantic metaphysics in-depth (i.e. the final red-pill) it's best to read Adi Shankara's commentaries on the Upanishads and then on the Gita. It's not strictly needed but I'd strongly recommend reading Guenon's 'Introduction to the Study of Hindu Doctrines' and then 'Man and His Becoming According to the Vedanta' first as these will prepare you well for reading Shankara. When you are ready for Shankara you can read those commentaries here, start with the first link, enjoy

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

>> No.14390665

>>14390654
RETROACTIVELY refuted by Buddhism

>> No.14390671

>>14390665
Guenonfag getting triggered by a Buddhist a few hours ago:
>You're the fucking one coping you little shit. Every time he responds to you with a carefully thought out and completely irrefutable post you just spam your stupid garbage again. What will get it through your thidk skull that you are wrong? Are you just too retarded to even realize you are retarded? Do you know how much of a fool you look to each and everyone on this board?

Lmao

>> No.14390672
File: 64 KB, 819x756, 1576919841221.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14390672

>>14390654
Fuck off schizophrenic asshole

>> No.14390701

>>14390672
This image kills the Guenonfag. Brace yourself for his wall of text response that doesn't actually answer it.

>> No.14390780

>>14390672
That image is nonsense. Everything that people accuse of being "buddhistic" in advaita appears first in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads (such as the Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya) and this is easily demonstrable.

The doctrine of Maya? It's first mentioned by name in Brihadaranyaka (2.5.19) and alluded too many times elsewhere in the same text and in Chandogya. Monasticism? The Brihadaranyaka praises it and describes it as the course that Janaka follows after becoming enlightened in (4.4.22 & 4.5.2). The self-luminosity of the Self being taken from Yogachara? The Brihadaranayka describes the Self as self-luminous in (4.3.6). Advaita idealism being taken from Buddhist idealism? There are countless quotes from Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya pointing at an idealistic ontology that I can quote if you'd like but the Aitareya Up. (which according to a review by Olivelle et al is pre-Buddhist) directly says "consiousness is Brahman" in (3.1.4.).

The unborn doctrine? The Brihadaranyaka states that Brahman is unborn many times in (4.4.22., 4.4.24. & 4.4.25.), and says that Brahman is only seen as manifold because of Maya (2.5.19) and says that really there is no diversity in Brahman and that people who see diversity go from death to death (4.4.19). The Chandogya says in line (6.1.4.) "By knowing a single lump of earth you know all objects made of earth. All changes are mere words, (existing) in name only. But earth is the reality" and then repeats the message with the example of clay, gold etc in other lines. Hence, the pre-Buddhist Upanishads deny that change, multiplicity etc are real and attribute it to maya and ignorance, and they say that he underlying reality which is the basis of those illusions is unborn and unchanging.

The distinction between absolute knowledge and non-absolute knowledge? The Mundaka Upanishad while not pre-Buddhist mentions supreme and non-supreme Brahma-knowledge in line (1.1.4.) hundreds of years before Nagarjuna who is the first Buddhist to mention higher and lower knowledge (Buddha never did). The pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka also makes an identical distinction in line (2.3.1.) when it says that Brahman should be known in two forms, the one gross, mortal, limited and definite and the other subtle, immortal, unlimited and indefinite.

That's a quick summary of everything people claim Shankara took from Buddhism, but as you can see it all appears first in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads, if anything it would indicate the Buddha himself and Buddhists like Nagarjuna obtained concepts from the early Upanishads. You can keep spamming these easily debunkable allegations but it won't change the fact that Shankara totally demolished Buddhism and vanquished it from India, it takes no effort for me to copy and paste a reply debunking it.
>>14390665
Shankara destroyed Buddhism

>> No.14390816

>>14390780
cope

>> No.14390825

>>14390780
Shankara has no clear cut or usable metaphysics. why are you wasting your time?

>> No.14390871

>>14390825
>Shankara has no clear cut or usable metaphysics
t. hasn't read Shankara

>> No.14390906

>>14390871
guenonfag certainly hasn't, correct

>> No.14390943

>>14390906
Wrong fool, I've read all of his Upanishad commentaries except on Svetasvatara and am reading his Brahma Sutra commentary right now, you can ask me anything about them to test my knowledge if you'd like to

>> No.14390959

>>14390943
why when you routinely show your knowledge is shallow as fuck and based on modern western authors. you can't even argue against buddhists, it's like you think they will be intimidated by large paragraphs. large paragraphs are only intimidating if they have something of substance in them

>> No.14391007

>>14390959
>large paragraphs are only intimidating if they have something of substance in them
you mean like citing all the instances in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads that clearly contain the same ideas people accuse Shankara of taking from Buddhism? Oh that's right you are a butthurt schizo and are literally unable to provide a coherent reaponse to the citations I provided

>> No.14391418

>>14390654
not him but ty

>> No.14391426

read him in the Indian or Arabic translation and make sure to forget this non-ascended language that English is so that you may never post on this website alone

>> No.14391641

>>14389806
faggot this is not the /guenon/ board

>> No.14392128

>>14389770
You need to read him in Arabic

>> No.14392223

>>14389770
You need to hear him narrated from someone who was taught directly by Guénon himself.

>> No.14392669

>>14392223
>>14392128
So which is it?

>> No.14392828

>>14392669
Both. Listen to a recitation of him in Arabic a lá the Qur'an done by an initiated Guénonian.

>> No.14392850

>>14391641
uhh.... yes it is, where have you been for the past 2 years lol

>> No.14393245

>>14392828
where can I find one?

>> No.14393616
File: 555 KB, 1260x2948, Buddhism_btfo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14393616

>>14390665

>> No.14393642

English-language

>> No.14394411
File: 136 KB, 500x374, lesula.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14394411

>NON MEME ANSWER
>>14389770

it is best to read Guenon in both french and English. I will advice you to learn french while reading guenon in English . and when you acquire the language read guenon in his mother tongue .

>> No.14394417

>>14394411
absolutement base

>> No.14394898

Please DO consider reading it in the original french

>> No.14394944

Is his French hard to read? I can read technical papers in my field but I'm absolutely inept when it comes to normal prose.

>> No.14395714

>>14389787
cry more hylic lmao

>> No.14395719

>>14389770
Reminder this spam is an attempt to discredit Guénon

>> No.14395741

>>14395719
Reminder that "this spam is an attempt to discredit Guénon" is an attempt to discredit Guénon.

>> No.14395751
File: 6 KB, 388x144, 140ee65e846938c9842e8bcb07210f93.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14395751

>>14389770
Ahhh, finally... peace and quiet.

>> No.14395753

>>14389929
Repent

>> No.14395926

>>14391007
Based

>> No.14395931

>>14395741
Not a very effective one then

>> No.14396680

>>14389770
By allah believe in good

>> No.14396905

>>14391007
Even the Buddha says in the Pali canon that the Vedas contain all of the truth

>> No.14397092

>>14389770
Read it in french first, and then English

>> No.14397119

>>14396905
good luck getting any /lit/ buddhist to admit that

>> No.14397132

>>14396905
Oh nonono

>> No.14397753

>>14396905
sauce?

>> No.14398791

>>14395741
its a psyop by hylics who want us to stop discussing his blessedness

>> No.14399616

>>14393616
kek

>> No.14399697
File: 207 KB, 836x974, jews-in-search-of-hitlers.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14399697

>>14389770
>Also where do I start with the Upanishads? Can I just read the Bhagavad Gita?
Many may feel difficulty and trouble with this. They may say that I am bringing the Gita down; that I should call it a spiritual scripture. But I would like to say to you that there can be no spiritual scripture. At the most, scriptures can pertain to the mind. And yes, the scripture of the mind may lead one to the point where spirituality begins, but this is all that can happen.

There is nothing like a spiritual scripture – there cannot be. There is spiritual life, but there are not spiritual scriptures. The most words can do is make one capable of touching the ultimate heights and depths of the mind. So I would not make the Gita worthless by calling it a spiritual scripture – there is no such thing. Every scripture that claims to be a spiritual scripture… And it is not the scriptures that make this claim, it is their adherents who claim that they are spiritual scriptures, and by doing so they unnecessarily put them out of the range of usefulness to man.

Spirituality is an experience that is beyond words and beyond description. It is beyond explanation, and as the scriptures themselves keep saying, cannot be attained through the mind. It is attained beyond the mind, and that which is attained by going beyond the mind cannot be written in words.

This is why the ultimate reach of any scripture is the mind. If it can take one as far as that point, it is a great scripture. And the jump that takes place beyond that will be the beginning of spirituality.

I call the Gita a scripture of psychology because it contains the threads that lead one to the point from where this jump takes place. But no scripture is a spiritual scripture.

Yes, there can be spiritual statements. For example, the Upanishads are spiritual statements. But they do not contain any system in them; hence they are not of much use to man. The Gita, however, is tremendously useful.

A statement such as “There is only brahman,” is all very well, but we do not know this – it is a bald statement. The one who knows says, “It is.” The one who doesn’t know says, “Maybe.”

So the Upanishads can only be useful when you have experienced spirituality. Then, when you read the Upanishads you can say, “That’s right. I have also had the experience that only brahman is.” Thus the Upanishad can confirm your experience – but only after you have already experienced it for yourself.

>> No.14399711

>>14399697
The interesting thing is, however, that once you yourself have known, there is no longer any need for the Upanishads to confirm it. Now that you know for yourself, whatever you say becomes an Upanishad.

The Upanishads can at the most become an endorsement for a siddha – for one who has arrived home – but there again, a siddha has no need for any endorsement. So the Gita can be useful for a seeker, but it is of no use to a siddha. But the real question is about the seeker, and the real inquiry of a seeker is not about spirituality.